User talk:Elonka/Archive 30

Elonka-Reply
I'll see about putting together a User Page in the next couple of days/weeks. As soon as I get some free time - although given your schedule I should be ashamed to make that statement. 8-) Thanks again. ttonyb1 (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Nice to be appreciated, I wasn't sure how to code this one, but I don't think it helps build an encyclopaedia.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  19:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I went ahead and blanked it. --Elonka 19:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Notice thanks
Thank you for your notice. I will be mindful of your words. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding. :) --Elonka 21:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please Help Me Elonka
I promise to ask questions and not do thinks out here that will violate your policies. I love Wikipedia and would not intenionally seek to do anyone any harm out here. Please give me a second chance. If in doubt about what I'm doing out here, I promise I will ask questions. Californiawine (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank You Elonka
I love Wikipedia and always tell everyone about it. Thank you for your kindness and forgiveness. I promise to abide by all your policies. Thanks again. Californiawine (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind...
Elonka,

I appreciate the apologetic note you left on my talk page the other day. I wonder if you might have a word with ...I forsee that any comment from me regarding this uncivil comment may fall on deaf ears. Since you're already familiar with the edit war and 3RR report in question, perhaps you might be well-equipped to offer a bit of a clue to this editor. Thanks, &mdash; Scientizzle 20:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Already done. :) I'm not so sure I'd call what he's doing trolling though, but it's definitely a personal attack, and if he does it again, I'll block. --Elonka 20:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. &mdash; Scientizzle 20:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok fair enough. But what of Scien''tizzle's questionable reverts that he falsely marked as Minor at least twice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassandoodle (talk • contribs) 20:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

149.254.192.192/26
That range should not be unblocked; it is the source of a huge sockfarm, and pretty much only the puppetmaster uses that range. -- Avi (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks! :) --Elonka 20:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, CU confirmed that that was the puppetmaster asking for the unblock. I guess it's working [[image:face-wink.svg|25px]] Thanks!! -- Avi (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Podcast on controversial articles
MastCell suggested that you might be a good person to include in a podcast that Scartol and I are planning about controversial articles. We have started a series of podcasts on improving article content (our first one was on copyediting). If you are interested, please sign up here. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Danko Georgiev MD
In the RfC for Slrubenstein Elonka you provided this this diff. I wonder whether you actually bothered to read it as it was an attempted outing of me. Theresa Knott had to remove the attempted outing. The person with whom this user identified me on-wiki and on various mathematics forums in which I participated, was Alan Weinstein, Chairman of Mathematics at UC Berkeley, whom I know personally. User:Danko Georgiev MD gave full information about himself on wikipedia pages, subsequently removed after the incident. I have sent John Vandenberg a copy of the personal email from his acting Ph.D. supervisor sent on July 25th 2007. On the other hand I don't quite see the point of quoting a diff where I was outed on WP:AN/I as evidence of my bad behaviour: Georgiev was blocked for a day by an arbitrator jpgordon and then reblocked indefinitely. Please explain why you posted this diff? You have previously not blocked User:Koalorka when he referred to me on his talk page as a "butt-hurt marxist foaming at the mouth". Are you now somehow implying that users are justified in attempting to reveal personal information about me on WP, and that somehow I deserved it? Mathsci (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hang on. Elonka is not directly accountable to you personally. We are all here accountable for all postings, but the way to go about certain complex issues is to get them into dispute resolution. I think you'll give me credit for knowing that territory. I have tried by email to deal with things, and have told you I'm listening. One private email of mine, from very recently, ended up as the basis of you posting to this page giving a version of what was certainly meant as a private discussion. In other words, I'm not convinced that patient attempts to deal fairly offline with things, as they come up, are working.


 * Where does that leave us? I think, Mathsci, we either aim to open an ArbCom case Elonka-Mathsci, dealing with what has become a complicated matter in that fashion. Or you and Elonka agree to and stick to a pact to ignore each other completely on the site from now on. A remedy requiring complete mutual avoidance is one likely outcome of a case in Arbitration, and would then not be voluntary but compulsory.


 * I think, Mathsci, it is time for you to indicate your intentions. If you regard yourself as free to bring up matters of this kind tangential to another dispute resolution process, in which comment is generally considered as not trammelled in the way you suggest, you had better say so explicitly. We shall then know where we are, and the likely outcome would be a proposal at WP:RFAR for a case, since the whole matter otherwise appears to me intractable. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The comment above was already discussed at some length with John Vandenberg, on and off wiki, but I take your point. I would be overjoyed if there could be an agreement or pact that Elonka and I should stay away from each other, if that is what you are proposing. If that is what is on offer, I would welcome that with a great sigh of relief. Mathsci (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect the devil would be in the detail, though. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Charles, where there is a will, there is a way. :) Mathsci (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Two Way Time and Mk 92 Guided Missile Fire Control System
Elonka, thanks for the help. I inadvertently put the article on the system. I have notes that I am going to type up this weekend on to the Wiki. Sorry about the incident. --Two way time (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize! If anything, the stub may have been tagged too fast.  Given a choice though, I'm glad that you are being bold and creating new content.  :)  I was just trying to give advice on how to have the best of both worlds, where you can take your time in creating a stub, and also not have to worry about the risk of being caught by an overzealous tagger.  :) --Elonka 19:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Archiving
Hi, thanks for the offer. I generally archive my talk page manually and don't have any problem in archiving if regularly done. It became too long because I did not archive it for a long time, will archive it shortly. Thanks. -- Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

We've never met but.....
I was looking at User:MBisanz/ACE2008 and noticed you were in the declined section which I thought was a shame. I suspect you would have had good deal of support from the "quieter" individuals in the admin corps and from the wider community. Ah well. Still nine days to reconsider! CIreland (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks. I guess if enough people posted to my talkpage and asked me to run, I might think about it (I am but a humble servant of the wiki ...) But at the moment I'm really not that interested.  Don't worry though, I think there are still a few other good candidates that will be stepping forward, so hang in there.  :) --Elonka 02:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Politicization of Wikipedia
A few months ago I wrote an essay on this problem, in which you are something of a star. I didn't tell you about it then, because I wrote the article in userspace, more or less just for myself. But since then a few people have visited and made comments (mostly favorable), so I think it might also interest you. It is at User:Ravpapa/The_Politicization_of_Wikipedia.

You are welcome to read it, in fact, I would be delighted if you did. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, I saw it, and it was discussed a bit at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah. :) --Elonka 06:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I had no idea anyone had actually discussed this. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Things have quieted down considerably, so if you'd like to help editing the article, feel free. Or, if you'd like to check out another complex Wikipedia dispute, you might want to take a look at the Chiropractic article.  :) --Elonka 06:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Hi - I've made a detailed reply at User talk:Tmtoulouse. Thanks. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   18:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Paul Pantone
Hello, you seem to be the expert on topics like this.

user:guyonthesubway put the wrong date on Paul Pantone's article, I corrected this, it was immediately reverted by user:Arthur Rubin, I asked for a 3rd opinion and I put the correct date and 2 sources in the article, I do remember the date myself, the reviewing editor also reverted the date and deleted my request. But it's the wrong date, I asked for an explanation, the response was that I should use the talk page to discuss my dispute, But there cant be any dispute? The sources are correct. I then get sort-of accused of edit warring?Talk:Paul_Pantone

The story is as simple as it is horrifying. Pantone was refused his right to have a lawyer, he was hospitalised indefinitely without any sentencing. This happened in 2005, the other editors want to change this into 2008. Looking over the archive everything added to the article seems to get deleted?

This is an American inventor of great importance. See this whole video, what he says isn't important, just looking will tell you enough about the oil monopoly. Hundreds of GEET engines exist, here are 100 of them in France. Trucks, cars, generators, mowers and tractors. etc All running on a mixture of water and old oil, petroleum, alcohol and just about everything else. (see the video)

People should be building this, not lying about it. There are so much lies in the edit archive it's kind of obvious. But lets focus on the date? Where does Jan 2008 come from? It was in 2005! I know it was, the news says it was, the Paul Pantone defence program website says it was. So why 2008? Where did this date come from? I don't see how I can debate the need to cite sources on the article talk page, do you?

I thought perhaps you can shine your light on this darkness :-) They are kinda obvious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Pantone&action=history

Thanks,

Resess (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (See also: User talk:Resess.) — Athaenara ✉  19:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, in case you still want to say something about this. I've created a topic here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=252142130#Paul_Pantone

Thanks, Resess (talk) 12:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support!
Thanks for supporting my successful Rfa! Per your concern, I will be trying to devote some time to content creation from now on. Hope to work with you soon!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 20:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Second Intifada
Hi Elonka,

My apologies, I only saw your warning on that talk page after explaining my edits which were challenged by Nishamdi on the Talk page, and then reverting Nishandi's revert of my edits. I'll take a voluntary break form this page for a while, as I don't appreciate the lack of collegiality being displayed there. NoCal100 (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent post
I really like this. You made me smile on a miserable Sunday morning. Thanks. Alun (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome. I look forward to when we can put this one to bed, and get back to work on the articles! :) --Elonka 06:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Tone
PalestineRemembered, please do not use such language as "racists" towards other editors. If you continue with this kind of language, you may be placed under ArbCom restrictions. Instead, please limit your comments on article talkpages just to the content of the articles, and do not make comments about the contributors. Thanks, --Elonka 22:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've not pointed a finger at anyone in particular(and I fully understand that you'd prefer I not do so). I'm simply reminding you that more editors easily identified as racists have arrived at article Second Intifada:
 * Where they're doing untold damage - even Israeli newspapers have called this intifada a "war on the Palestinian people" and told us that the ""first three months ... Israeli casualties was low ... IDF proudly cited the large number of Palestinian casualties". Other people we'd confidently expect to support Israel say things like "Even under Barak, the Israeli response to the initial violence by Palestinians was massive and disproportionate, clearly aimed at devastation rather than controlling the uprising".
 * Under these circumstances, the mass tag-team and edit-warring going on to remove every vestige of these elements (including the widely commentd and astonishing one million bullets fired in the first few days), by editors who refer to the victims as "crack-head Arabs" and in some cases are reasonably suspected of a personal involvement that they refuse to deny is racism. It's vaguely disturbing I need to remind you that racists are indef-blocked from the project every day because I know you'd have no sympathy with them. PRtalk 09:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Your message
Elonka, you might like to know that Charles Matthews and I had discussed you in reference to Slrubenstein's RfC already on Monday. I've had a similar discussion with Paul August on a related matter some time back. It has been agreed that your interference can sometimes be counter-productive. This is just a friendly reminder, so that in future you can avoid jumping the gun and intervening in matters which don't directly concern you. Even though it is undoubtedly not your intent, this kind of intervening out of the blue can come across as bullying and threatening, and might occasionally cause offense. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally could you please remove the template from the bottom of this page? User talk:Elonka was not a battle fought between the Greeks and the Persians, at least as far as Herodotus of Halicarnassus was concerned. Or is there is there something I've missed? Mathsci (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A kindly spirit, Acalamari, has added a colon which solves the mystery :-) Mathsci (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at that RfC (at least not yet), but I believe a large part of the whole purpose of RfCs is to invite uninvolved people to give their opinions, so I don't think it's valid to criticize someone for doing so. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 11:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, to clarify, Mathsci did raise an issue about the RfC and whether it would be "diverted". There are people who are more set on that than Elonka, and I've had a busy time on the talk page there trying to point out what the topic actually is. I also encouraged Mathsci to bring issues and concerns with Elonka to me at any time, and explained a bit about overall policy as I see it. That was the mail, really. This is a normal sort of mediation-lite: respond to current issues and explain that I'm listening and wish to reduce tension. I appreciate that this is a fraught moment, but I've tried to deal with the whole Mathsci side on the RfC talk page there, to reduce misconceptions and try to stop people getting the wrong end of the stick. The block episode is closed, on the issue that set it off, and there is no reason for it to be hashed over further. On the other hand, the RfC is about getting a proper discussion and (I sincerely hope) divert any future unblockings that put the cart before the horse. Enough metaphors for now ... I'm obviously sending you people private mails also. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Mathsci may have misremembered, or read more into our discussions than was intended. Paul August &#9742; 19:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Paul. I'm not going to quote your email on wiki, since it was private: it concerned the posting of apologies. I'll anyway be in contact with you privately on related matters. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Review
Shell Kinney has made a conclusion about the existence of a consensus here. When you have the time, I would like you to review these conclusions. My contention is that the "clear consensus" which she describes does not exist and that the community has not agreed to suspend the policy of WP:NOR in order to use non-chiropractic spinal manipulation research out of context in a manner which their authors did not intend them to be used (to discuss the efficacy/safety of chiropractic). Again, when you have the time, would you please review the sum of the various RfCs and see if you think such a clear consensus exists? Thank you. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, will take a look. I did see it go by, but to be honest, I did not take the time to personally review all of the same pages that she did.  If/when I have time though, I'll try to do so, and will let you know, one way or the other.  For what it's worth, she's a member of WP:MEDCOM, so has a fairly good track record of dealing with complex disputes.  I recommend respecting her decision for now...  Are there are other issues on the page that are worth discussing in the meantime?  Or does everything really hinge on this one point?  --Elonka 02:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, trying to be precise: if the post indicates that there is consensus that having Spinal Manipulation in the Chiropractic article is not original research, there was definitely no consensus on that. There was only consensus that editors believe that SM is related to Chiro, which is a totally obvious observation.  But I'm spread too thin right now... —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 03:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My guess is that Shell overlooked a lot of editors' input in this regard. Many outside editors (like Martinphi) agreed that the article is engaging in OR when it presents non-chiropractic spinal manipulation in a discussion about chiropractic's efficacy. I respect Shell's objectivity, but I think she is really overlooking inside and outside agreement that the article does contain OR. To list a few editors who agreed that there is OR as described: Myself, Dematt, Martinphi, Ludwig2 (outside editor), DigitalC, Surturz (was outside when he.she firt commented on this), ZayZayEm (outside editor), TheDoctorIsIn, and MaxPont (outside editor). That's at least 9 editors strong who feel that there is an OR violation when we present non-chiropractic research as a means to discuss chiropractic. I just can't see how Shell can think there was a consensus in the face of this many dissenting opinions. My best guess is that she simply overlooked the majority of these editors' responses. But maybe there is actually something which I am overlooking here. Unfortunately, much our discussions hinge on Shell's conclusion about this supposed consensus to the point where she won't even let us discuss our points in the ongoing mediation. Anyhow, when you get a chance. Much appreciated. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend checking with Tim Vickers and getting his take on this as well, before drawing any conclusions on the point.Woonpton (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Elonka, I suggest you not be diverted from the main issue here, which is whether OR actually is occurring when Wikipedia editors do what chiropractic's top researchers and other chiropractors do all the time. The "consensus" issue is another matter that can easily divert you from the main point. Even if there is doubt about whether a consensus exists, the main issue is still whether OR is occurring. In short, there are two issues. One is the main point of the whole series of discussions, RfCs, and stonewalling over several months, all maintained and driven by Levine2112 (supported by several "straight" chiropractic supporters), and the other is the one presented to you here as a diversion from that point. What this amounts to is more admin shopping. -- Fyslee / talk 05:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka, you are not obligated to decide if OR is occuring. Mr. Fyslee says you are being diverted from making such a decision; however, you giving your personal opinion on the content dispute would invalidate you as an univolved admin. Rather, I came here asking you to evaluate a string of discussions to determine if truly any consensus does exist; a request - should you chose to honor - completely in the realm of an uninvolved admin. Yes? Either way, thanks. I appreciate the response thus far. :-) -- Levine2112 discuss 09:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Some non-technical sources might be useful as an introduction, since many of the reviews aren't free-access. Chiropractors are offering 'worthless' form of treatment, Spinal manipulation 'has little effect on back pain' and Back treatment 'has few benefits'. There is also this older and more positive NYT article Back Manipulation Gains Respectability. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * TimVickers, have you had a chance to review Shell Kinney's consensus determination here? Would you concur with her summary, or do you disagree? --Elonka 18:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest I see it as a compete no-brainer that studies on the effectiveness of spinal manipulation (the core technique of chiropractors) should be cited in this article, and we should follow the lead of other RS that also cite such studies to comment on chiropracty. I said this in two of the more recent RfCs. However, since I commented in these RfCs I don't want to try to assess the consensus, since I have an obvious bias. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No leave me on for now, I'm not going to edit the article, I'm instead going to try to continue to provide an uninvolved opinion on the talkpage. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll just remove myself from the log. I'm falling between two stools - not an editor, but too well-known to the disputants to act without drama. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've relisted myself as providing outside advice/opinion on talkpage, which is a specific category in the policy. I'll follow the "best practice" it defines of course. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to a past discussion on reviews of SM research. See User talk:Elonka/Archive 27..  Q ua ck Gu ru   19:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear here, if I review the discussions, it will not be to give my personal opinion on whether spinal manipulation does or doesn't relate to chiropractic. Instead, I will be reading with an eye towards describing the consensus of the discussions that have already taken place. Will keep you posted, --Elonka 01:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yakumo (Naruto)
Why was this one deleted? Seems a better target has been found, Land of Fire. Could you restore the redirect? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I re-created it, and left a note for the deleting admin. They did the right thing, but now that we've got a better target, it makes sense to re-create the redirect.  One thing you could help with though, is sourcing?  The paragraph at Land of Fire would be greatly strengthened if there were a third-party source attached to it.  :)  Thanks, --Elonka 19:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind sourcing, Land of Fire was redirected . Guess we'll have to delete the redirects for real this time ... Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Y'know, I'd actually rather see Land of Fire redirected to Tierra del Fuego, with a disambig note that mentions the Naruto entity. Or if not, we'd better add a redirect tag to the current target. --Elonka 17:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can hatnote that section like this:
 * Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've given it more thought, and I feel strongly that it should go to Tierra del Fuego (since, after all, "Land of Fire" is a bolded alternate term in the lead). Looking at a pop culture Google search, it's about equal (30,000 hits) for either topic. But if you actually look at academic/published sources (scholar.google.com, books.google.com), it's clear that Tierra del Fuego is the proper target.  If Land of Fire were still its own page, it might be appropriate to keep the link there.  But now that it's just a few lines buried on a separate page?  No, Tierra del Fuego is the way to go. --Elonka 18:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever you want to do about that sounds fine. I just want Yakumo (Naruto), Kurama (Naruto), Yakumo Kurama, and Kurama Yakumo deleted or targeting an area which mentions the character. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you have taken care of the hatnoting, but what about the unneeded redirects? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you think of anywhere that it would make sense to work them in? For example, to expand the "Land of Fire" paragraph in the World of Naruto article?  Are the characters notable enough for that?  If they're mentioned there, then it would make sense to keep the redirects around.  But if they're not notable enough for even a mention in a subsection of any article, we can probably tag the redirects for deletion. --Elonka 17:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the character is too minor to mention. Think that's one of the reasons why Land of Fire was redirected, it was a non-notable subject. Moving on, what tags should be placed on the redirects? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka, are you ignoring this post? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I had backburnered it since I was hoping to find some other location where the characters might fit. Is there an urgency for deleting the redirects? I guess you could file an RfD on them. --Elonka 19:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That'd be a waste of time. Why didn't you just say you were reluctant to erase them? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikivulture
I like it. So much that I posted a preliminary description on the Fauna talk page for comments and requested elaboration. Feel free to add anything you like to it. There is actually an example on my talk page under Recent Coal Mining Edits, but that's not the only time its happened in my short stint on Wiki.

Also, thanks for your earlier message referring to the interesting essay on a different subject. We all need a little humor here sometimes. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you receive my offsite email? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and have replied. And if you use IMs, feel free to contact me that way as well.  :) --Elonka 22:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts
Thanks very much for trying to keep things calm and focused. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   21:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You invited me to express any further concerns I had in respect of Earle Martin's actions here. I'm deeply unimpressed that he thinks there was anything at all wrong or misguided in his actions, according to his response to my expression of concern, and I think it makes him an unsafe admin. I don't propose to take the matter further but would not wish to walk away as if everything if fine. Everything is not fine. Admins should not misuse their access to tools, and ideally should be big enough to acknowledge even singular errors of judgment. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that there were some questionable decisions made. However, it's also worth remembering that admins are human, and make mistakes. Though I agree that it looks like Earle Martin may have gotten a bit too close to this one issue, and he definitely made a bad block, I haven't seen anything to indicate that there's a pattern of behavior here, so I don't think it's worth de-sysopping someone over.  Heck, if we de-sysopped every admin who made a single mistake, we wouldn't have many left.  :) I do agree though that it would be helpful if Earle were to acknowledge the community's concerns here.  Apologies can be very useful at de-escalating tense situations.  --Elonka 16:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks, Elonka, for your block here:. I usually wait until a final warning has been given, but I reported this user because of the (creepy) nature of their edits. Cheers, JNW (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I reviewed the contribs and deleted contribs, and it was obvious that there was nothing productive coming from that account. --Elonka 16:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the warning; I was consciously trying to avoid 3RR and would not have done a 4th revert. I will mention things like that on the Talk Page in the future (though this user claims to be 'unaware' of Talk Pages, hehe). I did attempt to contact the user directly (could have been a little more personable I guess), as you can see on his Talk, at least. DP 76764 (Talk) 20:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that you've been careful about that, but be aware that a block can still be issued even if you don't go over 3RR. As for your comments at the other editor's talkpage, it's better than nothing, but even better than that, would have been to make at least one or two good faith approaches, before immediately jumping to a 3RR warning.  I find a useful technique is to imagine that I'm dealing with a respected elder who's a bit befuddled by this whole "internet thing".  So just because they're doing things "wrong" doesn't mean that they're being malicious -- they may just be really confused!  So a bit of patient explanation can sometimes do wonders, rather than jumping to an immediate bite of a new user. For example, on the first revert, start a thread at the talkpage which explains the disagreement.  Then in your revert edit summaries put "see talk".  Then if the reverting continues, post a note to the other editor's talkpage like, "Hi, I see we're having a dispute at .  I'd like to try and work this out amicably, could you please join the discussion at ?  Thanks."  Then if they still ignore you, a 3RR warning is definitely appropriate.  But you really have to show that you at least tried to work things out in a friendly way. Not just to satisfy policy requirements, but because it really can help de-escalate disputes.  Look at it this way: Since you and this other editor obviously have similar areas of interest, wouldn't it be better to help tutor them on the Ways of the Wiki, so you have a useful ally in the topic area?  We definitely need all the good editors we can get!  :) --Elonka 20:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Completely agree (I seem to have gotten rusty on my 'customer service' skills). Either that or too much cynicism about 'that dang ol internetz'.  Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go kick myself for forgetting these basic customer service techniques.  DP 76764  (Talk) 20:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Re; Request
Good idea. I added a diff to my comment in the RFC section. I probably need to add more diffs, but I am a little tired at the moment, and need to eat and sleep. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And I know it may seem odd to you, because you're extremely familiar with the article and its sources.  But to someone coming in "cold" for an RfC, all they have to start is maybe a one-line question about "Is WP:SYNTH being violated", and then they get to the talkpage and it just says, "So and so removed sources", but it doesn't say which sources, or why it was a problem.  So it can be really helpful in an RfC to have a few sentences which describe just what exactly the problem is.  That way outside commenters can focus their energies on discussing the exact point of dispute, without having to spend an hour (or more!) sifting through everything.  Which, to be honest, most of them won't do.  If it takes more than 10 minutes, they're already gone.  ;) --Elonka 22:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Elonka, just want to drop by to say thanks for your diligence in notifying WikiProjects about related AFDs. Most recently, you flagged the Chamberlain-Ferris Act, which we weren't aware existed, and yet which moves us significantly forward in our plans to cover a broader subject. Your note, like so many before it, is very much appreciated! -Pete (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the kind words. :)  I just recently installed the Delsort tab for Twinkle, and I have to admit that I've been having fun churning through AfDs and figuring how to properly notify the correct projects.  That particular AfD about the Chamberlain-Ferris Act was problematic, because it didn't seem to fit into any one clear category. So I opted to notify several, including California and Oregon.  Thanks for letting me know that it was the right choice!  Thanks also for your own efforts in improving the encyclopedia, --Elonka 00:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: album
heh. oops. Do you think I should restore it? I mean, I don't think there's going to be any reliable info about it. (I know that doesn't necessarily mean it qualifies for CSD, but it seems, well, dumb to restore it and then prod it.) Thingg &#8853; <sup style="color:#ff0033;">&#8855;  03:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ I really don't think it's a good idea to restore the other page though. I will do it, but I don't think it's a good idea at all. Especially after seeing this. Thingg <sup style="color:#33ff00;">&#8853; <sup style="color:#ff0033;">&#8855;  03:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ehh.. I'll just let the AfD run it's course. It's probably better that way anyway. Thanks for the heads-up about the album article btw. Thingg <sup style="color:#33ff00;">&#8853; <sup style="color:#ff0033;">&#8855;  03:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * oh crap. I've been found out. *jumps through window* yeah I've been monitoring it for a while. I'm a pretty new admin and I've been really busy in RL lately so I haven't had much time to use the new toys tools and I noticed there were like 130 entries in C:CSD around 00:00 UTC so I worked on clearing that out and then just kind of kept hanging around there. Thingg <sup style="color:#33ff00;">&#8853; <sup style="color:#ff0033;">&#8855;  04:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Now you're making me hungry..... (mmm... junk food...) heh. anyway, thanks again for the help. I've got to get to bed now, so you can have CSD all to yourself. ;) Thingg <sup style="color:#33ff00;">&#8853; <sup style="color:#ff0033;">&#8855;  04:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

6afraidof7
Yes, we are one and the same. --Heslopian (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Lucky, lucky
I've noticed you've a Wiki-article about you. I wonder how many Wiki editors can claim that (besides you & JW)? GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Might try Wikipedians with articles, not that rare it seems.  MBisanz  talk 22:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting list. Any idea how many are admins? --Elonka 16:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wowsers. I guess there's quite a few. Thee Roger Ebert is a Wikipedian??GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Music Glue
"Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content[3] is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria.

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[4] except for the following: Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5] Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores."

I protest the speedy deletion of the Music Glue article. According to the above description, the website is significant. It was reported on by the popular New Zealand current affairs television show Campbell Live just yesterday. You can see it here: http://www.3news.co.nz/Video/CampbellLive/tabid/367/articleID/80773/cat/84/Default.aspx

It has also been reported on by this website: http://www.dmwmedia.com/tags/music-glue

As you can see in the above article, the hugely popular band Marillion has partnered with Music Glue, and is using their service to distribute their newly released album, Happiness is the Road.

I believe this is sufficient evidence to show that this web content article is significant and does not deserve speedy deletion.

Regards, Anonymousaperson (talk) 08:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the message. I took another look at the Music Glue article, and the deletion was appropriate, because there were not any sources there at the time, and the content that was listed, seemed promotional in nature.  Please do not take it personally:  Many thousands of articles are attempted on Wikipedia each day, and many thousands are deleted within minutes, because a lot of spam comes in.  It's a fairly brutal process, but we still get over a thousand "real" articles that stick around each day, so overall it works.  :) If you do feel that "Music Glue" is genuinely notable, I recommend trying to create an article in your userspace, at User:Anonymousaperson/Draft.  That way you can take your time adding sources.  When you think the page is ready, ask another Wikipedian (such as myself) to review it, and if we think it's ready, we can move it into "article space".  If not, we can give you specific instructions on what needs to be improved.  How does that sound? --Elonka 20:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

archiving
Thanks Elonka! I would definitely appreciate your help! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Thanks again! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Scheduled Tribe Status of Meenas
Hi Elonka,

I see you have removed the section about the Scheduled Tribe status of Meenas in India. Please note that "Scheduled Tribe" is a constitutional term for socially undermined groups. The term is kosher in public discourse and is not derogotary. Meenas are the most widely known Scheduled Tribe of Rajasthan. Not to allow this fact to be documented in a clear manner in the wikipedia article makes it a totally inauthentic with no reflection of the real world. If you want this article to have any semblance of crediblity, you need to restore that section (with spelling corrections, of course). All the references from reliable sources were provided there.--Satyashodak (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message, but I think there is some confusion. I did not remove any threads.  All of the information about scheduled tribes, are still on the talkpage.  I did, however, move some threads.  The oldest are now at the top, and the newest at the bottom.  I also moved a very few old old threads to Talk:Meenas/Archive 1. Everything else is still there. --Elonka 20:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

6afraidof7
I wasn't aware I was being dishonest, and I certainly have no intention of causing a problem. The fact is I had grown dissatisfied with the work produced under my old user name, 6afraidof7, so I decided to simply discard it and start all over again. I share my computer with somebody else who also contributes articles via my user page, so I think that's where the misunderstanding may have arisen. --Heslopian (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. Sorry if I caused a problem. --Heslopian (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Ershad
Go ahead and undelete it you think it's the right call. I have to say that I also took into account the incoherence of that blurb but that may be a bit unfair. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, I'd say leave it deleted. It was definitely borderline, and the band article, Artcell, is borderline as well, considering there are no sources yet. --Elonka 17:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

crosslinking
Hi! ...

MBisanz and I are crosslinking, and included you at the top of ours. Maybe you want to include us too? I think he's working up a template. If more people do this it will be nifty to crosslink further... Cheers. ++Lar: t/c 22:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely! Thanks for letting me know, I've added your link.  And I agree, I'd like to see some one-stop shopping on this.  :) --Elonka 22:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I wrote up Template:ACE guides as a template for the guides, feel free to tweak it.  MBisanz  talk 23:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Film Infobox
Hi Elonka, I'm sorry that you never got a chance to take a second look at this edit. Please let me point out that your edit was based on declared consensus by an involved editor ignoring the Evaluating the consensus procedures that require a relevant discussion to be evaluated and closed by an uninvolved editor. But since you were never provided with a link to the actual discussion, like the first time when consensus was similarly declared but rejected by an uninvolved administrator, it never was possible to evaluate and close it with either Promote, No consensus, or Failed. In any case, I'd appreciate if you'd give it a second chance. Please take a look at the actual discussions, please evaluate and close those appropriately and then whatever your decision is going to be, either please revert your edit or leave it the same, in any case I'm going to have to respect your findings either there was an actual consensus or not and leave it with that.

The discussion has been spread a bit but here are the major parts where a number of editors support and oppose the removal of links from infobox for various reasons  and the discussion still somewhat continues at  and. thanks!--Termer (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright talk page malfunction
Elonka, is the Copyright article talk page somehow protected? I've tried three times to create a new section there headed "Tags" and it doesn't take. Shows up in my "contributions" list tho. Following is the text of the section I've been trying to create:

For a former featured article, this one has too many tags for neutrality, verification and references. Is somebody using these tags inappropriately? The tag for neutrality says there is a dispute, but there is no dispute noted on this talk page for that section. The article appears to have adequate, authoritative references which can easily be verified with hot links. Isn't it time the tags were removed, or whoever put them there made a real contribution to the article instead of merely being critical? Dr. Perfessor (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a broken "ref" tag, which was hiding all the messages after it. I've fixed the tag and removed the duplicate postings.  Sorry for the confusion!  --Elonka 03:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Looks good now. Dr. Perfessor (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Alirezaabbas
See here and less importantly, an update to here. -- Enzuru 02:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

AE
If you don't mind terribly, could you move your comment down to "comments after reblock?" Just my attempt to control the visual chaos.--Tznkai (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind.--Tznkai (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Muhammed al-Durrah sources used
Hi Elonka - you're sort-of looking after Muhammed al-Durrah - could you either remind editors of the importance of using good sources, or act against those defending the use of hate-mongering and WP-distorting sources? It's very difficult to edit properly or discuss sensibly when being harassed by nonsense from people who've been repeatedly told to leave me alone, and other editors so abusive that even their personal smears are transparently false. PRtalk 09:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

House of Lusignan
Translated, printed documents, with citations from which secondary source they have been drawn, aren't "primary sources": please don't delete the very material articles are required to cite. Deleting isn't editing: perhaps you'd be willing to incorporate the substance of the quotation in the text. Deleted material is often lost in the page history, unless a sharp-sighted editor catches it in time. Thank you. --Wetman 04:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please check again. By your revert, you just put bad information and typos back into the article. :/  I've been cleaning up a series of articles that were targeted with POV pushing related to Mongol operations. --Elonka 04:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have done so and find that you are in error. Fortunately User:Srnec corrected the very minor typo— without deleting the sourced report of |translated text from the Fordham University website, which you deleted as a "primary source". All is well now. Remember, translated, printed documents, with citations from which secondary source they have been drawn, aren't "primary sources": please don't delete the very material articles are required to cite. Thank you again.--Wetman 06:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops. My bad. Pardon me, I didn't mean to snatch up the heading when I cut n pasted it to follow up your assertion.--Wetman 20:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Guy of Ibelin
Having spent some time looking at primary and secondary sources (I have not yet found the prize-winning Lignages d'Outremer, but am optimistic), it seems that the youngest and shortest living Guy of Ibelin on the English wikipedia did not have any high title. His father Balian (who predeceased him by 6 years) and uncle Philippe (who outlived him by 10 years) were consecutive seneschals of Cyprus. The French wikipedia is unsourced. There were later Guy of Ibelins who lived longer than this one and held high office, so that might be how this rather tantalizing confusion has arisen. (It is worth noting that without this Guy of Ibelin (1286-1308), we would not have Princess Diana. since he is apparently her 39-greatgrandfather.) Mathsci (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Two more. Guy of Ibelin, bishop of Limassol, whose brother stabbed the king whom he had crowned; and Guy of Ibelin, seneschal of Cyprus, another good guy ("magnificus vir"). Mathsci (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Ibelin pages had gotten really tangled, thanks for trying to sort things out. Keep up the good work!  :) --Elonka 18:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

joke? I'm not laughing....
This hurts my feelings. What makes you think I'm kidding?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Lots of reasons, . Shall we start here? --Elonka 05:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the nostalgic ride down the lollercoaster. You and I had some good times, didn't we? But now the party is over, and The Fat Man will demonstrate his candidacy is no laughing matter. It's business time, sugar.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not laughing, either. Wikipedia has enough problems without people coming in to be deliberately disruptive. --Elonka 18:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

image restoring
Hi Elonka, when you get the chace, would you mind restoring a couple of images for me please? They were orphaned and deleted, but i'd like to use them again.Image:Betty.jpg & Image:Bettyturpin.jpg Many thanks  GunGagdin Moan 12:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you tried contacting the deleting admin? --Elonka 17:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverting Edits at Iran Iraq War Page
I have put forward some referenced figures as the casualties of war on the Iranian side, from academic and government sources in Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War regarding the following facts:


 * Iranian government estimate was around 200,00 down to around 188,000 later. (I have included English links to support the statement of "Iranian government estimate is around 200,000". However, I am sure many Persian speakers here can confirm the other links.
 * Others have estimated widely.
 * Prof. Brown says Iranian estimate is nearer to the real figure. He is not the the only academic source but I have not seen a well established source saying otherwise.

However, Scythian77 is reverting my edits, using not so proper language and tone. I like to reach some consensus with him. However, his attitude, including removing my discussions with him, does not reflect his readiness to any compromise. He accused me of propaganda more than once.

Could you encourage him to have a civil discussion rather than using insulting and egoistical words.

By the way, I appreciate your message regarding my discussion on his talk page. He was going to remove them anyway. It is not the first time he has been involved in edit warefare. He is also in edit war with some folks on Avicenna. If you look at the talk page of Avicenna, his attitude is so obvious.

Regards, Persian Magi (talk) 07:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Alta Partners
I'm considering nominating this at WP:AFD. It seems not to be even close to being notable. Bearian (talk)
 * Easier would be a prod. I can go ahead and do that, unless you'd like to? --Elonka 20:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman
Elonka, I hope you will take this in the spirit in which it is offered. Please stop jabbing at Jehochman. The two of you had a conflict in August, granted, but that's some time ago now. You and he have both been asked by uninvolved users to stop nursing grudges. Jehochman responded positively to this thoughtful comment by User:AGK back in August, and J assures me that he has not addressed or discussed you since then, other than in self-defence. (And here is a recent example where he does defend himself.) I don't think you replied to AGK back in August—I understood you were extremely busy IRL at the time, so it's not that I blame you—but surely you considered AGK's thoughts? Anyway.. please try to take a strictly neutral look at what you posted on Scott MacDonald's talk the other day. Try to see it from outside; to imagine that it's somebody talking about your integrity. Curiously enough, the post was couched as a protest against what you thought rude and inappropriate language used against Jehochman. And yet..


 * "Scott, you make some good points, but this language was really inappropriate. I am not shy about saying that I have extreme doubts about Jehochman's integrity, but I do not support the language that you used towards him, and I hope you will consider apologizing. I see that you did refactor it, which I'm glad about, but still, don't you see that there's a bit of a problem in using incivility and personal attacks, to complain about someone being uncivil? --Elonka 23:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)"

Civility isn't primarily a matter of the words you use, but of what you use them for. Scott had used bad language such as calling Jehochman a "moralistic dick", and other salty phrases, yes. (I for my part have extreme doubts about Scott's self-control when it comes to pressing Save, but he often does self-revert that type of stuff, and in this case he removed the slur against Jehochman after 2 minutes.) Anyway, Scott's post was not nice, even after cleanup, but does it not strike you that your post—although, I'm sure, well-intentioned—actually came out worse? More uncivil, more of a personal attack on Jehochman. "Dick" is simply a non-proper, low-discourse word with a very vague meaning; it's not personal at all. Please look, on the other hand, at the way you use the dignified word "integrity". "I have extreme doubts about Jehochman's integrity". That is a terrible thing to say, in civil words, and in a purportedly neutral voice. Incivility isn't in the naughty words, it's in what you say. Please don't just tote up the bad words, Elonka; look at what they contain. You use words which are polite, taken separately, but they strike at a person's character—they attack an actual person. I think your pedagogical eagerness to emphasize the paradox you saw in Scott's post—"don't you see that there's a bit of a problem in using incivility and personal attacks, to complain about someone being uncivil?"—may have run away with you there. (Also, in the sense that Scott hadn't complained of Jehochman or anybody else being uncivil. That wasn't what Scott was on about.)

Jehochman has been avoiding conflict with you ever since August, unless I've missed something. Please drop this grudge, Elonka. It's not actually necessary to refer to J on the wiki at all (not once you've voted on his ArbCom candidacy, I mean). Is it? Bishonen | talk 23:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC).

Hi
Hi! Please note that I have filed a request for appeal here. Comments welcome! Best regards PHG (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: IP:65.9.99.42
Hey, it may be my fault the IP's block was for vandalism rather than edit warring, I filed an ARV via Twinkle, which only gives an option for vandalism (although I did explain in the comments that it was edit warring/breach of 3RR that was the reason). Maybe there is another easy mechanism I have missed for those kind of reports. Mfield (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not that big a problem... The report at WP:AIV did get admin attention and stop disruption, so that's the important thing.  For future reference, it might be better to file a report at WP:AN/3RR though.  As for why I spoke up, it's because I have a bit of a pet peeve when people refer to good faith edits as vandalism.  See WP:VANDAL.  Though the anon was definitely being disruptive, it's also very possible that rather than promoting their own site, they may have simply been trying to add an interesting link to Wikipedia, and weren't sure why it kept disappearing, so they kept trying to add it back.  You did the right thing in trying to communicate with the anon on their talkpage, and a block was definitely appropriate since they weren't responding to messages.  But if if that anon,, does take the time to look at their talkpage now and see that they were being accused of vandalism, that might antagonize a potentially useful contributor.  Many new editors find Wikipedia very frustrating to navigate when they start off!  But just because they're stumbling, doesn't mean they're vandals. Now, it may turn out to be the case that the anon really was here for just spam purposes.  But I prefer to assume good faith, and give the benefit of the doubt. :) BTW, are you sure that link is inappropriate, even in the "External links" section?  It seems to have some useful information, and that virtual tour is pretty cool.  :) --Elonka 18:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I will check out the 3RR subpage next time. I have been inviting discussion to see if a case can be made for it being appropriate, but right now we only have the owner of the sites assertion that it is notable. Sure, all virtual tours are cool, but if the tours were really sponsored by the government as alledged then they would surely be up on an official site (I shoot virtual tours myself). That does not seem to be the case. I think it is a case of the site owner wanting traffic and trying to justify it by adding text, but the only reference is to their own site. It's inappropriate as long as it is being added by the site owner and not after discussion and consensus. It would also be better if the tours were on a site that wasn't blatantly commercial with a store link above it. Mfield (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'm not familiar with the sources there, so I'll leave that up to you and the other editors on the page. I do agree that it would have been better for the anon to engage in discussion at the article talkpage.  Judging by the way that they kept re-inserting the information in slightly different ways each time, it probably wasn't a copy/paste, and they were typing it in by hand each time, seeing the information "appear", and then a few minutes later it "disappeared", then they'd type it in again, it'd "appear" for awhile, and then "disappear" again.  And now they can't edit Wikipedia at all, so my guess is they're pretty confused right now! --Elonka 18:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Machu Picchu
Hi there,

Feel free to change the message, I'm still learning with blocking, so I might make the odd mistake! :)

The Helpful  One  18:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Wilson the Volleyball
Nice job. I am happy that you were able to improve upon my contributions.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. It's a nice article, and in my opinion, a solid contribution to Wikipedia. I hope it survives the AfD! --Elonka 21:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Article Rescue Barnstar
I'm slightly embarrassed by how much better you made the article than did I. I am however, very gratified that my sourcing and minor rewrite gave you more to work with than was present in the pre-AfD article. So this is for you...


 * Aww, thanks. :)  It was really just an hour or so of work.  I happened to be scanning the backlog in the "Rescue" category, and that one caught my eye for some reason.  There was already a lot of good information there, I just reworked it a bit.  :) --Elonka 00:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite welcome. As I wrote, I did a heck of a lot of research and sourcing... and did some re-arranging to make it read better... but what you did improved it markedly. Win or lose, I am quite appreciative. -  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

American Muslim Council reverts
Hello, ... I am concerned about the lack of discussion between  and  regarding recent edits to  ... I happen to agree with Matt57 ... can we please discuss this at Talk:American Muslim Council? Happy Editing! &mdash;  20:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI
After some more insults by another sockpuppet account on your talk page and the original account, I protected User talk:Ianxp. I felt that continued access to the talk page wasn't productive. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assessment, thanks for taking care of it. --Elonka 00:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone talking about a ban on my talk page
You may want to take care of this! -- Enzuru 21:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Army correspondence course program
Hello again, ... I could use the assistance of Some Other Editor with regards to this article:

created by:

This WP:SPA author removed the Articleissues template without comment, and they have ignored my attempts at dialog on both the article's and their own user talk pages ... I think that they need to be reminded of WP:V and WP:OWN.

Happy Editing! &mdash;  13:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

JIDF link your voting recommendations
It may interest you to know that an organisation with an "interesting history" in connection to Wikipedia is linking your voting recommendations from the rolling news near he top right of thir home page. In view of the history with Wikipedia, (long-term blocks of activists, block evasion, personal attacks on and off Wikipedia etc.,) you might want to place something on the linked page disassociating youself from them. --Peter cohen (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea who they are, and putting a link on my guide saying that I don't know who they are, would probably give them even more attention, so I'd rather not do that. Is the site run by a Wikipedian? I am out of the loop on any history involving the group, but if you point me to a link with a summary of any disruption, I'll take a look. --Elonka 16:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There are tn WP:AN/I archives and one WP:AN archive which link the JIDF article. Avid followers of Wikidrama will know all about them already. This topic is in the penultimate such archive.  (If you have time to read the topic and all the subsections.) Basically they are a Revisionist Zionist group whose mission is to "correct" what they perceive as biases in the web. They are best known for their activity on Facebook, but they have also "corrected" articles on Wikipedia, most obviously the one on themselves, and have compiled an attack page which list of "strongly biased anti-Israel" editors (including from earlier this month myself). This list includes at least one pro-Israel editor. There are a number of blocked activist accounts of which User:Einsteindonut (and socks) is the most notorious. Of course, their opponents have also been adding to the drama and some of these too have received long-term blocks.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take a look. --Elonka 18:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. They no longer link you. Their current headline article currently begins:
 * Thank you to the paranoid antisemitic Wikipedia editors
 * We have removed all "troubling" links. We have no connections whatsoever with the editor in question. We just like their recommendations. Thanks to the paranoia of certain editors, we will now be a lot more private with our Wikipedia concerns. (We will also be a lot more effective this way.)
 * This could be referring to tis discussion unless more has happened elsewhere.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Clear and present response
The latest actions don't need to be commented. They speak for themselves:, , and of course to which you've already responded. Those edits fit into the pattern I've experienced time and again when checking recent changes. Assuming good faith, and not biting newbies are without doubt good and necessary things. I think I never fail to do that. Yet repeatedly ignoring polite and clear messages often clearly indicate a user's intentions, and to ignore this would mean putting our guidelines first, and our policies second. My experience as well as my instinct, and the advantage of not having been involved with V. S. Naipaul before, helped me in dealing with the situation. Please take that into account when handling other possible or actual cases of violations of 3RR in the future. Let me cite this from 3RR: However, non-administrators may find reversion unavoidable before administrators can respond. Best wishes, --Catgut (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Corrected what had been falsified in my statement by User:Kcboat: . Oh, and thank you for your statement. --Catgut (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Page ban violation?
You issued a 30-day page ban to ScienceApologist on November 4th, and I am wondering if it is still in effect. ScienceApologist has made two edits on December 1st to reinstate the version of the article which he was edit warring over prior to his 30-day ban. Further, he is dismissing the objections to his edits as not "substantive" and "ignorant"; hardly very civil. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 20:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, I'll take a look. --Elonka 20:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 48 hours. Though I see Jehochman is already challenging it  at WP:AE. --Elonka 21:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: New Admin Advice
Hi there,

The page looks good -> but is that just going to be an addition to the New Admin school, rather than remove it completely? The NAS has some good information on actually using the tools. Just an idea - perhaps, for IPs you should add something about the recommended time to block IPs for (if it's not already in the NAS).

The Helpful  One  20:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

SA: topic ban?
Does Science Apologist really have a topic ban for pseudoscience? He's also been editing (and edit warring) at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts...including a 4RR violation. hgilbert (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He was not banned from editing in the entire topic area, but was banned, under the authority of Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, from editing the WP:FRINGE guideline for 30 days. He violated that page ban, so has been blocked for 48 hours.  I'd say that the current block makes any 4RR violation moot, so it's probably worth ignoring that for now -- we wouldn't normally "concatenate" blocks for multiple violations.  If, however, he resumes edit-warring after his current block expires, then another ban or block might be appropriate.  I'll add that list page to my watchlist, and try to keep an eye on things. --Elonka 00:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

edit war
DJ Bunji has been told many times why his version is incorrect. many users have tried talking to him and telling him to stop with his edits but he just mocks everyone. he is the one that should be blocked142.161.180.254 (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * At the moment, I'm not seeing either one of you engaging in discussion at the article talkpage. Please try that instead of edit-warring, thanks. --Elonka 01:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at the edit summaries you can see several users telling him why his edits are wrong but he just mocks everyone. i have posted at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard maybe that will help.142.161.180.254 (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea, get other editors involved. But please don't make any other reverts yourself for awhile please. Thanks, --Elonka 01:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"history of on-wiki harassment"
Elonka, here and here  you accuse Jehochman of having a "history of on-wiki harassment." You don't present any evidence to back this up. and are only a repeat of the same accusations from one other editor, again without evidence. If you don't have any evidence to back this up, then you need to withdraw the accusation and apologize publicly to Jehochman. Cla68 (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Cla68. Normally I would ignore these kinds of questions, but since you haven't posted to my talkpage about this before, I'll try to give you a good faith answer.  In short: I've got plenty of evidence, and if things proceed to an RfC or some other step of dispute resolution, I shall present the evidence in the proper forum. If you'd like to research things for yourself, feel free to look through Jehochman's contribs, and I'm confident that you will find multiple periods in his history (try early August 2008 for a clear example) where his on-wiki actions were focused near 100% on things "Elonka-related".  Then when I asked him to try and find something else to do, he responded a couple hours later by demanding that I resign my administrator access. For a couple other diffs, don't listen to what I am saying, check the words of other admins who were expressing concerns about Jehochman, such as Sarah (the admin who even nominated him for adminship), WJBscribe, and GRBerry. I'd rather not go deeper into it than that, because for everything I post, Jehochman is going to want to defend himself, and it just stirs things up.  What I would most like at this point, is the same thing that I've been asking of Jehochman for about a year now, which is to just leave me alone.  I've told him this on-wiki, I've told him this off-wiki.  He'll say, on- and off-wiki, that he's going to honor the request, and then a short time later he starts up again.  Heck, look at the ArbCom enforcement block that I issued earlier today, on ScienceApologist.  I posted a very clearcut block to SA's page at 20:53, and within 10 minutes, Jehochman had already posted a challenge to the block at WP:AE. I just really wish that Jehochman would find some other hobby, that isn't Elonka-related. --Elonka 03:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm quietly confident that there was a long time that ChrisO felt the same way about Elonka. Shot info (talk) 07:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (Response to Elonka) By not putting the links/diffs above in your election guide, you didn't give Jehochman a chance to defend himself. I assume one reason why we discourage making accusations without evidence is for that reason.  This is especially important in this situation, since he was running for an elected position and making a serious accusation such as saying someone engages in continuous on-wiki harassment could be considered as poisoning the well, a violation of NPA.


 * Also, the links you provide above are mostly related to the RfC and admin recall you were involved in several months ago. Jehochman was involved also, so of course you two would have edits in the same forums.  You don't provide evidence, however, that since then he has followed you around for the purpose of harassing you.  I just opened two web windows and compared yours and Jehochman's contribution histories to Wikipedia (project admin) space side-by-side.  Both of you take an active part in project admin.  At ANI, AN and other admin forums, you guys cross paths often, which is natural.  Sometimes he posts a comment first and you follow, and sometimes vice-versa.  I looked back to the beginning of October and don't see anything that could be considered as harassment by him.  As far as the SA block, Jehochman was already involved because of its relation to a current ArbCom case that he's involved with.  So, I'm still not seeing any evidence of a history of harassment by him.  Cla68 (talk) 07:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding ScienceApologist
'''Update: Sorry, I just realized most of my note below is redundant with your and Hgilbert's exchange above. I agree with your comments. Onward...''' --Jim Butler (t) 14:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Original comments:

Thank you for explaining the situation at AN/3; I replied briefly there.

BTW, I just noticed User_talk:ScienceApologist. A lot of his behavior at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts has been very similar, as you can see from what I posted at AN3. That means his conduct is probably sanctionable under the same ArbCom enforcement ruling. We'll see where SA decides to go from here; I don't bear a grudge, but do hate to see him disrupting good work (i.e., vigorous but civil debate among editors with pretty widely divergent views). And that's why I think the bar for sanctioning him should be damned low, given his atrocious history. Other saviors of science with decent manners will yet emerge on WP, I feel certain. :-) regards, Jim Butler (t) 06:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

More pseudoscience canvassing?
I noticed you flagged this edit as possible canvassing. Here are a couple more possibilities (and of course I'm AGF-ing; it's just that recruited meatpuppets usually don't know about WP policies): regards, Jim Butler (t) 22:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 128.59.170.16: article and talk page. (note that User:Verbal has a different take on this IP's motivations:  possibly a hoaxer, but no proof of that either)
 * Andrea Lawson: talk page
 * Be sure to bring these up at SA's talkpage. I think Lar (who is a Checkuser) is looking into it.  --Elonka 23:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done & thanks. --Jim Butler (t) 01:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Th

ArbCom vote dispute/malfunction
Elonka, ST47 posted a comment on my talk page saying he/she was invalidating my votes in the current ArbCom election because I didn't have enough edits by the cutoff date. However, when I checked my eligibility using the "check your account" link on the ArbCom Elections page before voting, and again moments ago, both times it said I am eligible. ST47 appears to have invalidated a number of other persons votes as well.

Can you figure out what is going on, and how many votes have been invalidated? If the account checker doesn't work, maybe it should be removed so people don't waste their time? On the other hand, if it does work, is there mischief here? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked him what's up. My guess is that it's a "namespace" issue, where it's not about your total number of edits (since you do have over 200 edits prior to November 1), but about where you've edited, meaning it may only count actual edits to articles (in which case you're just over 100).  However, if the "Check your account" link is giving you a different answer, then that is indeed a problem.  Can you give me a link to the one that you're trying? In any case, since you're so close to the cutoff, it might be possible to get you an exception, though I'm honestly not sure where to ask for something like that. Maybe post at the talkpage wherever the "Check your account" link is? --Elonka 03:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On the main page for WP: Arbitration Committee Election December 2008/Vote there is a green box. Third item in the box starts with a linked word "Voting" which if you hit it, changes to another green box, below which there is a sentence beginning "Voting eligibility criterion." Second line of that sentence contains a link "(check your account)" which I used to check my account before doing anything else. The link appears to be specific to voting eligibility. This is the same page that contains the "List of Candidates" immediately below. Seems pretty misleading if its on that particular page, and ought to be accurate (in a rational world). Mervyn Emrys (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We have confirmed that there was a bug in that software, which has now been fixed. It was using the incorrect date to calculate your number of edits.  A debate has now started at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008 about what to do in regards your own votes, so you may wish to participate there. --Elonka 17:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I followed your steps, and according to, you are not eligible to vote.  MBisanz  talk 17:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See above. There was a bug in the software.  When I followed his steps yesterday, it said that he was eligible to vote; however, that bug was just fixed a little while ago, which is why it's now showing him as ineligible.  More information is at WT:ACE2008. --Elonka 17:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a good reason for not using alternative accounts, because 83 + 93 = 176 > 150. Mathsci (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Following your advice, now I have Neurolysis (?) telling me to stop voting. On my talk page. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's just a miscommunication, I'll talk to him. --Elonka 01:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My, my, we are flying about a bit tonight aren't we? Yes, I know free speech is not an international concept, and WP certainly trys hard to circumscribe it, but I think my comments were within the civility guidelines, weren't they? Certainly seemed to poke a stick in a hornets nest tho... Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, this is nothing. If you really want to watch the excitement, check the thread at WP:AN. --Elonka 01:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/PHG
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/PHG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/PHG/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (sigh) Have I mentioned how much I hate arb cases? They're such a timesuck.  :/  But thanks for letting me know, I'll add it to my watchlist. --Elonka 23:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)