User talk:Elonka

Archive 1

Archive 2

Stalking

(moved by User:Ned Scott from User talk:Centauri [1] [2])

(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 [3][4], my mom's bio [5], pages about my company's products [6][7], articles related to a podcast that I appeared on[8], an AfD that I started [9], a stub that I created several months ago [10], the IGDA article [11], and now here (at User_talk:Centauri) 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: [12]. 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.[13]. 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."[14] 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 [15]. 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)

What.. story? I'm sorry, but I don't see where I've changed my mind on anything or changed any story, so I don't understand what that is supposed to mean. I made two edits to articles that are somewhat related to you, and then found myself having to defend two non-controversial minor edits.

One of those edits was a revert to an edit made by Jimbo Wales [16] [17] because the text violated a policy. How on Earth can you get made at me for that? Seriously?

The second edit I don't see as negative at all. Digital DawgPound looked like this, it's about a group that maintains Binary Revolution Radio. I redirected Digital DawgPound to Binary Revolution Radio. The article had no content except for a member list, which didn't seem important. The article had not grown in about a year's time, and the list seemed like trivial information. It's likely a valid search term so an AfD would have been inappropriate. The talk page had one edit, by you, back in June, and didn't seem to be active at all. This seemed like a minor, non-controversial redirect, that in the end will improve the over-all coverage of this group and website by centralizing their information on one article. Not only that, but this group is loosely related to you, and it wouldn't make any sense whatsoever for me to use that article to somehow attack or harass you.

That is not harassment, that is not stalking. However, you digging through my edit history in order to write me a direct message like the one you did, that is trolling behavior. There is a big difference there. I didn't write you a message or direct anything towards you. You were not a factor, at all, in those edits. You might have been a factor in me finding those articles, but that's about it.

Do I sound nicer in my messages? Seems an odd thing to get mad at me about. I am going out of my way with my words right now, because you'll yell at me if I say anything slightly or anywhere near what might be considered uncivil. Maybe I was watching my wording too much and came off a bit phony. If so, I'm sorry, but you're over reacting here, and I'm really getting tired of defending myself from absurd accusations. -- Ned Scott 06:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

960

Thanks for making the correction. I am just getting into starting to work on establishments/disestablishments and wasn't sure how to proceed. Thank you. The period of Chinese history I am working on right now is very complex with kingdoms coming and going. Your pointer will help. Thanks.

Ludahai 05:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought

I've dropped a note to the original author of Earth Rights Institute about the prod you've started. He's obviously a worthwhile editor even though that old article looks like it deserves a prod. --Mereda 08:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

confused

Hi,

i was hoping maybe you could help me. I added the "Boston Blackie Films list. And I received the uncategorized indication. I'm not sure what I should catagorize now. It has films by genre category and mystery fiction. I tried adding mystery films thriller films crime films but they won't show up when i try and change them. It seems that maybe there should be a detective films genre but I can't find it on any of the category lists.

Oh, by the way, I love Wikipedia, I haven't been on it long so maybe I don't understand how I should categorize it.

Thanks Philbertgray 08:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh i think I figured it out. I didn't add info to the Boston Blackie book cover - I corrected that. Is that what was needed? Philbertgray 09:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Debbie Liebling

I've already proposed this page for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debbie Liebling. Sounds like you agree. jesup 14:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I work in telecom, not games (I did once in the mid-80's, though). (We design personal home videophones - [18]) jesup 22:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Added it to my watchlist and weighed in on a couple. My only game work was porting Sub Battle Simulator from the Mac to the Amiga in 1987-1988; but I've been a gamer since I was a teenager playtesting at SPI (boardgames). jesup 22:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Acknowledged

Quick note to acknowledge your note. In all honesty, anything I'd say with regards to the recent issues would simply be repeating myself and a further waste of time. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

My door's always open. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Jogaila RfM

Hello Elonka. Did you plan on submitting the RfM ? If you aren't dead set on doing it, I'd like to write it up (I'd create it in a sandbox so you could check it over before it is submitted). Drop me a line. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

cohesiveFT

Hi Elonka, what is your problem with CohesiveFT. Very confused, please can we discuss. Thank-you, Monadic.

Hi, thanks for your reply, I have replied on the cohesiveFT discussion page -- Monadic.

Tagging

You've left an extra } on many of your tagging edits last night, eg here. --user:Qviri 18:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

PRODWarning

FYI, per step 3 of WP:PROD#Nominating a proposed deletion, it's generally a civil gesture to alert an author that you've added a {{prod}} tag to their article. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The "cohesiveFT" mentioned above here. If you generally use {{PRODWarning}}, then disregard my message. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Misunderstanding WP:NPA?

Re: this edit followed by your response, it sounds like maybe you need to read WP:NPA, specifically WP:NPA#Examples that are not personal attacks. Ned Scott's edit falls very squarely into the second bullet point of that section. If you'd like to point out which bullet point of WP:NPA#Examples of personal attacks you think applies to his comment, feel free. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Junior Varsity

Hello again - I did some adding to the entry for The Junior Varsity, and found that they were rather more popular than even I'd thought; they're known not only nationally, but internationally as well. I was hoping that, with the added information and references, the prod tag could now be removed. Thanks. Chubbles1212 18:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Marcus Atkinson

Doesn't seem notable. I recommend prodding.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Uncategorized

I see you've been marking articles as uncategorized, which is helpful. However I should mention that in my experience mature articles that are uncategorized have been vandalized. In those instances it's better to track down the old good versions rather than recategorize them. Cheers, -Will Beback 04:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not your responsibility to uncover old vandalism, but if you have the opportunity to do so then it's a help. I'm hoping to find the time to follow your footsteps and check the article histories. The one that I looked at, Estherville, Iowa, had categories, interwikis, etc, in an old version.[19]. I wish there were easier ways to find, correct, and prevent vandalism. Cheers, -Will Beback 21:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Toward consensus in TV land

Elonka, I wanted to let you know that I appreciate your input over at TV:NC, and I want very much to better see your side of the argument so we can achieve a true consensus, and not a supermajority. I have no real opinion about redoing the poll; if we re-vote, I know that you and Matthew will oppose the currently-stated guideline, and that's enough for me to try to continue finding a solution.

Since you didn't directly respond to Josiah's summary of arguments and commentary, I think I had assumed that you were giving a tacit approval (or that you were just fed up with the durned thing). Since that wasn't the case, I would genuinely like to know what your specific disagreement is with it, if any. I sense from your recent comments that you feel pre-emptive disambiguation to be appropriate in the case of a series where most of the articles are disambiguated already, in order to promote a consistent naming scheme. You also seem to be in favor of allowing long-standing exceptions to the guideline (Star Trek, for example) to remain if the editors working on that project choose to do so. Josiah's summary, I think, addresses both of these situations:

• Precedent: for example, the Star Trek episodes have been using a slightly different format for a long time, without a problem.
  • Precedents are useful, but only if they have good reasons behind them. Furthermore, only decisions by Jimbo, the ArbCom and the Wikimedia Foundation Board are binding — beyond that, there are no binding decisions. If a consensus among Wikipedians is contrary to the decision of a WikiProject, the larger consensus should be followed. (It goes without saying that all WikiProject members are welcome in the larger decision-making process, and indeed the members of the Star Trek WikiProject have been invited to join this discussion.) Given this, the precedent has value only insofar as its reasoning can be explained.
• Consistency: linked lists of episodes use a consistent titling scheme, and it becomes easier to link between episodes if many of them (or even the majority) already had suffixes... and categories look more consistent.
  • This is an aesthetic judgment, and one that is not supported by any Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:Disambiguation says, "When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page." This would indicate that it is incorrect to name an article, for example, A Fistful of Datas (TNG episode) when A Fistful of Datas is perfectly clear and unambiguous.
  • Furthermore, the "ease of linking" concern is adequately addressed by the recommendation to create redirects with the appropriate suffixes.

I think Josiah dealt with these issues pretty well, but I am very interested in what you think. Specifically, I would like to know if you feel he left something out or did not address either point satisfactorily.

I hope you know by now that you and I are in complete agreement concerning guidelines on Wikipedia: quite simply, they are all optional, and TV:NC is no more policy than any other Wikiproject. Editors can only "enforce" guidelines by editing articles, and if those edits are reverted then it should be brought up on the pertinent talk page. With that in mind, I think if we can come up with a good guideline that everyone (not just "most everyone") supports, it will make people want to adhere to the guideline, and make the guideline that much stronger.

Forgive me for bringing this to your user page, but I thought it might be a little quieter place to have a civil, constructive discussion about it. Feel free to reply here if you're so inclined; I'll keep it on my watchlist. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 00:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

While I have nothing against AIM, my off-wiki life is pretty persistent (I'm actually typing right now with one finger while holding an incredibly squirmy eight-month-old) and "rapid-fire" discussion is unfortunately fairly hard to maintain, even in "real life." My computer time at home is pretty sporadic, but if an AIM-friendly opportunity presents itself, I'll drop you a line. In the meantime I am still interested in hearing you out with an open mind and a quiet room... :) --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 02:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, thank you for being patient with my slowness in communicating. :)

I have posted my latest suggestion at new poll wording, and I would appreciate your thoughts as to whether it needs any further tweaking.

I think your poll wording sounds fine, but I confess that I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, because I think the poll will further illustrate something we already know: that there is disagreement. It seems to me that you and Matthew may represent many others who have the same disagreements but who are not contributing to the discussion, and perhaps a new poll would better illustrate that. Assuming, then, that a new poll would show that there are those who disagree with the current guideline, How do we proceed? WP:CON suggests "polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus."

Also, as for Josiah's summary, I'm not entirely certain which of his posts that you want me to reply to... There's so much noise in there, that I may have lost track of a civil question in the mix.

You are correct in that there is a tremendous amount of discussion to wade through at WP:TV-NC. I've linked to Josiah's well-written summary above, but let me quote the relevant section here:

---

"...let's examine [the three types of disagreements with the guideline] one at a time.

• Precedent: for example, the Star Trek episodes have been using a slightly different format for a long time, without a problem.
  • Precedents are useful, but only if they have good reasons behind them. Furthermore, only decisions by Jimbo, the ArbCom and the Wikimedia Foundation Board are binding — beyond that, there are no binding decisions. If a consensus among Wikipedians is contrary to the decision of a WikiProject, the larger consensus should be followed. (It goes without saying that all WikiProject members are welcome in the larger decision-making process, and indeed the members of the Star Trek WikiProject have been invited to join this discussion.) Given this, the precedent has value only insofar as its reasoning can be explained. Which leads us to the remaining two arguments:

• Consistency: linked lists of episodes use a consistent titling scheme, and it becomes easier to link between episodes if many of them (or even the majority) already had suffixes... and categories look more consistent.
  • This is an aesthetic judgment, and one that is not supported by any Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:Disambiguation says, "When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page." This would indicate that it is incorrect to name an article, for example, A Fistful of Datas (TNG episode) when A Fistful of Datas is perfectly clear and unambiguous.
  • Furthermore, the "ease of linking" concern is adequately addressed by the recommendation to create redirects with the appropriate suffixes.

• Context: it is convenient to include series context with an article's title... and specific subject areas are easier to see in editor watchlists.
  • It is not the function of article naming to provide context. The article itself does that, ideally in its first line. Nor is it the function of article naming to categorize articles. The category system does that. As I argued above,

If I came upon a contextless link to, say, Adios Butler (a page I found by hitting "random article" a few times), I would have no idea what that was. But if I see a link to Adios Butler in a list of pacing horses on Harness racing, then I'll know that Adios Butler is a horse. My ignorance of the subject of horse racing is not a justification for renaming that article Adios Butler (horse).

From my point of view, the objections to these reasons are all much stronger than the reasons themselves. I would greatly appreciate any responses to these arguments, and any further reasons that I have missed."

---

So I think my questions for you are these:

1. Josiah named three possible suggested reasons for "show X" to not follow the guideline on TV-NC: Precedent (the articles have used a different naming scheme for a long time), Consistency (using pre-emptive disambiguation allows for more predictability in linking) and Context (an episode name does not provide enough context by itself). Can you think of any other reasons for a TV show to not follow the TV-NC guideline?
2. I think Josiah's answers to each of those reasons are well-founded and illustrate valid points against making those exceptions. Do you disagree with any of the answers Josiah gave (or summarized) above?

I agree that many of your posts on TV-NC have been met with responses in a less-than-civil tone, and that's unfortunate. However, I hope you can see that Josiah (as he wrote below) and I are keenly interested in finding out what your specific disagreement to the guideline is and how it can be addressed so we can achieve consensus. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 22:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Elonka; you've made some excellent points in that post, and I'd like to take some time to ruminate upon them. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 23:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus and civility

Hi, Elonka. I was away for a couple of days, and noticed that in the conversation at TV:NC, in response to a couple of people who asked why you hadn't responded to my comments, you said:

I've been asked why I don't specifically reply to everyone's comments here, and one reason is, that as soon as someone resorts to personal attacks or uncivility, I tend to ignore anything else they have to say (as is recommended in WP:CIVIL). So if you want your voice to be heard, please concentrate on being polite, being civil, and showing that you have as much respect for the opinions of editors who disagree with you, as respect for the opinions of those who agree with you.

I hope that I am not among the editors whom you have put in this category. I did not mean to attack you, or to be uncivil to you or anyone else in the discussion. If there is any specific comment that offended you, please let me know — I believe that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are two of our most important principles, and if I have violated either of them I am extremely sorry. If I have offended you, I don't know what it was that I did — I don't consider identifying you in the debate is incivil or a personal attack. My tone may occasionally betray a certain impatience, but I hope it never sinks to the level of incivility.

TobyRush (whose equanimity in this discussion I have a great deal of respect for) has quoted the most relevant bits of my posts above, and he's linked to my full comment. I also made a comment replying to yours at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Summary of naming issue, which I think is worth your consideration. To make it easier for you, I'll repeat it here, since the conversation has moved on since then:

Elonka, the existing consensus on this page is not based on the poll, but on the extensive conversation that has followed it. You are correct that the poll was altered, and some of the poll-related discussion may have been unclear, but there has been a great deal of discussion since then. Remember that polling is evil, and Wikipedia prefers discussion over voting. Accordingly, I take the many, many kilobytes of discussion into greater account than the poll, which was only a preliminary gauge of opinions. Please read Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote#Policy and guidelines — although that page has not been approved, it is an accurate description of how policies and guidelines are formed on Wikipedia.

I have yet to see any response to my summary of the arguments at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Reasons for exceptions. In this section, you have merely restated the arguments which I believe I and others have successfully argued against. All your arguments can be summarized by "consistency", "precedent" and "context", none of which are supported by other Wikipedia policies. "Common sense and the occasional exception" is a completely different matter from establishing a guideline which codifies those exceptions.

I also oppose having another poll on this subject, as I feel that the discussion (not the poll) has reached an adequate consensus, and we should move on to the next stage. You and Matthew Fenton are the only editors who disagree with the existing consensus, and consensus does not mean 100% agreement. Let's move on. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Re-reading that, I can see some of the "impatience" I mentioned above. I believe that came from the fact that you had not responded to my earlier comment, which took a fair amount of time and consideration. However, if you had categorized me as incivil and thus to be ignored, that would explain why you had not responded. That's understandable — I hope you can also understand my perspective. I want to be able to discuss the issue of the guideline, and what I believe to be the consensus on the page, without being bogged down in personal misunderstandings. Is that OK? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, thank you for responding to my comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Reasons for exceptions. I have replied to your response, examining each of your comments carefully.

You have been arguing for a new poll, but I don't think that you have responded to the idea that I and others have raised that although the poll was flawed, the discussion following the poll was clear, and that discussion takes precedence over polling. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this at WT:TV-NC. I would also like a personal response to the suggestion you made that I had been uncivil or had personally attacked you. I was serious in my comment above, and I would appreciate it greatly if you would let me know what I have done to offend you. Thank you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop with the moves?

Serge, please stop with the move requests. We are obviously still discussing this at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television), and it is not appropriate for you to be jumping in and moving a bunch of articles without consensus. --Elonka 01:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, please stop with the transparent and borderline pathetic delay tactics. I am impressed by your contributions, but your position and arguments on this are disappointing. Consensus was reached several days ago and lots of people have been making moves since then. --Serge 01:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Your case would be greatly assisted if you took my suggestion and looked for people who feel their vote was tainted by changing the poll wording. Then even I would support re-starting the poll. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Me too. --Serge 08:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, I apologize if you think I've been uncivil. I'm simply trying to stress that you're coming across, to many of us, as being unreasonable on this issue. I think everyone understands the issues and knows where we all stand. Your position is reasonable - you want editors of episodes of TV series to be able to create their own consistent naming conventions, and you want their right to do so specified in the guidelines. The problem is that very few agree with you. We believe the higher priority is to abide by the general Wikipedia naming conventions that apply to all articles in Wikipedia, and don't see a reason to make a broad explicit exception for episode articles. Okay, so we disagree. Further, you believe the previous poll on this issue to be invalid. Fine, then work to get consensus on a new poll. Currently, you clearly do not have that, and you're not helping your case by ignoring the various arguments being made both to address your general argument, and also to refute your reasons to have another poll. Those really need to be at least addressed, if not refuted, before you can hope to achieve consensus to even have another poll, much less have one in which your position prevails. --Serge 00:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Society of the U.S.A.

Grr, you tagged one of my articles! I forgot to go back and categorize it; I( was having a brain fart at the time. Thanks tho, because it reminded me and I fixed it. Do you ever become territorial about articles you write? I nerver have before but earlier tonight someone changed one article I wrote and made it very unencyclopedic. Bah!, it bugged me! I spend too much time on Wiki ;-) PS... Dunno if you remember but I left a message on your talk page once before. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 02:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Tirupathi Brahmotsavam

Tirupathy Brahmotsavalu is regional, and we want to keep the topic as much national as possible, including the use of som common terminology. So, i'm going to revert the article name to Brahmotsavam, while redirecting the Tirupathi Brahmotsavalu to it.

if you have points to the contrary kindly use the discussion page.

Balajiviswanathan 04:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry accusation and acting "in a highly uncivil manner"

If you are going to make accusations of sock puppetry, you'd better be willing to follow up those accusations with investigation and evidence. I think you're just confusing "exhibiting similar behavior patterns to others" with happening to agree with the rest of the consensus. And I don't believe I've acted in an uncivil manner at all, what specifically have I done that you consider "highly uncivil"? That accusation is particularly ironic considering that you completely misrepresented one of my statements as support for another poll. I'd encourage you to be a little more tactful with the accusations. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll admit that "put up or shut up" was harsher than I needed to be - this was in response to accusations that an AfD was invalid, where I encouraged the other editor to take action if he really felt that instead of complaining about it where it wasn't on topic. I was responding to some pretty heated language, and I shouldn't have sunk to his level. I do feel that disregarding guidelines and consensus can be seen as "making up your own rules" and I don't think pointing that out is uncivil. And I do get the impression from the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) that some may be trying to stall. I'm sorry if those offend you personally, they were just intended to comment on the naming situation. "Weasel words" was a reference to the guideline Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. I suppose someone could have been offended by that term (it didn't even occur to me since it came from a WP guideline), but it looks like the language I removed wasn't added recently, and there didn't seem to be any objection to the term on that page. As for my newbie stature and interest and familiarity with WP policies and procedures, I guess I just find them interesting and want to make sure I'm being a good neighbor (I've also done a bit of editing on other wikis before coming here). I can give you my word that I have never posted under another WP username (the only exception might be a post or two with IP when my login timed out, but I think I would have caught any), and I haven't even been in touch with any other WP editors outside of talk pages. If you want to run a CheckUser on me, go right ahead, I have nothing to hide. Thanks for your response. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)

Thanks for the heads up. Why aren't you an admin yet? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, great author photo; never knew cryptology could look so chic. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus?

Elonka, as long as you continue to ignore salient points made by others in the discussion, including those made by me about issues with your proposed wording from yesterday, I am going to continue assuming we do have consensus, and will operate accordingly. We should have gone through several iterations of wording by now, but after your initial suggestion, and my response, progress has halted on that front. There does not seem to be much interest in actually getting another poll going, even by you. You give little reason to believe otherwise. This is a big waste of time with no real issues being discussed. --Serge 01:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Request to unprotect

May u please unprotect this page S. Jithesh and allow to recreate the article with more references and sources...? Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Elsie Ivancich Dunin

FYI someone has nominated it for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elsie Ivancich Dunin) - Ned Scott appeared there as well.. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 17:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Mischaracterization

Fair enough. :^) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop the moves?

Elonka, please stop telling me what to do in Wikipedia. If you can find an administrator who is willing to agree with you that consensus has not been established regarding the episode naming guidelines at WP:TV-NC, and will post a request for everyone to stop renaming until consensus is established, then I will abide by that request. But when one clearly biased non-admin editor makes that request, I feel no obligation to comply. Much of what you are doing comes across as sour grapes delay tactics. On a slightly personal note, these tactics are not helping your case for ever becoming an admin, if that's still a desire of yours. I don't know how often someone can be nominated, but if you were nominated right now, I for one would be a person who would vote oppose because of the sour grapes delay tactics in which you have engaged over the last week or so. For your own sake, please stop. Not one person, not one, has said his or her support vote in the last poll about the guidelines would have been oppose had he or she not been "confused" by "all the changes and chaos". Not even one. The discussion clarifies beyond any reasonable doubt that there is consensus for the current guidelines. Why are you sinking yourself like this? Just stop. For your own sake, just stop. You can do it. --Serge 01:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Serge, as I'm sure you're well aware, multiple good faith editors have been calling for a new poll. Even Josiah Rowe, an admin, has agreed. Please respect the process, and let's run a new and clean poll. We can continue to argue about this for days, or we can just agree on wording, open a fresh poll, and move forward. --Elonka 01:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware that in the mind of Elonka "Even Josiah Rowe, an admin, has agreed [about calling for a new poll]". In the real world, however, he wrote, "I will support a new poll, in the interests of clearing the air. I don't really think it's necessary". That hardly qualifies as agreeing with calling for a new poll, particularly in order to have a "clean" one (as if the last one wasn't clean). --Serge 01:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, this is on my talk page from Josiah Rowe: "I see nothing wrong with Serge continuing to bring pages into compliance with [the current guidelines]". You're digging yourself deeper and deeper into your hole, Elonka. Please stop. Just stop. --Serge 03:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Buffy Waltrip

Hey, you said see the talk page but I can't find anything about it. I was just wondering what "tone" the page about Buffy should be written it? I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to do. And the source for the page is written at the bottom and there are no other sources. I know Buffy personally and that's how I got my information.

Also, I have a question. There is a user who has been going around to every related nascar page and basically saying buffy got everything she wanted in life because she is pretty and she is a trophy wife and blah blah blah. They are very bitter against her and also wrote lies about stuff that happened between her and her husband. Is there anything that can be done about that? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.142.76 (talk • contribs) 00:05, November 16, 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your WPT:RFCU message

I haven't said who my alternate account is because you didn't ask. You can find the one other account I have here. It is used (well, it will be used eventually) to whittle away at the list of Unwatched Pages which, similar to the Uncategorized Pages, only shows the first 1,000. You'll likely never see an edit from it unless I forget to logout. If you do, you'll notice the user ID doesn't hide it very well. You'll also notice the user ID's user page has a tag on it saying it's an alternate account. If you decide to proceed with an WP:RFCU against me, let me know and I'll be happy to hunt down any IP addresses I've used - there are probably 3 or 4 different regions and networks.

As I said in #Acknowledged here, I told you that you can put a message on my talk page and I'll likely respond. I think the WT:TV-NC thing is ridiculous and you know who I think is to blame for that - but that doesn't make me an unapproachable monster. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Civility C

Yes, there are serious "civility" issues with Mr. Ace. Anyway, no problem on the fix. Glad to see your post too. Reynoldsrapture 23:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at article histories

When you notice that a major article is uncategorized it's usually worth looking in its history to see whether that might be because a vandal has recently removed the categories. And the interwikis. And several sections of the article. - Jmabel | Talk 20:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, had no idea that it was with a tool. - Jmabel | Talk 21:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack?

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Specifically, note where it says this:

Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks.

If you think I said anything about you that does not qualify as "civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character", please let me know what specifically I said that you feel is uncivil or involves your personal character. Otherwise, I would appreciate it if you would withdraw your accusation of personal attack on my talk page. --Serge 01:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Television episode naming conventions

It is precisely because there was no consensus that I asked, however, lacking consensus on television articles in particular, WP:D would seem to thus be the standard to follow. I draw your attention to this quote in particular: "When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page." --BlueSquadronRaven 16:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

While I am at it, I will echo the sentiments of others here on your page. Do not presume to tell me how to edit when everything I have done regarding individual episode articles has been within existing, undisputed guidelines and treated as such by other editors and real admins. I have been and will continue to be bold. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

David Martin (American football player)

Hi Elonka. When tagging an article for speedy delete, please check the history to make sure it is in fact speedy-able. In the case of David Martin (American football player), it was the victim of vandalism, which I reverted. Thanks. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 17:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Doug Tochioka

You reverted vandalism to Doug Tochioka on 10-Nov. You then prodded it this week without re-reverting the re-vandalism. I've reverted that vandalism but left the {{prod}}. ~ BigrTex 20:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Part of the reason that I told you about it was that even with the biographical information, I couldn't bring myself to decide he was notable enough to remove the prod tag. Given that you're ambivalent about it too, let's just leave the prod tag and see what happens to it. ~ BigrTex 03:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is not unanimity

Please realize that just because you disagree with something, that doesn't imply it's not consensual. Please give it a rest for now. The debate has lasted for weeks, has drawn in a substantial amount of editors and comments, and most people are in agreement on the issue. It is simply not constructive to the encyclopedia to extend the debate indefinitely. (Radiant) 09:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• There is already a clean discussion, and has been for several weeks. A poll is not a discussion, and issues such as these are generally not resolved by polls, and calling for Yet Another Poll at this point is entirely pointless. By the way I should point out that you have repeatedly ignored or dodged several questions by other people on the matter; if you're really interested in discussion, you should see to that. (Radiant) 09:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You invited several groups that were already aware, and made announcements in places where it was already announced before. That seems pretty pointless to me. People can already post on a talk page without there being a poll. Indeed, another poll means all previous participants must once more reiterate their position when those are already abundantly clear. That, also, seems pretty pointless to me.
  • You have failed to answer (1) why a poll was necessary in the first place, (2) why you believe there was insufficient input, (3) why the poll was tainted since all involved were asked and none agree with you there, (4) why you have changed the poll while it was ongoing, since you later object to such changes, (5) what you seek to accomplish with a new poll, (6) where the alleged earlier consensus for your side is, (7) where the outrage is from the Wikiprojects, considering a two-person revert war is not an outrage, (8) why you interpret people's comments as supporting you when this is clearly not the case, and (9) why this entire issue is such a big deal in at all.
  • So no, you do not have my support. You are asking for things that were already there several weeks ago. You are focusing on bureaucracy instead of productive discussion, forcing people to repeat themselves over and over again, and refusing to acknowledge a consensus because you disagree with it. Once more, consensus is not unanimity. (Radiant) 09:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • What I meant was not why you believe a second poll is necessary (indeed, that is clear); I wonder why you think the first poll was necessary. Issues such as this are not generally resolved by voting. Indeed, in this case, most of the mess we're having is caused by that poll. The discussion we've had since then has been much more productive, so I'd say that at this point, more discussion is good but more polling is bad.
    • I realize that you're not alone in your opinion, but you seem to be the only person unwilling to accept that consensus appears to lie on the other side (indeed, that is what I meant by "sole").
    • Note that I am not adverse to advertising the debate and getting more people in (I think it's pointless by now, not harmful), but I am adverse to forcing that debate into the form of a poll. Also, making a poll for only new contributors is confusing, because the result will then not be representative of all contributors, only the new ones (and to convolute further, some old contributors will undoubtedly vote in it anyway).
    • By the way, I'm not following you around, I simply have half of Wikispace on my watchlist (or at least, the bits related to policy/guidelines and ongoing related debate). I apologize for any perceived incivilty on my part, and assure you such that was not my intention. (Radiant) 10:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • For what it's worth, I don't believe you've been uncivil per se (as opposed to e.g. that poll about you personally, which was inappropriate). Anyway. I know you didn't start the first vote, but I think we agree that the vote was problematic. Since two wrongs don't make a right, this isn't likely to be fixed by a new vote (hence, discussion instead). The problem with the RfC section as you wrote it is that it looks like a vote. In effect, it asks for comments, but at the same time restricts what kind of comments people should give. The structure isn't helpful, and neither is it common practice for RFCs to work like that. Since you've already given a summary at the places where you advertised this, people can use that as a basis for their comments, which they can place in any section of the talk page but most likely at the bottom. People don't need structure to comment.
      • WP:LOST is a deeper issue. The problem is that the project page doesn't indicate how consensus was reached, or between which users, or indeed that there is any. Hence, it is open to claims by others that there is no such consensus. It may be the case that the off-wiki discussion accidentally excluded some people who believe they should have had a say in it (I wouldn't know, I wasn't part the debate). The underlying issue is that Wikipedia cannot be legislated. It is not uncommon for a small group on Wikipedia to decide something and, in implementing it, to come in touch with a larger group that turns out to disagree with the decision. In effect, this means that the small group thought they had consensus when in fact they did not. This is a consequence of the design of Wikipedia, and a corollary is that a WikiProject cannot have jurisdiction over the articles it writes, because the entire concept of jurisdiction doesn't exist here.
      • (Radiant) 11:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Dark Star (radio personality)

Just because you have never heard of him, makes him not notable, I reckon. Oddly enough, I've never heard of you, either, yet here you are. It's funny how these things work. Wahkeenah 11:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"Approximately 97% of Dark Star's weather reports go unfunded." Yea thats info that deserves to be in an encyclopedia.. There is nothing of intrest in the entire article.. I agree with the delete.. EnsRedShirt 11:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, delete it. Then get busy deleting the other articles that are of no interest to you. That should keep you busy for awhile, as there are probably many thousands. Wahkeenah 16:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If you think he is notable go ahead and fix it instead of complaining about it. I lived in Minnesota for a few years and never heard of the guy, I am in the radio industry, and not heard of the guy.. If you want an example of a better radio host page let me point you to another Twin Cities Host T. D. Mischke. Notice the use of sources, and lack of info about unsponsored weather breaks. EnsRedShirt 17:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing you think WCCO itself is also irrelevant. Sounds like this guy is the same kind of show as Dark Star's. I don't listen to KSTP, but that doesn't make KSTP irrelevant. Wahkeenah 17:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I am no longer watching the article. Wahkeenah 18:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

categorizing

hi elonka, i'm fairly new in wikipedia and not familiar with the process of categorizing. re bliss (spirituality). i know of 2 articles Amit Goswami and David R. Hawkins where bliss is mentioned and referenced. and now what. AWB - i do not get it. pls help. rgds --Grazia11 19:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: WikiProjects

Please feel free to copy my comments anywhere you think they'd be useful. I might stop by the discussion myself, at some point; but TV episodes are rather far outside my usual editing area, and I'm rather hesitant to interject myself into a discussion on a topic that I don't know well enough to comment sensibly on. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You can quote me if you'd like, no problem there. (Though I'd request it be accompanied by a diff link to my original post, just as an issue of providing context.) Like Kirill above, I don't do TV episodes so I wouldn't feel comfortable giving direct input. --tjstrf talk 23:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

My position

Looking at the page it looks like you got my opinion listed accurately. I prefer the suffix but if not at least the redirects are nice. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  04:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Accusation of sockpuppetry

Elonka, you've said on more than one occasion that Yaksha (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet. Why do you think this? Yaksha has edits going back to December 2005. If Yaksha is a sockpuppet, he or she is a long-established one, and one that has even taken the time to help out at the Help and Reference desks. If you think Yaksha is a sockpuppet, you're free to file a request for checkuser. But unless you can make a case, please stop making unsubstantiated claims of sockpuppetry. It just adds more acrimony to an already tense discussion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If you think that Yaksha and I are the same user, here's something that might show you otherwise, Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning#Spoiler redirects that reveal true identities. I'm really not sure what the point would be for someone to argue with themselves.

As I've said to you before, I'd support you in a checkuser. I've even given you my IP address (69.252.129.142). I once used the account User:Nedscott (literally, once) and then forgot about it and created my current one. I have a bot account at User:NedBot. There's not much more I can do to show that I am me and only me. -- Ned Scott 07:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yaksha's comment on Woohookitty's talk page does seem to confirm that he's operating more than one account, but as long as he (or she) isn't using multiple accounts in the discussion, that's OK per WP:SOCK. If Yaksha has another account that's solely editing articles about Liberace or something, that's fine. If Yaksha is also participating in the WT:TV-NC discussion under another name, that's not. But I really don't see any evidence of that, and I don't think it helps our discussion to make accusations like that without solid evidence. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Aside from a checkuser result (which is not within my control, since I've sent out three requests so far, but without reply), what would you regard as evidence? --Elonka 07:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC) (copied from User talk:Josiah Rowe#Sockpuppetry)

Ideally, it would be a checkuser result. Failing that, some specific diffs pointing towards similar wording or typographical/grammatical quirks indicating the same human being behind the ID. And frankly, it would be useful if you had some indication of whose sockpuppet you think Yaksha is. The vague suspicions here don't seem to add up to much, in my judgment. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Shopping centre articles

I see that you are editing a significant number of shopping centre articles. I noticed you removed a citation for the Westfield Eastgardens article because it was from the corporate site. Just wondering is there a policy on this and if you could direct me to it? Todd661 08:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Sorry to bother you again though. I had a look at these and it appears to me that using corporate sites is ok if caution is used when using them. I'm pretty sure I didn't overly rely on them. especially now - I've added a few more for that particular site - but also readded that one. I know what you mean though with them shopping centre pages, some of them are just plain embaressing. That is my recent crusade - to try to get some of them up to scrath and others deleted...I've been midly successful. Todd661 09:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I also thought I'd let you know that Rebecca has reverted 3 7 of your edits today. Todd661 10:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of bad faith

I thought I'd bring to your attention that you've been accused of "bad faith" on an AFD you started, without a reason or evidence being cited. I strongly disagree that you've acted in bad faith here but thought you might like to tell your side as well. Seraphimblade 10:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Shopping centres, continued

What on earth is driving your continued drive to exterminate each and every shopping centre article, regardless of notability? I'm sick and tired of having to spend my every moment having to fight rearguard actions to stop good stuff from being deleted when I could be spending it writing better stuff.

It seems as if you won't stop until every article is either a) tagged with some sort of cleanup tag, b) referenced and written to the absolute best standards of any on this project, standards not expected of any other topic of article, or c) deleted. This isn't helping the project in the slightest. Rebecca 11:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My main interest is seeing every article categorized -- I just do the speedy-deletions and prods and AfDs as a side-hobby.  :) I'm not against shopping mall articles. I am against articles about non-notable businesses, which have no references aside from the business's own website, and make no claim of notability aside from being "a big mall". So yeah, I will not stop until every article is (1) properly categorized; and (2) has reliable sources which confirm notability. If both of those are covered though, then I really don't care that much about it. BTW, if articles had proper categories to begin with, they wouldn't be showing up at Special:Uncategorizedpages, which is why my attention is even being brought to them in the first place. --Elonka 19:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see them referenced too, but I'm sick of seeing them placed under threat of deletion if they're not, which is a double standard that applies to no other articles on Wikipedia. I'm also sick of these judgements being made without even the slightest effort to ascertain notability - while I've left a number of your tags on malls which did appear to be of local interest, you've nominated one of the most notable shopping centres in Australia (Bondi Junction) for deletion without any attempt to actually look into the individual case. Rebecca 00:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't they be getting merged at the very least? Even WP:LOCAL advocates that. There's really no reason to bring any of them to AFD - the choices should be keep or merge which means they should be hashed out on the talk pages, not AFD. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A merge is a possible, sure, but if every time a {{merge}}, {{local}}, or {{prod}} tag is added, it just gets reverted [20][21][22][23], and the article's sources and notability are already questionable, then the best way to proceed is to an AfD, and let the community decide. If you'll check the history on most of the articles that I've been nominating, I usually try several other methods of dealing with the article first, with AfD just being used as a last resort. --Elonka 19:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

But if you apply a merge tag, it's an inference that you don't even think it should be deleted - you think it should be merged, i.e. the content saved somewhere. AFD is not the next logical step after applying a merge tag. It's self-contradictory, esp. if you never actually merge the contents anywhere before it gets deleted. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that a {{db-spam}} tag is actually the recommended way to deal with these, per WP:CSD and the following Signpost article: [24] . So by suggesting {{merge}} or {{local}}, I'm actually trying to be gentle. Ditto with {{prod}} and {{afd}} which at least give the article a chance to prove itself, rather than heading straight out the door with G11. Please WP:AGF: I'm not tagging these articles because I hate them -- I just want them to come into compliance with anti-spam rules. I only use AfD as a last resort, when all other methods have failed. --Elonka 20:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You're making an awfully broad interpretation of G11, and one which, based on Jimbo's comments at the time of its implemention, I don't believe can actually be sustained. It was meant to deal with actual cases of spam - cases where a company or a staff member had posted an article to promote their product/company. It was not, however, meant to cover anything vaguely commercial which you personally deem to be non-notable. There is nothing in the Signpost article you referred to which supports that interpretation, and I would not hestitate to undo such a speedy deletion on the grounds that it was against policy. Furthermore, I have not reverted all your applications of local tags - simply those where they were being hit purely because they were unreferenced shopping centre articles, rather than shopping centres that actually appeared to be of only local interest. Finally, {{prod}} and {{afd}} are not a substitute for Wikipedia:Cleanup, which is where many of the articles you take issue with should be headed. Rebecca 00:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Who said I didn't AGF? I see what you're saying and it makes sense - and I even agree with merging many of them. I'm just saying that merging and deleting are contradictory concepts and you've proposed both. The content is probably good to save somewhere - at least in an abbreviated form - but you don't need AFD to do that. As far as WP:CSD#G11, that's if the article needed a total rewrite because it's such a filthy spammy mess. For the few of your mall AFDs, I don't see where that's the case - but that's always a matter of interpretation. I'll sometimes chop db-spam tagged articles down to stubs if they appear to be notable. Stubs are cheap and usually easy. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we please just all get along? All of the involved editors are committed and there's no need to get into a fight over shopping centers/centres. Perhaps there are too many or not enough articles about malls, arcades, shopping districts, promenades, supermarkets, etc. Merge, stop deleting, slow down, or do whatever it takes to get peace. We needn't ruffle each other over this. There's a simple, legitimate difference of opinion, with good faith on all sides. (There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Dead Malls, but no Wikipedia:WikiProject Malls that I can find.) Anyway, just be nice and it'll all work out. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 11:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul Andrews (magician)

I can see that you removed links to this page when it was deleted having been voted(?) not notable. It's back on line with every 'proposed deletion' flag, being removed almost immediately by an anonymous user. I've just added a flag again but any suggestions? —JuanTierpol (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2006

Thanks for letting me know. I agree that there was already consensus to delete, and I've flagged the article accordingly: [25]. Hopefully this should address things. If not, we can file a (third) AfD. Also, just FYI, once a {{prod}} tag has been removed once, it shouldn't be re-added -- the next step is {{afd}}. Just one of those little Wiki things.  :) --Elonka 21:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What she said. It's been WP:CSD#G4'ed. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

anything i can do?

Hola, Elonka. I am very much in agreement with your position and wish that I had been aware of the discussion so I could have backed u up. I have only been editing a few months and on Lost stuff for much less than that, and I didn't wander into this discussion until the last few days. This discussion is way long, and way thick, and in way numerous locations, so if you get a sec let me know:

1. Am I understanding the issue/history right? My understanding: there was a naming conventions discussion where some folx decided to strictly enforce the general guideline of only disambiguating in tv episode titles when absolutely necessary. Some agree (because they want to exactly follow the letter of the guideline) and others don't (because they see value in consistency for readers and editors).

2. Is there a new poll? Will there be a new one? If so, where?

3. Is there currently an actual discussion about the main tv naming guidelines, or is that closed? If so, can there be a new one? If so, where?

INMO, it is a bad idea to strictly follow the letter of the guideline (policy?) for TV episodes because it does not make sense. All episodes of a show should have a consistent form, and I don't think this is a "foolish consistency". It helps editors make links. It helps readers by making it more likely that links will work. It eliminates further arguing and guessing over what should be disambiguated, it eliminates the problem of having to later disambiguate when some other article is later added. It just makes sense. And since wikipedia is a community-based project, there is flexibility - rules, guidelines, policies, they are open for discussion and debate about what makes sense. Plus, a general principle from the Naming Conventions page reads: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." That right there says to me that predictability of linking carries some weight, while i have seen some posts that are trying to say that concerns about linking predictability have no relevance whatsoever. I don't think this issue is as cut and dry as some are trying to make it out to be, but then again I may not be understanding the issues properly. So what next? Thanks for your efforts. Riverbend 20:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, and taking the time to read through the rather voluminous discussions. :) I also appreciate your moral support at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) -- the whole thing has definitely gotten very uncivil, which has not been conducive to encouraging outside comment.

To answer your questions:

1. Yes, I think you're understanding the issue very well.

2. There is not yet a new poll. I've tried starting one a couple times, but I just get reverted.[26][27] I'm hoping that there will be a new poll, which will take place on that page.

3. Yes, there's still an open and active discussion, again on that page. Feel free to start any new sections that you want, or reply to anything on the page. The more outside opinions, the better.

If you want to take the time to do this, what I would recommend is that you start a new section like, "An outsider's view" or something, and summarize what you've learned, for the benefit of other people, like you, who may be reading the discussion but aren't sure how to join in. That would be helpful both to new folks (and I'd like to do everything possible to encourage other editors to participate), and also to the existing editors in the discussion. Also, if you're a member of any other WikiProjects or television discussion areas (like "List of episodes" articles) where there are editors that you think would be interested in this discussion, please be sure that there's a link to the discussion, posted somewhere on the page, to ensure that they're aware of it. Lastly, if you can think of any good compromise position to the debate, feel free to suggest something!

Thanks, and if you have any questions, let me know, --Elonka 20:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpupptery

I've said this many times before Elonka, there's nothing wrong with a "sockpuppet", so stop making a huge fuss with this "you've got a sockpuppet" business.

You really should stop throwing around accusations, unless you actually have reason (as in evidence) to believe i'm using a sockpuppet to "create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block", which i don't believe you do.

Accusing me of using a sockpuppet in that discussion for things like having a "narrow" range of edits (which i don't actually) or a lack of userpage (which is also sort of misleading) is just rediculas.

and I find your comment - "I've been making multiple backchannel requests for a checkuser" really quite disturbing. I had assumed checkuser was the only way on Wikipedia to confirm an ip address behind an account. Why do i have a distinctive feeling that these "backchannels" of yours are something which is not allowed? --`/aksha 02:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

*Sigh* - As you did with me, did you not bother to check his user creation log? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Though I appreciate that the log is definitely one source of information, in most cases I think it's of limited usefulness. For example, when you sent me that message, I logged off, created this new account, and logged back on. Does it show up in any of your logs? It doesn't seem to show up in mine. --ElonkaBot 03:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No, because you logged out first. You'd need to go to the user creation page while you're logged in. Then it would show up in your user creation log. The way you did it, there is no connection between the accounts. Of course that proves that someone can create disconnected accounts which would have to be checkuser'ed but you can at least find accounts which people aren't trying to hide. BTW, checkuser isn't completely infallible either - it would catch me since I have mostly static IPs but many other don't. If I routinely recycled my IP address at home, checkuser would probably only prove that I live in a certain geographic area - with literally around three million other people.

BTW, I'm curious about your RFCU motivation with WT:TV-NC. Are you just trying to root out one or two users? From what I remember there were one or two questionable ones on both sides. Are you checking them all or just the ones that did not vote similarly to you? Besides, one or two wouldn't make a dent in this case. You're better off with the tainted poll slant. If we asked the poor folks to run RFCU on every landslide AFD and WP:RM, etc., I think they'd start getting a little tired of that. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Westfield Bondi Junction

Just letting you know that I rewrote Westfield Bondi Junction - although I forgot to log in. Is there anything else you think that can be added to bring it up to scratch? Todd661 11:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Catagorizing

thanks for notifying me that the articles I have written were uncategorized. I would like to fix this but I am confused as to how i know what categories exist that would be pertinent to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewwiki (talk • contribs) 06:53, November 22, 2006 (UTC)

Protecting pages against policy

Some time ago you posted a message at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Admin protecting an article against policy but didn't get any response. Some recent incidents of what I believe to be administrators protecting pages against policy have come to my attention, so I am trying to get a discussion started on the issues. I'd appreciate your contributions, both at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Admin protecting an article against policy and at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Admins protecting their own pages. —Psychonaut 20:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Lost episodes

I agree with what our mediation accomplished and the guidelines we produced; however, I don't recall making any naming guidelines for the episode articles, and it is at this point where I think editors, and I, disagree with your stance. What I think- having (Lost) at the end of each episode article does not make it any easier for the reader. And since we've agreed and worked together in the past, I definitely want to hear what you have to say too. -- Wikipedical 23:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• I mean, I don't really think my viewpoint has changed concerning the necessity of disambiguation, but since I'm not really keeping up with the naming conventions discussions that much, wanna fill me in on what's being debated? Thanks. -- Wikipedical 22:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• That is reasonable and I agree with that. If the whole Wikipedia says episode summaries should be 1000 words, our 500 word compromise from the mediation is useless. We should be able to defend the work that we have done. However, what we are discussing involves guidelines not covered by or relevant to our mediation. I mean, you are the one that wants to disambiguate all articles, and I assume you would want that as a standard with all episode articles. Maybe not. Anyway, this is something one Wikiproject should not be able to do, and I agree with these other points raised on the issue. The guidelines set by our mediation were made through a formal process on Wikipedia and should definitely be maintained by the Lost Wikiproject. However, as part of the consensus that thinks naming disambiguation is unnecessary, I do not think members of our Wikiproject should be individually able to set such other guidelines for Lost articles or for all of Wikipedia. -- Wikipedical 03:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT

(comment sent to Wknight94 (talk · contribs)) At Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), we are attempting to have a polite discussion about the wording of a poll -- a poll which multiple editors have requested be re-run, since the original version was very tangled.[28] I understand that you do not agree that the poll should be re-run. However, this does not give you the right to accuse me (again) of disruption, nor to accuse me of violating WP:POINT.[29][30]. Can you please explain just exactly which clause of WP:POINT you believe is being violated? Just to be clear, it is my opinion that your repeated statements against me are falling into the realm of a personal attack. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Elonka 15:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say anything against you at all. I said starting this poll would be a disruption - asking zillions of people to look at a poll question which has already been addressed by dozens of people. You need to read both WP:POINT and WP:NPA. Your accusing me of a personal attack when nothing was directed at you personally is itself a personal attack.

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

XPLANE deletion review

Elonka, would you mind weighing in on the deletion review for XPLANE at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 24? Your comments/opinions are much appreciated.Dgray xplane 15:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Should I answer here or on my talk page? Dgray xplane 18:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Article on faluche

I saw that you had edited the article on the faluche, and I also see from your user page that you can speak French. The faluche article appears to have been machine-translated from French, or written by someone who is not a native English speaker. I did a lot of work on it to try to clean up some of the English translation, but I am not a French speaker, so some of it was not clear to me as to how it should be translated. If you have the time and inclination, perhaps you could have a go at it. The article is actually pretty interesting and needs to have the English cleaned up somewhat by a bilingual French-English speaker. The article also exists in the French Wikipedia if that would help with the translations. •DanMS 23:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

More on the WP:TV-NC situation

I've replied to your comment at User talk:Josiah Rowe#Sockpuppetry, since more people seem to be commenting there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD on two of your original articles

Hi, Elonka,

I've nominated two of the articles you originated on your ancestors, Antoni Dunin and Rodryg Dunin, under AfD. Please feel free to participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antoni Dunin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodryg Dunin. Thank you, --Leflyman^Talk 07:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Sure, I would love to help, just provide me with the link. WikieZach| talk 22:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A summary would be nice. WikieZach| talk 11:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-intimidation?

You left the following comment on another users talk page (emphasis added by me):

Shopping centers

I've noticed that you're going through and creating or editing dozens of articles about shopping centers around the world. Though I appreciate your effort, please be aware that most of these articles are going to be deleted, as they do not satisfy the Wikipedia policies on Verifiability or notability. Is there perhaps another subject that you would like to help with? --Elonka 21:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, it implies you have some autocratic right to delete pages. Secondly, the same could be said of any Wikipedia article.

How about instead of attacking users for their interests you guide them toward making the article meet Wikipedias primary standard of verifiability - which is an actual standard, as opposed to notability which is some sort of crutch people lean on at AfD (mainly when they say "NN,SD")? Garrie 22:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that if you pause to take a look at that user's contribution history: Tuddy (talk · contribs), you'll see that the account was created for the primary purpose of promoting shopping centers. And if you take another look at the user's talkpage, you'll see that several editors were expressing concerns about the user's activities. My own comment was fairly mild, and a gentle encouragement to perhaps spend some time working in other areas of Wikipedia. As it is, several of the articles created were indeed deleted (by other admins, since I have no deletion tools) as spam, though they don't show up in the contrib history, since they've already been deleted. Others were challenged and have had references added, so they are no longer an issue. Several others are still in a pretty much unreferenced state, or are under debate in various venues around Wikipedia. To my knowledge, no articles were deleted after they had reliable sources added (which is as it should be). If you are concerned about keeping those articles, I recommend that that's where you spend your time, is improving their sources. --Elonka 23:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I did indeed look at that user's contributions and in fact our paths have crossed before regarding several articles. I find it difficult to see enough commonality between all the articles that user has worked on to call them spam - maybe if they were ALL westfields it would be a different matter? There is a difference between spam, and poorly written articles.

Mainly - the user would have been better served with something constructive about their area of interest. I don't like the huge numbers of articles regarding public transport but it isn't in anyones interest for me to go on a users talk page and say "you are wasting your time writing these articles, as they are goint to be deleted".

If you look at my contributions - which are modest lately - you will see that I have been improving these articles through adding referenced material, which is what you should have suggested to Tuddy.

BTW. I don't object to you following the following simple process:

1. tag articles as lacking RS

2. wait a reasonable timeframe

3. remove all non-sourced material

4. propose article for speedy deletion.

I now undertand this is the course I should have followed with some fairly ordinary articles regarding shopping centres a while ago when I went proposing them for merger. Garrie 02:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we're mostly in agreement.  :) I've been dealing with dozens of shopping mall articles lately (mostly because they keep showing up at Special:Uncategorizedpages, which is one of my primary hangouts), and in general, my first action has usually been to tag them with {{local}}, which suggests merge or expansion. If that was declined (meaning that the tag was removed), I often request sources, or place a {{prod}} tag on the article, stating my concerns. If a prod tag gets removed, then there's little choice but to go on to AfD from there, which I've done with a very few articles.

As for the definition of "spam," there's actually been a request from the Wikimedia Foundation for us to be much more strict about commercial articles. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-10-02/More CSD, and the specific post is at: [31]: "Administrators and new page patrol need to be clear when they see new usernames and page creation which are blatantly commercial - shoot on sight." I have tagged many many commercial articles (not just shopping malls) with {{db-spam}}, and in nearly all cases, the reviewing admins agree and delete the articles on sight. If anything, I think that I've actually been very gentle with several shopping mall articles that should have been tagged as spam (and almost certainly would have been speedily-deleted), by my instead requesting citations or tagging them with {{local}}. So, considering my actions of being more forgiving with shopping malls, I actually find it somewhat ironic that I'm being accused of being too strict with them.  ;) --Elonka 10:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Raven (Radio Presenter)

Hello. You recently tagged an article as being about a nn subject, but your note was removed by an anon. Since my PROD was also removed, I have nominated it for deletion... Just so you know... The JPS^{talk to me} 14:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Captive State

Hi. Please could you let me know on the discussion page your reasoning for nominating this article for deletion? Is it Wikipedia policy to not allow pages describing the contents of books or novels, or is it merely the content/style you disagree with? Many thanks. Chill doubt

Naming convention dispute

Dear lord, after reading your comments and checking it out, there are MANY problems. Please sumbit a formal request with the Medcabal, and I will be able to focus the stuff there. I am also willing to take this to Arbcom if needed (hopefully it won't be). And also tell them where to find me, as I will not be able to directly mediate that page for a few days; so just tell them to direct ALL problems at me. Thanks, hope I can help! WikieZach| talk 22:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, Elonka, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide to filing a Request for Mediation says that only the originator should edit the "issues to mediate" section; if you want to restate the issue of WikiProject jurisdiction, please do so in the "Additional issues to mediate" section. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If I understand the guide correctly, the correct course of action would be for you to move the question from the "Issues to mediate" section to "Additional issues to mediate". I'm loath to edit the latter section myself, since the page says "the initiating party should not edit the "Additional issues to mediate" section under any circumstances". Perhaps I'll ask Essjay or another MedCom member what the correct course of action is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern — however, I think that what's important here is that we get the mediation started, rather than worrying about how the questions are framed. I don't really see a substantial difference of content between the questions "If a wide discussion of Wikipedians opposes a guideline developed by a WikiProject, which takes precedence?" and "Should WikiProjects be allowed to set reasonable guidelines for the articles within their sphere of influence, even if those guidelines are not in strict adherence to Wikipedia-wide guidelines?"; the issue being discussed is the same. I hope an member of the Mediation Committee can sort out the mess at the request page — I'd rather not muddy the waters further myself. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, with this edit, I trust you found everyone with multiple posts in the discussion? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, good. Because I found Chuq (talk · contribs) who had over two dozen edits to the discussion and yet was left out. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't Josiah Rowe I was curious about. It was your edit declaring "multiple posts" as a criteria that piqued my interest. Finding someone with over 25 posts still missing after that was peculiar to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, is there any particular reason you haven't signed the RfM yet? You've edited the RfM page, but not signed your agreement. Surely your disagreement over the question framing isn't sufficient for you to want to sabotage the mediation? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Whee, it's been a whole, what, three hours since it was proposed, and you're already accusing me of sabotage? Breathe, man, breathe. :) --Elonka 06:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry — I didn't mean to accuse you of anything, and "sabotage" was an infelicitous word choice. I just thought it was odd that you would edit the page but not indicate whether you agree to the mediation. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, I'm concerned that you have now edited Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) several times but have not agreed to mediation. I fear that this may jeopardize the case's chances of being accepted. I think that if you have concerns about the RfM, it would be best to discuss them at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) instead of editing the page any more. I also hope that you will agree to the mediation process. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

15 hours. --Elonka 23:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In 26 hours

In 36 hours I will send a long message to the Meccom about arbcom procedure on this dispute as related to others. WikieZach| talk 04:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Antoni Dunin

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Articles_for_deletion We could not yet find any reasons for not deleting the article. What for was the Virtuti Militari? If you can write this story we have a reason for not deleting the biography. While the story of his children is of interest to his descendants, as an encyclopedia we have to strictly inform only on subjects of public interest and this is limited to the deeds and biography of Mr. Dunin. We can only briefly summarize that his children escaped via their uncle (a church dignitary) and descendants live in England/USA? now. contrary to the current structure of the article this is the least important point for the public interest in Antoni Dunin.

pl:Order Virtuti Militari doesn't lists an Antoni Dunin among the recipients. My Polish is not sufficient to know whether the list is complete. Wandalstouring 05:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Lost episode sources

A question which mixes two of your recent issues, mall articles without secondary sources and Lost episode articles: Why do you find it acceptable that few (if any) Lost episodes have primary sources, let alone secondary sources, while, at the same time, it is so objectionable that malls do not have secondary sources, that you've brought several of them to WP:AFD? —Wknight94 (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree that the Lost episode articles need {{unreferenced}} tags on them at the very least? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, no, it would not be proper to add {{unref}} to the many thousands of television episode articles around Wikipedia, since by their very nature, the episode effectively is a reference. I think this has been discussed at the talk page of WP:V, you might want to check there and toss in a question if it's a concern, or maybe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. --Elonka 19:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll think about that since there are still no secondary references. Given that, you may want to reconsider your stance against mall articles which suffer from the same problem. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to make sure I'm clear on this, are you saying that because you disagree with whether or not I add a {{primarysources}} tag to an article on a shopping mall, that you are considering adding {{unref}} tags to every television episode article on Wikipedia, to make some kind of point? --Elonka 21:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am saying the two situations are almost identical. Your adding {{primarysources}} to a zillion harmless mall articles - but not to the zillion harmless episode articles - gives the appearance that you are trying to make a point (i.e., you have gone beyond the "consideration" phase). Unless you see some contrast that I'm not seeing, it seems you should be adding the tag to both mall articles and episode articles - or you should be adding to neither. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Very sorry if this is inappropriate for me to jump in and comment on what you guys were talking about, but I have a question about the subject matter. Does Wikipedia consider primary and secondary sources to be equally essential? I have no idea. If so, then I sort of see wknight's point (except that I don't think that any of us are really obligated to police everything that we possibly could because of time and interest constraints, and that we shouldn't judge each other for how we choose to focus our efforts, as long as our edits themselves don't violate wikirules). If not, then aren't they totally separate things? Riverbend 22:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Quick Question

Sorry to be a bother, but I had a quick question to ask you. The question is in reference to the article "Fat Pig". You had given a recommendation to add links to the article in some relevant categories. How exactly would I go about doing that? That may seem like a stupid question, however, I am rather new here.

Thanks a lot!

JimmySmitts 14:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

discussing the framing issues for the mediation

At Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) (the talk page for mediation stuff) there is a discussion started focused specifically on resolving the naming issues, fyi. Riverbend 20:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Notability guideline being developed for malls

You have created or commented on AfDs forShopping Malls regarding criteria for having an article. Please see WP:MALL where there is an ongoing attempt to create a guideline for which malls are deserving of articles. Your thoughts are appreciated. Thanks! Edison 06:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of Your Concerns

Hello again, Elonka. I hope you had an enjoyable holiday last week.

I wanted to check with you to make sure that I understand your exact concerns regarding TV:NC so that I do not misrepresent you. This is my understanding of your position:

1. As a general rule, episode articles should not be disambiguated unless necessary.
2. As with any other guideline on Wikipedia, if there is consensus among editors of a particular series (like Lost or Star Trek) that the series qualifies as an exceptional case, then it is appropriate to maintain different naming conventions for that series.
3. The TV:NC guideline page should include a statement acknowledging item #2.

If I am correct, then I think we are much closer to a consensus than people think, because I think there is already a consensus on the first two points. In this case, I intend to make a much bigger stink because I think there are a lot of people who are misunderstanding the issue.

I wanted to check with you, though, because I want to make sure I've got it right. If, for example, you actually disagree with the general guideline, but you are "settling" for the statement about exceptions as a means of compromise, then I want to make sure that your actual concerns are addressed.

So, to sum up, do the three statements above accurately and completely represent your position on the issue? Thanks again. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 23:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Elonka; that does help quite a bit. How about this for #2: "If there is a consensus among editors of a particular series (like Lost or Star Trek) that the series should follow a different naming convention, then it is appropriate to maintain a different naming convention for that series." Does that more accurately portray your position? --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 00:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, Elonka! --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 00:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: LOST episode article titles

Hi Elonka, Sure, I'll participate in the discussions! I have a few thoughts that I'm sure will swing in favour of having episode pages include "episode" in the parentheses. --SilvaStorm

Alright, I'll get on to it ASAP. :) --SilvaStorm

Spellchecking

Just dropping by to say thank you for the copyediting of my spelling errors on various mediation pages; one drawback of being a very rapid typist (about 90wpm) is that my accuracy is shot. Thanks a bunch for checking up on me! Essjay (Talk) 03:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

TV naming update

Hi, Elonka. I'm afraid that the attempt to get moderation for the TV dispute seems to have gone off the rails. You will be interested in this post by Thatcher131, the moderator of the previous Lost dispute. I think that the next step is up to you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The Westfield Groupo

Hi. Let's assume for the moment that The Westfield Group is a notable company - at least it would appear as Starbucks - I would like to get the main TWG article looking more like a WP:CORP FA class article. Do you agree, that in doing this, an important step would be to move the list of locations to List of Westfield shopping centres in ... by nation? I have dropped a proposal on the talk page but no comments there yet.Garrie 04:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Threatening with blocks

Please do not threaten people with blocks when you have not been authorized to do so. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)