User talk:Elonka

Your message

Elonka, you might like to know that Charles Matthews and I had discussed you in reference to Slrubenstein's RfC already on Monday. I've had a similar discussion with Paul August on a related matter some time back. It has been agreed that your interference can sometimes be counter-productive. This is just a friendly reminder, so that in future you can avoid jumping the gun and intervening in matters which don't directly concern you. Even though it is undoubtedly not your intent, this kind of intervening out of the blue can come across as bullying and threatening, and might occasionally cause offense. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally could you please remove the template from the bottom of this page? User talk:Elonka was not a battle fought between the Greeks and the Persians, at least as far as Herodotus of Halicarnassus was concerned. Or is there is there something I've missed? Mathsci (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

A kindly spirit, Acalamari, has added a colon which solves the mystery :-) Mathsci (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at that RfC (at least not yet), but I believe a large part of the whole purpose of RfCs is to invite uninvolved people to give their opinions, so I don't think it's valid to criticize someone for doing so. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 11:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, to clarify, Mathsci did raise an issue about the RfC and whether it would be "diverted". There are people who are more set on that than Elonka, and I've had a busy time on the talk page there trying to point out what the topic actually is. I also encouraged Mathsci to bring issues and concerns with Elonka to me at any time, and explained a bit about overall policy as I see it. That was the mail, really. This is a normal sort of mediation-lite: respond to current issues and explain that I'm listening and wish to reduce tension. I appreciate that this is a fraught moment, but I've tried to deal with the whole Mathsci side on the RfC talk page there, to reduce misconceptions and try to stop people getting the wrong end of the stick. The block episode is closed, on the issue that set it off, and there is no reason for it to be hashed over further. On the other hand, the RfC is about getting a proper discussion and (I sincerely hope) divert any future unblockings that put the cart before the horse. Enough metaphors for now ... I'm obviously sending you people private mails also. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci may have misremembered, or read more into our discussions than was intended. Paul August ☎ 19:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Paul. I'm not going to quote your email on wiki, since it was private: it concerned the posting of apologies. I'll anyway be in contact with you privately on related matters. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Review

Shell Kinney has made a conclusion about the existence of a consensus here. When you have the time, I would like you to review these conclusions. My contention is that the "clear consensus" which she describes does not exist and that the community has not agreed to suspend the policy of WP:NOR in order to use non-chiropractic spinal manipulation research out of context in a manner which their authors did not intend them to be used (to discuss the efficacy/safety of chiropractic). Again, when you have the time, would you please review the sum of the various RfCs and see if you think such a clear consensus exists? Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, will take a look. I did see it go by, but to be honest, I did not take the time to personally review all of the same pages that she did. If/when I have time though, I'll try to do so, and will let you know, one way or the other. For what it's worth, she's a member of WP:MEDCOM, so has a fairly good track record of dealing with complex disputes. I recommend respecting her decision for now... Are there are other issues on the page that are worth discussing in the meantime? Or does everything really hinge on this one point? --Elonka 02:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, trying to be precise: if the post indicates that there is consensus that having Spinal Manipulation in the Chiropractic article is not original research, there was definitely no consensus on that. There was only consensus that editors believe that SM is related to Chiro, which is a totally obvious observation. But I'm spread too thin right now... ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 03:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that Shell overlooked a lot of editors' input in this regard. Many outside editors (like Martinphi) agreed that the article is engaging in OR when it presents non-chiropractic spinal manipulation in a discussion about chiropractic's efficacy. I respect Shell's objectivity, but I think she is really overlooking inside and outside agreement that the article does contain OR. To list a few editors who agreed that there is OR as described: Myself, Dematt, Martinphi, Ludwig2 (outside editor), DigitalC, Surturz (was outside when he.she firt commented on this), ZayZayEm (outside editor), TheDoctorIsIn, and MaxPont (outside editor). That's at least 9 editors strong who feel that there is an OR violation when we present non-chiropractic research as a means to discuss chiropractic. I just can't see how Shell can think there was a consensus in the face of this many dissenting opinions. My best guess is that she simply overlooked the majority of these editors' responses. But maybe there is actually something which I am overlooking here. Unfortunately, much our discussions hinge on Shell's conclusion about this supposed consensus to the point where she won't even let us discuss our points in the ongoing mediation. Anyhow, when you get a chance. Much appreciated. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend checking with Tim Vickers and getting his take on this as well, before drawing any conclusions on the point.Woonpton (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I suggest you not be diverted from the main issue here, which is whether OR actually is occurring when Wikipedia editors do what chiropractic's top researchers and other chiropractors do all the time. The "consensus" issue is another matter that can easily divert you from the main point. Even if there is doubt about whether a consensus exists, the main issue is still whether OR is occurring. In short, there are two issues. One is the main point of the whole series of discussions, RfCs, and stonewalling over several months, all maintained and driven by Levine2112 (supported by several "straight" chiropractic supporters), and the other is the one presented to you here as a diversion from that point. What this amounts to is more admin shopping. -- Fyslee / talk 05:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, you are not obligated to decide if OR is occuring. Mr. Fyslee says you are being diverted from making such a decision; however, you giving your personal opinion on the content dispute would invalidate you as an univolved admin. Rather, I came here asking you to evaluate a string of discussions to determine if truly any consensus does exist; a request - should you chose to honor - completely in the realm of an uninvolved admin. Yes? Either way, thanks. I appreciate the response thus far. :-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 09:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Some non-technical sources might be useful as an introduction, since many of the reviews aren't free-access. Chiropractors are offering 'worthless' form of treatment, Spinal manipulation 'has little effect on back pain' and Back treatment 'has few benefits'. There is also this older and more positive NYT article Back Manipulation Gains Respectability. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

TimVickers, have you had a chance to review Shell Kinney's consensus determination here?[1] Would you concur with her summary, or do you disagree? --Elonka 18:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest I see it as a compete no-brainer that studies on the effectiveness of spinal manipulation (the core technique of chiropractors) should be cited in this article, and we should follow the lead of other RS that also cite such studies to comment on chiropracty. I said this in two of the more recent RfCs. However, since I commented in these RfCs I don't want to try to assess the consensus, since I have an obvious bias. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No leave me on for now, I'm not going to edit the article, I'm instead going to try to continue to provide an uninvolved opinion on the talkpage. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll just remove myself from the log. I'm falling between two stools - not an editor, but too well-known to the disputants to act without drama. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've relisted myself as providing outside advice/opinion on talkpage, which is a specific category in the policy. I'll follow the "best practice" it defines of course. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to a past discussion on reviews of SM research. See User talk:Elonka/Archive 27#Some concern.[2]. QuackGuru 19:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear here, if I review the discussions, it will not be to give my personal opinion on whether spinal manipulation does or doesn't relate to chiropractic. Instead, I will be reading with an eye towards describing the consensus of the discussions that have already taken place. Will keep you posted, --Elonka 01:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yakumo (Naruto)

Why was this one deleted? Seems a better target has been found, Land of Fire. Could you restore the redirect? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I re-created it, and left a note for the deleting admin. They did the right thing, but now that we've got a better target, it makes sense to re-create the redirect. One thing you could help with though, is sourcing? The paragraph at Land of Fire#Kurama clan would be greatly strengthened if there were a third-party source attached to it.  :) Thanks, --Elonka 19:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mind sourcing, Land of Fire was redirected [3]. Guess we'll have to delete the redirects for real this time ... Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, I'd actually rather see Land of Fire redirected to Tierra del Fuego, with a disambig note that mentions the Naruto entity. Or if not, we'd better add a {{redirect}} tag to the current target. --Elonka 17:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can hatnote that section like this: {{Redirect|Land of Fire|the group of islands|Tierra del Fuego}}

Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've given it more thought, and I feel strongly that it should go to Tierra del Fuego (since, after all, "Land of Fire" is a bolded alternate term in the lead). Looking at a pop culture Google search, it's about equal (30,000 hits) for either topic. But if you actually look at academic/published sources (scholar.google.com, books.google.com), it's clear that Tierra del Fuego is the proper target. If Land of Fire were still its own page, it might be appropriate to keep the link there. But now that it's just a few lines buried on a separate page? No, Tierra del Fuego is the way to go. --Elonka 18:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you want to do about that sounds fine. I just want Yakumo (Naruto), Kurama (Naruto), Yakumo Kurama, and Kurama Yakumo deleted or targeting an area which mentions the character. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you have taken care of the hatnoting, but what about the unneeded redirects? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you think of anywhere that it would make sense to work them in? For example, to expand the "Land of Fire" paragraph in the World of Naruto article? Are the characters notable enough for that? If they're mentioned there, then it would make sense to keep the redirects around. But if they're not notable enough for even a mention in a subsection of any article, we can probably tag the redirects for deletion. --Elonka 17:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the character is too minor to mention. Think that's one of the reasons why Land of Fire was redirected, it was a non-notable subject. Moving on, what tags should be placed on the redirects? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, are you ignoring this post? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I had backburnered it since I was hoping to find some other location where the characters might fit. Is there an urgency for deleting the redirects? I guess you could file an RfD on them. --Elonka 19:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That'd be a waste of time. Why didn't you just say you were reluctant to erase them? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Hi - I've made a detailed reply at User talk:Tmtoulouse. Thanks. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 18:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Paul Pantone

Hello, you seem to be the expert on topics like this.

user:guyonthesubway put the wrong date on Paul Pantone's article, I corrected this, it was immediately reverted by user:Arthur Rubin, I asked for a 3rd opinion[4] and I put the correct date and 2 sources in the article, I do remember the date myself, the reviewing editor also reverted the date[5] and deleted my request. [6] But it's the wrong date, I asked for an explanation,[7] the response was that I should use the talk page to discuss my dispute,[8] But there cant be any dispute? The sources are correct. I then get sort-of accused of edit warring?Talk:Paul_Pantone#Edit_warring_and_possible_misunderstanding

The story is as simple as it is horrifying. Pantone was refused his right to have a lawyer, he was hospitalised indefinitely without any sentencing. This happened in 2005, the other editors want to change this into 2008. Looking over the archive everything added to the article seems to get deleted?

This is an American inventor of great importance. See this whole video, what he says isn't important, just looking will tell you enough about the oil monopoly. Hundreds of GEET engines exist, here are 100 of them in France. Trucks, cars, generators, mowers and tractors. etc All running on a mixture of water and old oil, petroleum, alcohol and just about everything else. (see the video)

People should be building this, not lying about it. There are so much lies in the edit archive it's kind of obvious. But lets focus on the date? Where does Jan 2008 come from? It was in 2005! I know it was, the news says it was, the Paul Pantone defence program website says it was. So why 2008? Where did this date come from? I don't see how I can debate the need to cite sources on the article talk page, do you?

I thought perhaps you can shine your light on this darkness :-) They are kinda obvious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Pantone&action=history

Thanks,

Resess (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• (See also: User talk:Resess#Your WP 3O request.) — Athaenara ✉ 19:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, in case you still want to say something about this. I've created a topic here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=252142130#Paul_Pantone

Thanks, Resess (talk) 12:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support!

Thanks for supporting my successful Rfa! Per your concern, I will be trying to devote some time to content creation from now on. Hope to work with you soon!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 20:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Second Intifada

Hi Elonka,

My apologies, I only saw your warning on that talk page after explaining my edits which were challenged by Nishamdi on the Talk page, and then reverting Nishandi's revert of my edits. I'll take a voluntary break form this page for a while, as I don't appreciate the lack of collegiality being displayed there. NoCal100 (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent post

I really like this. You made me smile on a miserable Sunday morning. Thanks. Alun (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome. I look forward to when we can put this one to bed, and get back to work on the articles!  :) --Elonka 06:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Tone

PalestineRemembered, please do not use such language as "racists" towards other editors.[9] If you continue with this kind of language, you may be placed under ArbCom restrictions. Instead, please limit your comments on article talkpages just to the content of the articles, and do not make comments about the contributors. Thanks, --Elonka 22:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've not pointed a finger at anyone in particular(and I fully understand that you'd prefer I not do so). I'm simply reminding you that more editors easily identified as racists have arrived at article Second Intifada:

Where they're doing untold damage - even Israeli newspapers have called this intifada a "war on the Palestinian people" and told us that the ""first three months ... Israeli casualties was low ... IDF proudly cited the large number of Palestinian casualties". Other people we'd confidently expect to support Israel say things like "Even under Barak, the Israeli response to the initial violence by Palestinians was massive and disproportionate, clearly aimed at devastation rather than controlling the uprising".

Under these circumstances, the mass tag-team and edit-warring going on to remove every vestige of these elements (including the widely commentd and astonishing one million bullets fired in the first few days), by editors who refer to the victims as "crack-head Arabs" and in some cases are reasonably suspected of a personal involvement that they refuse to deny is racism. It's vaguely disturbing I need to remind you that racists are indef-blocked from the project every day because I know you'd have no sympathy with them. PR^talk 09:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Lucky, lucky

I've noticed you've a Wiki-article about you. I wonder how many Wiki editors can claim that (besides you & JW)? GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Might try Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles, not that rare it seems. MBisanz ^talk 22:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting list. Any idea how many are admins? --Elonka 16:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikivulture

I like it. So much that I posted a preliminary description on the Fauna talk page for comments and requested elaboration. Feel free to add anything you like to it. There is actually an example on my talk page under Recent Coal Mining Edits, but that's not the only time its happened in my short stint on Wiki.

Also, thanks for your earlier message referring to the interesting essay on a different subject. We all need a little humor here sometimes. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you receive my offsite email? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and have replied. And if you use IMs, feel free to contact me that way as well.  :) --Elonka 22:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts

Thanks very much for trying to keep things calm and focused. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 21:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You invited me to express any further concerns I had in respect of Earle Martin's actions here. I'm deeply unimpressed that he thinks there was anything at all wrong or misguided in his actions, according to his response to my expression of concern, and I think it makes him an unsafe admin. I don't propose to take the matter further but would not wish to walk away as if everything if fine. Everything is not fine. Admins should not misuse their access to tools, and ideally should be big enough to acknowledge even singular errors of judgment. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there were some questionable decisions made. However, it's also worth remembering that admins are human, and make mistakes. Though I agree that it looks like Earle Martin may have gotten a bit too close to this one issue, and he definitely made a bad block, I haven't seen anything to indicate that there's a pattern of behavior here, so I don't think it's worth de-sysopping someone over. Heck, if we de-sysopped every admin who made a single mistake, we wouldn't have many left.  :) I do agree though that it would be helpful if Earle were to acknowledge the community's concerns here. Apologies can be very useful at de-escalating tense situations. --Elonka 16:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks, Elonka, for your block here: [10]. I usually wait until a final warning has been given, but I reported this user because of the (creepy) nature of their edits. Cheers, JNW (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I reviewed the contribs and deleted contribs, and it was obvious that there was nothing productive coming from that account. --Elonka 16:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the warning; I was consciously trying to avoid 3RR and would not have done a 4th revert. I will mention things like that on the Talk Page in the future (though this user claims to be 'unaware' of Talk Pages, hehe). I did attempt to contact the user directly (could have been a little more personable I guess), as you can see on his Talk, at least. DP76764 (Talk) 20:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that you've been careful about that, but be aware that a block can still be issued even if you don't go over 3RR. As for your comments at the other editor's talkpage, it's better than nothing, but even better than that, would have been to make at least one or two good faith approaches, before immediately jumping to a 3RR warning. I find a useful technique is to imagine that I'm dealing with a respected elder who's a bit befuddled by this whole "internet thing". So just because they're doing things "wrong" doesn't mean that they're being malicious -- they may just be really confused! So a bit of patient explanation can sometimes do wonders, rather than jumping to an immediate bite of a new user. For example, on the first revert, start a thread at the talkpage which explains the disagreement. Then in your revert edit summaries put "see talk". Then if the reverting continues, post a note to the other editor's talkpage like, "Hi, I see we're having a dispute at <article>. I'd like to try and work this out amicably, could you please join the discussion at <talk page link>? Thanks." Then if they still ignore you, a 3RR warning is definitely appropriate. But you really have to show that you at least tried to work things out in a friendly way. Not just to satisfy policy requirements, but because it really can help de-escalate disputes. Look at it this way: Since you and this other editor obviously have similar areas of interest, wouldn't it be better to help tutor them on the Ways of the Wiki, so you have a useful ally in the topic area? We definitely need all the good editors we can get!  :) --Elonka 20:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Completely agree (I seem to have gotten rusty on my 'customer service' skills). Either that or too much cynicism about 'that dang ol internetz'. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go kick myself for forgetting these basic customer service techniques. DP76764 (Talk) 20:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Re; Request

Good idea. I added a diff to my comment in the RFC section. I probably need to add more diffs, but I am a little tired at the moment, and need to eat and sleep. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. And I know it may seem odd to you, because you're extremely familiar with the article and its sources. But to someone coming in "cold" for an RfC, all they have to start is maybe a one-line question about "Is WP:SYNTH being violated", and then they get to the talkpage and it just says, "So and so removed sources", but it doesn't say which sources, or why it was a problem. So it can be really helpful in an RfC to have a few sentences which describe just what exactly the problem is. That way outside commenters can focus their energies on discussing the exact point of dispute, without having to spend an hour (or more!) sifting through everything. Which, to be honest, most of them won't do. If it takes more than 10 minutes, they're already gone.  ;) --Elonka 22:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Elonka, just want to drop by to say thanks for your diligence in notifying WikiProjects about related AFDs. Most recently, you flagged the Chamberlain-Ferris Act, which we weren't aware existed, and yet which moves us significantly forward in our plans to cover a broader subject. Your note, like so many before it, is very much appreciated! -Pete (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the kind words.  :) I just recently installed the Delsort tab for Twinkle, and I have to admit that I've been having fun churning through AfDs and figuring how to properly notify the correct projects. That particular AfD about the Chamberlain-Ferris Act was problematic, because it didn't seem to fit into any one clear category. So I opted to notify several, including California and Oregon. Thanks for letting me know that it was the right choice! Thanks also for your own efforts in improving the encyclopedia, --Elonka 00:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: album

heh. oops. Do you think I should restore it? I mean, I don't think there's going to be any reliable info about it. (I know that doesn't necessarily mean it qualifies for CSD, but it seems, well, dumb to restore it and then prod it.) Thingg^⊕⊗ 03:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done I really don't think it's a good idea to restore the other page though. I will do it, but I don't think it's a good idea at all. Especially after seeing this. Thingg^⊕⊗ 03:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

ehh.. I'll just let the AfD run it's course. It's probably better that way anyway. Thanks for the heads-up about the album article btw. Thingg^⊕⊗ 03:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

oh crap. I've been found out. *jumps through window* yeah I've been monitoring it for a while. I'm a pretty new admin and I've been really busy in RL lately so I haven't had much time to use the new toystools and I noticed there were like 130 entries in C:CSD around 00:00 UTC so I worked on clearing that out and then just kind of kept hanging around there. Thingg^⊕⊗ 04:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Now you're making me hungry..... (mmm... junk food...) heh. anyway, thanks again for the help. I've got to get to bed now, so you can have CSD all to yourself. ;) Thingg^⊕⊗ 04:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Music Glue

"Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content[3] is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria.

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[4] except for the following: Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5] Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores."

I protest the speedy deletion of the Music Glue article. According to the above description, the website is significant. It was reported on by the popular New Zealand current affairs television show Campbell Live just yesterday. You can see it here: http://www.3news.co.nz/Video/CampbellLive/tabid/367/articleID/80773/cat/84/Default.aspx

It has also been reported on by this website: http://www.dmwmedia.com/tags/music-glue

As you can see in the above article, the hugely popular band Marillion has partnered with Music Glue, and is using their service to distribute their newly released album, Happiness is the Road.

I believe this is sufficient evidence to show that this web content article is significant and does not deserve speedy deletion.

Regards, Anonymousaperson (talk) 08:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. I took another look at the Music Glue article, and the deletion was appropriate, because there were not any sources there at the time, and the content that was listed, seemed promotional in nature. Please do not take it personally: Many thousands of articles are attempted on Wikipedia each day, and many thousands are deleted within minutes, because a lot of spam comes in. It's a fairly brutal process, but we still get over a thousand "real" articles that stick around each day, so overall it works.  :) If you do feel that "Music Glue" is genuinely notable, I recommend trying to create an article in your userspace, at User:Anonymousaperson/Draft. That way you can take your time adding sources. When you think the page is ready, ask another Wikipedian (such as myself) to review it, and if we think it's ready, we can move it into "article space". If not, we can give you specific instructions on what needs to be improved. How does that sound? --Elonka 20:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

6afraidof7

Yes, we are one and the same. --Heslopian (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

archiving

Thanks Elonka! I would definitely appreciate your help! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Thanks again! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Scheduled Tribe Status of Meenas

Hi Elonka,

I see you have removed the section about the Scheduled Tribe status of Meenas in India. Please note that "Scheduled Tribe" is a constitutional term for socially undermined groups. The term is kosher in public discourse and is not derogotary. Meenas are the most widely known Scheduled Tribe of Rajasthan. Not to allow this fact to be documented in a clear manner in the wikipedia article makes it a totally inauthentic with no reflection of the real world. If you want this article to have any semblance of crediblity , you need to restore that section (with spelling corrections, of course). All the references from reliable sources were provided there.--Satyashodak (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, but I think there is some confusion. I did not remove any threads. All of the information about scheduled tribes, are still on the talkpage. I did, however, move some threads. The oldest are now at the top, and the newest at the bottom. I also moved a very few old old threads to Talk:Meenas/Archive 1. Everything else is still there. --Elonka 20:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

6afraidof7

I wasn't aware I was being dishonest, and I certainly have no intention of causing a problem. The fact is I had grown dissatisfied with the work produced under my old user name, 6afraidof7, so I decided to simply discard it and start all over again. I share my computer with somebody else who also contributes articles via my user page, so I think that's where the misunderstanding may have arisen. --Heslopian (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)