User talk:Elonka: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:37, 19 December 2009

2009 Arbitration Committee Elections • Results • Voter log • Discuss the elections • Give feedback on the elections

Election pages: Candidate guide • Candidate statements • Questions for the candidates • Discuss the candidates • Comment on the candidates
Individuals' guides: Bfigura • Casliber • Ceranthor • CT Cooper • Elonka • JayHenry • Juliancolton • Lankiveil • Lar • Majorly • MZMcBride • Riana • Rschen7754 • SandyGeorgia • Vyvyan Ade Basterd • William M. Connolley

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by .

Wikibreak

{{wikibreak|message=Elonka is on wikibreak for a bit, vacationing on a cruise along the [[Mexican Riviera]], and should be back online on December 14th.}}

Have fun! --Sushi Shushi! (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WB... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 10)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 10). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 10). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion requested

Welcome back. Given your interest in resolving some of the intractable issues around British and Irish pages I wonder if you would take a look at this. I've been struggling to get a process in place to resolve multiple edit wars over when it is right or wrong to use "British Isles". Some time ago I managed (with the support of Admin Black Kite) to get a single page to consolidate the various issues into one place. Based on the last 18 months I've proposed a way forward which has some support. An expert opinion would be appreciated before I move it on a stage. --Snowded ^TALK 21:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial thoughts (feel free to ignore, as I'm not that familiar with the debate about the subtleties of including the term "British Isles"):

Coming up with a protocol guideline, is generally a good idea. Then it can be linked from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United Kingdom
Trying to get agreement that "no one should change something without agreement", is generally difficult to enforce, both because editors constantly come and go, and because Wikipedia generally works on the principle of be bold rather than "get agreement first".
Creating an arbitration panel is also tricky, again because editors tend to come and go. So even if there were agreement on who the panel members might be, it is likely that such members might be absent for long periods of time.
The best way to proceed, IMHO, is to come up with a set of guidelines that can be shown to have strong community consensus, and then everyone can simply work from those guidelines. It might also be worth coming up with a template that can be used on problematic articles. For example, see what was done with {{Gdansk-Vote-Notice}}.
In terms of enlisting specific administrators, I'm happy to help out as I can, but it's important to keep in mind that admins tend to come and go as well. A better solution might be to make use of the WP:ECCN noticeboard, or just use ANI. If there are clear consensus-backed guidelines, it's easier for admins to deal with editors who may be editing in opposition to consensus.

Hope that helps, --El on ka 02:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It helps, thanks. The reason for the proposal is that attempts to create guidelines in this area have consistently failed over the last two years. Hence the idea of creating a body of precedents from which guidelines can be created. I'll spell that out and modify the the proposal to accommodate the ideas above and see where it goes. --Snowded ^TALK 06:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me at the failed discussions for guidelines? I took a quick look at WP:BIDRAFT2, and it seemed fairly stable. Or is there another discussion going on elsewhere? --El on ka 13:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look

Seeing as you are handing out blocks will you look at this contributions of this editor here BigDunc 00:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, once I get caught up with the paperwork from History of Sinn Féin. :) --El on ka 00:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, took a look at Trickyjack (talk · contribs). If it were a longterm established account, it might be worth placing it under probation, but based on the short contrib history, it's looking like a possible throwaway sockpuppet account anyway. Do you have an idea of who it might be? --El on ka 01:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only other editor with that particular obsession is User:Irvine22 who has a single incident of sock puppetry and a series of bans for disruptive behaviour. S/he has been fairly passive for a week or so but is aware that a fair amount of editors have his/her account on watch. My gut feel says that s/he would not run a sock at the moment but its worth checking out. Oh, and in case you didn't know the song on their user page is an Ulster/Glaswegian Unionist song, its one of the milder ones but the history of quotations on this users page is worth a quick study --Snowded ^TALK 06:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem like Irvine to me. From the contributions it feels more like a person actually from NI. But I see no reason to keep Trickyjack around anyway. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every single comment here is from a Republican. Elonka, you were looking at the History of Sinn Fein, what a surprise. I can pretty much sum up the history of Sinn Fein, but it won't be allowed in that article. They killed thousands of people, many of them children, in an open attack on democracy in MY country. So you can sit there in the USA and block unionists all you like, but rest assured, I know a lot more about Sinn Fein and issues in Northern Ireland than you, whether i'm on wikipedia or not.

Stu, unlike a lot of these ROI editors I am actually from Ulster, yes. My opinion on matters is irrelevant however, because I am on the wrong side of the political divide as far as wikipedia is concerned.Trickyjack (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wowsers, this is a switch. There's usually complaints about pro-unionist PoV. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats because the vast majority of editors are nationalists. They see unionist POV in articles which are essentially Republican propoganda.Trickyjack (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Thanks for the note. I always do use talkpages. The problem here though is that recent responses like this one to editors concerns on that self same talkpage, coming hot on the heels of similar outbursts make it very difficult to have confidence in the talk page as a means of reasoning with this editor. Yes talk pages should always be used but when an editor is refusing to engage constructively and dismissing alternative viewpoints as petty POV and "purile jibberish" (sic), editors will reluctantly conclude that normal means of resolving disputes are a waste of time as long as such uncivil behaviour remains unaddressed. Valenciano (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the diffs. That editor is already on probation, and has been blocked for a week. In the meantime though, I still strongly encourage everyone to use the article talkpages. Even if there's one editor who you feel cannot be reasoned with, it's still important to get your opinion onto the talkpage, to help establish consensus on the matter. I see that you've done so already, so thanks. :) --El on ka 13:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Narai

I'm sorry I couldn't remember it well.--Clestur (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom election

FYI - there's a request for feedback on the ArbCom election. No question about the choice of switching using a secret ballot, but I dropped a line on the talk page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:BigDunc

This User has decided to trawl through Northern Irish football articles to remove the term "Northern Irish" from the description of each football club, on the pretext that the term is "POV". A similar previous campaign was waged by User:Vintagekits (now banned), but no consensus was ever established that the term is "POV". There were resulting edit wars at that time, of which BigDunc was aware. I have reverted the user as per WP:BRD, opening up discussion at Talk, but he has simply reverted again at each article. I raised the matter with him on his Talk page, but he removed my comment, with the advice that I should "report away" (i.e. report him). I'm raising this with you first, rather than going to AN/I or the Arbcom Troubles page.

Diffs:

Mooretwin (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Northern Ireland is neutral Northern Irish isn't, also this is a content dispute and ANI is not the place for such issues, not sure what you want Elonka to do about a content issue, are you seeking advice from her? BigDunc 15:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) --El on ka 18:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do the reliable sources describe the clubs? Or are there sources which use both forms? --El on ka 18:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be alot easier if clubs from England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland, were called British. But, things can never be that easy, eh? GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GoodDay. When it comes to football clubs in the UK, they belong to their respective Associations and are regarded by FIFA to be--dare I say it--countries. Cheers. --Bill Reid | (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know & it stinks. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What stinks? the fact that E,S,NI and W have there own football associations or FIFA's rules regarding them? --Bill Reid | (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It stinks that Canada, USA, Germany, Brazil etc etc each have 1 team. Where's the United Kingdom has 4 teams. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh. And ironically Ireland is forced to have two teams though it only wants one. Sarah777 (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The republic has 2 teams? That, I didn't know. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland has two teams. Which "republic" are you talking about? Sarah777 (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland the independant country. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish Republic of Southern Eire? Irvine22 (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has one of the two teams. Sarah777 (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're speaking of the island. I was speaking of the UK having 4-teams, not the island of Great Britain. PS: we should continue this at yours or mine talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think our discussion probably belongs on our talk pages rather than here. I'll respond there. --Bill Reid | (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry Elonka. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as presumptive "Northern Irish". Unless someone claims to be such they must be regarded as either Irish or British. Some NI Unionists would perhaps claim to be both Irish and British or perhaps even "Northern Irish" but then some also claim to support Glasgow Rangers but we would not allow Wiki-articles to class then automatically as 'Ranger supporters". Sarah777 (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call'em British as Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The GFA was agreed between the Irish and UK Governments, voted in by all the people of Ireland and registered with the UN; it allows Irish people in NI to regard themselves in all regards as Irish. They can choose not to be British or described as such. Read before you leap G'Day. Sarah777 (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recognize that agreement. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't accept the result of the GFA poll? You have some higher authority? Sarah777 (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Higher authority? Yep, me. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am less interested in personal opinions, and more interested in actual sources. Does anybody actually have one? --El on ka 22:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the usage of 'Northern Irish'? I've absolutely none. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People in NI have always been "allowed" to regard themselves as Irish, and always have done. They didn't need the GFA to tell them how they could and couldn't regard themselves. That has nothing to do with football clubs or the personal opinions of a small group of editors about the term Northern Irish. Mooretwin (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on those seeking to remove the term "Northern Irish" from the encyclopaedia to put forward a sourced argument and win consensus. Mooretwin (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the onus is on either side to provide a source for their preferred term. If there's no source for "Northern Irish", then it's just as inappropriate as anything else. --El on ka 22:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If both terms are equally appropriate or inappropriate, then the onus is on the person seeking the change to achieve consensus for that change. WP:BRD "Northern Irish" is consistent with football articles across the encyclopaedia. Mooretwin (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is sources. If there are no sources, then the information can be removed, no matter what it says. --El on ka 22:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA. When Saturday Comes "Northern Irish champions Glentoran". RTÉ. Breakingnews.ie. Irish Football Association. And what if there are sources for both? Mooretwin (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Elonka. You've just rewarded BigDunc for edit-warring. Mooretwin (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I use the search engine for "Northern Irish" [1] the first few results are Northern Ireland on Wikipedia, then thefreedictionary.com defining Northern Irish as Northern Irish followed by, guess, Northern Irish Football, the one regulated by the Irish Football Association since what a hundred years? Isn't that surprising? Do people have to pick on Elonka because she tries to stop the bickering? If they want to change it they will do so themselves in the real world. Wikipedia will not. Why don't we all crawl back in now? Here is a story, Jackanory. Is that okay? Good. ~ R.T.G 23:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been picking on Elonka, she's pretty. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're at it again G'Day!

Someone from Donegal is obviously Northern Irish but they'd play in the RoI team. I'd accept a definition of "northern Irish" that doesn't exclude people from the most northerly part of Ireland, such as the Malin. Sarah777 (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So would I but I couldn't accept one that said Northern Irish didn't exist. Thet wood bee messing. ~ R.T.G 00:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC) In fact first post contained "Southern Irish" but I thought keep it simple ~ R.T.G 00:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 Stu, unlike a lot of these ROI editors I am actually from Ulster, yes. My opinion on matters is irrelevant however, because I am on the wrong side of the political divide as far as wikipedia is concerned.[[User:Trickyjack|Trickyjack]] ([[User talk:Trickyjack|talk]]) 02:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 :Wowsers, this is a switch. There's usually complaints about pro-unionist PoV. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
+Thats because the vast majority of editors are nationalists. They see unionist POV in articles which are essentially Republican propoganda.[[User:Trickyjack|Trickyjack]] ([[User talk:Trickyjack|talk]]) 16:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 == Your note ==