User talk:Elonka

Priory of Sion

Hello Elonka! Congratulations on becoming a Wikipedia administrator! Would you have the time and interest in collaborating with me to improve the Priory of Sion article enough to meet Featured article criteria? --Loremaster (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I recently did some tweaking of the Charges of heresy section of the History of the Knights Templar article. Did you have any comments? --Loremaster (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you'd been working on it, yes. Though I didn't review the edits in detail, because I know that you know what you're talking about, so I trust you to put in good material.  :) When I get a chance, I'll go in and look in more detail. The Priory of Sion project sounds like a good one too, I'll definitely help as I can, though right now my time is a bit crunched. I've been sick with the flu for a couple weeks, and when I do have time (and health) for Wikipedia, my attention has mainly been on an ArbCom case. It's in voting phase now, but even after it's done, there are a a lot of articles (some of them Templar-related) that are going to need complex cleanup. I am also trying to get Dirty Dancing to FA, and will be submitting it for another Peer Review soon, and probably FA again next week. But if you still need help on Priory of Sion after I get those projects off my plate, yes, I'll definitely help out! :) --Elonka 19:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The help needed is mostly with standardizing the citing of sources. Anyway, take care of yourself. --Loremaster (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think the Priory of Sion article is now worthy of good article status? If it is, could you nominate it? If not, could you tweak it enough before nominating it? --Loremaster (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated the Priory of Sion article for GA status. --Loremaster (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Dated sub-cats

Essentially the templates need to be tweaked, and the sub cats created. There's a few bits of admin too, but that's the crux. I'll have a look at it. Rich Farmbrough, 21:29 11 March 2008 (GMT).

Basically done. Rich Farmbrough, 22:41 12 March 2008 (GMT).

Supercouples

Hello Elonka, Thank you so much for agreeing to help out on the list of supercouples. Trouble is brewing again down to a conflict of views - as evidenced on AniMate's talk page. You expert guidance skills would be appreciated here! And yes, I need to control my temper....Paul75 (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Elonka, trouble's not brewing, I'm too busy pulling my head out of my ass and trying to figure out how to deal with people in the real world to cause trouble on the article. Not that I need to tell you, but please view my talk page. KellyAna (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If my comment about how KellyAna dealing with people outside of Wikipedia crossed a line, I apologize, but I've noticed what seems to be a pattern of immediate incivility with people who she doesn't agree with. You say she's getting better, than I'll believe you. Still I think a reminder of what you said here might be in order. AniMate 00:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't "immediately incivil," I said I just couldn't go back to the page after Paul's insistence the lists must go. That's not uncivil, it's fact. You attacked me, my real life existence, my job, my personal interactions. I wasn't even talking to you and you attacked me. That's a fact that can't be swept under a rug by apologizing to a third party. And those conditions were to be upheld only if Elonka and I were to participate in the article. I gave a waiver and said I couldn't adhere because of Paul's comments and I wouldn't be participating. KellyAna (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)KellyAna you were immediately uncivil with me in our first interaction. You misinterpreted something I said and refused to accept my apology. I see multiple instances on your talk page of confrontations with other users. If I offended you I apologize, but your interactions with people at Wikipedia are problematic and I was merely wondering if you are so quick to fight in your "real" life. I'm guessing no. The thing about being anonymous on the 'net is that we say things we might not normally say in everyday life. I do it. You do it. Elonka and Paul both do it. It was a roundabout way of saying we should interact with each other as if we are sitting across from one another at a table. It was done inartfully, but it was not an attack and I again apologize for offending you. Please accept it.

Also, those conditions Elonka set out are conditions every single Wikipedian should follow no matter what is going on. AniMate 00:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an apology? KellyAna (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Again, I apologize if I offended you. AniMate 00:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't accept what my mother called "back handed apologies" and that's what that was. I never attacked your personal life or being and you can't say the same. I left the article because you and Paul made it your mission to ruin it. I wanted out and you not only tried to pull me back you insulted me in the process. Paul did everything he could to bring me to tears. Your back handed whatever isn't enough. KellyAna (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You have misinterpreted what I said. I never meant to insult your personal life. I am sorry for what I said. AniMate 01:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I can't speak for Paul, but AniMate sounds sincere. If AniMate isn't using words which properly convey that to you though, then the thing to do (per that Transactional analysis thing I told you about), is for you to decide for yourself, "What would I need to hear from AniMate, to help improve our ability to communicate?" Instead of just saying, "You're not meeting my needs" (which is the "C" in the PAC at TA), the more adult way to handle things is to take the responsibility for communication of just what your needs are. Another way of describing it, is with a mother and a baby. If a baby has a wet diaper, the baby just cries, and it's up to the mother to try and deduce what the baby wants, and fix it. But what I'm trying to encourage you to do, is to deal with things in a different way. So instead of just "crying" (not saying that you are, I'm just using that as an analogy), imagine that you were a baby and you could say, "Um, mom, the diaper's wet again. I'd change it but I obviously don't have motor control (or reach past the crib walls here) to do it. Think you could take care of this for me? Thanks so much, I really appreciate it."  :) --Elonka 01:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I am sincere. I never want to hurt anyone's feelings. I do think you misinterpreted what I said, and I really am sorry. That being said, I still think all of the principles Elonka laid out on your talk page are things every single Wikipedian should follow every time they post. Paul certainly did not do that on my talk page, and Elonka correctly warned him. However, I do think incivility and not assuming good faith are real problems with you. We're discussing it here, and it's being discussed on your page by another admin. My mission has never been to ruin anything. All I've wanted is to collaborate with all sides in this and improve the article. AniMate 01:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's what "pisses" me off. I asked weeks ago to get away from the article. I was happy, content to be away and some how someone tried to suck me back in and this happens. Do you see why I wanted out? I wanted nothing to do with any of it. Why did you do this to me? I wanted out, done, gone, bye, over, not to touch again because I can't deal with people like Paul. I don't appreciate this escalation over an article I stepped away from weeks ago. It's very unfair. KellyAna (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason I asked you back is because I was unhappy that you left the article. I wanted to work with you and thought it possible that two people like us with vastly different opinions could work something out. It's as simple as that. No one should feel they have to flee an article. I was simply reaching out to see if maybe you would want to participate in something I knew you had cared about in the past. AniMate 01:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, this is the internet, no one can force you to do anything you don't want to do.  :) If you think someone is "coercing" you to do something, close the browser. :) Unplug the computer, walk away. You have complete control over what you do or don't do online. If you don't want to work on the article, don't. It's as simple as that. You don't need to justify, or explain, or react... Just go work on something you do want to work on.  :) --Elonka 01:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, I cared about it but according to Paul's accusations I claimed to own it. I guarantee you I don't own that article and NEVER claimed to. I've always said that was Flyer's article and I just a contributor. I don't even know that it is you that would be "to blame" but rather Paul. I think maybe, but not necessarily likely, you, Flyer, and I might be able to work things through but Paul is the one I can't work with which is what I was replying to on your page. I just think it's better for me to not be involved because, quite honestly, the removal of the "notable wave" section infuriates me. I know me, I know when it's better to walk away. It was what was best for me and all involved for me to walk away. Look what happened tonight. I've made more enemies than friends tonight and it's all because of that stupid Supercouple list set me off. Just let me walk away. PLEASE. It's what I wanted weeks ago, it's what I still want. And what else I want is for Elonka to help me and this article isn't part of that agenda when the talk about it includes comments like "what planet" and "pull your head out." I just don't need that abuse, I have a teenager, I get enough abuse at home =)KellyAna (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I also apologise to KellyAna for my comments if it is any use. In defending myself in probably an undefenbisble situation is thyat you are increasing difficult to work with KellyAna. From the moment myself and AniMate came across this article, if you have been aggressive and uncivil. All i did was stumble across an article by sheer mistake that I thought needed some help. Correctly or incorrectly, I thought it didn't adhere to Wikipedia guidelines and thought it could be improved - AniMate obviously felt the same. I feel incredibly frustrated that every time we attempt to do something, you turn on us and cry foul. This is the reason why I suggested you behave as if you own the article. When I made one of my first edits to the article you left me a message saying something along the lines of "Thank you for experimenting on the List Of Supercouples article - please don't do it again, next time use the sandbox". That is not a very helpful attitude. It is this frustration of being able to get anywhere with you that lead me to lash out yesterday with some unkind language. I am sorry, it shouldn't have been said and yes I have problems control my temper. My apologies go out to you, AniMate, Elonka and everyone else involved. It was a stupid thing to do and did not advance the case any further. But KellyAna, please, no matter what I have said in the past can you try and be a little more flexible with us, and not shout us down everytime we say something? We are NOT trying to ruin this article, despite what you think. We are not the Wicked Witches of the West patrolling Wikipedia in an attempt to destroy things. We both just happened to see an article we thought needed help. OUR thoughts. No-one elses. Wikipedia is there to be read, used, edited and changed by everyone and we have the right to our own opinion. From day one both myself and AniMate have been confronted with rudeness and uncivility, but we have weathered the storm. If you could please accept that we have differing views and then we can all move on. And yes, I don't like lists - so what? Do you really think that means I will be a one man army that will destroy every list on the site? I really don;t have the time or inclination. By walking away from this list now, you are effectively giving control to the evil twins leaving us free to do whatever we want to the article, and I don't think you want that.  :) Why don't you stick around, I don't care if you hate me, internet snipings don't bother me. Just please please try and accept that we all have different views and are not insidiously evil out to ruin things. Paul75 (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Paul, anything and everything you say only makes things worse, as you've done here AGAIN. The message, Hello, I'm Jason47a. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. is just a default message used by Wikipedia, it's a template not my words. If you'd been around as long as you claim, you should know that and not have taken it personally. What absolutely gauls me is I haven't even touched the article but to add one reference in a long time and when I repeated WHY I won't touch it, because of you and what you've done, you immediately attacked. You should have celebrated because I was stating I wasn't coming back and you could continue ruining the article to your hearts content. Why when I'm saying "I'll leave you to your destruction and won't interfere" are you still attacking me? I really think you need to look at the past conversations and stop attacking me for NOT PARTICIPATING. Stop dwelling and stop attacking me. And what "walking away now"??? I walked away WEEKS AGO see here where my last comment was February 28 so LEAVE ME ALONE and move on and go back to destroying the Supercouple list but LEAVE ME OUT OF IT. Your apology is not accepted as it is backhanded and lacks knowledge of my lack of involvement and lack of desire to be involved. KellyAna (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

What the?

Any thoughts on this one? [1]?? IRC? Banned? Blocked because I'm pissy tonight but banned and what is IRC? Is this a joke? KellyAna (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

DreamGuy at AE

Not sure if you were aware of it, but I submitted a report on DreamGuy at AE. I am also not sure if you want to be involved with it, but perhaps you could tell me how long it takes for investigation/action to be taken on a submitted enforcement complaint. Either way, thanks for pointing me int he right direction with your comment on my User Talk page. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, GMTA, I actually just posted. As for how long it takes to get action, it really depends who's watching the page. It might be worth posting a note at ANI, reminding the admins there to check the enforcement board since no one else seems to be watching it at the moment. If you do post at ANI, let me know and I'll weigh in too. --Elonka 17:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering your long history of wikistalking me, Elonka, you know you shouldn't be getting involved here. But then you never seem to care. DreamGuy (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

DreamGuy, the above comment is uncivil, an assumption of bad faith, and a violation of your ArbCom restrictions (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2). Please, understand that I do see the good work that you do. I know you have expertise in certain topic areas, and I do see you working hard to fight spam and vandalism and POV-pushing, and I appreciate how much you care about Wikipedia. What I don't like though, is when you mistreat other editors, when you assume bad faith, and when you play fast and loose with the truth. When you are uncivil, you make Wikipedia a more unpleasant place to work. I also take exception with the way that you throw around terms such as "harassment" and "stalking". When you make false accusations like that, it makes situations more difficult to resolve. Even when you are being faced with rude behavior, it does not give you the right to be rude in return. And when people caution you about rude behavior, you most especially do not have the right to react to them with abusive comments and false accusations, and thereby further escalate the situation.

I wish that you could hear the good things that people say about what you do, and take enough pride in that, that you didn't have to react so defensively to the bad. I wish that you could acknowledge your temper, and say, "I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said that, I'm going to try and do better in the future." If you could do that, I think you would find an enormous number of people here who would be eager to put aside old grievances, and genuinely try to give you another chance. Apologies can be powerful. I wish you would consider one once in awhile. --Elonka 23:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for trying

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For grace under fire and for effortless diplomacy in tense situations. AniMate 23:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Your "Dancing With the Stars" analogy was dead on. I know how much effort goes in to playing referee with two people bound and determined to piss each other off, but... you make it look easy. Cheers. AniMate 00:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to butt in on the barnstar but if you REALLY think I was "bound and determined to piss Paul off" then you are sorely wrong. You came to me, I came back and said why I had to decline and then he attacked, as did you AniMate. How exactly does that make me "bound and determined to piss him off?" KellyAna (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm, Kelly, he didn't mention you. I work with other disputes, too. :) In fact, if you look at my contribs, I think you'll find some things that you might find interesting. --Elonka 01:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was the only one she was "involved" with. LOL. Believe me, I know you deserve the Barnstar. If I knew how to create one you'd get the "BARNSTAR FOR PUTTING UP WITH PAINS IN THE ASS" which is one you really need. =) I've admired your work for months since the Pauleen Fowler article. Didn't mean to rain on your parade. KellyAna (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Well, I could link you to a page that shows how to create Barnstars, but I shudder to think what the graphic might look like for that particular one.  ;) "I hereby award you the Hemorrhoid Barnstar"....  :) --Elonka 02:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not that bad. This is what I thought would be appropriate (you get to throw little Ninja stars at me and those like me =)

		The Barnstar of Putting up with the Likes of Me
		For putting up with all of us that try your patience and make you want to pull your hair out but who really do appreciate your efforts, grace, understanding, and patience. KellyAna (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The other option was:

		The Barnstar of Putting up with Crabby People
		For putting up with all of us that try your patience and make you want to pull your hair out but really do appreciate you. KellyAna (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

*ahem* My name is gender neutral, but she is actually a he. As an aside, I know it's not in your area, but I've been working on getting Nazi human experimentation up to GA status. A terribly unpleasant subject, I know, but an important one. Would you mind taking a look and giving me some feedback. If you do I'll forgive you for your pronoun foible. AniMate 02:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that explains SO much.

Elonka ~ I have a friend helping me and we are going to have a great Barnstar for you. You'll love it. KellyAna (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

AniMate, sorry about the pronoun thing! As for your article, I'm afraid all I can do is wish you well. I unfortunately had family at Auschwitz, who yes, had contact with Mengele. I already bump into the Nazi atrocities enough while I'm doing genealogy work, because of all the holes in my family tree, and death dates from World War II.[2] I do not think that I could maintain my cool while working on that kind of an article. :/ --Elonka 02:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Very understandable, it's the worst article I've ever worked on. I had family at Mauthausen-Gusen, so I understand how hard working on Holocaust articles can be. Still, thanks for everything. I'm just going to go ahead and submit it for GA review once I've tweaked some retrieved dates. I've had to really be clinical and detached with this, and I still feel bad whenever I work on it. Thank you anyway, and you're forgiven for the pronoun slip. And KellyAna it does explain SO much. It explains why I'm so incredibly awesome (which I'm sure is what you meant). AniMate 02:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Kindly explain

Hi Elonka,

regarding your arb enforcement call, if you could provide the rationale for your decision, as I'm not too clear on how you arrived at said decision. It doesn't have to be long, if you can just give me a general idea of how you perceived the situation, I'd appreciate it.

--Skyelarke (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka,

Thanks for taking the time to reply - the thing is, several of your statements on the noticeboard appear to me to be innacurate, I'm sorry to say - but I don't want importune you with a long discussion about them - but there are three points that I'd like to raise -

1) The whole problem to me hinges on the relevance of those images - I must reiterate that they are very important to the discussion - I would not have called a RFC without being able to include them - and the image question is mentioned in remedy 2 of the arb decision (and is mentioned prominently elsewhere on the RFA page).

2) Edit warring? Does one instance of reversion consitute edit- warring? If so, then by definition should not User JGreb should also be included in that instance?

3) I am curious as to why the unusual (and to me rather severe) enforcement i.e. contrary to the steps stipulated in the enforcement indications, when normally an initial offense is usually met with a warning, as was the first case?

Cordially,

--Skyelarke (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanky for the reply,

What can I say? I must respectfully disagree with most of your replies - although I won't pursue my objections any further - again thanks for your time -

I would like to make one suggestion however - maybe wait a while before continuing to handle arbcom enforcement cases? (I don't mean to sound condescending, but I think it is one of the tougher areas to handle on Wikipedia, for anyone).

I say this because the impression I get is that although I think you handled the request OK on the whole and consciensciously so- I get the impression that there's a lack of pragmatic experience in dealing with conflict resolution situations, image questions, edit warring, etc...

Maybe deal with some less complex stuff at the community notice notice board or the adminstrator's incidents noticeboard a bit before tackling the arbcom thing? No offense intended, just trying to make a pragmatically helpful suggestion.

All the best,

--Skyelarke (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Similar to Skyelarke's, above.

See User_talk:J_Greb#Extra_eyes..._.282.29.

From what I can tell, #1 should be implemented. And it seems that you dealt with (confirmed) #2 and #3 in your closure. If you disagree, clarification would be welcome. - jc37 18:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification : ) - jc37 20:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: query

Hi Elonka, this is in relation to the DreamGuy section, right? Are you asking this question because of PHG's edits, or something else? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think I would only be "involved" if I were part of the dispute at Jack the Ripper or had some other ongoing conflict with DG. ABD/PHG's comments are spillover from another dispute, in which I am (tangentially) involved, and I wouldn't take any admin actions there--but the situations are different, and their comments haven't affected how I viewed DreamGuy's situation at all.

If you continue to be concerned, though, I wouldn't have a problem with getting more input--the more eyes, the better, in my opinion. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like things are getting entangled... [3] [4]. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Your post at User talk:AGK

Hi Elonka. Sorry I haven't got back to you about your post regarding my thoughts on disruption, etc., at my talk page—I'd completely forgotten about it until now. I'll try and remember tomorrow :) Please accept my apologies in the meanwhile! Anthøny 23:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

France, Japan, and PHG

I was not going to indulge this, but I figured it couldn't hurt to ask you to be more specific about any concerns with France-Japan relations (19th century). Perhaps if you are waiting as you say to see it get fleshed out, you could just put it on your watchlist (if it's not already) and take the tags off as PHG works on it, re-adding them later if the problems are apparent. Srnec (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me, but you've now peaked my interest. What's wrong with the article's brief portrayal of Christianity in Japan? (And why not just post a note explaining why you oppose his DYK nomination at that page?) Srnec (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Caution

My mistake - I misread the message and thought it was something unrelated to the talk page.

Cheers,

--Skyelarke (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Days website info

Hello. I am new here, but wanted to respond to your question. I hope this is the correct place to do so. If not, please let me know. As you requested, here is the link to my site, which is celebrating its 10th anniversary on the web this year:

http://members.aol.com/jason47b

Thanks for the interest. Jason Jason47a (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Comments on others

Hi again. I regularly search the Internet to make sure people are not copying from my site, etc... When I did one of my searches tonight, the Wikipedia page came up. Although it didn't deal with copying things from my site, I was dismayed to see several erroneous comments about myself on the page. Here is the link to the page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Days_of_our_Lives_cast_members

My name is mentioned numerous times on that page. I signed up to Wikipedia tonight, since I thought I had a right to defend myself. They are not breaking any rules, but I just wanted to let each of them know my stance on the situation.

KellyAna on January 29 stated: "Please see what constitutes reliable per WP:V and Jason's page is not reliable. He "guesses" based on where someone's name appears in the credits or if they appear. His information is faulty and Kristen has not been on in 2008 on a contract basis. She's not even in the credits on days she does not appear. KellyAna (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)"

My response on her page was that my information is not faulty. I do not "guess" about contracts. I've kept track of the Days credits since 1985, so since I've been doing this for 23 years, I feel I have some history to back up my credentials. Also, she states erroneously that "Kristen Renton (Morgan) is not even in the credits on days she does not appear." That is an outright error, since Kristen Renton has appeared in the credits every day since December 3, regardless of if she appears at all during a week or not. There have been many weeks since December 3 when Kristen Renton did not appear, yet her name was still in the credits, meaning she is on contract.

As for IrishLass, on January 30, she stated: "Kristen Renton is not on contract. Jason is not considered reliable sourcing. You did mention Jason on KellyAna's page. If you have other sources you put them here, not on a user page for others to consider the merit of a source. I've checked all publications and only Jason is assuming she's on contract as he did with the young lady that played Gabby and he was wrong, generally is."

I addressed her on her page, and asked that she not make statements like "Jason was wrong, generally is." I pride myself on reporting only the facts, not gossip or errors. I admit that perhaps I make an error or two once every two years, which might be 10 errors in total in 10 years since I started my site in 1998. Since I average maybe one error per year, I don't think it's fair for her to say that I'm generally always wrong, when I'm usually 99% right.

Also, IrishLass stated: "Contract status means in the credits everyday, even when you don't air, she is not. She [Kristen Renton] is only listed on days she appears. IrishLass (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Again that is incorrect. I don't know how both of those editors of that page could be incorrect but they are. Perhaps they don't watch the credits carefully, but I do, and have done so for the past 23 years. Kristen Renton has indeed been in the credits every week since she was upped to contract status on December 3. Both IrishLass and KellyAna both told that person (username Doolkid) who was trying to get Kristen Renton added to the contract credits that she was wrong, but in fact, Doolkid was right.

It's easy to see who is on contract with "Days." John Aniston (Victor) and Leann Hunley (Anna) are a good determination, since both of them do not have contracts and generally are the first names after the contract cast is listed. There are a few more people on contract that they have yet to/refused to add: Tamara Braun (Ava), Shawn Christian (Daniel) and in the coming weeks Arianne Zuker (Nicole) and perhaps Kevin Dobson (Mickey), whose status we'll find out when they run the credits on April 1. Thanks, Jason Jason47a (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Comments

Yes, I understood about "unreliable" from the get-go. But as I mentioned above, I was talking about specific things mentioned by those two editors. I was not saying that they had to consider me as a point of reference or for being reliable. Both of them said incorrect things in response to username Doolkid. They both said Kristen Renton (Morgan) was not listed in the credits every day since December 3, when in fact, she has been. Also, I did take exception to Irishlass stating that "My site is generally wrong." That is also not true. I sort of am an "unofficial" official source. I have had several conversations with the former Days website webmaster, and even he said that sometimes they would come to my site to get information for their official website. Besides that, the "official" site never even updates cast biographies in a timely fashion. That's perhaps why the other editors don't believe Kristen Renton, Tamara Braun and Shawn Christian are in fact on contract. I can see their point, since "official" sources don't list it, but in actuality, those websites are just behind in updating. They don't bother to make the daily changes that I do. I haven't checked, but I assume the official sites still list Brandon Beemer (Shawn) and Martha Madison (Belle) in the cast biographies. I had them off my site as soon as the March 24 episode aired, since they were no longer part of the active cast at that time. Jason47a (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom review

Hello Elonka, how are you? May I ask you for the review of two ArbCom enforcements please, as you are a completely uninvolved administrator. One is related to me [5] and second related to my longtime wikifriend [6]. They stuck there for a days. Thank you and happy editing! ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note. Since AE threads are very time-consuming (as it's necessary to come up to speed from zero to really give it a good review), I'm trying to limit myself to no more than 1 or 2 per week. I do agree that the queue is getting a bit backed up, and I posted a note at WP:AN asking for more eyes. If no one else gets to it, I'll definitely take a look at those threads within the next couple days. Thanks for your patience, --Elonka 19:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

ouki douki. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Days site comments, etc...

Hi Elonka. Just a few updates on IrishLass0128. She too seems to have the same feelings towards me as KellyAna. I'm dismayed to see they feel that way, since they have no reason to, but there's nothing I can do about that. IrishLass0128 refuses to answer my question about Kristen Renton and immediately removes my questions/statements to her:

Her first response to me was: As you and the Jason47 site seem to have an admin on your side (although I don't know if she knows your work or not) I'll simply say that I stand by my previous opinion and actually hold it stronger now than before, a claim of only wrong twice in 10 years is impossible for me to believe but also tells me a very great deal. I could list many sites I'm associated with in some form or another that do not allow what you post on your site to be listed as "fact" only as rumor and speculation, much like DaysCafe.com, but never fact. I further stand by the opinion that the Jason47 Days of our Lives site should not be an allowable resource for articles. Say what you want, do what you want, but I'll forever fight to keep that site as a non-referenceable source on the basis of WP:OR if nothing else but more importantly as a strickly fan site and fan sites are not allowed. Good bye. Please don't stop by again as it will only serve to negatively affect my opinion of you. Thank you. IrishLass (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

She incorrectly stated that I said I was only wrong twice in 10 years...I did not say that. She also said she will fight to not have me as a reliable source. Nowhere in any of my statements on Wikipedia did I ask to be considered a reliable source. My question to her was why she spoke incorrectly about Kristen Renton. She seems to not to want to admit she was wrong, but will just remove my question as though it did not exist, and just change the subject to something else.

After she removed my question, I made one final comment to her, also re-adding my question back:

Hello. As I had said earlier: "I will admit in my ten years of running the site, I might average one or two mistakes every two years or so, but that's a pretty good track record for a decade on the Internet. Much better a track record than saying "Jason was wrong, generally is." You mistakenly wrote that I said I was only wrong twice in ten years...as my statement above says, I'm wrong once a year or so, so that would be 10 times in 10 years.

On another statement you left, just wanted to make a correction on your error. You stated: "Contract status means in the credits everyday, even when you don't air, she is not. She is only listed on days she appears." That is incorrect. Kristen Renton has been listed in the credits every day since December 3, regardless of the weeks she appears in. Many weeks she did not appear in December, January, February and March, yet she was still in the credits every day. For this, I was correcting your incorrect statement of January 30 that you said she was not in the credits every day. I bolded that statement of yours, because you wrore yourself that "Contract status means in the credits everyday, even when you don't air." So it's not me speculating on Kristen Renton, it's her placement in the credits and the fact that she is listed every day, regardless of when she appears, just like you wrote yourself saying that was the criteria for contract status.

Nowhere in my statements above did I ask you to treat me as a reliable source, so I don't know why you would bring that up in your response. Now, if you'd like to answer my original question about Kristen Renton, and why you stated she does not appear in the credits every day, please do. I'm sorry that my response "will only serve to negatively affect my opinion of you." Thanks, Jason Jason47a (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IrishLass0128"

I was expecting a response about Kristen Renton, not: "Any additional comments will be removed, as was your last comment. I have said all I will say on the subject. This is not to be incivil, it is to avoid incivility and stating my true feelings which would not be a civil thing to do. Thank you for respecting my wishes."

I guess you won't be responding to my question about Kristen Renton? I'm confused as to why you would be incivil to me, since we've never met, and I've never done anything to you. This will be my last comment to you, which I assume you will also remove. If you do remove this, I ask that you remove your inaccurate statements about me in the previous post where you say: "a claim of only wrong twice in 10 years is impossible for me to believe but also tells me a very great deal." and "I further stand by the opinion that the Jason47 Days of our Lives site should not be an allowable resource for articles. Say what you want, do what you want, but I'll forever fight to keep that site as a non-referenceable source on the basis of WP:OR if nothing else but more importantly as a strickly fan site and fan sites are not allowed." I never asked to be considered a reliable source here, nor would I want to be associated with this site based on you and KellyAna's comments. All the best, Jason47 Jason47a (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IrishLass0128"

I'm done with any of the fighting, etc... on here. I had just stopped by last night to respond to all the negativity from IrishLass0128 and KellyAna, but it seems they are set in stone on their feelings for me. I do hope that others on Wikipedia do not share the same feelings as they do. I've done nothing but put my best efforts into my site for the past decade. It's a shame some people need to be so hateful about that. I hope you will still enjoy all the unique stuff on my site, and I'll be starting work soon on my tribute to Suzanne Rogers' (Maggie) 35 years on the show, and putting up her first episode script from 1973. Thanks for your time and effort, and I wish you all the best. Take care, Jason Jason47a (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Good afternoon

Please inform your new friend, Jason, that continually returning removed content and editing another person's comments is a violation of policy and harrassment on a basic level. After asking him not to bother me, in a polite way, he continued to not only repeatedly put comments on my page, he altered my comments that had my signature on them. This is not appreciated and further action will be taken if he continues. I have archived one comment, from last night, and removed the rest. I would appreciate if he would kindly leave me alone. I've asked, but he has been unresponsive to my requests. Your assistance would be appreciated. IrishLass (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We cross-posted. I'm on it.  :) --Elonka 18:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. IrishLass (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Maria Despina Palaiologos

First of all, I replied to your post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy#Saint_Mary. Second, the use of Despina, is interesting. I had discussion, which you can see on my talk page about its usage. Despina, which you may not know, is not only a name, but a title, it means "lady". So it could be used throughout the article to say "Lady Maria Palaiologos" and misinterpreted as her middle name or something like that. Since you say you are adding to her article, I would suggest you look into this by finding some more sources, etc. Good luck. I'm here if you need my help. Grk1011 (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any clue who Randy is?

There's a long history going on and what I said wasn't a personal attack. Stop stalking my every move. Look at these lists: [7], those are the confirmed socks. Then there's the suspected [8]. I left for two days to get away from you and those you protect that don't deserve it. Check out Randy Jaiyan and all his socks and all the damage he's done. Nothing I said was anything less than fact and you aren't objective. Ask Yamla about Randy before reverting what I say to him especially when it's fact and not an attack. She'll tell you how many problems he's caused and his bad grammar is well documented. Just stop following me and let another admin like Yamla make objective decisions because we know you aren't objective about certain things lately, like whatever I do. I can't even correct formatting without you following me. It's ridiculous. KellyAna (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This[9] was clearly a personal attack. Please review Wikipedia's policy on no personal attacks, and Wikipedia's policy on civility. I'm serious. Please read both of them. --Elonka 01:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If something is true, it's not an attack. You really need to review the issue and his abuses heaped on Wikipedia and the admins who have dealt with him. Again, you have no objectivity ever since that admin playing editor scolded you. You were a good admin before his comments, you shouldn't have changed. KellyAna (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI

The title says it all Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse_of_PHG_Arbcom_ruling_by_User:Elonka Shell ^babelfish 16:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, couldn't help but see this; just want you to know that any time I see something this ludicrous being leveled against you, I will certainly do all I can to comment on your consistently neutral and constructive demeanor, impeccable manners and tactful intervention. — TAnthony^Talk 22:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Email

Hey, I know I was a bitch to you via email but some other user on my page is claiming I don't have email set up and since I did email you, would you mind commenting. DJS24 and I have a storied past and now he's lying all over my page saying I don't have email set up and IrishLass and I can't possibly be friends off Wikipedia, which we are. I know, I was a bitch to you but I need you to comment on this as a co-editor, not an admin. KellyAna (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

DJS

I have no need or time to report her. I've been down that road with her before; she can't stay on the topic. I think you've read my concerns and I thought her edits were very questionable. I brought it up and of course she gets uncivil/defensive and brings things up that have nothing to do with the situation. I also think her comments to other users who are trying to help are completely uncivil and rude. Just look at any of her edits this week, there all rude. I see you already blocked her once this week for it. However, I made my comments and have no need to continue this problem. I'm sure KellyAna will now go and attack my brother (Blackwatch21) because that's what she does. Just watch. Thanks for your time and I'm sorry if I was uncivil in any way. DJS --DJS24 (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks, I will not use it anymore in the edit summary. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually yes, I offered him a cup of coffee regarding our disagreements about Charles University adrticle [10] but he never responded. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's true I didn't contacted him. Partly because I contacted him before, even we have some disagreements, with cup of coffee but he didn't respond. And partly because I saw in that a vandalism so I reverted his changes in a quick line, I admit it was a mistake. Then we both got to the Antandrus table [11]. He offered a 3rd party view, I agreed and I wanted to know if my reverts were correct or not, so we could discuss them. Antandrus provided a long review but in the meantime Matthead filled arbitration enforcement process and then it all began. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 09:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Duel

Let's do it Elonka, let's take the gloves off. You reverted my edits! Teh gauntlet has been thrown.

File:Youlikedit.jpg

the_undertow ^talk 10:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hah, looks like you took off more than your gloves. And I like it.  :) --Elonka 10:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Damn. Don't you ever sleep? the_undertow ^talk 11:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I was working on a complex case at WP:AE but I think I'm done, so I'm off to bed now. With your picture in mind, I am sure I will have pleasant dreams.  :) --Elonka 14:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Request to amend

Please note that I filed a request to amend the following case [12]. PHG (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:

All in all, today's been a bit of a bummer, hasn't it? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 11:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've post a request for discussion at Matthead's talk page. I expect his answer, if he will be unwilling to discuss I will contact you. Thanks. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 11:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I am asking him why he is doing that, it is not for the first time he is clearing categories and replacing Czech names with the German names. So I am asking him why? These endless changing prevents me from common editing, just imagine the situation where someone changes The United States to États-Unis d'Amérique in every article you could find claiming there were French colonies whose did not get a chance for self-determination, just think about it please in that way. What you would do in this case? I am not unwilling to discuss with him but I will keep it as formal as possible. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 13:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

One more, if I change The United States to États-Unis d'Amérique in some article, is that a vandalism or content dispute? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 13:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement

I am objecting my placement under general editing restriction [13], also I think that my comments and objections in that case were not taken under advisement. Despite I had been questioned and I politely answered all your questions, you didn't question Matthead with any question as the second side. I don't think I got a honest trial. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 18:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that I excalated it so much, but I really feel that it was not fairly handled. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 01:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Second side was not questioned at all

It is not true that there was not a genuine attempt for discussion [14], specifically Yes, I would like to know if those reverts are correct: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] I stand for it is a vandalism.

Any of my argument was not taken under advisement and mentions about the civility of the proposer were used against me

It also not true that I was edit warring at the Charles University article as there is a clear attempt for discussion with the other side.

≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 01:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• You were edit-warring at Charles University in Prague, and I see no attempt by you to discuss things at talk. If the discussion took place elsewhere, please supply diffs, thanks. --Elonka 01:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This [15] is related to the changes in the Charles University article. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm doing this wrong

This image Image:PASSCharlieBeth04.JPG was stolen from Soap Opera Digest and added to an article. I removed it based on my understanding of image use (pictures from JPI sold to Soap Opera Digest) that many editors have drilled into my head. Dougie added it back and I reverted it because images taken from websites that aren't the official show page are illegal. I need your opinion. If I'm wrong and you say so, I'll accept that but I've never seen an image taken from a website that owns the picture allowed if it's not the show site. By the way, JPI is the source for Soap Opera Digest. They pay for the shots so uploading them from SOD is definitely illegal. KellyAna (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The image is clearly Fair use since it is used in an article giving critical commentary about these copyrighted characters and television series. The fact that it went through an intermediary website is irrelevant. -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Except the "intermediary" site PAID for use. We cannot use an image another site paid for, it's illegal. JPI sells their images and we can't use them regardless of want of claims of "free use." It's fine if you screen cap it yourself but if JPI sells it to SOD, it's not allowed. KellyAna (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

PHG

Whoops, looks like we cross-posted! I saw that you said you were waiting for my statement, but I'd posted just a few minutes before you. It's my thoughts on the matter, plus a suggestion for an amendment: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Statement by Elonka. Let me know if you have any questions, Elonka 02:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I found out later. My mistake! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

AniMate

Do me a favor and tell this editor that there is no way on the Goddess' green earth I can be nice to to just stay off my page and away from me. His comments have one purpose when they are left on my page and that's to get me pissed off, and it works. Tell him, please to back off or I'll take a ban for incivility because I'm going to let loose. Thank you. KellyAna (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I will stay off your page without Elonka telling me to, and I'm sorry that you're upset. I feel that I've been polite, and that the problems aren't on my end but on yours. I'm not going to avoid articles on soaps to stay out of your way, and if you feel like reverting me please at least discuss it on article talk pages. AniMate 23:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Elonka. See, Elonka, I can't even talk to you without him butting in. KellyAna (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

About this morning.....

Hi Elonka. Sorry we didn't see eye-to-eye about the banner this morning. I do respect your opinion as someone who understands what is a pleasing and what is a frustrating user experience. I suppose our thinking was that the April Fools' Day main page joke is supposed to be a little bit maddening. Did you check out the George Washington (inventor) joke on the main page last year? I was still a fairly novice editor at the time and I remember wanting to beat my computer with my shoe because I couldn't figure out if the story was supposed to be true or not, nor why anyone thought it was so funny. I figured out a few days later (after looking at the article more closely) that Washington was a real guy and the blurb was carefully constructed to lead people astray--only then did I crack a smile. While I guess your banner would have let people in on the lulz more immediately, I thought it spoiled the mystery of delving into the details of the article and discovering for oneself what sort of a prank we'd pulled. I absolutely do not think that people who didn't like the joke are "wrong/misguided/horrible/foolish." In fact, I'm hypersensitive to criticism of my lame jokes and the misunderstandings they cause. (I even briefly retired last night after seeing my writeup wasn't well received!) Anyway, I hope your opinion of the Fat Man hasn't soured over the disagreement. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Request

I replied on there now as per your request, but I do find Srnec an irritable editor to deal with, simply because of the POV he always tries to place into certain articles... while removing sourced material. - Gennarous (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Information taken from my website without credit, etc...

Hi Elonka. I'm not certain on how to do the correct citations, etc... to get a correct credit. Could you help out? I'm confused as to why my research is reliable for the head writing tenure dates but not in other instances. Also, did you ever get my email last week, I never heard back from you. As for the comments on the cast member talk page, I don't think my site should be singled out for those comments and it should be changed to "any fan sites are not reliable." Thanks, Jason —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason47a (talk • contribs) 21:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

For advice on formatting, see WP:CITE. As for the commentary, you can definitely add a comment of your own afterwards, reminding folks about relevant policies WP:V, WP:RS, WP:EL, and saying that this applies to many other sites as well. --Elonka 04:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this appropriate?

Check out this user page, please. I've never seen anything like it before and it borders on all kinds of odd. Not to be uncivil, but it includes lies that someone could stumble on about The Apprentice and just other oddities. Could you take a look? KellyAna (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably just a leftover April Fools joke. See Wikipedia:April Fools. I assume he'll clean it up on his own. If not, you could probably drop him a polite friendly note on his talkpage, reminding him about it, and perhaps pointing him at WP:USER. If that still doesn't work, let me know. --Elonka 04:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource translations

The proposed policy regarding translations is at s:Wikisource:Translations. In short, we need to work out if the the translation at s:Cum non solum has been published before in a peer-reviewed venue? If it is, the translators real name is attributed. If not, then the attribution is only kept in the history page (or on the talk page, as is the standard GFDL transwiki procedure), and in the header we annotate that it is a living translation that can be improved upon by setting "translator = wikisource". John Vandenberg (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tweaked the page and its talk page; every Wikisource text should have a textinfo block to provide provenance information. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Image

Here's one of the original shots (before retouching), if you have any doubts :) Cheers. PHG (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No need for speculations (see User talk:Durova#Images). Here's one of my original photographs (before retouching) of the object in question. Cheers. PHG (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Removal of my citation

Hi Elonka. I did the citation of the "Days" head writer tenure dates as you instructed me to (thanks for pointing me in the right direction so I learned how to do citations) and I see it's been removed. I spent over a year researching what dates the writers joined and left "Days" from 1965-1993. My research was taken from my website and added without my knowledge or credit to Wikipedia. Last week, I said I'd be fine with either of these options: Either keep my citation on the bottom of the page or remove the months/days from the head writing dates. Please let me know which option will be chosen, and I'll make the corresponding edit. Thanks, Jason Jason47a (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have proof that those dates were taken from your site? Pretty presumptuous to assume that the collection of writers all took the information, or any information, from your site. I removed the link because it screwed up the entire formatting of the page. I also removed it because yours is a fan site and fan sites aren't acceptable sources. KellyAna (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Elonka a cursory look through history make Jason's claims very questionable. The information was added over time from many different editors. It's impossible to believe that multiple editors all took their information from one site. It's various editors, one noted admin, and multiple IP addresses in unrelated areas. How can so many people all "steal" from the same site? KellyAna (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

KellyAna, isn't this exactly the kind of thing that you were edit-warring about at the TV schedule page? You can't have it both ways. The key element here is that unsourced information can be removed. Granted, it would be disruptive (and a violation of WP:POINT) to go on a mad sweep through Wikipedia deleting every single unsourced statement, but on a single article, it is perfectly reasonable to delete unsourced information. Anyone wishing to add it back, should then either provide sources, or leave it alone. --Elonka 22:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned on my discussion page, and as the copyright violation page suggests to add to the talk page that has stolen my work:

From Wikipedia's copyright page: "If some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known. If the copyright holder's permission is later obtained, the text may be restored."

In this update on April 4, I removed the information stolen from my page without my permission. If a credit to my site is allowed in the citations, then I will allow the information to be restored.

This information (head writer tenure dates from 1965-1993) was stolen from this page of my website: http://members.aol.com/jason47b/writers.html (I researched these dates back in 2005 and updated them in 2006)

This posting on SON is from 2005, using my information (with my permission). http://boards.soapoperanetwork.com/index.php?showtopic=1266

This page on Wikipedia was not made, based on the history page, until 2007, using all of the information that I spent over a year researching.

I'm fine with the information being restored, as long as I get proper credit. Please do not repost the information without giving me credit, as that would be a copyright violation. Thanks, Jason Jason47a (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

As posted on my talk page, it seems the solution has been found: As Elonka stated: "The key is whether someone is adding unsourced information to Wikipedia. If you remove it, then they add it back without sources, that is them being disruptive. If they do it repeatedly, they may be blocked." It seems anyone re-adding the information that I remove without backing it up could be blocked. And from Avruch's comment: "You can remove them, but if someone cites them to a reliable source they can be added back whether you are the original source of the research or not." So until someone cites a reliable source, that information can not be added back to the page again, and if it is added back, then that person could be blocked. Jason Jason47a (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct. And, as you may have noticed, KellyAna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been blocked for 24 hours. --Elonka 23:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Elonka. And a quick addition to correct KellyAna's incorrect statements from above: I just took a look at the "Days" head writer page created in June 2007. All of the information was added on that date by editor Mike Halterman. As KellyAna incorrectly stated above: "The information was added over time from many different editors. It's impossible to believe that multiple editors all took their information from one site. It's various editors, one noted admin, and multiple IP addresses in unrelated areas. How can so many people all "steal" from the same site?" So, in fact, the information from my site was added by just one editor in June 2007: Mike Halterman. He just forgot to cite where he got the information from (my site), so it should have been removed way back in June 2007 since I've been told my site is unreliable since it is a fan site. Jason Jason47a (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Jason47a, please assume good faith. Mike Halterman is a longtime Wikipedia administrator, and you have no way of knowing where exactly that he got this information. I do agree that he should have added sources, but sometimes in the middle of a complex edit, someone may be working on multiple articles, and end up leaving some of them in a half-finished or "stub" state. I have seen MH's work on other "Days" articles, and he's normally very good about using reliable sources. --Elonka 23:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I do have a way of knowing how he got the information, since I'm the one who researched it for over a year and posted the information online on my website. I'm not faulting Mike Halterman. Perhaps I'll ask him on his talk page, if he's still an editor here, and ask him where he got the information.

In other news, I just received this email (from a yahoo account): "You really are an idiot. You don't even understand how Wikipedia works but remove information you claim to own. You can't own dates and you can't copyright information. If you would actually look at history you would see that the information couldn't be "stolen" from you. You need a life and a hobby although you're probably a Hogan fat unwanted f*** that has no life." I assume this is from someone involved in this recent chat, and earlier this week on March 27, KellyAna used the same wording, calling me "an idiot" and telling me "to get a life." I hope these personal attacks will stop both on Wikipedia and through email. At least I'm of the belief that "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me." Jason47a (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)