User talk:Elonka

Archive 1

I hereby award Elonka this Barnstar of Diligence for her incredible defense of good manners and Wikipolicy, all while maintaining decorum and indefatigability.
  - C. dentata 02:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Pazmaneum and Péter Pázmány

Pazmaneum is a school, the Collegium Pazmaneum, a Catholic seminary founded in 1623 by Péter Pázmány for Hungarian students in Vienna. Pázmány was a big figure in the Counter-Reformation, archbishop, primate of Hungary, and also founded the first Hungarian university in 1635, which still survives in Budapest. But him being a Catholic archbishop, he is probably not your ancestor :-) See also: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11595c.htm

The surname is likely related to the Hont-Pázmány clan (also Hont-Pázmán, Hunt-Pázmán, Huntpázmány), which has an interesting history. According to the chronicles, the brothers Hont and Pázmán were Swabian (i.e. German) knights, who came to Hungary in the 10th century. They received huge tracts of land in what is today Western Slovakia, and the county Hont. They were the ancestors (documented from the 13th century) of a large number of noble families in Hungary, e.g. Forgách, Batthyány, Kővári, Bánki, Lázár, Ujhelyi, Szentgyörgyi and many more. Perhaps this gives you a starter...Hollomis 02:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing!

Your thoughts about Wikipedia are refreshing and exciting. It can be interesting to be inside of a thing and outside of it at the same time... Wikipedia is sort of like a blog on steroids which is under the control of WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency)! Lmcelhiney 18:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Badvertising

Hi, I created the badvertising article and have since noticed that it is tagged for clean-up and wikification. I wrote it pretty quickly and I know that certain aspects of it aren't encyclopaedic enough yet, but I was wondering what exactly you had in mind re the tagging? thank you. Saccerzd 14:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Lost mediation

The Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience is awarded to you for extraordinary patience and perseverance in achieving a successful unanimous resolution to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes. Thatcher131 04:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to return the thanks. I'm happy with the compromise, and I'm hopeful that we can build strong season articles, possibly even getting some of them to GA status. --Kahlfin 20:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note

I'm glad that we're finally through the mediation. And I'm especially happy that I somehow avoided the onslaught of those angry mobs with pitchforks. :) Let's move forward. -- PKtm 21:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I know we've had our disagreements in the past (and still have some), but it looks like everything turns out for the best in the end. While we may not always see eye to eye, I enjoy working with people like you who are equally as passionate about making great, encyclopedic articles. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Elonka Dunn Page

Just to let you know, I'll try and keep an eye on the Elonka Dunn page. I do think it's strange how your page is being targeted, I noticed that one of the vandals reacted to putting a notability tag on of their created articles by vandalising yours. It wouldn't suprise me if they're all related. Also I've been a bit busy recently but I'll have a look at the Fateh Snr article when I have more time. Englishrose 22:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[1] Sigh, so it looks like we've got multiple vandals.Englishrose 19:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Re CIFAL

Thank-you for your encouragement - you are most kind. I will proceed as suggested. Ben MacDui 18:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As you discovered, I found a few somewhat unsatisfactory CIFAL references and posted them. Thank-you for the re-formatting. I see now that you are something of a celebrity, and I am reluctant to intrude but I wonder if I could take you up on your kind offer and provide me with a little assistance? I have crafted a longer article here, and I’d appreciate it if you could take a quick look. I don’t expect you will be interested in the content, but if you spot any wiki-howlers please let me know. Many thanks. Ben MacDui 15:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Maliciousness

They are not related. I nominated the article for deletion for the reasons articulated herein. Then unfamiliar with the rules of Wikipedia, I initially deleted the article with comments. I now know there is a quasi-democratic (perhaps excepting the content of this and related pages) process for deletion.

However, I feel the malicious comments made by others about this page and its subject are appalling and disgusting.

In trolling through comments and contributions made over time by Elonka, I might suggest that she edit in a less heavy-handed fashion so as to engender less hostility. Abrupt deletion of content in the face of her own somewhat grandiose family biographies can only engender a sense of imbalance. Nothing however justifies the crude and juvenile actions of the person posting under the 199 IP! DO NOT associate that with me.

Harangus

We're all still learning. You are correctly pointing out that there are two separate issues: 1) Elonka's editing style within the wikipedia universe, and 2) the status of the wikipedia article about Elonka Dunin. The appropriate place for discussing the former is on her user talk page, and the appropriate place for discussing the latter is here. If you do go to her user talk page you'll see quite a lot of spirited give and take (it ain't all pretty). -- Quartermaster 13:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Clyde Butcher entry tags you left

Hi, Elonka. I'm a friend of Clyde Butcher, and an author. He doesn't use the web much. His daughter maintains his website. I stumbled across his entry in Wikipedia and saw the info was incorrect and challenged, so I expanded on it. I'm new to Wikipedia so pointers on what I need to do to clean it up are appreciated. I did read the basics of Wikipedia but am unsure how much description beyond that which can be referenced to other web links is permissible. Thank you.Sfriendfla 04:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Holster references

I put some references in holster. They are all firearms related, and all but one are to commercial sites; one commercial link is to a Gun Tests review of holsters (trying to sell you on the magazine) and the rest are to various manufacturers of holsters. I think that they are still valuable references despite the commercial nature, since they do provide information on the holsters in question. Let me know what you think--if the commercial to information ratio is too high, if some are redundant, or anything you see that is lacking. scot 18:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Kydex

I added thermoplastic to the description (and I'm going to add Kydex to the list of thermoplastics therein), sectioned it, and completely re-worded the kydex vs. leather comparison to make it flow a bit better. That section is still a bit choppy, and I think that the article needs to list the non-holster related applications to be complete; most if not all of that information can probably be found on the corporate website. scot 20:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Clyde Butcher cleaned up

I found the necessary references for birth date and early life. Thanks for your assistance. Now I know what a Wikipedia bio sketch needs to look like! Regards. Sfriendfla 02:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Westview High School

Howdy! I deleted it quite a while ago, so the "it was going to be expanded shortly" argument doesn't seem to apply. I strongly suggest that you increase your use of the Preview button. There is no reason an article cannot avoid being a CSD A1 at any point in its lifecycle. The article also met the A7 notability deletion requirement, I merely chose A1 at the time because it was the most relevant. I look forward to reading a new version of the article that asserts its notability and contains enough content to stand on its own as an encyclopedia entry. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I created the stub last night, and was going to expand it this morning. That counts to me as a "too quick" deletion. As for A7, I strongly disagree, as there is a clear consensus that all public high schools are deserving of pages. Or are you just in the "anti-school" camp? In any case, since you're obviously active on Wikipedia at the moment, I would appreciate if you would undelete the article so that I can continue working on it. --Elonka 19:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly! I've restored the content to your userspace here. I'm not anti-school, I'm just pro-CSD and anti-cruft. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Carly Corinthos

I have added an external link to a Soap Central page and have deleted your original research tag. In this case, I continue to believe that the show alone serves as the only "text" and "reference" needed in this article as it does in all other General Hospital articles that I have contributed to. There are any number of other articles related to television shows and fictional characters which I did not write in which that is also the case. I don't feel that an original research tag is appropriate here or would be unless the article contained incorrect information about the character or clearly one-sided opinions, which it does not.--Bookworm857158367 00:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've read your comment, but I continue to disagree with your definition of original research. The show itself is the text and should be sufficient.--Bookworm857158367 19:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Review

Elonka, yes I'd be happy to do some general review. A thorough review I am not certain I have time for at the moment. I'm sorry for the late response, as it's been nearly a week since you wrote me. That's my life right now :/ --Durin 15:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Lost Barnstar

In recognition of excellence in editing Lost (TV series)

For your continued diligence in editing the Lost (TV series), I award you the "Lost Barnstar." Thank you for keeping watch over the articles! Please feel free to award this barnstar to those you believe deserving. —LeFlyman 21:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC) As far as I'm aware there are no official guidelines, just diligence and dedication to Lost related articles. Do you not have one? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well you've definately earned one! Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 12:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of MFJ Enterprises

Hello, I see that you did a prod tag on MFJ Enterprises back on September 28th. Unfortunately, I didn't notice and it was deleted by BInguyen on 3 October. I'm curious why you feel that this company does not meet WP:CORP requirements for listing? I won't undelete the article myself, but I'd like to see if I can come up with satisfactory evidence of notability before asking another admin to restore the article. Within the Amateur radio community this company is very well known, but I'm sure it is not so outside of that group. A quick google check turns up over 50K references and it company is regularly referenced in Amateur radio journals such as QST and CQ Amateur Radoi. What other evidence do you believe would represent needed notability? I don't want to see the article end up right in AfD if it comes back. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 18:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your level head.

Hi, thanks for your level head in the Gary Troup Discussion. I really don't want to cause a stir. I'm just trying to put things in appropriate places. I do agree that right now that is the only reasonable category for the article, but I don't think it should stay there forever. Sorry to offend you if I have, but thanks for keeping your cool in response to that other guy. :) --Mr Vain 00:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA

Hello, Elonka. I have been pondering this for a while now, and I was wondering if you would object to me submitting an RfA for you - you are a wonderful user! SergeantBolt (t,c) 14:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Elonka, I have not subitted an RfA before however I understand the process perfectly after watching so many. You need not be worried! And yes, that's fine - it can wait! SergeantBolt (t,c) 21:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have nominated you. You may accept the nomination here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Elonka. I will, of course, be supporting you and I wish you the best of luck! SergeantBolt (t,c) 19:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, Elonka! I'd do it all over again if you wish! SergeantBolt (t,c) 10:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing Dravidian martial arts

Hi, Elonka. I have put the Dravidian martial arts in the Category: Dravidian martial arts and Dravidian. However, it was removed. Am I doing something wrong? Could you point me in the right direction of how to Categorize Dravidian martial arts? Thanks.

Wiki Raja 03:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Hello Elonka. Thanks for the reply. Well, I would have to partially agree and disagree. While Tamil martial arts which is also classified as Dravidian martial arts have been practiced in India for times history, these combative arts have been practiced in Sri lanka too. Actually, before the arrival of the British, Sri Lanka and India were not the names of this part of the world at one time. There were many kingdoms and even nations such as the Cholas, Cheras, and Pandyas of the Tamils. Pallavas of the Telugus, the Kingdoms of Kandy and Kotte of the Sinhalese, and so forth... The Tamil kingdoms were in both Southern India and Northeastern Sri Lanka respectively. So, I feel that the category Dravidian martial arts would be an appropriate classification since these arts cross borders. Lastly, I plan to expand on the Dravidian martial arts and to find more from other Dravidian groups such as the Kanaddigas, Telugus, and the Tulus. Much Regards. Wiki Raja 10:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Thank you Elonka. Wiki Raja 00:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Professionalism

I'm glad you think I'm helping, rather than hurting! :-) Unfortunately, I only watch the page after stumbling upon, and being shocked by, the second AfD, appearing as an instance of bullying by a high placed administrator, and kept up the watch as some pretty blatant attacks continued onit. I can generally notice and revert those, but I'm not qualified to judge more technical cryptography questions.

Someone being marked professional or amateur based on writing a published book on the topic does seem to be one of those fine points. I can see your point, and certainly won't argue the reverse either. However, I can also see that it might depend on the book. Specifically, for The Mammoth Book of Secret Code Puzzles, it might be compared to other authors of "puzzle" books involving codes. Possibly the most famous writer of those that I can think of off the top of my head would be Martin Gardner. Between his many works, he has probably written a total of more on recreational cryptography, yet is not referred to as a professional cryptographer in his article. The difference, of course, is that his books are more general recreational math books not focusing specifically on codes. In short, it is a very subtle point, and one that is beyond my qualifications. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

RFA nomination

SergeantBolt (t,c) 20:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA

Personally i'd just make a note on the RfA so people know (-: thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for replying to my questions on my talk page. With your permission, I'll paste them into the RfA talk page as I think that is a better place for any discussion that may be generated to take place. --Guinnog 13:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If youd like to speak in realtime i have added you @aol to MSN Messenger - you should see a request from: matthew@derwafflehaus.net thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem editor

I couldn't help notice some of the bile DreamGuy is putting around about you on your RFA. Funny how he just re-appeared out of nowhere when one of the people who's tried hardest to fight his poisonous abuse is nominated for admin, don't you think? In case you haven't seen the latest, he's actually trying to spin his history of sockpuppetry and general venomous destructivity into a pathetic victimization sob-story. His gall doesn't seem to have any bounds. Shameless. He's even accused me of "impersonating" him to make it seem like he was abusing sockpuppets. If it all wasn't so thoroughly insane it'd be funny. Anyway, all jokes aside, there seems to be a fair groundswell of support on seeing a permanent end to his poison, so if you or others want to initiate a formal process of some sort against him, I'll be happy to support it. --Centauri 09:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, Centauri, you're projecting again. It seems like you're not worried about my so-called abuse but more that your continued coordinated harassment with multiple sockpuppet accounts and false accusations hasn't permanently run me off the project. Too bad your attempted vote stacking on Elonka's RfA got caught and probably was directly responsible for the backlash that made her RfA fail. Sort of makes all your denials of sockpuppetry and so forth pretty hard to swallow. DreamGuy 12:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:AUTO issues

I am quite suprised by the number of objects based on WP:AUTO; not only I don't think that (potential) vanity has nothing to do with being an admin and getting the 'mop'n'bucket', but I think that the entire policy of 'don't edit articles about yourself' is simply wrong, see my recent comments at WP:AUTO (basically I am afraid it may offend/scare many notable would-be contributors who are accused of bad faith). Perhaps you'd like to contribute to that debate (it seems more ppl are interested in using it as a bashing stick at RfA than to discuss its pros and cons at it's talk page).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The Glass Ballerina and Lost episode guidelines

Elonka, I know you're probably pretty consumed right now with answering questions surrounding your RfA, but I wondered if you could find time to weigh in on the discussion here about the plot summary for The Glass Ballerina. I do know that you accepted the 500-word outcome of the mediation a little reluctantly, but I've also been impressed with your doggedness at moving forward per the agreement. Thanks, and good luck with the RfA. -- PKtm 18:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There are some odd challenges here on Wikipedia sometimes, aren't there? Thanks for doing the rewrite, which was above-and-beyond what I even asked for; it looks great, and seems to have been accepted (even if with some angry lashing out) by the other editor in the very odd squabble. Thanks again. -- PKtm 04:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

{{stub}}

Hi - I noticed you've been adding the stub tag to some articles. This category has been deprecated in favor of more specific stubs. If possible, could you try to use those? See Category:Stub categories thanks --- Skapur 04:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It is still in use and active, yes, but it is also deprecated - sounds like a contradiction, but it's true. By that, I mean that it can be used, but its use is strongly discouraged and is usually inappropriate, since most (hopefully all) stub articles can use more specific stub templates, and as such it should not be used unless no more accurate template can be found. In practice, it is used by people who are far more interested in creating articles than categorising them (and let's face it, both jobs are important to the creation of Wikipedia, and some will be more interesdted in one task than the other), and they are left to stub sorters to move from there. This is the reason why Category:Stubs is frequently completely empty, and rarely has more than a few dozen stubs (out of several hundred thousand stub articles currently on Wikipedia). If it is possible for people to use more accurate stub types, though, it is always appreciated. Grutness...wha? 07:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. In those cases when I'm using something like WP:AWB and I'm rapidly going through hundreds of articles, is there a template that I can use to say, "I can tell that this article needs to be stubbed, but I don't have time to classify it right now"? Or would it be better to just put a "Cleanup|<date>" tag on it and move on, rather than trying to stub it?

No, it would be better just to use {{stub}} in that cases (that basically means pretty much that - it needs a stub tag, but I'm not sure which one), although if you could try to use a handful of the broader "bottom-level" stub categories (such as geo-stub for geographical locations and bio-stub for biographies) where appropriate it would help quite a bit :) Grutness...wha? 07:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

categorization

I notice that you're tagging all kinds of articles as being in need of categorization, often very quickly after yo tagged the previous. Have you really looked at those articles to determine that they really need categorization? If you have a specific category in mind, then just add it yourself. If you do not have a category in mind, how can you judge that the article needs any categorization? I would never have noticed your request for adminship if you hadn't gone through doing what looks to me like a very odd and poorly evaluated thing to do. Wryspy 05:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Where does Wikipedia say all articles are supposed to be categorized? Wryspy 05:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Okay, I found it, but tagging article after article without evaluating to see what category they need seems like an odd use of one's time. Wryspy 05:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Spongebong and speediness

CSD G10 is for articles that disparage their subjects. The clearest examples of these are "Josh Martin is a dick!", but it can apply to other biographies of living persons that have no NPOV version (so, for instance, a page about a local politician that attacks her integrity). While the subject of this article, Spongebong Hempants, is itself a parody/attack of another show, the article doesn't disparage its own subject.. So an article about a play called George Bush is Stupid would be okay, since the article itself doesn't attack GWB; if it's an NPOV article about the play's history and performances, it wouldn't fall under G10. (Stupid example, but I'm trying to give up caffeine.) As for A7, that's a greyer area: many editors criticize that criterion for being too subjective. I think that its use should be limited to people, groups (bands or sports clubs), or websites that are wholly unremarkable. The article in question says "television show" (though I doubt that), so it doesn't fall under "web content", and I really don't like stretching the definition of A7 that much. (I did, however, delete an article about a dog named Scruffy today, so clearly I'm willing to make exceptions.) I'm just one person, and I'm sure others disagree with me, but I spend a lot of time reviewing speedy candidates and helping to refine the criteria, so I feel somewhat qualified in my analysis.

As for your user page, I see that you're interested in becoming an admin. Do you have much experience with vandal fighting, AfD, or CSD? I'd be happy to look over your edits to see if I can make any suggestions about how to improve or develop towards your goal. (At first glance, you look much more qualified than I am!) -- Merope 18:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see you're running right now. Heh. I'll check out your edits and see if I want to weigh in. -- Merope 18:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Uncat

Thank you for your edit [2] to the article I created. I regard edits like these as a valuable addition to the project; without it I might not have realised my mistake in forgetting to categorise the article. Best wishes --Guinnog 18:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Good luck

Not sure if you'd remember me from back in the day of your dispute with DreamGuy, but I thought I would take the time to wish you luck on your attempt to become admin, EnglishRose has been kind enough to direct me to the pages of importance. If I was permitted to post there I would contribute to the vote but apparently I haven't edited enough! Either way, it's pretty sad to see some of the excuses of "opposes" given especially over self-publication and even more-so DreamGuy's own vindication. Hopefully this will not stop you from becoming admin because as I saw the incident occur firsthand and have been the victim of DreamGuy's own abuses (as has EnglishRose at the time) I can safely claim that you would make an excellent admin even if *some* of the admins here seem to be a bit thick-skulled (I whisper no names but I'm sure it's clear just looking around sometimes). Anyway once again good luck and hopefully common sense will actually get you through the voting process, I for one hope it does. RBlowes 19:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, hey... RBlowes, the obvious sockpuppet account who was one of a handful of people actively involved in feeding misleading information to Elonka way back on the Aladin article (and who she inexplicably believed against all evidence was a legit user) and has only been around just long enough to cause that mischief way back when and then show up out of the blue suspiciously to try to vote for her for admin... With friends like you, Elonka sure doesn't need enemies. DreamGuy 11:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I didn't vote nor attempt to vote as I was specifically told that my edit count wasn't high enough in the first place. I did feel however that I should offer my support to Elonka at the time since from my encounters with her I have found her to be overall a friendly user and it is probably down to my limited knowledge of topics and discussion that I haven't been able to work with Elonka on wikipedia, something I regret personally. In any case DreamGuy if you have any problems with me I would suggest you move it over to my talk page, I really don't the need to bring up a vendetta on someone else's talkpage also if you wish to pursue the topic of sockpuppets in regards to my own account I can and will prove that I am who I've claimed to be, via Wikipedia's own verifiability policy ironically enough! To Elonka, I apologise that this has happened and will respectfully not reply to further comments as I'm sure you'd rather not have your talkpage spoiled with this sort of thing. Again I apologise. RBlowes 22:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Nah, feel free. Though I may get out an exacto-knife and "adjust" things to bring them back within WP:NPA.  :) --Elonka 22:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Antonia Bennett

I thought you might like to see my comments Talk:Antonia_Bennett#Non-deletion_review. Unfortunately, I did not see it on time. Danny 11:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

Well your request was unsuccessful, but it is clear your aim is in the right place in helping the project and it also seems that you have relevant skills and experience that could be valuable. Do the best you can to take into account the criticism received to the extent that it can help you contribute more successfully to the project and let the rest go. Let me know if I can do anything to help. - Taxman ^Talk 20:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Condolences. More than that, here.

A Barnstar!

The Resilient Barnstar For surviving an unusual and undeserved quantity of Wikipedia controversy, getting up, brushing yourself off, and continuing doing good work in the face of adversity. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually haven't had a great deal of luck with these, several people I awarded them to immediately caved and stopped doing the resilient thing I was proud of them for doing. Maybe you'll break the trend?

Carry on. Please. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Commiserations and please keep contributing. Best wishes, --Guinnog 21:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I was sorry to see your RfA close with no consensus reached. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for your next one. You're an asset to Wikipedia. Keep it coming! AuburnPilot^Talk 01:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome – although I considered changing my vote to ‘Neutral’ on the grounds that I had not previously understood that an RfA nomination was a punishment rather than an accolade. Incidentally, I have no wish to be accused of falling foul of WP:AUTO myself and I wonder if you, or one of your readers would be kind enough to remove the typo on Ben MacDui? The ‘Range’ in the box at right should of course be Cairngorms not ‘Caringorms’. Ta, Ben MacDui 12:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. You're a mountain range? Wow. I thought being a rodent would be strange enough... May the snow on your peaks never melt, I guess. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Done! Why thank-you little mouse... May your squeaks never relent, I guess. Ben MacDui 18:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Halibutt contributions

Hello! Would you like to comment on User:Halibutt contributions: [3] [4] [5]?? M.K. 12:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

RFA note

Thank you for the note, but frankly I never actually had the time to have any actual concerns, since I never got around to researching the issue. On the next go-round, if there is one, I promise to actually take the time and look more closely, so I can have actual concerns -- if any -- and express an informed opinion. --Calton | Talk 13:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions from User:dlohcierekim

Thanks for your note. Sorry I was not more constructive in my commmets, lack of time. If you don't mind some suggestions, I would distance myself from any articles to which I have an outside connection. I would encourage any relatives or friends on Wikipedia to do so as well. I would find other areas to edit in. I believe work to clear the backlog at Wikipedia:Cleanup would be appreciated. If you understand copyright and fairuse well enough to handle that mess, I believe that would be appreciated as well. RCPatrol with reverting/warning/reporting vandals, welcoming newcomers and reviewing new pages, and taking part in XfD discussions are good ways to learn/demonstrate knowledge of the policies most relevant to adminship. Increasing your efforts in those areas should be helpful. I would do these things for about four months and then request an editor review for feedback. I would use that feedback and consider another RfA about six months from now. Hope these suggestions help. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Emergency warning system for vehicles

Your proposal for deletion of Emergency warning system for vehicles has been disputed on the article's talk page... I've deleted the prod on behalf of that editor. Regards, QuiteUnusual 15:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this might have potential to become a quite reasonable article. --Ricksy 03:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite Unusual

I wanna thank you Quite Unusual and Elonka -- escudriñando my writing and for seeing some good in my article "Emergency Warning System for Vehicles" -- I think without your kind words and patience the article could have possibly been deleted, instead the positive input you've provided inspired me to expound on the write-up -- and I am not finished yet, but I'll get there -- with a little help from my friends. Keep up the Good Work!

--Lperez2029

Your RfA

Thanks for the note. Although I opposed your RfA, you're a good contributor, and I hope this doesn't discourage you from contributing more in the future. You should work on getting experience in the various policy centers of Wikipedia: XfD, vandal patrolling (recent changes and new articles), and possibly image work. If you're able to gert more experience in those parts of the community, and show that your history won't be a hindrance to adminship (which it probably won't be by then), I'll probably support your next attempt in a few months. Keep on editing! :) (P.S., The barnstar was well-deserved, as well.) --Coredesat 18:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ditto - my opposition was not meant to be personal, but rather as part of an effort to steer the community back towards more encyclopedic grounds. The project has been suffering because the community has lost sight of what we're doing on Wikipedia, both in embracing cruft of every kind and letting personal interests enter heavily into judgement. In my judgement as expressed on RfA, there's a bit of that in you, although more experience will probably temper it (although there are, sadly, a number of admins we have already who never will "get it" and that's a major problem). Again, it's nothing personal -- take care. --Improv 14:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering the reasons people opposed, I think your RfA went quite well. It just shows that any type self-promotion is frowned upon. But you always know, 80 people were happy for you to be an admin, and I see that as an accomplishment in itself.--Andeh 17:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I was actually wondering if I was going to make the WP:100 club! --Elonka 18:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You make a lot of good contributions and could probably make a good admin in the future. You're diligent, you know Wikipedia guidelines, and you strive to implement them. Self promotion and letting personal interests enter into judgment are a great concern. Even though you learned from those, I haven't seen enough in the edit histories to counteract what you'd already done. You have stirred other controversy, at times, certainly. I'm still trying to figure out the DreamGuy thing and who was ultimately right in that. Controvery is not necessarily a bad thing. Anyone who edits as often as you do will inevitably stir some controversy whether for good reasons or bad. The kind of people who have attracted as followers bugs me. I see argumentative people on both sides of issues you've gotten into, but more of the obnoxious appear to fall on your side. I also see numerous questionable explanations (like Centauri's explanation regarding Gene Poole) for their behavior or the behavior of varioius people involved in editing your material. Some of the explanations can be completely innocent, but the sheer number of them is disconcerting. Likely sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry in your RfA disturbs you. I'm not saying you had anything to do with it directly, but (1) I wonder why you attract the kind of people who do that and, the bigger issue, (2) why you didn't do more to discourage it. And I really am an outside party in all this. I didn't know you existed until last week. I'd say go with the recommend someone else made, I believe it was on the RfA talk page, that you go six months without stirring up a big controversy, then try again. Clearly indicate what you've learned from this process. Wryspy 19:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sock accusation

Thanks for not jumping on the bad faith bandwagon like everyone else. This accusation is raised as a red herring every time someone doesn't like something I say here. It has no substance. I have gotten to know Mr Cruikshank (Gene Poole) as a collaborator on several projects I've worked on. We both live in Sydney and have met half a dozen times in the past couple of years. On one occasion I logged on to WP using his computer. He evidently posted a comment here while I was still logged in, realised the mistake and reversed it. That's it. --Centauri 21:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious! [/me staggers off blindly, overcome with cackling laughter.] Bishonen | talk 23:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC).

See what I mean. With such puerile admins as this ruling the roost, it's no wonder good editors are being driven away. --Centauri 11:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It is possible for that to happen, of course, and be truly an innocent mistake. Once it happens, though, you must always remember that you can never prove you're not engaging in sockpuppetry while claiming that as your defense. I know that sounds like "guilty until proven innocent", but once the multiple users/computer mistake/violation/whatever has been demonstrated, the burden does shift to you. I didn't vote in one recent RfA because someone who uses the same computers I do had already voted in it. I did not want to risk hurting the admin candidate by giving even the accidental impression that sockpuppetry was occurring. Even if Centauri and Gene Poole aren't one and the same, I recommend you do likewise. (I should probably say this on Centauri's talk page, but this is where I found this discussion.) Wryspy 18:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Userbox

Hi Elonka,

You have a userbox that says "this user has written or significantly contributed to 2 featured article(s) on Wikipedia." As I researched the matter during your RfA, I found that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Would you remove it please? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to interject; it's difficult to define what a "significant contribution" to a Featured Article is. If you think that Elonka has not significantly contributed to an article, then that's fine; you're free to have and express that opinion. However, Elonka's userpage is where Elonka's definition counts. And speaking as someone who put in more hours than I'd like to admit into researching Marian Rejewski, I'm entirely happy to have Elonka say that she contributed significantly to it. — Matt Crypto 17:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Matt, that means a lot to me, as I hold your own contributions to the crypto sections of Wikipedia in very high regard. :) --Elonka 17:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Amazing! I agree it's your call, Elonka, whether to have that userbox or not, don't worry. I do think if you someday go through the difficult effort of actually writing a featured article largely on your own (most are the work of one or two individuals at most), you might gain more perspective on why this issue irks me. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to work together on an article? And have you had a chance to look at some of the articles where I've been the majority contributor, such as SS Kronprinz Wilhelm, Raphael Kalinowski, Alfred Niezychowski, Eric Bloom, or Wilmer and the Dukes? --Elonka 18:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't enjoy collaborations generally. Are you going to take some or all of those to FAC soon? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you feel that they're worthy? I guess my own opinion, is that it would feel wrong for me to nominate one of my own articles for Featured status. I know that there are lots of accusations that I'm big on self-promotion, but that's honestly not where I'm at. --Elonka 18:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

FAC's culture doesn't view self-noms as self-promotional; in fact I think they are considered better, since then people know the author is willing and able to fix the problems. (Note also that trumpeting the content one has added to Wikipedia is a world away from other forms of self-promotion.) Worthy? I haven't had time to look them over. You've !voted at FAC, right? So you know what the criteria are, and should have a better idea than anyone about the state of your articles. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but it would feel wrong for me to nominate an article that I wrote, for FA status. If someone else reviews one of my articles, and feels that it's featureable, I would be happy to work with them in that process. But it's not a call that I'd be comfortable making on my own. It's sort of like adminship: Even though I know that technically it's allowed, I would never have been comfortable nominating myself. --Elonka 18:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the RfA, and a comment on the above

Elonka, thanks for your kind note about my support for your RfA. It was easy to support the candidacy of someone who has been such a hard and thoughtful and engaged worker on Wikipedia, and it was distressing to me, as I noted on the RfA, to see the discussion descend into the bitter and personal realms that it did. Kudos to you for maintaining grace and style under that kind of senseless barrage.

On a separate but related note, I see that you've been asked in the comment above, by one of the people who somehow vehemently opposed your candidacy, to remove the userbox on your user page that mentions your role in getting articles to FA status. As I also stated in the RfA discussion, your credentials and contributions to the Lost articles are impeccable and (one would think) unassailable. You deserve to be able to sport that userbox on your user page. It is both rude and inappropriate for anyone (an admin no less) to ask you to take it down, and I fully support you retaining it. His request is an odd (and again distressing) and completely unnecessary continuation of the unfortunate and very personally targeted bitterness that I saw pervade the comments of some of the people who opposed your candidacy.

Hang in there. Regards, PKtm 15:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I definitely see you as one of the most dedicated Lost contributors on Wikipedia, and though we definitely don't agree on everything, when you do support me, it means that much more. Thank you. --Elonka 17:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, keep up the good work. Deb 18:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego

Though I still think PSB should have stayed at it's original title, I feel this one should not. Would you agree? If so, feel free to move it to where you think it should be.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Reponse re: RfA, Despain, etc.

Hi. I responded to your comment on my talk page. --A. B. 22:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Disease Theory of Alcoholism

Hi Elonka. You recently added "uncat" and "wikify" tags to this article. I added appropriate cats to resolve the first issue and removed the tag (thanks for pointing out that shortcoming; I never worked with cats before so it was a learning experience). However, after a brief review of the MoS I'm not clear on what needs to be wikified. If you could let me know where specific improvements need to be made I'd be happy to get to work on it. I know that you're very active on WP so any help or pointers you can give me would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I'm somewhat chagrined to admit that while I've seen some of your work, I didn't actually read your bio info before I contacted you the first time. Now that I have I'm deeply gratified that you took time to review the article and make those suggestions. I've made all the changes you suggested (except for one that I've requested help with on the article's Talkpage), plus a couple of other minor things that I noticed. I still have a lot to learn about WP, but please let me know if I can ever help you with anything. Thanks again :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops...

Sorry, Elonka.  :) Didn't know that was you. This is the reason I'm trying to take a break. I'm pulling that doggone trigger again.

Lucky 6.9 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

You betcha. Anytime. Off to slink into the background once again. Have a great weekend. - Lucky 6.9 02:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Strasee des 17 Juni

Which statements at this article do you require verification of? It's a perfectly straightforward article about a street for chrissakes, and the info in it is all common knowledge. Heaven forbid anyone at Wikipedia should actually know anything. Adam 13:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Bathurst railway station, New South Wales category tag

Just thought I would let you know I have put this article in a category. As creator of this article, I would like to say thank you for bringing it to my attention. --Whats new? 07:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Refrences added --Whats new? 10:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Accusation of "bad faith" constitutes personal attack?

I don't know that I would agree, especially if that allegation is backed up with examples. I don't see anything in WP:NPA supporting that. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there's not much point in debating after the change of opinion, although on the other hand I don't see why some have given an opinion "per" someone who has changed their mind. As for the examples, they were given earlier in the discussion. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

my signature

heh i just noticed. Funny thing is it was working fine this morning and i haven't changed anything. going to have to track it down. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status:On 00:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

heh well it worked fine there, this is odd -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status:On 00:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

and now its broken again. very strange. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status:On 00:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

looks like its fixed now thanks for the help :) -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status:On 00:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Shopping centres

No - but neither is there a guideline that we shouldn't. People have tried, but thankfully never been able to attain any consensus, to merge them, and though they get nominated for deletion every so often, they survive quite a bit more often than not. In any case, the "local importance" taggings were complete bunk since a) some of them had clear claims to being of beyond local importance, often in the lead, and b) if some of us who don't even live in that country find them important, they're hardly of local importance only. Rebecca 04:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the point of flagging articles such as that for expansion? It serves absolutely no purpose; if they're going to get expanded, they're going to get expanded whether or not they've got an ugly and patently useless template at the top of the page. Rebecca 04:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I speak from personal experience, having seen even small local shopping centres getting kept, and the fact that I'm struggling to think of a concrete example of one actually (well, there was Werribee Plaza, but that was back in June) getting deleted. The fact they're hardly unreferenced is not really a reason to delete them, as the most basic Google search could easily turn up information to reference these articles in a few minutes - it's hardly as if they're unverifiable. Rebecca 05:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:A.Szymański

Hmm, according to the pl wiki there are several notable people of that name, and this is the specific one our stub is talking about. I will try to expand it tommorow, but he seems notable. Tnx for pointing me to him. Talking about notability, this article (Magdalena Trzebiatowska) has been bothering me for some time. What do you think?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD edit

Hiya, I saw your post to PKtm, and thought I'd help clarify. The only reason I edited that one post, is because it occurred after I joined the discussion. Also, it made no sense to me to be attacking Fenton, considering that he'd already indicated that he was in support of the article. If you see other things in the discussion which you feel are personal attacks, regardless of who they are directed at, I'll have no complaint if they're removed. I'd be much happier with a civil discussion all around. :) --Elonka 01:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to imply that you're playing favorites with personal attacks. In that instance, I preferred to leave PKtm's personal attack undisturbed, and comment on the attack. Mitigating the damage is his job, not mine. I couldn't have asked for a better illustration for my point than the one you provided. I assume your opinion carries more weight with him than mine, so I juxtaposed the two examples side-by-side. They fit perfectly in my reading. And the timing couldn't have been better, coming after my apology to him, but before an AfD ruling. Hopefully something good can come of all this turmoil, but at least I'm having fun with it. BTW, you might want to check this out. --Loqi T. 07:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• P.S. Here's another, rather obnoxious personal attack. This one's against me. Talk:Lost_(TV_series)/Archive11#Moved_fansite_discussion --Loqi T. 07:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• The main thing that concerns me about removing "personal attacks" on an AfD page is the potential appearance of using it as an excuse to remove material and influence the debate (and I'm not accusing you of this). If one comment is removed, the obvious questions are why weren't all similar comments removed, and when comments are removed, are both sides of the debate being given equal treatment? WP policy seems to recommend removing comments only as a last resort, and it seems like even more caution should be used on an AfD - if anything, it seems like using strikethrough leaves the discussion more intact than removing the comments outright. That said, I agree that the whole discussion would be more palatable if both sides were more civil about it. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Query

Elonka, I would like to let you know that a lot of my changes are from a reliable source, generally the centre website and they are generally cited on each page I have written. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tuddy (talk • contribs) 07:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

Argo Community High School

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your moderatnions, such as those in Argo Community High School, but we regretfully cannot accept guff from minimods. Please be prepared to call in a lawyer for all of your disagreements. Thanks for your efforts, and happy modding! Oggleboppiter 22:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Campbell's Soup Cans

I have attempted to make some layout corrections today. Let me know if these meet your standards. TonyTheTiger 22:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

removed

fish

Re: Lost episodes

I very much understand what I voted on, thanks. I really don't think that naming consistency is tremendously important or adds to the benefit of the reader. I think brevity is bliss here. -- Wikipedical 23:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Your support

Hi and thanks for trying to take a rational perspective in respect of Taxman's accusation, which as far as I'm concerned is a disgraceful abuse of authority. What's really going on here is that a group of admins who were/are (a) strong supporters of the banned editor/vandal Wik (aka Gzornenplatz and at least 100 other sock accounts), (b) consistently opposed to my extensive contributions to Wikipedia over many years on the subject of micronations, and (c) outraged at what they allege is my "self promotion" of the Empire of Atlantium (does any of this sound familiar?) - are trying to get back at me. The catalyst for this little playground game was my extremely strong suspicion - which I noted on your RFA, and which I've since notified Jimbo about - that DreamGuy = Wik. Apparently they are of the belief that blocking Centauri will "punish" me for drawing attention to the most recent return of their "friend" - a poisonous contributor who was rightly blocked permanently for recurrent vandalism, and for generally causing massive ongoing disruption to the project. Please feel free to email me privately if you are interested in further details. --Gene_poole 02:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to try to bring any evidence for these claims, or just leave it as completely unfounded accusations? It's easy to make claims, but you'll have a hard time backing up the above. - Taxman ^Talk 17:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser

I have no objections to a checkuser being done on me. However, when you have people like Taxman openly going around saying they will ignore the result I don't see the point. Do you? Nonethless if you want to do it - do it. --Centauri 22:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It will be in your best interests to do a check user. Englishrose 23:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not willing to make an RFC on myself because I've got nothing to prove. Taxman or one of his friends should do it, seeing as they're the one's going around saying the sky's about to fall. I suspect he hasn't done it because he suspects he's made a mistake - that's why he's already trying to cover his ass by saying he doesn't think a checkuser will prove anything. Let him put his money where his mouth is. After the crap I've had to put up with so far, there's no way I'm going to help him do his own dirty work. --Centauri 00:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser is what I was referring to. --Centauri 01:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Local interest

Hi Elonka, thanks for your message. I'm really sorry if I've misinterpreted your actions, if so, and as I'm sure you've noticed(!), we Australians can be a bit sensitive about this sort of thing! As I said on the Places of local interest discussion, I think your application of the LOCAL tag was entirely appropriate for most if not all the shopping mall articles created by Tuddy, and I hope Rebecca is more careful (and civil) about the way she reacted in future. If you're worried about treading on Australians' culturally-sensitive toes, you could maybe in future give a heads-up to the Australian Wikipedians' notice board about sets of problem articles and I'm sure the editors there would be happy to assess and take action with Australian interests in mind. Regards, Canley 00:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Vanity Resumes

Your note on my user page indicates that you think I posted my own resume to wikipedia. If you look closely at the history page you will see that I have not made a single edit on my page. I did not ask for nor had any knowledge that someone was going to create a page about me. That said, I agree with you that I am not notable enough to merit my own page. --acadac 01 November 2006.

About Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centro Roselands

Hello there. Since you have participated in the above-mentioned AfD I have started, I thought you might want to be informed that an editor has fetched references for a specific claim to notability for this shopping centre, so you may want to review the AfD debate and see whether you're satisfied that is enough to keep the article on its own, or still think it should be merged as per WP:LOCAL. Thanks! --Nehwyn 18:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Different Spaces

Sorry about the mix-up. I thought something seemed a bit funny, a blank nom coming from such an experienced editor. Just forgot to check the history. Thanks for fixing it. --Daniel Olsen 02:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Stalking

(moved from User talk:Centauri [6] [7])

(translation): Ned Scott (talk · contribs) and Wknight94 (talk · contribs) (an administrator, no less) have been stalking me today. They've been showing up at my bio [8][9], my mom's bio [10], pages about my company's products [11][12], articles related to a podcast that I appeared on[13], an AfD that I started [14], a stub that I created several months ago [15], the IGDA article [16], and now here too. None of the individual edits was particularly out of line, but as a pattern, they're pretty creepy, and this edit in particular was pretty ballsy: [17]. My guess is that they're following me around because they're upset that I've pointed out their disruptive behavior at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television). But guys, seriously, Wikipedia is a big place, go play somewhere else, eh? --Elonka 03:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Stalking and looking at your past edits are two different things, as noted by Wikipedia:Wikistalking#Wikistalking: "The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor."

I was curious about you as an editor and as an individual, and looked at both your edit history as well as your web site. In the process of looking things up my habits as a Wikipedia editor stirred up, unrelated to our dispute. I was not doing any of this to annoy you, harass you, or cause distress. If anything I thought it would better help me understand you as an editor and would likely result in seeing you in a more positive light. There is nothing disruptive about this, and it's perfectly fine. Wikipedians (and most people on the internet) have a tendency to follow links and see where they will take them.

I'm sorry, but it's a little absurd to think that people won't follow links in articles or your web site. You are the one who's chosen to identify with your real name and confirm your identity. On your website, don't you want people to look at links and see stuff you've done? Is it really that strange to you?

Considering these were all valid and rational edits, I don't see what there is to be upset about. I don't see anything mean-spirited or anything intended as harassment.

I'm also a bit bothered that you keep taking this outside of the dispute. I am human, so I will honestly say I am frustrated with you, but I do try my best to separate issues. I don't see why this dispute has to define all of our interactions on Wikipedia. There are a lot of users who I respect and collaborate with who I have had heated debates with in the past. -- Ned Scott 03:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ned, your story changes so often, I find it hard to believe anything you say anymore. A couple days ago when I pointed out you were using profanity in edit summaries, you accused me of wikistalking and harassment.[18]. At Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television), yesterday you accused me of personal attacks, while at the same time accusing me of being "immature, rude, and disrespectful."[19] Today you're obviously spending time at pages that are related to me, but I don't buy the "just curious" story, considering that all your edits were negative and sniping types of edits, including flat out deleting one by redirecting it without any discussion or attempt at an AfD process [20]. Then you try to defend your actions with a sweetness and light message about just being interested. Please also notice that there's a long list of editors posting to your talk page, pointing out that you have a civility problem. Perhaps you should think about taking a break from Wikipedia for awhile? Or, if you want me to believe the "curiosity" angle, how about making some positive edits to those articles you're so interested in? I'd be happy to give you references for anything you're curious about, and then you could add and fix things to your satisfaction, and we could work together constructively on something. --Elonka 04:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The verify tags, etc. were determined by me in about 20 minutes of reading pages which were no more than 2 links from your user page - so you needn't bother with the drama of stalking allegations, etc. Please read WP:STALK and WP:DISRUPT before using such language. In particular from WP:STALK:

This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason.

I'm curious how you view my activity any different than your admission to reading through my RFA for no discernible reason. Furthermore, it's interesting to read this edit where you mention secondary sources only to find so many articles related to you which similarly lack secondary sources. BTW, if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GraalOnline were viewed as a precedent, some of these unverified or loosely verified articles might be worthy of WP:AFD - but I'll leave that up to someone else. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)