User talk:Elonka

Dear Elnoka--- sorry to keep troubling you. the article I completed on 'sophia bekele' has this message below every time I open it. Could you pls advise on what it is and why it is there? also , why would the warning state that article would be deleted if it is not edited? Thanks so mcuh!!

"This article or section is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. Please view the edit history should you wish to contact the person who placed this template. If this article has not been edited in several days please remove this template. Consider not tagging with a deletion tag unless the page hasn't been edited in several days."

Lashford (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Elnoka, thanks for your help so far. I have finished the article and posted it on the main page. Please advise on how to delete the my user page, so that the following does not appear in search enginees. Thanks you

User:Lashford/Sophia Bekele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaSophia Bekele (born and raised in the city of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia) is a business and corporate executive, consultant published writer and philanthropist. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lashford/Sophia_Bekele - 77k -

Lashford (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Elonka. Please note that this page is not finished being edited. Like you advised before, I was hoping to work in the user area before moving it for publishing. It seem now that it is appearing in the searches. Can you please correct? or advise how I can do it? Thank you.

"User:Lashford/Sophia Bekele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaSophia Bekele (born and raised in the city of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia) is a business and corporate executive, consultant published writer and philanthropist. ...

Thank you Lashford (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dated sub-cats

Essentially the templates need to be tweaked, and the sub cats created. There's a few bits of admin too, but that's the crux. I'll have a look at it. Rich Farmbrough, 21:29 11 March 2008 (GMT).

Basically done. Rich Farmbrough, 22:41 12 March 2008 (GMT).

Abaqa Khan

Hi Elonka - I was looking over the list at the FMA talkpage of articles needing cleanup and noticed that this one was still on the list, although you seem to have done a fair bit of work on it. I admit I haven't read through it thoroughly, but it seemed ok at a glance - does it still need work? Kafka Liz (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Certain sections could definitely still use expansion, as it's very Crusader-centric, with very little information about everything else in Abaqa's reign, such as his wars with other Mongols. If you have any information on those topics to help balance things out, that would be great. Otherwise, if you're happy with it, go ahead and cross it off The List. :) --Elonka 19:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt I'll be able to add anything strictly on the Mongols -- they're more in Aramgar's line. I'll check it over though. Thanks. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: I think it's fine in terms of the Franco-Mongol alliance issues, but I'm hesitant to cross it off the list because of the undue weight on his interactions with the crusaders. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's been my concern too. I keep meaning to expand it, but then I get pulled to other projects (such as my Hungarian-Slovakian experiment). --Elonka 15:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration (wow, it's good to have jugdes with full power who can exterminate anybody they wish)

You know, a friend of mine who's studying history and Hungarian at a university in Bratislava told me that her professors just hate when someone dares to use Wikipedia as a source (especially for history). Looks like I've got a first-hand proof of the reason of their rage against Wikipedia..... CoolKoon (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Any college professor would (and should) be wary of students using any encyclopedia article as a source. The nice thing about Wikipedia over other encyclopedias is that we encourage/require the use of verifiable, reliable sources. Wikipedia is a good place to start looking for sources and, possibly, get an overview of a situation. The whole point of college is to get students to learn to think for themselves and learn to learn, which you would absolutely fail to do were you to use Wikipedia as a thesis-generating machine. Industry-specific experience and skills are a secondary concern. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm using Wikipedia for learning. Of course my field of study has nothing to do with any kind of history whatsoever. But I keep being amazed that how many things can I learn from wikipedia especially in natural sciences. And if I look for articles regarding electrical engineering, the amount of knowledge contained in Wikipedia is absolutely astonishing.

However my point was (and still it is) that most of the articles regarding history (especially the ones about Central and Southeastern Europe) are heavily biased. And the most unfortunate thing is that trying to be objective creates a wave of complains, arguments, revert wars, flamewars etc. CoolKoon (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You might enjoy this essay, Madness, by a professor in Canada who assigned his students a task to create high-quality articles on Wikipedia. If they could get the article to featured status, they got a good grade! They improved several articles, at least two of which got to FA. I would love to see more professors do this, in all fields.  :) --Elonka 14:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fembot...

Found this on my talk page today...thought you might get a kick out of it....not sure why it was posted on my talk page....here. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Book

Thanks for the note - it's good to hear that an experienced editor actually enjoys reading it. If you come across anything that seems puzzling, wrong, or missing, please don't hesitate to drop me a note - I expect to have several opportunities to update the book this year, and am always looking for improvements. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Notes - that's great; I'm already looking forward to your comments. As for sales, I actually have no idea - I don't even know the size of the first printing. And I won't get a royalty statement for the period ending March 31st until possibly as late as the end of June. (There also has been talk of a second printing; I'm kind of hoping that happens relatively soon, given the number of things that have changed - eight skins, not seven; the "+" tab is now "new section", and so on. (O'Reilly pitched the book as print-on-demand, I've been told, so that it would always be up-to-date, but the major book sellers wouldn't buy that, literally.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hungary/Slovakia experiment

Thanks for helping clear that out but between the ANI page, the Wikiquitte complaint, the headaches at Talk:Hedvig Malina, this archived mess at my talk page (seems like your work is done but if not, you should review it), I'm just done with it. The last article I helped out on resulted in more insanity than this one. Reviewed everything quickly, but every single comment from me seems to result in the same gigantic argument again and again (mostly from one particular individual). I'll comment if something seems really out there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Peace from Hexagon1

		The Barnstar of Peace
		Elonka, for your work in mediating the Hungarian and Slovak communities in their dispute, and for your remarkable patience, I award you the Barnstar of Peace. +Hexagon1 (t) 14:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching the developments at User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment with interest, and even though I am too busy edit-warring elsewhere to edit-war over the Hungarian-Slovak dispute, I have been most impressed by your efforts towards mediation and a peaceful solution. So, here's a little something for your trouble, if you want it. Thank you! +Hexagon1 ^(t) 14:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Awww, thanks.  :) This has definitely been a learning experience for me, and it is my hope that with the lessons learned, I may be able to better assist in the creation of other dispute resolutions techniques, by which the entire project can benefit. So if you have any feedback or advice, definitely let me know!  :) --Elonka 14:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Heritage

Ok, I am sorry. And I'll use the reflist, I promise ;) --Rembaoud (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Aimone Duke or King?

Hi Elonka, I wonder if you'd be intersted in assessing the situation with the proposed move of the Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta to Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta and perhaps closing the matter? Its been (I think) over a week now and we really need a neutral view, and perhaps even arbitration, to end the matter. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion should stay open because the Director has not notified users who participated in the previous proposal for a move. They deserve to have a say. If you have any personal interest in the matter or have some sources (which for the matter of fact the support crew doesn't have) you should participate and therefore not decide the matter. -- Imbris (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

New England Interstate Route 8

Hey- I know this isn't a history subject, but geography is close. Anyway, there is a page called New England Interstate Route 8 in which the old route NE-8 from 1922-1926 is supposed to be discussed. Instead, in User Talk:Polaron, Polaron is convinced that it means all the routes called 8 in the region of New England, which makes no sense, because they are not interstate- the roads are different in each state, hence the markers. I reference the roadgeek.com site because it clearly discusses the NE system. Thanks! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 00:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity

Hello Elonka!

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I placed a speedy at the article Sophia Bekele. The author posted into mainspace by accident when the article was not ready, he is now developing the article in user space first at a user page and asks for a courtesy deletion from main space until it's ready, the article is here Sophia Bekele, the author is working in his user space here, [1], since speedy was not so speedy in this case could you just delete it with your tools? The subject of the article is also involved somehow she has a talk page here User talk:Sbekele, she blanked the mainspace article once (it was in bad shape). Hobartimus (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Elonka 08:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I received the following message from the subject [2], I think I understand it to mean that this real person is unhappy about random ANI chatter about her showing up in google even archived , [3] this seems to be the offending thread and it does show up in google pretty early in the results. I have no idea why ANI archives are google indexed in the first place, but the complaint seems legitimate to me, since it's about a real person (full name was used in ANI that's why it shows up). However I don't think I know any procedure for this problem (maybe removal of the two instances where real name is mentioned and replacing them with (subject) or (name removed)) can ANI archives be edited this way or should I just tell her that the real article is developing well and it will outrank this ANI archive when it goes live? Maybe another solution is to write an OTRS ticket, but I don't know if I'm allowed to write one for other people? Hobartimus (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci

I don't know if you'd noticed but Mathsci has removed your comment from his talk page, sorry to bother you if you knew. :) Harland1 (^t/_c) 05:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I am free to remove any comment from my talk page that I like Harland1. Mathsci (talk) 06:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, I noticed. It's okay though. By him removing my comment, I take it as a clear signal that he's read it. :)

If everyone can stay calm from here on, then the problem's over, and everyone can get back to work. If not, well, we'll deal with that as it comes. If you do see future behavior by any editor that you find questionable, the best way to handle it is to leave a small polite note at that editor's talkpage, with a diff of the comment. That serves multiple purposes: It notifies the editor in a clear way; it flags the problem for others (such as admins) who may be watching that editor's talkpage; and it provides a record, in case further action is required. If the situation has to proceed to another stage of dispute resolution such as ANI or an RfC or ArbCom, it can be really helpful to have a paper trail on the editor's talkpage, from which to pull together evidence. Also, if/when an admin is requested, one of the first things that any admin will do, is check the user's talkpage to see if they've already been warned. And don't worry, most admins are wise to the "blanking" technique. Any experienced admin will know to look at history rather than just what's on the page. See also some useful tips at WP:DE.

What would be most helpful right now, from all involved, is that they stay very very polite and civil with each other. That makes it much easier to screen out the background noise, and then those editors who are unable or unwilling to remain civil, become much easier to deal with. For a humorous essay on this, see here.  :) --Elonka 05:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci: I didn't say you weren't. :) Harland1 (^t/_c) 09:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Diff

(ec) This [4] was a revert of a foolish edit by User:Michellecrisp. Her movement of 2 sentences, carefully written and researched over a year ago by me, listed a public library and a visual arts centre under the category "opera and theatre" (I had also rewritten the opera section to replace a direct translation of an Opera House publicity blurb). This was a capricious edit and was "effectively vandalism". In future please look at the original diff, before commenting on any subsequent interchange. In this case I believe that User:Michellecrisp made these changes to Marseille and Aix-en-Provence to prolong her intervention on the talk page of WikiProject Mathematics. Unlike me, she does not edit mathematics articles. She appears to watch my talk page because she randomly chimes in on conversations with other editors that have nothing to do with her and which have nothing to do with her current mainspace edits. [5] [6][7]

As for User:Jagz, he is trolling on WP:AN/I and on Talk:Race and intelligence. What other words can be used for his endless discussion about the inclusion of "different" before "race" and his slurs on long-time editor/administrator User:Slrubenstein? As a WP:SPA pushing a fringe point of view, he is far from being a typical WP editor. I know that adminstrators love to treat problematic WP:SPA editors with kid gloves and dislike expert editors who write indecipherable articles on Fredholm determinants, Iphigenie, Porte d'Aix or Spectral theory of ordinary differential equations, but can this point of view not occasionally be taken too far? Apparently you are condoning the disinformation that User:Michellecrisp added to Marseille (and her later inaccurate edits [8] to Aix-en-Provence). Do you really approve of editors adding incorrect information, or is there something I have misunderstood? They may think that they are acting in good faith, but whereas I purchase books or consult library books to write many WP articles, they can just include faulty information from unreliable sources (in this case a poorly translated foldable city guide on one sheet of paper).

I already wrote to User:C S that I did not appreciate the attack on me on WikiProject Mathematics and was contemplating leaving the project and removing my recent contributions. I don't find the words you left on my talk page insightful in the light of this attack on me: you hadn't really spent long enough finding out what was going on and, despite your compliment on my edits, you might not have realised that perhaps Michellecrisp had succeeded in disrupting my mainspace editing. Other editors have been removing some of her comments on my talk page. [9] How would you describe that kind of edit? Why did User:Michellecrisp report this diff [10] on the WikiProject Mathematics page? Isn't that being disruptive? Mathsci (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the diffs, I will look into all of them in detail. And please, Mathsci, in no way did I intend to indicate that you are the sole one at fault here. Instead, I genuinely am trying to give you constructive advice on how to improve your communication style slightly.

My impression of you thus far is that you are a thoughtful academic, who is extremely busy off-wiki, and in those times that you have time on-wiki, you would rather spend it working on articles, than having to "suffer the interference of fools." I get that.  :) However, perhaps unconsciously, I think that you are doing and saying things that are actually drawing more conflict in your direction than you want. That's why I am bringing things up, to point out these things about your communication style of which you may be unaware.

In other words, if one wants to escalate a conflict, the quickest way to usually do so, is to call the other party a pejorative term. When you refer to another editor as engaging in a "foolish edit", or doing something "capricious", or "trolling" or "vandalizing", these kinds of words are not "accurate descriptions" of a situation, these are inflammatory terms which often make the situation actively worse. And as a mechanism of getting someone to "go away", they are extremely ineffective. Instead, such terms tend to evoke very primitive reactions. See WP:MASTODON.  :)

Also, I understand that it's natural in these situations to feel a bit defensive. However, be careful about what kinds of motivations that you are projecting onto other people. For example, you are implying that I'm not understanding what's going on, but when you say, "I know that administrators love to treat SPAs with kid gloves, and dislike expert editors," or when you say that I am "condoning disinformation," it makes me smile, because it tells me that you really don't know my history at all, heh. My own philosophy is usually to bend over backwards to accommodate the genuine academics, because I know how much value that they can add to Wikipedia. If you want a character reference, I could put you in touch with some on-wiki Harvard academics that can vouch for me. :)

As far as your own issues, I am still researching the entire situation, and I assure you that I am looking into the history of all involved, not just yours. I am also looking at Michellecrisp's and and Jagz's contribs, and several other editors. Along the way, I'm also looking for places where "quick fixes" can be made, and I'm looking for places where unneeded terms are "complicating" the equation.  :) My goal as an administrator is not to "punish the disruptive", but is instead to "reduce disruption". I want you to be able to get back to productive editing. But each time you use terms such as "trolling" and "vandalism" and "foolish" and "capricious", it causes noise which makes my job harder. So please, just as an exercise, do you think that you could remove them from your on-wiki vocabulary for a little while? It would definitely help the situation. Thanks, Elonka 07:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What you have written is a completely reasonable and accurate appraisal. Am I mistaken in thinking that you might be one of the brave administrators/editors that deal with problem pages to do with Eastern Europe, or am I confusing you with somebody else? Mathsci (talk) 09:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Tryin'.  :) --Elonka 09:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Templates

Obviously you haven't looked! Johnbod (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Internet Explorer - don't know my screen res I'm afraid. I see this very commonly, when the picture is at the start of a section. If it was just below the template itself it would have been ok. Johnbod (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Dejeuner ...

... was ruined because I had to run home to fetch Duchene and Contrucci. I cannot help you with the caption. The fort of St Jean was rebuilt following Louis XIV's imposition of order on the City of Marseille. Glad to see you've found a new hobby. (Duchene and Contrucci cost me 32 € and is very heavy.) Mathsci (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL! It wasn't that urgent, I didn't mean to take you away from your croissant.  :) But thanks for the quick work! The Great Plague of Marseille article also desperately needs sources, if you'd like to add something there.

As for the image, what struck me is that it said it was "built on the Knights Hospitaller". Modesty aside, I guess I'd have to list myself as one of the current Medievalists on Wikipedia, which is why my interest was piqued. I was one of the key editors in bringing Knights Templar to FA status, and I have some passing acquaintance with the other military orders, though most of my attention at the moment is on the Franco-Mongol relations towards the end of the Crusades. Anyway, that caption struck me as being a bit off. My guess is that it's supposed to say "the ruins of the fort of the Knights Hospitaller", but since I'm not familiar with the sources, I didn't want to make any radical changes. Hopefully someone else will figure it out within the next few days; if not, we should probably rework the caption to something easier to understand. Do you think this might have come from a tourist brochure? I guess we could dig through the history to find out who added the information, and see if they're still around! --Elonka 12:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

At some later date I can go and check in situ. I doubt it came from a tourist brochure: it was quite a curious thing to add. However, like the Abbey of St Victor, it would not surprise me if the committee for the reconstruction of Marseille, set up by Louis XIV, had ordered the demolition of an older building, leaving only the foundations for the new fort. My history book refers to "la commanderie des Hospitaliers de Saint-Jean" buried in the foundations (Page 333, Duchene & Contrucci), so that seems completely to confirm the caption. After all, the committee destroyed the town walls and ramparts along the rue d'Aix. I haven't checked the French WP page on Fort St Jean, but there might also be something useful there. I have located two sources for the Great Plague of Marseille (one from JSTOR in English), both of which could be used to expand the article. There are also more images on the French WP site than the one I've added. In Aix-en-Provence the Benediction des Calissons is said to date from the end of the great plague (I think), a religious ceremony in early September to mark the deliverance of Aix. It takes place metres from where I live, in the place St Jean de Malte. Mathsci (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a website which contains the info in the caption. Mathsci (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the research! So looks like "command post" is the proper translation. Care to do the honors?  :) --Elonka 17:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed naming convention, way forward?

Hi Elonka, thanks for guiding the Slovaks and Hungarians out of the trenches! Now that there has been quite some constructive discussion about the proposed naming convention for Slovak places, what would be the way forward? Is it a good idea to create a separate naming convention, and vote about the modifications? Or should we make it a sub-rule of WP:NCGN (and vote there)? Markussep ^Talk 09:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Block

Yeah, I hesitated about the block, but while I was hesitating, the large edits were coming fast and furious, I couldn't be sure if they were things easily undone or not. Plus the talk page had a note at the top saying that any addition would be deleted unread - what does one do to get an editor's attention then? Stan (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I used up an irreplaceable chunk of my life dealing with User:Wik's disruptive wikignoming, so I have very little patience for that anymore. Your attitude is commendable though. Stan (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Would I do it the same way again? I think so. I did look at the history of her talk page, and saw the pattern of deletion of remarks posted, so the "delete unread" claim seemed plausible, and while I was doing all this, several more edits came in. My usual experience with fast-and-furious editors has been that they ignore talk page notes anyway, so between that and the advance notice that a polite warning was going to be ignored, a short block seems like the appropriate clue-by-four. Stan (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

controversial edit?

Hi, I am wondering what was controversial about my edit at Pilisszentkereszt? I didn't remove any info, added new and improved the layout. The only controversial part was Rocket's comment that misinterpreted my edit. At least he had the decency to remove it.--Svetovid (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

At Pilisszentkereszt you modified the lead, but left a version you would never apply for a Slovak place with Hungarian majority. If you say everything was all right with your edit, I ask you if I can modify the lead at Slovak cities/villages (with Hungarian majority) to your version.

It is simply tiresome dealing with your edits all the time, that's why I removed my comment. Squash Racket (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You are lying again. See the original version of the article. Also, do not assume what I would or wouldn't do.--Svetovid (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ms Crisp

I am relieved that you are looking into the matter of Mathsci v. Michellecrisp. I am another victim of Ms Crisp’s harassment and stalking, but unlike Mr Mathsci I confess that in the face of her relentless stalking I have simply given up and largely desisted from further Wikipedia editing. I do hope that you will indeed thoroughly investigate Ms Crisp’s aggressive behaviour and possibly urge her to take a more positive, courteous and encouraging attitude. Masalai (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masalai (talk • contribs) 23:19, April 26, 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I was provoked to intemperate comment in explanation of edits. Her rudeness has that effect. As I say, I have largely abandoned the project since every single contribution I have made, she has followed: it is more than a little creepy, to be frank. Masalai (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

whilst I encounter incivility sometimes on Wikipedia, simply blaming me for persistent personal attacks (which resulted in your blocking) is really passing the buck, in the end you take responsibility for your actions/comments on Wikipedia like sensible adults including how you react to others. I welcome any investigation of my edits. "Every single contribution" is a gross exaggeration. As for following edits, one thing I had to correct (which admin LaraLove also supported) was Masalai's constantly incorrectly labelling References sections as Notes in direct contravention of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Standard_appendices_and_descriptions This persisted despite warnings to the contrary. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

While I am not condoning the things that Masalai (talk · contribs) said (they were clear violations of WP:CIVIL), I still have to point out that the comments were not made in a vacuum. I have found no evidence that Masalai was actively pursuing Michellecrisp (talk · contribs). Most of his comments seem to have been reactions to notes that were placed on his talkpage, and then began a vicious cycle, as Michellecrisp placed a message, Masalai removed it with a snarky comment, Michellecrisp warned him again, he removed that with another snarky comment, and so forth. Then Michellecrisp went to a bunch of articles that Masalai had been editing, and either changed or criticizing the referencing. Though her comments might have been completely innocuous in some other context, in the highly-charged atmosphere at the time, any edit by Michellecrisp was seen as an attack, especially when she was suddenly popping up at several other articles on his watchlist. Masalai reacted defensively (and again, unfortunately, with incivility). At which point Michellecrisp would place another warning, and 'round the cycle would go again.

Though these activities occurred a couple months ago, it appears that both editors are still carrying a grudge, and neither is willing to "let it go". Masalai feels that Michellecrisp was stalking him, and regards her actions as rude and aggressive; Michellecrisp feels that Masalai is uncivil, and that he's the one that is rude and aggressive.

But as regards their current editing practices, except for their conflict with each other, both are otherwise pretty good editors. Does that pretty much sum it up? --Elonka 14:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, thanks for your comments, it is appreciated. as you know I've done many many edits since Feb so this issue was over for me (especially as the attacks ceased) until it popped up just then. So I'm prepared to put it to rest, especially since you've now investigated it. hope Masalai will do the same. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, Ms Crisp appears to follow me everywhere I go, even after many weeks of my forbearing to edit at all. Does she want me to desist utterly from contributing to the Wikipedia project? Possibly you could investigate Ms Crisp's stalking behaviour. It is beyond creepy and surely cannot be healthy. Masalai (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Masalai, I've looked through your contribs over the last month, and I'm honestly not seeing any place where you and Michellecrisp have intersected at all. Am I missing something? If so, please give me a link. If not, my recommendation is to just go back to editing at this point. If there are disputes somewhere, let me or some other admin know, and we can deal with those as they come up. But it's really looking to me like the problem is over at this point. If I've missed something though, definitely tell me. --Elonka 09:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Elonka, of course there is no interaction between myself and Ms Crisp, infelicitous or otherwise, in the past month. As I say, Ms Crisp has accomplished her goal as to me (as to how any others?) of ridding the Wikipedia project of contributors like myself. I have barely edited at all since she began weirdly stalking and harrassing me personally: one assumes that Ms Crisp's negative agenda must be to discourage contribution to Wikipedia altogether. But what is her positive agenda, if any? Ms Crisp appears not to have made any original contributions at all beyond one or two articles of hers that were soon deleted as being insignificant ("Pubs of Newtown" appears to have been one of her contributions, and it was soon thrust out.)

Do you think there is any favourable comment to at all to be made as to Ms Crisp's interventions among Wikipedia contributors, as to their contributions and on their talk pages, which it seems to me thus far are wholly malign? Masalai (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Masalai, I have to admit confusion here, as to what exactly you want? What would you like to see happen, for you to feel comfortable about editing again? --Elonka 10:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it appears that Ms Crisp has gone on to other projects than stalking me -- I even note in one or two articles I have contributed to that she has recently even made positive contributions instead of merely idly criticising -- so perhaps the combination of my taking a long rest while bringing the matter to your attention has had a salutary effect. I confess that had Ms Crisp been minimally courteous in the first instance I would not have taken umbrage at her interventions, which may well have been ultimately constructive: I am annoyed at gratuitous rudeness. Thank you for your assistance, however passive: it appears to have been helpful. Masalai (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome, and if there's anything else I can do, or if you notice anything else which is interfering with your ability to edit in a productive manner, from any source, please do not hesitate to get in touch.  :) --Elonka 13:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi. I think you should invite User:Borsoka to the Hungarian-Slovakian discussion. As I am under editing restrictions, I am not going to revert this edit.[11] But I do not think it is a good idea to blank references. I apologize if you have already invited Borsoka. I somehow cannot find the list of the participants of your experiment. Could you place a link to that list somewhere at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment please? Tankred (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussions are at the talkpage (that you linked). The lists are on the "userpage" of that discussion. Click on the User Page tab at the top of the page. And yes, he was invited a couple days ago, and he has now been added to the Digwuren restrictions. --Elonka 08:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Banned user

The user page of a banned user has been anonymously changed (block templates blanked).[12] I really hope it is not a sign that User:VinceB is back, but who knows, maybe he has never completely left. Anyway, this was not the first time that user has tried to remove block templates from one of his old user pages, but this time I cannot revert him. Would you mind? Tankred (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's clear vandalism, such as blanking or inserting profanity or something, you're cleared to revert. You may also wish to add the IP to an SSP report (if any are still around), or start a new one. --Elonka 09:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I already wrote this at the Principality of Nitra talk page but one element of that dispute seems to be that the article originally was written by a banned user, user:Juro. This [13] version written by a banned user, see block log [14] is now used as a "basis of negotiation" or similar which can be the core of the problem. You can compare the version from 2006 may to 2008 april 8. [15] which shows that the changes until recently were mostly cosmetic, and user:Juro-s version remained. Now this user maintained an army of sockpuppets [[16]] with 9 in only the "confirmed" category presumably many more undiscovered or possibly even active currently. The user talk page is deleted so only the user page is available to look at, but there are some pretty disturbing edits there, like [17] where Tankred attempts to hide the evidence of Juro's mass sockpuppetry and replaces the identifying tag with 'HI!' and he repeats the same edit [18], only stopping at intervention of administrator Anetode [19] who places the sock tag again. Considering the above link between Tankred's "clear vandalism, such as blanking"(as per your comment above) and the banned user:Juro the talk page of Juro could be undeleted so further evidence or links to other users of similar pattern can be examined. This could possibly help identifying any current or future sockpuppets of banned user:Juro. Hobartimus (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind stopping this personal crusade, Hobartimus? If you want to get me blocked so desperately, just say it and do not dig in the archives trying to find what I did a year ago. To clarify my edit from May 2007 (!), a sockpuppetry tag was placed at User:Juro's user page by a dynamic IP of the range used exclusively by the banned User:VinceB. I reverted it because banned users are not allowed editing Wikipedia. My edit summary was: "Rv. This tag should be placed by an administrator, not by a sockpuppet of a banned user, evading his block by anonymous IPs." When an administrator actually placed a tag on User:Juro two days after, I was happy to stop monitoring that page. This is not the first misleading ("clear vandalism", "hide the evidence of... mass sockpuppetry") "report" of what I did a year ago or earlier put on this talk page by a participant in our present common discussion. I am sorry to say that it is getting pretty disgusting and I really do not have time for this. Have fun Hobartimus, while you are doing more quote mining. Tankred (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this Slovak-Hungarian dispute is far deeper than thought...I looked at Juro's userpage history[20], and found a "sockpuppet" after his ban: User:Koonjo28. So Juro is or was able to trick the banning and register again. As far as deep I got into the SK-HU match, I would not be suprised if it would turn out that one of the actual users are "sockpuppets" of Juro. Juro was last active on Bratislava ans slovak koruna [21]. We might check who continued his (other) disputes and edits and put them on a WP:SSP, but only after recognizing wich users might be Juro, to avoid further resentments. It worked with MarkBA, (who is also a mainly Bratislava article editor btw). --Rembaoud (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sounds like you have enough for an SSP report. --Elonka 14:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Principality of Nitra

You fixed this article, but could you also fix History of Slovakia and Pribina? BTW, I told you what would happen and it did ;(.--Svetovid (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Jánosik

Hi, this edit is true:[22], Jánosik got promoted as the last act of resining defence minister František Kašický. Souced. It worth a mention. I can not replace it in the article, since it would be a revert. Sources are all along the net[23], unfortunately exclusively in Slovak and Hungarian. --Rembaoud (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do this:

• Add the article to the User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment page
• Add a link to the experiment page, from the talkpage of the article that you're talking about
• Explain at the article talkpage, exactly what it is that you think needs to be changed.

Thanks, Elonka 09:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a bit too much of burocracy, isn't it? --Rembaoud (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Add two links, and explain what you want changed. Nope, seems fine to me.  :) Though if it's too much work, then just do the last one, post at the article talkpage. When in doubt, post at the article talkpage first, then the experiment talkpage, then my user talkpage. I'd like to keep my talkpage open for urgent cases, or situations where people haven't been able to get my attention via other means. Which doesn't mean go away!  :) I do still want to hear from you. But one thing I'm trying to encourage everyone to do here, is to get into the habit of posting their concerns at article talkpages, as soon as any kind of disagreement comes up. It's usually the most effective way of dealing with a situation. --Elonka 13:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I found a section about this, I wrote there. The other studd is here, and I made a link from there to here, and here is alink from her to there: Talk:Juraj Jánošík. I hope this is enough to check point 3 from the list. I am not clearly understanding what do you want with point number 2 or how (where) --Rembaoud (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, looks like point 2 was already covered, as the article appears at the experiment page. I've replied at the article talkpage. --Elonka 14:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

You earlier requested specific parts of references to be translated, however several references in the highly controversial Great Moravia article appear to be in a similar condition. Another concern with that article that WP:FRINGE views might be presented as legitimate but it's not easy to tell without research into the subject and even then it's not an easy thing to handle. So my question is could you request translations from some of the key sources there in a similar fashion? Hobartimus (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Angel nom

You're going straight to heaven, if I have any say in the matter. I'll cancel my WP hiatus now. <grin> Thanks for being the voice of common sense. --TheEditrix2 23:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and I do hope you will consider "redecorating" your user page. Let me know when you're done, I'd love to take a look! :) --Elonka 13:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Priory of Sion

In light of my previous request, I just wanted to let you know that Priory of Sion has just been listed as a good article. :) --Loremaster (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Your warning

If you post once more on Johnbods page, I'll take it to AN/I. Really, what do you hope to achieve here. Nice deflexion, bty. Ceoil (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Be my guest. You may however wish to review this AN thread first though.[24] --Elonka 02:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation. Remember what I said about context, intention, edit history or reputation, and bots? Judgement and research please. This is going on for days, and still you are rigidly following the letter of the law to is barest most desperate reaches. The edit was about image positions. Ceoil (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

And the edit summary was grossly uncivil. That's the core issue here, that the summary was inappropriate. I am frankly surprised that you are continuing to defend it. --Elonka 02:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes you said. A number of times. But note A number of times. Also you just switched argument. Do you hunt down and demand an personall apology from all established editors who make a flippant remark to an ip. That would seem a wasteful way to spend life, and a detriment to the project. Ceoil (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not defending it, I saying you are blowing it out of all portion. He did explain, end of story. Ceoil (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ceoil, you are the one who jumped in, 5 days after the original incident, to stir it up again, and further escalate things by accusing me of harassment, on two pages now. And now you're also threatening an ANI thread? Talk about "out of all proportion", see WP:KETTLE. To answer your original question though, yes, while this project of calming the ethnic dispute is in-process, I will absolutely continue to contact any editor who jumps into the middle of it with an uncivil comment or attack. It is now my recommendation that you drop this, instead of continuing to escalate this even further. --Elonka 02:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

It would be great, thanks. Hobartimus (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert Fico

New thread on the experiment page[25], please, have a say. --Rembaoud (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Lecture

The next Wikipedia:Lectures will be by User:Vassyana about how to mediate disputes. Might be interesting!

--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

I just want to ask a question, i saw that you semi-protected the user page of Hobartimus because of vandal edits but when i look at the page history here i can only see one vandal edit. Why is it that we cant see the rest? Is it because when a user gets blocked, their contributions dont show up? Can you please help me out, i was just curious thats all. I thought it was only Oversights who can hide certain edits in certain circumstances. Thanks Roadrunnerz45 ^{(talk 2 me)} 12:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It does thanks, i always wanted to know about the deleted edits. You puts my mind at rest:) Roadrunnerz45 ^{(talk 2 me)} 14:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Missed that comment

You are lying again. See the original version of the article. Also, do not assume what I would or wouldn't do.--Svetovid (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed this comment. Svetovid, please don't accuse me a day after my comment with anything, especially not on someone else's talk page. What I said is true: you modified the lead at Pilisszentkereszt, but left there a version you would never accept at Slovak villages/cities (see for example your controversial edit at Zilina, where you deleted the Hungarian name from the lead even though there is not even a separate names section).
Also administrator Thatcher referred to your misuse of Twinkle at the MarkBA sockpuppet page, but you don't seem to get the message. These edits were not vandalism.
Elonka, may we include archived threads that are not yet included at the experiment page? Squash Racket (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, yes, feel free to expand it with any threads that I haven't spotted yet. :) --Elonka 14:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Before I get attacked again, I translated an article here, this is a citation of the linked article almost word by word. I am not drawing any parallels etc. and the article comes from a newspaper of record. Squash Racket (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you from Horologium

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed unanimously with the support of 100 editors. Your kindness is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Wizardman, Black Falcon and jc37 for nominating me. — Horologium

Articles per day

Yes, the net increase in articles is 1,500 to 2,000 per day. But there are actually around 2,500-3,000 articles added every day. (About 1,000-1,500 or so are deleted every day, but that doesn't affect the number that are added.)

I was using User:Dragons flight/Log analysis, though that's a bit dated, but it sounds like our numbers aren't that far apart. (As an aside, "several", to me, means "two to four"; at the rate of even 1,000 articles per day, a week's worth would exceed "several" thousand, as I interpret the word.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Svetovid

[26], [27] --Rembaoud (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The second diff was uncivil, yes, but it was several days ago. What's the problem with the first diff? I'm not seeing it, as it looks like a reasonable edit to me. But if I'm missing something let me know. --Elonka 11:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[28] & [29]. Plus in bold:[30]. In short:) : editwarring and uncivil. --Rembaoud (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing the edit-warring, but thanks for the heads-up, I'll keep an eye on it. --Elonka 12:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Again:[31]. Be aware, that the link is rated m as mat minor :) --Rembaoud (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Add this too:[32]. This is his second "revert", where he rewrites those particular parts (despite that one part of them directly cited with a book), wich he seemingly does not like. --Rembaoud (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the reverts was definitely a violation of sanctions, but it was multiple days ago and he hasn't done the same thing since, so I'm inclined to write it off as a "slip". As for the second one, there seems to be a dispute about whether or not sources are being properly interpreted. If someone has clearly falsified a source, I would not block someone for correcting the information back to accuracy. What would be helpful is if the sourcing on the article could be cleaned up, especially if quotes could be added. I have placed some suggestions on the talkpage. --Elonka 14:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not see, what you say. I think that this it is not a "classical dispute", but a sentimental thing. Svetovid simply dislikes the expression "tribal chieftain" and for the 3rd time did he delete now [[33]. Maybe you can still explain it in a different way, but I can't. Svetovid is not constructive. --Rembaoud (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, partial change of names[34], including deletion of the Hungarian version of the Carpathian Germans, wich is fun, since they lived in the Kingdom of Hungary for a almost century. --Rembaoud (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Svetovid reverts again ([35]) despite being on "no revert" restriction and being told not to do so by yourself numerous times. This is after getting a second chance (see above) he also uses Twinkle and says the edit is minor like when reverting vandalism. The edit summary is very offensive and he repeats the same later that following your advice on the talk page of Petržalka is „provocation" [36]. CoolKoon (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Restrictions

Hi Elonka, I would like to ask you whether my editing restrictions allow me removing tags that were added to an article without any explanation at the talk page. User:Galassi has tagged a section of Great Moravia as {{unbalanced}} and {{limited}}. I see no reason why a properly cited section should be tagged as unbalanced and limited if no concrete objections have been raised. Unfortunately, Galassi has not provided any explanation on the talk page despite my request. Although we have different opinions on some of the issues surrounding Great Moravia, both Borsoka and I believe that these tags should be deleted (see Talk:Great_Moravia#Changes). We are both working hard on making this good article as NPOV as possible and tags without any justification are of little help. I will appreciate your opinion. Tankred (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Dimitrion Yordanidis

Hi, I'd be interested to know why the article on Dimitrion Yordanidis was deleted? --Kathlutz (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

At the time I tagged it (December 2006), I wouldn't go so far as to call it an article. All it had was the following: "Dimitrion Yordanidis was the oldest person known to have completed the marathon. On 10 October 1976, at age 98, Yordanidis completed the Athens Marathon, Greece, in approximately 7 hours, 33 minutes. His name is listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greeks. Please note this information is based on limited information obtained from wikipedia.org and other public web sites".

I intended no disrespect, but in order for an article to pass Wikipedia's notability requirements, it requires proper third-party sources. See WP:V and WP:BIO. Wikipedia receives thousands of attempts at new articles each day, and over a thousand are deleted within 24 hours, as they are inappropriate, unsourced, non-notable, or in many cases simply hoaxes or spam. Teenagers will often make up a name and just insert something like what you saw above, so we have no easy way of knowing whether or not the information is accurate, since no sources are provided. Yes we could do our own research, but things are moving too fast for that, and it would be, unfortunately, a colossal waste of time if every time a child added some unsourced dubious claim, other editors had to spend time researching whether or not it was true. So our community consensus, is that the responsibility of providing sources is on those who wish to add the information. Anything that is unsourced, can be removed on sight. If an editor thinks the removed information is appropriate, then they can simply add it back, with actual sources.

If you would like to go ahead and create a new version which is more fleshed out, please proceed. --Elonka 12:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. Yordanidis has an entry in the Guinness Book of World Records and is often named in websites and newspaper articles as the oldest person to have finished a marathon. However, there are severe doubts about the validity of his record in sports circles (although I have found only secondary sources so far), and as far as I can see, he is excluded from all official or semi-official sports statistics about age related marathon records. Recently, he's been frequently mentioned in connection with Buster Martin and the 2008 London Marathon. I think it is worth considering to reinstate an article about him that expresses both the widely believed record claim as well as the doubts but there is no need to rush it.--Kathlutz (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw the Guinness source, and agree that it's a strong enough claim of notability to justify an article. And I also agree that it would be an excellent idea to include both the claim and the doubts. That would be a perfect example of neutrality.  :) I'd do it myself, but my plate is already very full with many different projects. Good luck with it though!  :) --Elonka 14:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I took the plunge and created the article on Dimitrion Yordanidis. I hope it passes muster. I will continue to look for more information on the validity of his race result. Marathon runners in their 90s are still extremely rare today and this result for a 98 year old from 1976(!!!) is highly unusual. No one but Guinness (and those who quote Guinness) seem to know about it/him. I am convinced that the issue of very old runners (in their 80s and 90s) will become more prevalent in coming years and there is a need and an interest for reliable information. BTW, Werner Sonntag has an entry in the German version of Wikipedia. Can I/should I link to it, and if so, how? --Kathlutz (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Stub looks good! I've added links to it from a couple places, such as List of marathoners. You might also want to check with someone who speaks Greek, to see if there's an article about Yordanidis at the Greek Wikipedia, so you can interwiki it. A note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece might be good. As for Sonntag, you could try either linking to his article at de:Werner Sonntag, or you could try checking at that article to see if there's a source you could use. Keep up the great work, Elonka 11:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Svetovid's request

Please ask him if I can modify the lead of Slovak villages/towns to the version he left there. I would understand his question if he didn't touch the lead of the article, but he did. So he thinks this is an acceptable version?
Then I'll revert the lead to his version at Pilisszentkereszt and we can have the same at Slovak villages (at least with Hungarian majority). He says the lead wasn't correct before (true) and that's an excuse to intentionally modify it to an even worse version (not true).
The most important thing for him was to attack me also after admin Ricky had blocked him. Squash Racket (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(blink) Um, you want me to ask another editor, whether or not you can modify an article?  :) I feel like a teacher, where one student is asking me to pass a note to another student, heh. My initial reaction is, "edit whatever you want". My next reaction is, "Ask him yourself."  :) --Elonka 16:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but he always deletes my comments from his talk page.

Elonka, the above question was just rhetorical. I don't actually believe he would answer with yes. Squash Racket (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not he deletes comments from his talkpage, is irrelevant. You can be assured that anything deleted, has also been read. --Elonka 17:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)q

Etretat

I'll be going there at the end of May - what part of the town do you want me to take photos of ? 14:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about Paris, we'll see - but at Étretat, I'll see what I can dig up on them (having never heard of them before ! ) ;-) Dickie (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dirty Dancing

Hi, well, I can't say the opening is good enough. I think someone fresh should go throught it. Remove "being". Screenplay was written, not film? "Concerns" rather than "details"? "teenageD"? I don't like "moment of time"; "the passage into womanhood, both ph and em., by a t g who has a relationship with ...". And lots more. Whole thing spruced up would delight the reviewers at FAC. TONY (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Dirty Dancing

I've only read the lead for now; perhaps I'll do a more in-depth review when I have the time. However, if the lead is indicative of the quality of the rest of the article, I'd be inclined to say that more work needs to be done.

• "credited as being one of the most watched films of all time." Source is an unscientific poll that gives no info on who the respondents were and how many were polled. I would hardly consider this noteworthy of mentioning in the article, let alone the very first sentence.
• "The story details the moment of time that a teenaged girl crosses over into womanhood both physically and emotionally," Quite an awkward sentence in need of a rewrite. "Details" is ungainly here. "Moment of time"? "Teenaged"?
• "(later famous for High School Musical)" He wasn't famous for Dirty Dancing?
• "with no major stars (at the time)" -> something like "featuring then-unknown actors" BuddingJournalist 15:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:204.113.176.3

Hi! Saw your name on the RC page. Please block the user above. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! The user was blocked. Oda Mari (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dirty Dancing

(copied over from my talk page:) Happy to. I'm trying not to edit during the week (today's a bit of an exception as an FA I was involved with is on the main page), so will get to this at the weekend. I can see plenty of room for improvement, and would be pleased to do my bit. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(copied over from my talk page:) I've just spent some time with the article, and started some preliminary copy-editing. The prose is indeed awkward too often. But I'd say the main problem is with the sources. There are some reliable sources mentioned in "Further reading," but they aren't used in the article itself. This fact prompted me to do some very initial research into what else might be written about the film, and I found that there's plenty. I've left some notes on the talk page. At present, the sources are not very good (The E! True Hollywood Story figures rather highly!), and overall the article reads like a fansite. Before undertaking much more in the way of copy-editing, the content itself needs to be significantly upgraded. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(copied over from my talk page:) Hi, as I say above I feel I've done what I can for now. Yes, the article could be copy-editing further, but of more concern is the sourcing. Once you have seen to that, and I've given you a whole number of suggestions on the talk page for where to start, then do get back in touch. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(copied over from my talk page:) And now I've responded at more length on the article talk page, which is where this discussion really belongs, in case someone wants to follow up my suggestions and improve the article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)