User talk:Elonka

Bayrak

thanks for message i am trying to know more and more about wikipedia sorry if i done mistakes here or there --Bayrak (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

i speak Najdi Arabic and Kuwaiti Arabic many thanks for advices --Bayrak (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you believe me if I said I don’t have account in Ar-wikipedia :) Bayrak (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yannis

Well, Yannis is back, and this time he brought friends. See Law:Talk under "Further Reading." In effect, a substantial amount of content I provided was swiped and turned into at least six edits by Wikidea. Have a nice day... Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I changed my page a bit, out of deference to you. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have to be honest, it still needs more. Let me soapbox a bit. I'm saying this not just because the page is running afoul of WP:ATP, but also because your current page is not helping you achieve the goals that I think you wish to achieve. If you wish to have a voice in Wikipedia discussions (and I would genuinely like for you to do so, because of your academic experience), you must cultivate a certain sensitivity to the culture here. Granted, the culture is severely warped at times. I've heard it described as a dysfunctional high school, an asylum where the inmates have taken over, or a haven for people with Asperger syndrome. And there are indeed times and specific areas of Wikipedia where I would agree with all of those assessments. However, Wikipedia is a big project, and it's not all like that. There are pockets of sanity.  :) There are (some) emotionally mature editors, there are (some) effective dispute resolution processes, there is (some) hope for the islands of sanity to grow and expand into other areas of Wikipedia. You could be helpful towards that goal. But to be most helpful, you have to be sensitive to the existing cultural expectations, to make it more likely for people to listen to you. I'm not going to sugarcoat it: Right now your userpage is like wearing a nametag that says, "Hi, I'm a disgruntled whiner with one foot out the door". If that's how you want to be perceived, well, that's your choice. But if you want to have a stronger voice in policy discussions, you want a userpage that says, "Hi, I'm an academic who's emotionally stable, has a positive attitude, likes to work on articles, and is here to help." In order to get your page more to the latter definition, you want to remove that "semi-retired" template, remove anything that makes it look like you nurse grudges, and remove anything else which makes it look like you're "leaving" instead of "staying". Make the page positive, make the page welcoming, make the page a statement which shows why other editors should respect you, why they should want to listen to you, and most importantly, why they might want to collaborate with you. Make the page show that you understand the primary goal of the project, and that your goals are aligned with those of the encyclopedia. That's what will earn you more respect within the culture. And if you want even more clout, there's a currency here that everyone values, and that's FAs. Read Wikipedia:Featured article. Those with the highest status in this culture, even beyond ArbCom, are those who write Featured articles. That's what we're here for, the articles. So if you can get an article – any article! – to FA, that's a badge of honor in this culture. But getting articles to FA is hard (which is one of the reasons the FA stars are so valued). In the meantime, if you want to get along better in this culture, and show yourself as one of the "sane" editors here, make a userpage which shows it. Simply make a userpage which shows that you understand that the articles are more important than the politics, and it will serve you well.  :) --Elonka 17:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, would you mind contemplating the implications of this passage and perhaps rephrasing? As written, it appears to equate AS with lack of sanity; I hope that isn't the intended meaning. I've heard it described as a dysfunctional high school, an asylum where the inmates have taken over, or a haven for people with Asperger syndrome. And there are indeed times and specific areas of Wikipedia where I would agree with all of those assessments. However, Wikipedia is a big project, and it's not all like that. There are pockets of sanity.  :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandy.  :) To be clear, I don't think AS sufferers are necessarily certifiably insane. I know people with AS, and some of them cope with it reasonably well and are able to function within society. However, it can require some fortitude on the part of the friends in their social circle, as the AS sufferers (that I know) do tend to have appalling social skills. They can be brilliant, literate, hardworking people, but their lack of empathy, and tendency to speak in an aggressive fashion, can (sometimes) make them extremely difficult to get along with. As I have observed the userboxes of other editors around Wikipedia, I have found it interesting that some excellent writers on Wikipedia do self-identify as having AS – there seems to be something about the aspect of collecting and organizing information in this kind of atmosphere that is appealing to those with Asperger's. This is great in terms of building the encyclopedia, but not so great in terms of getting along with other editors. I think it also ties into the current controversy about whether or not WP:CIVIL should be enforced or not. There are some who feel that social skills are not required here – that it's only about the articles. There are others (such as myself) who feel that social skills are required, because one aggressive editor, even if a good writer, may be antagonizing other good writers away from the project. I know this from firsthand experience, as there are a few articles that I have simply stopped working on, because I couldn't stand dealing with the other writers on the talkpage. It's kind of sad, because some of those articles could be at featured status today, if there were simply a more collegial editing environment on those talkpages, and in the FAC process. Maybe I'll go back and work on those articles someday... For now though, everytime I think about it, I just get irritated at the thought of the personal attacks and abuse that I would have to endure in order to get the article to FA, and so I decide to just go and work on something else instead! --Elonka 18:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The detour is interesting, but I was asking if you want to be equating neurological differences with insanity. I'd additionally point out that some people who might not have an autism spectrum disorder may still suffer deficits in social skills. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is trying to read too much into the definition of the word "sanity". Someone can see a bizarre edit war going on and say, "You guys are insane", and it doesn't necessarily mean that they're making a psychiatric diagnosis. Other than that, I agree with you that someone can have appalling social skills, regardless of whether or not they have AS. --Elonka 18:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your position on neurological differences and sanity, where you don't seem to see the importance in making a clear distinction. I am unaware of any overlapping definitions of insanity and Asperger's. Lest it ever come up in another context, let me remind you of the text at WP:NPA: "Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor." Unfortunately, we have less leeway to deal with other editors who may be lacking in social skills. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy now? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Much better, yes.  :) Perhaps also mention which topic areas most interest you? A few userboxes might also be good. Not too many! Overdoing userboxes is considered a sign of immaturity in this culture. But a half-dozen or so, indicating your languages and a couple of your interests would be excellent. If you're not sure how to use them, scan WP:USERBOX#Gallery and tell me which ones more interest you, and I'll help. Or, look at the userpages of other editors that you respect, and copy their userboxes. Whatever's easier for you. :) --Elonka 17:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Now, can you get Mathsci, Yannis, Wikidea, Slrubenstein, neuro, and Hans Adler to be so civil? Hmmmnnn? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Re Mathsci: I think that at this point, you and he are kind of batting each other about the ears pretty much equally. I recommend that the two of you get in contact off-wiki and try to work things out.
• Re Yannis/Wikidea: I assume you're referring to the conversation at Talk:Law? I agree that the tone of the discourse there had deteriorated,[1] and I'm taking a look at it.
• Re Slrubenstein: Not sure what you're talking about, is there something recent? If so, please provide diffs.
• Re Hans Adler: Again, not sure what you're talking about, please provide diffs.

As general advice, when you encounter incivility (and I agree that Wikidea's comment was unacceptable[2]), one of the most effective ways of dealing with it is to take it to that person's talkpage. Provide a diff of the unacceptable behavior, a link to the appropriate policy, express polite concerns about their behavior, and offer constructive suggestions on how they can improve. Taking it to the user's talkpage serves multiple purposes: It gets the personal back-and-forth off the article talkpages; it generates a record of the disruptive behavior on the user's own talkpage; it shows a record that you made a good faith effort to work things out amicably; and it makes it more likely that admins may be notified at an early stage. Admins may not be monitoring everything that a particular user does, but they do tend to monitor the talkpages of disruptive users. So if a (genuine) incivility warning appears on a watched user's talkpage, it's easier for admins to take action.

Ultimately, the best way for you to deal with things is to try to talk to other editors with respect, and see if it's possible to work things out. Asking admins for help is definitely an option, but admins are generally only going to take action in the most egregious cases. Sometimes it's hard to remember, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is a truly massive project. We have millions of editors, millions of articles, and thousands of new articles flowing in every single day. But there are only about 1500 admins, so we're spread pretty thin. So anything you can do to resolve your own battles, is usually the best course of action.  :) --Elonka 08:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Mervyn Emrys, Elonka and I are currently cooperating amicably in a delicate ArbCom case. On wikipedia you seem to be rocking the boat. Please could you stop? There is more going on on wikipedia than the small part you have seen and seem only partially to understand. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci, your first sentence there was excellent, and the last two-word sentence was good too. The rest was unhelpful. Or let me put it this way: How would you feel if I said something like that to you? --Elonka 19:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You have written much worse offf-wiki and have been cautioned (not by me). Mathsci (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about? But if you're referring to something that somebody said off-wiki about what I did or didn't say, it's best to just drop it. Let's try to keep discussions on-wiki, strictly to what is said on-wiki. If you want to talk about some off-wiki matter, you have my email: elonka@aol.com --Elonka 21:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as this thread is concerned, Mervyn Emrys should not be making personal attacks on editors on wikipedia as he has done above. Is that understood? Mathsci (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci, if you look at User:Mervyn Emrys, you'll see that at least he's making some effort to try and de-escalate the dispute. Perhaps you could try to meet him halfway? --Elonka 22:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can only read what he's written about me and others. However, I do not take it seriously and I see that he is gradually getting the feel of wikipedia. The sooner he gets used to this funny old world, the better. I'd quite like to talk about the ArbCom case by email, if that's OK with you. You can reply here. Best regards, Mathsci (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, email is fine, or if you'd like a quicker response, try gtalk. --Elonka 22:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. You've forgotten how old I am. I'll stick with email. Mathsci (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll take the fact that my name was dropped here (in a way that really puzzles me for lack of recent interaction) as a pretext for commenting that I am observing the recent Mathsci/Elonka cooperation with fascination. Please continue to impress me in this way. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, thanks for the note on distribution of the references. Curiously, the only two I couldn't find, even in the article on US Law, were American Lawyers (1989) and Law and Lawyers in the United States (1996), both on the role of lawyers in an adversarial legal system. S'pose my question about anti-American sentiment was accurate? Don't expect you to answer that. I've cleaned them up and redistributed them to more appropriate homes as best I could. C'ést la vie. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've done as much as I can to comply with your wishes on Talk:Law. If I bend over backwards any further, my head will be below ground--if it doesn't explode. Not that it will make much difference. I'm done. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you. I saw that you had been posting some very conciliatory messages there, so good job on that. If they don't work, well at least you'll have the diffs to show that you gave it a solid try. As for the RfC there, are you satisfied with the outcome, meaning having the books divvyed up on different articles? If so, you might wish to post that you are satisfied with the current situation, and that Consensus has been achieved. If everyone's happy, then the RfC can be closed. Or do you think that further changes would be a good idea? And if so, where? Also, I was very interested in what you put about your own history.[3] That would be perfect information to include on your userpage.  :) Especially the bit about grabbing the blade. I don't wish to diminish the intensity of that incident, but in a way, editing on Wikipedia is a similar exercise, taking the risk of exposing yourself to harm, and showing that you're not afraid. You may get knocked down, but the important thing is that you're going to get back up again and keep going.  :) What's that Japanese proverb? "Fall down seven times, stand up eight!" --Elonka 20:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm more burned out and resigned to the apparent outcome on Talk:Law than satisfied. I think it's hopeless, rather than consensus. I'm more tired of it than happy, and have better ways to spend my time. I'm withdrawing and will practice avoidance if possible. Probably should close it anyway. I will email you about the other stuff. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Bayrak Again

I don't want to get too drawn into this, but almost all of his edits are looking unhelpful, and pointy, though in a minor, annoying way, rather than in a vastly disruptive way. But look at these two reversions i did on edits of his from today. [[4]] and [[5]] . Either his English is so bad that he can't understand requests to desist from this sort of thing (his claim that the coptic presence in kuwait, which is not controversial, was not well sourced verges on a lie. Couldn't be clearer in the linked text); or it's good enough to understand the need to desist, but he doesn't care. Either way, it's not looking like productive editing is going to come out of this).Bali ultimate (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that I'm not understanding his reason for removing the Coptic number, but I'll also freely admit that I'm not familiar with the subject matter. Could you please start a thread on the article talkpage about it? I'm not seeing any discussion there, which makes things even more difficult to follow. --Elonka 08:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Some of his edits ARE hard to figure out (for instance, he inexplicably changed "Sassanids were the fourth persian dynasty" to "Sassanids were the third persian dynasty" in some obscure article. Have no clue what's right there). But this one is ridiculous: The article said there were 65,000 copts in kuwait; he removed this from the article, saying the information wasn't cited (even uncited, it should have been fact-tagged then... anyone with a passing knowledge of kuwait, the tiny country he claims to live in, knows that there's a sizable community of copts.) At any rate, there was a reliable source used, with the unambiguous claim of "there are 65,000 copts living in kuwait." No familiarity with the subject matter needed (but "copt" is the term for eastern orthodox of egyptian decent; it's the term used in arabic as well).Bali ultimate (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, the source[6] did not say "there are 65,000 copts living in Kuwait". Or at least, not that I could see. It did say that there exists in Kuwait a "Coptic Orthodox Church with an estimated 65,000 members". Bayrak's edit summary when he removed the information was, "the source didnt mention there 65,000 copts in kuwait it talking about orthodox."[7] So again, I'm not personally familiar enough with the subject matter to exactly understand what the difference is (or if there's a difference), but he may or may not have a plausible complaint that there is original research going on. However, I did drop a note to his talkpage that he should not remove citations in the future, and that if he has a concern about citations, to bring them up at the talkpage first. --Elonka 17:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Elonka -- Are you saying that "65,000 copts" does not equal "A coptic orthodox church with 65,000 members?" As a matter of fact, usage, etc... Copt=Orthodox (though of course there are other sub-categories of Orthodox christians who aren't copts, i.e. Russian, greek, chaldean, etc. etc.). If the source had said without specificity "there are x number of orthodox christians in kuwait" he would be correct in stating "that says nothing about the numbers of copts." However, it specifically qualifies "orthodox" with copt. As general background for you in Kuwait, as in much of the Gulf, educated Egyptians make up most of the middle management on construction sites, in government offices, in large retail stores, etc... since about 10% of egyptians are copts (and make up a disproportionate number of the educated folks that get these jobs) there are lots of them in the Gulf which is a well-known, well-cited fact. Again, all of this stuff is small beer. There is no way Bayrak is unaware of the large number of copts in kuwait. (It's possible, though i've no idea, that he's one of the many kuwaitis who think only muslims should be allowed/acknowledged in the country). At any rate, here's an article from the Kuwait Times this october. [[8]] It also says the country has 65,000 copts.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I have no familiarity with the content. I'm not the person you need to convince, I'm just the person trying to give more structure to the discussions, to help resolve the dispute. As an administrator, I have to stay neutral, with no preference either way on what content goes into the article. My concern was that you just claimed to quote from a source, but when I checked the source for myself, that quote was not in the source. When you quote from a source, please be careful to only quote exactly what is in the source. A good policy to read, is WP:SYNTH. As for moving forward, thanks for providing a new source. I'd recommend adding that one to the Copt page, and hopefully that will resolve things once and for all.  :) --Elonka 18:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the relevant policies on synth, etc. Too much exactitude is a semantic minefield (i.e. the source said "roughly 2,000" not "approximately 2,000" -- which is about the level of difference between "coptic orthodox" and "copt." That is, in both cases, it is a distinction without any difference). I was trying to demonstrate that his edits are in fact pointy. I understand i've failed and i won't belabor it further. Go well.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Re

Elonka, please check the "unintentionally" part of my comment. My point was that this is unfortunately the result, and not the intention of Mervyn's comments. I thought this was clear enough, and that is why I feel surprised by your comment in my talk page. Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, shouldn't Mervyn be advised not to speak improperly about other people's homelands? I understand he is new around, and he has a lot to learn (and your mentorship to him as well as your experience would help him a lot during his first steps in Wikipedia), but I think that there should be some emphasis on these issues. By the way, this is an excellent opportunity to praise you for your very interesting and enlightening guide concerning the ArbCom Elections. Thanks!--Yannismarou (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Spudicus

Thanks for the encouragement. :-) I still can't believe I actually trusted a sockpuppet, though. Even so, I guess I've found a firm coaching process with my previous experiences with Spudicus. BTW, I've read that per this, your a video game developer. What current video games are you working on now? --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 23:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism"

• How do you determine whether it is "blatant"? I think this case is quite blatant. If you are right and it is not, then what -- engage in edit war? I know the user quite well for relishing in it.Muscovite99 (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Blatant vandalism is really obvious stuff, such as blanking pages, inserting profanity, replacing an article with a picture of someone's genitals, etc. It looks like what you were reporting was more in the nature of a content dispute. See WP:VANDAL#NOT. If it sets your mind at ease, I'm trying to take a look at the situation right now, but it's a bit tricky going through the archives since the page has been moved to so many different titles. I'm trying to straighten that out right now, so the archive links work. --Elonka 21:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • (followup) Okay, I took a look. On WP:AIV, you listed the following three diffs.[9][10][11] None of those, on their own, would be called vandalism, especially as Frjohnwhiteford (talk · contribs) is continuing to engage in good faith discussions on the talkpage. If you feel that any of the information that he removed should really go back into the article, I recommend that you follow the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Start a thread on the talkpage, and/or try a polite note on his own talkpage. It may be possible to find a compromise, such as including the information in a different part of the article. --Elonka 22:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have posted the links, in response to your request here. In the mean time, Muscovite99 has simply reinserted his tendentious and disruptive edits without following your advide that he take it to the talk page. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that all parties at Patriarch Alexy II of Russia try to take things slowly, especially as emotions are running high right now because of the Patriarch's recent death. Even if there's an odd edit here and there, we'll get the article sorted out in the long run. --Elonka 01:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My request would be that the article be reverted to where it was prior to Muscovite99's latest round of edits, and that any further edits that attempt insert or alter the material relative to the accusations involving KGB involvement be hashed out on the talk page first. As things stand, there are two serious POV insertions that have altered the balance of the article. The most blatant being the claim that the MP has only denied that he was a KGB agent once, when there is a footnote providing three separate quotes in which this was denied. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

True to form, Frjohnwhiteford seeks to impose on every one else his opinionated views. BBC is reputed to be the most balanced news media. You should stop your destructive censorial practices.Muscovite99 (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I will reply at the article talkpage, let's keep discussions there. --Elonka 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi.. some times I follow this rule Wikipedia:Be bold --Bayrak (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick Question

Can you block someone from editing on talk pages too (if you are an admin)? the reason is [| this --Irmela 21:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The bottom section. --Irmela 21:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

al-Khwarizmi

I don't know anything about him, unfortunately, aside from the basic trivia. As far as I know, he was Persian. I try not to get involved in disputes between Arabs and Persians, it's depressingly futile. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Are there any relevant ArbCom cases for this topic area? --Elonka 06:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I see a discussion involving 2 people, I see no community consensus. The consensus version is the one prior to Bayrak's nationalistic edits. The Abbasid issue wasn't even discussed in the section you're referring to, he made those changes unilaterally. --Sina111 (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree with the "Persian origin" wording, he was a Persian by nationality too (He was born under the native Iranic dynasty of Afrighids: http://www.iranica.com/newsite/index.isc?Article=http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/unicode/v1f7/v1f7a080.html ) Also, I don't think 2 editors' agreement with one and another constitutes a consensus that overides long-standing broad consensus on an issue . --Sina111 (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That source is not about the individual. Do you have a specific source which claims that he was Persian? --Elonka 07:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The article says "The name given by the Khwarazmian scholar Abū Rayḥān Bīrūnī to the dynasty of rulers in his country, with the ancient title of Ḵᵛārazmšāh. According to him, the Afrighids ruled from 305 A.D. (year 616 of the Seleucid era), through the Arab conquests under Qotayba b. Moslem in 93/712, and up to their overthrow in 385/995 by the rising rival family of Maʾmunids (see Āl-e Maʾmūn)." So this was the kingdom that Khwarizmi was born in. That said, you're welcome to revert me if you feel so strongly about this issue. However, this is my area of expertise, and I do not feel that "Persian heritage" is the appropriate wording here. --Sina111 (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm neutral on what should go into the article, and am just helping out as an uninvolved admin, so it wouldn't be proper for me to revert you. I do strongly encourage you though to try and keep the article in accordance with both Wikipedia policies, and the current consensus discussions at the article talkpage. As for area of expertise, I don't mean any disrespect, but on Wikipedia, it's not about what you feel you know, but about what the sources say. So far all of the sources provided have used terminology such as "Persian heritage", and not "Persian". Therefore, the Wikipedia article should follow what the sources say, unless other sources can be provided which say something different. --Elonka 07:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference "Persian" or "Persian stock"? Persian stock means Persian!--Sina111 (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No, that's called original research. If the sources are careful to distinguish between "Persian stock" and "Persian", then we should too. See WP:SYNTH. --Elonka 07:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Elonoka, but the text states: "Al-Khwarizmi himself was of Persian stock, his ancestors coming from Khwarezm, in distant Transoxania. The Banu Musa, al-Mahani, and a host of others in the intellectual circle of ninth century Baghdad, were also Persians." Note it uses Persian stock in one sentence and Persian in another and uses the term "were also Persians". The equivalent is "were also Persians"...And if you need another source, "The Persian al-Khwarizmi published the first al-Jabr mathematics book" (Richard E. Gross ,Heritage of American Education, Published by Allyn and Bacon, 1962. pg 156). Persian stock and Persian mean the same thing. --Sina111 (talk) 07:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the person you need to convince, I'm just the admin interpreting the consensus on the talkpage. If you have new sources to present, please bring them up there. If other editors agree with your conclusions, then you'll have a new consensus. If not, and you still feel that you have a case, then try filing an article RfC and get more opinions into the mix. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. In the meantime though, the consensus was "Persian heritage", so it would be wise to return the article to that wording until a new consensus can be established. --Elonka 07:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I am also not sure what "of Persian stock" is supposed to infer. If it doesn't mean "Persian", what does it mean? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's just the same thing that I (and pretty much everyone except Elonka) thought. Of Persian stock, Persian family, Persian heritage... this means Persian, folks. No SYNTH there, nothing new about it, just using our knowledge of the English language to understand sources at the most basic level. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one making the argument here. I personally have no preference if the article says "Persian" or "of Persian heritage". However, I do care if the article is stable or not. From my point of view, there was a dispute about whether the article should say that al-Khwarizmi was "Persian" or not. This was argued on the talkpage for months. Then it was decided to use a compromise which emulated what the sources say, to describe him as "of Persian heritage". The compromise was acceptable, the arguments at the talkpage stopped, and the article became stable again, at least for several days. To me, that's "consensus". So when someone else comes along and re-starts the argument, saying that "Persian" is more accurate than "Persian heritage", and reverts the article saying that there's no consensus, that's when I have to speak up as an admin, and say that the article should stay at the consensus version, until a new consensus is built at the talkpage. This is not because I have any preference either way on the wording of the article. I'm not "pro-Persian" or "anti-Persian", I'm "pro-stability". --Elonka 15:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

In what way has your quaint interpretation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, which no other editor has found sensible, stabilized anything? Frustrating progress (unintentionally) on the most unconvincing grounds is not stability; it actually risks frustrating constructive editors. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Your understanding of WP:SYNTH

It is quite surprising that an administrator believes there is some sort of policy-violating original research/synthesis behind describing someone as "Persian" who has been ascribed Persian stock, Persian heritage, of a Persian family, etc. by reliable sources. I do not understand how this is not a matter simply of knowing the English language. The conclusion that he was an ethnic Persian could be reached using only one of the sources. What are we synthesizing? What are these multiple sources and claims? What is novel about the conclusion? Nobody understands the distinction you draw.

Say a source said, "Al-Khwarizmi was a scholar at the House of Wisdom. He was a Persian." We might be tempted to conclude that "Al-Khwarizmi was a Persian," but is there not something slightly original here? Isn't the editor assuming that the author intends the "he" in the second sentence to refer to Al-Khwarizmi? Without a reliable source specifying that this is in fact what the author meant, it can be said that the Wikipedia editor has taken a step - however small - into the realm of original research by applying his own beliefs about how to understand the English language to the author's work to arrive at a conclusion. After all, the source was "careful" to avoid the direct statement "Al-Khwarizmi was a Persian," so we should be too.

But what if we found a reliable source saying that the "he" refers to al-Khwarizmi? Would we then be safe to say "Al-Khwarizmi was Persian?" Nope! How can we synthesize the claim of the latter source with the statement of the former? Aren't we arriving at a conclusion that is not directly stated in either source? Oh no!

I really really hope that this would seem absurd and absolutely counterproductive to you, but it is little different from your use. Somehow your use of WP:SYNTH suggests that any departure from the original wording of the sources could be considered a violation of original research since the editor uses his own "original" understanding of the English language to arrive at basic conclusions and construct unique (yet allegedly synonymous) statements for use in the article. Must the encyclopedia become a string of quotes and/or plagiarism? Given the stance you have taken so far, where do you draw the line? 67.194.202.113 (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

My talkpage is really not the place to be discussing the article content. If you have an opinion about the matter, I encourage you to bring it up at Talk:Khwārizmī to help build a clear consensus. --Elonka 15:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you interpret a hypothetical situation using imaginary sources and sentences as "discussing the article content." I guess you missed the point. The design was to examine whether or not the basic level of original research required in writing an encyclopedia that is not a string of quotes violates Wikipedia policy. With you being an administrator, supposedly well-versed in the nature of the rules here, I'm confused by what appears to be a rather incorrect interpretation of these policies that, if applied to other sentences, could effectively rule most basic acts of encyclopedia-writing to be "original research." Hence I open this discussion to examine this question of language and give you a chance to clarify your positions on this issue. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Oak-Land Jr. High School

Yeargh. I read the first three sentences, which seemed reasonable, and restored. I should have noticed it continued in a significantly different direction. Thanks for the heads-up. Mark Heiden (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the article is a mess. And the poor anon that kept trying to remove the vandalism, actually got blocked! (sigh) Looks like the block has been reversed, but the article is still all tangled. I looked back a month to try and find a "clean" version to revert to, and couldn't find one, since there were some good changes inserted in between the vandalistic parts and the source removals. It's going to take some time to sort it out. --Elonka 17:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You can come out and say it, Elonka...I was the one who blocked him. But someone did point out my mistake and I undid it! I'm going to have a look at the article again and see if I can't clean it up. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like good penance.  ;) Thanks Ioeth! --Elonka 19:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me?

I think you are jumping the gun abit, and there are a few other people at fault here. It was a case of mistaken identity and the IP was rightfully unblocked. I was not edit warring. I was (or thought I was) reverting vandalism, leaving a talk page warning each time, and made an AIV report after the final warning which was handled with accordingly. I was following correct procedures and your talk page template was highly offensive and an assumption of bad faith.

Also, please revert your talk page message, you are abusing your administrator tools by editing it in the manner you did. Follow the instructions on the talk page next time. Thanks. --Charitwo ^(talk) 18:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Elonka was 100% right. Did you even read what you restored? Please be more careful in the future that what you are reverting is actually vandalism. --John (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, John. Please see my reply to Tanthalas39, thanks. --Charitwo ^(talk) 18:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Charitwo, you were repeatedly reverting at Oak-Land Jr. High School, putting obvious nonsense back into the page.[12][13][14][15] A 3RR warning was appropriate, as if you would have reverted again after the warning, your account access would have been blocked. I am also concerned that you made an AIV report[16] on an anon, 205.178.226.113 (talk · contribs) even though the anon was trying to remove vandalism. As for assuming good faith, when I saw the redirect at the top of your talkpage to uncyclopedia,[17] that put a reasonable doubt in my mind as to whether you were operating in good faith or not. Looking deeper into your contribs right now though, Charitwo (talk · contribs), I do see that you do a lot of vandal-fighting, so thank you for that. It looks like in this one case, you were simply a bit quick on the draw. In the future, please also keep in mind that anyone, even an anon, is allowed to remove unsourced information, per WP:V. When someone removes a (small) amount of information, it is generally not a good idea to add it back, unless including a source which verifies that information. Anyway, how about we write this one off as a misunderstanding, and simply move on? If you would like to remove the warning from your talkpage, please feel free to do so. --Elonka 18:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see my reply to Tanthalas39. --Charitwo ^(talk) 18:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Al-Khwārizmī

You are right. Sorry. --Raayen (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Self-made art?

I wanted to draw calligraphy for the names of the Ismaili Imams, for their infoboxes on Wikipedia, since I don't know of any calligraphy or pictures we could use for them (or that traditionally exist, since knowledge of these Imams for much of the Ismaili community is recent). Is that allowable? I've already done (computer generated) versions for Ismail ibn Jafar and Muhammad ibn Ismail. --Enzuru 03:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea to me.  :) You're definitely welcome to create anything you want, though it would be a matter of consensus on each page as to whether the images would be used. I'd say go ahead, and upload the images to Commons, so they're usable on all the different language projects. --Elonka 04:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Oki, thanks. It's just that recently we had a really nice (File:Ambigram - Muhammad and Ali.jpg) image on an article and someone wanted to take it down saying Wikipedia is not for showcasing Wikipedian art. BTW thanks for the edit summary suggestion, it's been great! --Enzuru 23:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Please see Eligibility: Mervyn Emrys at WT:ACE2008. Thanks again. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack on User talk:Zlerman

Please see the personal attack by anon on my talk page. Should I simply delete and ignore, or will you take action? Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice Idea

Nice idea; but at the moment I'm working through a backlog of annotations...As my computer and browser handle it very well I'm happy with it as it is until I've caught up...when I've gone through all my notes I'll get back to you, if I may...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the information would still be in archive so you wouldn't lose it, but sure, it's your call. Just let me know!  :) --Elonka 18:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Latest Ian

Can we just have a civilized discussion about my block here without using the RFI policy and blocking me?IanBeOS (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Born of Osiris

Why did you delete this topic, i had read only a bit of the article when i had to get off the computer. when i get back on you deleted it. with no obvious reason for doing so. stop vandalizing your privileges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeineia (talk • contribs) 01:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The article Born of Osiris was deleted because it did not meet our standards for inclusion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Born of Osiris. If at some point the band becomes more notable, the article can be re-attempted. The things most needed, are third-party published sources, such as books or newspaper/magazine articles which talk about the band. If/when such sources become available, please let us know. --Elonka 03:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Brett Leonhardt

Thanks for saving the article! I caught it at a really bad time when it said "web site producer." It's looking much better now. Cheers. --digitalmischief (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank Blackrx (talk · contribs), not me, they're the one that added sources.  :) --Elonka 04:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I'll keep that in mind, I am feeling a bit frustrated here though. I don't feel like Bayrak is listening at all, I explained to him in details on the talk page about how his map is from a different period, and maps can not be used as a source anyways. Without bothering to read or respond to my detailed comment, he blindly reverts me, removing the secondary source I had provided, replacing it with his map again. --Sina111 (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. I am in agreement that his edits have not been particularly helpful. I just posted at his talkpage, and have asked him to avoid editing the article for a week (though he can still participate at the talk). Hopefully this will allow the article some time to stabilize. --Elonka 05:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Your block is affecting Wikipedia editors who are signed in

Your block of an IP that User:Ashley kennedy3 used to edit war on the Banias article is creating problems in editing Wikipedia for me. Despite being logged in I get a message that I'm disabled from editing. I've had to sign in on the secure server in order to post this but am loathe to continue to use the secure server as I have to confirm each new page I view. Please unblock the IP immediately as I have never edited that article, and am being affected by a block for something that has nothing to do with me. Mjroots (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)