User talk:Elonka/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Re my proposal

Hey, it doesn't look like the format at the page allows for responses or counter-proposals so I have to track you down here. I agree it would be problematic if there are more jerks on one side of a POV (to put it in layperson's terms :-)). A solution might be that admins make sure that they have the same action-taking ratio as other admins. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that if ten admins are managing a dispute, and the "average" ratio is 20% sanctions on "side A" and 80% on side B, but then one admin is issuing 50% on side A and 50% on side B, that it might indicate bias on the part of the new admin? --Elonka 18:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not comfortable assigning numerical values like that. For example, if we're going with the assumption that some admins are biased, then we could equally assume that the "majority" admins already on the scene were implementing sanctions in a biased way, but the "new" admin in the minority, was the one being unbiased. So I don't feel a strict numeric ratio system would be useful. It's still a case of making qualitative judgment calls, rather than trying to meet a quota like, "Alright, I've issued three warnings to one side in this dispute, so I can't issue anymore until I've issued three to the other side, too." It would only work if everyone in the dispute was being equally disruptive, in a homogeneous kind of way, but disputes tend not to work like that. In my experience, most disputes (that I've dealt with), boil down to 1-6 entrenched users who have their heels dug in on a position, aren't budging, are attacking anyone who disagrees with them, and who are calling in their friends to support their position, even if the friends aren't doing anything other than reverting in support of their ally. So in my experience, once the core leaders have been identified, it's usually a matter of giving them clear warnings about their behavior, and then if they still refuse to modify their approach, to simply remove them from the equation. Once they're off the article (and sometimes talkpage), the other editors who are working on the article are usually able to proceed with consensus-building and cleanup. As one particular success story, I'm thinking of one article which had been in dispute for a long time, where (once I'd identified the core of the dispute) all I had to do was ban one editor from the article for one week, and the entire article stabilized very rapidly, and no further action was ever required. Of course, the one editor that I banned (and some of his associates) immediately attacked me, started administrator board threads, charged me with bias, etc., etc. But the thing is, the one surgical ban did the trick.  ;) --Elonka 22:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If someone thinks that all admins are out to get him he might as well close up shop. However, there's another problem that I overlooked with regard to assigning a numeric ratio system. It will create all kinds of derogatory and stereotypical ugliness. Just imagine if there's an official stat out there that one religious/ethnic group is more prone to edit-warring and incivility then its counterpart.

This is why we should just have a policy that admins should keep an equal balance of action-taking against either side of a POV. Some groups are worse then others and deserve more sanctions, but in my experience, entrenchment and incivility on one side breeds the same on the other side, so eventually it all evens out. But what's most important is that we have some sort of scheme in place that would inhibit an admin to continue placing sanctions on one side while claiming to be neutral. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I just realized that the correct forum for this discussion was the Project's talk page so I copy and pasted the discussion there, in case you want to respond.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That blasted Nishidani's edit-warring

Elonka. Could you do me the courtesy of glancing at the Israel Shahak page shortly? I have been warned I am edit-warring, by NoCal, and that he is minded to call for an administrative rebuke if I persist. I don't know how he defines 'edit-warring', and have asked him to present the evidence immediately, so that you may make a call on his charge. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Self-hating Jew

Elonka, as bizarre as it may seem, the Self-hating Jew article has become an Israel/Palestine battleground article. Would it be possible for you make your presence known, to lessen the possibility of another edit war there. I got burned over that previously, and a more orderly situation would be a help. I just had a sourced edit reverted, and I would like to avoid previous problems. Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI

A thread which may concern you has been started here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin abuse of tools. best, –xeno (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Meteormaker's editing

Hi Elonka. I discovered that Meteormaker has again removed the term from the Israeli settlement article, despite the previous agreement.[1] He's also been edit-warring over the term on a number of other articles (e.g. [2],[3], [4]). I've restored it as cited fact, per previous discussions, but I'd appreciate it if you could keep an eye on this, as I suspect he'll try to edit-war it out again. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to Jayjg's recollection, there was never an agreement not to remove the term "Samaria" from the article. What he's probably thinking of is this restriction, imposed by Elonka on 25 December 2008: "No more Samaria-related reverts in the lead of the article". [5] If I'm eligible for a 90-day ban after reverting a (non-lead but Samaria-related) edit, logically Jayjg should be banned too, since he reverted the exact same text two days earlier. Else, I must say I see double standards at work here. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, I also note that the ban is based on the misconception that I have removed sources. I did not remove Jayjg's (cherry-picked) cites, I merely moved them to the proper place in the article, the part that actually discusses the usage of the name "Samaria". [6] I humbly request that you lift that ban. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe you have just imposed a 90-day restriction on MM, which enjoins him from "removing reliable citations" in any article under the scope of the I-P conflict. You placed this restriction at 17:04, 14 February 2009, and at 23:17, 14 February 2009 , he removed a reliably sourced quote from Zionist entity. It should also be noted that while you had narrowly worded the other restriction as related to any "Samaria" edits, MM has been on a similar crusade to remove not just "Samaria", but its counter part, "Judea", from numerous articles - which he is still doing: [7] It's time for tougher sanctions. NoCal100 (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Look closely and you will find that the citation is still there (even though the diff makes it look otherwise). What I removed was an irrelevant quote that had no bearing on the subject matter. Your revert has since been reverted by another editor. [8]. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As you admit above you removed a reliably sourced quote, based on your belief that it "had no bearing on the subject matter." You did this while re-inserting a similar quote, from the same article, which has the exact same relevance or irrelevance as the one you removed. This is a clear cut violation of your topic ban. NoCal100 (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily call it "tougher sanctions." MM's leitmotif is the removal of any mention of Judea and Samaria in a contemporary context and to "bibilcize" any Judea and Samaria that he can't remove. A ban of Judea would obviously go hand in hand with a ban on Samaria. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A "leitmotif" that happens to be fully supported by every relevant source and WP policy, whereas the opposing position completely lacks sources (at least none have been presented by you or the other half-dozen editors that propound the hypothesis that "Judea" and "Samaria" are modern geographic terms outside Israel). Personally, I see more of a disciplinary problem with editors who insist that WP should contradict every online reference work, official document, and news source. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to see you agree that any Samaria ban includes a Judea ban.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be a killjoy, but I don't agree with that claim at all. Instead of trying to get me banned, I suggest you use your energy to try and find sources that support your position that WP should use terms no other major online encyclopedias do. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get you banned, and I never argued for your ban. I don't care either way. I'm just saying, and it sounds like you agree, that Judea and Samaria should be attached for ban purposes. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I leave to other editors to try to make sense of the fact that you bother to post and say you think it "sounds like I agree", right after I've expressly told you I don't. It's no wonder the Samaria debate has been going on for months, in the face of exceptionally clear evidence. MeteorMaker (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The context indicates that the "non-agree" refers to the same misconception about me trying to get you banned. But now that your stance is clear, would you care to explain how your stance on Samaria differs from your stance on Judea so that a ban on Samaria (whether correct or not) should not also include a ban on Judea?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Please review loaded question. If you're not fishing for Elonka to extend my ban, why did you even post in this section with a request that "a ban of Judea would obviously go hand in hand with a ban on Samaria"? MeteorMaker (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still hoping you would care to explain how your stance on Samaria differs from your stance on Judea so that a ban on Samaria (whether correct or not) should not also include a ban on Judea?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, keep hoping. And stop wasting mine and Elonka's time. MeteorMaker (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

MeteorMaker, thanks for your messages, let me try to explain the wiki-philosophy here. My apologies for the length of this post, but I'm going to try and be as thorough as possible, for both you and the other editors who are watching the discussion:

First, let me be clear that I have no opinion on whether or not Samaria or Judea or biblical or any of these terms do or don't appear in any of the articles. Whether we end up with the terms in the articles or out of the articles, I really have no preference. What my goal is, as an administrator, is to enforce policies, and to reduce disruption to the project. In most cases around the encyclopedia, this is fairly straightforward. For example, we'll have one longterm editor inserting information from reliable sources, and we'll have another editor deleting entire paragraphs and replacing them with, "This is wrong." So we revert the latter editor and instruct them about policies and dispute resolution, and if they continue disrupting without backing up their arguments, we block them, and life in the rest of the project goes on.  :)

In some areas though, especially Israel/Palestine, the disputes are much more complex, so administrators have to be a bit more creative. For example, this "Samaria" issue, which has been going on for a long time now. From my ("I don't care") point of view, there's one group of editors who say "Include" and another group of editors who say "Don't include," and this has been going on for awhile. I know that there are claims of Pro-Israel Anti-Israel Pro-Palestine Anti-Palestine yadayada, but again, administrators aren't going to care too much about that. What we do care about, is policies, especially WP:V and WP:UNDUE and WP:DR.

To give a more specific example: When editor A puts something into an article with reliable sources, and editor B removes the information and/or the sources, and absent any other input from other editors, the administrators are (usually) going to support editor A, and editor B is going to be encouraged to follow other steps in dispute resolution. There are exceptions to this, such as when dealing with biographies of living people. With BLPs, the burden of proof swaps around, and it's the responsibility of the editor wanting to include the information (especially if it's negative), to prove that it's well-sourced and appropriate in someone's bio, before it can be allowed to stick.

Getting away from biographies though and back to geography: we have editor A with sources, and editor B who says that the information (and sources) are giving undue weight to a particular concept. What editor B should now do is follow WP:DR: They can try rewriting the article to find a compromise, where editor A's information is included, but editor B can add their own (sourced) information as a counterpoint, or rework the wording of editor A's addition. Or, editor B can start a thread at the article's talkpage, and either find a compromise there with editor A, or start inviting other editors in, per an RfC or notices at a WikiProject or noticeboard. If the information which was added by editor A is a genuine problem, or a clear violation of WP:UNDUE, other editors will see it for what it is, the consensus will be clear, and the information and/or sources can come out of the article. If the consensus is not clear, try inviting more editors, or try mediation.

If things remain deadlocked, the tiebreaker may still be made by the sources. Not by quantity of sources, but by the existence of the sources, and the opinions of editors on how to interpret those sources. If there are 10 reliable sources saying "blue", and 30 reliable sources saying "red", and one group of editors says, "The article should say 'blue'", and another group of editors says, "You guys are insane, the article should obviously say 'red'", then the administrators are going to look at the situation, and if there's no clear consensus, the decision is probably going to be, "The article should say both blue and red, in proper proportion to how the topic is presented in reliable sources". So applying this to Samaria, it means (as I'm interpreting the discussions thus far), that the term can be used in the articles, as long as it is properly attributed and placed in the proper proportion. At Israeli settlement, this seemed to boil down to a compromise of, "Samaria can be mentioned in the article, but shouldn't be in the lead."

As for why you were banned and others weren't, please don't take this as an indication that no one else will ever be banned. Sometimes multiple bans are issued each day, sometimes one ban at a time, sometimes they're staggered out over a week, it really depends. I have to be careful what I say because I don't want to inflame the situation, but it's reasonable to assume that I (and other administrators) are observing the behavior of several editors in this dispute, and may institute other bans. To see who's at risk, look at WP:ARBPIA, check the names in the "notified" list, and also review the history of the talkpages of other editors in this dispute. If I or another administrator has warned/nudged/cautioned them, it means that editor's behavior is being watched.

Ultimately the Samaria dispute seems to come down to this: One group of editors wants the Samaria term in the article. Another group doesn't. There are sources both ways. There is no clear consensus among the editors as to how things should be handled. RfCs have not brought clarity to the issue. The community of wider editors doesn't care. The public doesn't seem to care too much either (otherwise we'd get a stream of outraged anonymous messages on the talkpage). So if there's no consensus, and no one else seems to care, let it go. It's not worth this much angst, over how to word one sentence on a much longer article. You may also wish to review Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, for examples of other places around the project where editors spent way too much time quibbling over very minor points. We've got a huge encyclopedia here, with thousands of new articles flowing in every day. There's lots of work that needs to be done. So on this "Samaria" question, we talk it over, we flip a coin, if nothing's clear, we put a pin in it and move on to other debates. Editors that don't seem able to let things go, especially when they're not working on anything else on the project, are probably going to be asked to leave.

Another measuring stick that administrators use, is looking at the editing history of each editor. If there's one editor who has created multiple articles, who is constantly arguing with another editor who's never created a single article, the "writing" editor will often receive better backup from the administrators, to allow them to get back to building the encyclopedia, while the "arguing" editor may simply be removed from the equation. It doesn't mean that their arguments were necessarily bad. But if their arguments were presented, they've made their case, the options have been considered, and the decision went against their arguments (or there's no consensus), the community expectation is that the arguing editor should let things go and move on to other projects. Now don't get me wrong, consensus can change, so it may be worth re-opening the discussion several months down the line. But sometimes we just have to say, "This is the way the articles are going to be written for awhile," and shoo people away from the discussion to encourage them to work on other things.

Does that help explain the wiki-subtleties at all? For your own purposes, if you'd like to have a stronger voice in discussions: Stop worrying about the Samaria question for awhile. Work on other articles, or even better, expand or create other articles. Having a userpage isn't just for personal information about you, but for information about what you've worked on. Look at other editors' userpages, and you'll see that we talk about the articles and topic areas where we work, and we usually proudly banner the articles that we've helped to promote to a state of higher quality. To do this yourself, pick an article that's in so-so shape, and improve it to good article or featured article status. Or if your talents are more in "article review" than "article creation", help out at WP:GAN, and you'll see there's a backlog of articles where reviews have been requested. You could be a decisionmaker on whether or not nominated articles should be promoted. This kind of work would be extremely helpful to the encyclopedia, and would have the added bonus of giving you recognizable accomplishments that you could place on your userpage. Which would give you a much stronger voice in any article discussions where you choose to participate. --Elonka 17:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Meteormaker is perhaps the most knowledgeable specialist editor on this area we have, however. He is trying to have consistency in wiki usage. As it is, on a wide range of articles, one can have (a) Samaria/Judea in the lead, or (b) lower down, or (c)not at all in the article, but (d) only in footnotes, according to the forces in place, the determination of the parties, and where bad faith occurs, the numbers game of vote stacking and tagteaming which is high on this issue. This means that in terminology relating to the West Bank, wiki articles are chaotic, because the case must be argued over dozens of articles over and over again. Nothing done on Israeli Settlements necessarily affects other articles, and vice versa. I appreciate your general suggestions, but this is the area where Meteormaker has been most informative for wikipedians, given his mastery of many sources. To suggest he get interested in other areas is to leave the problem of coherence of wiki terminology in I/P area languishing, and while it languishes, leave numerous pages open to the usual gamesmanship. Lastly, the clash in substance is between a national POV, and international usage. As simply as that. Those who want Israeli terminology in the area called the Palestinian territories represent a political perspective. Those who oppose it, for a variety of reasons, appeal to international usage,(not primarily to Palestinian perspectives) as established in courts and official government documents. They are two POVs, but one represents that of one nation, the other of governments and jurists the world round. Technically, therefore, wiki guidance as used where nationalist conflicts occur should be the default approach to resolving these issues I hope my comments are not intrusive.Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, have you decided to remove the restriction placed on MM, that prevents him from removing material that is reliably sourced? As I pointed out, immediately after you placed the restriction, he removed a reliably sourced quote from Zionist entity. Today, as you are aware, he has been edit-warring at the ADL disambiguation page, to remove the description of the ADL as an "anti-hate group". At his request, I provided a reliable source that describes the ADL in those exact words, and Jayjg has provided 2 additional ones. Despite this, and despite the restriction you placed, he removed the well sourced description (while, oddly, keeping in the sources that support it). It seems the restriction you placed is pretty toothless, and unsurprisingly, MM has referred to it as an "inofficial block" 23:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

NoCal, you seem confused about the WP definition of "citation". Per Elonka [9], I edited the disambig page by simply copying in what the first line of the actual article says (nota bene, after Jayjg had ran and edited it to not say "interest group" any more [10]).MeteorMaker (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So you're now wikilawyering to claim that the restriction allows you to remove reliably sourced material, so long as you don't remove the sources referred to? I'll let Elonka clarify what she meant. NoCal100 (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not Wikilawyering, and yes, I am allowed to remove anything except citations, and Elonka has said the entire ban was based on a misunderstanding and that she will lift it soon anyway [11]. Though it would be helpful to know when. Elonka? MeteorMaker (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Israel Shahak

Israel Shahak. This is rather simple. On that page I have great difficulty in trying to get editors to redraft a defective section, which was written from three uncited sources, and then sourced to another book (Segev) which did not back those details. I've been invited by the looks of it to an edit-war. My request for precise citation has been mocked by the use of citations that are not in the sources. I can't edit the page anymore, but this is not a content dispute. NoCal100 has given as a source for 'Haredi Jew' a text (Paul Bogdanor p.121) which refers to an 'Orthodox Jew'. Apart from the fact that Paul Bogdanor is an unreliable source, whose information comes in any case from the three reliable sources we all agree on, this constitutes an infraction of WP:OR. 'Orthodox Jew' of the source has been twisted into 'Haredi Jew'. This and a dozen other examples show, in my view, bad faith. The editors have warred on this. Why not simply agree to write the section according to the exact wording of the 3 RS? The new source, as I repeatedly noted, does not support the claim, the claim violates WP:OR, and yet I cannot undo it further without an infraction of the 3rr rules. I regard this mode of deliberately insisting on a false source as problematical with that editor. He knows I can't stand bad sourcing, and appears to persist in making what any simple check will show is a falsification, to provoke an edit war. I don't need advice. The page needs closer administrative oversight that it is getting. Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

you asked for a source, and you got one, and you responded by twice removing the source, with the unsupported claim that a book published by a mainstream press and edited by an academic is "unreliable source". You forum shopped this to Wikipedia talk:No original research, and not getting your way there (an uninvolved editor telling you clearly, in no uncertain words "Citing Jakobovitz for the content of Shahak's letter is a secondary source ", you decided to give it a go here. Please stop your disruption and start editing in accordance with Wikipedia policy. NoCal100 (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked for a source for 'Haredi Jew'. You gave one. I checked it. I found a reference to 'Orthodox Jew'. I reverted this, and explained why. You insisted on reverting back, knowingly restoring what was a WP:OR infraction. I can put up with being wikistalked, and tagteamed against, but I can't put up with someone who adds to his arsenal the deliberate insertion of a false claim, that a source says something it evidently does not say. On this you have harassed both me, and the page. This is not about psychical games, but correctly identifying in a source the terms used by that source, and not pretending that they say what they do not say. Nishidani (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As for forumshopping. You asked me to refer to a forum on reliable sources if I disagreed with your edit. I did. Now you accuse me of forumshopping because I took your advice. Christ Almighty! This is fucking absurd! In the last ferw days I have had every accusation, including antipathy to Jews thrown at me by people who refuse to discuss their edits while reverting. All NoCal100 does on pages I edit is raise futile conflicts, and insistently repeat 'you are disruptive' 'you are warned'. The pattern is obvious.Nishidani (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You asked for a source, and I gave you one. You then removed it with an edit summary "Bogdanor is not a reliable secondary source for the incident", and mentioned nothing of the niggle you have now raised, that it says 'Orthodox' rather than Haredi (which is a subset of Orthodox). Malcolm Schosha restored it, and you AGAIN removed it with an edit summary that said "Rt tagteaming restoration of patently unreliable source". The niggle makes its first appearance only after that. feel free to change the text from Haredi to Orthodox, if that niggle so bothers you, but cease disruptively removing well sourced material with false claims of unreliability.

As for forumshopping, I indeed asked you to take it to RSN, and I noted what response you got there - the forumshopping is then running to Elonka to try and get here what you could not get there. NoCal100 (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Re niggling and edit summaries. I stressed the problem on the talk page of the Haredi issue here before you made the erronenous citation to Bogdanor. You then went and edited in Bogdanor, a new source, as if this justified Haredi, a few minutes after I'd warned the page of the problem. Bogdanor is a notoriously bad source, and uses in any case only Shahak and Jakobovits, so that was a manifest provocation. Neither you nor Malcolm checked the complaint re Haredi, and the source. You tagteamed to revert me, without either of you checking that Bogdanor does not say what you edit insinuates he says.

Elonka said she was watching the page some time ago. She knows I voted against her in that dispute on her administrative role. She knows I rarely if ever agree with her 'formalism'. I trust, precisely because of this, that there will be no implication here that I have sought out a prospective administrator who might be favourable to my POV. To the contrtary. This is called ethics. I would ask you to retract accusations I forumshop.

I note that you finally admit, after all of my efforts on the talk page, and your reverts, that I am correct. No one in wiki is allowed to interpret texts in the way you admit to doing, i.e. insisting that an Orthodox Jew can be described as an Haredi Jew. This is not a niggle. This is what editing it all about, getting facts right, cleaving strictly to quality sources. Jakobovits, Shahak and Segev speak of an 'Orthodox Jew'. You have warred with me because I want this to be written. You have insisted that Haredi Jew stand, you have adduced an extremely poor and partisan source by a journalistic hack to justify a wording that even he does not use, and my attempts to undo the damage your warring caused have only led to challenges, reverts, and complaints of forumshopping. In my book this is unacceptable. You do not appear to be editing with an eye to texts, but with an eye to your adversary.

If Elonka wants to check. out the Bogdanor source. I asked for a citation for 'Haredi Jew'. This is what NoCal came up with, i.e. 'Orthodox Jew'.

This whole kerfuffle has arisen by your refusal to admit my revert of an error you now admit making was correct. This is an objective datum, not a clash in interpretations. I'll be interested to see if you have now the honesty to self-revert, or edit that page in conformity with sources.Nishidani (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Up to 50% of edits Elonka-related

Hi Elonka. I wonder whether you might refrain from suggesting the above about me on wikipedia: it is not supported by any of my diffs. Besides, as you know, I am on wikibreak in the Lent term, because I am extremely busy in real life. Are you trying to harrass or bully me? Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I wrote Guy of Ibelin, senechal of Cyprus and Guy of Ibelin, bishop of Limassol. Was there something wrong with them? Mathsci (talk)

What to do about an editor that is adding incorrect information to Wikipedia

In this article talk page Talk:Herman_J._Mankiewicz, I have found that user User:Wikiwatcher has made at least four errors in the article he is contributing to. I am not sure if he is adding them incorrectly on purpose, or is a sloppy editor, or he is using sources that are incorrect. He added two paragraphs to the lede of that article that were unsourced, and when I added fact tags, he removed them and justified on the talk page that he got the information from further in the article or from other Wikipedia articles. When I challenged that and said that the info had to come from a reliable source and had to be sourced on the article space not the talk page, he then said that they came from a single source, a biography that isn't available online. The four errors I found are listed on the talk page. Well, three I found, someone else found that he added an incorrect photo before I reached the article. Any suggestions? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Advice requested

Hey Elonka, I'm having a bit of difficulty with User:Kasaalan. He seems to be an SPA focusing almost entirely on Rachel Corrie and satellite articles -- see here: [12]. Recently, and unprovoked, he starts accusing me of "hate" [13], and that I "adore IDF irrationally." I deleted those comments, he put them back in, with more on the subject of me hating. I finally decided, though he is an SPA and difficult to communicate with, to just ask him to strike them himself in this thread. AFAICT, Kasaalan agreed to consider doing so at some indeterminate point in the future if I would agree with him more. I'm thinking of deleting the comments again myself and may yet do so, but wondered what your thoughts were. IronDuke 18:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, seems to be taken care of. IronDuke 22:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Also about the Rachel Corrie talk page. Elonka, i understand that you are quite busy, and you may not have noticed the incresingly disruptive editing of Untwirl, a single purpose account who has repeatedly violated WP:NPA by discussing his/her negative opinions of other editors, rather than discussing article content. I think the problem has now become WP:DISRUPT. To give a few of the most recent examples: [14][15][16]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Elonka - you make Wikipedia a laughing stock by backing guys this bad (and Jayjg is a lot worse) over real editors. Each of them, along with NoCal100 above and Tundrabuggy are vandals left free to run loose, biting the ankles of the kind of people you'd want in here. WP admins used to block-on-site editors who acted this way - what's changed so dramatically? 80.40.225.228 (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting looking at the edits of the above IP who is complaining I am a vandal. He has done all of maybe 20 edits since June 2008 (most in contentious areas --Rachel Corrie, USS Liberty etc) and I have not edited any of those areas. Kind of makes one feel as if one were being stalked. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Days of Our Lives fan fiction vandal

Elonka, I am in desperate need of some help. Jayron32, TAnthony, and myself have been trying to deal with an IP vandal that keeps daily adding fan fiction to Days of Our Lives articles. The IP changes everytime, but usually, he/she is putting children's names that have never been aired. If you look at my contributions, you will see all I have done for the past two is revert numerous fan fictions. What can we do? As always, your assistance is greatly appreciated. Rm994 (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak

To those who read my talkpage: Due to some off-wiki matters, I won't have as much time for Wikipedia for awhile. My apologies to those who have been waiting for replies from me. For those with urgent issues about arbitration enforcement, you may wish to consider posting at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. For other issues where an administrator is needed right away, try the incident noticeboard. Thanks, and I'll be back as soon as I can, --Elonka 14:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy your vacation. If you peek in some time, I'd appreciate if you could take care of this so it's not left hanging. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Jerry Jacks Bobby Spencer.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Jerry Jacks Bobby Spencer.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you help ?

Hi There. From the moment I opened my account user Verbal followes me around and tries to delete some of my contributions. At least this is my impession. If you check my contributions you will see that user Verbal keeps tagging articles for speedy deletion ( even about notable topics) . Besides that he reverted twice my reasonable - I think - edits as vandalism.

Am I doing something wrong ? if so, can you please advice?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oscillococcinum&diff=274085865&oldid=274085024 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl_W._Gottschalk&diff=274514560&oldid=274514394

--JeanandJane (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the improper removal of a copyvio tag from Carl W. Gottschalk. If you, as an admin, would like to refactor the page or judge there to be no copyvio then please do remove the tag. Verbal chat 21:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This has now been addressed by an admin, no further action on the copyvio is necessary. Thanks, Verbal chat 21:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I still would like Elonka to advice.Something is wrong here.--JeanandJane (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to talk on my or your talk page I'd be more than willing (being the first step in dispute resolution). I have proposed this in the past. Perhaps we can come to an understanding of each other, and help each other, moving forward. I don't think mediation is required, I'm sure this can be sorted out by dialogue. Verbal chat 21:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems Elonka is on wikibreak right now (Out of interest, how did you find her?) so she is unlikely to respond quickly. Please do come over to my talk page or email me if you prefer. Verbal chat 22:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Blythe Brown

I have nominated Blythe Brown, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blythe Brown. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Piero da Vinci (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Stephanie Shaver

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Stephanie Shaver, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Article does not assert notability or contain reliable sources which could be used to do so: tagged as such for over 4 months now.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Thompson Is Right (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Stephanie Shaver

An article that you have been involved in editing, Stephanie Shaver, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Shaver. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Thompson Is Right (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Elonka

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Elonka, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

WP:RFD#DELETE #7.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Elonka

I have nominated Elonka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Verbal chat 20:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

UCLA article weirdness

[[17]]

I think some Toe-jams (i.e., USC Trojans) are messing with the UCLA article. There is definitely some re-direct shenanigans going on here and I think someone with your "cryptic" mind set might be able to sort this out. Seems that a wiki search for UCLA leads nowhere. Is some admin freaking out here by deleting the University of California, Los Angeles entry?

Then again, I could just be confused! --Quartermaster (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably "never mind." Looks like someone else is already on this. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Comedian Jay Dee

I would like a new name if possible. How about Bjennings? Also I can provide you with other sources that talk about Jay Dee. Do I just copy/paste them in here or is there an easier way to get you this information? Thanks.JayDeeComedy (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:CesarsWay.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:CesarsWay.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability at DragonRealms

Hi Elonka,

I thought you might be interested in knowing that I have tagged the Dragonrealms article for not establishing notability. Please note that I am not arguing that DragonRealms is not notable (I don't know enough about gaming to argue that issue) ... I am simply saying that notability has not been established in the article (ie the article does not say why the game is notable). From what I gather, you were involved in the game's creation or something... so it is likely that you will be able to help fix the problem (or, if you have a COI in editing, you will know someone who can).

Best Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Levine2112 and chiropractic subjects

Hi Elonka. Previously there was an agreement with Levine2112 to briefly avoid chiropractic subjects, but now he's involved in the same behavior again, IOW whitewashing the subject wherever it's mentioned. He is deleting well-documented facts based on false arguments. Please take a look at his recent edits. He wishes to hide the fact that Applied Kinesiology, a method created by a chiropractor, widely used by chiropractors, and a very few other professionals who are into alternative medicine, is indeed a chiropractic method. That's simply whitewashing and unwikipedian. There is a discussion thread here. -- Fyslee (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute. Fyslee, I invite you to provide reliable sources to support the version you favour. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am very impressed with Coppertwig's comments. However, AK and general K are not the same. QuackGuru (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Closing thread since this is being dealt with on the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience talk page. -- Fyslee (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Komondor

The Komondor article is usually edited wery seldomly indeed, but lately I had a lot of trouble and discussion and also asked for third oppinions on its size and appearence. This breed being fairly unknown, not many people check that article, or try to defend it from bias. I think it is strange that suddenly four newly created accounts which do not edit anything else but Komondor related topics, all of the sudden appear one after the other, and start working in the same direction, trying to modify the impresion of the breed size, supporting each other in all ways.

All this started because of one picture taken of an (appearently small) Komondor at Westminster Dog Show and used at the lead of the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show‎ article.

And all of them are referring to this certain Komondor dog, called Quincy, (which is said to be the one in that picture). All accounts try to adjust the Komondor dog article to make it sound like the breed is smaller which means, to look more like that dog in that picture.

A dog the accounts and IP might be related to (thoug they deny this), or like this dog, which the accounts all call Ouincy, could be this dog here, http://clubs.akc.org/kca/theshow.htm a Komondor dog with a longer body than the international standards calls for (body lenght should be max 104% of the heigt at the dog at the whiters).

User(s) repeatedly removed relevant and sourced facts about size and body type..

Combined IP adress :70.121.204.57 and red link User:Meoconne assisted by User:Lynovella, repeatedly reverted edits at Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show‎ and Komondor dog breed articles, and removed facts from the Komondor article, such as: the dog breeds average height (30 inch), the fact that no upper height limit is given. leaving only minimum height and even other relevant and sourced breed caracteristics like square body (a dog term for a dog with short back) too.

Both average height (sourced) has been removed, (several times), [18] [19] [20], [21] [22] [23] upper limit height (sourced) [24], [25] mentioning other similar Hugarian sheepdogs [26], which all of them are relevant information for this encyclopaedia article on this dog breed, and when I (and even ClueBot) [27] [28] [29] [30] put them back he keeps removing them again [31], and makes quite a few unhelpful edits instead [32], removing reference title, [33] without any consensus. This is both Wikipedia:Edit war, and disruptive editing [34], [35].

This edit was also copright violation, an exact copy from the FCI Komondor Standards [36], poorly formulated edit added upper case The above mentioned newly created new red link user accounts are all editing the same articles, Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show‎ Komondor and nothing else.

They are all concentrated on the same issue at Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show‎ and Komondor dog breed, trying to adjust the article to show that Quincy is a perfect dog according to the breeds standards.

User(s) were editing the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show‎ and the Komondor dog article as an IP adress, IP adress 70.121.204.57, than under one username, User:Meoconne [37] He or she probably also edits the Komondor article and talk page as User:Lynovella and continues in the same time as IP adress 70.121.204.57.

First they were trying to ignore breed standard, other sources and pictures presented in argumentation on the talk page . It is also possible that the account User:Goldie102 has been created to support this issue around this Quincy dog, now, after a heated debate, claiming that the dog has perfect appearance, size, proportion and weight all according to the debated and well sourced International Komondor standards see edit [38].

I know sockpuppets are not allowed on Wikipedia.

I strongly suspect these are socks, can you check them, please?

Warrington (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

can you chime in?

There's a question in sources that are acceptable that I was unable to answer I thought I'd ask you since you if your able to answer it or not. It has to do with who approves/rejects GM applications in DragonRealms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legeres (talk • contribs) 13:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay Solomon answered my question in the forums so I'm set now, thank you anyways though--Legeres (talk) 04:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland

We are now dividing our members into active, semi-active (have not edited a Poland-related article in more then three months) and inactive (have not edited at all for three months or more). You are active on Wikipedia but I see you've not edited any Poland-related articles in many months; we are moving you to semi-active members category. I hope you don't mind - feel free to revert this change! Please consider participating in our project activities again in the future, we would love to work more closely with you again! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Rozgony

Hello, don´t know, if you have much time, but there is the topic Battle of "Rozgony", which is disputed between me and few hungarians. Actually, I can´t see a reason for name Rozgony, which was used sometimes in 19. century for the village and now it´s used in Hungary, today the village is Rozhanovce in Slovakia. At last was deleted also a mention about Battle of Rozhanovce, which Wizzard implemented into the article. I would appreciate you to express your opinion on my talkpage, or better at the talk to the article. Thank you.--Michalides (talk) 08:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A Question Regarding the Category Pertaining to 2010 in Television

Should I let the administrators create the category about 2010 in television with the 2009-2010 United States network television schedules for daytime, late night and Saturday morning television? Ericthebrainiac (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

File:MeretzkyAndAdams.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:MeretzkyAndAdams.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jay32183 (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Madam

Being a renown entrepreneur, this fellow computer science/business undergraduate asks you your advice. I love to travel. Is there anything you can recommend me? And sorry for posting such a random question. Have a good day! --DarkKunai (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator questions on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria/Workshop

Kirill has asked some questions here. You are invited to respond. --Tznkai (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Bratislava

Hello Elonka. I notice your "experiment" but am not sure if it's still running, and I also see that you're taking a break. Still, I'd be grateful if you'd look at this. -- Hoary (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I just want to say you sound like an amazing person. The amount of languages you can speak is impressive as well as your contributions to Wikipedia! Feel free to sign my guestbook. :) Ross Rhodes (T C) ^Sign! 18:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad Khurram Khan

It may be a bit of a strech. But I saw "chaotic cryptography" mentioned in this article at AfD. So in the interest of restoring order, I thought I'd point it out to you. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong

Hi, didn't know if you were aware of this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong/Proposed_decision#Ryulong_desysopped. As he is the only Admin besides you I know of who was asked to step down under AOR who did not, perhaps there is a lesson there for you - those who have expressed concern about your methods and actions do so with concern for Wikipedia in mind, and not for any baseless or personal reason. You would do well to heed their advice and pay attention to their concerns, and modify your approach accordingly. Those who cause distress and concern to such a large group of established, reputable editors would do well to examine their own actions, because while the majority is not always right, when there are that many complaints, there are generally grounds for them and eventually this must be corrected, one way or the other. I hope you will consider this a helpful bit of advice, and cease your high-handed, dismissive way of simply ignoring or personalizing concerns brought to you about your actions and instead view the mass of criticism directed your way as an opportunity to improve. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been on wikibreak for the last few months, and have no idea what you are talking about? --Elonka 23:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i noticed your edits this morning, which is why I chose now to post - because I knew you were active, however temporarily. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still lost. If I've been on wikibreak, how can I have done anything which you have a concern about? --Elonka 23:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you read my original note hastily. Please re-read it; it appears you are confused. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I knew when I first heard about WP:AOR that I didn't feel good about it, but couldn't say why; the hounding that several Wikipedia editors engaged in based on this theory served to crystallize why my initial feeling was correct. It seems that KillerChihuaha hasn't stopped hounding yet. I just wish you luck, patience and wisdom, Elonka; it seems that all 3 are needed on Wikipedia. --Alvestrand (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"Hounding"? I am sorry to see that you, also, have not only failed to read my original post, you have engaged in accusations and incivility. Or perhaps you are English as a second language? KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, English is my second language. I did read your words, and chose my words with some care. And I do know that the definition of "Hounding" is "(transitive) To persistently harass."

Note: After reading your user page and your recent contrib list, I see that you seem to enjoy some standing in the community, unlike some of the participants in earlier discussions. You may not have been among the earlier hounders, which was my initial assumption given your note. I'll AGF and shut up now. --Alvestrand (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little unsure of how to address this, but if you will bear with me, with the understanding that this is my somewhat unexamined thoughts on your input: You say first that you "considered carefully", you paste the definition to verify you comprehend the nature of your accusation, and state without reserve that I am hounding; then five hours later you reverse yourself, saying that you found I have "some standing" and decide suddenly to AGF. Without trying to address your aims or concerns regarding any other part of your posts, please do consider that if you begin with AGF and only reluctantly determine that someone is, indeed, behaving poorly, you will avoid making rash accusations and/or hurting or insulting others. Secondly, if someones actions are inappropriate that is true regardless of whether they have "some standing" or not. I would appreciate if you have further concerns regarding my behavior that you bring it to my talk page and not clutter Elonka's talk page, thanks much. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps an example of precrime? --Quartermaster (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

Good to see you actively editing again. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:MusicaAnimalia.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:MusicaAnimalia.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource translation

Hi Elonka, I remember you said Wikisource encourages user translations, so I added another one - wikisource:Cum ex injuncto (1199). I tried copying some other articles there to get all the templates right, but you have more experience there than me, so could you check to see if I did everything right? I put the original Latin on la.wikisource too. (I know it currently points to a non-existent Wikipedia article, but I will finish that today or tomorrow.) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

New Creation Church (Singapore)

Hi Elonka, I noticed that you had some dealings with editors of this page in the past (2007). There have been some recent problems with COI editing - I would appreciate some help from a more experienced editor with resolving these issues. There's an ongoing discussion on the talk page and there have been two COIN discussions, this one is currently live. Cheers Smartse (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

How are you?

Well here's a blast from the past! I was just passing through, how are you these days? Do you remember me?

SergeantBolt (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring (and reliably sourced) contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red

Elonka, can you look into the Julia Havey article? Rhode Island Red apparently is obsessed with Julia and has made many inaccurate edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.40.232.236 (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

quetion/favor

Hi Elonka, hope you are well. Quite some time ago you very kindly set up my talk page for automatic archiving and I have been very happy and grateful. But in all this time, the very first section of the talk page (called, "Hello. Jewish Friend") has never been archived. This is puzzling and a bit irritating because it is very very very old, out-dated talk. Do you know why it has not yet been archived? Should I archive it manually or can i find a way to have it archived with the rest of the material, now archived, that was written on my talk page around the same time? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 01:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably due to no timestamp. I'll take a look. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Preventing school violence

I don't know whether you're interested in this or not but I'm trying to get a few other points of view so I figured I'd ask. I stumbled accross your userpage and had a hunch you might be willing to help out if not that is fine to. After noticing the closest thing to prevention on the school shooting page involved arming teachers and shooting students at the last minute I thought there could be something better so I created the Preventing school violence article to link to it and have had a hard time convincing people not to delete links or the article itself. If it seems like something your interested in anything you put in will be apreciated. I'm just trying to correct something I consider seriously flawed. thanks Zacherystaylor (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

coolcaesar and personal attacks

I noted your comment on Coolcaesar's talk page about the user's use of personal attacks and abusive language. Such behavior has continued in nearly all of the user's posts. I have tried to reason with the user but without success. Please submit a complaint. Hopefully if enough of us do so, it might actually have a result. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Bob and Penny Lord

Elonka, could you take a look at this? Looks like a pretty blatant case of COI editing to me, but you know more about the Lords and their operation than I do. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on the COI issue. I think there might be enough for a real article at some point, but that draft had been sitting in userspace for too long, so I concur with deletion. --Elonka 00:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Jan Slota.

Hi Elonka,

I see you have been active on the Slota page, trying to get it sorted in the past.

I removed a few images of Neo-Nazi connection that are quite libelous and referred the matter to the living persons biography board. Its not a personal issue i assure you, I just think it may end up leading down a very POV path that no one want that article to go. Please confirm that I went about it properly and followed the proper procedures. Also confirm that it was proper to make this edit in case someone tries to reinsert the image. --Petethebeat (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hi Elonka, long time no speak. Do you have time for a little article improvement work? --John (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Depends... Which article? As you can tell from my contribs, my wiki-time is still curtailed, but I'm happy to take a look at something? --Elonka 22:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been working on Kim Chernin and could use some help with references. See the article talk and also here. I'd be grateful for any suggestions you can make. --John (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Creswell

Hi Elonka, I see you started the article Mosque of Amr ibn al-As and used Creswell's Early Muslim Architecture as a reference. I was wondering if you still have access to this book (or better yet The Muslim Architecture of Egypt) as I am looking to use it for an article I am working on but cannot find the book. Thanks, nableezy - 06:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that one's not in my personal library. Did you try http://books.google.com ? There are some snippet views there. Also, are you in an area that has inter-library loans? If not, if there's a particular page you're looking for in either of those books, I can go check things at a local university library for you. Here in St. Louis, I most commonly find books like that either at Washington University's library, or the St. Louis University library. The SLU library also has the Vatican Film Library, and is one of the (American) centers of Crusades research, so they have an excellent selection of research material. --Elonka 23:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

your opinion please...

I have asked for opinions as to whether it would be appropriate for me to move this article to my rough work in my user space. Since you were one of the five other people who made an edit to it I'd appreciate your opinion as to whether the other edits rise to the level of being considered "intellecutal content".

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Plot edits on Brown's "The Lost Symbol"

Your condensing of the plot on The Lost Symbol removed some of my material which helped to clarify for the article reader. My main problem is that you deleted my ending line about actually what the "lost symbol" in the title is. The whole chase and solving of puzzles does refer to a tangible object--the Bible in the cornerstone of the Washington Monument. Evidence: Pg 471: (style as written): Peter: "The Lost Word is buried in D.C.... and it does rest at the bottom of a long staircase beneath an enormous engraved stone." Pg 486: Langdon: "The Lost Word was buried in the cornerstone of this monument on July 4, 1848, in a full Masonic ritual." You also took out my lines referring to the laboratory work of Katherine Solomon, the female lead in the story. The plot sections on both of Brown's other books are quite long. I want to request that you revist the page and consider restoring my material. Your edits unfortunately reverted the plot to vague status ending in a generalization of what the "lost symbol" means. The majority of editors will eventually attempt to correct that, something I had already done. 5Q5 (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is my material, all factual from the book, that I posted on Sep 22 09 and you deleted from the plot section: 5Q5 (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Mal'akh destroys Katherine Solomon's Smithonsonian-sponsored laboratory, where she conducted successful experiments in the ability of the human mind to affect subatomic particles, in a fiery nighttime explosion.

Katherine enters the room and is reunited with Peter, who informs her that he had secretly made copies of her computer research records, which proved experiments that "demonstrated the effect of human thought on everything from ice crystals to random-event generators to the movement of subatomic particles."

[people are not God's subjects, but in fact possess the capability to be gods themselves]: the Second Coming is actually the Second Coming of man.

[In the end, Langdon realizes that the word is Hope.] The "lost symbol" in the context of the story, however, is revealed to be a copy of the Bible secreted away in the cornerstone of the Washington Monument deep underground. Unretrievable, it and whatever other secrets may be contained within are lost to time.

If you won't restore the above deletions yourself, I will bring this to the article's talk page and ask for consensus on restoration or continued deletion. I will do that tomorrow. 5Q5 (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Good way to proceed, thank you.  :) --Elonka 20:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Reflists

Have no fear, SmackBot is here! SB adds Reflists to articles that need them on a daily basis. Rich Farmbrough, 01:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC).

Virginia FAC

Last year, when the article on Virginia was up on FAC, we were proud to have your support for it. Unfortunately, we didn't have anyone else's then. One year later, we're back up on FAC, with more supporters, and I was hoping you could again look over the article and give your opinion on it. Thanks!-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 16:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Smithsonian Support Center

I think coordinates would be okay in its own article, but in that list article, it didn't seem relevant, since that section is just a small, capsule summary of that location, and it seemed inconsistent with the rest of the article, which doesn't have such coordinates. Nightscream (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

MILHIST admins

Hi. Since you're an admin and a member of the Military History WikiProject, feel free to list yourself here. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Biased article about a living person

Hello Elonka, it says here that when an article about a living person is unreferenced, editors shall request admin assistance. This article is not only unreferenced, but also not written from a NPOV, a great part is unverifiable, basically the article is one personal attack, and in my opinion it's libelous. Yesterday I have deleted some text immediately and without waiting for discussion (hopefully in accordance with WP?), but today the text is reverted. The part I have deleted has a citation at the end, I have looked up the source, but it does not say the things said in the article - so I have deleted it. Of course this just an example - almost the whole text is biased, I can show more examples.

I don't want to get into edit wars so I'm asking you. You were involved with the article previosly - I hope it's ok?

I would make the changes myself, but it's kinda hard, with all the reverting. To me it seems, that almost no sentence is written from a NPOV. I would like to delete the parts that are doubtful and harmful, parts that are written like "he was universally criticised", I'd like to change to "some people criticised him" and add citations.

You should know, that political fight is much tougher and sharper in Slovakia (and I think in all the ex-communist European states), than say in Germany or in the US.

Thanks for your help J --Jg333 (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you be interested

in submitting your comments about the article Catholic Church? I am going to take this article to peer review some time in the near future and I was hoping to get some fresh perspectives. The article is very stable - points of conflict this year have focused mainly on the article name which was decided after a lenghty and successful mediation and the two paragraphs covering World War II. The article section on Cultural Influence is slated to be expanded by a paragraph to include the Church's influence on the hospital system, justice system, educational system, etc. Please feel free to wander over and offer up some suggestions at your leisure. No hurry. Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 03:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

help requested regarding policies

I'm still getting used to the editing policies and methods here, and I saw that you were an admin who (at least at one point?) had an interest in soap opera articles, so I'm hoping you can help me with a few things?

1) How do I perform/initiate/propose an article renaming? The article I'm looking at is for Julie Berman -- she is more popularly known as Julie Marie Berman (according to not just various press articles and film credits, but also on her official website www.juliemarieberman.com), and even the article itself starts off with Julie Marie Berman, but that page is a redirect to "Julie Berman". Is there a way to reverse this, so that "Julie Berman" is the redirect to "Julie Marie Berman"?

2) In the Repeated links section of the MoS, it says to generally not link unless "a later occurrence of an item is a long way from the first." My question is, how long is "a long way"? The reason I'm asking is because in this article, I had added links to Colby Chandler, Adam Chandler and Tad Martin at the last section because I could not easily locate their links anywhere in the previous 3 sections. However, my links were undone by a user who says "I am following Wikipedia formatting style", followed immediately in the next edit (by the same user) by "We do not need to and really should not re-introduce these characters every time they are mentioned in a new section.", a comment associated with the edit that completely removed all links in the text to Colby's page so that now, the 'only' place where you can get a link to Colby is by opening up the "Relationships" box! Is this really how the "don't repeat links" guideline is supposed to be interpreted? :-(

3) I had previously asked another admin to restore some text for me so that I could add the appropriate references (I couldn't undo the change and didn't want to have to re-enter everything in again) but I haven't seen a response for about a week. Would you be able to help restore the text removed in this edit of the Billy Bush page?

Thank you in advance for your help! Shymian (talk) 06:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing! Here are some quick replies:

1. Propose the move on the talkpage of the article. It will be particularly helpful to provide third-party sources (not just Berman's own website) to show that newspapers and magazines commonly refer to her with the middle name. If no one objects to the move after a few days, go ahead with it. See also Wikipedia:Requested moves.
2. Bring up the dispute at the talkpage, try to have a collegial discussion about the best way to proceed.
3. Admins typically aren't going to get involved in questions of content. Again, try bringing it up at the talkpage. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Hope that helps! --Elonka 06:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply! The reason I was looking for an admin was because for #2, since I have only been around for a couple of months, I wanted to make sure that I wasn't misreading or misunderstanding the stated guidelines. The editor in question seems to have a habit of not just removing "extra" links, but was also making what struck me as slightly supercilious comments, and seemed a bit possessive of the article as well :-( so I just wanted to verify that what I felt (that those links were not redundant) also seemed reasonable to at least one other neutral party before I said anything :-) For #3, it wasn't a "content dispute" per se -- I don't think that editor had a problem with what was there, just that there were no references. However, instead of simply tagging the text as "needing refs", she deleted practically half the article :-( Since she seems to have a habit of deleting even non-controversial items that aren't "properly cited", I wasn't going to argue with her about it but just wanted to add the refs to the article. Unfortunately, other people have since edited the page in the meantime so I wasn't able to just "undo" her changes. which is why I was looking for help from an admin to restore that text.

I'll definitely make the suggestion on the talk page for #1, but can you tell me what your opinion is of #2 and retrieve the text for #3 so I don't have to re-enter everything? Thanks again, Shymian (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Try posting a note at the talkpage of the Soap opera WikiProject and asking for help there. And for restoring, I'd recommend moving slowly. Pick one section that you most want to have back, and re-add it with sources. Then wait a day or so and see if the change is accepted or if it's challenged. If the latter, discuss things on the talkpage, try to find a compromise, or, find more sources. Once that's settled, move on to another section of the article, again, with sources. Sorry I'm not getting more detailed about this, but I'm trying to maintain my "uninvolved" status. When dealing with a dispute at an article, I can be either an editor (who's working on or discussing the content) or an administrator (enforcing policies). See also WP:UNINVOLVED. I have added the articles to my watchlist, and will keep an eye on things. Good luck!  :) --Elonka 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:RfArb regarding West Bank vs. Judea and Samaria

I have started a Request for Arbitration regarding the use of northern/southern West Bank vs. Judea and Samaria. Since you have been involved in this debate, I have included you in the request.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 25.02.2009 09:33