User talk:Elonka

Re: Joelster

Thanks for the heads-up, Elonka. east.718 at 21:40, May 17, 2008

Turkic people

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

It would be unfair of me to block one user in an edit war, and ignore the others. You are, however, welcome to blank anything from your talkpage that you wish. My comment was meant as a friendly caution, and not a formal warning. --Elonka 05:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I was the person who suggested that the blocked editor discuss this on the talk page in my second summary and in a message on his talk page, not you. He removed only the Turks from the start of the large Turkic section. There was something extremely fishy about deleting the first entry in the Turkic section, and the title of the section, both put in place by User:Dbachmann, who seemed to know exactly what he was doing. This was vandalism, since all the other entries that he left were indeed Turkic peoples. Here is the list just in case you've forgotten:

• Turkic peoples
  • Turks: (approx. 14 million in Turkish Thrace and Istanbul Province, another 5 million in diaspora)
  • Tatars (approx. 10 million)
  • Azerbaijanis: (approx. 6 million)
  • Kazakhs: (approx. 2 million)
  • Chuvash (approx. 2 million)
  • Bashkirs (approx. 1.6 million)
  • Karachays (approx. 300,000)
  • Crimeans (approx. 250,000)
  • Gagauz (approx. 100,000)
  • Nogais (approx. 90,000)

Only the first two lines were removed, despite the fact the 10 ethnic groups after Turks are classified as Turkic. Why did he leave all these other Turkic peoples, since his "arguments" applied equally to them. I would guess, in view of his own specially created anti-Turkey userbox, that he has his own private agenda. Mathsci (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I block vandals all the time.[1] There's a clear difference between content disputes, and vandalism. See WP:VAND#NOT. I do appreciate that you found a source though. However, do you think you could either find another source, or at least tweak the line, so that it actually matches what is in the source?  :) Thanks, Elonka 06:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the first two of the twelve lines of Turkic groups is vandalism, since ten Turkic groups were left in the wrong section. Now that you have made an edit to the mainspace article, you can no longer use your adminstrative tools on it: you are an editor like the rest of us. Please make any desired editorial corrections as you see fit, including adding links to subsections of the CIA factbook if that's what you want. Mathsci (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You may also wish to read WP:UNINVOLVED.--Elonka 07:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss this issue with User:Dbachmann on the talk page of European ethnic groups. I don't see any point in disussing this with you any further since all you do is post WP policy pages. Please remove me from your watch list, Elonka. Mathsci (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Nungesser and Coli

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

Re: Rhetoric

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

User:Koalorka

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

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

Please provide diffs for your above statements, and I'll take a look. --Elonka 05:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The report on non-weapons-related edits prior to May 27 is here User:Mathsci/subpage#Subpage_of_User:Mathsci. An additional report on the edits of May 27-28, which followed exactly the same pattern, will be added later. Mathsci (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. My recommendation, since it's a complex case, is that you look into filing a User conduct RfC to get more opinions. Though be careful about providing too many diffs, as they can bring on what's called a "tl;dr" syndrome (Too Long, Didn't Read). Best is to write up a well-diffed summary, maybe around 500 words, with the most egregious examples. Put the diffs in the context of your description. For example, when you say "antisemitic remarks", put the diffs right there after the term, which makes it easier for other people to review. Give preference to issues over the last few months. In the case of any admin board threads, try to provide a link to the archive. Also, it's very important that you keep your own language very civil and neutral. As soon as you resort to any incivility or attacks yourself, it weakens your argument. You may also wish to contact El C, who is an admin with a great deal of experience with complex cases and appears to have prior experience with this editor, in an administrative role. Dbachmman will be of limited help since he's an "involved" editor and cannot use tools (and is under fire for other reasons). But El C may be your best bet. --Elonka 14:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added a summary of his latest edits. I believe he should receive a community ban on Turkey-related articles as a single-purpose POV pusher. The summary will take some time to compile. I know about User:Dbachmann because I was one of those defending him (against User:Rokus01 and others) in the recent arbitration case. The creation of this article from scratch from the horrific previous article was one of his many WP achievements. On the subpage I wrote the summaries very quickly and not always with great accuracy (there were more than 160 diffs to format and describe) and I understand that they must be presented in a neutral way. I am not aware that I have been uncivil or attacked this user. He does happen to participate in some far-right anti-immigrant forums, which I have find repugnant (to quote Jimbo, Urggh ...). However, that is not a personal attack nor is it uncivil. He also seems to have some interest in defending the Stormfront article. He has been anti-semitic, anti-islamic and anti-Turkish on wiki. That is a matter of record and he was cautioned in January and April for it. I would prefer to take this directly to WP:AN/I as I have had previous experience with similar pathological behaviour (User:Fourdee, User:MoritzB) and I am aware of how these cases are drafted. The long comprehensive set of diffs was prepared so that you could see directly that there was a deeper problem here. His behaviour on the page gave some indication of that; everybody else was quite reasonable, I didn't even notice the swearwords. Mathsci (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to take it to ANI, that might be a good course at this point. You may also wish to look through some of the existing ArbCom decisions (such as Wikipedia:Editing restrictions and Wikipedia:General sanctions) and see if there's already an active decision involving Turkey-related articles (my guess is yes). If so, we could just put him directly on restrictions now, without requiring a potentially chaotic ANI thread. Digwuren is an option, since that covers "Eastern Europe" articles, but there may be something more applicable, I haven't checked. --Elonka 16:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks

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

Re: Zonal spherical function

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

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

Editing own biography or that of family members

Dear Elonka, I noticed that you yourself at one stage wrote most of your WP:BLP on the wikipedia, [2] which surprised me. Indeed what you added read like a CV. I also note that you have added the bios of various family members. Yesterday, the grandson of Edgar Wallace (creator of King Kong), who has been following with glee your recent antics on WP, asked me whether it might be appropriate for him to clarify various details concerning his grandfather's death. My first reaction was that there might be some WP:COI. However, now that I have seen your fearless editing of your own biography - with no bushel in sight to hide any light - I am not sure that that is the case. He is quite a modest person, but nevertheless you might still be a person who can offer him advice. Many thanks in advance,--Mathsci (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2008

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

Al-Azhar University

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

Yes, I'm taking a look at that right now. The thing is, he's not totally wrong. It is true that the university became known as a Sunni institution from Saladin's time, though I'm not seeing the "violence" part. What the anon is doing definitely isn't vandalism, though it does appear to be disruptive. Do you think it's possible to find a compromise sentence? Also, the lead of the article needs some work anyway, per WP:LEAD, as it's trying to include too much detail, rather than just being a summary of the article. When I'm researching the topic in library and news sources, they generally describe the university as "Al Azhar, the famed center of Islamic learning in Cairo, which began its higher level instruction in 975 C.E. and whose college is widely regarded as the highest authority in Islam". So our lead could probably be improved to better reflect modern descriptions. --Elonka 03:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, there is nothing wrong with his edit now. His source is solid (Encyclopedia Britannica), and what it states, as you've pointed out, is indeed true. What my problem and MezzoMezzo's problem with this editor is is that he has been going around from page to page inserting unsourced, blatant POV for days now not just on the Al-Azhar page, but a boatload of other ones too. The only reason why he is even offering a legitimate source now on the Al-Azhar page is because we fought tooth and nail for it otherwise he would've been happy to continue lying that "Saladin converted Egyptians by force to Sunni Islam" (complete with bogus sources that state no such thing), as he had been doing as recently as a few hours ago. Please have a look at the last post by me on my talk page. It pretty much breaks down the entire situation. My latest post on the Administrators' noticeboard further shows some of the other things he has been up to around Wiki. Here's my earlier post there. And the talk page has the point-by-point analysis by both Mezzo and I. Causteau (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Give me a list of the affected pages, and I'll add them to my watchlist and see what I can do. --Elonka 04:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please do that. Here are a couple of pages to watch: Al-Azhar University, Nasim Nisr, Imad Mughniyah, Fawaz Younis, Al-Azhar Shia Fatwa, Abdul-Qadir Gilani, 'Amr ibn al-'As, Aisha, Hafsa bint Umar, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Wahhabism, Aziz al-Abub, Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Ali Atwa, Ghaleb Awwali, Ibrahim Hussein Berro, Hassan Izz-Al-Din

----Causteau (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Answering

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

Thanks for creating an account! I have been looking into the situation, and agree that there has been some problematic behavior. However, it also looks to me like there are problems from both sides. I have left some advice on your talkpage, which may help to de-escalate and untangle this situation. Elonka 19:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

While it's unfortunate that he had to be pushed to the brink of being banned for anonymous IP guy to feel the need to create an account, it is great for the sake of Wikipedia that he did finally do so. His persistent, disruptive edits should now hopefully be much easier to keep track of. I do, however, find it highly amusing that he has the audacity to talk about incivility and aggressive talk when he was the one to introduce that very tone to the discussion. This is easy to prove thanks to time stamps, which of course he didn't include in his little paragraph above.

From the Al-Azhar University history page:

1) no, actually they do; read them again and don't push it (date: 13:40, 30 May 2008 -> he drew first blood)

2) stop pushing your POV; they say "Saladin removed the Shiite Fatimids from power and restored Sunni Islam in Egypt" (date: 13:50, 30 May 2008)

3) fixed; your intentionally disinformative version implies that Azhar became Sunni by choice, and gradually (date: 14:10, 30 May 2008)

4) you're pushing it; see talk (date: 14:46, 30 May 2008)

5) get a life (date: 17:24, 30 May 2008)

6) talk about POV; I'm sure the administrators are wise enough to actually check the sources instead of listening to you (date: 06:22, 1 June 2008)

7) rvv; stop pushing your POV and respect the source, which is Encyclopedia Britannica; also, I don't remember reaching a consensus (date: 23:50, 1 June 2008)

8) NPOV; stop pushing your agenda, your intentions are very clear (date: 16:35, 2 June 2008)

He was also the first to introduce incivility on the talk page:

Egyptians were Shi'a Muslims and when Saladin removed the Fatimids from power and restored Sunni Islam, they became Sunnis. Doesn't it mean that he converted them? Do you know the meaning of convert? (date: 13:53, 30 May 2008)

In short, NAccount was the first to be rude and uncivil in our dealings; it was he that opened up that particular can of worms. He has no business pretending now like he is a victim in all this when he initiated that very behavior. His rudeness also wasn't just confined to the Al-Azhar University history or talk pages either, but can be found on other Wiki pages too. Call me crazy, but I refuse to be spoken to like that by anyone.

With that one post above, NAccount has made many predictably bogus charges I would like to address point by point:

1) He writes: Before I edited the article, it said It became a Sunni school towards the end of the Middle Ages, an orientation it retains to this day. without any mention of Saladin and how he converted the whole of Egypt to Sunnism and implies that Al Azhar gradually became Sunni, by choice. This is something of a joke since not one of the battery of unrelated sources he kept including in his edits talks about how Saladin converted anyone much less "the whole of Egypt" to Sunnism. That is a blatant lie and misrepresentation on NAccount's part. Only one of his sources states that "Saladin removed the Shiite Fatimids from power and restored Sunni Islam in Egypt". I've already explained to him on the talk page in an edit dated 14:00, 30 May 2008 why this in no way supports his absurd, slanderous contention that "Saladin converted Egypt to Sunni Islam by force":

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

Please note again that NAccount under various anonymous IPs inserted that one lie that "Saladin converted Egyptians by force to Sunni Islam" -- which he also personally authored -- not once, not twice, but a record six times on the Al-Azhar University page alone: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. He first did this without even bothering to include a source i.e. pure original research. Then, when I called him on it, he tacked on not one, not two, but five irrelevant, dummy sources -- none of which support his statement -- to create the illusion that what he was saying was factual instead of the POV it was and is. I know his sources for the above statement are bogus because I followed up on them and posted a report on the talk page (see my post dated 11:09, 30 May 2008). He also tried to insert that same slanderous lie about Saladin "forcibly" converting Egyptians to Sunni Islam a grand total of twice on the Al-Azhar Shia Fatwa page: 7, 8.

2) NAccount writes: Concerning al-Azhar university, please compare the two disputed versions and you will see that I added a very neutral direct quote from Encyclopedia Britannica, whereas their wording of the article has Sunni bias and implies that Sunnism, unlike Shiism, is orthodox and Causteau has since been reverting my edit with the quote from Encyclopedia Britannica, calling his a consensus version Here, NAccount is trying to justify and thereby secure his current reversion of the Al-Azhar University article by alleging that there was something inherently biased about the article as it stood before he came along and reverted it. Thing is, literally one sentence differentiates "his" latest version from "mine", and that sentence is a direct quote. So what we have here is NAccount replacing a sourced, direct quote I put in simply because it didn't fit his agenda with one that is more to his liking, nevermind the fact that a) my direct quote was drawn from a source that he himself picked out, b) it was in place well before it ever occurred to him to include his own properly referenced direct quote, and c) both Mezzo and I also consider that version far preferable to his. That's what we meant when we clearly asked NAccount to "respect the consensus version until mediation can be finished", which of course he didn't do. Now the page ironically sits exactly as he wanted it to and despite all of the above. Causteau (talk) 09:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Sorry, I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse here, but could you please explain why you feel that this edit shows a deliberate agenda?[3] To me, it looks like a difference of opinion. Any editor who wishes to remove a prod tag, may do so. If you disagree with their action, you may submit the article for AfD, to get more opinions. --Elonka 23:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I might've been inclined to take seriously this user's protestations that he is simply "not intentionally" trying to be "responsible for any disruption" had he not for days now been repeatedly attempting to insert blatant POV statements not just on the Al-Azhar page as I've demonstrated above, but now, more alarmingly, tampering with the pages of terror suspects, as Mezzo has already rightly pointed out. This wasn't just a one time mistake over one comment and one source on one page; it's all over Wikipedia. Causteau (talk) 09:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow...Elonka, is this really appropriate? Wahabi is a religious slur. In fact, an earlier user pushing Shi'a POV named Klak Sonn was banned permanently for hurling that at me and others. His editing style was very similar to this guy's as well. I'm going to open up a complaint on WP:ANI separate from the other one. Aside from these comments being bigoted and unnaceptable, it's looking to me very much like a sockpuppet of a banned user. I would appreciate your analysis. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for the calming effect. I wasn't consciously trying to escalate anything (I didn't realize you were an admin either) but I will follow our advise and leave that off. But let me explain.

Klak Sonn came into conflict with a number of editors over Sunni-Shi'a issues months ago. The problem was, the guy had a short fuse and had a tendency to call all Muslims who disagreed with him "Wahhabis" and all non-Muslims who disagreed with him "kikes" or "Jews". I hate typing that filthy word but I want to get across the gravity of how out there this guy was. He was eventually blocked not just for expressly hurling that religious slur at me and the religious slur at some people who may not have even been Jewish, but also his combative nature.

A month or so ago, another anon tried pushing some POV on the article for Ali, a prominent figure in both Sunni and Shi'a Islam, insulting some other editors who were reverting him. I reverted his edits and said up front I suspect this is a sock of banned user Klak Sonn, and the anon stopped.

As you've observed, this new buddy emerged from a number of anonymous IP addresses. His current habits of offense appear very similar to Klak Sonn's own style of editing. And that's just the least of it. I'm also confused as to why NAccount says i've been pushing my POV the entire time i've been on Wikipedia - if he really is a new editor, then how is he so sure of that?

Per your requests, I will try to give it a rest for now. You're trying hard to do your job as an admin as I can see and I wil respect that. But i'm just saying, this guy at the minimum is abusing other users with his bigotry and at the maximum could be the same guy trying to come back. Just check the two user contribs. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. As you can see, I'm coming up from zero on this whole dispute. The best way that you can help me right now, is to stay very calm and civil, and to ensure that there is a thread started at the talkpage of any article that is under dispute. Even if this means that "bad" information stays in an article for awhile, please try to take the long view. Let's try to focus on a couple clearcut areas. Also, since of the disputes are about text which seems to be coming from non-English sources, it would be very helpful to include specific quotes from reliable sources, to assist with verification. Also, would a centralized place of discussion be helpful? What exactly is the scope of these disputes? Is it all Sunni-Shia, or Lebanon, or Egypt, or something else? Thanks, Elonka 04:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Both for the sake of clarity and to make your job easier, i'll let things go for the time being. You've shown a great deal of patience and i'll do my best to reciprocate.

Regarding the edits, I wouldn't even call that the main issue now as your efforts to work things out via talk pages slowly has allayed my fears (in addition to your perspective on the terrorist categories). My main concern now is as I mentioned in my last comment. Even if this guy isn't a sockpuppet of Klak Sonn - though I am 99% sure he is, based on the similar language and the fact that he seems so stuck on my long term edits and user page (both of which Klak Sonn also took issue with multiple times) - his behavior is the same. He's already used one definite religious slur, "Wahhabi", so which other users have been blocked, multiple times. Considering that he seems very familiar not only with site policy but also the way diffs and edit histories work, I don't think he should be treated like a noob.

Long story short, you've cooled the situation and the edits can be worked out slowly. But the guys behavior and history are stil a big concern for me. I know you've spent a lot of time on this already, but please look into it if you can. I smell stinky sock all over this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, why don't you take the lead on that aspect of it. I recommend filing a CheckUser or Suspected sockpuppet report, and then compiling evidence there. If the user is a sockpuppet of a blocked editor, that may be fairly straightforward to deal with. --Elonka 05:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all the help. A case is now opened on SSP if you'd like to take a look. I will likely be adding more diffs to it when I get the time. For now, i'm logging off. Thanks again! MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Klaksonn? Okay, thanks for pulling that together, I'll take a look.  :) --Elonka 05:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Yarmouk

Please check the battle maps now. I have gone by your word and have annotated the maps with rich detail. And yes, the maps depict a 3-dimensional terrain as well so its worth a watch. Please comment on the maps. Your input had been great. Thanks. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 02:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit bored by the Yarmouk article, so I thought to help you out with Battle of Ain Jalut. What would you like me to do for you there? What kind of maps are you looking for? Would vectorising this map work for you? Please reply sooner. I am losing interest rather quickly. :) Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 03:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice find! And yes, that covers the basic path, though I'd like a bit more emphasis on Baghdad and Damascus, since those were such a big deal. Also, another map with more detail about the Levant would be good, emphasizing the Mamluks advancing northward and camping near Acre, the Crusader stronghold. It would also be useful to show that no, they did not advance through Jerusalem, since that's a common point of contention with some of the POV warriors.  :) --Elonka 03:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Klaksonn

I replied to your query. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Cross-Cultural Dance Resources

Hi Elonka. I got your note about this article that you asked me to check. In this case I'm not certain that WP:CORP is being met (or whatever the equivalent might be for libraries). I notice that Gertrude Kurath is rather famous and has written many more books than the ones listed here, according to Amazon. Since CCDR appears to serve mostly as a repository for her papers I wonder if this material could be merged into Kurath's article. The CCDR article's current references serve mainly to establish Kurath's importance. So my suggestion would be a merge. If regular media took notice of CCDR's ongoing programs, then my opinion might change. If that happened then the material could always be split back out again. EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have expanded the article with more information and sources, especially about it's being recognized by President Clinton's "Save America's Treasures" program. I'm pretty comfortable that the CCDR meets notability standards... Could you please take another look? If you'd like more sources, I can definitely pull more up, but I think the case for notability is made pretty clearly at this point.  :) --Elonka 02:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

R&I Archive setting

Elonka, I don't think it's productive to keep adjusting the archive setting for the R&I article to prevent the page from getting to a point where you feel it's too long. This is an article which generates a lot of controversy, and a lot of discussion. Currently, most of it is productive but the dialogues are lengthy, so pushing the archive setting to shorten the page at this point I feel is counterproductive. I would appreciate if you could put the archive setting back to where it was, and try to leave it there. At least, please ask the other editors on the page their opinion about this if you're not ready to accept my word for it.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

When talkpages increase in size to over 100K, they should be archived. See also WP:SIZE and WP:ARCHIVE. Right now things are set so that if a thread gets no activity for a week, it'll be auto-archived. If anyone wants to see the thread, it's easily available in the archive, and they can link to it when starting a new thread, or copy appropriate portions back to the live page. Or you folks can come up with some other system of archiving, that's fine too. Whatever keeps the page under 100K, is fine with me. :) --Elonka 21:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, after checking the settings,I saw that the archive bot was also set to auto-archive at 200k. This is consistent with some other high-traffic talk pages, so I think between an archive max of 200k and an age max of 14 days, we should be fine.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Where are you seeing the 200K number? --Elonka 22:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A line says Maxrchivesize two lines above the algo line.

|maxarchivesize = 150K

|counter = 12

|algo = old(15d)

I set it at 150k,as I found out it's more common to set it that way than 200k.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see the confusion. That line covers the size of the archive that the bot will allow, before it makes a new page. For example, if it's archiving to /Archive_68, when that page gets to 150K, that's when the bot flips and starts archiving to /Archive_69 instead. It has nothing to do with the maximum size of the active talkpage. Which should still be kept under 100K if reasonably possible. --Elonka 22:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You've got a point there. I guess my issue has to do with the constant adjusting of the archive delay, rather than anything else. You are absolutely right that the page size needs to be curtailed somehow. Thus, I ask you: would you be confident to set it to a value such that it doesn't need to be changed (or at least very rarely)? If so, what would be that value? It's probably just me, but the constant adjusting seems like an unnecessary distraction. I'm open to suggestions. And sorry if I may have come across a bit on the heavy side earlier.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, if you don't mind my saying so, I think you're watching the page a bit much, for this kind of thing to jump out at you. If you'll look at the history, you can see that I tweaked it on June 4, and the time before that was May 12.[4] Which seems fairly reasonable to me. When I first noticed the problem, the page was over 455K! My main goal, as I said, is to ensure that the page stays at a manageable size. Some browsers start having trouble with anything over 32K, though we don't need to be that strict. Keeping it at a nice "cruise" of 40-75K was good for a few weeks, but then when things got busy again (as they have recently), the page climbed to other 150K again, so it required another tweak. What exactly is your concern about the archiving? Or in other words, are you worried that visitors to the page should see something on the "live" page, that they won't if it's in the archive? And if so, what? --Elonka 02:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have about 100 pages on my watchlist (double that if you count talk pages), and I usually have my browser set directly to my watchlist, so I take notice of things. I don't think I watch the changes too intently, but you're entitled to your opinion, sure. My take on this is that one shouldn't have to adjust the archive setting every three weeks (I'm not aware of any other talk page where that's done with this frequency). However, I agree that something must be done to encourage people to have a better balance between discussing the article and actually making changes. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil remark by User:Koalorka

I just chanced on this user's description of me on his talk page as a "butthurt Marxist foaming at the mouth when confronted with a world view that contradicts their own", which you already spotted. I will probably now go ahead with the report on WP:AN/I, although I will be busy marking exams in Cambridge over the next few days. I regret very much the confusion created by this user's intervention and am sorry that it has created misunderstandings, both with you or fellow administrators like WjB. My friend is going to provide me with photos of his grandfather Edgar Wallace for wikimedia commons. I hope also that you enjoyed finding out about knotty sculptures of my transylvanian friend and colleague - he is also a great expert on Argentinian tango (I accompany him). There might be a video somewhere if you are interested in hearing about enigmatic mathematical sculptures. Mathsci (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Post scriptum: User:Koalorka seems effectively to have repeated his insult of June 2.[5] --Mathsci (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

ANI & Talk:Race and intelligence

Hi Elonka, I've responded to your post on the Jagz issue at AN/I. As an outsider who had the issues there brought to my attention I absolutely agree that the verbosity and volume of that page is very confusing. I think a speed-brake does need to be applied my suggestion is 2 fold:

1. All editors (other than Jagz) enter mediation. This mediation could possibly be "binding" - something along the lines of WP:CEM (when it existed).
2. A comment limit be placed on every contributor to the talk page. Each editor would be allowed one comment of reasonable length per day - 250 words max (including quotes in references)

Extra options would be to place the page under 1RR per day for everyone as well and to have a civility parole for everyone on that page.

I don't agree with the "ban 'em all" strategy becuase of the level of external disruption at that page. Consider the precedent it sets, all that an off-wiki group has to do is low-level disrupt a talk page for 6 months and then editors they have a gripe with are removed--Cailil ^talk 23:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Eleanor bk 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Eleanor bk 2.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Vertigo315

I have had problems with this user for the past couple of days. He has blantantly been removing content from the Jeff Gordon page and i have warned him numerous times for vandalism. He then removed the warnings and personally attacked me for being a 16 year old. Can you help me with this guy or girl.(Planecrash111 (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

AfD nomination of Jake Morgan

I have nominated Jake Morgan, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Morgan. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? AniMate 21:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually all I did was create the redirect. Looks like an anon did a copy/paste move in September 2007, and nobody caught it. Blech. Ah well, if it's deleted, that'll help straighten things out.  :) --Elonka 15:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A question for you

See Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Administrator intervention requested. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Sarah777

Yes, Elonka, thanks for the message. I changed the wording because you asked me to, and I'll leave it at that. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) --Elonka 15:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Tone

Sorry, I saw your message after I posted. I'll give it a shot, but it is not easy when the other side does not reciprocate. I'm sure you noticed the condescending tone in which I was being addressed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and don't worry, I'm not trying to single you out.  :) I'm going to continue nudging everyone towards more civil discussions. Gentle nudges at first, and then steadily increasing intensity to anyone that's not listening. But for most people, gentle nudges are usually plenty.  :) Then when those who are willing to moderate their behavior, are discussing things in a more civil way, it makes those who can't moderate their behavior, much easier to identify and deal with.  :) --Elonka 06:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

possible WP:WORKGROUP

hi you left a comment on Aegean Macedonians suggesting a WP:WORKGROUP How would i be able to establish one to deal with the problem of Slav/Macedonian/Greek City names in Greece? There has been much revertinr and no established protocol? If you could get back to me in setting it up it would be appreciated. Thanx. PMK1 (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)