User talk:Elonka

could you please do me a favor?

Hello,

I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?

1. I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
2. I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.

The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.

Sincerely

JnW^talk 05:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, happy to help. My email address is elonka@aol.com --Elonka 05:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, here is the link

Pretest webpage

If you have any question during pretest, please contact me.

Please finish it before 25 June. Thanks a lot. :)

JnW^talk 15:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a pretty java-heavy page, and the instructions are not very clear. I tried it a couple times, and it kept crashing. --Elonka 03:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is a java applet-embedded page, and as I know, Java 6 didn't integrated with Firefox 2 very well. I don't know what your browser and the version are, but now I am using Firefox 3 with the latest update of Java 6 and everything goes well. Maybe you can try to update your browser and Java 6 to the latest version. Hope that would help you. Thank you. :)

JnW^talk 12:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, the questionnaire is completed. Link:

evaluation questionnaire

It is no longer java-embbeded. Don't worry about it would crash your browser. :)

thanks for doing this questionnaire, and I hope that you will feel interested about this. :)

JnW^talk 04:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help. :)

JnW^talk 08:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thanks a lot for your help on filling out the questions on the pretest and questionnaire. In order for us to interpret the answers you gave, I have three additional questions to ask you. In the questionnaire, you check ‘free’ for the compensation of answering the question. Now there are some scenarios:

1. If the users need to pay for asking questions through our knowledge service, will you still answer the questions for free?
2. If the users pay a certain fee for each of his/her questions being answered, will you receive the compensation for answering the question or allow us to donate it to the charitable institutions?
3. Do you have any comments on the knowledge service which we plan to develop? In this knowledge service, we will allow users to ask their questions, and the system will forward these questions to the users who edited wikipedia and were identified by our system as the domain experts. Which business model do you think is more proper? The expert can be compensated by the fee paid by the seekers or do it for altruism with no charge.

JnW^talk 13:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

request for help, follow up

Hi Elonka, I left you a message 2 weeks ago which you promptly replied to... but which I didn't see :/ The message was here [1].

As you requested here are some examples to verify what I was speaking about... to recap, the editor in question was told that the source he disliked was valid as a reference, so he went through deleting all reference to it himself under various pretexts.

1. Comment: “Removed "Zionism on the Web" link. This site has been spammed onto other article pages.” [2]

Link has been there since article creation, it was added by an Admin, Humus sapiens see [3] and it was there for years until the user removed it as part of a mass removal exersize. This is a common theme.

2. Comment: "Removed "Zionism on the Web" link. This site has been spammed onto other article pages." (note the comment is identical to the one above!) [4] It was added and in the article with no complaints for 2 years, it is relevant. Added: [5]

3. Comment: The source documents are useful, but the slanted intros are more than a bit problematic. Does anyone know of other sites offering the originals, without editiorial comment? [6]

The is irrelevant when it is providing a link to the primary source below. Further what this editor refered to as "slanted" is a biography of a historical personality... I don't see how it can be refered to as slanted as their is no controvery over any of the facts. It is not only a false claim, it is an irrelevant claim.

4. Ber Borochov Comment: (none) [7]

Here the user removed a source with no explanation. If an online source of a historical document is available, what excuse is there for the deleting the link? It makes Wikipedia less useful.

5. Comment: “Cancellation of boycott: removed dodgy statement from equally dodgy source” [8]

This removed all reference to the peace vigil that took place outside the special meeting to cancel the academic boycott by the AUT in 2005. The site (which is mine) is a known resource center for material on the boycotts. The statement is one of fact (that an event happened), the comment is therefore somewhat disconnected to the edit.

6. Comment: It's not immediately clear why AJ6's criticism would be as notable as the ADL's or Brian Klug's [9]

Content removed is about a statement by AJ6, a movement that represents British Jewish students in their final years before university. Their statement expressing the specific concern of these pre-university students in light of an academic boycott are relevant, topical and not able to be substituted. The press release is hosted in the archive with permission from the organisation concerned.

7. Comment: I doubt this is the best possible source that one could find on "dhimmi" status [10]

Content removed is a reference to an on topic article by Dr Denis MacEoin, an expert in the field. It is written for Zionism On The Web, so can not be got from another source. Other articles could ofcource be given, but there is no valid reason for removing this one.

8. Comment: Here -- I'll add a more notable pro-Israel site in its place. I'm not against the inclusion of this perspective, just of the specific site in question. [11]

This is a clear statement of his intent in the comment.

The content change: Adds a link to Jewish Virtual Library, this is following a complaint after he removed a link to source documents on Zionism stored at Zionism On The Web here.

There can be no grounds for removing that links as it is provides references to key documents on the topic. His extra link is not a substitute.

Summary In summary though, these are just a few of hundreds of deletions this user made. They did this only after an attempt at Wiki lawyering failed and resulted in other editors disagreeing with their claims of a lack of notability, reliability etc. Rather than except the views of the discussion they took unilateral action using false pretexts for removals. Individually these might look like mistakes, or perhaps look plausible enough not to justify further consideration... added together it is a serious case of vandalism, those spread across many articles. Oboler (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I don't seem to be getting a reply... neither here nor on my talk page. Could you please let me know if you'll be able to take a quick look at this, or can refer it to someone / somewhere else? Many thanks, Oboler (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look sometime today. --Elonka 15:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if I am understanding things correctly, your main concern is that CJCurrie (talk · contribs) has been removing links to zionismontheweb.org from multiple articles? Based on a quick glance, I don't see any major problem with this. I doubt that the site meets WP:RS standards, or has there been a discussion somewhere which says that it does? --Elonka 00:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a discussion at [12] he didn't seemed to like where it was going so left the discussion and started deleting on his own. I was advised by an admin (and clerk) to raise it in the evidence section of the ArbCom case... which I did, but it is not really related to that case, just an outcome of things tangential to the case. I spoke with arbitrators on the case who confirmed that they never looked at it. The tangential things were specifically CJCurrie (talk · contribs) taking exception to things I said the press, given I use my real name on Wikipedia he decided to "punish" me here for them. When various attempts to attack me failed, he decided to take the law into his own hands.

Note that based on the discussion, CJCurrie (talk · contribs) didn't claim it was an invalid source, rather he gave many varied often outright factually wrong reasons (as discussed above) for the various deletions. This was however a dishonest attempt to remove all reference. In short systematic defacement, out of line with the discussion. Oboler (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting CJCurrie directly? --Elonka 11:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

We had spoken on varous other pages, including the evidence page, but I've now taken your (implied) advise and left him a note on his talk page requesting he undoes the damage. FYI, the note is here [13]. I will however be surpised if he agrees to do this, but you are ofcourse right to suggest trying first anyway. Oboler (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that my assessment of this situation is somewhat different from Oboler's. CJCurrie (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, as you can see we clearly have a disagreement here (between CJCurrie and myself). I'm not sure your talk page is the place for myself and CJCurrie to discuss it further, but can suggestion on how to proceed? I believe the evidence above makes a solid case that should be reviewed by someone. Many thanks. Oboler (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend focusing on one article where you feel that you have the strongest case for the inclusion of the link, and engage in discussion on the talkpage. If no one objects, the link can be re-added. If someone objects, then try to build a consensus, and request opinions from other editors, perhaps via an RfC, a third opinion, or posting at a dispute resolution noticeboard, such as the reliable sources noticeboard. If talkpage consensus is to include the link, then it can go in. If not, you may wish to try on one other article. If the consensus on both articles is "don't include the link" though, then I would recommend dropping it at that point. --Elonka 22:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That is going to take forever if it needs to be done across all the articles... and it treats this as a large collection of seperate content dispute, which I believe misses the over all aim behind these edits. By themselves the edits are a lot less serious than when they are viewed together as a persistent pattern. Anyway when I have some free time in the next week I'll start on a few of the ones above. Thanks. Oboler (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Harassment etc.

Hi Elonka, thanks for your input. In this particular case, content and editor are one and the same. I.e., an outlandish policy interpretation is being put forward by an editor who manifestly does not believe it (his "favorite article" by his own admission violates the interpretation), in what appears to be part of a campaign of harassment and lying regarding another editor.--G-Dett (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide some diffs? Thanks, Elonka 04:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Re

She hasn't made any more incivil comments since this, but yes I agree with you. Khoikhoi 06:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2008

--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Al-Durrah

CJCurrie has started reverting again at Muhammad al-Durrah, so I am hoping you can underline that the article is still subject to 0RR.

I made an edit to remove from the first sentence that the IDF was reported to have shot the boy, and I also removed a new editor's addition of how the Palestinians are now being blamed by some, because it looked awkward. I wrote instead that he had been reported killed during a clash, without saying anything in the first sentence about who is saying who fired the shots. Both the new editor and I left explanations for our edits on talk. [14]

CJCurrie didn't reword the edit, he just reverted without explaining on talk (at the time of writing), yet he is aware of the 0RR. This is my edit at 07:45 July 5. [15] This is his revert half an hour later with "not a revert" in the edit summary, though it clearly is. [16] SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 08:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me state, in the first instance, that I have not been actively engaged with the discussions on this article's talk page in recent weeks. I was a frequent contributor to Muhammad al-Durrah in the days following the recent court decision, when some editors made what struck me as questionable and unwarranted content changes. I was unaware that the article had been placed on 0RR until I received this post less than a week ago, and in fact I had forgotten this point when I first engaged with the al-Durrah page tonight. I apologize for this, though I'll also note that I self-reverted within two minutes: [17], [18].

When I consulted the ground rules that you provided on talk, the following point struck me as the most relevant to the current situation: If you see someone add something that you disagree with, don't revert it, change it. Specifically: Try to change it to a compromise wording, or add some (sourced) alternate view wording nearby.

I interpreted this to mean that a constructive change in wording would be, for our purposes, defined as something qualitatively different from a revert. This differs somewhat from the standard interpretation, wherein a "revert" is defined as any change to another contributor's wording.

Working within this framework, I suggested a compromise wording to the "Reports of the shooting" section (which has now been retitled). I will note that SlimVirgin has not taken issue with the wording I've proposed ([19], [20]). SlimVirgin subsequently added another clause to this section, whereupon I again provided a suggestion for an alternate wording ([21], [22]). To the best of my knowledge, this edit has not been the source of controversy either.

SlimVirgin's complaint, as I understand it, has to do with the changes that both of us made to the first paragraph. This is SlimVirgin's original edit, and this is the wording that I subsequently suggested in its place. A direct comparison between the relevant edits will show that this is not the same wording as before. Moreover, I believe that the change is qualitatively different.

My wording was intended as a compromise, incorporating both (i) a direct reference to the controversy regarding which side fired the "fatal bullet", and (ii) an accommodation of SlimVirgin's apparent preference that al-Durrah not be definitively identified as dead within the text of the lede. I would encourage SlimVirgin to reconsider this wording within this light.

It's true that I returned the words "from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)", which SlimVirgin had removed. Given the other changes that I made, I do not believe this constitutes a "revert" in the sense that the term is being used here.

I trust that I will be informed if I've misinterpreted either your instructions or SlimVirgin's complaint. My actions were carried out in good faith, and I hope they will be taken in that spirit.

Btw, I have no desire to engage in back-and-forth accusations, but I'll note that my actions were not qualitatively different from SlimVirgin's respond to an edit by User:Sposer earlier today: [23], [24]. CJCurrie (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. SlimVirgin's report is correct that CJCurrie did revert the article, but CJCurrie's explanation that this was a simple mistake, followed by an immediate correction a moment later, is reasonable. I also agree that CJCurrie's subsequent edits were in compliance with the conditions for editing, in that they were changes to the text, rather than reverts. For the purpose of this article, I define "revert" as something that might be done with the "undo" or "rollback" buttons, meaning a clean revert back to a previous version. As long as CJCurrie (or any other editor) is actively trying to find compromise wording, the editing is acceptable. There does appear to be some rapid back and forth, but I see this as a good thing, which I hope will lead towards consensus wording that everyone is more or less happy with. --Elonka 16:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, CJCurrie did not correct himself a moment later, and still hasn't. This edit of his reverted this edit of mine just half and hour after I made it, and the revert remains in the article. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your comment since my talkpage has been busier than usual today. My recommendation is to go ahead and keep editing the article, trying to find a compromise version. --Elonka 00:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To SlimVirgin: I addressed your concern in my initial response. Is further clarification required? CJCurrie (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Quackwatch

Thanks for the reminder. I have great difficulty working with editors like Levine2112 who should be permanently banned from Wikipedia for their consistent, and long-running misbehavior. Since you've restored what I think in and inappropriate discussion to Talk:Quackwatch, I've tried to respond to it properly, striking out comments that were inappropriate on my part, explaining the situation further, and suggesting better venues for continued discussion. If you feel anything that I have written there is still uncivil, I'd like to know so I can take further action to rectify the situation. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Is suggesting that I be permanently banned from Wikipedia very helpful here? Ronz, please go back to Talk:Quackwatch and remove (not just strike out) each time you have called or insinuated that I was being a troll, disruptive, hostile or anything else uncivil, unfair (and frankly untrue). Ronz, I would like nothing more than for you and I to come to some kind of WP:TRUCE here. I tried to extend the olive branch over at WP:TEA but you threw it back in my face. (Hot tea, ouch!) So please help get our amicable relationship on the road forward by simply removing all of your uncivil accusations toward me at article talk space. I really do think we are mature and rational enough to get past our spotted history. Thanks! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"Is suggesting that I be permanently banned from Wikipedia very helpful here?" Helpful? I think "necessary" is the better word. When you've shown you can follow the policies and guidelines you are so adamant of imposing upon others, let me know. I've been waiting for you to do so for over a year now. --Ronz (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for your help, and you appear to be assuming bad faith on my part. Please detail exactly what you feel is uncivil. I'd also like to know your opinion on if he misrepresented me, and what the proper response to misrepresentation should be (regardless of your opinion on if he did so). --Ronz (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You were asked, multiple times, to refactor your comments at Talk:Quackwatch where you called Levine2112 a troll. In response, you just crossed out the old statement and replaced it with another attack.[25] Article talkpages should be used to discuss the content of that article, and not the editors. This was also an attack in your edit summary here.[26] When you are asked by administrators to stop attacking other editors, this means that the behavior must cease immediately, not just change to other types of attacks. Now, I do realize that overall you are a very good editor, which is why I chose a ban instead of a block. It is my recommendation that you just avoid this topic area for the next week, and then return with a fresh start. In the future, keep comments on article talkpages limited to the article, and avoid personal attacks on other editors, and there shouldn't be any further problems. --Elonka 19:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And I refactored them, asking multiple editors for assistance in doing so. Obviously, I don't think these are personal attacks. Rather, they are my defense against Levine2112's attacks on me, which I've asked you to comment upon and you've not responded. You were the one that restored to the article talk page Levine's harassment. I feel I have a right to defend myself in such cases when I had already removed the discussion completely and repeatedly tried to get Levine to find a forum of his liking to discuss the matter. --Ronz (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone a troll, is a personal attack. --Elonka 19:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Which I refactored. Saying his edits violate Wikipedia policies or guidelines is not a personal attack from my perspective. --Ronz (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone a troll, is a personal attack. A troll is defined as someone who is deliberately trying to disrupt the project. Levine2112 has a long history of good contributions. He may get involved in disputes, he might even engage in disruptive or unwise behavior from time to time, but that does not make him a troll. Further, for you to bring up these issues at an article talkpage is not appropriate. An article talkpage is for discussing the article, not the editors. --Elonka 20:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

We're clearly talking around each other now. I'd like to get these issues worked out. How should I proceed? --Ronz (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If you disagree with the ban, or my assessment of the situation, you may request an appeal via WP:ANI, and/or WP:AE. However, you may wish to read this first.[27] My honest advice is just to work on something else for a week, and then come back fresh. If it's helpful, I promise that I am closely monitoring Levine2112's edits as well. I am not ignoring him, and if I (or any other uninvolved administrator) feels that a ban or block is appropriate, we will take action. You are also welcome to bring up any concerns here that you have about his behavior. However, please do this without using pejorative terms such as "troll" or "vandalism", just stick to recent diffs and present them in a neutral way. Thanks, --Elonka 20:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. We're getting nowhere here. I don't know what your assessment of the situation is because you're ignoring my questions.

Funny you mention "vandalism." Did I use that word? I believe Levine2112 did, and in an edit summary using Twinkle. If you'll look in his history, you'll see that he's been warned, and more, for doing the exact same and very similar things in the past. --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that Levine2112 used the word vandalism towards one of your posts, which he shouldn't have, and he has been cautioned for it. As for your other questions, try breaking it down. Just ask me one at a time.  :) --Elonka 00:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Question #1: Do you feel I acted in good faith in refactoring Talk:Quackwatch (editing on 5 and 6 July)? --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I cannot speak to what you did or didn't feel. However, your refactoring was not sufficient, and indeed, made the problem a bit worse. You were asked to refactor anything where you issued a personal attack, and you just replaced old attacks with new attacks. Whether I would call this good faith or bad faith doesn't really apply. Someone can be acting with the best of intentions, and still be issuing personal attacks. The bottom line is WP:NPA: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." There are certain venues where that doesn't apply, such as in a User Conduct RfC, an ArbCom case, an RfA, administrator boards, etc. But on an article talkpage, it definitely does apply. Your comments should be limited to the content, and not the contributors. --Elonka 17:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. You've refused to answer my question, and gone back to repeating yourself. Maybe we can try again later? --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Question #1.1 Do you feel I acted in good faith, refactoring my comments in Talk:Quackwatch (editing on 5 and 6 July), to focus on content and actions rather than the editor? (Please note that I'm not asking about how you think I felt. I'm asking you to give some detail of your rationale.) --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk pages

Side question: Is it OK for me to continue this discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ImperfectlyInformed#Quackwatch ? --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And this one: User_talk:Ludwigs2#tsk_template --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And this, which I've already replied: User_talk:ScienceApologist#Page_ban_from_Atropa_Belladonna. Any reason to avoid anyone other than Levine? --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the SA talkpage post, you shouldn't have posted there, but since you brought it up first, you get a pass.  :) Please don't post there again though, until your ban is up. I've also posted notes to the other two editors, letting them know to contact you at your talkpage if they would like to continue the conversation. Basically, treat this ban like a "partial block". If you were blocked, you wouldn't be able to post anywhere except your talkpage. But I felt that was excessive, since you work in a lot of other topic areas too. So, just pretend you're blocked from anything homeopathy-related, and carry on with other work for a week. --Elonka 19:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. --Ronz (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Block a Davkal sock?

Hi, could you block User:74.208.16.55 who is acting as a sock of User:Davkal? Alternatively, could you semi-protect WT:FRINGE? We need to stop letting this banned user post. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Guidance

Please review my comments today at Talk:Atropa belladonna. I think I am being cordial and on-point. However, ScienceApologist keeps "hiding" my comments, referring to them as disruptive. And now he has posted (vengefully, IMHO) that AN/I trying to get me topic banned. And is actively canvassing for support [28][29]. Honestly, this editor is making Wikipedia a rather unpleasant experience for me. I guess I am looking for some expert guidance here on how I should I respond (if at all)? Thanks in advance. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was just looking at that, and the other pages mentioned in the ANI thread. I'm still investigating, but my advice is to keep your cool, don't take any bait, stay civil, don't return any accusations. Just keep on working to improve Wikipedia, and keep your comments focused on the article/guideline at hand. Remember that no one is ever banned for what they're accused of, they're only banned for what they actually do. As long as you don't give anyone anything to diff as misconduct, you will probably be fine. Also, be sure that you are continuing to actually work on articles. If your contrib list is just full of dispute-related edits and comments at talkpages, that can be a problem. But if you show that you're actually working on the encyclopedia, that helps strengthen your reputation. If unsure what to work on, check one of the WP:CLEANUP categories, click on Special:Random a few times (I usually find something I want to fix or at least tag for cleanup within a dozen clicks), or maybe fill in some redlinks with stubs or redirects somewhere. For example, there are now multiple redlinks at Chiropractic#References. Some of them probably already have existing articles, there's just an odd redlinked abbreviation which needs to be set up as a redirect. If you could fix some of those, it would be really helpful (and might also take your mind off of other things). Best, --Elonka 20:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent advice. If you check my edit history, you will see that I am active with monitoring new articles and giving them their first once-over to see what they are lacking, how they can be improved, or if they qualify for speedy deletion. I also like doing random spell-checking. (which appeals very much to my anal-retentive nature!) Additionally, I am kind of a one-man, unofficial welcoming committee at Wikipedia. I've probably welcomed hundreds of new IPs and Users. I'm pretty much done for today, but I promise to look into the red links at Chiropractic#References next time I log in. Thanks again for your guidance. It is genuinely appreciated. :-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I actually had the time and brain-energy to start one new article which will help with the red links: Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. It's just a stub for now, but I am sure it will be expanded quickly. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Good job, make more.  :) --Elonka 17:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Forest of red links

Re this change to Chiropractic, which I reverted: could you please follow up at Talk:Chiropractic #Forest of red links? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Aaack, after I created the section Talk:Chiropractic #Forest of red links, I noticed you had already put an {{inuse}} template on that talk page. Sorry about that. I'll stop editing that talk page now. Eubulides (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I should warn you that the talk page is busy and huge, and it's been that way for months. I'd be curious to know how the archiving bot got "stuck", and how you fixed it; when you do fix it can you please report on the fix in Talk:Chiropractic? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I've gone ahead and protected the page for now so no one else can add anything. Also, I'd appreciate if you'd revert yourself on the redlinks. There is method to my madness. :) Most of the redlinks won't be there for more than a day or so. In fact, while I'm archiving, it would be helpful if you could scan through them. Most of them just need simple redirects to existing articles that don't have those abbreviations setup as redirects yet. For others, simple stubs saying, "This is the journal we're talking about" would be really helpful. --Elonka 20:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have followed up further in Talk:Chiropractic #Forest of red links. Eubulides (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As for Spine J: Chiropractic and many other medical articles use the standard journal abbreviations of Pubmed. To find out what an abbreviation stands for, visit the Pubmed web site, change the Search pulldown menu to "Journals", type the journal abbreviation in the text field, and hit the "Go" button. As of this writing if you search with "Spine" you'll see both journals, each with their (distinct) pISSN number. You can use the "Title Abbreviation" fields of the results to disambiguate them. Sorry about creating the red link, but I really would rather not get sucked into the project of writing all those articles on journals. Good luck! Eubulides (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I discussed this issue further at Talk:Chiropractic #Forest of red links. I won't edit war over this, but I would appreciate a discussion of the points raised there; the NPOV concerns are real. Eubulides (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ronz et al

Thanks Elonka, I shall keep at an eye out. Cheers! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 19:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Arcfrk

Hiya, Elonka. By accident today I found that this user has had a rather nasty personal attack against me posted on his user page since April. I wonder if you could please remove it? Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ick, and yes, I have removed the statement, and cautioned the user. I'll keep an eye on his talkpage and the WikiProject discussion, but if there are any further problems, please let me know. --Elonka 00:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this speedy action. Mathsci (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have left a message with Carl, whom I know to be a neutral, cautious, and knowledgeable administrator, concerning your actions in my user space. In the meantime, I have reverted your edit as being of questionable legality. If you permit my analogy, in the real world what you have done would be analogous to a break-in into another person's house and removal of property (or, perhaps, to a big nation invading its neighbour and replacing a democratically elected goverment it disagrees with). If you have concerns about the content of my user page, please, feel free to express them at my talk page, accompanied with detailed quotations from the relevant Wikipedia policies. If you feel very strongly about keeping Wikipedia a better place for everyone, may I also suggest removing MathSci's slanders, insinuations, and mockery left at various talk pages and embedded into multiple edit summaries? While this would require a certain time commitment, perhaps, you will come to understand my point? Best wishes, Arcfrk (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, Elonka. Arcfrk restored the personal attack to his talk page. It was subsequently removed by User:Dreadstar. What he has written above seems to be pure fabrication, since it is unsupported by my edit history. I wonder if something could be done? Mathsci (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Arcfrk's action was clearly out of line, and I support Dreadstar's re-removal of the comment. If there are further incidents of incivility, Arcfrk will likely be blocked. However, please be sure to hold up your end of the bargain. It is essential that your own interactions with him be extremely civil as well. Hopefully with increased civility all around, we'll be able to get past this dispute and move forward. It looks like you and Arcfrk have a lot of things in common, so will very possibly be working together on other mathematics articles in the future. I recommend that you try to find a way to work together in a harmonious manner. --Elonka 23:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your message. Please look at Arcfrk's message on User:CBM's talk page [30]. Also look at the new message on his user page. He does not seem to understand how WP functions. He seems [refactored] to need help [refactored]. Mathsci (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Try replacing the last sentence of your post with, "He seems to be new here, and probably requires mentoring". I also recommend reading WP:BITE. --Elonka 23:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

He is not new (March 10, 2007); what made you think so? Nevertheless I have refactored my comment as requested. Mathsci (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I could tell by the way he was talking about things. On digging deeper, I see that my intuition was correct. He has a (relatively) low number of edits, about 2,000,[31] and very limited participation in Wikipedia space, except for the math project. Such editors who spend all their time in articles and not disputes, often react very strongly when they are challenged, since they are in unfamiliar territory and do not understand the wiki culture. I find that rather than jumping to the assumption that they are "problems", that it is better to try and work with them as though they are just new and don't understand the ropes yet. A trick that I sometimes use (works for me, might not for others), is to picture an editor as a very very senior academic, someone who used to be sharp as a tack, but has gotten on a bit in years, and is a bit befuddled and cranky and not understanding this "damn internet thing". That usually helps me to calm down and treat someone with great patience, since I can picture them as a confused but respected elder. In most cases, treating someone with patience does the trick, and then once they get the hang of "wiki-speak", problems evaporate. And if it doesn't work, well, at least I tried.  :) --Elonka 00:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I just reviewed almost all his edits. He stated at one point on his user page that he had prior experience from another wikipedia, possibly ru.wikipedia.org. He has not created many substantial articles, mostly stubs: Affine quantum group is typical. It is uninformative, poorly written and unsourced. It would be quite easy to write quite an interesting article on this subject, with some actual content and many obvious references, starting for example from the lectures of Jimbo and Miwa. One thing I also noticed is that he did not like it when I added technical content, e.g. when I expanded Boundedly generated group, Building (mathematics), Orbifold and above all Differential geometry of surfaces. What I find interesting is that, even when the material for the latter was in Surfaces, it included facts about Gaussian curvature being given by the Jacobian of the Gauss map, a complete proof of Gauss-Bonnet and Hadamard's theorem for negatively curved surfaces; lo and behold a few months later he starts suggesting the same material for Gaussian curvature, giving no hint that it has already been added quite accurately elsewhere by me. This does not seem very helpful editing practice, particularly since he has on several occasions expressed strong views on this particular content. When I gave my graduate course in February in the UK, I included material on amenable groups which I simultaneously added to the WP; in particular Guivarch's proof of the Tit's alternative using the mutliplicative ergodic theorem of Osselodets. Lo and behold a month later, Arcfrk has somehow for the first time started editing ergodic theory articles on the multiplicative ergodic theorem and Osselodets. Most of my mathematical edits are closely related to courses that I gave or will give in France and in Britain: they centre on the interaction between geometric group theory, operator algebras and unitary group representations. These editing habits will not change and Arcfrk is entirely wrong to flatter himself that I follow him around. At the moment I am heading towards the Selberg trace formula for SL(2,R) and SL(2,C) which I'll lecture next year: that explains some of my current topics. Since he arrived in March 2007 we have had very few interactions. But each time he has overreacted, perhaps because he was assuming a position of authority. Despite the fact that he jokingly implied in an interchange with User:Paul August that he might be a Fields medallist, this does not seem to be the case. It seems he does not like the fact that I write long and detailed articles on difficult topics. That seems to be something he has not done so far. Although his predilection seems to be for writing mathematical stubs, rating articles and rewriting ledes, I think he should be more careful in making blanket criticisms of longer, more in-depth articles which as far as I can tell seems to be his main issue with me. Mathsci (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

re: black stone

It was stupid. Don't even tell me it wasn't. I can maybe see if it was simple grammar error, or typo, but that was so absurd, it boggled my mind. Why type 8 characters when you can just push backspace 4 times? Red tape at its finest. I can't assume good faith unless people start using common sense. I can, however, assume that I will die before this happens, so its a moot point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.49.139 (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the sources in question?

The sources in question did not mention "naturopathic" preparations, and according to the agreement I worked out with Ludwigs on the talk page, we were going to mention naturopathy in the article. I think you should reconsider this carefully. Perhaps you should ask an outside administrator to review the sources in question and see if they really do deal with naturopathy. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I read one of the sources,[32] and it seemed perfectly reliable for much of the information in that paragraph. Perhaps a {{fact}} tag could have been added after the word naturopathy, but just leaving the entire paragraph unsourced was not appropriate. My feeling is that you're too invested in this particular topic, and I recommend that you just take a break for a week, and then come back fresh. --Elonka 16:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I reported the incident here. I don't think you know what the difference between naturopathy and homeopathy is, do you? Nor did you read the previous discussion between Ludwigs and myself on that very talk page. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not taking an action based on content, I am taking an action based on user conduct, and Wikipedia policies. When an editor deletes multiple reliable sources from an article, and replaces them with a {{fact}} tag, that is disruptive. You have already been blocked three times this month, and you are spending way more time arguing at talkpages and administrator boards, ScienceApologist (talk · contribs), than actually working on articles. My advice to you is take a break. Work on some other article for a week. A brief page ban is not that big a deal, just look at it as a temporary breather. You've done some great work on a lot of articles on Wikipedia, but sometimes we just get so close to a particular subject that we just can't think about anything else. I'm trying to help you break that cycle. Take a break, work on one of the other 2+ million articles on Wikipedia for a few days. --Elonka 16:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So you admit that the "reliable sources" do not support the sentence in question considering that naturopathy is not the same thing as homeopathy? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In User:Levine2112's last post to Talk:Atropa belladonna he states that

provides us with a guideline on how to present point of views but not necessarily general information."

However, WP:PROMINENCE states:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements.

Can you explain this to him?

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And now look what's happened:

[33]

Can you explain to me what a "naturopathic preparation" is? Why aren't you looking at the contributions of others?

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop reacting to every edit. Just give the article a week to develop, and then come back and look at it later. The world's not going to end in the meantime. Aren't there many other articles which would benefit from your attention? --Elonka 19:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Al-Durrah Mediation

In this diff [34] ChrisO calls our side's view demonstrating "pathological thinking." --Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please challenge it on the spot, and diff it to his talkpage with your concerns. --Elonka 19:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Outing

Hi Elonka. Since you've taken an interest in SA, would you mind mentioning to the poster of this comment that outing SA's identity is not appropriate on-wiki? Regards, Antelan^talk 20:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Should we even be linking to it?OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Atropa Belladonna

If you're topic banning SA, then User:Ludwigs2 deserve equal treatment. He simply reverts to unsourced statements. If you're going to harsh to one side of the POV, it's only fair to be harsh to the "other" side. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed (not about being harsh, but being fair). Rest assured though, that I am looking at the contribs of all involved. Which doesn't mean I'm going to ban everyone in a "shock and awe" simultaneous attack. I move more slowly than that. I'm very new to this particular topic area (the advantages and disadvantages of being an "uninvolved" admin). So it's going to take some time to come up to speed. Be patient with me.  :) I'm confident that you'll like the longterm result though. --Elonka 20:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I just thought you were a bit harsh on SA. It just seems that admins are unnecessarily tough on SA. He's probably at the point where he just accepts the blocks as the price for editing here. LOL. So you're new to this topic? You might want to start drinking heavily in advance. Just a recommendation!!!!  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I concur with SA's comment below. I happen to think that SA is valuable around here, but I also think you are too (I promise, that wasn't a**-kissing. Really.). OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I trust you

The current version of the atropa article is actually much better. If nothing else, at least your actions got the attention of some other editors. In the future, I think it would have been better if you didn't make content accusations before very carefully researching the topic. Despite your claims that the ban is about editor "behavior", claiming that something is a source for a statement is a content statement. Moreover, you could have gotten me to stay away from the article by requesting it rather than banning me.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, and for future situations, I'll try a softer approach with you (btw, do you use IMs?). I disagree though about requiring an administrator to research the content. I don't feel that administrators should be content experts in (most) controversial situations. Indeed, that's often a daunting hurdle, with megabytes of discussion and dozens of complex sources. Better (in my opinion) is for administrators to focus on specific types of user conduct, and then guide editors towards resolving their own battles. Of course, each administrator has to find their own style, but my style generally runs through the following points, starting from the time that I first get involved with an article:

• Are editors being civil?
• Are editors explaining their edits?
• Are edits being explained at talk, or are people just battling it out in edit summaries?
• Are editors using sources?
• Are the sources good ones?
• Are the sources being used in the right way?

• Is every new edit, being accompanied with a solid source?
• Are the new edits actually reflecting what's in the source?
• Is anyone deleting reliable sources?

• Is everyone being allowed to edit freely, or are some editors using "revert" as a weapon?

Once the above are addressed, then I might move on to questions of WP:UNDUE, or dealing with WP:SPA editors. But the vast majority of the time, if I stick with the above, that addresses most problems, and stabilizes things enough that the existing editors at the page can make necessary improvements. I've used this technique with success in multiple ethnic disputes, and now I'm dipping my toe into the pseudoscience pool to see if the methods still hold up.

For more details, you may wish to read Wikipedia:New admin school/Dealing with disputes, of which I wrote a fair amount, as part of my involvement with the WP:WORKGROUP. If you see places where you think there are holes, feel free to bring them up at the talkpage. :) Another quickref that I'm working on (still messy) is here: User:Elonka/Notes. --Elonka 21:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that administrators need to be content experts to be good administrators. I do think they should be careful with their rationales. It would be great if we could get outside competent eyes to look at problem pages like what happened at Deadly Nightshade. Unfortunately, what too often happens is that we get another set of problematic editors who end up driving controversial articles into tailspins. This article was obscure enough and attracted enough of the good kind of editors to be saved. I think this was more of a coincidence than anything else, though. I do not use instant messaging, but when I'm active you can easily get in touch with me via my talkpage.

I'm not a big fan of the order in which you look at things, but that's just me. I know I'm the odd one out when it comes to Wikipedia. I think that content expertise and sourcing evaluation should come before all else. Most everyone else disagrees (they see Wikipedia more as a community than a place to be an encyclopedist). The issue is that many editors know that your list of questions are what are being looked for and so have become expert in making it seem like they are the reasonable ones. The issue with your focus on sourcing is that editors may cherry-pick sources and make it seem like censorship is happening when in fact what is happening is an attempt to conform the article to a state that is more in line with the goal of making Wikipedia a mainstream, non-innovative reference work. What looks to you like "deleting a reliable source" is actually removing the misuse of a source. It's the difference between someone reading a term paper and grading based on the number of footnotes and someone actually looking at the footnote, getting the source, reading the source, and comparing the source to the text and the context of the text. The former is easy (and is essentially what you say you are doing). The latter is hard and is, ideally, what every excellent editor should be doing.

The problem is when you get editors who are not committed to this kind of scholarship. Levine2112 is a good example of this. Way back in January I removed almost every mention of homeopathy from pages on plants and chemicals. However, there were some articles where homeopathy was included because the sources seemed to indicate that it should be included. Domesticated sheep is a good example of this. Homeopathy is included there because sources devoted to domesticated sheep made it clear that homeopathy was an important part in many sheep producers ideas of alternative veterinary medicine. There was also sources that indicated it was not scientific. We have an excellent mention of this now in that article.

Contrast that with atropa belladonna. This article had sources to all kinds of homeopaths tooting their horns as to how great this plant was in their ridiculous dilutions. Of course, they aren't reliable sources. Then some homeopath stumbled upon the Oxford Book of Health Foods. As you read, there is an off-handed mention of homeopathy in there. However, I argued that this singular source was simply not enough to establish enough prominence for homeopathy. After all, the importance of homeopathy to that plant seems minimal at best. The other source being used was written by a homeopath and shouldn't be included in any case.

The issue is not with using OUP: it's with using OUP to source a claim about homeopathy: a claim that is obviously anecdotal in nature and is obviously not the intent of the authors to be used as a source for claiming homeopathic use is somehow important to the plant. This argument fell on deaf ears to the point of Levine2112 arguing that there was no "policy" which said this so therefore I wasn't allowed to make the argument: or anyway that the argument wouldn't hold any water. I pointed out WP:PROMINENCE. Levine said that this doesn't apply because I made the redirect. It's obvious that there needs to be some kind of standard for determining how much weight should be given to a fringe subject on a mainstream page. How important is homeopathy to the subject of atropa belladonna? By one measure, we could look at all the sources we have for atropa belladonna and ask how much of those sources are devoted to homeopathy. The answer is such a tiny amount that less than one word should be devoted to homeopathy on our article on the plant. Undue weight excludes homeopathy, is my argument. The counter is "No it doesn't".

That's the source of my frustration. There is no way to actually discuss matters with Levine2112. One way you can tell this is that he never admits when he makes a mistake. I get the impression that he thinks he is the best editor at Wikipedia, and I'm tired of his haughty attitude. It's obstructionist, grating, and frankly disruptive in the worst sort of way. It makes people waste their time.

That's all I want to say about this matter. I'm pissed off at this editor and I don't know what to do to get the community to notice how awful he is. Thanks for reading anyway.

ScienceApologist (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And how does the discussion at the NPOV board fit into this?[35] The consensus there seemed to be that a mention of homeopathy at the nightshade article was appropriate. --Elonka 00:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The seeming "consensus" is skewed by two damning issues:

1. There was a lot of "me too" !votes from homeopathy-promoters (a number of whom are now banned or effectively banned).
2. The question was phrased poorly. The issue is not "are there any NPOV problems with this statement?" The question really is "What is the appropriate amount of weight homeopathy should receive in an article about Atropa belladonna and why?" People need to provide their reasons for explaining what the appropriate amount of weight is. As it is, I have seen only one person offer an alternative measurement for the weight of homeopathy on plant and chemical articles (User:Filll) and his suggestion was shot down.

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Cite news

Someone is changing the Template:Cite news without consensus, its been screwed up all day. Can you take a peek. They are experimenting, but it is radically altering the look of references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

re. Jones and Bartlett

Okay. I understand the situation. Much appreciated, and happy editing, Leonard^(Bloom) 00:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My point, reconfirmed

My, oh my! All your good-meaning advice gone to waste. I guess that settles the issue who is interested in improving wikipedia and who is more into putting down other editors? Arcfrk (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Svetovid back to revert warring

Svetovid is revert warring across multiple articles again.
Yesterday I did a major cleanup at the article Móric Benyovszky, added a number of sources. Svetovid just jumped in and reverted the whole thing. Then he noticed his own mistake and reverted himself too, but still deleted the Hungarian names (Verbó, Pöstyén) I applied according to the new naming convention.
I also noticed a user said one year ago the article had been listed by a wrong name. I did a research about the possible names and answered. Svetovid edited the article meanwhile, but didn't answer anything about possible problems with the name on the article's talk page. But when I decided to move the article to the proper English name, he jumped in to move it back to the Slovak name (of course), the one that is not used in English sources. In his answer on the talk page he didn't say the new name was wrong, only that he needs a process now.
Needless to say he deleted the Hungarian names I had applied according to the naming convention once again. He also changed the meaning of a well-referenced sentence and started using the Slovak name of Benyovszky in the article despite knowing based on my talk page evidence this name is not used in English. Squash Racket (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And all that despite the clear warning from you. Squash Racket (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Mongols again: The Battle of the Kalka River

Hello Elonka. Long time no see! Hope you are well.

I was blundering around and I came across Battle of the Kalka River. It's currently listed as a featured article candidate. I am not, by any means, an expert on the Mongols or Kievan Rus', but I have my doubts as to the quality of the sources. I know that John Fennell devotes only four pages to the first Tatar invasion, most of that to a discussion of the sources and the scale of the events, and Leo de Hartog seems to cover the Kalka campaign in just three pages. Janet Martin just mentions it in passing. Dimnik's Dynasty of Chernigov, not used here, has more detail that any of the sources mentioned already. There may be more, or not, in his Mikhail, Prince of Chernigov and Grand Prince of Kiev, 1224-1246.

In view of the very limited detail found in the works I looked at, I am wondering how it comes about that the article has so much vivid detail on the battle. Like I said, this makes me rather suspicious of the quality of the sources I haven't looked at. Am I being too demanding here? Or is there a problem? Please do let me know what you think! Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

COI, advice (or warning)

Concerning http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HeroEngine&diff=223191875&oldid=223186903 you might want to let others take care of it, as you have a bit of a conflict of interest. Remember: we don't have to win, don't have to have our way. The truth emerges slowly sometimes, and it's not necessary to try to force it through.

At any rate, you at least have the appearance of a conflict of interest, so it's in your interest and everyone else's to let it be for the time. I won't risk being patronizing by telling you to have a cup of coffee and a Danish or something, but it's not worth fighting for an edit or a point of view. Geogre (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and you are absolutely correct that I have a COI where that article is concerned. But don't worry, I'm not going rogue here.  :) There were extenuating circumstances involved, and I have been keeping neutral administrators apprised of my one edit to the article. Also, I would point out to you that a warning is really only appropriate if my edits actually violate policy, and so far I have been improving the article, not adding anything detrimental.

To give you more detail on the situation, I probably wouldn't have even edited it at all, except for the fact that recently, one of our fans added a bunch of cruft to the article, then one of our competitors tagged it as spam, and an admin who wasn't paying attention, deleted the entire article. So I requested for it to be undeleted,[36] and then since the admin placed a ton of tags on it (because the article was in appalling shape),[37] I took that opportunity to do a serious cleanup. I made one (1) edit,[38] and added many sources. I have also asked several people, both off-wiki and on,[39] to review what I did. (BTW, the competitor's tagging has been deleted out of history, but admins can see it in the logs. The competitor had been trying to push through an article about their own product, which article had already been deleted three times as spam over the last year. Then they created it a fourth time, and evidently as a diversionary tactic, tagged the competing product HeroEngine article as spam)

From this point forward, don't worry, I do not intend to spend a lot of time on the article. If no one else does it, I will probably add an infobox and some other (sourced) factoids. I have also sent a request to my company's art department, to see about making some freely-licensed images available. I sincerely doubt that you'll see me make more than one or two edits. And again, if you (or anyone) sees that I have added any problematic or policy-violating information, I encourage you to delete or change it on the spot. I will not edit war. But I sincerely doubt that you are going to see any problems, as I am well aware of Wikipedia policies, and have no intention of doing anything to damage the project. My only desire is to improve. --Elonka 15:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up Talk:Search engine optimization. I view that as an olive branch. Jehochman ^Talk 17:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Also a reminder that perhaps you're not the best person to be questioning whether I am editing articles in a COI way, hmm? I would not have tagged the Search engine optimization article, even though that's your industry, you edited the article heavily in 2007, are currently involved in a lawsuit over it, and are still continuing to edit the article. I think that your behavior is highly questionable, but even so, I wouldn't tag the article unless I could point to specific things that required cleanup. --Elonka 18:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Per WP:COI, experts are not prevented from editing topics within their field. The "lawsuit" is actually a trademark opposition I've filed [40] where both sides have cited the Wikipedia article as evidence. (USPTO accepts Wikipedia as a valid source to determine common usage.) I have scrupulously refrained from editing those sections cited as evidence. All my recent edits are either trivial spam removals (this article is a honeypot (computing)), or avoid the issue in question (whether SEO is a process or a service). I was unaware of the trademark application until April 2008, and only filed opposition in May 2008. My editing in 2007 is completely irrelevant. You'll notice that the article (in fact, all of Wikipedia) has exactly zero references to me, even though I am widely known in the field and have published several articles that could be used as references. Jehochman ^Talk 18:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Pirmasis

I saw your tagged cold borscht with unreferenced, but can you examine the user's comment like this after I asked him/her motivation for the page moves[41]? If I were a Jewish, I feel very offended by such the comment.--Caspian blue (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I'm watching. He's on the edge right now. However, please also be careful about your own actions. Adding comments to redirects to "spike them down" is a bit on the tacky side. Better is to leave them alone. If someone is move-warring, we'll deal with the users directly. --Elonka 18:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Spike them down? What are you talking about? Are you insinuating that I'm hunting a witch? <!--Need a discussion for move--> is to prevent undiscussed move. I don't understand your interpretation. That is not an advisable advice from admins as well as offensive language, I believe. --Caspian blue (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I am saying exactly that, that it is bad practice to add a comment to a redirect, to prevent a page move. In some cases you may be right, in other cases maybe not, but it's a bad idea because it implies that one user is enforcing their own idea of which pages can and can't be moved, and that's not wiki. So please don't do it again. If you see someone moving pages in a controversial way, warn them on their talkpages, tell them about WP:RM, and/or notify an administrator. --Elonka 18:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I get it. However, I've seen such practice done by many other editors, so I did not realize that it can be problematic until now. But your way of speaking is really not eloguent and makes miscommunication. As for non-English speaker, "spike them down" sounds bad connotation.(well, not good meaning though) I will remove the hidden remarks anyway.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for any miscommunication. When I said "spike them down", I meant like to use a hammer and nails to keep them in place. And yes, I know that some other editors do this, but they should not. I will keep watch on Pirmasis, who seems to be Lithuanian. His edits are allowed as long as he is not edit-warring or doing anything controversial. If you see anything that is a problem, please let me know. Thanks, --Elonka 19:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)