User talk:Elonka/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 → Archive 20

Templates

Obviously you haven't looked! Johnbod (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Internet Explorer - don't know my screen res I'm afraid. I see this very commonly, when the picture is at the start of a section. If it was just below the template itself it would have been ok. Johnbod (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed naming convention, way forward?

Hi Elonka, thanks for guiding the Slovaks and Hungarians out of the trenches! Now that there has been quite some constructive discussion about the proposed naming convention for Slovak places, what would be the way forward? Is it a good idea to create a separate naming convention, and vote about the modifications? Or should we make it a sub-rule of WP:NCGN (and vote there)? Markussep Talk 09:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Block

Yeah, I hesitated about the block, but while I was hesitating, the large edits were coming fast and furious, I couldn't be sure if they were things easily undone or not. Plus the talk page had a note at the top saying that any addition would be deleted unread - what does one do to get an editor's attention then? Stan (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I used up an irreplaceable chunk of my life dealing with User:Wik's disruptive wikignoming, so I have very little patience for that anymore. Your attitude is commendable though. Stan (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Would I do it the same way again? I think so. I did look at the history of her talk page, and saw the pattern of deletion of remarks posted, so the "delete unread" claim seemed plausible, and while I was doing all this, several more edits came in. My usual experience with fast-and-furious editors has been that they ignore talk page notes anyway, so between that and the advance notice that a polite warning was going to be ignored, a short block seems like the appropriate clue-by-four. Stan (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

controversial edit?

Hi, I am wondering what was controversial about my edit at Pilisszentkereszt? I didn't remove any info, added new and improved the layout. The only controversial part was Rocket's comment that misinterpreted my edit. At least he had the decency to remove it.--Svetovid (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

At Pilisszentkereszt you modified the lead, but left a version you would never apply for a Slovak place with Hungarian majority. If you say everything was all right with your edit, I ask you if I can modify the lead at Slovak cities/villages (with Hungarian majority) to your version.
It is simply tiresome dealing with your edits all the time, that's why I removed my comment. Squash Racket (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
You are lying again. See the original version of the article. Also, do not assume what I would or wouldn't do.--Svetovid (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Angel nom

You're going straight to heaven, if I have any say in the matter. I'll cancel my WP hiatus now. <grin> Thanks for being the voice of common sense. --TheEditrix2 23:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and I do hope you will consider "redecorating" your user page. Let me know when you're done, I'd love to take a look! :) --Elonka 13:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Priory of Sion

In light of my previous request, I just wanted to let you know that Priory of Sion has just been listed as a good article. :) --Loremaster (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Your warning

If you post once more on Johnbods page, I'll take it to AN/I. Really, what do you hope to achieve here. Nice deflexion, bty. Ceoil (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Be my guest. You may however wish to review this AN thread first though.[1] --Elonka 02:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation. Remember what I said about context, intention, edit history or reputation, and bots? Judgement and research please. This is going on for days, and still you are rigidly following the letter of the law to is barest most desperate reaches. The edit was about image positions. Ceoil (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
And the edit summary was grossly uncivil. That's the core issue here, that the summary was inappropriate. I am frankly surprised that you are continuing to defend it. --Elonka 02:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes you said. A number of times. But note A number of times. Also you just switched argument. Do you hunt down and demand an personall apology from all established editors who make a flippant remark to an ip. That would seem a wasteful way to spend life, and a detriment to the project. Ceoil (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not defending it, I saying you are blowing it out of all portion. He did explain, end of story. Ceoil (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Ceoil, you are the one who jumped in, 5 days after the original incident, to stir it up again, and further escalate things by accusing me of harassment, on two pages now. And now you're also threatening an ANI thread? Talk about "out of all proportion", see WP:KETTLE. To answer your original question though, yes, while this project of calming the ethnic dispute is in-process, I will absolutely continue to contact any editor who jumps into the middle of it with an uncivil comment or attack. It is now my recommendation that you drop this, instead of continuing to escalate this even further. --Elonka 02:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

It would be great, thanks. Hobartimus (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert Fico

New thread on the experiment page[2], please, have a say. --Rembaoud (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Lecture

The next Wikipedia:Lectures will be by User:Vassyana about how to mediate disputes. Might be interesting!

--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

I just want to ask a question, i saw that you semi-protected the user page of Hobartimus because of vandal edits but when i look at the page history here i can only see one vandal edit. Why is it that we cant see the rest? Is it because when a user gets blocked, their contributions dont show up? Can you please help me out, i was just curious thats all. I thought it was only Oversights who can hide certain edits in certain circumstances. Thanks Roadrunnerz45 (talk 2 me) 12:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It does thanks, i always wanted to know about the deleted edits. You puts my mind at rest:) Roadrunnerz45 (talk 2 me) 14:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Missed that comment

You are lying again. See the original version of the article. Also, do not assume what I would or wouldn't do.--Svetovid (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed this comment. Svetovid, please don't accuse me a day after my comment with anything, especially not on someone else's talk page. What I said is true: you modified the lead at Pilisszentkereszt, but left there a version you would never accept at Slovak villages/cities (see for example your controversial edit at Zilina, where you deleted the Hungarian name from the lead even though there is not even a separate names section).
Also administrator Thatcher referred to your misuse of Twinkle at the MarkBA sockpuppet page, but you don't seem to get the message. These edits were not vandalism.
Elonka, may we include archived threads that are not yet included at the experiment page? Squash Racket (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, yes, feel free to expand it with any threads that I haven't spotted yet. :) --Elonka 14:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Before I get attacked again, I translated an article here, this is a citation of the linked article almost word by word. I am not drawing any parallels etc. and the article comes from a newspaper of record. Squash Racket (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles per day

Yes, the net increase in articles is 1,500 to 2,000 per day. But there are actually around 2,500-3,000 articles added every day. (About 1,000-1,500 or so are deleted every day, but that doesn't affect the number that are added.)

I was using User:Dragons flight/Log analysis, though that's a bit dated, but it sounds like our numbers aren't that far apart. (As an aside, "several", to me, means "two to four"; at the rate of even 1,000 articles per day, a week's worth would exceed "several" thousand, as I interpret the word.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ms Crisp

I am relieved that you are looking into the matter of Mathsci v. Michellecrisp. I am another victim of Ms Crisp’s harassment and stalking, but unlike Mr Mathsci I confess that in the face of her relentless stalking I have simply given up and largely desisted from further Wikipedia editing. I do hope that you will indeed thoroughly investigate Ms Crisp’s aggressive behaviour and possibly urge her to take a more positive, courteous and encouraging attitude. Masalai (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masalai (talk • contribs) 23:19, April 26, 2008

Indeed I was provoked to intemperate comment in explanation of edits. Her rudeness has that effect. As I say, I have largely abandoned the project since every single contribution I have made, she has followed: it is more than a little creepy, to be frank. Masalai (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

whilst I encounter incivility sometimes on Wikipedia, simply blaming me for persistent personal attacks (which resulted in your blocking) is really passing the buck, in the end you take responsibility for your actions/comments on Wikipedia like sensible adults including how you react to others. I welcome any investigation of my edits. "Every single contribution" is a gross exaggeration. As for following edits, one thing I had to correct (which admin LaraLove also supported) was Masalai's constantly incorrectly labelling References sections as Notes in direct contravention of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Standard_appendices_and_descriptions This persisted despite warnings to the contrary. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
While I am not condoning the things that Masalai (talk · contribs) said (they were clear violations of WP:CIVIL), I still have to point out that the comments were not made in a vacuum. I have found no evidence that Masalai was actively pursuing Michellecrisp (talk · contribs). Most of his comments seem to have been reactions to notes that were placed on his talkpage, and then began a vicious cycle, as Michellecrisp placed a message, Masalai removed it with a snarky comment, Michellecrisp warned him again, he removed that with another snarky comment, and so forth. Then Michellecrisp went to a bunch of articles that Masalai had been editing, and either changed or criticizing the referencing. Though her comments might have been completely innocuous in some other context, in the highly-charged atmosphere at the time, any edit by Michellecrisp was seen as an attack, especially when she was suddenly popping up at several other articles on his watchlist. Masalai reacted defensively (and again, unfortunately, with incivility). At which point Michellecrisp would place another warning, and 'round the cycle would go again.
Though these activities occurred a couple months ago, it appears that both editors are still carrying a grudge, and neither is willing to "let it go". Masalai feels that Michellecrisp was stalking him, and regards her actions as rude and aggressive; Michellecrisp feels that Masalai is uncivil, and that he's the one that is rude and aggressive.
But as regards their current editing practices, except for their conflict with each other, both are otherwise pretty good editors. Does that pretty much sum it up? --Elonka 14:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, thanks for your comments, it is appreciated. as you know I've done many many edits since Feb so this issue was over for me (especially as the attacks ceased) until it popped up just then. So I'm prepared to put it to rest, especially since you've now investigated it. hope Masalai will do the same. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, Ms Crisp appears to follow me everywhere I go, even after many weeks of my forbearing to edit at all. Does she want me to desist utterly from contributing to the Wikipedia project? Possibly you could investigate Ms Crisp's stalking behaviour. It is beyond creepy and surely cannot be healthy. Masalai (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Masalai, I've looked through your contribs over the last month, and I'm honestly not seeing any place where you and Michellecrisp have intersected at all. Am I missing something? If so, please give me a link. If not, my recommendation is to just go back to editing at this point. If there are disputes somewhere, let me or some other admin know, and we can deal with those as they come up. But it's really looking to me like the problem is over at this point. If I've missed something though, definitely tell me. --Elonka 09:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Elonka, of course there is no interaction between myself and Ms Crisp, infelicitous or otherwise, in the past month. As I say, Ms Crisp has accomplished her goal as to me (as to how any others?) of ridding the Wikipedia project of contributors like myself. I have barely edited at all since she began weirdly stalking and harrassing me personally: one assumes that Ms Crisp's negative agenda must be to discourage contribution to Wikipedia altogether. But what is her positive agenda, if any? Ms Crisp appears not to have made any original contributions at all beyond one or two articles of hers that were soon deleted as being insignificant ("Pubs of Newtown" appears to have been one of her contributions, and it was soon thrust out.)
Do you think there is any favourable comment to at all to be made as to Ms Crisp's interventions among Wikipedia contributors, as to their contributions and on their talk pages, which it seems to me thus far are wholly malign? Masalai (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Masalai, I have to admit confusion here, as to what exactly you want? What would you like to see happen, for you to feel comfortable about editing again? --Elonka 10:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it appears that Ms Crisp has gone on to other projects than stalking me -- I even note in one or two articles I have contributed to that she has recently even made positive contributions instead of merely idly criticising -- so perhaps the combination of my taking a long rest while bringing the matter to your attention has had a salutary effect. I confess that had Ms Crisp been minimally courteous in the first instance I would not have taken umbrage at her interventions, which may well have been ultimately constructive: I am annoyed at gratuitous rudeness. Thank you for your assistance, however passive: it appears to have been helpful. Masalai (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You are most welcome, and if there's anything else I can do, or if you notice anything else which is interfering with your ability to edit in a productive manner, from any source, please do not hesitate to get in touch.  :) --Elonka 13:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Dimitrion Yordanidis

Hi, I'd be interested to know why the article on Dimitrion Yordanidis was deleted? --Kathlutz (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

At the time I tagged it (December 2006), I wouldn't go so far as to call it an article. All it had was the following: "Dimitrion Yordanidis was the oldest person known to have completed the marathon. On 10 October 1976, at age 98, Yordanidis completed the Athens Marathon, Greece, in approximately 7 hours, 33 minutes. His name is listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greeks. Please note this information is based on limited information obtained from wikipedia.org and other public web sites".
I intended no disrespect, but in order for an article to pass Wikipedia's notability requirements, it requires proper third-party sources. See WP:V and WP:BIO. Wikipedia receives thousands of attempts at new articles each day, and over a thousand are deleted within 24 hours, as they are inappropriate, unsourced, non-notable, or in many cases simply hoaxes or spam. Teenagers will often make up a name and just insert something like what you saw above, so we have no easy way of knowing whether or not the information is accurate, since no sources are provided. Yes we could do our own research, but things are moving too fast for that, and it would be, unfortunately, a colossal waste of time if every time a child added some unsourced dubious claim, other editors had to spend time researching whether or not it was true. So our community consensus, is that the responsibility of providing sources is on those who wish to add the information. Anything that is unsourced, can be removed on sight. If an editor thinks the removed information is appropriate, then they can simply add it back, with actual sources.
If you would like to go ahead and create a new version which is more fleshed out, please proceed. --Elonka 12:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick reply. Yordanidis has an entry in the Guinness Book of World Records and is often named in websites and newspaper articles as the oldest person to have finished a marathon. However, there are severe doubts about the validity of his record in sports circles (although I have found only secondary sources so far), and as far as I can see, he is excluded from all official or semi-official sports statistics about age related marathon records. Recently, he's been frequently mentioned in connection with Buster Martin and the 2008 London Marathon. I think it is worth considering to reinstate an article about him that expresses both the widely believed record claim as well as the doubts but there is no need to rush it.--Kathlutz (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I saw the Guinness source, and agree that it's a strong enough claim of notability to justify an article. And I also agree that it would be an excellent idea to include both the claim and the doubts. That would be a perfect example of neutrality.  :) I'd do it myself, but my plate is already very full with many different projects. Good luck with it though!  :) --Elonka 14:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I took the plunge and created the article on Dimitrion Yordanidis. I hope it passes muster. I will continue to look for more information on the validity of his race result. Marathon runners in their 90s are still extremely rare today and this result for a 98 year old from 1976(!!!) is highly unusual. No one but Guinness (and those who quote Guinness) seem to know about it/him. I am convinced that the issue of very old runners (in their 80s and 90s) will become more prevalent in coming years and there is a need and an interest for reliable information. BTW, Werner Sonntag has an entry in the German version of Wikipedia. Can I/should I link to it, and if so, how? --Kathlutz (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Stub looks good! I've added links to it from a couple places, such as List of marathoners. You might also want to check with someone who speaks Greek, to see if there's an article about Yordanidis at the Greek Wikipedia, so you can interwiki it. A note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece might be good. As for Sonntag, you could try either linking to his article at de:Werner Sonntag, or you could try checking at that article to see if there's a source you could use. Keep up the great work, Elonka 11:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


Etretat

I'll be going there at the end of May - what part of the town do you want me to take photos of ? 14:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about Paris, we'll see - but at Étretat, I'll see what I can dig up on them (having never heard of them before ! ) ;-) Dickie (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dirty Dancing

Hi, well, I can't say the opening is good enough. I think someone fresh should go throught it. Remove "being". Screenplay was written, not film? "Concerns" rather than "details"? "teenageD"? I don't like "moment of time"; "the passage into womanhood, both ph and em., by a t g who has a relationship with ...". And lots more. Whole thing spruced up would delight the reviewers at FAC. TONY (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Dirty Dancing

I've only read the lead for now; perhaps I'll do a more in-depth review when I have the time. However, if the lead is indicative of the quality of the rest of the article, I'd be inclined to say that more work needs to be done.

  • "credited as being one of the most watched films of all time." Source is an unscientific poll that gives no info on who the respondents were and how many were polled. I would hardly consider this noteworthy of mentioning in the article, let alone the very first sentence.
  • "The story details the moment of time that a teenaged girl crosses over into womanhood both physically and emotionally," Quite an awkward sentence in need of a rewrite. "Details" is ungainly here. "Moment of time"? "Teenaged"?
  • "(later famous for High School Musical)" He wasn't famous for Dirty Dancing?
  • "with no major stars (at the time)" -> something like "featuring then-unknown actors" BuddingJournalist 15:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence archiving cutoff

Hello Elonka. I would like to respectfully suggest that the automated archive cutoff date be put back to a more standard value (say like 14 days), rather than you keeping adjusting it down. While I'll be the first to admit the talk page is impressive by its size, I think that too short a cutoff may be detrimental to continuity, and as we keep saying, Wikipedia isn't paper. However, I'll understand if you wish to submit the question first to the other editors as well. I'll abie by whatever consensus is arrived at regarding this question (which I hope will make it a potentially very easy consensus!). Thanks,Ramdrake (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your concerns. It's definitely a busy discussion! I've been keeping a close eye on it, as you can tell: Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). When I first spotted the problem, the page was at over 450K! Per WP:SIZE, some people's browsers start running into technical issues at anything over 32K. My goal is to try and get the page to stabilize at no more than 100K or so, but currently the page is growing faster than it is being archived, which is why I tweaked the cutoff again.
As I look through the threads on the page, it looks like a lot of them will get archived with the next cycle. If that gets things back to a manageable level, I'll definitely adjust the bot back up to a longer cutoff. As for continuity, any thread that you think that's been archived, that still needs further discussion, you can definitely copy a relevant portion of it back to the talkpage. Or even better, start a new thread, which links to the prior portion in archive, and perhaps summarizes previous discussions.
For now, I recommend we let it sit for another 24 hours, and see what the page looks like after the next cycle. If there's any one thread that you think really needs to stay on the page, just add a comment to it, to show that the discussion is still active, and then the bot will leave it alone. --Elonka 13:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:204.113.176.3

Hi! Saw your name on the RC page. Please block the user above. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! The user was blocked. Oda Mari (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The user repeatedly vandalized Cotton gin so I looked for an admin on a recent change page and found you. Btw, if it's appropriate please block User talk:Miffyandfrends. This seems to be a vandal account. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Please block User talk:168.24.1.102 too. thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

5/7 DYK

Updated DYK query On 7 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The White Bird, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford 00:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Dejeuner ...

... was ruined because I had to run home to fetch Duchene and Contrucci. I cannot help you with the caption. The fort of St Jean was rebuilt following Louis XIV's imposition of order on the City of Marseille. Glad to see you've found a new hobby. (Duchene and Contrucci cost me 32 € and is very heavy.) Mathsci (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL! It wasn't that urgent, I didn't mean to take you away from your croissant.  :) But thanks for the quick work! The Great Plague of Marseille article also desperately needs sources, if you'd like to add something there.
As for the image, what struck me is that it said it was "built on the Knights Hospitaller". Modesty aside, I guess I'd have to list myself as one of the current Medievalists on Wikipedia, which is why my interest was piqued. I was one of the key editors in bringing Knights Templar to FA status, and I have some passing acquaintance with the other military orders, though most of my attention at the moment is on the Franco-Mongol relations towards the end of the Crusades. Anyway, that caption struck me as being a bit off. My guess is that it's supposed to say "the ruins of the fort of the Knights Hospitaller", but since I'm not familiar with the sources, I didn't want to make any radical changes. Hopefully someone else will figure it out within the next few days; if not, we should probably rework the caption to something easier to understand. Do you think this might have come from a tourist brochure? I guess we could dig through the history to find out who added the information, and see if they're still around! --Elonka 12:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
At some later date I can go and check in situ. I doubt it came from a tourist brochure: it was quite a curious thing to add. However, like the Abbey of St Victor, it would not surprise me if the committee for the reconstruction of Marseille, set up by Louis XIV, had ordered the demolition of an older building, leaving only the foundations for the new fort. My history book refers to "la commanderie des Hospitaliers de Saint-Jean" buried in the foundations (Page 333, Duchene & Contrucci), so that seems completely to confirm the caption. After all, the committee destroyed the town walls and ramparts along the rue d'Aix. I haven't checked the French WP page on Fort St Jean, but there might also be something useful there. I have located two sources for the Great Plague of Marseille (one from JSTOR in English), both of which could be used to expand the article. There are also more images on the French WP site than the one I've added. In Aix-en-Provence the Benediction des Calissons is said to date from the end of the great plague (I think), a religious ceremony in early September to mark the deliverance of Aix. It takes place metres from where I live, in the place St Jean de Malte. Mathsci (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is a website which contains the info in the caption. Mathsci (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the research! So looks like "command post" is the proper translation. Care to do the honors?  :) --Elonka 17:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry to hear about your loss.
I don't think it's correct to translate "Commanderie" as "command post", with its modern connotations, just as Hospitallers or Hospitaliers (Knights of St John of Jerusalem) have no modern equivalent. These are anglo-norman terms from the Crusades. As the footnote now indicates, Marseille became a stopping point on the Crusades after the visit of Richard I on the 3rd crusade. The wikilinked articles discuss the detailed way that nobility and religious institutions in the South of France organized involvement in crusades. Raymond de St Gilles, the rich and powerful Count of Toulouse and and self-declared Marquis of Provence, had rallied the "nation" of Provence around him for the crusades; but, with its own Commanderie on the Mediterranean, Marseille "the rebel" started to play an independent role. Mathsci (talk) 07:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I just looked up Commanderie on the French WP[3]: "a commanderie was a monastery belonging to a religious and military order from the middles ages". The english word, i.e. anglo-norman word, is Commandry. Mathsci (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Condolence

Sorry to hear the sad news. Squash Racket (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I add my own expressions of sympathy: you are assuredly the most helpful, disinterested, civil and — if it isn't too politically incorrect to put it this way — sweet administrator I have yet encountered. (I would say it if you were a guy too.) Masalai (talk) 08:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, they mean a lot. :) --Elonka 22:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Hi Elonka, I'm just dropping you a note because I previously said I would take a look at Dirty Dancing; however, I will not be getting involved with the article. --Laser brain (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --Elonka 22:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

:-(

I was going to leave a note about lectures starting in 30 minutes... but ..

Saw the note at the top of the page. My condolences. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I couldn't make it, I'll definitely read the capture though.  :) --Elonka 22:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

Regarding your comment here, while I sense you don't really want to engage the specific points, I do feel very strongly that nobody shouldt worry that they're jeopardizing their future with Featured Articles by making criticisms of it. I speak from much self-interest here -- I've clashed fairly often with Sandy, Tony (especially Tony), and others whom might be identified as FA regulars -- I've never found any of them to be vindictive about it, but I don't want to tacitly participate in a system that stifles criticism or I'll soon find myself sidelined as well. So I want to offer this sincerely, if you find yourself going through a content process and feel as if the process has become retributive, please seek me out. I'll be more than willing to raise hell about it on your behalf. --JayHenry (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but weren't you also the person who threatened that anyone who opposed the nom, should be blocked? That kind of thing, even though you may have meant it in a humorous fashion, can be intimidating. --Elonka 01:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I struck the comment as soon as I read your oppose. It was intended completely in jest, but when I saw the sincerity of your oppose I realized I had erred badly in making the joke. I was looking at Jbmurray in the context of our need to welcome those editors who can help bridge the gap between academia and us. The issue of cliquishness was not one that had occurred to me when I made the comment. --JayHenry (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see you did, sorry, I was behind the times. I'm just coming off a wikibreak, so am badly backlogged. Thanks though, I do appreciate it. And yes, I have had multiple run-ins with the editors you mentioned, both directly,[4] and by them sticking up for each other (or Jbmurray).[5] I've also been hit with a "one-two" punch on an FA nom, where one editor opposed my nom,[6] and within 30 minutes (before I even had a chance to respond), the nom was then closed.[7][8] Those kinds of things are what have led to my "cliquishness" opinion. --Elonka 02:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you from Horologium

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed unanimously with the support of 100 editors. Your kindness is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Wizardman, Black Falcon and jc37 for nominating me. — Horologium

Sophia Bekele

Dear Elnoka--- sorry to keep troubling you. the article I completed on the article has this message below every time I open it. Could you pls advise on what it is and why it is there? also , why would the warning state that article would be deleted if it is not edited? Thanks so mcuh!!

"This article or section is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. Please view the edit history should you wish to contact the person who placed this template. If this article has not been edited in several days please remove this template. Consider not tagging with a deletion tag unless the page hasn't been edited in several days."

Lashford (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


Dear Elonka. Please note that this page is not finished being edited. Like you advised before, I was hoping to work in the user area before moving it for publishing. It seem now that it is appearing in the searches. Can you please correct? or advise how I can do it? Thank you.

Thank you Lashford (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I went a deleted the article'names' that refere to the NAME, which your colleage Hobartimus suggest that i do not NAME it if I do not want it ti appear in google. I notice all of these under your userId can also be seen. So I did. tx. Lashford (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Elonka---- you are back!... thanks for resuming editing. I was worried I lost you! I was away for a while, but i will look at your edits and advise with you if any corrections to be made! I am still confused where I should be doing this chat! hmm Lashford (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Best place is at Talk:Sophia Bekele. --Elonka 23:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


Sceptre

Elonka, I'm sorry to bother you about this, but it looks like Sceptre has not actually disengaged. In an AN thread concerning a block review of TTN, Sceptre started a subthread on me (oldid). Could you please take a look at this? If you think another admin should look at it, I'd be happy to contact someone else. I reported TTN to AE after reading a comment at WT:AFD where Masem linked[9] to a post TTN made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. After my report to AE, TTN was then blocked for two weeks by Vassyana. --Pixelface (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, if you have no problem with it, I plan on replying to Sceptre in that thread. Do I have your permission? --Pixelface (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the thread, but my feeling is that if he (or anyone) brings up your name anywhere, I would say that you are completely within your rights to reply. Do what you can to keep things from escalating, of course. And best wishes.  :) --Elonka 22:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your reply. Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Is there a place where editors post articles that are getting an FA-push so that more editors are aware of it and can pitch in if they know anything about the subject? Valtoras (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the topic. Sometimes all you have to do is mention a topic, and you get a bunch of editors to help, and sometimes you can beg and grovel for weeks, and no one will help.  ;) It's usually worth posting at a related WikiProject, or maybe a "parent" article's talkpage. --Elonka 21:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The reason I ask this is because I'm thinking of bringing the topic of starting a WikiProject, which would be basically a list of articles that somebody (or a number of people) is trying to bring to FA-status. The point would be to bring more editors who are either kknowledgeable about the subject, or just want to help, to the article to increase productivity. I was considering bringing it up at the village pump. What are your thoughts? Valtoras (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Something like that may already exist. Try checking WP:WFA and Category:Wikipedia featured content. --Elonka 21:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Logically, it probably would have. There was Wikipedia:Featured Article Help Desk, but it's inactive - besides, it's not exactly what I had in mind in terms of what it is. I'm not sure how to go about creating such a WikiProject, but I'm thinking along the lines of something where someone who is trying to bring a specific article to FA-status would submit it and a number of editors would go along and assist in editing the article, and increase productivity. The immediate criticism that forms as I throw out my idea, is that my suggeston seems to be essentially the same thing as what the FA Help Desk was, and is more improbable to actually work, given that any article could use improvement. Please note, however, that my current blueprint idea is unlikely to be the idea I take in the end. Hard for me to work with such a difficult concept, though. Valtoras (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

RfA: Many thanks
Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process. If anything, that goes all the more for those who oppose. I appreciate the time you took, your concerns, and of course your many contributions to the project. I hope to do a good job as an admin, but will appreciate people telling me if I am not. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lectures

Todays lecture is starting! The topic is "How source experts judge source reliability" and the speaker is DGG. The meeting location for setup is #wikipedia-en-lectures on irc.freenode.net. The lecture will be given over skype. Contact Filll2 or kim_bruning to be invited to the lecture chat also.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Just me, the Canadian guy, dropping by, to say hi. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem

Hi Elonka, Sorry to bother you, but I keep running into a problem on the Days of Our Lives cast member page. Several IP's keep changing a character name in the Comings and Goings section. I believe this is one person using several accounts. According to Soapoperadigest.com, the new character's name is Dean Robbins. Someone keeps changing his name to Trent. I have reverted the unsourced edits three times, but it keeps occurring. How should I handle it? Rm994 (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Make that four times now. I have warned this user repeatedly about not sourcing, but they continue to change the page. Rm994 (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Rm994 (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. To be honest though, the whole page at List of Days of our Lives cast members is badly-sourced, so it's difficult to take action against someone who may be making a good-faith change, which appears to be perfectly in line with everything else on the page. Your best bet is to ensure that you provide sources for anything you revert, and that will help it to "stick". :) --Elonka 23:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

THX

Thanks Elonka. I'll try to locate the sources or the Bluegrass Unlimited history and status, and include them in the footnote you're referenced. Much appreciated. --Samuel.harding (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Hoipolloi906

Hi, I've just reviewed this guy's edits. His account has been around for two years and he suddenly starts editing now? In view of his post-block IP sockpuppetry, I've blocked him indefinitely. In this, I am persuaded by a similar spate of vandalism ealier and I think this might be the start of a wave. He can aslways ask to be unblocked, after all. --Rodhullandemu 06:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you know more about the situation than I do. I have no objections. --Elonka 06:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Truce

I would like to propose a truce - i.e. I avoid intervening on your edits, you avoid intervening on my edits - I'm sorry, I just don't think you're being objective or civil with me in general - If you see problems with my edits, I'd prefer you report them directly to a noticeboard and not communicate with me - no offence intended, I just feel there are unworkable differences in viewpoint that require a buffer.

--Scott Free (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, to my knowledge we have never been involved in a dispute. My first interaction with you was when I was responding, as an uninvolved administrator, to a thread at WP:AE. Asking me to stay away from you isn't really an option. Or is there some other place where we have engaged, with which I am unaware? --Elonka 03:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically, at a very informal level, I'm asking that you step away from this particular arbcom case because there have been too many decisions made by yourself that, IMO, denote a lack of neutrality and objectivity - since the case is a fairly minor one and your involvement has been fairly limited, and I don't think that there is a lack of other administrators who could deal with the situation - I'd appreciate it if you would kindly not intervene in this case in an administrative capacity - I could even recommend a few administrators who have shown a level of objectivity that I don't have a problem with.

--Scott Free (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please give examples of the decisions which you have concerns about? --Elonka 05:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I just don't have the time to elaborate, nor do I think that it would be useful or productive - I think I made my position clear enough in the initial discussion in March.

--Scott Free (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, as long as there is no disruption on the John Buscema article, it won't be an issue. :) Happy editing, Elonka 16:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

You may not remember this, but when I first started editing in earnest on Wikipedia you were very kind and patient with me, and I believe you removed a block after I had gotten into an edit war on the Black Stone page. I wanted to thank you for putting up with me at that time. Peter Deer (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I don't think I removed the block, but I do remember chatting with you about the situation.[10] I'm glad to see that things are calmer now, and that you're enjoying your work on Wikipedia.  :) Personally, I don't think the consensus will ever be to remove the image from Black Stone, because it's such a clear illustration (at least to non-Muslims) about an important related story from Muhammad's life. However, I do think that there's a stronger case for removing the image from the Kaaba article, since the image is not as essential there. The best bet will probably be showing that there are lots of other images that are more appropriate, than that one. Best wishes, --Elonka 15:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

SLR

Replied on my talk page. Thanks for dropping by. Sarvagnya 23:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Turkic people

Before you posted your message, I asked the user to go to the talk page of European ethnic groups to justify his blanking. I wonder if you could remove your comments on my talk page as I am quite aware of the three revert rule. I have no history of revert warring. Your unhelpful comment there suggests otherwise. Mathsci (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be unfair of me to block one user in an edit war, and ignore the others. You are, however, welcome to blank anything from your talkpage that you wish. My comment was meant as a friendly caution, and not a formal warning. --Elonka 05:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I was the person who suggested that the blocked editor discuss this on the talk page in my second summary and in a message on his talk page, not you. He removed only the Turks from the start of the large Turkic section. There was something extremely fishy about deleting the first entry in the Turkic section, and the title of the section, both put in place by User:Dbachmann, who seemed to know exactly what he was doing. This was vandalism, since all the other entries that he left were indeed Turkic peoples. Here is the list just in case you've forgotten:
Only the first two lines were removed, despite the fact the 10 ethnic groups after Turks are classified as Turkic. Why did he leave all these other Turkic peoples, since his "arguments" applied equally to them. I would guess, in view of his own specially created anti-Turkey userbox, that he has his own private agenda. Mathsci (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Trust me, I block vandals all the time.[11] There's a clear difference between content disputes, and vandalism. See WP:VAND#NOT. I do appreciate that you found a source though. However, do you think you could either find another source, or at least tweak the line, so that it actually matches what is in the source?  :) Thanks, Elonka 06:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleting the first two of the twelve lines of Turkic groups is vandalism, since ten Turkic groups were left in the wrong section. Now that you have made an edit to the mainspace article, you can no longer use your adminstrative tools on it: you are an editor like the rest of us. Please make any desired editorial corrections as you see fit, including adding links to subsections of the CIA factbook if that's what you want. Mathsci (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You may also wish to read WP:UNINVOLVED.--Elonka 07:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Please discuss this issue with User:Dbachmann on the talk page of European ethnic groups. I don't see any point in disussing this with you any further since all you do is post WP policy pages. Please remove me from your watch list, Elonka. Mathsci (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Nungesser and Coli

Hi Elonka. I have uploaded several free copyright photos of the two pilots, their plane (in concrete), the monument and museum at the top of Cap Fagnet, Étretat. All are named Image:Nungesser and Coli_0 (then 05 to 16).jpg Feel free to use/edit as required. I haven't made it to Paris for the street sign, or to the airport either. Dickie (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Rhetoric

Hi Elonka. Sorry, I received your message a little late (apparently the server is experiencing some lag). However, I don't really plan on continuing the discussion, as my objections are apparently too broad to make any meaningful contribution there, and any further suggestions would be that much more snow. But thanks for the reminder. ;) —Aryaman (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For the reply here re off-wiki activities. It's a subject I've seen brought up a few times. Guess I can still start my new Dravidian supremacy blog under this nick. 3rdAlcove (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Koalorka

I have examined all this editor's non-weapon related edits since he arrived on WP prior to May 27th. Most of the 150 edits, which I have annotated with diffs in a file, have the single purpose of removing any mention that Turkey is a country partially in Europe from articles or templates. At no stage are any sources presented for this point of view. When Turkish editors have objected they have been subjected to charges that the Turkish are racially inferior, that any interbreeding between whites and Turks resulted from rape and that, rather than attempt to be included in Europe, they should rather seek to join the Arab League. He will not accept that Turkish Thrace lies in Europe, a point which came up in talk page discussions with a British-Turkish editor. This debate resulted in him being reported on WP:AN/I in mid-April and being cautioned about his behaviour. Apparently he took no notice of this caution and continued with his provocative taunting even while discussions were taking place on WP:AN/I. He also engaged in revert wars with user Izmir, in which he twice made five reverts in the course of 24 hours. This abuse of the 3RR rule went unnoticed and neither editor received a block. At the end of January 2008 he encountered a Jewish editor on the talk pages of Stormfront, whom he started insulting with antisemitic remarks. He was reported on WP:AN/I and was blocked for a day for antisemitic abuse. He showed no contrition following this process. (Although it is irrelevant for this summary, his racist agenda here seems to be conducted off-wiki in far-right forums, some involving race-hate discussions, under the same pseudonym.) I have no comments to make on his other edits to weapons-related articles, which form the bulk of his edits. The Turkey related edits form periodic binges which have been consuming more of his time in the last two months than before, Although he seems willing to explain his arguments to one or two people, he has stayed away from making edits to widely viewed articles like Europe which he modified only once and was immediately reverted. He has not dared try again, which indicates that he is not ready to play his games where too many eyes are on an article. This systematic POV pushing, which several editors have described as apparent vandalism, does not seem to be acceptable on WP. It would probably be appropriate to impose a subject ban on all edits involving Turkey.

Were you in any way aware of this problem and that only six weeks ago he was reported for this kind of behaviour? If I include the latest attempts to remove Turkey, there are abou 200 edits which I am quite prepared to take to WP:AN/I in order for a topic ban to be imposed on him. Every time he makes an edit on this subject, he causes a large amount of disruption. This highly singular behaviour is obviously unacceptable on WP. It is a great pity that you did not realise this yourself, because you will see that his circular argumentation without sources is the common feature of all these edits and he has not reformed despite the warnings in January and April, something the April administrators seemed quite aware of. Anyway you know now and you can therefore exercise caution when dealing with somebody described on WP:AN/I as a POV pusher. You will also understand that your idea of private mentoring when I asked about his forum pseudonym was not really appropriate: it was quite misplaced in his case. The 200 diffs give a very clear picture of an obsessive POV pusher. Mathsci (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide diffs for your above statements, and I'll take a look. --Elonka 05:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The report on non-weapons-related edits prior to May 27 is here User:Mathsci/subpage#Subpage_of_User:Mathsci. An additional report on the edits of May 27-28, which followed exactly the same pattern, will be added later. Mathsci (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. My recommendation, since it's a complex case, is that you look into filing a User conduct RfC to get more opinions. Though be careful about providing too many diffs, as they can bring on what's called a "tl;dr" syndrome (Too Long, Didn't Read). Best is to write up a well-diffed summary, maybe around 500 words, with the most egregious examples. Put the diffs in the context of your description. For example, when you say "antisemitic remarks", put the diffs right there after the term, which makes it easier for other people to review. Give preference to issues over the last few months. In the case of any admin board threads, try to provide a link to the archive. Also, it's very important that you keep your own language very civil and neutral. As soon as you resort to any incivility or attacks yourself, it weakens your argument. You may also wish to contact El C, who is an admin with a great deal of experience with complex cases and appears to have prior experience with this editor, in an administrative role. Dbachmman will be of limited help since he's an "involved" editor and cannot use tools (and is under fire for other reasons). But El C may be your best bet. --Elonka 14:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I have added a summary of his latest edits. I believe he should receive a community ban on Turkey-related articles as a single-purpose POV pusher. The summary will take some time to compile. I know about User:Dbachmann because I was one of those defending him (against User:Rokus01 and others) in the recent arbitration case. The creation of this article from scratch from the horrific previous article was one of his many WP achievements. On the subpage I wrote the summaries very quickly and not always with great accuracy (there were more than 160 diffs to format and describe) and I understand that they must be presented in a neutral way. I am not aware that I have been uncivil or attacked this user. He does happen to participate in some far-right anti-immigrant forums, which I have find repugnant (to quote Jimbo, Urggh ...). However, that is not a personal attack nor is it uncivil. He also seems to have some interest in defending the Stormfront article. He has been anti-semitic, anti-islamic and anti-Turkish on wiki. That is a matter of record and he was cautioned in January and April for it. I would prefer to take this directly to WP:AN/I as I have had previous experience with similar pathological behaviour (User:Fourdee, User:MoritzB) and I am aware of how these cases are drafted. The long comprehensive set of diffs was prepared so that you could see directly that there was a deeper problem here. His behaviour on the page gave some indication of that; everybody else was quite reasonable, I didn't even notice the swearwords. Mathsci (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, if you want to take it to ANI, that might be a good course at this point. You may also wish to look through some of the existing ArbCom decisions (such as Wikipedia:Editing restrictions and Wikipedia:General sanctions) and see if there's already an active decision involving Turkey-related articles (my guess is yes). If so, we could just put him directly on restrictions now, without requiring a potentially chaotic ANI thread. Digwuren is an option, since that covers "Eastern Europe" articles, but there may be something more applicable, I haven't checked. --Elonka 16:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. But I haven't the slightest idea what you think you're talking about. Good night. Mathsci (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking about adding anyone who is repeatedly disruptive in the topic area (Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, and any related ethnic/historical issues) to a list such as this one: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement. Once on that list, an editor is on a shorter leash, and when an editor is on an ArbCom restriction list such as that, it means that pretty much any uninvolved admin can independently place such an editor on a topic ban or other restriction, without requiring the bureaucracy of an ANI thread or RfC. --Elonka 07:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Zonal spherical function

Thanks for the pointers! I'll keep them in mind and try to be more careful in the future. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping a positive attitude, it's appreciated. And also, good work on the recent patrolling, and congrats on the graduation!  :) --Elonka 03:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Editing own biography or that of family members

Dear Elonka, I noticed that you yourself at one stage wrote most of your WP:BLP on the wikipedia, [12] which surprised me. Indeed what you added read like a CV. I also note that you have added the bios of various family members. Yesterday, the grandson of Edgar Wallace (creator of King Kong), who has been following with glee your recent antics on WP, asked me whether it might be appropriate for him to clarify various details concerning his grandfather's death. My first reaction was that there might be some WP:COI. However, now that I have seen your fearless editing of your own biography - with no bushel in sight to hide any light - I am not sure that that is the case. He is quite a modest person, but nevertheless you might still be a person who can offer him advice. Many thanks in advance,--Mathsci (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, you've been going through my contribs back in 2005? That's quite a bit of free time you have, I'm flattered.  ;) And sure, I'd be happy to chat with Wallace's grandson. In a nutshell, if there's an error on Wikipedia, he is welcome to fix it. See also WP:AUTO and WP:SELFPUB. What he wants to avoid though is adding any information from personal knowledge, that hasn't already been published somewhere. For that kind of thing, it's better to just create a personal website. But if there's an actual error, he should either fix the article, or bring it up on the related talkpage. --Elonka 13:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2008

--Chef Tanner (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Al-Azhar University

Elonka, I swear, you are a Godsend! You have no idea how glad I am you dropped by the Al-Azhar University page. Another editor and I are currently involved in the most absurd editing conflict with this one anonymous vandal. He keeps trying to insert POV material into the text and we refuse to allow him do that. We've been battling this one guy across a half dozen different Wiki pages for days now, but he just keeps at it. I've reported the case not once, but twice on the Administrators' noticeboard, but they've been slow to act. Please have a look at the discussion on the talk page. I've tried reasoning with the guy, but his intentions are so patently sinister that I think an outright block at this point is warranted. Causteau (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm taking a look at that right now. The thing is, he's not totally wrong. It is true that the university became known as a Sunni institution from Saladin's time, though I'm not seeing the "violence" part. What the anon is doing definitely isn't vandalism, though it does appear to be disruptive. Do you think it's possible to find a compromise sentence? Also, the lead of the article needs some work anyway, per WP:LEAD, as it's trying to include too much detail, rather than just being a summary of the article. When I'm researching the topic in library and news sources, they generally describe the university as "Al Azhar, the famed center of Islamic learning in Cairo, which began its higher level instruction in 975 C.E. and whose college is widely regarded as the highest authority in Islam". So our lead could probably be improved to better reflect modern descriptions. --Elonka 03:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
No, there is nothing wrong with his edit now. His source is solid (Encyclopedia Britannica), and what it states, as you've pointed out, is indeed true. What my problem and MezzoMezzo's problem with this editor is is that he has been going around from page to page inserting unsourced, blatant POV for days now not just on the Al-Azhar page, but a boatload of other ones too. The only reason why he is even offering a legitimate source now on the Al-Azhar page is because we fought tooth and nail for it otherwise he would've been happy to continue lying that "Saladin converted Egyptians by force to Sunni Islam" (complete with bogus sources that state no such thing), as he had been doing as recently as a few hours ago. Please have a look at the last post by me on my talk page. It pretty much breaks down the entire situation. My latest post on the Administrators' noticeboard further shows some of the other things he has been up to around Wiki. Here's my earlier post there. And the talk page has the point-by-point analysis by both Mezzo and I. Causteau (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Give me a list of the affected pages, and I'll add them to my watchlist and see what I can do. --Elonka 04:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please do that. Here are a couple of pages to watch: Al-Azhar University, Nasim Nisr, Imad Mughniyah, Fawaz Younis, Al-Azhar Shia Fatwa, Abdul-Qadir Gilani, 'Amr ibn al-'As, Aisha, Hafsa bint Umar, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Wahhabism, Aziz al-Abub, Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Ali Atwa, Ghaleb Awwali, Ibrahim Hussein Berro, Hassan Izz-Al-Din
----Causteau (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Answering

Hi. I'm the IP who has been editing the Azhar University article and the other articles on Hezbollah members. I hope you actually saw the edits and have seen that the only POV-pushing is coming from MezzoMezzo and Causteau, as you can see from their contributions. MezzoMezzo, since he joined Wikipedia, has apparently been adding his Wahhabi puritan POV to Islam-related articles, and as you can witness from his edits, has a very anti-Shia bias. Concerning al-Azhar university, please compare the two disputed versions and you will see that I added a very neutral direct quote from Encyclopedia Britannica, whereas their wording of the article has Sunni bias and implies that Sunnism, unlike Shiism, is orthodox. Before I edited the article, it said It became a Sunni school towards the end of the Middle Ages, an orientation it retains to this day. without any mention of Saladin and how he converted the whole of Egypt to Sunnism and implies that Al Azhar gradually became Sunni, by choice. Causteau has since been reverting my edit with the quote from Encyclopedia Britannica, calling his a consensus version, and both have been working tirelessly to keep the article, as well as others, according to Sunni point of view, with no regard to neutrality and factuality. In another article, 'Amr ibn al-'As, I added material which reflects what the source says, and the material had always been there until changed sometime ago by someone, possibly MezzoMezzo. MezzoMezzo then threatened to report me for vandalism for reverting sourced material without actually reading the source. He then moved to revert every other edit I made to members of Hezbollah where I removed from the terrorist category for the sake of neutrality. Nasim Nisr, who had never carried a gun, was included in the category. From his edits and previous versions of his userpage, you can notice that MezzoMezzo is a Wahhabi and is responsible for anti-Shia bias in most Islam-related pages. Please note, that despite User:Causteau being extremely unpleasant and aggressive and MezzoMezzo's disturbing and sickening POV-pushing all over Wikipedia, I have been very patient and, until now, I have refrained from complaining of Causteau's incivility and MezzoMezzo's edits. MezzoMezzo, though more cautious and less aggressive than Causteau, has been been inflicting much more damage to Wikipedia with his silent POV-pushing. I ask you to look at their behavior and act accordingly, as neither of the two should be allowed to edit. NAccount (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for creating an account! I have been looking into the situation, and agree that there has been some problematic behavior. However, it also looks to me like there are problems from both sides. I have left some advice on your talkpage, which may help to de-escalate and untangle this situation. Elonka 19:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
While it's unfortunate that he had to be pushed to the brink of being banned for anonymous IP guy to feel the need to create an account, it is great for the sake of Wikipedia that he did finally do so. His persistent, disruptive edits should now hopefully be much easier to keep track of. I do, however, find it highly amusing that he has the audacity to talk about incivility and aggressive talk when he was the one to introduce that very tone to the discussion. This is easy to prove thanks to time stamps, which of course he didn't include in his little paragraph above.
From the Al-Azhar University history page:
1) no, actually they do; read them again and don't push it (date: 13:40, 30 May 2008 -> he drew first blood)
2) stop pushing your POV; they say "Saladin removed the Shiite Fatimids from power and restored Sunni Islam in Egypt" (date: 13:50, 30 May 2008)
3) fixed; your intentionally disinformative version implies that Azhar became Sunni by choice, and gradually (date: 14:10, 30 May 2008)
4) you're pushing it; see talk (date: 14:46, 30 May 2008)
5) get a life (date: 17:24, 30 May 2008)
6) talk about POV; I'm sure the administrators are wise enough to actually check the sources instead of listening to you (date: 06:22, 1 June 2008)
7) rvv; stop pushing your POV and respect the source, which is Encyclopedia Britannica; also, I don't remember reaching a consensus (date: 23:50, 1 June 2008)
8) NPOV; stop pushing your agenda, your intentions are very clear (date: 16:35, 2 June 2008)
He was also the first to introduce incivility on the talk page:
Egyptians were Shi'a Muslims and when Saladin removed the Fatimids from power and restored Sunni Islam, they became Sunnis. Doesn't it mean that he converted them? Do you know the meaning of convert? (date: 13:53, 30 May 2008)
In short, NAccount was the first to be rude and uncivil in our dealings; it was he that opened up that particular can of worms. He has no business pretending now like he is a victim in all this when he initiated that very behavior. His rudeness also wasn't just confined to the Al-Azhar University history or talk pages either, but can be found on other Wiki pages too. Call me crazy, but I refuse to be spoken to like that by anyone.
With that one post above, NAccount has made many predictably bogus charges I would like to address point by point:
1) He writes: Before I edited the article, it said It became a Sunni school towards the end of the Middle Ages, an orientation it retains to this day. without any mention of Saladin and how he converted the whole of Egypt to Sunnism and implies that Al Azhar gradually became Sunni, by choice. This is something of a joke since not one of the battery of unrelated sources he kept including in his edits talks about how Saladin converted anyone much less "the whole of Egypt" to Sunnism. That is a blatant lie and misrepresentation on NAccount's part. Only one of his sources states that "Saladin removed the Shiite Fatimids from power and restored Sunni Islam in Egypt". I've already explained to him on the talk page in an edit dated 14:00, 30 May 2008 why this in no way supports his absurd, slanderous contention that "Saladin converted Egypt to Sunni Islam by force":

"Restoring" Sunni Islam in Egypt is not the same thing as suggesting that "when Saladin converted Egyptians by force to Sunni Islam" like you originally stated nor is it the same thing as your revised statement that "Saladin converted Egyptians to Sunni Islam". He did no such thing. Nowhere does it say he converted anyone let alone Egyptians. It says he restored Sunni Islam in Egypt, meaning there was already a tradition of Sunni Islam in place in Egypt before the rise to prominence of the Shiite Fatimids. All Saladin did was put things back the way they were (i.e. restoration) per your own source.

Please note again that NAccount under various anonymous IPs inserted that one lie that "Saladin converted Egyptians by force to Sunni Islam" -- which he also personally authored -- not once, not twice, but a record six times on the Al-Azhar University page alone: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. He first did this without even bothering to include a source i.e. pure original research. Then, when I called him on it, he tacked on not one, not two, but five irrelevant, dummy sources -- none of which support his statement -- to create the illusion that what he was saying was factual instead of the POV it was and is. I know his sources for the above statement are bogus because I followed up on them and posted a report on the talk page (see my post dated 11:09, 30 May 2008). He also tried to insert that same slanderous lie about Saladin "forcibly" converting Egyptians to Sunni Islam a grand total of twice on the Al-Azhar Shia Fatwa page: 7, 8.
2) NAccount writes: Concerning al-Azhar university, please compare the two disputed versions and you will see that I added a very neutral direct quote from Encyclopedia Britannica, whereas their wording of the article has Sunni bias and implies that Sunnism, unlike Shiism, is orthodox and Causteau has since been reverting my edit with the quote from Encyclopedia Britannica, calling his a consensus version Here, NAccount is trying to justify and thereby secure his current reversion of the Al-Azhar University article by alleging that there was something inherently biased about the article as it stood before he came along and reverted it. Thing is, literally one sentence differentiates "his" latest version from "mine", and that sentence is a direct quote. So what we have here is NAccount replacing a sourced, direct quote I put in simply because it didn't fit his agenda with one that is more to his liking, nevermind the fact that a) my direct quote was drawn from a source that he himself picked out, b) it was in place well before it ever occurred to him to include his own properly referenced direct quote, and c) both Mezzo and I also consider that version far preferable to his. That's what we meant when we clearly asked NAccount to "respect the consensus version until mediation can be finished", which of course he didn't do. Now the page ironically sits exactly as he wanted it to and despite all of the above. Causteau (talk) 09:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming me. But I don't think I have been responsible for any disruption, at least not intentionally. You can clearly notice that I was trying to keep the Al-Azhar article neutral while the other users have been trying to impose their point of view and label by edits as vandalism, as they did in many occasions. I haven't complained before, but MezzoMezzo's behavior and Causteau's excessive aggressiveness and incivility are very problematic and should be dealt with. I showed great patience by not responding to Causteau's incivility and I think it should be considered, and Causteau's behavior should not have gone unnoticed. As for MezzoMezzo, his edits are causing great harm to Wikipedia and his edits have not been dealt with because MezzoMezzo has been very cautious in respecting the rules of Wikipedia while silently infecting the articles with his Wahhabi 9/11 brand of Islam. One of the edits he made when reverting my edits was this one, which very clearly shows that he has an agenda. Even if he knows every rule in Wikipedia and makes sure he doesn't do or say anything that will get him blocked, that doesn't mean that his edits are not harmful and that he doesn't have an agenda. I strongly believe that he should be banned from editing Wikipedia and all his edits, since his account was created, are evidence of his intentions. They should be reviewed and he should be blocked accordingly. NAccount (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse here, but could you please explain why you feel that this edit shows a deliberate agenda?[13] To me, it looks like a difference of opinion. Any editor who wishes to remove a prod tag, may do so. If you disagree with their action, you may submit the article for AfD, to get more opinions. --Elonka 23:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I might've been inclined to take seriously this user's protestations that he is simply "not intentionally" trying to be "responsible for any disruption" had he not for days now been repeatedly attempting to insert blatant POV statements not just on the Al-Azhar page as I've demonstrated above, but now, more alarmingly, tampering with the pages of terror suspects, as Mezzo has already rightly pointed out. This wasn't just a one time mistake over one comment and one source on one page; it's all over Wikipedia. Causteau (talk) 09:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow...Elonka, is this really appropriate? Wahabi is a religious slur. In fact, an earlier user pushing Shi'a POV named Klak Sonn was banned permanently for hurling that at me and others. His editing style was very similar to this guy's as well. I'm going to open up a complaint on WP:ANI separate from the other one. Aside from these comments being bigoted and unnaceptable, it's looking to me very much like a sockpuppet of a banned user. I would appreciate your analysis. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I thank you for the calming effect. I wasn't consciously trying to escalate anything (I didn't realize you were an admin either) but I will follow our advise and leave that off. But let me explain.
Klak Sonn came into conflict with a number of editors over Sunni-Shi'a issues months ago. The problem was, the guy had a short fuse and had a tendency to call all Muslims who disagreed with him "Wahhabis" and all non-Muslims who disagreed with him "kikes" or "Jews". I hate typing that filthy word but I want to get across the gravity of how out there this guy was. He was eventually blocked not just for expressly hurling that religious slur at me and the religious slur at some people who may not have even been Jewish, but also his combative nature.
A month or so ago, another anon tried pushing some POV on the article for Ali, a prominent figure in both Sunni and Shi'a Islam, insulting some other editors who were reverting him. I reverted his edits and said up front I suspect this is a sock of banned user Klak Sonn, and the anon stopped.
As you've observed, this new buddy emerged from a number of anonymous IP addresses. His current habits of offense appear very similar to Klak Sonn's own style of editing. And that's just the least of it. I'm also confused as to why NAccount says i've been pushing my POV the entire time i've been on Wikipedia - if he really is a new editor, then how is he so sure of that?
Per your requests, I will try to give it a rest for now. You're trying hard to do your job as an admin as I can see and I wil respect that. But i'm just saying, this guy at the minimum is abusing other users with his bigotry and at the maximum could be the same guy trying to come back. Just check the two user contribs. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. As you can see, I'm coming up from zero on this whole dispute. The best way that you can help me right now, is to stay very calm and civil, and to ensure that there is a thread started at the talkpage of any article that is under dispute. Even if this means that "bad" information stays in an article for awhile, please try to take the long view. Let's try to focus on a couple clearcut areas. Also, since of the disputes are about text which seems to be coming from non-English sources, it would be very helpful to include specific quotes from reliable sources, to assist with verification. Also, would a centralized place of discussion be helpful? What exactly is the scope of these disputes? Is it all Sunni-Shia, or Lebanon, or Egypt, or something else? Thanks, Elonka 04:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Both for the sake of clarity and to make your job easier, i'll let things go for the time being. You've shown a great deal of patience and i'll do my best to reciprocate.
Regarding the edits, I wouldn't even call that the main issue now as your efforts to work things out via talk pages slowly has allayed my fears (in addition to your perspective on the terrorist categories). My main concern now is as I mentioned in my last comment. Even if this guy isn't a sockpuppet of Klak Sonn - though I am 99% sure he is, based on the similar language and the fact that he seems so stuck on my long term edits and user page (both of which Klak Sonn also took issue with multiple times) - his behavior is the same. He's already used one definite religious slur, "Wahhabi", so which other users have been blocked, multiple times. Considering that he seems very familiar not only with site policy but also the way diffs and edit histories work, I don't think he should be treated like a noob.
Long story short, you've cooled the situation and the edits can be worked out slowly. But the guys behavior and history are stil a big concern for me. I know you've spent a lot of time on this already, but please look into it if you can. I smell stinky sock all over this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, why don't you take the lead on that aspect of it. I recommend filing a CheckUser or Suspected sockpuppet report, and then compiling evidence there. If the user is a sockpuppet of a blocked editor, that may be fairly straightforward to deal with. --Elonka 05:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for all the help. A case is now opened on SSP if you'd like to take a look. I will likely be adding more diffs to it when I get the time. For now, i'm logging off. Thanks again! MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I assume you mean Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Klaksonn? Okay, thanks for pulling that together, I'll take a look.  :) --Elonka 05:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elonka/Archive_16&oldid=1142986802"