User talk:Elonka

FYI

Questions have been raised here about your interaction with Domer. BigDunc 14:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw, though given the tone, it's difficult to see them as being asked in good faith. But tell you what, why don't you (BigDunc) pick one that you'd genuinely like an answer to, and I'll see if I can answer? --Elonka 17:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Far be it from me to edit an other editors post, but I have stripped it back a little if ONiH wants me to remove this post I will:

1. Going back to the "discussion" here. Why is your claim that you can issue any sanction you see fit to any editor at any time not only contradicted by a proposal you were involved in having failed, but is also directly contradicted by your earlier own admission? So did you; A) Lie about having the power to issue any sanction you saw fit to any editor at any time? Or B) Deliberately waste ArbCom's time with a frivolous amendment that would have given you certain powers in one specific topic area when you later allege you've got God-like powers across the entire project? Or is there an option C) that addresses all your actions in relation to the matter?
2. Why, given you warned the editor in question about the 1RR restriction here, did you not take action over this breach (also note the blatantly false use of minor edit flag, and no edit summary either) of 1RR, where there were two reverts in 3 minutes? There's plenty of similarity between the first version and the previous day's version (especially compared to the previous lead) so it's definitely a partial revert. Did you take no action because he's an admin, or is there another reason?
3. Why given Domer believes you are involved in a dispute with him about whether his probation was correctly applied in the first place, a dispute which ONiH certainly agrees exists, are you taking admin actions against him? Why not make a report at WP:AE and let someone else handle it to avoid any possible accusations of impropriety?
4. Following on from the previous question, did you investigate the issue before deciding whether a block was needed, as that would certainly have happened at AE? If you had, you might have seen this. Scolaire points out that "there is not even the beginnings of a consensus" as to what one particular bar in the chart should display, and suggests removal while discussion is ongoing. Snappy says there's no consensus to remove it. All well and good so far, but then what happens? Despite there being absolutely no consensus as to what that bar should display, Snappy updates it anyway. You have to love tactics like that, if someone wants to remove it while discussion is ongoing then there's no consensus but if Snappy wants to change it he can change it to whatever he wants despite the lack of consensus for that either. So Domer reverts until there actually is a consensus, and he gets blocked straight away. Could he have been blocked for breaching his probation? Quite possibly, but the correct question is whether he should have been and a proper investigation of the situation would have shown you exactly which editor was being disruptive yesterday and it wasn't Domer. The editor actually being disruptive gets nothing said to them, and Domer gets a week off is inappropriate and purely punitive.
5. Since when do you or the wider community have the authority to amend the terms of probation from an ArbCom case, seemingly without a valid and actioned request for amendment from ArbCom? Assuming you do have that authority, why has Irvine22's probation not been similarly extended due to his blocks while on probation?
6. Why are you alleging that any page ban exists for Peter Hart? No such ban exists, as ONiH detailed in full here. No admin disputed that summary, and since silence = consensus, since nobody replied saying "yes, there is a ban" tjat means the consensus is that there is no ban. If you're going to ban someone using an ArbCom remedy, you'd better make sure you've followed the procedure that the remedy specifies. So where are the diffs that support the procedure specified in the remedy? Unless any admin claiming the ban is valid can actually provide those diffs, the ban does not exist. The fact that it's logged onto a page where non-admins can't remove the fraudulently applied ban is irrelevant, unless just one admin can provide the diffs there is no ban. The diffs should have been provided at the same time as the ban was logged, so it isn't even logged properly So either provide the diffs required by the remedy now and add them to the log, or admit there is no ban and remove it from the log?

Those look like perfectly reasonable and good faith queries to me. BigDunc 14:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Pick one, and I'll give it a shot.  :) --Elonka 18:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't just pick one I have made reasonable and good faith queries and according to WP:ADMIN, you should, ...respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct..., so could you please answer my questions please, thank you. BigDunc 19:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

1. (c)
2. Admins have the option of issuing a warning rather than a block, and that particular editor was new to the dispute.
3. Because enforcing ArbCom sanctions is not considered to be "being in a dispute" with an editor. See WP:UNINVOLVED.
4. Yes, I investigated.
5. (1) The community has the authority to amend ArbCom decisions by consensus. (2) Irvine22 was not blocked per the Troubles case, but for a different reason. It's grey area as to whether this means the probation should be extended or not, though kind of moot, because if his probation were to expire and he were to resume disruptive activity, he could just be put on probation again.
6. Because while something is logged at the case page, it is considered to be active.

--Elonka 19:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied with those replies, particularly the answer to question 1. For now, could you explain what option C is please? BigDunc 19:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The referenced diff really doesn't have much to do with the Troubles case. Instead, I was cautioning an editor that when they are reverting the edits of other established editors, they should also be engaging in discussion on the article's talkpage rather than just doing blind reverts. --Elonka 20:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied with those answers in the slightest. Since you apparently do not like to answer more than one question at once, I will stick to the first question and related issues for now and move on to the others when I have received satisfactory answers.

On 30 November you replied to my earlier comment that stated that you did not have the authority to issue sanctions in areas which did not have them authorised. So, on 30 November did you have the authority to issue discretionary sanctions to "ensure the smooth running of the project" in areas which do not have them authorised? A yes or no answer will suffice, but bear in mind should you answer "yes" that I will wish to know where this authority comes from, so to save time and avoid being evasive I recommend you say where this authority comes from if you do answer "yes". Similarly in the Troubles area on 30 November, did you have the authority to "do what is necessary to stabilize the situation", and what does this entail? Your use of "includes" suggests that you believe your authority goes above and beyond the terms of the probation, is this the case? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is that yes, Elonka specifically as well as any uninvolved administrator has the authority to place a user on probation or issue other sanctions in The Troubles topic area. See Wikipedia:General sanctions, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case and Template:Troubles restriction for the specific details. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The question was clearly relating to discretionary sanctions and not those Troubles-specific ones. BigDunc 16:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly I'm answering this part of the question asked by One Night In Hackney: "...in the Troubles area on 30 November, did you have the authority..." Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

His question refers to discretionary sanctions, not probation. If you had read the previous discussion linked to and the diffs, you would realise that discretionary sanctions are what is being discussed. BigDunc 17:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the diff where Elonka is talking about the specific points of the General Sanctions of The Troubles case? I see no mention of discretionary sanctions there. Can you provide a diff where Elonka has placed someone under discretionary sanctions where there are none? Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether Elonka has placed someone under discretionary sanctions, the issue is whether she falsely claimed she had the authority to place someone under any sanctions she wanted to. BigDunc 18:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And if she did, what then? I'm having trouble understanding what you and One Night In Hackney are trying to get out of this. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Ioeth, I'm not quite sure what you're asking, BigDunc? Which claim of mine are you referring to? --Elonka 01:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I really shouldn't have to spell it out so obviously when the diffs are linked and explained, but here goes. I said "however there's no comparable restriction available for admins to impose as a result of The Troubles case or any community imposed sanctions. There is no policy based reason as to why anyone should obey your dictats, as in fact policy says the exact opposite". You replied saying "Actually, uninvolved administrators very definitely can issue restrictions, in order to "ensure the smooth running of the project".". Now you put those seven words in quotation marks for a reason, because you copied them from somewhere and we both know where. So, on 30 November did you have the authority to issue discretionary sanctions to "ensure the smooth running of the project" in areas which do not have them authorised? A yes or no answer will suffice, but bear in mind should you answer "yes" that I will wish to know where this authority comes from, so to save time and avoid being evasive I recommend you say where this authority comes from if you do answer "yes". Similarly in the Troubles area on 30 November, did you have the authority to "do what is necessary to stabilize the situation", and what does this entail? Your use of "includes" suggests that you believe your authority goes above and beyond the terms of the probation, is this the case? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

And again, you have asked the same questions you have been all along. What's your point? I ask because it looks like all you're here to do is harass Elonka about something she said 2 months ago. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 14:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I can name one editor who feels she has done the same to him. BigDunc 15:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Also for what it is worth asking legitimate questions which have not been satisfactorily answered is not harassment. BigDunc 15:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Domer48, I'm assuming? So is the whole point of this that Elonka put One Night In Hackney under some kind of restrictions? Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the whole point of this is discovering if Elonka deliberately misrepresented her authority in an attempt to intimidate other editors, or the point of the questions anyway. BigDunc 15:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for stating that in such a concise manner. I think that's a very subjective question that's open to interpretation of Elonka's statements by the reader. Do I personally think that she "deliberately misrepresented her authority in an attempt to intimidate", no. Do I think she could have worded her statements better, probably so. Now, do you really think that the best way to get an answer to that question is to berate Elonka on her talk page? And if she gives the answer that you two keep pestering her for, what then; use it in an ArbCom case against her? It seems to me that if you really want a good answer, you should ask the community for input, like at WP:RfC or WP:AN for instance. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Domer is planning an RfC. BigDunc 15:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Have I "deliberately misrepresented my authority"? No, I don't believe I have. And anyway, to my knowledge, I have never used discretionary sanctions in the Troubles topic area. If I had, I would have logged them here: User:Elonka/ArbCom log, where there is a comprehensive list of discretionary sanctions which I have used in other topic areas, along with the probations and revert restrictions which I have placed in the Troubles topic area, which are well within the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Remedies. As for what administrators can do in the Troubles topic area, beyond placing probations and enforcing revert restrictions, the Arbitration Committee has been somewhat vague. Some of the arbitrators have supported the idea of discretionary sanctions, and some have said that specific discretionary sanctions aren't needed, since administrators are already authorized a certain amount of discretion to prevent disruption to the project.[1] Another applicable precedent here would involve the page ban which Angusmclellan placed on Domer48. That's a discretionary sanction, which was controversial, but the consensus of administrators who reviewed the situation at the time, was that the page ban was an appropriate measure. If there's disagreement about whether that page ban is valid, the appropriate way to handle it is to bring it up at WP:AE or WP:AN and get more opinions. However, it would probably be moot anyway since the ban is set to expire in a couple weeks, on February 9th. Then again, if it would help settle this issue of whether or not it's even appropriate for an administrator to place a page ban in this topic area, it might be a useful exercise. --Elonka 16:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You have "deliberately misrepresented" quite a number of things since you showed up. Some examples would include this here on Sinn Féin, in addition to this this here on Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association and the same on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles by ignoring this this discussion which clearly states that 1RR is not and never was a part of the Troubles ArbCom. So to then claim that this is was consensus for your amendment here is very wrong. But you have also claimed that consensus supported your addition here when we all know that's not true, this discussion was closed by the sock abusing IP who opened it. They looked for a second opinion here and were told no consensus. This discussion has not been closed, yet despite this you say here there was consensus. But then you also claimed here that their was still a ban in place on me when you know full well it was dropped as invalid and unsupportable. Not only did you know this, but as soon as it was dropped, you place me on probation, and went straight to the adimis talk page to tell him. you then tried to encourage him on his talk page to start a thread at WP:AN about discretionary sanction, and since he though better of it, you had to do it herself. This request for "Discretionary sanctions for Troubles articles" at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents was rejected, and although you claimed to accepted this as not having any consensus, you still went just a couple of hours later and chanced her arm at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment but alas, you had no luck there either. Because you have "deliberately misrepresented" the situation a number of editors have asked to to address the concerns and to date you have been evasive and at this stage disruptive. You made a number of claims and allegations about me and I've asked you to support them with diff's. Now there has been a number of attempts to resolve this, and I will even at this late stage ask you to support the probation with diff's of me edit warring or remove it! --Domer48_'fenian' 20:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Domer48, I'm trying to understand this message, but most of these diffs don't make a lick of sense. Could you please take a second look at them and make sure that you've diffed what you meant to? Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you do seem to be having trouble understanding things? Why not start by asking Elonka for the diff's of me edit warring which resulted in her placing me on probation? If you were placed on probation, I think it would be reasonable to know why don't you? Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I know perfectly why you're on probation and don't need anyone to supply me with diffs to see why that's the case; I'm adept enough to be able to pick them out myself. What I don't understand, however, is how diffs like this one are relevant to your point. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 22:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I glad you know why I'm on probation, however I'm still none the wiser! That diff you cite is as relevant as this one, you make a claim you back it up! More so [for Admin's and they are expected to lead by example. Now I'm being very reasonable and patient and have been making every attempt to resolve this, as have a number of editors, this should really not be portrayed as editors making a point. Now I'll allow Elonka the opportunity to respond or better still provide the diff's that you are adept enough to be able to pick out. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Domer48, I and other administrators have left numerous message and diffs on your talkpage to indicate the problems. No matter what any administrator says, it seems that you refuse to ever acknowledge that there are issues with your behavior. Even when your access is blocked, you continue to complain and blame everyone else. If you have ever said, "Oops, I shouldn't have done that, sorry, I'll try to do better in the future," I'm unaware of it. So, we have a situation where multiple administrators have tried to explain the problems to you, but it doesn't seem to be getting through. Whether this is because you're not capable of understanding it, or you just enjoy arguing everything into the ground, I'm not sure, but what is obvious, is that it is disruptive. If you continue with this kind of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and tendentious behavior, your account access will likely end up blocked again. My strong recommendation is to return to building the project. Work in a collegial manner with other editors, avoid reverting good faith edits, treat people with civility and good faith, and you probably won't have to worry about any further administrative intervention. It's really not that hard. --Elonka 05:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Elonka instead of issuing more threats at Domer a simple task would be to show him the diffs of where he was edit warring, I really am at a loss to understand why you wont provide them. If I wasn't AGF, I would think that there was none to find. It's really not that hard.BigDunc 13:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Multiple diffs of Domer48's disruption have already been provided, on Domer48's talkpage, by both myself and Angusmclellan.[2][3][4] --Elonka 15:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You are incapable of providing the diff's of me edit warring because I was not! That was the pacific accusation on which you based you probation! Now you can run around looking for retrospective justification but it will not wash with anyone. So were are the pacific Diff's to support your accusation of edit warring! I have cited a number of incidents of you being very disingenuous, and have been able to support this with diff's! Your conduct is becoming a cause of concern again and has been mentioned before. Now I've been more than reasonable, with you, you said I was edit warring on the Sinn Féin Article and I asked you for the supporting Diff's why are you refusing to give them, please show me were you have provided them already just in case I miss it, though I don't think I have? --Domer48_'fenian' 17:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

See my above post from 15:57. --Elonka 17:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen your posts and a number of editors like me are still left asking you to support your claims, [5][6][7]. Please stop avoiding the reasonable requests as it is really starting to look like your being deliberately disruptive. Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. You put me on probation pacifically for edit warring on the Sinn Féin Article, could you please provide the pacific edits to support this as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors! I may have missed were you posted them but I don't think so? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've conceeded that its pointless asking for you to back up your claims, allegations and actions. I will put together a formal Request for Comment on you conduct and actions. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A better avenue would be to file a thread at WP:AE and request review of the probation. I have no objection to other uninvolved admins taking a look. --Elonka 18:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the answers to my last questions are completely lost in all the noise but I don't see them. So perhaps they could either be answered (preferably without evasion, since they are generally simple yes/no questions) or could someone point me to where they have actually been answered? Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Elonka addressed your questions in this diff. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 14:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

See also my above post from 19:38.[8] --Elonka 16:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting increasingly reminded of Paxman vs Howard here. The first diff answers a different question entirely to what I asked, as does the second diff as I'd asked a different question designed to get a more specific answer following my unhappiness with the answer to the first question. So instead of this constant "Did you threaten to overrule him?"-"No, I did not overrule" him dancing about, perhaps I could have a simple yes/no answer to my simple yes/no question? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The question of what administrators can and cannot do in the Troubles topic area cannot be answered with a simple yes or no, other than to say that ArbCom appears to be in support of administrators doing what is necessary to prevent disruption to the project.[9] As for just exactly how that disruption is defined, or exactly when administrators are allowed to step in, or what they are allowed to do, the answer is really an "It depends". --Elonka 16:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:LostSeason3

Template:LostSeason3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeshuyab II

Just to say good work on adding the extra sources to the article - it's an area I know only a little so the article certainly benefits from your knowledge. Thanks! Gonzonoir (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've definitely been enjoying the work on all these articles about the Church of the East. Lots of stubs to make though! If you'd like to help, pick a redlink at List of Patriarchs of the Church of the East, and go for it.  :) --Elonka 17:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you have a look

At these contributions here and here thanks. BigDunc 10:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I take it from your inaction that you intend to do nothing, I will inform Domer that 2 reverts are now allowed while on 1rr per week probation. BigDunc 09:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The second of those is clearly not a revert so no breach of 1RR. Valenciano (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying that is not a revert of that? Looks to be a clear breach of 1RR to me. O Fenian (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been too busy to take a look, but if someone feels that a breach has occurred, try taking it to WP:AE. --Elonka 17:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You weren't to busy to make 37 edits before my post and your reply hmmm, Domer gets a block and probation extension aprox 10 seconds after a breach, makes you wonder if someone is grinding an axe. BigDunc 17:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a matter of time available. Sometimes I help out in the Troubles topic area, sure, but I'm also doing other things on Wikipedia (like right now I'm deep into untangling messes related to medieval Christianity in Asia). Or in other words, "Troubles-monitoring" is not my 24/7 job. So please, if you think there was a breach, take it to WP:AE. --Elonka 17:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So your not the new flag carrier for all troubles related stuff, seems like you have went from uninvolved admin to just plian old uninvolved. So you dont have a spare 10 seconds to look at a clear breach, it is at AE already but there it will stay and get closed due to inaction, typical. BigDunc 17:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you go on at Elonka for a full page in the above thread about her actions in this topic but run to her the next time you think there's a problem in the same area? Am I the only one that's confused here? Shell ^babelfish 19:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep your confused, it is her actions and lack thereof that I am talking about. BigDunc 19:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No actually I'm not. First you go on for days that she's handling AE incorrectly and now you're berating her for not jumping when you wanted something done relating the AE in the area you've already complained about. Elonka hasn't been appointed a "guardian" of the Troubles AE; you know how to properly handle things if you have an issue. Shell ^babelfish 19:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Your still confused and it is coming, just trying to resolve before hand. BigDunc 19:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Missouri

There hasn't been much activity at WikiProject Missouri or any of its child projects lately, and I saw your name on the list of active participants. If you are willing to jump in again, please consider helping to revive the project:

• Put {{WikiProject Missouri}} on the talk pages of articles involving Missouri. This helps to categorize articles
• Write, cleanup, or expand an article about Missouri
• Source a Biography of a living person living in, born in, or otherwise affiliated with Missouri
• Help spread the word about the project
• Update the project page or the portal
• Watchlist or check the project talk page for updates
• Join one of the child projects:
  • Columbia
  • Kansas City
  • Kansas City Chiefs
  • St. Louis
  • Missouri State Highways
  • Mizzou
  • Silver Dollar City
  • Washington University in St. Louis
  • St. Louis Cardinals
  • St. Louis Rams

If you know anyone who might be interested in Missouri (its history, culture, sports, people, places, architecture, etc.), please pass this message along to them! If you are still interested in the project but aren't currently active, please add yourself to the list of inactive participants at the bottom of this list. Thanks!

On behalf of the project,  fetchcomms☛ 21:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Assyrian Church of the East: Removal of Eastern Expansion Section

Dear Elonka,

I was surprised to see that you have removed, without any prior discussion, the section on Eastern Expansion, which I have tried in recent months to edit into a sober and factually-accurate paragraph.

I agree that this article is a complete mess at present and urgently needs the services of a professional editor, but it would have been more polite if you had signalled your intentions before making such a sweeping deletion. I'm not going to take this further at present, because it's not worth fighting over until someone comes forward with a sensible structure for this article; but it seems to me that a paragraph devoted to the eastward missionary expansion of the Church of the East is entirely appropriate in an article of this kind, and should not have been reduced to a bare sentence.

Djwilms (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it was merged to Nestorianism, since that's the term that the sources used. If you have sources which specifically refer to the Assyrian Church of the East though, by all means feel free to add the information back in. --Elonka 03:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Elonka,

Apologies for being hasty. I hadn't even realised that there was an article called Nestorianism!

I think what I would like to do is sit down and compose a possible structure for the article Assyrian Church of the East, post it on the article's discussion page, and see what people think. If they like it, I might rewrite the entire article, take a deep breath, paste it over the existing article, and wait for the reaction. Thinking aloud, the article should certainly contain four or five paragraphs of history, a section on what the church believes and how it has been misinterpreted in the past, a section on its organisation and current diocesan structure (perhaps prefaced by a brief history of how they got there, with links to my diocese articles), and a section on the historical legacy of the church (contribution to Syriac and Arabic literature, for example). Other things will doubtless occur to me once I get going.

This might take some time, though, as I am presently working against the clock to complete my second book on the Church of the East ('The Martyred Church') by October 2010, for publication next April, so I haven't been able to contribute to Wikipedia recently as much as I used to do. I still try to do at least one edit a day, but they tend to be incremental nowadays.

Anyway, I'm glad to know that the incoherence of the Assyrian articles has been recognised. In the longer term, I would be delighted to help you get to grips with the problem, but it will have to wait for a few months.

Djwilms (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, I look forward to the outline. And though it's in a later time period than where I'm usually working these days, I'll have to get a copy of your book(s)! Maybe if we ever meet, we can swap autographed copies of our respective works.  :) As a sidenote, if you don't already, could you add Church of the East and Nestorianism to your watchlist? There are some discussions ongoing there, and even if you don't have the time to participate in lengthy rewrites, it's always good to get knowledgeable opinions in there to help sort things out! Best, --Elonka 04:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

List of futurologists

You may be interested in this proposal. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Mongol conquest of Jerusalem

I looked over the sources cited at Mongol raids in Palestine for the alleged conquest of Jerusalem in 1300, and the only historian I see there cited as disagreeing is Schein in her Gesta Dei per Mongolos. So I read it. It is not clear to me at all that she denies the Mongols held Jerusalem. There is one non-European contemporary source for it. It is, all in all, completely unexceptional. A large, powerful army invaded a rather weakly-defended territory belong to its chief enemy and had control of it for some four months or so, including the strategically unimportant, but religiously significant, city of Jerusalem. Schein highlights how much Christendom could, in a Jubilee year especially, magnify such a non-event into a miraculous turning point in their fortunes. So can you cite a historian who denies explicitly that the Mongols had control of Jerusalem? I think the sources we have cited say that they did. And it is not a big deal. Certainly their brief running-over of Palestine represents nothing objective in connexion with Europe, only subjectively in those fourteenth-century imaginations. Srnec (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There was not a large powerful army in Palestine, there were just some raids for a few months, and when the Egyptians returned from Cairo, the Mongols retreated without resistance. For more info, I recommend reading Reuven Amitai's article.[10] If you don't have JSTOR access, let me know and I'll send you a copy. --Elonka 02:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I said "large, powerful" because (i) Ghazan himself appeared to be present with his forces and (ii) it was large and powerful relative to the completely absent Mameluke army. I am relying here on Schein, 810. Amitai confirms all this except Ghazan's presence (244–47). Every source I have read confirms that Mongol forces entered Jerusalem and that for a brief period of time (on the order of months) there was no other authority in the entire region of Palestine. Baibars gives the Mongol army under Mulay as 10,000- or 20,000-strong (obviously exaggerated greatly, but it does show that my denomination "large" has a contemporary source to back it up!). I think you may be over-reacting to PHG's own version of a Gesta Dei per Mongolos. (By the way, the event of 1299–1300 appears to have been a single "raid" not many.) Srnec (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not just Schein and Amitai. Phillips, too, said, "Jerusalem was not taken or even besieged." In any case, isn't this pretty well covered at Mongol raids into Palestine? If you know of other sources, feel free to add them there. My own feeling is that it's not up to us to decide the dispute, we're just here to describe it. Based on my own reading of sources, there is disagreement among the historians, so that's how it's written in the Mongol raids article. We would be doing a disservice to our readers if we were to try and state as categorical fact that the Mongols were in Jerusalem. Instead, we state that there's disagreement, quote what the different historians say in a neutral manner, and then let the reader make up their own mind. --Elonka 03:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What I am saying is that it doesn't seem that there is any disagreement that the Mongols were in Jerusalem in 1300 (both Schein and Amitai say they were). I don't care if we bring this up in the Franco-Mongol article or not (although a treatment like Schein's would belong there). I care that we not invent a dispute where there isn't one. As to Phillips (can I get a page number?), nobody is saying Jerusalem was besieged. Who would have defended it? And what does he mean by "was not taken"? Does he mean that it was not taken as the result of a military action? Then I agree, none of the sources suggest it was. The army just walked in. There was nobody there to defend it. But I don't think Phillips is here nearly so reliable as Schein or Amitai, who are wrestling with the primary sources directly. Did Phillips? If you don't mind, I've left a note on Adam Bishop's talk page to see if he can enlighten us, since the problem seems to be our interpretation of the secondary literature. Srnec (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)