User talk:Elonka/Archive 32

Thanks
Thanks for letting me know about the CSD discussion. According to the editor that started the discussion there, it wasn't about me... Oh well, let's hope the drama slowly disappears again, it's not very productive! Fram (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I want to Ask a question, but without sensitivity :)
 * I found this reference Avicenna ws Arabian doctor and philosopher, was born at Afshena in the district of Bukhara. can i use it or no :--Bayrak (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, NNDB is not a reliable source. However, you can bring it up at the talkpage of the article, and ask what other editors think. --Elonka 00:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Threat
Hi Elonka, I saw your last comment on Ashley Kennedy's talk page. I would ask you to take care of not writing things that could appeared as threats. Ashley Kennedy is an excellent contributor to wp while NoCal100 is just here with an agenda. Given your own affiliation, I would suggest that you stop wikistaling AK and rahter take care of NoCal100. For the benefit of the project, which remains writing a free encyclopaedia. Ceedjee (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

New Year's Caribbean cruise
I'm thinking of going on a cruise for New Year's, Eastern Caribbean, Carnival cruise line. If there are any Wikipedians that would like to join me, let me know. :) --Elonka 18:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Fyi
I'd appreciate it if you viewed Bureaucrats'_noticeboard --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Help needed on Discrimination against atheists
A user is deleting my WP:Original research tags on Discrimination against atheists. Can you please help us settle this out? -- Enzuru 03:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We both broke 3RR, however he posted a warning on my talk page and then this revert happens. Please check the IP. -- Enzuru 03:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Now the user has called me a theist during our debate over WP:Original research and asked me to interpret a Qur'anic verse for him. This seems rather out of line to me. -- Enzuru 03:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (Oh, we didn't break 3RR) while the attacks on me has stopped, me and another user are still trying to prove to Azure that he is breaking WP:original research. I know you're busy, but if you can help in anyway we'd appreciate it. -- Enzuru 08:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Fyi
It's characteristic. After your intervention stopped the editwar, and everyone else had refrained from further editing the page, and began to sit down to determine the proper NPOV terminology for over a day now at Israeli settlement, the usual suspect went ahead, without engaging in that ongoing discussion, and reverted. That kind of needless provocation explains why Ashley and so many others are pissed off, especially since the vote so far is running 5/0 in favour of the page he has now reverted. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Archiving
Yeah, free feel to do so. I know I don't archive nearly frequently enough (hence the note on top that the next archiving was due at the end of August). JoshuaZ (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Samaria
I haven't made up my mind yet on the other two. When I do I'll comment. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. :) --Elonka 19:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciate you taking the time to actually listen to me and giving me the benefit of the doubt. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Good Evening
Please see here there is an Academic source support my edit and its  quoted in the article --Bayrak (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

note from G-Dett
I've been thinking over what you wrote on my talk page, especially the points about what trolling isn't, and about strategies for making talk page disputes less personal. Good advice on both counts.

I feel I need to make clear, though, how serious I think this problem of speciously accusing editors of making "strawman" arguments has become. This is not some pet peeve arising from my history with Jayjg; it's a serious and ongoing problem plaguing I/P pages, and it is distinct from the ideological divides that obviously make dispute resolution a challenge.

A strawman argument is a very specific sort of fallacy, involving deliberate and substantive distortion of an opponent's position. It's not appropriate to make that accusation because one feels cornered, because the terms of the discussion underway are not of one's choosing, because one finds a proposed distillation or extrapolation of one's position to be debatable, etc. Strawman arguments can always be explicitly and efficiently rebutted; for this reason they tend to thrive in situations where the opportunity for rebuttal is either limited or non-existent (campaign commercials, newspaper op-eds, 90-second interviews on cable television, etc.) In real life I am a literary critic, and I have to say, in all seriousness, that in my various forays into the history of human discourse I've never encountered anywhere else this rhetorical pattern of claiming to have been strawmanned while refusing to say how.

Say for example you take the position that the U.S. should begin an orderly withdrawal from Iraq, but in the meantime maintain and even increase troop deployments in Baghdad. Among the criticisms you might encounter: The first two criticisms are weak talking-points, the third is debatable and possibly inaccurate, but only the fourth is a strawman. It is a strawman because your position directly addressed the issue of a potential vacuum in Baghdad, which critic #4 pretends not to have noticed.
 * 1) Elonka wants to cut and run.
 * 2) Elonka seems to think our foreign policy should be dictated by our enemies.
 * 3) Elonka believes the U.S. presence is the cause of unrest, and that Iraq will magically stabilize with us out of the picture.
 * 4) Elonka's plan is naïve. Baghdad has just begun to stabilize; a sudden power vacuum there could threaten stability not only in the capital but in the country at large.

The first two might not merit much of a response (beyond pointing out that macho posturing is one thing, foreign policy another), but the third certainly does. According to the unwritten rules of debate, you'd need to clarify whether you indeed think the country can stabilize without us (and how and why), or whether on the contrary you think further unrest is likely but preferable to ongoing occupation for reasons x, y, z – whatever the case may be. This is how debate proceeds, how ideas are refined, how points of disagreement are zeroed in on and highlighted, and possible consensus reached. Debate by definition means (1) allowing your positions to be reformulated in new terms, tentatively distilled and tested, extrapolated from, etc., while (2) participating actively and critically in that process of reformulation, extrapolation, and distillation. Simply blowing the whistle on #3 and saying "Strawman!" (while refusing to specify why) short-circuits the whole process and makes progress impossible. Meanwhile, an actual strawman argument like #4, nuisance that it may be, can be dispensed with quickly by simply pointing out its tactical omission: "My critic here employs a strawman argument; as he knows or should know, my position calls for reinforcements in Baghdad for the duration of the proposed withdrawal, precisely to prevent the sort of power vacuum he darkly alludes to."

I think my talk-page contributions are self-evidently fair comment, and they are always in good faith. They are more serious and detailed than any of the above four examples, but if they go astray in characterizing another's position, they do so in the manner of #3 above – which is to say that any inaccuracy is unintended, and an opportunity for further discussion and refinement rather than a whistle blown in my face. And this is not – emphatically not – a pedantic argument about the technical meaning of the term "strawman," because the problem I'm getting at makes progress in disputes genuinely impossible.

Trying to debate anything with Jayjg often feels like playing pick-up basketball with an opponent who doubles as ref, blows the whistle whenever you have the ball, refuses to say how you've "fouled," and awards himself endless free throws. The problem is not that we both want to win (i.e. disagree about content); the problem is that the accepted protocols of pick-up basketball and talk-page debate are being systematically scuttled, and the game never actually takes place.

But my history with Jayjg is not germane here. He is ubiquitous and influential on I/P pages, editing on hundreds of articles I go nowhere near, and the pattern is everywhere visible, and disruptive insofar as it makes normal debate impossible. It adds a dimension of intractability to I/P discussion pages that is distinct from the usual ideological divides fueling content disputes. My ideological disagreements with Tundrabuggy, for example, are deeper than with Jay, but I can ask Tundrabuggy to clarify his position and he will; we will continue to disagree, but we can narrow down our points of disagreement, and discussion proceeds instead of grinding to a halt. And there are editors from the "other side" with whom I deeply disagree, such as Michael Safyan, who nevertheless has my profound respect because of his adherence to the protocols of serious debate. I/P pages will always be fraught, but they needn't be intractable, and it's important to realize that it isn't always content per se making them intractable in the first place.

My own comportment is far from perfect, and I accept most of the blocks I've incurred for incivility, and I'm certainly not asking you to crack down on Jay or anyone else. I'm just suggesting that you can maintain your admirable impartiality regarding content on I/P pages, while at the same time showing a firmer hand regarding the protocols of reasoned debate. User:HG for example is remarkably effective at this, and is as respected by the two sides for his detachment as you are.

Thanks for your patience Elonka and sorry if this was a bit TLDR; take care.--G-Dett (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Forest Rohwer
Hello, my name is Bahador Nosrat, and I am a graduate student at San Diego State University.

For the past week, I have been writing a grant to Google for their Geo Challenge, and a fair portion of the grant involves something called metagenomics ([]). I went to Wikipedia to get a brief overview of key concepts and figures in the field, as I often do when I want to brief myself on a topic I am not fully familiar with. A large portion of the citations are either directly or indirectly related to Forest Rohwer ([]) or individuals associated with his lab. Yet when I clicked on the link on his name, it says the following:

This page has been deleted. The deletion log for the page is provided below for reference.

* 22:58, 27 October 2008 Elonka (Talk | contribs) deleted "Forest Rohwer" ‎ (A7 (bio): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person)

Article 7 of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion ([]) reads as follows:

"An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types, including school articles, are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at articles for deletion instead."

Yet the minimum criteria for "notibility" ([]) as defined by Wikipedia requires a person to have "been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject," along with additional criteria for a biography requiring the person to be the recipient of a notable award or honor (e.g., ), and to have "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."

A Google search using Forest Rohwer as the query yields: Results 1 - 10 of about 61,800 for Forest Rohwer. (0.12 seconds)

A Google Scholar search yields: Results 1 - 10 of about 2,980 for Forest Rohwer. (0.02 seconds)

On the other hand, a Google search using Elonka Dunin as the query yields: Results 1 - 10 of about 6,040 for Elonka Dunin. (0.07 seconds)

A Google Scholar search yields: Results 1 - 10 of 10 for Elonka Dunin. (0.03 seconds)

According to Google and Google Scholar, Elonka Dunin is approximately 10x and 298x less "important or significant" than Forest Rohwer, respectively. The first question that pops into mind is if Forest Rohwer fails to meet the minimum criteria for "important or significance" as defined by Wikipedia, then how could Elonka Dunin ([]) possibly meet the criteria?

As an avid Wikipedia user, I find this very bothersome. Now I do not know what was in the entry for Forest Rohwer before it was deleted, but I will assume based on the content of the metagenomics entry that it was not irrelevant or inappropriate.

Thanks for your time, and I hope you have a good weekend.

Friday, 19 December 2008, 14:14 PST

-- Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation. - Edward R. Murrow

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.244.224.172 (talk • contribs) 14:14, December 19, 2008


 * The content of the Forest Rohwer page, when Elonka deleted it, was simply:


 * Forest Rohwer is a biologist at San Diego State University.


 * and a link to his homepage. Note that Elonka wasn't saying "He's not important"; rather, she was agreeing that the article did not demonstrate that.  For my part, please feel free to re-create the article if you wish.  (not Elonka, but happened to be passing by). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I imagine that Elonka will comment for herself at some point, but you seem to misunderstand the basic idea that an article is deleted/not deleted based on the content of the article, not necessarily the subject himself. If the article itself did not contain the many citations you note from other articles, it is not the responsibility of the nominator, participants in the discussion or Administrator closing the AfD to do extensive research or even a Google search before a decision is made (though some attempt at a search is invariably done). For all we know, the content of the article was "Forest Rohwer is a guy from Detroit." Further, Elonka did not merely decide to delete the article on her own; per procedure, there was a discussion in which consensus/policy resulted in deletion. An administrator, Elonka herself may not even have participated in the discussion, only performed the technical argument closing and deletion tasks. Finally, your Rohwer vs. Dunin comparison obviously has nothing to do with why the article was deleted and is actually somewhat of an uncivil personal attack against Elonka. Thanks for your inquiry, but I encourage you to recreate a well-referenced version of the article rather than make accusations and insinuations about things you know little. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 22:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL, good guess at the article's content on my part ;)&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 22:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like this has already been covered, but yes, the article was deleted not because of any aspersion at Forest Rohwer, but simply because the article as it was, did not meet our standards for inclusion. For more details:
 * On October 27, at 21:01, created a one-line stub which said merely that Rohwer is a biologist at San Diego State.
 * Within seconds, one of our volunteers,, tagged the article for speedy-deletion, as is done routinely with thousands of other "non-articles" that are created each day on Wikipedia. A notice was also placed on Farful's talkpage, notifying him of the deletion request.
 * Two hours later, no further information had been added to the article, and Farful had not replied or done anything else.
 * At 22:58, the article stub was deleted routinely, by me, along with several other similarly tagged articles that day. I was acting in the same way that hundreds of other volunteer administrators act each day on Wikipedia, doing routine maintenance and cleanup. Be aware that each day on Wikipedia, there are attempts to create thousands of articles, and the majority of these attempts are deleted within hours.  We do still have a net positive gain of about 2,000 articles that "stick" each day, and currently have over 2.6 million articles on the English version of Wikipedia (and several million more in other versions of the project). When new articles are created, we have teams of volunteers that give them a quick glance to see if they're a "real" article, or something that should probably be quickly deleted.  If the latter, a tag is placed on the article, which places it in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, and administrators routinely scan this category and accomplish the deletions.
 * For more information, you may wish to read Why was my page deleted?
 * Bottom line: If someone wishes to re-create the Forest Rohwer article, and include more sources to verify that the article subject meets the standards of WP:BIO, I have no objection. To be safe, it might be best to create an account, and then create a draft version of the article in a subpage of your userspace. Then once it's properly fleshed out, then move it into article space.
 * I hope that helps explain? If you have any other questions, please let us know. --Elonka 23:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Bayrak again
He is removing sources again, how many more free passes will he be given? I am thinking of leaving Wikipedia because of this disruptive editor. --Sina111 (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Gallus Anonymus
Elonka, looks like a dispute may arise on article Gallus Anonymus, me versus Piotrus/Molobo/whoever else called in. Could you give a perspective on the matter? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, due to prior disputes, per WP:UNINVOLVED it is probably not a good idea if I intervene as an administrator in cases where Piotrus is concerned, unless Piotrus would be willing to accept me as a neutral party. --Elonka 20:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. If you wish to add your say as a competent editor, you may like to read the pages here, pp. xxiv—xxxiii, for this recent survey of discussion on the author of the Gesta principium Polonorum. You will be in a better position to judge whether my claims on the talk, or Piotrus/Molobo's claims there or in the edit summaries (regarding the article) are accurate. I'm going to try get more stuff at the library. Be it noted that my edits to this page were casual, produced because I was making an article on the text in a notepad file. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, feel free to offer input. WP:UNINVOLVED refers to the use if admin's powers, and I believe Deacon is simply asking for a third opinion. I don't think anybody would have problems with that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Elonka is not a neutral party regarding the opinion, her personal bias and conflicts towards Polish editors and topics is well known. I don't believe she can be considered neutral. -Molobo (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Jagz
FYI  yet another sockpuppet of Jagz has been blocked by Slrubenstein. He was trolling on Slr's talk page.Mathsci (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. --Elonka 22:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Banias
Your intervention at Banias would be welcome. There seems to be a very clear consensus against the inclusion of some non-related material (see both the Talk page and last comments by CasualObserver on the related AN/I case, yet one editor is persistent in edit warring against this consensus. NoCal100 (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like we cross-posted.  has just been banned from the Banias article for 30 days. --Elonka 18:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me for saying so: but what a load of rubbish. "Consensus" on Banias (-Ashley) excist because the rest of us are sick to the bone of tag-teaming pro-Israeli teams showing up at certain articles...so we stay away. Yes, I admit: I "chicken out" of articles when NoCal100 et.al. shows up. And I am not alone. That is how "consensus" is achieved. Elonka: I had a higher opinion about you than this. Regards, Huldra (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Something I learned long ago on Wikipedia, is that "decisions are made by those who show up". If you are not speaking your mind at an article talkpage, then it's not fair to complain that the consensus is bad. However, I am sympathetic to the perception of tag-teaming. Since there's a great deal of administrator attention on the Banias article right now, I recommend trying again to participate in good faith at the talkpage.  If there is tag-teaming, the administrators will keep an eye out for it. --Elonka 18:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are quite right, Elonka, "decisions are made by those who show up" ...but after contributing to Palestine/Israel-issues for 3-4 years now, I have learned long ago where I waist my time by showing up, and where I don´t. Keep in mind that -at least by my accessment- the "pro-Israel" "lobby" outnumber the "pro-Palestinian" one about 10 to 1. I have waisted my time soooo many times...and I have seen all those who "show up" only because they know they are right... being burned-out and leaving WP sooner rather than later.
 * Minority opinion needs protection in RL, so I have learned. And so it should be on WP. But it isn´t. Because the average admin can only count numbers (of editors), but  cannot evaluate the validity of an argument. And that is the sadness...and disgust...of it all. Huldra (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, but in order for the minority opinion to be included, it has to be brought up at the article talkpages. In the time that you took posting to my talkpage, you could have posted multiple one-line comments at various article talkpages, "I think that ".  It doesn't mean that you have to stay and argue the point into the ground, but even just popping in and offering a single sentence comment can be useful. --Elonka 19:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don´t know how to tell anyone that they are talking rubbish without violating WP:CIVIL...but perhaps you get my idea. The minority opinion IS brought up at the article talkpages ...by Ashley (..and from what I can see, also CasualObserver'48) oh yeah, it would add to the precious numbers of editors if I participated there. Thanks, but no thanks. Not wild, wild horses (as the song goes..) could drag me to a talk-page where NoCal has teamed up with Tundrabuggy. And I could add NOTHING of facts to the argument ...compared to Ashley. He knows this stuff much better that me. (pre-1948 is my main interest..) So why on earth do you go for numbers of editors, and not the content, the quality of the argument? That is the question you need to answer. But will not. And that is why my opinion of you have changed rather dramatically. (PS: a hint to you: my first "hard-core" discussions about Palestine/Israel issues on WP was back in 2005; about the "territories occupied by Israel"-article... and the one thing I noticed was that certain editors went totally ballistic when you mentioned the word "water" or worse: aquafier...Those words were apparently more "dangerous" than words like "torture" or "illegal expulsions"!  Now, doesn´t that make you wonder?) Huldra (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I do resent the implication (the assertion?) that I am tag-teaming with NoCal. It was Ashley that brought these issues up at ANI and any interested party could go to the article and come to their own conclusions.  My opinion may well be more in line with that of NoCal, as yours is obviously with Ashley, but that doesn't mean I am "teaming" with anyone, any more than you and Ashley and Nishidani and PR are teaming when you make your opinions known on talk pages.  Nor am I convinced your claim  that wiki is highly slanted toward those sympathetic to Israel is in the least true.  I honestly think it is the other way 'round.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not about numbers or voting, it's about getting different opinions into the mix. That's why we have parts of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution called Requesting third opinions and Requesting comments.  Usually the more editors that get involved in a discussion, the easier it is to try and determine what the consensus is. --Elonka 19:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly; I don´t think anyone one WP would consider me as a "third opinion" on anything regarding Israel/Palestine-issues, as 90-99% of my edits are in that area. Secondly; the sentence: "Usually the more editors that get involved in a discussion, the easier it is to try and determine what the consensus is" tells me one thing: you just don´t get it. When "more editors get involved in a discussion" on P/I-issues, it means that "the usual crowd" turns out, and the numerical advantage pro-I-editors have they then "determine what the consensus is". Simple as that. This is always true, as long as admins don´t have the minds (or the guts) to evaluate the core of the issues. What you advocate is in reality a dictatorship of the majority. And that is not a pretty sight. Your unilateral ban of Ashley from Banias is just a case in point. Huldra (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The "core of the issues?" Wiki is actually consensus-driven, but the other pillars including WP:NOT& NPOV and WP:EQ are other legs that hold the stool up. No matter what side one takes in argument, 100 people with poor arguments and bad sources will never prevail against a dozen with good arguments and good sources. If you tire of the debate and leave the field, you can't very well blame the opposition. Nor the moderator, for that matter.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your intervention here. I would like to take the article bakc to what I think is the consensus version, as evidenced by CasualObserver's most recent comments and Tundrabuggy's - but I don't want this to be perceived as edit warring. What do you suggest? NoCal100 (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you make a change that isn't a revert, but instead tries to find some kind of a compromise position? --Elonka 20:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can make a change which is not a simple Undo - but any edit will involve the removal of at least some of the content - would that be ok? NoCal100 (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you want to remove. I'd leave any citations to reliable sources alone, though you can definitely modify information from those sources. --Elonka 20:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But the problem is that even though the material is sourced, it is not relevant - and the consensus on the article's talk page reflects that. How do you propose to address that? NoCal100 (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Not relevant in your opinion. it is relevant in Casual observer's, in mine, in Huldra's and Nishidani's opinions...As Casual Obserser surmised Banias was being used to grow a separate article this has been prematurely started at Jordan River basin water politics...I will be returning to the Banias article to prune in a NPOV accurate evenly weighed manner...and not in a manner that will remove context of other actions around Banias...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So even you agree this material is better placed at Jordan River basin water politics. Elonka - according to this, I'd like to prune out of Banias all the material that is already in the new article, with a pointer to the new article. NoCal100 (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No I do not agree with your statement in the least...It is being done to defeat deletionists who try to hide information...Banias already has and I'm am sure you'd love to have a blank page where any fundamental problems on the Middle east are mentioned....Don't worry I'll prune Banias in a NPOV manner myself....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * NoCal100, to be clear, I have no preference either way on the content, I'm just here as an administrator to try and provide structure for the discussions and/or dispute. You are not in any danger of sanctions for edit-warring, so simply proceed with whatever you think is reasonable at the Banias article.  If there is disagreement at the talkpage, try to work out the content issues there. --Elonka 18:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. NoCal100 (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ma'ale Akrabim
The edit in question "editorializes" and "draws conclusions" from the source. The source simply does not say what the edit says it says. (original research?) I do not believe it appropriate to the article as it seems to be attempting to make the WP:POINT that the Ma'ale massacre was somehow a justified revenge attack, when at best there is one author who states that it "might possibly" have been revenge motivated. Furthermore there are other unreferenced accusations made on the talk page relative to rape & murder that seem "designed to provoke outrage and opposition". IMHO Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (Sorry about the confusion).Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFAR
An editor that you have been involved with in the past has been taken to WP:RFAR. You are welcome to express your comments at the specific RFAR case. Thank you, seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  21:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Israeli Settlement
My revert today was the first in more than two weeks. Your description of this as "edit warring" is surprising, doubly so when you have not made a similar comment on Pedrito's page, even though he reverted twice today, w/o any Talk page participation. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Pedrito. And he did participate on the 18th, though granted, not since then. --Elonka 22:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've added a comment to the Talk page, re-iterating what I have been stating for more than two months now. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Bayrak
Hi Elonka. For some reason you either did not see or ignored my last comment regarding Bahryak's recent removal of sources. However, I returned to Wikipedia after 4 days, and took a look at Bayrak's talk page, and I see that you've explicitly warned him that "If you remove the word Persia from another article, and you do not have a solid reason, you may have your account access blocked". Bayrak, however, has totally ignored your warning, in fact, only minutes ago, he removed the word Persian from yet another article calling it "fraud" in edit-summery, with no discussion on talk page. In light of Bayrak's defiance of your authority (ignoring your explicit warnings), could you please tell me what is the point of these warnings if there is no follow-up on them, not even one slap on the wrist? --Sina111 (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been a bit busier than usual lately, stomping out fires in a couple other topic areas, plus of course it's the holidays. I'll try to get some time free to take a look at his contribs over the next day or two. --Elonka 04:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Vertical erectile thrust press this really needs to go
Hi Elonka. I noticed you are online and dealing with vandals. This article was deleted twice as Cock pushup. I moved it to AfD because the editor keeps removing all notices. I really think this could be speedied by an admin. Any time to weigh in? Best regards. -- Oliver Twisted  (Talk)  05:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Gone. --Elonka 05:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That was lightning fast. You rock! ;o) -- Oliver Twisted  (Talk)  05:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said, you cannot be serious
I really wondered for a while whether I could be bothered to write this, but here goes ... Elonka, in a year and a half, me and IronDuke have found ourselves on the same page about 5 or 6 times. On 2 or 3 of those occasions, he arrived after me (see Second Intifada and Nahum Shahaf, buried somewhere in the edit history, I'm really not going to waste any more of my time by digging up the diffs). You know, these things happen, no-one edits in a bubble and there are 100s of reasons why you might go to a particular page. Sometimes you will find another editor you have "met" before there, especially on pages within a particular topic area. I have never made an issue of it when I find other editors diving in after me on specific pages, even on occasions where I've suspected that there is an issue to be made of it. By contrast, IronDuke has launched a string of absurd "stalking" accusations against me. In the latest incident, I commented on a talk page where he and 4-5 other editors were engaged in a discussion. Prior to that each of us had edited or commented on multiple different pages, and I don't think we'd been near each other for a month. Knowing how sensitive he is, I made clear that I had not followed him to the page (not of course that it would necessarily be a WP crime if I had). His response? To totally ignore my substantive point and instead accuse me of being a liar in a sarcastic one-line post. That's the only way that comment can be read. I didn't go running to his or your talk page, not least because I can't be bothered with the drama. I did however point out that, since he was claiming that the only reason I could possibly be on that page was because of some bizarre interest in him, he must be driven either by ego or paranoia. That was simple logical deduction. So IronDuke accuses me of being a liar (and a stalker, again) .. I deny it and at the same time simply highlight what his reasoning necessarily entails (and do so by parodying the loaded question IronDuke had thrown at me) .. IronDuke then comes to my talk page to harrass and berate me, and restores his own screed when I legitimately remove it (nor is this the first time he has done both those things) - and I'm the one you choose to wield your stick at?! My lesson from all this? Get your complaint in first, ratchet up the drama levels and you're more likely to emerge from a (very) minor sh#t-storm smelling of roses in the eyes of admins or other editors, even if you're the one who, as they say, started it. Genius. --Nickhh (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the "stalking" allegations, as you are correct that since you are both participating in the same topic area, there are many reasons that you might show up on the same pages. As for the sniping allegations, in my eyes, both of you are sniping at each other, and I just wish both of you would cut it out.  You both seem to get under each other's skin, and I think that sometimes you both see offense where none exists.  But where offense really does exist, I think your opinion of what is and isn't civil seems to be a bit biased.  You are unhappy that IronDuke says this to you, but you seem to think it's okay to accuse him of having an "ego and paranoia problem".  From my third-party point of view, your comment is far worse, and is a definite violation of WP:NPA.  His is not particularly uncivil, but was unhelpful because it had nothing to do with the article itself, and therefore should not have even been said on an article talkpage.  But rather than trying to rate the grade of insults on a slide rule, what I would prefer is if you could both be civil to each other.  It's not about where you're participating, it's about the articles, and how you are discussing them.  Stay civil, and stick to discussing the content, not the contributors, and you won't have to worry about admin intervention. --Elonka 18:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Dang it... I had something written, but did not post it in time.


 * As for Second Intifada, I was there before Nick, full stop. My first edit on Second Intifada talk was April 2, 2007 here. ::: I edited it again on July 23, 2007 here. I then participate in a thread on 14 March 2008 here, entitled “RfC: Is it objective to describe the Second Intifada as an uprising, not only in name, but also in deed? Nickhh comes along at the next day, 15 March 2008, in that same thread here. Did Nickhh stalk me to that article? No idea, but he certainly came to it after I did, and it forms a troubling part of an aggressive pattern since then that has consisted of stalking behavior and extraordinarily insulting commentaries on talk pages and, more seriously, in edit summaries which are very hard to delete.


 * Also, Nick, I find it just plain odd that you think I was accusing you of lying. It’s not the case, and I think anyone reading that sentence can see that. I’m saying, basically, “Okay, I accept what you said at face value. So, given you didn’t follow me, how did you get here, to a fairly obscure article?” Your English is very good, so I can’t understand how you’re not getting that.


 * Elonka: I’m sort of at a loss here. The one thing I’m really hoping is that I don’t get a “You two should just try to play nice.” I’m not following Nick, nor am I posting gross insults about him. [Note, I wrote this before you actually did just this. I don't know if that would have made a difference. It's just depressing to be lumped in with Nick, when I have done nothing wrong. Please don't tell me to be civil, when I've not been uncivil. That equivalence provides cover for Nick to be uncivil. Ah, well, guess one sometimes has to solve one's own problems]. IronDuke  18:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "No opinion" on the stalking allegations? You seem to have plenty of opinions about my supposed misdemeanours Elonka. How about expressing an opinion that such allegations should not be made, and constitute an obvious personal attack and violation of WP:AGF, unless there is clear evidence for them? You don't need to expend any effort or engage in any research of the diffs before you can express that opinion. Until the editor making that accusation shows plausible evidence, you simply assume it is a false accusation and hence a personal attack. And I might add that both you and IronDuke need to read WP:HOUND again - even if you do follow another editor to an article (which I have never deliberately done here), it is not a WP crime unless done "to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress". There's a pretty high bar there, and it's also a pretty serious allegation to make.
 * I don't want to go way back to diffs from months ago, but I stand corrected about about Second Intifada. I did indeed comment at an RfC back in March after you IronDuke, along with about 20 other editors. My comment came about 50 comments after yours. We are truly entering the world of the surreal now. By contrast the point I had in mind was 6 months later, when you dived in to comment specifically on something I had said a few hours and two posts earlier. Fine, maybe that's still me stalking you in that I stored up the desire to follow you back to the article again for those six months. Kind of like revenge being a dish best served cold or something. As for the personal attack in question now, are you seriously saying that the phrasing "Okay ... [pause] how did you get here then?" isn't intended to impart, oh, just the tiniest degree of scepticism? Since you take the liberty of messing around with my talk page, and deleting parts of my comments from talk pages, might you not take two seconds to adjust some of your own phrasing? The only thing near to stalking going on here is the behaviour of two editors who seem to have assumed the right to dump near-daily barrages of comments on my talk page about nothing. Ego and paranoia? Maybe a bit strong, but it is at least incredibly self-regarding to assume that on the rare occasions where we end up on the same page, often months apart, this has only happened because I followed you there. --Nickhh (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have refactored my comment, I hope in a manner more to your liking. I will plead guilty to having a healthy self-regard but the issue here, for the record, wasn't about stalking -- I simply wasn't accusing you of it surrounding the If Americans Knew article; of all the criticisms you might want to level at me, surely being shy or opaque about calling people out for stalking isn't one of them. This was simply a WP:CIV issue for me, and I appreciate your being flexible on it. IronDuke  15:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism block?
Do we need a block on who vandalized articles on Morris Dees and Southern Poverty Law center today? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like the account has already been blocked for a week. BTW, for quick action in dealing with an anon vandal that isn't responding to talkpage warnings, try posting a report at Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV) -- that's the best way to get fast admin action on blatant vandals. If you check the page's history, you'll see that it gets a steady flow of reports and blocks, every few minutes. If you'd ever like to help with vandal-fighting (it can be like a fun game of whack-a-mole), check out WP:RCP. Though, come to think of it, and considering your skillset, there's another area of the project where you might be even more helpful, reviewing articles to see whether they should be promoted to "Good" status or not. Of course, it might be better if you first tried to get an article up to GA yourself first, but once you learned the project's criteria, you might be perfect for that part of the project. :)  The backlog there can sometimes stretch into months, so any new help would definitely be appreciated! --Elonka 04:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A minor point, but when a user is blocked, are their previous contributions automatically reverted or at least checked? Or was this block ineffective? Contributions I mentioned looked more recent than a week when I reverted them. No? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, what I meant was that I was going to block the IP, but someone else had already blocked them for a week. To tell if an account has been blocked or not, go to their contribs page, and then at the top left is a small link that says "block log". To answer your other question, blocks do not automatically revert problematic contributions, no.  But what we usually do is scan the contribs.  For example if you click on the "contribs" link here:, you can look at everything that the anon did, and then work down the "diff" list to see what they did within the last day or so, and then whether or not it's reverted yet.  If it hasn't been, you can fix it.  BTW, do you have WP:POPUPS turned on in your preferences?  It's a remarkable tool that is really helpful in these situations, since you can just hover your mouse over each "diff" link to see what was done, and also hover over "hist" to scan for the anon's edits, and then check if right above them there's another editor who reverted.  Another tip is to look for the word "top" next to each line on the contrib list. You won't see it on the anon's contribs since they all appear to have been reverted, but try checking mine:  or yours: . If a line has "top" to the right of it, it means that that diff is the most recent diff on that article, and no one has modified the article since then (which is a good pointer that maybe the article needs reverting).  If it doesn't say top, then it's more likely that someone else has already reviewed the article since the anon.  Which doesn't necessarily mean that they actually fixed the vandalism -- they may have just been editing a different section.  So it's still worth double-checking in some cases. --Elonka 18:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Deja vu, all over again
Now the list of references identified for "Further reading" in the article on Law of the United States has been deleted from there by another apparent lawyer, with equally uncivil language on that talk page. You recall this list I contributed was moved there by Wikidea from the WP:Law article? Will wonders never cease? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up the page a bit, and was going to post a caution on his talkpage, but I see you already posted. As a tip, when you make a warning, be sure to include a few diffs of problematic behavior, as this will be helpful if things have to escalate.  As it is, his comments are fairly old (we call it a "stale warning"), so admins are unlikely to take action unless there's something more recent. Other pages you might want to review before proceeding:  Requests for arbitration/Coolcaesar and Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2.  It does look like  does a fair amount of content creation, so if you can figure out a way to get along with him, and try to find a compromise, that would be helpful.  You may also wish to ask admin  for advice (feel free to tell him I sent you). --Elonka 05:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the links posted here. All they seems to say is that if one contributes a lot, one can be just as nasty as one can be without fear of any sanctions. You know, I'm getting very tired of this. If this is what Wikipedia is all about, I'm pretty sure it's not worth the effort. Rules and policies have to mean something real or they are ineffective in guiding human conduct. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've also posted the list of references in a new section on the Talk:Law of the United States page and invited discussion of which ones are inappropriate and why, and where some might better be placed. I'd like to see discussion of each one. Please check it out. We'll see what response this brings. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's one way to go about it. Another is to follow the WP:BRD flowchart. In this case, what you might wish to do is re-create the "Further reading" section, but smaller this time, maybe with only a few titles that you think are most worthy.  If no one complains after a couple days, then maybe add a couple more titles.  Proceed until you get "push back", and then you'll know you're at the right number.  An even better way to proceed would be to see if you could find ways to use the books rather than just list the books.  Look for where one of the books could be used as an actual reference in the article, then add a cite to that book, and voila! It'll be included that way.  And if you can't find any way that a book might be a proper source for anything in the article, well, it's probably not the right article to list it anyway. Make sense? And lastly, if you haven't yet, check the gadgets in your "Preferences" and turn on RefTools.  It'll give you a "cite" button that can make citation-creation a lot easier. :) --Elonka 02:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Can Khamosh edit talk pages?
Hello

Can Khamosh (who you blocked for 3RR violation) edit talk pages? It would be helpful for all concerned if he could engage in the discussion at Talk:Antony_Flew. (Indeed, it is his reluctance to engage in discussion that has fuelled the Anthony Flew edit war. Banning him will only encourage this tendency.)

Regards, &mdash; H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 23:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(P.S. Is he supposed to blank his talk page?)
 * While he is blocked, he is unable to edit any talkpage except his own. Per WP:BLANKING, he is allowed to blank it if he wishes.  If he would like to participate at the article talkpage, then if he is willing to promise that he will stop edit-warring, and participate only in discussion, the block can probably be lifted early.  You may wish to suggest this to him, and if he requests an unblock, let me know.  :) --Elonka 23:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The Anthony Flew article is blocked, and he doesn't really edit anything else. His contribution history lists nothing but the Anthony Flew edit warring, and a few minor edits to Gamma ray bursts.  I would have no objection to a straight unblock. &mdash;  H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 00:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's generally not my practice to unblock early, unless the blockee acknowledges the concerns that led to their block, and promises to try and better moderate their behavior in the future. If you can persuade Khamosh to make such a promise, let me know. --Elonka 00:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: GAN query
The following paragraphs in the section need references:


 * "Long-term storage"
 * "After filling a cylinder"
 * "The glass inside a cylinder"
 * "Thus, Alfvén identified"
 * "High-level radioactive waste"
 * "In 1997, in the 20 countries"
 * "In 1989 and 1992, France"
 * And more

Gary King ( talk ) 00:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nominations are sometimes "quick failed" when there are too many issues—in this case, and in most cases, major referencing issues—that it would be wisest for the nomination to be closed, so that editors can continue working on the article without any time restraints (which is unofficially seven days from when the nomination begins); there is no deadline. Gary King  ( talk ) 01:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Continue this here: Talk:Radioactive waste/GA1 Gary King  ( talk ) 01:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I would be glad to help mentor him. After reading your message, I'd like to assure you a few things: that I don't intend to bite any users, ever, and that I especially did not plan on making GAN a hard time for him which is what it might have looked like—I've never encountered him on Wikipedia before, and frankly, I treat all my reviews the same; I completely ignore who nominated an article and just look at the article itself. I will continue the discussion on the GA subpage, where either you or Mervyn can post questions and comments about the review. Don't expect a quick review, though, I am and will be very thorough with it, and considering the article's length, it will be a particularly lengthy review. But it will be worthwhile. Gary King  ( talk ) 02:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it. Some things fixed already. May take a day or two. Need to find a couple books. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In consultation with Gary King, I've split off a new article called High-level radioactive waste management from the one on Radioactive waste and have asked him to cancel GA review of the old article and do a GA review on the new article. Both are now a good deal shorter. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a great plan. And please do cultivate the relationship with Gary King, he is a highly experienced Wikipedian who can be very helpful to you.  :) --Elonka 03:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

NoCal100
I am sorry but I cannot see what you find of offence in the remarks...As NoCal100 was directing remarks at me personally...Will you be taking the same action against NoCal100?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You were accusing him of trolling, even though you had been warned repeatedly about civility. But of even more concern, you were adding biased information to an article, and the source was not verifying the information that you were adding. This was an extremely serious violation of the WP:V and WP:NPOV policies, especially because it was being done on a powderkeg article that is already within the scope of the Israel-Palestine articles ArbCom case. Anyone can make a mistake, but when this information was challenged at the talkpage, you did not back down.
 * As for the edits of, yes, I am watching his edits closely as well. The main difference between the two of you though, is that when NoCal100 receives constructive criticism, he takes it onboard and tries to adapt his editing accordingly. I encourage you to try and do the same. Please try to keep future communications civil, and ensure that any article additions are properly reflecting the information in reliable sources, and this will help avoid any future sanctions. --Elonka 22:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No NoCal100 has not changed editing style. The incident referred to is also recorded in UN Docs, the barbarity of the attack is attested to in the UN Docs, I know that because in June 2007 I cast a cursory glance over the sources available for ma'ale akrabim to include a synopsis on HKJ/IMAC. My notes are somewhere on the computer. It does take time to go through those Docs. Time that at present I am not prepared to make as I am getting on with what I consider as more essential editing. NoCal100 does not read the books from which the references come, Nocal100 quote mines. NoCal100 was given a short list of major faults within the article and has made no attempt to rectify those errors. I really don't care what or how NoCal100 edits as it is not about Nocal100 it is about the articles that NoCal100 butchers. Fortunately I know most of the documents and book sources to be able to drive a couch and horses through Nocal100's POV. I do work quite nicely with some of the pro-Israel group, Ynhockey and I built Operation Bi'ur Hametz quite nicely whereas before it had been a blood bath. I do try to be civil, unfortunately NoCal100 makes absurd remarks that I find highly amusing and that's when sarcasm gets the better of me. Please tell NoCal100 to stop making the silly remarks. I believe that Huldra has already explained how NoCal100's behaviour is viewed by many editors, Casual Observer as made much the same remarks and I do believe I have made myself pretty clear on the subject of NoCal100. I am sorry if you find that WP:UNCIVIL but I did inform you that I was brought up to be truthful and to speak my mind...NoCal100 makes articles powderkegs by adopting an extremist POV Nocal100 does not try to write for the enemy...sanctions is always going to be a problem as I will always end up going into those areas that POV monsters think they own. NoCal100 has shown him/her self to be a stalker, therefore no article I start on will be assured protection from his extremist POV and that means conflict. NoCal100 has already removed essential references from Banias to prove his/her POV...So I will just have to drop a POV tag on it in how ever many days.

And please don't talk to me about obvious blatant bias. The "Jordanians are the ones that done it all" here was a blatant misrepresentation of the sources. maybe you'd like to have a word with Nocal100 about his/her extremely serious violation of the WP:V and WP:NPOV policies. Not the quote from the sources (shows NoCal100's quote mining) but the whole of the conclusions of sources. If you care to read Morris you will find that the one incident I referred to was one of many in a cycle of violence in tit for tat vendettas. The whole of the Morris chapter is about vendettas spiralling out of control.

Oh and 30 days from today does not get to 27 January. If you'd like to recount and ban me for the correct number of days from ma'ale Akrabim or conversely put the correct date for the end of a 30 day ban...

One way of dealing with the conflict is I put a not into you every time NoCal100 write something crass or extremely stupid and you can get him/her to remove it...I mean comments about OR on a talk page... Would you Please inform him/her that OR is about what is included in an article and not about what appears on a talk page....

Oh and by the way the wiki cangaroo court is not, nor ever has been an arbiter of fact; the Check user facility is only done on a guess with suspicion and highly fallible when used on British Telecom. I can supply you with my personal phone number, which isn't very difficult to verify as it's in the BT phone book and the same with Charlie O'Sulivan's number. Your findings from blocking out half the UK should have shown you how dodgy the wiki system is for identifying sockpuppets in the UK. You see every time you repeat that Ashley and Charlie are likely socks is being WP:UNCIVIL as it is untrue .......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops! My apologies about the date thing, I miscounted. Does January 19 sound better? --Elonka 03:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That date would be correct for a 30 day ban onediting on Ma'ale Akrabim...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll fix, thanks. --Elonka 18:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The issues raised on the talk page of Ma'ale Akrabim about the POV banner have not been addressed yet NoCal100 has removed the banner claiming they have. Why?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Ban
What took you so loong? No admins on Christmas? 70.54.8.72 (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way Merry Christmas =) 70.54.8.72 (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you too. :) --Elonka 05:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
Hi, and thanks for all the help and support this year. I hope you and your family have a safe and happy holiday season. Best regards for the new year. ;o) -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good pic! I won't be going to Tobago, but I will be in the Caribbean next week, so thanks.  And Happy Holidays to you too! --Elonka 06:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Feliz Navidad de este rincon del caribe de donde estoy yo ahorita. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Trying to not sound stalkerish at all, but...
I saw your name on the GLS 5.0 call for papers and thought to myself, Elonka Dunin, that's an odd name, surely there wouldn't be too many "Elonkas" floating around. Sure enough, it was the very same Elonka. Hope to see you there! I'm a nobody, so I don't bother or wish to use my real name on wiki, but I'll actually introduce myself at GLS rather than just judge from afar. :) I hope you are having a wonderful holiday. Protonk (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's me! :) And yes, definitely come up and say hi, I love to meet other Wikipedians! Will you be speaking? --Elonka 21:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not unless I'm doing a poster or part of a small group session (just a student and the research I have in the pipeline on the subject is too new). Protonk (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

New Year
Visions of you sitting in a deck chair on a cruise ship with your laptop cruising Wikipedia... Been Carribean many times looking for small colored fish. No time for laptops or food. Face down in the water snorkeling is my speed. Not too much equipment or too many cares.

Thanks for everything. There are no words (Orson Wells). Better times are comin. May peace walk with you into the new year. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Page moves
Hi, Elonka! I'm moving articles whose title does not match Naming conventions (names and titles). I know that there are exceptions for each rule, but if (for example) the rule says: "European monarchs whose rank was below that of King (e.g., Grand Dukes, Electors, Dukes, Princes), should be at the location "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}", then most of the articles should match the convention. Otherwise the convention should be changed. If someone disagrees with the moves, then a discussion should be started at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). I don't think that rules are made to be broken. Surtsicna (talk) 07:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. Shall we keep the articles where they are now or will I have to propose moving articles that are already moved? Do you personally object the moves? I've noticed that you've created articles about the Princes of Antioch, so I'd like to know your opinion. Surtsicna (talk) 08:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your patience and for advising me :) I'll keep your advice in my mind. Surtsicna (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Warning before blocking
Aren't you supposed to warn someone before blocking them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.16.209 (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends what they're doing, whether they're an established editor or an obvious throwaway account, and where they're making changes. For a couple (extreme) examples, an anon making an obvious vandalistic edit could be blocked on sight, or warned first, at the discretion of the admin.  For me, if an anon made a change like deleting a line "just to see what would happen", I'd probably warn first.  If an anon came in and blanked an entire page and replaced it with a picture of someone's genitals, I don't think a warning is really necessary, since it's pretty obvious that they're just here to disrupt, so I'd have no trouble with blocking that account without warning.  But that's an extreme example. In your own case,, you were edit-warring at the article Beer style, which has been the subject of disputes and edit-warring for a long long time. It's also fairly obvious that your main purpose on Wikipedia is to battle with , and there was a credible assertion that you're an anon sock of .  What it comes right down to though, is Wikipedia is not a battleground, and gaming the rules is not acceptable.  Please, if you want to participate on the project, do so as a single named account, and where there's a dispute, follow the steps of Dispute resolution:  Don't edit war, but do engage in discussion on talkpages.  This will help to find a consensus on how disputed articles should be handled, and will lead to much longer lasting changes on the article in question. :) --Elonka 19:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
Hey Elonka. :) I think you misunderstood me here. I was asking the reporting IP, not you. :) I'm in perfect agreement with you on that issue. Best wishes, —  Aitias  // discussion 23:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Not helpful
This marks the third article in almost as many days, after Ma'ale Akrabim massacre and Jordan Valley Unified Water Plan that User:Ashley kennedy3 has followed me to, in order to either undo my edits, slap a on or otherwise challenge me. Perhaps a word with him would prevent the drama of a wiki-hounding case. NoCal100 (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I took a look at Ashley's edits to the article, and most appear to be pretty good: Sourced information, civil edit summaries.  I realize that there's tension between the two of you, but this doesn't mean that Ashley is forbidden from working on any articles in this topic area.  Now, the talkpage comments are more of a concern, from both of you.  Ashley shouldn't be making accusations of plagiarism, and your own comments (such as the "schoolmarmish" comment) aren't particularly helpful either.  I've added the page to my watchlist, so please, try to just continue, and try a bit harder to assume good faith?  I can't see as Ashley is trying to hurt the article -- his goal seems to be to help improve it. --Elonka 05:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * he has twice now removed or tagged a clearly referenced statement (to the effect that the projects were successful), and has added irrelevant material (1999 info related to Israle-Jordan peace agreement, not relevant to a 1964 plan), so I disagree that his efforts are aimed at improving the article. If you don't want to take action, fine, I'll take this to AN?I and see what other administrators think about someone following me around to every new article I create in order to challenge my edits there. NoCal100 (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please provide some specific diffs? I'll take another look. --Elonka 05:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * here you go:
 * - removes 'successful' even though it is in the reference
 * tags with {{who}] when th etwo projects are clearly spelled out later in the sentence
 * removes entire section of well sourced material with a claim of 'plagiarism' NoCal100 (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The first one doesn't bother me too much, since it's a judgment call as to which wording is more neutral. The second one may be a little on the irritating side, since Ashley is tagging rather than fixing, but again, it's not something I'm going to block over.  As for the third one, I agree that these accusations of "plagiarism" have to stop.  Ashley, stop tossing this word around, k? Sourced information is not plagiarism.  If you keep generating these kinds of claims, rather than just fixing the article, your current ban may be extended to include anything water-related in this topic area.  I'd rather not do that, so please, just try a little harder to get along? Both of you, NoCal100 and Ashley kennedy3, seem to be operating in good faith, you are both editors who have good edits in your history, and you both seem to want to help the project and not hurt it.  Can we build on even that much, to try to get to some level of mutual respect?  It would be helpful for both of you, and also for the project. --Elonka 05:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) That plagiarism is real as the paragraphs were not clearly marked as direct quotes. They need to be re-written in our own words....easy enough to do (plus a couple of other paragraphs I've noticed)


 * 1) Success is another matter. Success needs to be removed as ultimately they were not a success for Jordan, in development or shared water. The aftermath section shows that, therefore there would be internal inconsistency within the article..


 * 1) conclusions or aftermath is normal in any articleAshley kennedy3 (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

content dispute..I think Banias where NoCal100 stalked Nishidani to proves I was looking and interested in that area before NoCal100 suddenly developed an interest...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

There were three plagiarised paragraphs (now 2, I've re-written the first) The last two were not cited so there is no way to claim it as a quote...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, how can I fix successful when it should not be there as it was only successful from Israel's perspective...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 05:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The reference given does not in any shape or form show success..United Nations University Murakami, Masahiro (1995) Managing Water for Peace in the Middle East: Alternative Strategies, ISBN 92-808-0858-3 p.296 In fact page 296 says that the East Ghor canal project was part of a larger project. Those other parts to this day have not been completed...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Please point out where the reference says it was a success:-

Design of the East Ghor canal was begun by Jordan in 1957. It was intended as the first section of a much more ambitious plan known as the Greater Yarmouk project. Additional sections included (1) construction of two Dams on the Yarmouk (Mukheiba and Maqarin) for storage and hydroelectricity, (2) construction of a 47-km West Ghor canal, together with a siphon across the Jordan River near wadi Faria to connect it with the East Ghor Canal, (3) construction of seven dams to utilise seasonal flow on side wadis flowing into the Jordan, and (4) construction of pumping stations, lateral canals, and flood protection and drainage facilities. In the original Greater Yarmouk project the East Ghor Canal was scheduled to provide only 25% of the total irrigation scheme. Construction of the Canal began in 1959. By 1961 its first section was completed; sections two and three, down Wadi Zarqa, were in service by June 1966.... Murakami, Masahiro (1995) Managing Water for Peace in the Middle East: Alternative Strategies, ISBN 92-808-0858-3 p.296

The rest then continues with the plagiarised sections in the article (I know you don't like the word but that is what they are)

It only says the project was done and that it was originally part of a greater scheme...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

easily sorted made a copy of the entire original article (entire article was plagiarised) gave it the correct citation and its in the footnotes complete...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the last two edits: an d. I'm at my wit's end as to how to deal with this disruption - these edits can very likely be described as vandalism. NoCal100 (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

NoCal100 Edit warring
NoCal100 has just broken 3RR on Jordan Valley Unified Water Plan..could you deal with it please...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No warning, way out of date and WP:UNCIVIL here...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
An Arbitration case in which you commented 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/Fringe science/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/Fringe science/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

beer style discussion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beer_style#A_Summary

Mikebe (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Help needed with Rowena King article
Elonka this a BLP issue and I am not familar with this issue.Is actor Justin Lazard married to Rowena King .An IP claiming to be the |Justin Lazard's Wife is reverting it and another IP has put it back and even after a search in Yahoo and google not able to find anything accurate.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I removed the latest addition, and commented at the talkpage.  If there are further problems, keep on reverting (3RR doesn't apply for BLP issues).  I've got it on my watchlist and will try to help, but if I'm not around and problems continue, you may wish to file a report at WP:RFPP to have the page semi-protected to keep the anons off of it for awhile. --Elonka 21:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt action and Wish you a very happy New Year.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Dear Elonka,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

 Majorly  talk  21:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Bonne Année, Bonne Santé!
Happy New Year Elonka! Let me wish you the very best for the year 2009! Cheers PHG (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Coolcaeser
Coolceaser is back again with repeated rude, insulting remarks at Talk:Law of the United States. Was invited to discussion and identification of a shorter list of readings but declined to participate in any constructive manner. Has been warned about incivility both on that talk page and on his own talk page, but continues to display a pattern of rude behavior without making any conciliatory gestures or participating in cordial discussion or negotiation. What can be done? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Mervyn, it would be more useful if you learnt to assume good faith in what appears to be a reasoned response to your continued refusal to follow the good advice that's been given to you, and stopped jumping to take offence at attempts by others to lay out the problem with your proposals. Such sensitivity to perceived slights merely causes conflict. . dave souza, talk 20:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure what this editor's problem is. Seems mostly to defend rudeness of other editors. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

List of pseudosciences
Hi Elonka, I got and took to heart your note; I struck some unhelpful material that you referred to. Also responded in detail on my talk page. I must admit I was a little annoyed at your comment, as I felt that you were going after the wrong guy... here's one dude committing all these fouls, and I get chastised for kvetching about it! ;-) That said, I noticed your exchange on Dematt's talk page; anyone who has the respect of Fyslee and Dematt has mine too, so I'm sure we'll get along fine.  Happy New Year! --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

CM archives
Hi. I was just cleaning up my watchlist, and after much staring, I cannot determine why User talk:Charles Matthews isn't being properly archived by MiszaBot. Possibly you can? Happy new year too ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's very curious. I did some staring too but didn't see anything obvious, so have left a note for Misza to take a look at it. --Elonka 15:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All fixed now, see User talk:Misza13 for the details. Thanks for spotting the problem! :) --Elonka 15:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

High-level radioactive waste
Welcome back, and thanks. Never thought I'd see the day. All the Talk sections there except "Moved" were actually part of the GA review and probably should be archived along with the GA talk. Don't know why they were not.

Also note the RfC at Talk: Law of the United States can probably be closed. Nothing happening there since mid December. Oops, somebody else got it.

Finally, someone has been busily "sanitizing" the Sierra Club article to remove factual information and references under "Immigration controversy" section they apparently think reflect poorly on the organization (POV). I've reverted a couple things, one more than once. Might want to watch that until it stops.

Hope your cruise was great fun. Tanned? Or just rested? Cheers! Mervyn Emrys (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your help in archiving the Disney stuff and College and Happy New Year! --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

PHG ArbCom request
I've posted a request for possible additional evidence at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Evidence. Cool Hand Luke 18:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Drink/Selected article
This page was not up for deletion, I think I missed a transcluded link. Could you please restore it?

--Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 05:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks 8-D.

Because all of those portals use the same format for their templates, I created a single unified one for all of them. When I changed the templates over to a new one, I missed a couple of sub pages and when put the speedy tag up on them they transcluded over to the list page. Stupid mistake on my part.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 05:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Maximillion Pegasus archives
If you look at the logs and edits here, you'll see that they were restored today with the CSD tags still in place. They just need to be restored and to have the tags removed. John Reaves 06:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, and....
Thanks for your input at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts and for clarifying the revert situation at AN3. Would you mind asking QuackGuru to stop using his user page as an attack page on me, especially when I can't defend myself because he usually erases comments? There is no merit in his 4RR accusation, and the complaining about my username-change (which he's repeated for all to see at AN3) borders on harassment, since it was done for privacy reasons. He's almost wildly obtuse on talk pages too, but that's a matter for another day. --Backin72 (n.b.) 08:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: He's continuing, so I blanked the section that violated NPA and was (nearly? actually?) harassment.  Too much escalation and tit-for-tat, notably with removing the well-sourced TCM material.  I'm thinking RfC/U, but it's a hassle. --Backin72 (n.b.) 08:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: New antisemitism
Feel free to unprotect it if you feel it's necessary. Sorry I hadn't noticed that earlier. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  20:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom request for clarification: WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE
A request has been made for clarification of the ArbCom case WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE as it relates to List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. I'm leaving this notification with all editors who have recently edited the article or participated in discussion. For now, the pending request, where you are free to comment, may be found here. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 13:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it looks like they're going to blow it off. Candidly, I think your comments discouraging taking up the case were unfortunate, because I don't think you're familiar with the long history of the dispute over the name.  However, you did correctly identify the main areas of dispute right now.


 * I posted my best shot at a description of problems and constructive suggestions for going forward on the talk page. I hope it's helpful.  If we could get editors away from a !voting mentality and into an "addressing one's opponent's strongest arguments", we'd have an excellent debate.  Some editors do that already; others, not so much, but this is not the place to name-check.  regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 08:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the entire talkpage is suffering a bit from three main problems, one is "tl;dr" (too long, didn't read) comments, another is too much back and forth between a small group of editors who just keep repeating the same positions, and thirdly, the discussions range a bit into the abstract, rather than focusing specifically on the List itself. This makes it difficult for outside editors to offer comments.  What you may wish to do is identify one specific part of the list which you would like to modify, and start a very brief and focused section.  Use a very short post, and try to be very specific about what wording change you would like.  If other of the regular editors comment, don't feel that you need to reply to every single thing they say. Let them say their piece, and then wait a day or so and give other editors a chance to weigh in. Now, if you feel that a constructive dialogue is possible with the regular editors, by all means continue to discuss to hammer out a compromise.  But if it's just you and them going back and forth, neither convincing the other, then all that's going to do is fill up the page and make other editors less likely to want to join the fray. For best results: Keep comments short, sparing, and directly focused on the article. --Elonka 17:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I hope it works.  But I'm not optimistic.  You can already see examples on the talk page where a specific issue -- asserting consensus falsely -- was raised and ignored (deliberately, I think).  --Backin72 (n.b.) 22:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. Was the thread-starter here an example of "too long, didn't read"?  thanks, Backin72 (n.b.) 22:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That particular one was borderline. It's long, but wasn't that difficult to read because of the bullet points.  As a general rule of thumb though, as soon as a post gets longer than 5 or 6 lines, the chances that anyone is actually going to read all of it start dropping drastically.  And the chances that they're going to carefully ponder it also drop at a rapid rate.  It's a shame, actually, because when someone writes a long post, chances are pretty good that they put a lot of time and thought into it.  But the attention span of the reader needs to be brought into consideration.  As an exercise, try skimming the discussions at WP:ANI.  Pick a thread that you know nothing about, and then read it to try and get a sense of what's being talked about, and further, to try and determine what should be done about it.  I think you'll rapidly find that it's very difficult to review an unfamiliar discussion, and that the longer the posts are, the more difficult it can be! --Elonka 22:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand. I just have fond hopes that articles, which are much more stable than ANI threads, can attract more sustained attention.  I've had some fantastic long exchanges at acupuncture.  But the List of Pseudos and Sorta-Pseudos does seem to be a place where shorter arguments avail (if they avail at all; I don't think the WP:IDHT is in my imagination).  Is it possible that you are treating the page more like an ANI thread, and just skimming over the longer posts?  If so, you would have a better sense of where things stand if you read posts in detail.  Please toss away that "shoe" if it doesn't fit.  I'm just super burned out on WP because this sort of thing was tolerated.  I believe SA crossed a line very badly with his rampant WP:NPA, and I just can't trust WP anymore as a healthy editing environment.  ciao, Backin72 (n.b.) 23:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)