User talk:Elonka

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Stalking

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

(translation): Ned Scott (talk · contribs) and Wknight94 (talk · contribs) (an administrator, no less) have been stalking me today. They've been showing up at my bio [3][4], my mom's bio [5], pages about my company's products [6][7], articles related to a podcast that I appeared on[8], an AfD that I started [9], a stub that I created several months ago [10], the IGDA article [11], and now here (at User_talk:Centauri) too. None of the individual edits was particularly out of line, but as a pattern, they're pretty creepy, and this edit in particular was pretty ballsy: [12]. My guess is that they're following me around because they're upset that I've pointed out their disruptive behavior at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television). But guys, seriously, Wikipedia is a big place, go play somewhere else, eh? --Elonka 03:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Ned, your story changes so often, I find it hard to believe anything you say anymore. A couple days ago when I pointed out you were using profanity in edit summaries, you accused me of wikistalking and harassment.[13]. At Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television), yesterday you accused me of personal attacks, while at the same time accusing me of being "immature, rude, and disrespectful."[14] Today you're obviously spending time at pages that are related to me, but I don't buy the "just curious" story, considering that all your edits were negative and sniping types of edits, including flat out deleting one by redirecting it without any discussion or attempt at an AfD process [15]. Then you try to defend your actions with a sweetness and light message about just being interested. Please also notice that there's a long list of editors posting to your talk page, pointing out that you have a civility problem. Perhaps you should think about taking a break from Wikipedia for awhile? Or, if you want me to believe the "curiosity" angle, how about making some positive edits to those articles you're so interested in? I'd be happy to give you references for anything you're curious about, and then you could add and fix things to your satisfaction, and we could work together constructively on something. --Elonka 04:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mediation request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lost episode sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarification of Your Concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spellchecking

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

Yet it's against our policies. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, keep in mind that there's a difference between editing people's comments, and editing a guideline page. If I see a spelling error in someone's personal comment on a Talk/Discussion page, then I shouldn't change it. But if it's on a policy/guideline page, it's fair game for fixing. --Elonka 19:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Westfield Groupo

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

Threatening with blocks

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

It is possible that I missed your interpretation of Elonka's statement, but I don't believe she actually "threatened" anyone with being blocked. Maybe it is time to take a deep breath and view this in a new light. Thanks for seeing another POV!

Lmcelhiney 13:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your POV and input but five different admins have been involved in that discussion. None of them have mentioned the possibility of blocks and no one else anywhere has mentioned the possibility of blocks to my knowledge (if I have missed a communication somewhere, let me know). If administrators are not mentioning blocks and no one else is either, it is certainly beyond Elonka's authority to mention blocks. Furthermore, even longstanding administrators like Radiant! (talk · contribs) are performing these page moves and her "danger of being blocked" edit could be seen as being directed at all of them. It's inappropriate for a biased individual to use such language with no backing and only against people which do not agree with their bias. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wknight94, I did not threaten anyone with a block, and it is obvious that I do not have the authority to make any blocks. I pointed out that continuing with controversial page moves could lead to a block, as was indicated by the ArbCom proceeding which Thatcher linked. Therefore, it is not a good idea to encourage people to proceed with page moves against consensus. Please stop throwing warning templates at my page every time you disagree with something I do, and please stop stalking my contribs. I've been trying very hard to be patient, and have been bending over backwards to assume good faith, but if you continue with this behavior, I will have no choice but to pursue further action against you. Knock it off. --Elonka 16:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't help your case at all. First how is anyone to supposed to know your "danger of being blocked" statement is referring to the ArbComm that Thatcher mentioned? Second, there were no blocks resulting from that ArbComm until after people ignored it and continued edit warring - so that analogy is completely flawed. Third, don't bother trying to claim you have consensus for not doing page moves. At best, there was no consensus to modify the TV-NC guideline so it would remain the same. Since moving those pages is in line with the existing guideline, it cannot possibly be considered "against consensus" - let alone be called a blockable action. Even if you had gotten full consensus for the exception verbiage, it was still just for exceptions - so the pages that were not tied to exceptions (i.e. most of them) would still be movable - and certainly not blockable. Fourth, my warning was not a template - it was handwritten. Fifth, I have that RFM on my watchlist (of course) so I'm not "stalking your contribs". Even if I were watching your contribs, I'd be perfectly within my rights per WP:HA.

Bottom line, even if your block mention was not a threat, it sounded like one. Worse yet, there is no substance behind the statement so it sounds like an empty threat. You should know better. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It is standard Wikipedia policy per WP:RM, that controversial page moves should not be carried out unless there is consensus for the moves. The guideline page is clearly listed as disputed, and there is much controversy on its talk page, to the point where there's even a note at the top of the talk page cautioning people that it's in "rapid archive" mode, plus a clear notice about an in-process mediation. To say that further moves would be non-controversial, is absurd. --Elonka 17:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Page moves involving pages under some sort of exception guideline? I would agree (but even then it would be cause to undo the move, not block someone). But that little tag does not mean "no television-related articles in the entire system can be moved". No admin in their right mind would block anyone that moved a television-related article now and I think you know that. Saying otherwise is irresponsible, esp. among so many that have not been here nearly as long as you. You should be setting an example not making threatening-sounding statements that are patently false. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wknight94, your behavior is in clear violation of the policy against Wikipedia:Harassment. You have been following me around Wikipedia, nitpicking my edits, and acting in an uncivil manner. Stop it. --Elonka 18:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Tagging for wikify

Hi

I know you're an experienced Wikipedian and do loads of great stuff, including tagging articles without categories, etc. I notice you often add the "wikify" tag too. Often these articles don't need wikifying, especially when they are stubs (recent examples include 49th Military Police Brigade or 7 Shot Screamers In Wonderland to pick two early ones from the list you tagged today.

If you tag them for wikfication they will be added to the wikify backlog, and someone from WikiProject Wikify will have to come & remove the tag again. Even if someone has edited the article to add a category, which appears to be your main suggestion, they often leave the wikify tag. I guess I am requesting that, in order not to waste others' time, you make your tagging a bit more specific, and only add a wikify tag when you feel it's really necessary.

I'd love to hear your views on this. Windymilla 22:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation, which helps me understand the reason. Looking more closely at 49th Military Police Brigade, where the only real wikifying problem was the lack of bolded title, I see the title was fixed by User:Malcolma when they categorised it in response to your tag, but unfortunately they didn't remove the wikify tag. The meaning of the wikify tag is a bit woolly, perhaps leading to a reluctance to remove it, in case others feel it was removed prematurely. Anyway, it's good to exchange views & get an insight into others' work. Thanks, Windymilla 11:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Civility question

Dear Elonka, I always respected you for your fine-tuned sense of detecting incivility. May I ask you for an opinion on the matters raised at User_talk:Piotrus#Under-the-carpet_maneuvers? Was I offended, or am I overreacting?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I have replied to you in private email. --Elonka 22:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. FYI, your name has been mentioned at User talk:JzG#Trolling? Please explain ANI deletion. You may want to reply there.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, as a courtesy note, I wanted to let you know that your name has come up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus, in case you would like to participate in the discussion.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This message is what the RFC is about. Piotrus, please look at your contributions and estimate how much of them are "requests for input", "Ghirlandajo said... so I search for your opinion", "I know that you have had conflicts with Ghirla, so please comments on his latest outburst...", "thanks for reporting on Ghirla's actions", etc, etc. I don't how others feel in such situations, but I regards such actions as objectionable and incivil. Can you name a single instance when I acted this way? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry P.P., but Ghirla caught you red-handed here. Fortunately for you, Elonka is too intelligent to fall for this low based flattery, and too well-bred to chide you for this rather cheap attempt to garner support from her against your RfC. What you fail to understand, is all of this is a much less personal attack than you think. It boils down to are you, in the capacity of an administrator, able to function above the fray, in a much less biased manner than you have chosen to demonstrate in the past? If you want to play to the mob, you might consider resigning your administratorship. Then you'd be part of the mob. Is this the better choice, maybe? I really doubt you would survive a vote to be reinstated, if you resigned. Sorry, Elonka for using your talk space as a referee, but these boys could both break it up a little, and both quit hitting below the belt. This was more of a no man's land than the RfC page. Dr. Dan 03:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

Straw polls

Dear Elonka,

I'd be happy to take a look at the situation you are referring to and offer some input. You should realize (and probably have realized if you read some of the arbitration discussions), however, that I had some intense disagreements with other editors on particulary the subject of removing other peoples' talk posts. Therefore, I am not a suitable person to ask if you are looking for a neutral "mediator". If you want input (or support, since you apparently have the same dispute with one of those editors), give a link where I can find the discussion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Elonka, I have been reading through some of the links you supplied, but the situation is indeed very complex. One thing I do not fully understand is why you have not agreed to official mediation in this dispute. That is part of the normal dispute resolving process, and at least that way the whole dispute is looked upon by someone neutral. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I've agreed on the talk page of the mediation. The mediation page itself has been protected, since about 18 hours after it was created. --Elonka 23:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

How to avoid contrib stalking

I have WP:RM watchlisted, so I saw your comments there and responded. Just today, I decided to check your contribs to see if you had taken similar action on other pages. As it turned out, you had. I am not in the habit of checking your contribs and I will not make it habit out of courtesy to you. However, I find your actions at WP:RM and WP:POLL to be incredibly unhelpful to the debate at WP:TV-NC, as none of us would be expected to find your posts those pages and be able to provide an opposing point of view. I repeat that I have no intention of stalking your contribs, but this pattern of posting related discussions on unrelated pages is practically an invitation for people to do just that.

I'm not saying that you don't have the right to bring up valid arguments on other pages, but I ask that you post a note at WP:TV-NC when it could impact the debate there. It would go a long way toward building good will and trust. –  Anþony  talk  04:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I invite you to pick a representative article and put it up for RM. If the consensus is decided in your favor, I will support a moratorium on the page moves. Also, those moves have been documented at WP:TV-NC, so your analogy is flawed. –  Anþony  talk  04:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:RM is not a guideline or policy. It is the recommended mechanism for determining consensus support for a move, which is all that is required. There's plenty of evidence that consensus support has been reached (chiefly the Lost RM), though I am fully aware that you disagree. It's ridiculous to demand that every one of these articles should be put up for RM, since the issues involved are essentially the same for all of them. Even a multi-RM would be infeasible, since it is practically impossible to find all the pages beforehand. Regardless, we have strayed far away from my original request, into areas that involve more than just you or me. If you have further comments you'd like to make, I suggest you bring them up on WP:TV-NC. –  Anþony  talk  04:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your latest spree

I'm fed up with this, Elonka. I disappear for a week and you embark on yet another spree of deletion attempts, although thankfully this time other people shut you down and told you to get consensus first. You're routinely abusing the speedy deletion criteria to try and get things deleted before anyone else can have oversight, and abusing the prod system to try and slip things through which you know have no consensus support. You were pushing it with the routine arbitrary attempts at AfDing articles without any attempt to determine if they were notable or not on your own (and which, in several cases, you later admitted you didn't want deleted after all). None of this is helping work out what to do with shopping centres - you're simply trying to wear down anyone who disagrees with you.

You've simply crossed the line, however, with the notability tags on David Jones Limited and The Westfield Group - two of the largest corporations in Australia (and in the latter case, globally), as you either well know or could have found out in ten seconds either by reading the articles or doing the slightest, most basic attempt at research via Google. I'm pretty tempted just to take this to arbitration now, citing this as evidence of your repeated violations of WP:POINT, but I'm holding off for the moment on the basis that you seem to have stopped when all your last batch of AfDs were speedy closed and actually started participating in some sort of attempt to reach consensus. That said, I'm fed up with having to constantly keep an eye out for these sorts of stunts - if this sort of disruption is resumed in the future, an arbitration request will be forthcoming. Rebecca 04:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Polling

I was told off-wiki that your latest angle in the TV dispute boils down to prosecuting people who oppose polls. Before you take that line of thought any further, let me remind you who it was that removed that poll against you. (Radiant) 10:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? "Prosecuting people who oppose polls"? --Elonka 10:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no particular desire to get involved in this so I'll take your word for it that this rumor is unfounded. I hope the mediation will prove productive; I get the impression that some people believe you to be acting disingeniously. (Radiant) 13:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Your family tree as a reference

As I'm sure you're aware, Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) removed almost all of the content of one of your articles because your family tree web site is not a reliable source. I have found all of the articles below suffering from the same problem. Could you please determine which facts in those articles are sourced from your original research and either remove the facts or find more reliable sources for them? Please do the same for any other articles which use your web site as a source. If the verifiability gap is serious enough that Jimmy Wales himself made an edit to address it, surely you agree that it needs to be rectified. Thank you.

• Antoni Dunin
• Rodryg Dunin
• Stanley Dunin
• Raphael Kalinowski
• Edward Werner
• Eduard Strasburger
• Agnieszka Baranowska
• Edmund Taczanowski

—Wknight94 (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Clement of Dunblane

Hi. Can you do me and wikipedia a big favour and give Clement of Dunblane a quick copyedit (sentences structures, unclear info, etc). I'm personally happy with it, but as it's up for FA, it has to satisfiy a broad range of editorally tastes. I trust you have no background in the topic, so will be able offer good neutral edits. Best regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:

I suggest to re-sumbit a medcabal case. WikieZach| talk 03:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Tell them the link, and let's restart. WikieZach| talk 11:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Re. Thank you

You're welcome. Keep up the good work. Regards,--Húsönd 03:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: NPA claim against Josiah Rowe

Elonka, If I may delurk and jump in for a moment in Josiah's defense. I've been on the sidelines with the current and rather overly-contentious debate going on at Naming conventions (television). That Josiah has been as even-keeled and balanced in his responses there is a testament to his fair-mindedness and fortitude. While his reply to Matthew may seem to tiptoe into the zone of incivility, it was far from a personal attack, but an expression of disbelief. Matthew is an enthusiastic editor, but at times casually discourteous -- his flippant remark to Wknight of "what case?" was one such time (and itself might be interpreted as an uncivil comment). I sometimes wonder, however, if you read the actual policy you cite, or derive your own interpretation. WP:NPA states,

...it is equally important not to interpret impersonal comments as personal attacks. Examples of comments that are not personal attacks include:

• Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks.

The essay page you point Josiah to, WP:TEA, states that it is intended to "declare publicly what you appreciate about other members of the community or their contributions"; specifically, "Saying nice things about other contributors, especially those with whom you are currently having problems." I don't see anything that you've written in appreciation of Josiah there. Directing him to "review policies, take a step back, take a deep breath, and perhaps have a cup of tea", after rapping him on the knuckles for a supposed personal attacks is, IMHO, a decidedly condescending and non-positive suggestion.

It seems to me that you have on various occasions claimed personal attacks and incivility in dealing with others on Wikipedia when none exists; such "fingerpointing" itself tends to raise the level of frustrations and stress. It may be an oversensitivity of refined sensibilities on your part. Perhaps, you might consider that some of the issues being raised on the WP pages/sections you frequent may actually be derived from the way you respond and interact with others who might disagree with you. Sometimes it's better to leave a matter alone-- even when you think you're in the right-- then to continue to nitpick to demonstrate your right-ness.

I note that you hope eventually to be a WP administrator. Chiding current admins in good standing about what you see as their failings is likely not the path to seeing your goals accomplished. Please take my comments as they were intended, in the spirit of helpfulness, as you are certainly an exceptionally knowledgeable and productive editor, who just sometimes seems to get caught up in Wikilawyering (a habit we all occasionally fall into).--Leflyman^Talk 03:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Leflyman, your words sound quite pleasant, but considering that you have been nominating my articles for deletion, and frequently engaging in uncivil commentary yourself, it's very difficult to take them to heart. Also, considering the quantity of profanity and name-calling that has been generated by others in the debate (including admins), it appears a bit one-sided that you'd take the time to try to "correct" my behavior (which has been unfailingly civil), and not say anything to anyone else. If you were distributing cautions more evenly (and not attacking my articles), it would be easier to take your words as being said in good faith. --Elonka 03:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Elonka, I think you've made my case for me. You seem to be unfailing in one thing: fingerpointing-- to a degree I've not seen from the "others in the debate." You've simply over-shot the mark this time in admonishing Josiah, one of the most patient and even-keeled editors I've had the pleasure to deal with in my years on Wikipedia. He's gained the respect of numerous editors and admins for his balanced temperament during contentious debates. (He even handled a recent emailed threat against him with aplomb.) One can certainly learn from his example. Oh, and, "nominating my articles", "attacking my articles"? Perhaps you might consider a review of WP:OWN.--Leflyman^Talk 04:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Josiah has been just as civil as you have. He's shown an inhuman amount of patience in this debate which has earned him my respect and the benefit of the doubt. I, myself, have tried as much as possible to refrain from personal attacks, incivility, or name-calling. I have not participated in any kind of edit-warring and I try not to "pile it on" when others criticize your positions. So you'll understand that I take offense to your repeated vague accounts of personal attacks without naming who made them. It seems you're trying to paint anyone who disagrees with you with a broad brush to discredit us. –  Anþony  talk  04:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, wait a second there. I will agree that both you and Josiah have been more patient and cool headed about this than I have, but .. what gives with that comment? Don't mistake me for Izzy Dot, and don't be pulled into Elonka's misrepresentation of other people's civility. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. It was inappropriate for me to drag your or anyone else's name into it. I mean only to say that none of us should be held responsible for actions of others. Elonka's trying to use a history of other people being incivil as a indictment against Josiah, which makes no sense. –  Anþony  talk  08:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's ok, I see now what you meant to say, and I take no offense to it. -- Ned Scott 09:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have supplied diffs of attacks many times, but to repeat: "stalling"[18][19], "immature delay tactics"[20][21], "bad faith" [22], and the "whining"[23] of "sore losers"[24] "borderline trolling"[25] being generally "disruptive" [26][27]. Other editors' opinions referred to as "dumb ideas" [28] whose "messages are BS" [29]]. My reminders about civility on Ned's talkpage were deleted with uncivil edit summaries such as accusations of "trolling" [30][31]. Further, having my edits repeatedly deleted off the page is pretty damn uncivil[32][33]. Plus the steady stream of Harassment by Wknight94, who's been steadily nitpicking my edits and wiki-stalking [34], showing up at pages all over my watchlist, throwing warnings at my page if I so much as breathe wrong, and now starting a new campaign against several bios in my family tree. Plus of course there are the attacks at the Village pump, like saying that one of my posts was "distorting reality to gain sympathy" [35], or at the talk page of WP:POLL, where personally-directed comments include, "screaming for a new poll" [36], and "intellectually dishonest" [37]. None of which I have responded to in kind, and yet certain editors are continuing to jump up and down and complain that I'm the bad guy. Personally, I think I've been showing the patience of a saint. How do you think you would behave, if you were treated to such a steady barrage? Me, I'm handling it by distributing civility and NPA warnings on the spot. Don't want the warnings? Don't be uncivil or issue personal attacks, it's really simple. --Elonka 05:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I note that not one of those diffs is an edit of mine. It is true that the comment to Matthew which provoked your comment reflected a certain frustration, but it was also exactly what it claimed to be: honest bafflement. As for my own conduct, I thank the editors who have spoken in my defence — they have presented my case much more eloquently and dispassionately than I could have. It is greatly appreciated. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Your one diff of mine asserts my opinion that it is intellectually dishonest to create support for a position where none previously existed. That is to say, had you gotten your language inserted into WP:POLL, it would be intellectually dishonest to claim that WP:POLL supported you, because it's really just you supporting yourself. I stand by that statement, I maintain it is not a personal attack, and I ask you not to repeat the claim again. Please review WP:NPA, which says explicitly that statements about the actions of a user, rather than the user him/her/itself, are inherently not personal attacks. Most of the diffs you cite suffer from a similar problem.

You supply diffs as well wherein Ned and Wknight claim that you are being disruptive, presumably because you believe this constitutes a personal attack. I'd like to draw your attention to a recent claim you made against Ned, using very similar language to describe him as being disruptive.[38]

Once again, I do not deny that some people have resorted to inappropriate language and an incivil tone. However, I object strongly to the implication that anyone who disagrees with you is guilty by association. I remind you that none of your diffs are from Josiah. That other users have used inappropriate language is no reason to admonish Josiah, who has proven himself time and again as a responsible and respectable editor. –  Anþony  talk  05:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

How many times do you plan on making allegations of harassment without actually presenting the applicable parts of WP:HA that you feel I'm not complying with? Here, I'll give you an example:

User space harassment

Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment.

A user page is for the person to provide some general information about themself and a user talk page is to facilitate communication. Neither is intended as a 'wall of shame' and should not be used to display supposed problems with the user unless the account has been blocked as a result of those issues. Any sort of content which truly needs to be displayed, or removed, should be immediately brought to the attention of admins rather than edit warring to enforce your views on the content of someone else's user space.

That is the part of the policy that I'll be posting at WP:ANI or worse if the unsupported claims persist - against me for harassment or against others for your other unsubstantiated claims (Josiah uncivil?! Really?!!). You say far too much and make far too many sweeping declarations and accusations without any evidence to back you up.

As far as your family bios, you've already been admonished at your own WP:RFA for writing bios on your own relatives and, worse, using your own original research for references. Jimbo took time out of his day to specifically state that your original research is not an appropriate reference. Danny (talk · contribs) has also brought up concerns over your conflict of interest. And yet, in over a month, nothing has been done to fix that - the references remain. I'm being overly generous in asking you to make the edits yourself to bring those in compliance with the policy WP:V. By rights, they could all be chopped down to stubs just the way Jimbo did. In fact, some would probably scold me for not doing it myself. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Elonka, they are trying to get you down.. just keep calm (like you always do) and they'll get bored. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Good lord, Elonka. Sorry you are having to deal with all this hatefulness and unreasonableness. I have been sick all weekend and am trying to catch up with the discussion. hang in there, just stay cool and don't let them get to you. Here is my moral support to you, I will comment where I can, but I only count maybe three or four total people who seem even slightly interested in being constructive, and I have little-to-no patience with the positional stance that many of the 'others' are taking (which seems to boil down to: "This is the way it is, I will hear no discussion and acknowledge no conflict" and "everything that everyone on the other side says is not valid in any way at all because I say so"). This is why it took so long for me to even start editing Lost pages - because of the editors who were so aggressive, harsh/rude, and authoritarian in their actions - it really turns people off and is unwelcoming. sorry, just venting. . . So (catching up), what is going on with the mediation attempt that Josiah had put forth? It looks like people are still adding/removing their names there, but then I heard talk of a new mediation attempt - do you know what is up? Riverbend 14:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Riverbend, I again invite you to take a look at the talk page archives at WP:TV-NC. The only reason people are "putting their foot down" now is because we did give the discussion a fair chance, and we did originally listen to all the concerns. It's just that the outcome wasn't what Elonka wanted, and now she's been repeating things for the last few weeks. No new arguments have been made since the start of the debate. -- Ned Scott 20:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I see your perspective, and have read the entirety of all archives on this discussion at least twice, most discussions more than ten times each. Please don't assume ignorance just because I have a different take on the matter than you. I do not believe that the harshness, rudeness, and aggression are warranted no matter how long a discussion goes on - I think that people should control their tempers better and treat each other with more respect. Regardless of whether anyone has violated any particular civility rule, the tone of this (entire extended) discussion has been awful in many parts. I also have observed that most people in this discussion are in a positional stance, and have been for a VERY long time - multiple people tried to move things in a constructive direction or develop workable solutions since I have been here (not that long), and they have been basically dismissed or ignored or overwhelmed by the rapid-fire positional, negative, and unconstructive comments. I consider this to be unreasonable. So, I am making these observations and giving moral support to Elonka (on her own talk page). I certainly invite you to my talk page if you want to talk to me about this further. Riverbend 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Christian Brothers College, Bulawayo

Thanks for reminding to categorise. This revealed several Christian Brothers Colleges with 'weird' categorisation i.e repetitive, rundundant part 10:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC) part 10:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Evaporators

I appreciate your advice and the useful header on the new Evaporators article contributed by User:PShoor PShoor. I cordially invite you to look at the other student projects, listed on my user page. Many thanks. susato 15:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have seen

Let me review it quickly to see if a block is needed, if so, I will get one. WikieZach| talk 02:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My Comments, and Your Usage of Them

Just to make sure you are clear. I did not issue a ruling on whether or not the guideline reflects consensus. It is not within our power of MedCom to do so. I was merely stating that this batch of pagemoves are not consentual and are detrimental to the mediation case (which was rejected). Please do not use my comments out of context or to try and establish an "official" view on this policy, as I have not done such. Thank you. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Other than suggesting everyone stop what they were doing, I issued no reccomendations. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Arbcom vote

"Voters are requested not to add extensive comments to their votes. An uninvolved party may move long comments to the talk page". —Centrx→talk • 09:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Moves

Hi, Elonka. I've been busy in real life for the last couple of days, and haven't fully caught up with recent developments. (I've seen that the mediation was rejected, and I've read WT:TV-NC and the AN/I threads, but I haven't looked into any of the other places this debate has spread into, like a metastasizing cancer.) I appreciate you reaching out to me, and I think that the sentiment of acting with integrity and mutual respect is a noble one. I'm don't think that I can support an absolute moratorium on page moves, since there really does seem to be a consensus in support of the guideline — the results of the already completed Lost RM would seem to support this. However, in the spirit of your request, I can support a recommendation that no more moves be performed outside of the WP:RM process.

The core of the TV-NC dispute, as I see it, is whether there is consensus in support of the guideline or not. If, as you and Matthew believe, there is not a consensus in support of WP:TV-NC, then any page moves should be examined on their own merits, in accordance with other Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Although I disagree with it, I can understand your argument of why moving pages without a formal RM can be disruptive in the current environment. I don't see how filing move requests and asking the views of all interested editors, including those who maintain the articles, is disruptive. The RM process is deliberate, careful and open to all Wikipedians. I think that using RM for the remaining moves is appropriate and would show due respect to those who disagree with the current guideline. Does that make sense to you? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Josiah, thank you for your courteous response. It's my hope that if we can continue to treat each other with civility, we may be able to find a way out of this mess. :)

In terms of just defining what the different positions are, the way I see it, things break down more or less like this:

• There's an "NC Gang" of editors who are adamantly against any kind of compromise, against mediation, and against running a new poll. They refuse to negotiate in good faith, they escalate the matter with incivility and non-consensus moves, and in a few cases are making the dispute very very personal, by generating personal attacks and incivility, creating or supporting revenge AfD nominations, or stalking other users' contributions. This group seems to be comprised of:

Wknight94, Ned Scott, Ace Class Shadow, Yaksha, Milo H Minderbinder, Serge Issakov, Jay32183, BlueSquadronRaven

• The "WP:DAB" crowd. This group feels strongly that disambiguation guidelines should be followed. They're not (as) militant about it, but, through either unawareness of the unethical tactics by the above group, or quiet acceptance of it, they seem to be allied with the gang:

Anþony, Brian Olsen, you, Chuq, Radiant!, Nohat, Shannernanner, Wikipedical

• Then on the other side, we've got the "Let the WikiProjects decide" group:

Myself, MatthewFenton, Riverbend, Argash, EnsRedShirt, PeregrineFisher, Huntster, TobyRush, JeffStickney

• The "disagree with dab, but will go along with seeming consensus" group. These names particularly sadden me, because I saw them pop into the conversation, state their objections, and then they were rapidly overwhelmed by the "NC gang", who intimidated them right out of the conversation by making them feel that they were lone voices:

Tango, Cburnett

• The "we're disgusted with this conversation" group. They don't seem to have a clear stance on the disambiguation issue, but they've popped in to say that the situation is a mess, and they recommend a poll:

PKtm, Oggleboppiter, Englishrose

In short, when I look at the above groupings, what it tells me is that:

• about 16 editors feel strongly that WP:DAB should be strictly followed, with about half of that number feeling so strongly about it that they want to push through thousands of page moves to "enforce" it immediately.

• About 8 editors strongly desire some degree of WikiProject autonomy

• Another 8 or so editors fall into varying camps of either disagreeing with DAB but not caring about it that much, or wanting everyone to try and find a different way of dealing with the situation.

A few other editors, such as at the Village Pump, have agreed with WikiProject autonomy, but are too daunted by the NC-TV chaos to want to wade in and specifically participate in the debate.

I may have missed a few names here, but I think the general breakdown is more or less accurate. And no, I'm not providing this list so that we can whip out our calculators and try to determine supermajority percentage -- I'm providing it to indicate that this is not just a "me and Matthew" thing. We may be two of the more vocal people in this discussion, but we're not alone.

What I would like to see at this point is:

• A moratorium on moves (would a 30-day ceasefire be too much to ask?), to reduce the sense of urgency that's just escalating tension. There seems to be a sense from the NC Gang that if they can just get the moves pushed through, that the problem will go away, but that's not the case. The more moves that are forced through, the more complaints that are going to be generated, and the more that this situation is going to escalate.

• Trying again at Mediation, perhaps through MedCab

• Running a survey. I think we're really really close to agreed-upon wording, and I really strongly think that a poll would help clarify the issue. Honestly, when I'm talking to other people about this, the most common response I get is, "Too complex, I don't know where to post."

I've been talking backchannel to some ArbCom reps, and they're telling me that the reason we're not getting any response at ANI, is because the issue is so complex. They're neither encouraging nor discouraging me from filing the ArbCom case, but the word "complex" keeps coming up, over and over. So if nothing else, I think the best way that we could proceed at this point, is to talk about how to simplify this matter. It is my opinion that further moves are complicating things (and escalating tension by increasing the sense of urgency). Please, can we take a step back, stop making rapid changes, and talk about this? --Elonka 19:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that we've been talking about this for over a month, and neither side is making much headway vis-a-vis convincing the other. I know that you feel things are being rushed, but other participants feel like there's been more than adequate time for discussion and debate, and would almost certainly regard a moratorium as "delay tactics".

Similarly, since we weren't able even to keep from edit warring on the RfM page in the formal mediation, I don't know that informal mediation (without the agreement of key parties) would be at all useful.

I should note here, Elonka, that your list of participants appears somewhat distorted: on "your" side, you include editors like EnsRedShirt and PeregrineFisher who have made their opinions known but have not participated actively in the discussion, but on the "DAB" side you exclude editors like Khaosworks, Fru1tbat, ThuranX, Izhmal, Percy Snoodle, Ac1983fan, AnemoneProjectors and many, many others who have been equally clear and have participated roughly as much as EnsRedShirt. I also question whether the "disagree with dab, but will go along with consensus" group has dropped out of the conversation because they were intimidated, or because they just didn't care that much about it. Unless you ask them, we can't know, and it's not really appropriate to characterize them either way.

As for running another poll, in the past I've been willing to support that in the interest of ending this poisonous debate. However, several editors have objected vigorously to the notion of another poll, and given that these objections are part of the environment, I don't think another poll would be regarded as legitimate.

But I wonder, if we've got RM surveys going on at the same time, couldn't they be regarded as proxies for the TV-NC debate? Unless there are specific arguments which would apply to a particular television series and not to others, the arguments are going to be the same each time. Radiant! pointed out on many occasions that Wikipedia guidelines are not generally decided by polling, but by conversation and practice. A series of requested move polls could show exactly that: what is the general opinion on this subject, and what is the general Wikipedia practice. Perhaps we could agree that the outcome of a series of RM polls — including an RM on the Buffy and Star Trek examples, which are bound to gain more involvement than Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles episodes — could be treated as a measure of the Wikipedia-wide opinion on the issue? That way, we could avoid another poll but also allow room for everyone to air their views. If you agree, I'll ask Yaksha not to make any more moves outside of RM, and we can work together to proceed in an orderly fashion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

I have submitted a Request for Arbitration for the TV-episode naming conventions dispute at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Naming_Conventions_for_TV-episodes_articles. As one of the involved parties, could you please come and take a look and submit your statement? Thanks, --`/aksha 12:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: MedCab

Reading through that discussion page, I'd say that informal mediation is probably dead in the water at this point; it may have worked a month ago, but I think the discussion seems to have collapsed past that point by now. Kirill Lokshin 13:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, all things considered, it may not be entirely appropriate for me to act as an advisor to a party to an Arbitration case at this point. ;-)

Two general points that might be helpful, though:

• The list of parties is open to change; if you think that other editor's involvement is important, you can add them to the list.
• The initial statement's role is primarily related to the initial acceptance or rejection of the case; if it's accepted, there will be a set of evidence and workshop pages to use for the actual substance of the case.

Kirill Lokshin 00:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

TMNT

Elonka, I apologize for taking so long to respond to you; I have been away from Wikipedia for the past week and am just now catching up with all the recent hubbub.

I am not certain why you took exception to my moving of episode articles at TMNT 1987; you mentioned there that "the issue is pretty clearly in dispute," but I saw no evidence of that dispute at TMNT 1987. In fact, the issue had been brought up by tiZom in August, and no one had offered any opinions one way or the other since then.

I've made mention of this, and more specifically described my good-faith intentions, at the discussion you initiated at AN/I.

I am curious, though, about your remark on the TMNT talk page that it is inappropriate to make changes to the TMNT pages without first consulting the original editors. This seems to me to counter the fundamental nature of Wikipedia: the original editors do not own the TMNT pages, and they agreed to allow their work to be "mercilessly edited" when they submitted the changes, as we all do.

If you feel that the TMNT 1987 pages should maintain their own naming convention, I invite you to make the case over that the TMNT 1987 page so we can determine a consensus. (Had you, or anyone else, made this case in response to tiZom's original request, I would certainly have not made any page moves.) As I've mentioned on AN/I, if a consensus there emerges to have all the pages disambiguated, I will gladly go through and add the suffixes again myself. :) --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 18:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

'bot and {{uncat}}

You're welcome. It's quite satisfying to be able to do relatively technically straightforward stuff that others seem to find useful, and hopefully ultimately helps various maintenance operations once these have a reasonable category on them. I suppose at this rate, you'll indeed be spending a lot of time on uncategorised pages for some time to come! Alai 21:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, trouble is that it doesn't take wikipedians very long to create 1000 brand new uncategorised articles... or indeed, a multiple thereof. As the last full db failed, there may be another fairly soon, at which point it'll be a bit clearer what the overall progress with uncat-tagging is. I've yet to tackle articles with templates, so there'll be probably around 10-15,000 of those -- plus all the new articles -- so I'm making no wild forecasts about your chances of seeing (m)any new letters on the special page, just yet. Alai 03:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Beverly Hills Preparatory School

Hi! I saw this one on your "to do" list, my late Wife's sister is an alumnus, so I thought I would give you a stub upon which to build! :) Chris 07:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Votestacking/Campaigning

In the recent discussions at WT:TV-NAME and related articles, you have contacted editors who have edited articles in a certain way and urged them to participate in the disambiguation discussion and page move votes. You should be aware that selectively contacting editors who share a point of view and asking them to vote may be considered Votestacking or Campaigning per WP:SPAM. Examples: [39] [40] [41] [42] --Milo H Minderbinder 14:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that it is routine to contact the editors who created an article, to let them know if that article has been nominated for deletion or is otherwise undergoing discussion about a major change. That's not vote-stacking, it's a courtesy note. --Elonka 18:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, might want to look into Ned Scott's behavior: [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]. --Elonka 18:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If your intention was to "contact the editors who created an article", why did you only contact User:Tedius Zanarukando, who posted a "guideline" that agreed with your philosophy of predisambiguation but created relatively few TMNT articles, while not notifying a number of other editors who had created and edited many more TMNT articles? Why did you "notify" User:SilvaStorm, a user with relatively few edits of Lost articles but who did a mass move of them without consensus [49], while not notifying others who have created and edited far more of those articles? And if your intention was "notification", why is your message to Opark [50] so one-sided ("Attack on The Wire episodes/FYI, there's a group of editors that are working their way through Wikipedia, disrupting category after category of television episodes. Their next target is The Wire, which episodes I see that you created. ") instead of merely notifying him that the discussion was taking place? I've been looking at Ned's notifications, do you have any reason to believe he contacted those individuals with reason to believe that they'd agree with him? There's nothing wrong with notifying editors of a decision as long as it is done impartially as opposed to only notifying those on one side of an issue. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I contacted SilvaStorm precisely because that editor was moving articles without consensus, as it was my desire to get them to stop with move wars and other disruptive actions, and to instead engage in civil discussion about the matter. I also contacted most of the other editors that were engaging in non-consensus moves, to ask them to stop as well. Now please, will you stop with this rather desperate attempt to claim wrongdoing on my part? The term "glass houses" comes to mind. [51] --Elonka 21:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

For a request to stop non-consensus moves, you put a lot of emphasis on coming to WP:TV-NAME and joining the discussion. You haven't answered why you contacted User:Tedius Zanarukando. Nor have you answered whether the people Ned contacted were only those on one side of the issue (looking at the history, it looks like that list includes those who disagreed with him). And what is the point of that diff? I just see your false accusations that I'm a sock puppet, something I would think you would like to forget. Which particular glass house are you accusing me of being in? Are you saying that I have been campaigning or votestacking? Or that someone campaigned for me to join a particular discussion? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh Elonka, → [52] ←. -- Ned Scott 07:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And it continues: [53]. Even after pointing this out, you contact ("notify?") another editor who has made edits that follow your disambiguation preference: [54]. How can we assume good faith when it's so clear that you are only contacting those you believe are predisposed to agree with you? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I contacted that editor because he was the last actively involved editor to move the page (as opposed to a bunch of non-involved editors, including both you and me, piling in from the guideline page), so his opinion is valuable. I have no idea whether he's going to be for or against disambiguation at this time. --Elonka 18:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Involved? Non-involved? I suggest you read WP:OWN. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you re-read it, since you seem to have a misunderstanding of what WP:OWN is about. For example, respect for other editors is recommended: "Although working on an article does not entitle one to "own" the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors." There's also a difference between "owning" an article, and being a major "contributor" to that article. For example WP:PROD recommends notifying an article's creator that a deletion has been proposed. See {{prodwarning}}. Ditto with AfDs, see {{afdwarning}}. These kinds of courtesy notes are routine. --Elonka 19:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"respect for other editors is recommended" doesn't mean that the creator of an article needs to give permission to make changes. Does RM recommend notifying an article's creator? You still haven't addressed why out of the many article creators, you seem to only have contacted those who have gone on record with edits that agree with your disambig philosophy. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have contacted interested editors who were either the creators of articles, or the last ones to make a relevant change to the pages in discussion. I have neither recommended how they participate in the discussion, nor do I have any idea whether they'll agree or disagree with me. And the charge that I'm contacting the "creator of an article to give permission to make changes" is just absurd. I have never done any such thing. --Elonka 20:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I still want to hear what Elonka has to say about this →[55] - Ned Scott 22:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ned, I think it's pretty clear from that diff, that your first pass was only to invite editors who agreed with you, and then after MatthewFenton pointed out what you were doing, you invited a couple others. --Elonka 17:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That or there were only two other editors who were "disagree", and my original pass was more about activity in the discussion. Most of your "supporters" were already aware of the discussion. -- Ned Scott 20:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking exactly at who I specifically invited, I placed neutral summaries of the dispute (something I've hardly seen you do) to some RFC pages, WP:LOST, WP:TV, and then four specific editors (Nohat and Wknight94, because they were the ones who changed my mind, and then two participants of another dispute [where the only disagree was Matthew, who was already apart of the discussion.])-- Ned Scott 20:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eagle 101 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

CallMe Communications

Since the userspace version was userfied from articlespace, and a nearly-identical article was speedied (repeatedly), I went ahead and removed the userspace copy as well. If someone wants to make an article about them, it's better that it not be from that foundation. -- nae'blis 05:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur, thanks. --Elonka 19:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit summary

Having noticed you following the request for arbitration [[56]], I wanted to wish you good luck with that as I truly think we should have standardized naming.

I also wanted to make a friendly comment about your edit summary here [57] which might be truthfully a smoothing out job but such a statement is 1- not encyclopedic and 2- not creating a positive atmosphere to work in. A simple summary (syntax or style in this case) might avoid some unwanted reactions. Lost Kiwi^(talk) 07:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised that you feel that "Smoothing out the English" is an unfriendly comment. I have routinely had foreign nationals ask me to review their articles on Wikipedia and ask me to perform this function. However, if you find it unpleasant, I do apologize, and will keep your concerns in mind that others may feel similarly, and I shall endeavor to find more neutral ways of expressing the action in the future. --Elonka 18:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Bruce Lockhart

I noticed you put the uncategorized tag on Bruce Lockhart and now I have a question! I was going to beef it up a bit in order to categorize it. So, I googled Mr. Lockhart and lo and behold the first entry in google to pop up was a more complete page for the same person on Wiki. It is under R. H. Bruce Lockhart. What is the best way to deal with this? Redirect? Request a delete? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.164.83.223 (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.83.223 (talk • contribs) 03:02, December 14, 2006 (UTC)

Description

I’m bothered by the wording of the category in which you've placed me above: They're not (as) militant about it, but, through either unawareness of the unethical tactics by the above group, or quiet acceptance of it, they seem to be allied with the gang. I don’t care for the implication that my opinion is based either on ignorance or on acceptance of unethical tactics. Have you used this wording elsewhere? Putting this on your talk page is one thing, but if you've put it on any page related to the arbitration, I’d like the opportunity to refute it. Thanks. --Brian Olsen 06:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, as one of the "NC Gang" as you've described me, I would like to say that I am not "adamantly against any kind of compromise, against mediation, and against running a new poll". What I am against is the random granting of exceptions to guidelines without compelling reasons to back them up. So far I have heard none, as I don't believe consistency alone is compelling enough, nor that WikiProjects warrant special treatment. Come up with a new one and I'll listen. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the wording when you posted this on the Evidence page. I don't completely agree with your description of the first group, but I appreciate you removing the implications I mentioned from your reference to me. --Brian Olsen 00:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Not an attack

It's rather ironic that in rebuking me for my comment about "pulling an Elonka", you engage in the very behavior I was alluding to in that remark — the tendency to distribute civility and "NPA" warnings at the slightest provocation. It is not a personal attack to refer to an individual's consistently demonstrated pattern of behavior, especially one which, as Leflyman points out, you yourself admit to on this very page. Similarly, describing remarks like this (to take but one example) as "snide asides" is not a personal attack, but a description of a pattern of behavior. WP:NPA says "Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks." I don't believe that I have made any comments about your personal character, and I resent your repeated suggestion that I have. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:Josiah Rowe) Guys, how would you feel if I were to post something like, "Oh, he did a revenge-AfD, he was pulling a Leflyman," "Oh, he's just being hypocritical, he's pulling a Josiah," "Oh, he's just sniping again, he's pulling a Milo." It is NOT CIVIL. Please try to adopt a better standard of behavior, and treat others the way that you would like to be treated. Before using someone's name in a post, especially for a negative comment, think to yourself, "How would it feel if they said this exact same thing about me?" If it would make you angry, then it's probably better to not say it. As for my conversations with Matthew, I talk to him every day in IMs, so you have no idea what I do or don't tell him. In fact, I've been talking with several people in this dispute, who are in support of the "Let the WikiProjects decide" argument, but don't want to participate in the discussion because of how toxic it has become. If you'll look at the NC page, you'll see that nearly every time anybody speaks up in opposition, they are immediately challenged. This is not the way to hold a civil discussion. If Matthew and I are the most vocal, it's probably because we've got the thickest skins, and have been able to withstand the steady stream of abuse. But regardless of what behavior you ascribe to him or to me, it does not excuse incivility on your part. Please stop it. --Elonka 18:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That's nice, responding to non-personal attacks with actual personal attacks couched in the hypothetical. It's sort of like the O. J. Simpson non-confession. I'm sorry that you can't see the difference between describing behavior you yourself have admitted to (namely, "distributing civility and NPA warnings on the spot" — your own words, Elonka) and characterizing those actions in a negative fashion. Saying that Leflyman's AfD was a "revenge-AfD" ascribes a motive to him. Calling me hypocritical is personal in a way that none of my comments about you have been. You once suggested that I re-read WP:NPA — let me suggest the same, with particular emphasis on the sections WP:NPA#Examples that are not personal attacks and WP:NPA#Be aware of WikiLawyering. I will acknowledge that a few of my comments may have been on the borderline of civility, but I strongly dispute the accusation that I have made personal attacks. If you think I have, take it up at WP:PAIN and see what sort of response you get there.

There is a difference between incivility and personal attacks. Both are forbidden on Wikipedia, but they are not the same thing. I will accept your civility reminders with as much grace as I can muster, but I do not accept your accusations of personal attacks, because they are simply untrue. Kindly desist. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is really unfortunate, distressing, and frankly inexplicable behavior from an admin. Elonka, you have my sympathies on this exchange, but it seems clear that the behavior here has not changed and will not change. Regrettable. This is exactly the kind of thing that has turned me off Wikipedia in general. PKtm 07:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please fix my username in your evidence

I asked at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Evidence but you apparently didn't see it. –  Anþony  talk  02:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)