User talk:Elonka

2010 Arbitration Committee Elections: Voter log; Contact the coordinators; Discuss the elections; Results

Candidates: Candidate guide; Candidate statements; Questions for the candidates; Discuss the candidates

Voter guides

These guides represent only the views of their authors. All guides written responsibly, seriously and in good faith are welcome for inclusion.

Archives

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure

You are invited to participate in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in the 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Edit war"

(comments copied from other talkpage) Hi Smartiger, regarding your changes to the Waivers disambiguation page, some of your changes do not appear to be in accordance with policies and guidelines. You may wish to review WP:MOSDAB to see the latest Manual of Style guidance on how disambiguation pages should be formatted? --El on ka 17:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two edits in four days, well-spaced by a talk-page discussion that seems to be going nowhere, are an "edit war", now? That aside, could you be more specific as to what aspects of the disambig style my edit was "not in accordance" with? Smartiger (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier to just go in and fix than to take the time to explain each line, but when an experienced editor did the fixes, you just reverted them. Why? --El on ka 17:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That user's "experience" seems to be in the area of ignoring the page naming conventions, and keeping a page at the name he personally prefers, as best as I could tell. The subsequent edit I made was made necessary by the page move. I'm still in the dark as to what you feel was incorrect about it; making an edit while having a redlinked user page, perhaps, and thus presumptively wrong, when contradicted by an "experienced user"? Smartiger (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Making personal presumptions about another editor is not helpful, let's just focus on the content of the encyclopedia. As for my concerns:

First, a Wikipedia page should never be moved unless there is clear consensus for the move. Since there was obviously a conflict, it was inappropriate to change the page's title without discussion.
When a page has a title such as "Doodad (disambiguation)", the top line of the page should be formatted "Doodad is <whatever>."
There should not be an extensive line of text defining a category of list entries.
A disambiguation page is simply an aid in navigation, not a page for definitions.

For more information, please see the manual of style. --El on ka 18:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure you were the one making "assumptions about editors" -- I was addressing the specific point you raised. As I just pointed out, there was considerable discussion, during which no new points had been raised to argue against the move, for which the case seems overwhelming. By the same token, on what basis have you just moved it back? Isn't that precisely "edit warring"? Especially as I've cited material reasons for the move, whereas you seem to be simply going with the "experienced editor" and the prior status quo, regardless of the merits thereof. Your remaining remarks do not seem to relate to the edit I actually made, which was solely regarding the singular vs. plural issue. If there were pre-existing "issues" with the disambiguation page, that's hardly to be blamed on me, for trying to fix one of them. (In point of fact I'd earlier fixed several others, if you review the history.) Smartiger (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a reasonable case to be made for moving the page from Waivers to Waiver (disambiguation), but since there's a dispute, it's important to follow the appropriate WP:RM process to do so. Otherwise we just get into a tug of war and the article is yanked this way and that and things get muddled. So I have moved the article back to its original, most stable, title. If you feel strongly that it should be moved, please either obtain an obvious talkpage consensus, or file a request at WP:RM. As for the rest of the page, I went ahead and did my own cleanup and expanded it with other appropriate entries. You are welcome to continue editing the page. And if you would like to help with other disambiguation cleanup, we could definitely use the help! Just check Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup. --El on ka 18:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my strong preference is for messages (at least notionally) to intended to be read by me to go on my talkpage, where I'll actually be notified of them; but my preferences aren't doing very well in this discussion so far in general. I already mooted the possibility of an RM, but given the guidelines, the lack of counterarguments, and the delay of four days, I hardly think it rises to the level of an "edit war", and I think you're even more clearly in the wrong by reverting on the basis of treating it like one. But as I've indicated, I don't plan to respond in kind, if the other editor maintains his objections (guideline-compliant or otherwise).

I don't see any real "cleanup" in your edit to the page in question, so I remain mystified on that account. OTOH, a pretty thorough job of expanding it (perhaps bordering on over-thorough in places). As it happens, I think that disposes of the "majority plural" objection (but I shall wait and see before getting too carried away on that score).

I think I'll decline your suggestion to involve myself with more of these. I got into this by "cleaning up" a clearly non-guideline-compliant page (overlinking, overbolding, etc), and I've been drawn into two lengthy and unproductive discussions. That's why I gave up editing WP in the first place; I only have this account at all as anon editing from my entire IP has been "rolling blocked", due to someone's determination to lock out a single problematic editor. (Not me, in case you're wondering.) So much for sticking to "straightforward" edits. Smartiger (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the term "rolling blocked", did you perhaps mean autoblocked? If so, I'd be happy to take a look into getting that cleared up for you. --El on ka 19:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Rolling block" in the sense of a rolling contract, or indeed I suppose a rolling maul. It's been getting blocked for three months over the entire /17 range, then blocked again shortly after it expires, thus effectively permanently blocking a near-maximal set of addresses. As far as I can see this isn't very consistent with the blocking policy and anon-editing "non-negotiable principle", but it happens in any event. I'd be most obliged (and frankly, impressed) if you can get it cleared up. Before you expend too much time on it, however, in the interests of full disclosure I should tell you that at least one very "experienced" (and indeed, credentialed) editor seems to have made their mind up on it. Good luck if you do try, and thanks for the offer, at least! Smartiger (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or more recently, a six-month block, to be slightly more up-to-date. Smartiger (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, you made a comment about asking me "ISP to improve their headers"; was this a reference to Wikipedia:WikiProject on XFFs? Smartiger (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Local page created for this weekend's meetup

I just created Wikipedia:Meetup/St. Louis to parallel the page on the WP10 site. Easy to watchlist! Hope to see you there. Cheers.--Chaser (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea, as I rarely go over to the other wiki. Unfortunately though, I have to be out of town this weekend, which is a bummer because I was looking forward to meeting folks. Do keep me in the loop for future meetings though! Also, you may wish to contact Tim Vickers (talk · contribs) since he's in the city as well. --El on ka 18:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's too bad. Hope to see you at a future meetup. I will email Tim.--Chaser (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are an involved administrator with respect to me

I have e-mail evidence to prove it. Remove your comments from that section or I will begin the process of asking arbcom to recall you. jps (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about? --El on ka 23:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms"
To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost, but not quite

Elonka, regarding this, the 'Fat Hen is not the eagle from the German coat of arms, it's its particular incarnation in the chamber of the Bundestag, and more specifically the one in the old Bundeshaus. Were the article any good I would have pointed the link to Bundeshaus (Bonn. I know what I am talking about. Do you? 74.65.111.74 (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]