User talk:Elonka/Archive 20

Editing restrictions
I need to replace one of the images on Muhammad al-Durrah (the postage stamp) with a higher-quality one. Any objections? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your restriction applies only to editing the article itself. Other peripheral things such as updating an image file, participating at mediation, etc., are fine. --Elonka 14:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I will need to edit the image caption and link as well, since the image is a replacement for an existing one - see - so editing the article will be unavoidable. It will be uncontentious, though. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just make a request at the talkpage then, thanks. --Elonka 22:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Or you could, you know, reconsider the restrictions as you indicated you would do. I've followed your restrictions faithfully and discussed things calmly at talk, so how about it? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not yet. You're definitely doing better, but I'd like to see a few days of you participating at talk, without making accusations that everyone on the other side is a conspiracy theorist, influenced solely by "right-wing bloggers" or has an "ideological axe to grind". --Elonka 23:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd thought it was clear enough that I was referring to the people outside Wikipedia who are pursuing this campaign, but apparently not. I hope you're not suggesting that there is no such campaign going on - it is, after all, the reason why the story is still in the news after eight years. At any rate, I've clarified those apparently-obvious-but-evidently-not-obvious-enough comments.  -- ChrisO (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

When is this debate over?
I think Markussep and me provided enough evidence that a signficant Hungarian minority lives along at least parts of the river (actually in Komárno, where the Vág river meets the Danube, there is a Hungarian majority). So Svetovid thinks it's time to remove the names (including the Hungarian one). Squash Racket (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:86.44.16.82
I had a brief exchange with this IP and didn't think much of it except that I didn't think much of his/her attitude. I've always disliked that IP editors, however good their edits are, don't really have a completely visible track record and this can avoid accountability and use that to game the system. In this case, the guy has a point that he does not need to have an account, and I await his forthcoming unblock request with interest. Since he's in Ireland, I would expect that to appear before midnight my time since we're in the same timezone. FWIW, I think he does have an arguable point about the non-free images in Pauline Fowler. Checkuser? Well I wonder what grounds there could be for that, because I think you need a pretty good reason, and merely being a "spiky" editor won't cut it. I'm in two minds about this, but I'm sure others will try to make it up for me. I'll keep an eye on it. -- Rodhull andemu  17:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't think much of yours either (missed in your ire that talk should certainly be unprotected, then after further prod did so without acknowledgment ... i mean i don't even have a watchlist or whatever) but i have long since forgiven you since you (and i, when i can) are the only maintainer of the constantly vandalized Graffiti article since Key moved onto other things, and since you physically remind me of a pop star that I can't put my finger on, but know that i like. 86.44.16.82 (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

RedSpruce Redux
As I said in our last conversation, arguing about quotes in footnotes at one article serves no purpose. When consensus is reached at one article, RS moves to another article. We are now here. What is your opinion? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have blocked his account for three hours. --Elonka 18:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

my user page
yes. why do you ask? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, it's my concern about "setting a good example" since you're an admin. To keep that kind of thing on your userpage, tends to make it look like it was a personal vendetta, and that you might be gloating.  Better would be to just take it in stride, make a "no big deal" show of it.  So he's gone, so are a lot of people.  It doesn't mean you need to paint a "kill marking" on the side of the cockpit. --Elonka 18:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there are two reasons why I think it is wise. The first is indeed personal - Jagz and several others made various accusations against me in the course of this conflict and I want an easily accessible record to turn to if anyone ever raises the issue again.  The second is not personal and to me far, far more important: trolling is a serious persistent problem at Wikipedia and we have no real good mechanism for dealing with it except community bans - Arb Com only enforces violations of personal behavior policies, and most of our mechanisms and policies are meant to deal with conflicts between or among users.  We have never had a good formal process for policing the quality of articles and people who have a persistent pattern of sabotaging articles - this is a matter of a conflict between someone with access to the internet versus Wikipedia itself, not between two users.  I think it is especially important for administrators to learn how to recognize such trolls and for that reason I think there is a real value in accumulating a record of these kinds of incidents.  Wikipedia is growing too fast for there to be a good sense of institutional or collective memory about these things (I wonder what percentage of people remember the entire Lir saga?) and too big for any one admin to know all the bad and ugly, as well as the good, that is going on here.  AN/I gets archived at a dizzying rate.  So yes, I think it is the epitome of wisdom to maintain an easily accessible record of such problem cases.  I think they are very instructive. PS - I think you are generously over-estimating the number of people who look at my userpage!Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

?
why? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because you are accusing other editors of bad faith, and resorting to unhelpful comments such as "Yeah whatever" and "nobody cares about facts." I think it's best if you take a break from the article for a few days. You are still, however, welcome to participate at the mediation. --Elonka 22:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with bad faith. I'm just making basic observations.  The discussions are going nowhere and ChrisO and NickHH are completely ignoring relevant information.  Tundra and I have repeated the same stuff over and over again and nobody cares.  My comments are justified. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ward Pigman
Do you have access to the original text that was deleted on Ward Pigman? I would like to see if it is of use in the bio I am writing of him, it was deleted under BLP rules, but he has been dead since 1977. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No need, I found it in Conservapedia. How come Conservapedia doesn't give mention the info is copied from Wikipedia?

Beit Hanoun page
I apologise. I did agree to leave out the two phrases you mentioned, but then did not remember to check that I had done so when I went back to edit again. I'll try to be more careful in future. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_User:Elonka_using_blocks_and_threats_inappropriately RedSpruce (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Red Redux
He is doing it once again, post 3-hour block here. Again it is harassment and testing authority. A quick glance shows that footnote 85 also contains a quote but my entry has been targeted, well, because it is mine. He is also reverting to an inaccurate title for the article that is the source of the reference. He is making no attempt to trim the quote, he is just removing it, again. The pattern is to just move to a new article to avoid the consensus at the previous article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, if I was testy before, I know you have the best interest of all involved. It is very frustrating to be stalked and deleted, especially for months, and to be powerless to stop it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Harassment etc.
Hi Elonka, thanks for your input. In this particular case, content and editor are one and the same. I.e., an outlandish policy interpretation is being put forward by an editor who manifestly does not believe it (his "favorite article" by his own admission violates the interpretation), in what appears to be part of a campaign of harassment and lying regarding another editor.--G-Dett (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide some diffs? Thanks, Elonka 04:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Re
She hasn't made any more incivil comments since this, but yes I agree with you. Khoikhoi 06:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2008
WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2008


 * --Chef Tanner (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Block a Davkal sock?
Hi, could you block User:74.208.16.55 who is acting as a sock of User:Davkal? Alternatively, could you semi-protect WT:FRINGE? We need to stop letting this banned user post. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ronz et al
Thanks Elonka, I shall keep at an eye out. Cheers! Scarian Call me Pat!  19:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

re: black stone
It was stupid. Don't even tell me it wasn't. I can maybe see if it was simple grammar error, or typo, but that was so absurd, it boggled my mind. Why type 8 characters when you can just push backspace 4 times? Red tape at its finest. I can't assume good faith unless people start using common sense. I can, however, assume that I will die before this happens, so its a moot point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.49.139 (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Al-Durrah
CJCurrie has started reverting again at Muhammad al-Durrah, so I am hoping you can underline that the article is still subject to 0RR.

I made an edit to remove from the first sentence that the IDF was reported to have shot the boy, and I also removed a new editor's addition of how the Palestinians are now being blamed by some, because it looked awkward. I wrote instead that he had been reported killed during a clash, without saying anything in the first sentence about who is saying who fired the shots. Both the new editor and I left explanations for our edits on talk. 

CJCurrie didn't reword the edit, he just reverted without explaining on talk (at the time of writing), yet he is aware of the 0RR. This is my edit at 07:45 July 5. This is his revert half an hour later with "not a revert" in the edit summary, though it clearly is. SlimVirgin talk| edits 08:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me state, in the first instance, that I have not been actively engaged with the discussions on this article's talk page in recent weeks. I was a frequent contributor to Muhammad al-Durrah in the days following the recent court decision, when some editors made what struck me as questionable and unwarranted content changes.  I was unaware that the article had been placed on 0RR until I received this post less than a week ago, and in fact I had forgotten this point when I first engaged with the al-Durrah page tonight.  I apologize for this, though I'll also note that I self-reverted within two minutes:,.


 * When I consulted the ground rules that you provided on talk, the following point struck me as the most relevant to the current situation: If you see someone add something that you disagree with, don't revert it, change it. Specifically: Try to change it to a compromise wording, or add some (sourced) alternate view wording nearby.


 * I interpreted this to mean that a constructive change in wording would be, for our purposes, defined as something qualitatively different from a revert. This differs somewhat from the standard interpretation, wherein a "revert" is defined as any change to another contributor's wording.


 * Working within this framework, I suggested a compromise wording to the "Reports of the shooting" section (which has now been retitled). I will note that SlimVirgin has not taken issue with the wording I've proposed .  SlimVirgin subsequently added another clause to this section, whereupon I again provided a suggestion for an alternate wording .  To the best of my knowledge, this edit has not been the source of controversy either.


 * SlimVirgin's complaint, as I understand it, has to do with the changes that both of us made to the first paragraph. This is SlimVirgin's original edit, and this is the wording that I subsequently suggested in its place.  A direct comparison between the relevant edits will show that this is not the same wording as before.  Moreover, I believe that the change is qualitatively different.


 * My wording was intended as a compromise, incorporating both (i) a direct reference to the controversy regarding which side fired the "fatal bullet", and (ii) an accommodation of SlimVirgin's apparent preference that al-Durrah not be definitively identified as dead within the text of the lede. I would encourage SlimVirgin to reconsider this wording within this light.


 * It's true that I returned the words "from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)", which SlimVirgin had removed. Given the other changes that I made, I do not believe this constitutes a "revert" in the sense that the term is being used here.


 * I trust that I will be informed if I've misinterpreted either your instructions or SlimVirgin's complaint. My actions were carried out in good faith, and I hope they will be taken in that spirit.


 * Btw, I have no desire to engage in back-and-forth accusations, but I'll note that my actions were not qualitatively different from SlimVirgin's respond to an edit by User:Sposer earlier today:, . CJCurrie (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. SlimVirgin's report is correct that CJCurrie did revert the article, but CJCurrie's explanation that this was a simple mistake, followed by an immediate correction a moment later, is reasonable. I also agree that CJCurrie's subsequent edits were in compliance with the conditions for editing, in that they were changes to the text, rather than reverts.  For the purpose of this article, I define "revert" as something that might be done with the "undo" or "rollback" buttons, meaning a clean revert back to a previous version.  As long as CJCurrie (or any other editor) is actively trying to find compromise wording, the editing is acceptable.  There does appear to be some rapid back and forth, but I see this as a good thing, which I hope will lead towards consensus wording that everyone is more or less happy with. --Elonka 16:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka, CJCurrie did not correct himself a moment later, and still hasn't. This edit of his reverted this edit of mine just half and hour after I made it, and the revert remains in the article. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 18:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed your comment since my talkpage has been busier than usual today. My recommendation is to go ahead and keep editing the article, trying to find a compromise version. --Elonka 00:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To SlimVirgin: I addressed your concern in my initial response. Is further clarification required?  CJCurrie (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Guidance
Please review my comments today at Talk:Atropa belladonna. I think I am being cordial and on-point. However, ScienceApologist keeps "hiding" my comments, referring to them as disruptive. And now he has posted (vengefully, IMHO) that AN/I trying to get me topic banned. And is actively canvassing for support. Honestly, this editor is making Wikipedia a rather unpleasant experience for me. I guess I am looking for some expert guidance here on how I should I respond (if at all)? Thanks in advance. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was just looking at that, and the other pages mentioned in the ANI thread. I'm still investigating, but my advice is to keep your cool, don't take any bait, stay civil, don't return any accusations.  Just keep on working to improve Wikipedia, and keep your comments focused on the article/guideline at hand. Remember that no one is ever banned for what they're accused of, they're only banned for what they actually do.  As long as you don't give anyone anything to diff as misconduct, you will probably be fine. Also, be sure that you are continuing to actually work on articles.  If your contrib list is just full of dispute-related edits and comments at talkpages, that can be a problem.  But if you show that you're actually working on the encyclopedia, that helps strengthen your reputation.  If unsure what to work on, check one of the WP:CLEANUP categories, click on Special:Random a few times (I usually find something I want to fix or at least tag for cleanup within a dozen clicks), or maybe fill in some redlinks with stubs or redirects somewhere.  For example, there are now multiple redlinks at Chiropractic.  Some of them probably already have existing articles, there's just an odd redlinked abbreviation which needs to be set up as a redirect.  If you could fix some of those, it would be really helpful (and might also take your mind off of other things). Best, --Elonka 20:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the excellent advice. If you check my edit history, you will see that I am active with monitoring new articles and giving them their first once-over to see what they are lacking, how they can be improved, or if they qualify for speedy deletion. I also like doing random spell-checking. (which appeals very much to my anal-retentive nature!) Additionally, I am kind of a one-man, unofficial welcoming committee at Wikipedia. I've probably welcomed hundreds of new IPs and Users. I'm pretty much done for today, but I promise to look into the red links at Chiropractic next time I log in. Thanks again for your guidance. It is genuinely appreciated. :-) -- Levine2112 discuss 20:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I actually had the time and brain-energy to start one new article which will help with the red links: Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. It's just a stub for now, but I am sure it will be expanded quickly. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job, make more. :) --Elonka 17:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Arcfrk
Hiya, Elonka. By accident today I found that this user has had a rather nasty personal attack against me posted on his user page since April. I wonder if you could please remove it? Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ick, and yes, I have removed the statement, and cautioned the user. I'll keep an eye on his talkpage and the WikiProject discussion, but if there are any further problems, please let me know. --Elonka 00:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this speedy action. Mathsci (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have left a message with Carl, whom I know to be a neutral, cautious, and knowledgeable administrator, concerning your actions in my user space. In the meantime, I have reverted your edit as being of questionable legality. If you permit my analogy, in the real world what you have done would be analogous to a break-in into another person's house and removal of property (or, perhaps, to a big nation invading its neighbour and replacing a democratically elected goverment it disagrees with). If you have concerns about the content of my user page, please, feel free to express them at my talk page, accompanied with detailed quotations from the relevant Wikipedia policies. If you feel very strongly about keeping Wikipedia a better place for everyone, may I also suggest removing MathSci's slanders, insinuations, and mockery left at various talk pages and embedded into multiple edit summaries? While this would require a certain time commitment, perhaps, you will come to understand my point? Best wishes, Arcfrk (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hiya, Elonka. Arcfrk restored the personal attack to his talk page. It was subsequently removed by User:Dreadstar.  What he has written above seems to be pure fabrication, since it is unsupported by my edit history. I wonder if something could be done? Mathsci (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Arcfrk's action was clearly out of line, and I support Dreadstar's re-removal of the comment. If there are further incidents of incivility, Arcfrk will likely be blocked.  However, please be sure to hold up your end of the bargain.  It is essential that your own interactions with him be extremely civil as well.  Hopefully with increased civility all around, we'll be able to get past this dispute and move forward. It looks like you and Arcfrk have a lot of things in common, so will very possibly be working together on other mathematics articles in the future.  I recommend that you try to find a way to work together in a harmonious manner. --Elonka 23:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your message. Please look at Arcfrk's message on User:CBM's talk page . Also look at the new message on his user page. He does not seem to understand how WP functions. He seems [refactored] to need help [refactored]. Mathsci (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Try replacing the last sentence of your post with, "He seems to be new here, and probably requires mentoring". I also recommend reading WP:BITE. --Elonka 23:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He is not new (March 10, 2007); what made you think so? Nevertheless I have refactored my comment as requested. Mathsci (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I could tell by the way he was talking about things. On digging deeper, I see that my intuition was correct.  He has a (relatively) low number of edits, about 2,000, and very limited participation in Wikipedia space, except for the math project.  Such editors who spend all their time in articles and not disputes, often react very strongly when they are challenged, since they are in unfamiliar territory and do not understand the wiki culture.  I find that rather than jumping to the assumption that they are "problems", that it is better to try and work with them as though they are just new and don't understand the ropes yet.  A trick that I sometimes use (works for me, might not for others), is to picture an editor as a very very senior academic, someone who used to be sharp as a tack, but has gotten on a bit in years, and is a bit befuddled and cranky and not understanding this "damn internet thing".  That usually helps me to calm down and treat someone with great patience, since I can picture them as a confused but respected elder.  In most cases, treating someone with patience does the trick, and then once they get the hang of "wiki-speak", problems evaporate.  And if it doesn't work, well, at least I tried.  :) --Elonka 00:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I just reviewed almost all his edits. He stated at one point on his user page that he had prior experience from another wikipedia, possibly ru.wikipedia.org. He has not created many substantial articles, mostly stubs: Affine quantum group is typical. It is uninformative, poorly written and unsourced. It would be quite easy to write quite an interesting article on this subject, with some actual content and many obvious references, starting for example from the lectures of Jimbo and Miwa. One thing I also noticed is that he did not like it when I added technical content, e.g. when I expanded Boundedly generated group, Building (mathematics), Orbifold and above all Differential geometry of surfaces. What I find interesting is that, even when the material for the latter was in Surfaces, it included facts about Gaussian curvature being given by the Jacobian of the Gauss map, a complete proof of Gauss-Bonnet and Hadamard's theorem for negatively curved surfaces; lo and behold a few months later he starts suggesting the same material for Gaussian curvature, giving no hint that it has already been added quite accurately elsewhere by me. This does not seem very helpful editing practice, particularly since he has on several occasions expressed strong views on this particular content. When I gave my graduate course in February in the UK, I included material on amenable groups which I simultaneously added to the WP; in particular Guivarch's proof of the Tit's alternative using the mutliplicative ergodic theorem of Osselodets. Lo and behold a month later, Arcfrk has somehow for the first time started editing ergodic theory articles on the multiplicative ergodic theorem and Osselodets. Most of my mathematical edits are closely related to courses that I gave or will give in France and in Britain: they centre on the interaction between geometric group theory, operator algebras and unitary group representations. These editing habits will not change and Arcfrk is entirely wrong to flatter himself that I follow him around. At the moment I am heading towards the Selberg trace formula for SL(2,R) and SL(2,C) which I'll lecture next year: that explains some of my current topics. Since he arrived in March 2007 we have had very few interactions. But each time he has overreacted, perhaps because he was assuming a position of authority. Despite the fact that he jokingly implied in an interchange with User:Paul August that he might be a Fields medallist, this does not seem to be the case. It seems he does not like the fact that I write long and detailed articles on difficult topics. That seems to be something he has not done so far. Although his predilection seems to be for writing mathematical stubs, rating articles and rewriting ledes, I think he should be more careful in making blanket criticisms of longer, more in-depth articles which as far as I can tell seems to be his main issue with me. Mathsci (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the sources in question?
The sources in question did not mention "naturopathic" preparations, and according to the agreement I worked out with Ludwigs on the talk page, we were going to mention naturopathy in the article. I think you should reconsider this carefully. Perhaps you should ask an outside administrator to review the sources in question and see if they really do deal with naturopathy. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I read one of the sources, and it seemed perfectly reliable for much of the information in that paragraph. Perhaps a fact tag could have been added after the word naturopathy, but just leaving the entire paragraph unsourced was not appropriate. My feeling is that you're too invested in this particular topic, and I recommend that you just take a break for a week, and then come back fresh. --Elonka 16:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I reported the incident here. I don't think you know what the difference between naturopathy and homeopathy is, do you? Nor did you read the previous discussion between Ludwigs and myself on that very talk page. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not taking an action based on content, I am taking an action based on user conduct, and Wikipedia policies. When an editor deletes multiple reliable sources from an article, and replaces them with a fact tag, that is disruptive. You have already been blocked three times this month, and you are spending way more time arguing at talkpages and administrator boards,, than actually working on articles.  My advice to you is take a break.  Work on some other article for a week.  A brief page ban is not that big a deal, just look at it as a temporary breather. You've done some great work on a lot of articles on Wikipedia, but sometimes we just get so close to a particular subject that we just can't think about anything else.  I'm trying to help you break that cycle.  Take a break, work on one of the other 2+ million articles on Wikipedia for a few days. --Elonka 16:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So you admit that the "reliable sources" do not support the sentence in question considering that naturopathy is not the same thing as homeopathy? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In User:Levine2112's last post to Talk:Atropa belladonna he states that


 * provides us with a guideline on how to present point of views'' but not necessarily general information."

However, WP:PROMINENCE states:


 * Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements.

Can you explain this to him?

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And now look what's happened:



Can you explain to me what a "naturopathic preparation" is? Why aren't you looking at the contributions of others?

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop reacting to every edit. Just give the article a week to develop, and then come back and look at it later.  The world's not going to end in the meantime.  Aren't there many other articles which would benefit from your attention? --Elonka 19:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Al-Durrah Mediation
In this diff ChrisO calls our side's view demonstrating "pathological thinking." --Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please challenge it on the spot, and diff it to his talkpage with your concerns. --Elonka 19:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Outing
Hi Elonka. Since you've taken an interest in SA, would you mind mentioning to the poster of this comment that outing SA's identity is not appropriate on-wiki? Regards, Antelan talk  20:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Should we even be linking to it? Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 21:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Atropa Belladonna
If you're topic banning SA, then User:Ludwigs2 deserve equal treatment. He simply reverts to unsourced statements. If you're going to harsh to one side of the POV, it's only fair to be harsh to the "other" side. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 20:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed (not about being harsh, but being fair). Rest assured though, that I am looking at the contribs of all involved. Which doesn't mean I'm going to ban everyone in a "shock and awe" simultaneous attack.  I move more slowly than that. I'm very new to this particular topic area (the advantages and disadvantages of being an "uninvolved" admin).  So it's going to take some time to come up to speed. Be patient with me.  :)  I'm confident that you'll like the longterm result though. --Elonka 20:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just thought you were a bit harsh on SA. It just seems that admins are unnecessarily tough on SA.  He's probably at the point where he just accepts the blocks as the price for editing here.  LOL.  So you're new to this topic?  You might want to start drinking heavily in advance.  Just a recommendation!!!!  :)   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, I concur with SA's comment below. I happen to think that SA is valuable around here, but I also think you are too (I promise, that wasn't a**-kissing.  Really.).   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I trust you
The current version of the atropa article is actually much better. If nothing else, at least your actions got the attention of some other editors. In the future, I think it would have been better if you didn't make content accusations before very carefully researching the topic. Despite your claims that the ban is about editor "behavior", claiming that something is a source for a statement is a content statement. Moreover, you could have gotten me to stay away from the article by requesting it rather than banning me.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and for future situations, I'll try a softer approach with you (btw, do you use IMs?). I disagree though about requiring an administrator to research the content. I don't feel that administrators should be content experts in (most) controversial situations.  Indeed, that's often a daunting hurdle, with megabytes of discussion and dozens of complex sources.  Better (in my opinion) is for administrators to focus on specific types of user conduct, and then guide editors towards resolving their own battles.  Of course, each administrator has to find their own style, but my style generally runs through the following points, starting from the time that I first get involved with an article:
 * Are editors being civil?
 * Are editors explaining their edits?
 * Are edits being explained at talk, or are people just battling it out in edit summaries?
 * Are editors using sources?
 * Are the sources good ones?
 * Are the sources being used in the right way?
 * Is every new edit, being accompanied with a solid source?
 * Are the new edits actually reflecting what's in the source?
 * Is anyone deleting reliable sources?
 * Is everyone being allowed to edit freely, or are some editors using "revert" as a weapon?


 * Once the above are addressed, then I might move on to questions of WP:UNDUE, or dealing with WP:SPA editors. But the vast majority of the time, if I stick with the above, that addresses most problems, and stabilizes things enough that the existing editors at the page can make necessary improvements.  I've used this technique with success in multiple ethnic disputes, and now I'm dipping my toe into the pseudoscience pool to see if the methods still hold up.


 * For more details, you may wish to read New admin school/Dealing with disputes, of which I wrote a fair amount, as part of my involvement with the WP:WORKGROUP.  If you see places where you think there are holes, feel free to bring them up at the talkpage. :) Another quickref that I'm working on (still messy) is here: User:Elonka/Notes. --Elonka 21:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that administrators need to be content experts to be good administrators. I do think they should be careful with their rationales. It would be great if we could get outside competent eyes to look at problem pages like what happened at Deadly Nightshade. Unfortunately, what too often happens is that we get another set of problematic editors who end up driving controversial articles into tailspins. This article was obscure enough and attracted enough of the good kind of editors to be saved. I think this was more of a coincidence than anything else, though. I do not use instant messaging, but when I'm active you can easily get in touch with me via my talkpage.


 * I'm not a big fan of the order in which you look at things, but that's just me. I know I'm the odd one out when it comes to Wikipedia. I think that content expertise and sourcing evaluation should come before all else. Most everyone else disagrees (they see Wikipedia more as a community than a place to be an encyclopedist). The issue is that many editors know that your list of questions are what are being looked for and so have become expert in making it seem like they are the reasonable ones. The issue with your focus on sourcing is that editors may cherry-pick sources and make it seem like censorship is happening when in fact what is happening is an attempt to conform the article to a state that is more in line with the goal of making Wikipedia a mainstream, non-innovative reference work. What looks to you like "deleting a reliable source" is actually removing the misuse of a source. It's the difference between someone reading a term paper and grading based on the number of footnotes and someone actually looking at the footnote, getting the source, reading the source, and comparing the source to the text and the context of the text. The former is easy (and is essentially what you say you are doing). The latter is hard and is, ideally, what every excellent editor should be doing.


 * The problem is when you get editors who are not committed to this kind of scholarship. Levine2112 is a good example of this. Way back in January I removed almost every mention of homeopathy from pages on plants and chemicals. However, there were some articles where homeopathy was included because the sources seemed to indicate that it should be included. Domesticated sheep is a good example of this. Homeopathy is included there because sources devoted to domesticated sheep made it clear that homeopathy was an important part in many sheep producers ideas of alternative veterinary medicine. There was also sources that indicated it was not scientific. We have an excellent mention of this now in that article.


 * Contrast that with atropa belladonna. This article had sources to all kinds of homeopaths tooting their horns as to how great this plant was in their ridiculous dilutions. Of course, they aren't reliable sources. Then some homeopath stumbled upon the Oxford Book of Health Foods. As you read, there is an off-handed mention of homeopathy in there. However, I argued that this singular source was simply not enough to establish enough prominence for homeopathy. After all, the importance of homeopathy to that plant seems minimal at best. The other source being used was written by a homeopath and shouldn't be included in any case.


 * The issue is not with using OUP: it's with using OUP to source a claim about homeopathy: a claim that is obviously anecdotal in nature and is obviously not the intent of the authors to be used as a source for claiming homeopathic use is somehow important to the plant. This argument fell on deaf ears to the point of Levine2112 arguing that there was no "policy" which said this so therefore I wasn't allowed to make the argument: or anyway that the argument wouldn't hold any water. I pointed out WP:PROMINENCE. Levine said that this doesn't apply because I made the redirect. It's obvious that there needs to be some kind of standard for determining how much weight should be given to a fringe subject on a mainstream page. How important is homeopathy to the subject of atropa belladonna? By one measure, we could look at all the sources we have for atropa belladonna and ask how much of those sources are devoted to homeopathy. The answer is such a tiny amount that less than one word should be devoted to homeopathy on our article on the plant. Undue weight excludes homeopathy, is my argument. The counter is "No it doesn't".


 * That's the source of my frustration. There is no way to actually discuss matters with Levine2112. One way you can tell this is that he never admits when he makes a mistake. I get the impression that he thinks he is the best editor at Wikipedia, and I'm tired of his haughty attitude. It's obstructionist, grating, and frankly disruptive in the worst sort of way. It makes people waste their time.


 * That's all I want to say about this matter. I'm pissed off at this editor and I don't know what to do to get the community to notice how awful he is. Thanks for reading anyway.


 * ScienceApologist (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And how does the discussion at the NPOV board fit into this? The consensus there seemed to be that a mention of homeopathy at the nightshade article was appropriate. --Elonka 00:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The seeming "consensus" is skewed by two damning issues:


 * There was a lot of "me too" !votes from homeopathy-promoters (a number of whom are now banned or effectively banned).
 * The question was phrased poorly. The issue is not "are there any NPOV problems with this statement?" The question really is "What is the appropriate amount of weight homeopathy should receive in an article about Atropa belladonna and why?" People need to provide their reasons for explaining what the appropriate amount of weight is. As it is, I have seen only one person offer an alternative measurement for the weight of homeopathy on plant and chemical articles (User:Filll) and his suggestion was shot down.


 * ScienceApologist (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Cite news
Someone is changing the Template:Cite news without consensus, its been screwed up all day. Can you take a peek. They are experimenting, but it is radically altering the look of references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Forest of red links
Re this change to Chiropractic, which I reverted: could you please follow up at Talk:Chiropractic ? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Aaack, after I created the section Talk:Chiropractic, I noticed you had already put an inuse template on that talk page. Sorry about that. I'll stop editing that talk page now. Eubulides (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I should warn you that the talk page is busy and huge, and it's been that way for months. I'd be curious to know how the archiving bot got "stuck", and how you fixed it; when you do fix it can you please report on the fix in Talk:Chiropractic? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, I've gone ahead and protected the page for now so no one else can add anything. Also, I'd appreciate if you'd revert yourself on the redlinks.  There is method to my madness. :)  Most of the redlinks won't be there for more than a day or so.  In fact, while I'm archiving, it would be helpful if you could scan through them.  Most of them just need simple redirects to existing articles that don't have those abbreviations setup as redirects yet.  For others, simple stubs saying, "This is the journal we're talking about" would be really helpful. --Elonka 20:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have followed up further in Talk:Chiropractic . Eubulides (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As for Spine J: Chiropractic and many other medical articles use the standard journal abbreviations of Pubmed. To find out what an abbreviation stands for, visit the Pubmed web site, change the Search pulldown menu to "Journals", type the journal abbreviation in the text field, and hit the "Go" button. As of this writing if you search with "Spine" you'll see both journals, each with their (distinct) pISSN number. You can use the "Title Abbreviation" fields of the results to disambiguate them. Sorry about creating the red link, but I really would rather not get sucked into the project of writing all those articles on journals. Good luck! Eubulides (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I discussed this issue further at Talk:Chiropractic . I won't edit war over this, but I would appreciate a discussion of the points raised there; the NPOV concerns are real. Eubulides (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

re. Jones and Bartlett
Okay. I understand the situation. Much appreciated, and happy editing, Leonard( Bloom ) 00:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My point, reconfirmed
My, oh my! All your good-meaning advice gone to waste. I guess that settles the issue who is interested in improving wikipedia and who is more into putting down other editors? Arcfrk (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Svetovid back to revert warring
Svetovid is revert warring across multiple articles again. Yesterday I did a major cleanup at the article Móric Benyovszky, added a number of sources. Svetovid just jumped in and reverted the whole thing. Then he noticed his own mistake and reverted himself too, but still deleted the Hungarian names (Verbó, Pöstyén) I applied according to the new naming convention. I also noticed a user said one year ago the article had been listed by a wrong name. I did a research about the possible names and answered. Svetovid edited the article meanwhile, but didn't answer anything about possible problems with the name on the article's talk page. But when I decided to move the article to the proper English name, he jumped in to move it back to the Slovak name (of course), the one that is not used in English sources. In his answer on the talk page he didn't say the new name was wrong, only that he needs a process now. Needless to say he deleted the Hungarian names I had applied according to the naming convention once again. He also changed the meaning of a well-referenced sentence and started using the Slovak name of Benyovszky in the article despite knowing based on my talk page evidence this name is not used in English. Squash Racket (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And all that despite the clear warning from you. Squash Racket (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Mongols again: The Battle of the Kalka River
Hello Elonka. Long time no see! Hope you are well.

I was blundering around and I came across Battle of the Kalka River. It's currently listed as a featured article candidate. I am not, by any means, an expert on the Mongols or Kievan Rus', but I have my doubts as to the quality of the sources. I know that John Fennell devotes only four pages to the first Tatar invasion, most of that to a discussion of the sources and the scale of the events, and Leo de Hartog seems to cover the Kalka campaign in just three pages. Janet Martin just mentions it in passing. Dimnik's Dynasty of Chernigov, not used here, has more detail that any of the sources mentioned already. There may be more, or not, in his Mikhail, Prince of Chernigov and Grand Prince of Kiev, 1224-1246.

In view of the very limited detail found in the works I looked at, I am wondering how it comes about that the article has so much vivid detail on the battle. Like I said, this makes me rather suspicious of the quality of the sources I haven't looked at. Am I being too demanding here? Or is there a problem? Please do let me know what you think! Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

request for help, follow up
Hi Elonka, I left you a message 2 weeks ago which you promptly replied to... but which I didn't see :/ The message was here.

As you requested here are some examples to verify what I was speaking about... to recap, the editor in question was told that the source he disliked was valid as a reference, so he went through deleting all reference to it himself under various pretexts.

1. Comment: “Removed "Zionism on the Web" link. This site has been spammed onto other article pages.” 

Link has been there since article creation, it was added by an Admin, Humus sapiens see and it was there for years until the user removed it as part of a mass removal exersize. This is a common theme.

2. Comment: "Removed "Zionism on the Web" link. This site has been spammed onto other article pages." (note the comment is identical to the one above!)  It was added and in the article with no complaints for 2 years, it is relevant. Added: 

3. Comment: The source documents are useful, but the slanted intros are more than a bit problematic. Does anyone know of other sites offering the originals, without editiorial comment? 

The is irrelevant when it is providing a link to the primary source below. Further what this editor refered to as "slanted" is a biography of a historical personality... I don't see how it can be refered to as slanted as their is no controvery over any of the facts. It is not only a false claim, it is an irrelevant claim.

4. Ber Borochov Comment: (none)

Here the user removed a source with no explanation. If an online source of a historical document is available, what excuse is there for the deleting the link? It makes Wikipedia less useful.

5. Comment: “Cancellation of boycott: removed dodgy statement from equally dodgy source”

This removed all reference to the peace vigil that took place outside the special meeting to cancel the academic boycott by the AUT in 2005. The site (which is mine) is a known resource center for material on the boycotts. The statement is one of fact (that an event happened), the comment is therefore somewhat disconnected to the edit.

6. Comment: It's not immediately clear why AJ6's criticism would be as notable as the ADL's or Brian Klug's

Content removed is about a statement by AJ6, a movement that represents British Jewish students in their final years before university. Their statement expressing the specific concern of these pre-university students in light of an academic boycott are relevant, topical and not able to be substituted. The press release is hosted in the archive with permission from the organisation concerned.

7. Comment: I doubt this is the best possible source that one could find on "dhimmi" status

Content removed is a reference to an on topic article by Dr Denis MacEoin, an expert in the field. It is written for Zionism On The Web, so can not be got from another source. Other articles could ofcource be given, but there is no valid reason for removing this one.

8. Comment: Here -- I'll add a more notable pro-Israel site in its place. I'm not against the inclusion of this perspective, just of the specific site in question. 

This is a clear statement of his intent in the comment.

The content change: Adds a link to Jewish Virtual Library, this is following a complaint after he removed a link to source documents on Zionism stored at Zionism On The Web here.

There can be no grounds for removing that links as it is provides references to key documents on the topic. His extra link is not a substitute.

Summary In summary though, these are just a few of hundreds of deletions this user made. They did this only after an attempt at Wiki lawyering failed and resulted in other editors disagreeing with their claims of a lack of notability, reliability etc. Rather than except the views of the discussion they took unilateral action using false pretexts for removals. Individually these might look like mistakes, or perhaps look plausible enough not to justify further consideration... added together it is a serious case of vandalism, those spread across many articles. Oboler (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Elonka, I don't seem to be getting a reply... neither here nor on my talk page. Could you please let me know if you'll be able to take a quick look at this, or can refer it to someone / somewhere else? Many thanks, Oboler (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll try to take a look sometime today. --Elonka 15:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, if I am understanding things correctly, your main concern is that has been removing links to zionismontheweb.org from multiple articles?  Based on a quick glance, I don't see any major problem with this.  I doubt that the site meets WP:RS standards, or has there been a discussion somewhere which says that it does? --Elonka 00:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There was a discussion at he didn't seemed to like where it was going so left the discussion and started deleting on his own. I was advised by an admin (and clerk) to raise it in the evidence section of the ArbCom case... which I did, but it is not really related to that case, just an outcome of things tangential to the case. I spoke with arbitrators on the case who confirmed that they never looked at it. The tangential things were specifically  taking exception to things I said the press, given I use my real name on Wikipedia he decided to "punish" me here for them. When various attempts to attack me failed, he decided to take the law into his own hands.
 * Note that based on the discussion,  didn't claim it was an invalid source, rather he gave many varied often outright factually wrong reasons (as discussed above) for the various deletions. This was however a dishonest attempt to remove all reference. In short systematic defacement, out of line with the discussion. Oboler (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you tried contacting CJCurrie directly? --Elonka 11:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We had spoken on varous other pages, including the evidence page, but I've now taken your (implied) advise and left him a note on his talk page requesting he undoes the damage. FYI, the note is here . I will however be surpised if he agrees to do this, but you are ofcourse right to suggest trying first anyway. Oboler (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that my assessment of this situation is somewhat different from Oboler's. CJCurrie (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Elonka, as you can see we clearly have a disagreement here (between CJCurrie and myself). I'm not sure your talk page is the place for myself and CJCurrie to discuss it further, but can suggestion on how to proceed? I believe the evidence above makes a solid case that should be reviewed by someone. Many thanks. Oboler (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would recommend focusing on one article where you feel that you have the strongest case for the inclusion of the link, and engage in discussion on the talkpage. If no one objects, the link can be re-added.  If someone objects, then try to build a consensus, and request opinions from other editors, perhaps via an RfC, a third opinion, or posting at a dispute resolution noticeboard, such as the reliable sources noticeboard.  If talkpage consensus is to include the link, then it can go in.  If not, you may wish to try on one other article.  If the consensus on both articles is "don't include the link" though, then I would recommend dropping it at that point. --Elonka 22:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is going to take forever if it needs to be done across all the articles... and it treats this as a large collection of seperate content dispute, which I believe misses the over all aim behind these edits. By themselves the edits are a lot less serious than when they are viewed together as a persistent pattern. Anyway when I have some free time in the next week I'll start on a few of the ones above. Thanks. Oboler (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

COI, advice (or warning)
Concerning http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HeroEngine&diff=223191875&oldid=223186903 you might want to let others take care of it, as you have a bit of a conflict of interest. Remember: we don't have to win, don't have to have our way. The truth emerges slowly sometimes, and it's not necessary to try to force it through.

At any rate, you at least have the appearance of a conflict of interest, so it's in your interest and everyone else's to let it be for the time. I won't risk being patronizing by telling you to have a cup of coffee and a Danish or something, but it's not worth fighting for an edit or a point of view. Geogre (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and you are absolutely correct that I have a COI where that article is concerned. But don't worry, I'm not going rogue here. :)  There were extenuating circumstances involved, and I have been keeping neutral administrators apprised of my one edit to the article. Also, I would point out to you that a warning is really only appropriate if my edits actually violate policy, and so far I have been improving the article, not adding anything detrimental.


 * To give you more detail on the situation, I probably wouldn't have even edited it at all, except for the fact that recently, one of our fans added a bunch of cruft to the article, then one of our competitors tagged it as spam, and an admin who wasn't paying attention, deleted the entire article. So I requested for it to be undeleted, and then since the admin placed a ton of tags on it (because the article was in appalling shape), I took that opportunity to do a serious cleanup. I made one (1) edit, and added many sources.  I have also asked several people, both off-wiki and on, to review what I did.  (BTW, the competitor's tagging has been deleted out of history, but admins can see it in the logs.  The competitor had been trying to push through an article about their own product, which article had already been deleted three times as spam over the last year.  Then they created it a fourth time, and evidently as a diversionary tactic, tagged the competing product HeroEngine article as spam)


 * From this point forward, don't worry, I do not intend to spend a lot of time on the article. If no one else does it, I will probably add an infobox and some other (sourced) factoids.  I have also sent a request to my company's art department, to see about making some freely-licensed images available.  I sincerely doubt that you'll see me make more than one or two edits.  And again, if you (or anyone) sees that I have added any problematic or policy-violating information, I encourage you to delete or change it on the spot.  I will not edit war.   But I sincerely doubt that you are going to see any problems, as I am well aware of Wikipedia policies, and have no intention of doing anything to damage the project. My only desire is to improve. --Elonka 15:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for cleaning up Talk:Search engine optimization. I view that as an olive branch. Jehochman Talk 17:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also a reminder that perhaps you're not the best person to be questioning whether I am editing articles in a COI way, hmm? I would not have tagged the Search engine optimization article, even though that's your industry, you edited the article heavily in 2007, are currently involved in a lawsuit over it, and are still continuing to edit the article.  I think that your behavior is highly questionable, but even so, I wouldn't tag the article unless I could point to specific things that required cleanup. --Elonka 18:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Per WP:COI, experts are not prevented from editing topics within their field. The "lawsuit" is actually a trademark opposition I've filed  where both sides have cited the Wikipedia article as evidence. (USPTO accepts Wikipedia as a valid source to determine common usage.)  I have scrupulously refrained from editing those sections cited as evidence.  All my recent edits are either trivial spam removals (this article is a honeypot (computing)), or avoid the issue in question (whether SEO is a process or a service).  I was unaware of the trademark application until April 2008, and only filed opposition in May 2008. My editing in 2007 is completely irrelevant.  You'll notice that the article (in fact, all of Wikipedia) has exactly zero references to me, even though I am widely known in the field and have published several articles that could be used as references. Jehochman Talk 18:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Pirmasis
I saw your tagged cold borscht with unreferenced, but can you examine the user's comment like this after I asked him/her motivation for the page moves? If I were a Jewish, I feel very offended by such the comment.--Caspian blue (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, I'm watching. He's on the edge right now.  However, please also be careful about your own actions.  Adding comments to redirects to "spike them down" is a bit on the tacky side.  Better is to leave them alone.  If someone is move-warring, we'll deal with the users directly. --Elonka 18:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Spike them down? What are you talking about? Are you insinuating that I'm hunting a witch? is to prevent undiscussed move. I don't understand your interpretation. That is not an advisable advice from admins as well as offensive language, I believe. --Caspian blue (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am saying exactly that, that it is bad practice to add a comment to a redirect, to prevent a page move. In some cases you may be right, in other cases maybe not, but it's a bad idea because it implies that one user is enforcing their own idea of which pages can and can't be moved, and that's not wiki. So please don't do it again. If you see someone moving pages in a controversial way, warn them on their talkpages, tell them about WP:RM, and/or notify an administrator. --Elonka 18:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I get it. However, I've seen such practice done by many other editors, so I did not realize that it can be problematic until now. But your way of speaking is really not eloguent and makes miscommunication. As for non-English speaker, "spike them down" sounds bad connotation.(well, not good meaning though) I will remove the hidden remarks anyway.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for any miscommunication. When I said "spike them down", I meant like to use a hammer and nails to keep them in place.  And yes, I know that some other editors do this, but they should not.  I will keep watch on Pirmasis, who seems to be Lithuanian.  His edits are allowed as long as he is not edit-warring or doing anything controversial.  If you see anything that is a problem, please let me know.  Thanks, --Elonka 19:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch
Elonka, could you look at User:ScienceApologist's tone Talk:Quackwatch. I thought we were starting to discuss points one by one but he has come down with heavy sarcasm on User:ImperfectlyInformed. He has also done a revert back to an old version that removed the work I did putting in a "Responses" section instead of either a "Criticism" or "Recognition". Itsmejudith (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Fact checking
For the record, Elonka, I was not desysopped. If I hadn't made myself open to recall I'd still be a sysop. Please do not repeat that mistaken assertion again. And btw, the Joan of Arc vandal report has always been universally praised. I wish you wrote more reports of that sort, the way Cailil does--when you sought my nomination for your RFA you promised to help at WP:SSP; I'm still waiting for you to make good on that pledge. Durova Charge! 17:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)