User talk:Elonka/Archive 15

Request for clarification
Similar to Skyelarke's, above.

See User_talk:J_Greb.

From what I can tell, #1 should be implemented. And it seems that you dealt with (confirmed) #2 and #3 in your closure. If you disagree, clarification would be welcome. - jc37 18:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification : ) - jc37 20:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: query
Hi Elonka, this is in relation to the DreamGuy section, right? Are you asking this question because of PHG's edits, or something else? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but I think I would only be "involved" if I were part of the dispute at Jack the Ripper or had some other ongoing conflict with DG. ABD/PHG's comments are spillover from another dispute, in which I am (tangentially) involved, and I wouldn't take any admin actions there--but the situations are different, and their comments haven't affected how I viewed DreamGuy's situation at all.


 * If you continue to be concerned, though, I wouldn't have a problem with getting more input--the more eyes, the better, in my opinion. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it looks like things are getting entangled... . --Akhilleus (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Your post at User talk:AGK
Hi Elonka. Sorry I haven't got back to you about your post regarding my thoughts on disruption, etc., at my talk page—I'd completely forgotten about it until now. I'll try and remember tomorrow :) Please accept my apologies in the meanwhile! Anthøny 23:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

France, Japan, and PHG
I was not going to indulge this, but I figured it couldn't hurt to ask you to be more specific about any concerns with France-Japan relations (19th century). Perhaps if you are waiting as you say to see it get fleshed out, you could just put it on your watchlist (if it's not already) and take the tags off as PHG works on it, re-adding them later if the problems are apparent. Srnec (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine by me, but you've now peaked my interest. What's wrong with the article's brief portrayal of Christianity in Japan? (And why not just post a note explaining why you oppose his DYK nomination at that page?) Srnec (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Caution
My mistake - I misread the message and thought it was something unrelated to the talk page.

Cheers,

--Skyelarke (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Days website info
Hello. I am new here, but wanted to respond to your question. I hope this is the correct place to do so. If not, please let me know. As you requested, here is the link to my site, which is celebrating its 10th anniversary on the web this year:

http://members.aol.com/jason47b

Thanks for the interest. Jason Jason47a (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Comments on others
Hi again. I regularly search the Internet to make sure people are not copying from my site, etc... When I did one of my searches tonight, the Wikipedia page came up. Although it didn't deal with copying things from my site, I was dismayed to see several erroneous comments about myself on the page. Here is the link to the page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Days_of_our_Lives_cast_members

My name is mentioned numerous times on that page. I signed up to Wikipedia tonight, since I thought I had a right to defend myself. They are not breaking any rules, but I just wanted to let each of them know my stance on the situation.

KellyAna on January 29 stated: "Please see what constitutes reliable per WP:V and Jason's page is not reliable. He "guesses" based on where someone's name appears in the credits or if they appear. His information is faulty and Kristen has not been on in 2008 on a contract basis. She's not even in the credits on days she does not appear. KellyAna (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)"

My response on her page was that my information is not faulty. I do not "guess" about contracts. I've kept track of the Days credits since 1985, so since I've been doing this for 23 years, I feel I have some history to back up my credentials. Also, she states erroneously that "Kristen Renton (Morgan) is not even in the credits on days she does not appear." That is an outright error, since Kristen Renton has appeared in the credits every day since December 3, regardless of if she appears at all during a week or not. There have been many weeks since December 3 when Kristen Renton did not appear, yet her name was still in the credits, meaning she is on contract.

As for IrishLass, on January 30, she stated: "Kristen Renton is not on contract. Jason is not considered reliable sourcing. You did mention Jason on KellyAna's page. If you have other sources you put them here, not on a user page for others to consider the merit of a source. I've checked all publications and only Jason is assuming she's on contract as he did with the young lady that played Gabby and he was wrong, generally is."

I addressed her on her page, and asked that she not make statements like "Jason was wrong, generally is." I pride myself on reporting only the facts, not gossip or errors. I admit that perhaps I make an error or two once every two years, which might be 10 errors in total in 10 years since I started my site in 1998. Since I average maybe one error per year, I don't think it's fair for her to say that I'm generally always wrong, when I'm usually 99% right.

Also, IrishLass stated: "Contract status means in the credits everyday, even when you don't air, she is not. She [Kristen Renton] is only listed on days she appears. IrishLass (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Again that is incorrect. I don't know how both of those editors of that page could be incorrect but they are. Perhaps they don't watch the credits carefully, but I do, and have done so for the past 23 years. Kristen Renton has indeed been in the credits every week since she was upped to contract status on December 3. Both IrishLass and KellyAna both told that person (username Doolkid) who was trying to get Kristen Renton added to the contract credits that she was wrong, but in fact, Doolkid was right.

It's easy to see who is on contract with "Days." John Aniston (Victor) and Leann Hunley (Anna) are a good determination, since both of them do not have contracts and generally are the first names after the contract cast is listed. There are a few more people on contract that they have yet to/refused to add: Tamara Braun (Ava), Shawn Christian (Daniel) and in the coming weeks Arianne Zuker (Nicole) and perhaps Kevin Dobson (Mickey), whose status we'll find out when they run the credits on April 1. Thanks, Jason Jason47a (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Comments
Yes, I understood about "unreliable" from the get-go. But as I mentioned above, I was talking about specific things mentioned by those two editors. I was not saying that they had to consider me as a point of reference or for being reliable. Both of them said incorrect things in response to username Doolkid. They both said Kristen Renton (Morgan) was not listed in the credits every day since December 3, when in fact, she has been. Also, I did take exception to Irishlass stating that "My site is generally wrong." That is also not true. I sort of am an "unofficial" official source. I have had several conversations with the former Days website webmaster, and even he said that sometimes they would come to my site to get information for their official website. Besides that, the "official" site never even updates cast biographies in a timely fashion. That's perhaps why the other editors don't believe Kristen Renton, Tamara Braun and Shawn Christian are in fact on contract. I can see their point, since "official" sources don't list it, but in actuality, those websites are just behind in updating. They don't bother to make the daily changes that I do. I haven't checked, but I assume the official sites still list Brandon Beemer (Shawn) and Martha Madison (Belle) in the cast biographies. I had them off my site as soon as the March 24 episode aired, since they were no longer part of the active cast at that time. Jason47a (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom review
Hello Elonka, how are you? May I ask you for the review of two ArbCom enforcements please, as you are a completely uninvolved administrator. One is related to me and second related to my longtime wikifriend. They stuck there for a days. Thank you and happy editing!  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 14:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the note. Since AE threads are very time-consuming (as it's necessary to come up to speed from zero to really give it a good review), I'm trying to limit myself to no more than 1 or 2 per week.  I do agree that the queue is getting a bit backed up,  and I posted a note at WP:AN asking for more eyes. If no one else gets to it, I'll definitely take a look at those threads within the next couple days. Thanks for your patience, --Elonka 19:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ouki douki.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 10:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Days site comments, etc...
Hi Elonka. Just a few updates on IrishLass0128. She too seems to have the same feelings towards me as KellyAna. I'm dismayed to see they feel that way, since they have no reason to, but there's nothing I can do about that. IrishLass0128 refuses to answer my question about Kristen Renton and immediately removes my questions/statements to her:

Her first response to me was: As you and the Jason47 site seem to have an admin on your side (although I don't know if she knows your work or not) I'll simply say that I stand by my previous opinion and actually hold it stronger now than before, a claim of only wrong twice in 10 years is impossible for me to believe but also tells me a very great deal. I could list many sites I'm associated with in some form or another that do not allow what you post on your site to be listed as "fact" only as rumor and speculation, much like DaysCafe.com, but never fact. I further stand by the opinion that the Jason47 Days of our Lives site should not be an allowable resource for articles. Say what you want, do what you want, but I'll forever fight to keep that site as a non-referenceable source on the basis of WP:OR if nothing else but more importantly as a strickly fan site and fan sites are not allowed. Good bye. Please don't stop by again as it will only serve to negatively affect my opinion of you. Thank you. IrishLass (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

She incorrectly stated that I said I was only wrong twice in 10 years...I did not say that. She also said she will fight to not have me as a reliable source. Nowhere in any of my statements on Wikipedia did I ask to be considered a reliable source. My question to her was why she spoke incorrectly about Kristen Renton. She seems to not to want to admit she was wrong, but will just remove my question as though it did not exist, and just change the subject to something else.

After she removed my question, I made one final comment to her, also re-adding my question back:

Hello. As I had said earlier: "I will admit in my ten years of running the site, I might average one or two mistakes every two years or so, but that's a pretty good track record for a decade on the Internet. Much better a track record than saying "Jason was wrong, generally is." You mistakenly wrote that I said I was only wrong twice in ten years...as my statement above says, I'm wrong once a year or so, so that would be 10 times in 10 years.

On another statement you left, just wanted to make a correction on your error. You stated: "Contract status means in the credits everyday, even when you don't air, she is not. She is only listed on days she appears." That is incorrect. Kristen Renton has been listed in the credits every day since December 3, regardless of the weeks she appears in. Many weeks she did not appear in December, January, February and March, yet she was still in the credits every day. For this, I was correcting your incorrect statement of January 30 that you said she was not in the credits every day. I bolded that statement of yours, because you wrore yourself that "Contract status means in the credits everyday, even when you don't air." So it's not me speculating on Kristen Renton, it's her placement in the credits and the fact that she is listed every day, regardless of when she appears, just like you wrote yourself saying that was the criteria for contract status.

Nowhere in my statements above did I ask you to treat me as a reliable source, so I don't know why you would bring that up in your response. Now, if you'd like to answer my original question about Kristen Renton, and why you stated she does not appear in the credits every day, please do. I'm sorry that my response "will only serve to negatively affect my opinion of you." Thanks, Jason Jason47a (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IrishLass0128"

I was expecting a response about Kristen Renton, not: "Any additional comments will be removed, as was your last comment. I have said all I will say on the subject. This is not to be incivil, it is to avoid incivility and stating my true feelings which would not be a civil thing to do. Thank you for respecting my wishes."

I guess you won't be responding to my question about Kristen Renton? I'm confused as to why you would be incivil to me, since we've never met, and I've never done anything to you. This will be my last comment to you, which I assume you will also remove. If you do remove this, I ask that you remove your inaccurate statements about me in the previous post where you say: "a claim of only wrong twice in 10 years is impossible for me to believe but also tells me a very great deal." and "I further stand by the opinion that the Jason47 Days of our Lives site should not be an allowable resource for articles. Say what you want, do what you want, but I'll forever fight to keep that site as a non-referenceable source on the basis of WP:OR if nothing else but more importantly as a strickly fan site and fan sites are not allowed." I never asked to be considered a reliable source here, nor would I want to be associated with this site based on you and KellyAna's comments. All the best, Jason47 Jason47a (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IrishLass0128"

I'm done with any of the fighting, etc... on here. I had just stopped by last night to respond to all the negativity from IrishLass0128 and KellyAna, but it seems they are set in stone on their feelings for me. I do hope that others on Wikipedia do not share the same feelings as they do. I've done nothing but put my best efforts into my site for the past decade. It's a shame some people need to be so hateful about that. I hope you will still enjoy all the unique stuff on my site, and I'll be starting work soon on my tribute to Suzanne Rogers' (Maggie) 35 years on the show, and putting up her first episode script from 1973. Thanks for your time and effort, and I wish you all the best. Take care, Jason Jason47a (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Good afternoon
Please inform your new friend, Jason, that continually returning removed content and editing another person's comments is a violation of policy and harrassment on a basic level. After asking him not to bother me, in a polite way, he continued to not only repeatedly put comments on my page, he altered my comments that had my signature on them. This is not appreciated and further action will be taken if he continues. I have archived one comment, from last night, and removed the rest. I would appreciate if he would kindly leave me alone. I've asked, but he has been unresponsive to my requests. Your assistance would be appreciated. IrishLass (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We cross-posted. I'm on it.   :) --Elonka 18:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. IrishLass (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Maria Despina Palaiologos
First of all, I replied to your post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy. Second, the use of Despina, is interesting. I had discussion, which you can see on my talk page about its usage. Despina, which you may not know, is not only a name, but a title, it means "lady". So it could be used throughout the article to say "Lady Maria Palaiologos" and misinterpreted as her middle name or something like that. Since you say you are adding to her article, I would suggest you look into this by finding some more sources, etc. Good luck. I'm here if you need my help. Grk1011 (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any clue who Randy is?
There's a long history going on and what I said wasn't a personal attack. Stop stalking my every move. Look at these lists:, those are the confirmed socks. Then there's the suspected. I left for two days to get away from you and those you protect that don't deserve it. Check out Randy Jaiyan and all his socks and all the damage he's done. Nothing I said was anything less than fact and you aren't objective. Ask Yamla about Randy before reverting what I say to him especially when it's fact and not an attack. She'll tell you how many problems he's caused and his bad grammar is well documented. Just stop following me and let another admin like Yamla make objective decisions because we know you aren't objective about certain things lately, like whatever I do. I can't even correct formatting without you following me. It's ridiculous. KellyAna (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This was clearly a personal attack. Please review Wikipedia's policy on no personal attacks, and Wikipedia's policy on civility. I'm serious.  Please read both of them. --Elonka 01:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If something is true, it's not an attack. You really need to review the issue and his abuses heaped on Wikipedia and the admins who have dealt with him.  Again, you have no objectivity ever since that admin playing editor scolded you.  You were a good admin before his comments, you shouldn't have changed. KellyAna (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI
The title says it all Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse_of_PHG_Arbcom_ruling_by_User:Elonka Shell    babelfish 16:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, couldn't help but see this; just want you to know that any time I see something this ludicrous being leveled against you, I will certainly do all I can to comment on your consistently neutral and constructive demeanor, impeccable manners and tactful intervention. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 22:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Email
Hey, I know I was a bitch to you via email but some other user on my page is claiming I don't have email set up and since I did email you, would you mind commenting. DJS24 and I have a storied past and now he's lying all over my page saying I don't have email set up and IrishLass and I can't possibly be friends off Wikipedia, which we are. I know, I was a bitch to you but I need you to comment on this as a co-editor, not an admin. KellyAna (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

DJS

 * I have no need or time to report her. I've been down that road with her before; she can't stay on the topic. I think you've read my concerns and I thought her edits were very questionable. I brought it up and of course she gets uncivil/defensive and brings things up that have nothing to do with the situation. I also think her comments to other users who are trying to help are completely uncivil and rude. Just look at any of her edits this week, there all rude. I see you already blocked her once this week for it. However, I made my comments and have no need to continue this problem. I'm sure KellyAna will now go and attack my brother (Blackwatch21) because that's what she does. Just watch. Thanks for your time and I'm sorry if I was uncivil in any way. DJS --DJS24 (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:
Thanks, I will not use it anymore in the edit summary.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 08:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually yes, I offered him a cup of coffee regarding our disagreements about Charles University adrticle but he never responded.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 08:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes that's true I didn't contacted him. Partly because I contacted him before, even we have some disagreements, with cup of coffee but he didn't respond. And partly because I saw in that a vandalism so I reverted his changes in a quick line, I admit it was a mistake. Then we both got to the Antandrus table . He offered a 3rd party view, I agreed and I wanted to know if my reverts were correct or not, so we could discuss them. Antandrus provided a long review but in the meantime Matthead filled arbitration enforcement process and then it all began.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 09:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Request to amend
Please note that I filed a request to amend the following case . PHG (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Duel
Let's do it Elonka, let's take the gloves off. You reverted my edits! Teh gauntlet has been thrown. the_undertow  talk  10:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hah, looks like you took off more than your gloves. And I like it.  :) --Elonka 10:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Damn. Don't you ever sleep? the_undertow  talk  11:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. I was working on a complex case at WP:AE but I think I'm done, so I'm off to bed now.  With your picture in mind, I am sure I will have pleasant dreams.  :) --Elonka 14:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:
All in all, today's been a bit of a bummer, hasn't it?  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 11:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've post a request for discussion at Matthead's talk page. I expect his answer, if he will be unwilling to discuss I will contact you. Thanks.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 11:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am asking him why he is doing that, it is not for the first time he is clearing categories and replacing Czech names with the German names. So I am asking him why? These endless changing prevents me from common editing, just imagine the situation where someone changes The United States to États-Unis d'Amérique in every article you could find claiming there were French colonies whose did not get a chance for self-determination, just think about it please in that way. What you would do in this case? I am not unwilling to discuss with him but I will keep it as formal as possible.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 13:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * One more, if I change The United States to États-Unis d'Amérique in some article, is that a vandalism or content dispute?  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 13:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement
I am objecting my placement under general editing restriction, also I think that my comments and objections in that case were not taken under advisement. Despite I had been questioned and I politely answered all your questions, you didn't question Matthead with any question as the second side. I don't think I got a honest trial.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 18:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I excalated it so much, but I really feel that it was not fairly handled.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 01:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Second side was not questioned at all
 * It is not true that there was not a genuine attempt for discussion, specifically Yes, I would like to know if those reverts are correct: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] I stand for it is a vandalism.
 * Any of my argument was not taken under advisement and mentions about the civility of the proposer were used against me
 * It also not true that I was edit warring at the Charles University article as there is a clear attempt for discussion with the other side.

 ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 01:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You were edit-warring at Charles University in Prague, and I see no attempt by you to discuss things at talk. If the discussion took place elsewhere, please supply diffs, thanks. --Elonka 01:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is related to the changes in the Charles University article.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 08:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm doing this wrong
This image Image:PASSCharlieBeth04.JPG was stolen from Soap Opera Digest and added to an article. I removed it based on my understanding of image use (pictures from JPI sold to Soap Opera Digest) that many editors have drilled into my head. Dougie added it back and I reverted it because images taken from websites that aren't the official show page are illegal. I need your opinion. If I'm wrong and you say so, I'll accept that but I've never seen an image taken from a website that owns the picture allowed if it's not the show site. By the way, JPI is the source for Soap Opera Digest. They pay for the shots so uploading them from SOD is definitely illegal. KellyAna (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The image is clearly Fair use since it is used in an article giving critical commentary about these copyrighted characters and television series. The fact that it went through an intermediary website is irrelevant. -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Except the "intermediary" site PAID for use. We cannot use an image another site paid for, it's illegal. JPI sells their images and we can't use them regardless of want of claims of "free use."  It's fine if you screen cap it yourself but if JPI sells it to SOD, it's not allowed. KellyAna (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

PHG
Whoops, looks like we cross-posted! I saw that you said you were waiting for my statement, but I'd posted just a few minutes before you. It's my thoughts on the matter, plus a suggestion for an amendment: Requests for arbitration. Let me know if you have any questions, Elonka 02:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I found out later. My mistake! -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  03:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

AniMate
Do me a favor and tell this editor that there is no way on the Goddess' green earth I can be nice to to just stay off my page and away from me. His comments have one purpose when they are left on my page and that's to get me pissed off, and it works. Tell him, please to back off or I'll take a ban for incivility because I'm going to let loose. Thank you. KellyAna (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will stay off your page without Elonka telling me to, and I'm sorry that you're upset. I feel that I've been polite, and that the problems aren't on my end but on yours. I'm not going to avoid articles on soaps to stay out of your way, and if you feel like reverting me please at least discuss it on article talk pages. Ani Mate 23:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Elonka. See, Elonka, I can't even talk to you without him butting in. KellyAna (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

About this morning.....
Hi Elonka. Sorry we didn't see eye-to-eye about the banner this morning. I do respect your opinion as someone who understands what is a pleasing and what is a frustrating user experience. I suppose our thinking was that the April Fools' Day main page joke is supposed to be a little bit maddening. Did you check out the George Washington (inventor) joke on the main page last year? I was still a fairly novice editor at the time and I remember wanting to beat my computer with my shoe because I couldn't figure out if the story was supposed to be true or not, nor why anyone thought it was so funny. I figured out a few days later (after looking at the article more closely) that Washington was a real guy and the blurb was carefully constructed to lead people astray--only then did I crack a smile. While I guess your banner would have let people in on the lulz more immediately, I thought it spoiled the mystery of delving into the details of the article and discovering for oneself what sort of a prank we'd pulled. I absolutely do not think that people who didn't like the joke are "wrong/misguided/horrible/foolish." In fact, I'm hypersensitive to criticism of my lame jokes and the misunderstandings they cause. (I even briefly retired last night after seeing my writeup wasn't well received!) Anyway, I hope your opinion of the Fat Man hasn't soured over the disagreement. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Priory of Sion
Hello Elonka! Congratulations on becoming a Wikipedia administrator! Would you have the time and interest in collaborating with me to improve the Priory of Sion article enough to meet Featured article criteria? --Loremaster (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, I recently did some tweaking of the Charges of heresy section of the History of the Knights Templar article. Did you have any comments? --Loremaster (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I saw that you'd been working on it, yes. Though I didn't review the edits in detail, because I know that you know what you're talking about, so I trust you to put in good material.  :)  When I get a chance, I'll go in and look in more detail.  The Priory of Sion project sounds like a good one too, I'll definitely help as I can, though right now my time is a bit crunched.  I've been sick with the flu for a couple weeks, and when I do have time (and health) for Wikipedia, my attention has mainly been on an ArbCom case. It's in voting phase now, but even after it's done, there are a a lot of articles (some of them Templar-related) that are going to need complex cleanup. I am also trying to get Dirty Dancing to FA, and will be submitting it for another Peer Review soon, and probably FA again next week.  But if you still need help on Priory of Sion after I get those projects off my plate, yes, I'll definitely help out! :) --Elonka 19:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The help needed is mostly with standardizing the citing of sources. Anyway, take care of yourself. --Loremaster (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think the Priory of Sion article is now worthy of good article status? If it is, could you nominate it? If not, could you tweak it enough before nominating it? --Loremaster (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've nominated the Priory of Sion article for GA status. Can you review it? --Loremaster (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Request
I replied on there now as per your request, but I do find Srnec an irritable editor to deal with, simply because of the POV he always tries to place into certain articles... while removing sourced material. - Gennarous (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Information taken from my website without credit, etc...
Hi Elonka. I'm not certain on how to do the correct citations, etc... to get a correct credit. Could you help out? I'm confused as to why my research is reliable for the head writing tenure dates but not in other instances. Also, did you ever get my email last week, I never heard back from you. As for the comments on the cast member talk page, I don't think my site should be singled out for those comments and it should be changed to "any fan sites are not reliable." Thanks, Jason —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason47a (talk • contribs) 21:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For advice on formatting, see WP:CITE. As for the commentary, you can definitely add a comment of your own afterwards, reminding folks about relevant policies WP:V, WP:RS, WP:EL, and saying that this applies to many other sites as well. --Elonka 04:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this appropriate?
Check out this user page, please. I've never seen anything like it before and it borders on all kinds of odd. Not to be uncivil, but it includes lies that someone could stumble on about The Apprentice and just other oddities. Could you take a look? KellyAna (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably just a leftover April Fools joke. See April Fools.  I assume he'll clean it up on his own.  If not, you could probably drop him a polite friendly note on his talkpage, reminding him about it, and perhaps pointing him at WP:USER.  If that still doesn't work, let me know. --Elonka 04:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource translations
The proposed policy regarding translations is at s:Wikisource:Translations. In short, we need to work out if the the translation at Cum non solum has been published before in a peer-reviewed venue? If it is, the translators real name is attributed. If not, then the attribution is only kept in the history page (or on the talk page, as is the standard GFDL transwiki procedure), and in the header we annotate that it is a living translation that can be improved upon by setting "translator = wikisource". John Vandenberg (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked the page and its talk page; every Wikisource text should have a textinfo block to provide provenance information. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Image
No need for speculations (see User talk:Durova). Here's one of my original photographs (before retouching) of the object in question. Cheers. PHG (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Removal of my citation
Hi Elonka. I did the citation of the "Days" head writer tenure dates as you instructed me to (thanks for pointing me in the right direction so I learned how to do citations) and I see it's been removed. I spent over a year researching what dates the writers joined and left "Days" from 1965-1993. My research was taken from my website and added without my knowledge or credit to Wikipedia. Last week, I said I'd be fine with either of these options: Either keep my citation on the bottom of the page or remove the months/days from the head writing dates. Please let me know which option will be chosen, and I'll make the corresponding edit. Thanks, Jason Jason47a (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have proof that those dates were taken from your site? Pretty presumptuous to assume that the collection of writers all took the information, or any information, from your site.  I removed the link because it screwed up the entire formatting of the page.  I also removed it because yours is a fan site and fan sites aren't acceptable sources. KellyAna (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka a cursory look through history make Jason's claims very questionable. The information was added over time from many different editors.  It's impossible to believe that multiple editors all took their information from one site.  It's various editors, one noted admin, and multiple IP addresses in unrelated areas.  How can so many people all "steal" from the same site?  KellyAna (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * KellyAna, isn't this exactly the kind of thing that you were edit-warring about at the TV schedule page? You can't have it both ways. The key element  here is that unsourced information can be removed. Granted, it would be disruptive (and a violation of WP:POINT) to go on a mad sweep through Wikipedia deleting every single unsourced statement, but on a single article, it is perfectly reasonable  to delete unsourced information.  Anyone wishing to add it back, should then either provide sources, or leave it alone. --Elonka 22:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned on my discussion page, and as the copyright violation page suggests to add to the talk page that has stolen my work:


 * From Wikipedia's copyright page: "If some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known. If the copyright holder's permission is later obtained, the text may be restored."


 * In this update on April 4, I removed the information stolen from my page without my permission. If a credit to my site is allowed in the citations, then I will allow the information to be restored.


 * This information (head writer tenure dates from 1965-1993) was stolen from this page of my website: http://members.aol.com/jason47b/writers.html (I researched these dates back in 2005 and updated them in 2006)


 * This posting on SON is from 2005, using my information (with my permission). http://boards.soapoperanetwork.com/index.php?showtopic=1266


 * This page on Wikipedia was not made, based on the history page, until 2007, using all of the information that I spent over a year researching.


 * I'm fine with the information being restored, as long as I get proper credit. Please do not repost the information without giving me credit, as that would be a copyright violation. Thanks, Jason Jason47a (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

As posted on my talk page, it seems the solution has been found: As Elonka stated: "The key is whether someone is adding unsourced information to Wikipedia. If you remove it, then they add it back without sources, that is them being disruptive. If they do it repeatedly, they may be blocked." It seems anyone re-adding the information that I remove without backing it up could be blocked. And from Avruch's comment: "You can remove them, but if someone cites them to a reliable source they can be added back whether you are the original source of the research or not." So until someone cites a reliable source, that information can not be added back to the page again, and if it is added back, then that person could be blocked. Jason Jason47a (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct. And, as you may have noticed, has been blocked for 24 hours. --Elonka 23:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Elonka. And a quick addition to correct KellyAna's incorrect statements from above: I just took a look at the "Days" head writer page created in June 2007. All of the information was added on that date by editor Mike Halterman. As KellyAna incorrectly stated above: "The information was added over time from many different editors. It's impossible to believe that multiple editors all took their information from one site.  It's various editors, one noted admin, and multiple IP addresses in unrelated areas.  How can so many people all "steal" from the same site?" So, in fact, the information from my site was added by just one editor in June 2007: Mike Halterman. He just forgot to cite where he got the information from (my site), so it should have been removed way back in June 2007 since I've been told my site is unreliable since it is a fan site. Jason Jason47a (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jason47a, please assume good faith. Mike Halterman is a longtime Wikipedia administrator, and you have no way of knowing where exactly that he got this information.  I do agree that he should have added sources, but sometimes in the middle of a complex edit, someone may be working on multiple articles, and end up leaving some  of them in a half-finished or "stub" state.  I have seen MH's work on other "Days" articles, and he's normally very good about using reliable sources. --Elonka 23:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I do have a way of knowing how he got the information, since I'm the one who researched it for over a year and posted the information online on my website. I'm not faulting Mike Halterman. Perhaps I'll ask him on his talk page, if he's still an editor here, and ask him where he got the information.


 * In other news, I just received this email (from a yahoo account): "You really are an idiot. You don't even understand how Wikipedia works but remove information you claim to own. You can't own dates and you can't copyright information.  If you would actually look at history you would see that the information couldn't be "stolen" from you.  You need a life and a hobby although you're probably a Hogan fat unwanted f*** that has no life."  I assume this is from someone involved in this recent chat, and earlier this week on March 27, KellyAna used the same wording, calling me "an idiot" and telling me "to get a life." I hope these personal attacks will stop both on Wikipedia and through email. At least I'm of the belief that "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me." Jason47a (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please forward the email to me? (elonka@aol.com)  Thanks, Elonka 00:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Email received, thank you. And for what it's worth, I'm sorry that you have to deal with this.  No one should have to put up with this kind of abuse.  KellyAna's email privileges have been disabled through Wikipedia.  Her block has also been extended to 48 hours.  If you get any other emails of this type, please let us know. --Elonka 00:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

First, let me say that I agree wholeheartedly with Shell Kinney's original block and your extension of it. Her behavior as of late has shown exceptionally poor form. My problem is that with her Wikipedia email features disabled and her talk page protected she can't contest it. Perhaps you could add a section on her talk page pointing her to one of the mailing lists. Finally, I'm sorry about the harassment aimed you way Jason. No editors should be talked to like that. Ani Mate 01:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just thought I should add that, I also got a nasty email from KellyAna a few days back. It was over a issue we we're disputing. DJS --DJS24 (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please forward it to me too? Thanks. --Elonka 02:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka, I opened a WP:SSP on KellyAna and Irishlass0128. I already notified Irishlass, however I see that KellyAna has been blocked and her page is protected. Could you let her know for me that, "I think she should comment on the issue". Here's a link - . Thanks Again DJS --DJS24 (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, okay, I have unprotected her talkpage, go ahead and post. I'll leave the page open as long as everyone is very very polite.  A-class manners please. --Elonka 02:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

A proposal
Hi Elonka,

Could you please take a look at my proposal here.

I think this is important given the current waves of secular attacks on all religions. . Thanks in advance.--Be happy!! (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Identity confirmation
I have leik tons of 'videos' if anyone needs to confirm my identity. Haha. Inquire within. the_undertow  talk  00:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

OWB
Thank you! Means a lot to me, coming from one I greatly respect. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice Kryptos video!
And now I know how to pronounce "Dunin" ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :)  The HowStuffWorks folks did a nice job, and they got some stuff on record now that hadn't been previously publicized.  That particular interview was recorded while I was in Atlanta last year for Dragon*Con. --Elonka 00:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

?
? :$ - Gennarous (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Template merge
Elonka: Hi. Would you please advise me on whether there is a formal process for merging templates? The two templates at issue are Template:Protestant_missions_to_India and Template:Indian Christianity. A merger has been proposed here, but I have my doubts about its transparency: I would assume that notices on the talk pages of the relevant templates are a basic expectation, yet I have seen nothing of the sort. A second part of the discussion may be found here. I am also troubled by th dismissive and sarcastic tone of the other editor. This is not my usual area of interest, but I hate to see a useful contribution to the encyclopedia eclipsed without due process. Thanks in advance for your help. Aramgar (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dirty Dancing
Hello, sorry to not respond sooner! Somehow, your message slipped under the radar on my talk page, and I found it when I was reviewing past discussions. I will do my best to take a look at your article and see what suggestions I can make for its improvement. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

re:Official caution
Very well, I'll try to be more courteous. My post did concern edits after all, but if a person obviously does not follow WP:NPOV am I not allowed to say so? I really don't think what I said constitutes a personal attack. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 08:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Rab concentration camp
Thanks for your cool-down effort in this article. My greatest respect how on you can stay so completely cool. I will do my best effort to keep this article from edit wars, even though this means stepping down a little for me :) lomis (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Oh, and one question: In case User:Gennarous continues his behavior (not talking about content, but the personal attacks), how much longer will it take until he gets blocked? I usually work a lot at the German Wikipedia and don't have much experience here on the English version, but on average, I'd say he would be blocked there by now. Where is the borderline here on the English Wikipedia? Best Regards, lomis (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Lomis
Please could you have a look at this guy, he is voilating WP:STALK by following me to different articles to continue a dipute, strictly against Wikipedia policy. Here he moved sourced information blanking 75% of the article. I even tried to warn him about blanking articles and stalking, but he just removed it. Naturally, I'm just here to contribute to articles, not to have a stalker, so if you could advise me how to deal with his "unwanted devotions" that would be good. Thanks. - Gennarous (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Lomis has stalked me to the article again and is destroying work, despite the fact that he is not even engaged in discussion on the talk. As thus I am treating his edits as purely vandalism and violations of WP:STALK, at least with Direktor we are discussing. Lomis is just hit and run trolling me, without any discussion. Can you understand how it would be difficult to remain civil when I have to deal with Lomis? - Gennarous (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

cryptology
I'm considering this as my graduate degree. I find the topic fascinating, as well as relevant. I have spent the last 14 hours hanging out in a cemetery, but still have no idea what you do. However, I have learned that people aren't really buried six feet under. It's more like 4.5 feet. Don't ask. But since you did, bail money, plz? the_undertow  talk  08:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wine or vodka? :) --Elonka 09:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All right, the gauntlet has been thrown. I'm driving to South Central to interview the Crips and understand their ology. You think yer badass? Give me time. With an IQ of 158, and completely lacking common sense, I'll best you. Somehow. the_undertow  talk  09:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I also forgot. Yer into decoding. Figure out why anyone would do this. Yeah. That's what I thought.
 * Merlot. the_undertow <font style="color:#820900"> talk  09:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (fans herself) Sorry, what were we talking about again?  I got all flustered and forgot... --Elonka 09:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you ever seen the mating dance of the King Bird of Paradise? The choreography and the ritual display are very similar. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That video was actually based on a PBS special dealing with the King Bird of Paradise. I was quite adept at using the same lighting, mating ritual, as well as trying to capture the essence of the time-honored tradition. Or I was just drunk. Either way, I find the file to be a Cannes contender. <font style="color:#820900">the_undertow <font style="color:#820900"> talk  07:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Question
Do you think this merits some form of warning? Particularly but also last paragraph indicate some bad faith assumptions about editors of Polish nationality.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't be bothered watching your contributions User/Piotrus, but apparently other editors think I should be watching my back --mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 09:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

KA's return?
The activity from these accounts make me suspicious, especially the "Grr" edit summary by the IP:

The two week block on IrishLass still hasn't expired so if this is her, it would be another block evasion right? -- Dougie WII (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian-Slovakian issues
If you are here to post about these disputes, please add the information to User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. Thanks, Elonka 06:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Elonka, I wasn't involved in editing any of the articles mentioned there, so including me based on that doesn't really fit. Squash Racket (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, don't worry, being listed there doesn't mean anything bad. :)  It's just a list, primarily for me, to help me keep track of which editors are familiar with the details of some section of this dispute.  Don't worry, it doesn't mean that you're getting a warning or anything.  :) --Elonka 07:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * '''Remainder of this thread moved to User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. Please continue  discussion, or bring up any new issues, there. --Elonka 22:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

St. Louis?
St. Louis resident, huh? What part? I lived in University City, right off of Delmar, for about six months and I still do a few shifts each month on Z107-7. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Original Research
In the earthquake talk page you had mentioned avoiding original research naming this the highest magnitude quake in Illinois history. I am requesting a clarification. If USGS provides a list of the major quakes in Illinois, and 5.4 was the highest, is it considered original research to name this quake as the highest magnitude in Illinois history? I understand the point is moot since the quake was downgraded to 5.2, but if it were 5.4, and that were the highest, then I don't understand why this would be OR. From what I understand, OR would be using the facts to push an agenda - not just stating something that would be obvious from reading the list of quakes. Thanks. Tool2Die4 (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's usually best to be cautious with superlative claims, per WP:REDFLAG. For us to say that something was "the biggest", it would be better to actually have a source that says, "it is the biggest", rather than providing a source which listed others, and then drawing an inference from that. I mean, it's probably common sense, but suppose that USGS list hadn't been updated in a couple years? There might have been a more recent quake that we didn't know about (perhaps it was deeper and not as widespread), in which case it would not have been correct for us to make the leap.  But I agree it's a subtle point. :) --Elonka 16:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Rab concentration camp
Elonka, thank you for the time you devoted to help us to resolve the issues that one single user had with this article. That your time was well spent and your interventions well judged is obviously evidenced by the stability that has now returned to this article. I'd like to point out that the article is now much better than it was a month ago, so it's a matter of fact that the whole business has been beneficial. Well done again. If I may make a small suggestion regarding your future interventions, it is that you really have to familiarise yourself with the topic. Spend some time reading the article and the references supporting it. But apart from that minor comment, it's clearly a feather in your cap that we have all been able to move along and attend to other Wiki matters. Thanks again, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Dated sub-cats
Essentially the templates need to be tweaked, and the sub cats created. There's a few bits of admin too, but that's the crux. I'll have a look at it. Rich Farmbrough, 21:29 11 March 2008 (GMT).
 * Basically done. Rich Farmbrough, 22:41 12 March 2008 (GMT).

Abaqa Khan
Hi Elonka - I was looking over the list at the FMA talkpage of articles needing cleanup and noticed that this one was still on the list, although you seem to have done a fair bit of work on it. I admit I haven't read through it thoroughly, but it seemed ok at a glance - does it still need work? Kafka Liz (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Certain sections could definitely still use expansion, as it's very Crusader-centric, with very little information about everything else in Abaqa's reign, such as his wars with other Mongols. If you have any information on those topics to help balance things out, that would be great.  Otherwise, if you're happy with it, go ahead and cross it off The List. :) --Elonka 19:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt I'll be able to add anything strictly on the Mongols -- they're more in Aramgar's line. I'll check it over though. Thanks. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: I think it's fine in terms of the Franco-Mongol alliance issues, but I'm hesitant to cross it off the list because of the undue weight on his interactions with the crusaders. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's been my concern too. I keep meaning to expand it, but then I get pulled to other projects (such as my Hungarian-Slovakian experiment). --Elonka 15:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fembot...
Found this on my talk page today...thought you might get a kick out of it....not sure why it was posted on my talk page....here. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Book
Thanks for the note - it's good to hear that an experienced editor actually enjoys reading it. If you come across anything that seems puzzling, wrong, or missing, please don't hesitate to drop me a note - I expect to have several opportunities to update the book this year, and am always looking for improvements. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Notes - that's great; I'm already looking forward to your comments. As for sales, I actually have no idea - I don't even know the size of the first printing.  And I won't get a royalty statement for the period ending March 31st until possibly as late as the end of June. (There also has been talk of a second printing; I'm kind of hoping that happens relatively soon, given the number of things that have changed - eight skins, not seven; the "+" tab is now "new section", and so on.  (O'Reilly pitched the book as print-on-demand, I've been told, so that it would always be up-to-date, but the major book sellers wouldn't buy that, literally.)  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 21:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hungary/Slovakia experiment
Thanks for helping clear that out but between the ANI page, the Wikiquitte complaint, the headaches at Talk:Hedvig Malina, this archived mess at my talk page (seems like your work is done but if not, you should review it), I'm just done with it. The last article I helped out on resulted in more insanity than this one. Reviewed everything quickly, but every single comment from me seems to result in the same gigantic argument again and again (mostly from one particular individual). I'll comment if something seems really out there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Peace from Hexagon1
I've been watching the developments at User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment with interest, and even though I am too busy edit-warring elsewhere to edit-war over the Hungarian-Slovak dispute, I have been most impressed by your efforts towards mediation and a peaceful solution. So, here's a little something for your trouble, if you want it. Thank you! +Hexagon1 (t) 14:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Awww, thanks. :) This has definitely been a learning experience for me, and it is my hope that with the lessons learned, I may be able to better assist in the creation of other dispute resolutions techniques, by which the entire project can benefit.  So if you have any feedback or advice, definitely let me know!  :) --Elonka 14:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Heritage
Ok, I am sorry. And I'll use the reflist, I promise ;) --Rembaoud (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

New England Interstate Route 8
Hey- I know this isn't a history subject, but geography is close. Anyway, there is a page called New England Interstate Route 8 in which the old route NE-8 from 1922-1926 is supposed to be discussed. Instead, in User Talk:Polaron, Polaron is convinced that it means all the routes called 8 in the region of New England, which makes no sense, because they are not interstate- the roads are different in each state, hence the markers. I reference the roadgeek.com site because it clearly discusses the NE system. Thanks! <FONT SIZE=3>Monsieur<font color= "#DC143C ">dl   mon talk-mon contribs 00:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Aimone Duke or King?
Hi Elonka, I wonder if you'd be intersted in assessing the situation with the proposed move of the Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta to Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta and perhaps closing the matter? Its been (I think) over a week now and we really need a neutral view, and perhaps even arbitration, to end the matter. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion should stay open because the Director has not notified users who participated in the previous proposal for a move. They deserve to have a say. If you have any personal interest in the matter or have some sources (which for the matter of fact the support crew doesn't have) you should participate and therefore not decide the matter. -- Imbris (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
I placed a speedy at the article Sophia Bekele. The author posted into mainspace by accident when the article was not ready, he is now developing the article in user space first at a user page and asks for a courtesy deletion from main space until it's ready, the article is here Sophia Bekele, the author is working in his user space here,, since speedy was not so speedy in this case could you just delete it with your tools? The subject of the article is also involved somehow she has a talk page here User talk:Sbekele, she blanked the mainspace article once (it was in bad shape). Hobartimus (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --Elonka 08:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I received the following message from the subject, I think I understand it to mean that this real person is unhappy about random ANI chatter about her showing up in google even archived , this seems to be the offending thread and it does show up in google pretty early in the results. I have no idea why ANI archives are google indexed in the first place, but the complaint seems legitimate to me, since it's about a real person (full name was used in ANI that's why it shows up). However I don't think I know any procedure for this problem (maybe removal of the two instances where real name is mentioned and replacing them with (subject) or (name removed)) can ANI archives be edited this way or should I just tell her that the real article is developing well and it will outrank this ANI archive when it goes live? Maybe another solution is to write an OTRS ticket, but I don't know if I'm allowed to write one for other people? Hobartimus (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci
I don't know if you'd noticed but Mathsci has removed your comment from his talk page, sorry to bother you if you knew. :) <span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif; color:DarkRed">Harland1 (t/c) 05:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am free to remove any comment from my talk page that I like Harland1. Mathsci (talk) 06:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and yes, I noticed. It's  okay though.  By him removing my comment, I take it as a clear signal that he's read it. :)
 * If everyone can stay calm from here on, then the problem's over, and everyone can get back to work.  If not, well, we'll deal with that as it comes.  If you do see future behavior by any editor that you find questionable, the best way to handle it is to leave a small polite note at that editor's talkpage, with a diff of the comment. That serves multiple purposes: It notifies the editor in a clear way; it flags the problem for others (such as admins) who may be watching that editor's talkpage; and it provides a record, in case further action is required.  If the situation has to proceed to another stage of dispute resolution such as ANI or an RfC or ArbCom, it can be really helpful to have a paper trail on the editor's talkpage, from which to pull together evidence.  Also, if/when an admin is requested, one of the first things that any admin will do, is check the user's talkpage to see if they've already been warned.  And don't worry, most admins are wise to the "blanking" technique.  Any experienced admin will know to look at history rather than just what's on the page.  See also some useful tips at WP:DE.
 * What would be most helpful right now, from all involved, is that they stay very very polite and civil with each other. That makes it much easier to screen out the background noise, and then those editors who are unable or unwilling to remain civil, become much easier to deal with. For a humorous essay on this, see here.  :) --Elonka 05:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Mathsci: I didn't say you weren't. :) <span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif; color:DarkRed">Harland1 (t/c) 09:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Diff
(ec) This was a revert of a foolish edit by User:Michellecrisp. Her movement of 2 sentences, carefully written and researched over a year ago by me, listed a public library and a visual arts centre under the category "opera and theatre" (I had also rewritten the opera section to replace a direct translation of an Opera House publicity blurb). This was a capricious edit and was "effectively vandalism". In future please look at the original diff, before commenting on any subsequent interchange. In this case I believe that User:Michellecrisp made these changes to Marseille and Aix-en-Provence to prolong her intervention on the talk page of WikiProject Mathematics. Unlike me, she does not edit mathematics articles. She appears to watch my talk page because she randomly chimes in on conversations with other editors that have nothing to do with her and which have nothing to do with her current mainspace edits.  

As for User:Jagz, he is trolling on WP:AN/I and on Talk:Race and intelligence. What other words can be used for his endless discussion about the inclusion of "different" before "race" and his slurs on long-time editor/administrator User:Slrubenstein? As a WP:SPA pushing a fringe point of view, he is far from being a typical WP editor. I know that adminstrators love to treat problematic WP:SPA editors with kid gloves and dislike expert editors who write indecipherable articles on Fredholm determinants, Iphigenie, Porte d'Aix or Spectral theory of ordinary differential equations, but can this point of view not occasionally be taken too far? Apparently you are condoning the disinformation that User:Michellecrisp added to Marseille (and her later inaccurate edits to Aix-en-Provence). Do you really approve of editors adding incorrect information, or is there something I have misunderstood? They may think that they are acting in good faith, but whereas I purchase books or consult library books to write many WP articles, they can just include faulty information from unreliable sources (in this case a poorly translated foldable city guide on one sheet of paper).

I already wrote to User:C S that I did not appreciate the attack on me on WikiProject Mathematics and was contemplating leaving the project and removing my recent contributions. I don't find the words you left on my talk page insightful in the light of this attack on me: you hadn't really spent long enough finding out what was going on and, despite your compliment on my edits, you might not have realised that perhaps Michellecrisp had succeeded in disrupting my mainspace editing. Other editors have been removing some of her comments on my talk page.  How would you describe that kind of edit? Why did User:Michellecrisp report this diff on the WikiProject Mathematics page? Isn't that being disruptive? Mathsci (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the diffs, I will look into all of them in detail. And please, Mathsci, in no way did I intend to indicate that you are the sole one at fault here.  Instead, I genuinely am trying to give you constructive advice on how to improve your communication style slightly.


 * My impression of you thus far is that you are a thoughtful academic, who is extremely busy off-wiki, and in those times that you have time on-wiki, you would rather spend it working on articles, than having to "suffer the interference of fools." I get that. :)  However, perhaps unconsciously, I think that you are doing and saying things that are actually drawing more conflict in your direction than you want.  That's why I am bringing things up, to point out these things about your communication style of which you may be unaware.


 * In other words, if one wants to escalate a conflict, the quickest way to usually do so, is to call the other party a pejorative term. When you refer to another editor as engaging in a "foolish edit", or doing something "capricious", or "trolling" or "vandalizing", these kinds of words are not "accurate descriptions" of a situation, these are inflammatory terms which often make the situation actively worse.  And as a mechanism of getting someone to "go away", they are extremely ineffective.  Instead, such terms tend to evoke very primitive reactions. See WP:MASTODON.  :)


 * Also, I understand that it's natural in these situations to feel a bit defensive. However, be careful about what kinds of motivations that you are projecting onto other people. For example, you are implying that I'm not understanding what's going on, but when you say, "I know that administrators love to treat SPAs with kid gloves, and dislike expert editors," or when you say that I am "condoning disinformation,"  it makes me smile, because it tells me that you really don't know my history at all, heh. My own philosophy is usually to bend over backwards to accommodate the genuine academics, because I know how much value that they can add to Wikipedia.  If you want a character reference, I could put you in touch with some on-wiki Harvard academics that can vouch for me. :)


 * As far as your own issues, I am still researching the entire situation, and I assure you that I am looking into the history of all involved, not just yours. I am also looking at Michellecrisp's and and Jagz's contribs, and several other editors. Along the way, I'm also looking for places where "quick fixes" can be made, and I'm looking for places where unneeded terms are "complicating" the equation.  :) My goal as an administrator is not to "punish the disruptive", but is instead to "reduce disruption".  I want you to be able to get back to productive editing.  But each time you use terms such as "trolling" and "vandalism" and "foolish" and "capricious", it causes noise which makes my job harder.  So please, just as an exercise, do you think that you could remove them from your on-wiki vocabulary for a little while? It would definitely help the situation.  Thanks, Elonka 07:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What you have written is a completely reasonable and accurate appraisal. Am I mistaken in thinking that you might be one of the brave administrators/editors that deal with problem pages to do with Eastern Europe, or am I confusing you with somebody else?  Mathsci (talk) 09:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Tryin'. :) --Elonka 09:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)