User talk:Elonka/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Dailliez notability

I would hope that you agree with my assessment- PHG really has proven that he is notable, and I have no doubt that most people would agree. If you don't wish to take it to AfD or further, then I'm going to remove the tag to be fair. Thanks! Monsieurdl 14:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to make sure you knew that I was staying out of the other part of the disagreement, and I didn't feel it would be appropriate to remove the tag unless I asked you first. Glad to see this ended well- Thanks! (reposted from my talk page) Monsieurdl 14:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Old Cairo

Hi Elonka, awhile back we talked about Old Cairo photos. I didn't have any at the time, but I found a wonderful book of engravings published in 1882 that has a tremendous amount of material relevant to this area. There are literally hundreds of engravings in the book; some of them are truly masterpieces of the art. I had a shot at photographing a couple with my new camera; here is a sample. Some of them are easier to shoot than others, due to the degree of moire interference, but with the right processing and such I might be able to get them all to work. Let me know if you have any specific requests about certain monuments, locations, themes, etc; I'm planning on going through the book and doing some of the more interesting ones. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 06:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Pauline

I've responded at the FAC. Thanks for the heads-up and sorry I neglected it so long. --Dweller 12:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In this case, they should both be "is". Her actions will always be present because you can always go back and view them. If I watch a movie and Batman saves the day, he will continue to save the day for as many times as I watch the movie. Only if they destroyed every copy of the movie, so that I could never view it again, would I change it to past tense when recounting that he saves the day in the movie. Does that make sense? If you're talking about the fictional character's actions in the show, it should be present tense because those actions will happen in the present when viewing that episode again. Even soaps have reruns from time to time. I understand the confusing about writing this way with soaps, since they typically function on a "real time", day-to-day basis, but the episodes are not lost to time. If you are talking about Richards, then you can put that in past tense-if it's meant to be. Like, you wouldn't say "Richards is cast as Pauline in 1967", but "Richards was cast..."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I did. The rule of thumb is, if it takes place in the realm of fiction then it should be present tense. The reason being because fiction can be viewed repeatedly, at different times, but the actions taking place within that work of fiction will always take place at the same time. I believe the only time you would talk about something in the past tense would be if it took place in the paste tense in the work of fiction. Like, you could state that Pauline's parents were killed when she was young, if that was never seen on the show, but mentioned in past tense.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Only because I haven't had a chance to finish it. I'm busy with school--which I'm leaving for right now. I'll try and sit down tonight and read the whole thing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I know, I know, I'm behind with the review. My apologies. I have a lot of projects, both Wiki and real life, going on so it's kind of slipped on the back burner.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance

Hi Elonka. Nice to see you back after a 10 days absence... I am afraid you are not really in a position to ask others to "put more energy into participating at mediation" since you haven't contributed anything for the last two weeks. Stop harassing other users who just enjoy contributing more (perfectly referenced) material to Wikipedia. PHG (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because we have a mediation going on (to which you have not even responded for two weeks) does not mean that I shouldn't contribute to Wikipedia. I am afraid you have demonstrated that you have zero tolerance for views differing from your own. PHG (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Jean-Paul Roux

It didn't take me long to find that he is indeed a distinguished member of the academic community in France. I would not dare question his standing based upon just what I have found in the past 5 minutes- his record in France is impeccable. Monsieurdl (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Moneybomb OR or AfD?

You tagged Moneybomb as possible OR. It has references, but couldn't it still qualify for article deletion? Wryspy (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't want to kill the article, just make it conform to Wikipedia standards (which means no OR).--Orange Mike | Talk 02:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the more spam that gets added to it, the more inclined that I am to want to delete it. I'm willing to give the talkpage a bit more effort, but good faith is wearing thin, and it's really looking like the article is being padded in preparation for another fundraising effort. I think we need to be alert to the possibility that there may be some bad faith stalling going on. --Elonka 05:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is bad faith somewhere, and this template summarizes later developments exactly right, even though you already know about 3RR:

}}}You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. John J. Bulten 15:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

John, I realize that you're a relatively new editor, but please, throwing every warning that you can think of at me, isn't helping matters. For future reference: A 3RR warning is for cases where editors are repeatedly reverting each other to a specific wording of an article, and reverting in a rapid fashion, multiple times per day. In our case, there's no 3RR, since you haven't edited the article in days. If you disagree with my edits at Moneybomb, I would encourage you to actually participate in the editing of the page, in what's called a WP:BRD cycle: I make a change, you make a change based on my change, I make a change based on your change, and we work together in good faith, to try and come up with a version that's agreeable to both of us. That's the wiki-way.  :) If you would like to continue editing the article, please do, but I again strongly urge you to stick only with information from reliable sources. If you add more information from unreliable sources (such as Ron Paul promotion sites), I will again have to consider removing that information, per one of Wikipedia's core policies, that of Verifiability: "Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed." But as long as you stick with only adding information from reliable sources, and you present it in a neutral fashion that accurately represents the sources, and isn't giving undue weight or violating original research, I'm really not going to have a problem with it.  :) --Elonka 16:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Louis IX

Why did you replace the 14century accurate images with a less accurate 16th century depiction? Michael Sanders 17:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

They are high quality, though, and of better value to the reader. Michael Sanders 17:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter December 2007

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter Decemberr 2007
--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 22:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Byzantine-Ottoman Wars

Thanks alot for your contributions here, you tackled a very tedious problem. Just wanted to say thank you lol. Tourskin 08:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not read Persian. Sorry!! Tourskin 19:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on Talk:StankDawg

Elonka, some day you are going to get nominated for RfA again. As a friendly gesture, based on watching the past 2 months worth of RfAs and reading the backlog of failed ones, I'd like to point out that you may not want to leave around artifacts of:

• Inventing new definitions of WP:COI tuned to particular content disputes, particularly when that definition accuses someone you disagree with of having a conflict.

• Once again unilaterally defining exceptions to WP:BLP, again tuned to a particular content dispute, that allows for unsourced negative or controversial comments about a living person to be fact-tagged instead of struck, contrary to the plain wording of the guideline.

• Once again accusing people who disagree with you in content disputes of being uncivil, this time citing adherence to BLP as a sign of incivility.

There is no reason you and I shouldn't get along fine. Please take a moment and check my contribs and my user page. I'm not going anywhere, and I'm wearing my intentions on my sleeve. My issue with DDP/StankDawg/BinRev/Strom/BRMag/etc is not personal: there are too many crappy vanity pages on WP, particularly in security, and I am going to work on cleaning them up.

--- tqbf 18:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said.[1] Let me reassure you, for the record, that I completely agree that unsourced negative information should be immediately removed from BLPs. But for non-contentious information, where there is no reasonable concern that the information is incorrect, I do think it is reasonable to add a {{fact}} tag rather than immediately deleting. Also, I stand by my assertion that immediately deleting newly-added information as "unsourced", can be construed as uncivil (and possibly also a violation of WP:BITE and WP:OWN). --Elonka 18:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you want to be clear, for the record, that WP:BLP trumps WP:BITE, and you want to be clear that enforcing WP:BLP is not uncivil, because someone who didn't like you could easily draw that conclusion from your comments and beat you over the head with it later on. I, in fact, do like you, although I find you frustrating to work against.

I take your meaning regarding WP:BITE. Bad Monk3y isn't new; he's a 5-month-old SPA and, I believe, a friend of the subject's. However, I buy the goal of the project, that we want to convert SPAs to productive editors, and not drive them away with wikilawyering. I'll do my best to be friendly to him, and thank you for the advice. --- tqbf 18:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool, we're back on the same page.  :) --Elonka 18:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Frank Lasee

Maybe you should disclose your reasons for bias before trying to control his article. --SwimmingHole 23:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC) — SwimmingHole (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have no bias for or against Frank Lasee, I merely helped out there (3 weeks ago, I think) as an uninvolved editor. Please be aware that Wikipedia has very strict policies about negative information in biographies of living people. See WP:BLP. If you wish to add information to the biography, all you have to do is ensure that it is connected to a reliable source, and you shouldn't have any problem. --Elonka 23:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Third

(on bended knee and with bowed head) Thank you, I accept. --Elonka 00:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome. :) Acalamari 02:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yay!!! ;) - Alison ^❤ 02:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a new refresh button, you'll need it!, Good luck on your RFA! SQL^{Query me!} 10:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Frustration

There are a lot of days when I see people be subjected to the most unpleasant comments by others and it galls me. I swear I never want to run for anything again- to me, it means having to deal with community members that act like jerks and violate WP:CIVIL and get away with it. I'm remaining just an editor and be as neutral as possible as always in disputes- just the facts. :) Good luck to you in your election and if you ever need help with any RfC's and such, don't hesitate to ask me. Monsieurdl (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

your comment

Hi, thanks; I've gradually improved the two exercises that are there now—OMG, it's so much work doing all of that formatting and colour. Not telling anyone until more is done. On date-linking, well ... um ... I have big problems with the autoformatting system (see MOSNUM talk and archives for fulsome discussion, plus thus-far failed Bugzilla request for technical reform (depsite 85 signatories):

http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4582#c17

Until it's fixed, I'm discouraging people from using it; would rather put up with foreign formatting where it occurs, just as for spelling.

As for Pauline Fowler, well, I suppose I'll withdraw my Oppose, although I'm not fully convinced about the referencing. Tony (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Congratulations -- you're well on your way to blow through WP:100. I hope I'm not being premature but I think the only question may be whether you hit 150 or 200. Good luck, --A. B. ^(talk) 21:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriously...it's creeping up on 100 in just a few hours. Impressive. It seems that a lot of people have been waiting for this. LaMenta3 (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Byblos

Hi Elonka, for how long are you planning to keep the merge proposal in Byblos article? it's been there for almost 2 months now!! BlingBling10 (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Rafael E. López-Corvo‎

Thanks for restoring the cleanup tags to the Rafael E. López-Corvo‎ article. Maybe its primary editor will take the hint when more than one person has posted the tags. Doczilla (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. I remember seeing something about the Franco-Mongol dispute months ago, even though I have no idea why I recall that or what the context was in which I saw it. "Franco-Mongol" is a memorable term. That dispute is still going on? Doczilla (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

N

I'm not going to lead your RfA into off-topic discussions, so I'll raise it here... Regarding Q10.5, N misuses [[N (disambiguation}]] within the article to give "other meanings of N". That probably have been fixed first: moving the disambiguation page to Meanings of N, or some such, before stripping it down. This might apply to others that you've worked on? --Stephen 10:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps Wiktionary is better, I'm not what the guidelines are in this area. Feel free to go to bed, I'm sure it will keep! --Stephen 10:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA Q#13

I have always have been a big believer in WP:CENSOR, what you said to Q# 13, is very rational just because Wikipedia is not censored doesn't mean we should use it as a trump card against reasonable arguements, we have an articles here about Christianity and Jesus , however that doesn't mean we need to add the image of Piss Christ to those articles on the grounds of WP:CENSOR. I think now more then ever that you will make for a wonderfully administrator and I wish you the best in your RfA.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 21:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hello Elonka. How are you? I am a relatively new user. I have seen your contributions and I think you have done a fine job. I wish you all the best. I saw your RfA and I wanted to vote for you. However, some users have voted 'Oppose'. I have not voted. If you become an admin, will you help users like me? I read some comments of users who have opposed you. And, let me ask you a question that nobody has asked: Why so many people are against you? I would like you to answer my question. I asked this question in a good faith. Please don't get offended. I personally think that you have done a fine job. You can reply on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ring

Thanks for your edits to Ring, I am currently working on Ring through Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links in an attempt to correct links in articles. I realize that WP:MOSDAB allows (or even recommends) pipes in some instances, but they make it difficult to identify the actual correct link when building piped linked in articles. I am going to remove the pipes while I continue cleaning up articles with Disambiguous links. Would you like me to drop you a note here when I get down so you can reconsider what links (I will probably find more to add) should be piped per WP:MOSDAB? Jeepday (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• All ended up doing was change a double quote " in to two single quotes '' - 18:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleting references from dab article

Hi. Can you tell me why you deleted the references I added to Lotus to justify my statement that the "lotus" of the Qur'an was a Ziziphus species? I'd want to see justification for a statement like that. Is there some policy against references in dab articles? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:MOSDAB, which generally calls for a much, much terser text on a dab page. There should probably be a line on the dab page, linking in turn to a page discussing the Koranic sidr. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Email

Hello Elonka. I have send your an email. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you online? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Support!

Hello Elonka! I supported you. I have send you an email. I hope you will do a great job as an admin. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Moneybomb RfC

Hey Elonka. Just wanted to give you a heads-up that I've listed Moneybomb for RfC. Best of luck with the admin nom! — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My vote

Well your eloquence changed my opinion, well that and your innate suitability to the role. My own take on Jimbo is he is in a very difficult position and for me supporting him based on his actions to date is a no-brainer because of this. Best wishes. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

email

I don't use that acct for email, normally. Remember, I don't trust yahoo for email -- it's my 'throwaway' account. I'm not expecting a reply from him anyway, the "all caps" email claim was a little bizarre. Mindraker (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I guess I never noticed that I tend to sign my name when I am really sincere about wanting something. I'll blame my dad on this one, heh. Mindraker (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I really do appreciate your concern, but I am rather interested to see if he will forward me the (alleged) email, seeing as he was not allowed to post it on Wikipedia. If his claims are true, he would theoretically be jumping at the opportunity to "spread the word". If his claims are false, theoretically, it would be more difficult to provide the evidence. So far, I have not received contact from him. Mindraker (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

I'm pleased to inform you that you are now an administrator. Please read all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Best of luck — Dan | talk 01:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The request for adminship was successful!

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 01:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You've done it, Elonka! Your RfA was successful, and had 176 supports in all! Here is a link to the school for new admins (do check this out, it's very useful! I wish it had existed when I first became an admin!), and a new T-shirt! Take great care when using your new tools! If you need help, don't hesitate to contact me or other more experienced administrators! Good luck! Acalamari 01:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! 74% support and still making it we can thank our crats for good judgement (and hopefuly thank you soon for good admining!). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Elonka, I am very, very pleased. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Congrats! :) Now, make yourself useful! :P SQL^{Query me!} 02:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Echoing the above sentiments, Congratulations on your new responsibilities, and I wish you the best in your wiki-admining. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, hey! Congratulations, and oh yeah, cleanup on aisle 3! --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! (Has anyone ever gone through as much to get the mop?) You'll be great. Unschool (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Message

Message: -->
You may seek the planets as a guide if you are lost...     ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk01:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't just stand around gawking! You missed a bit on the left. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! I hope you will do a great job as an admin. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Much congratulations! :) --Fang Aili ^talk 02:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats Elonka! It's great to finally have your dedication and judgment on the administrative team. :) --krimpet✽ 03:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! Although I voted against your adminship, I hope that my concerns, and those of your other detractors, will not materialise. I also do sincerely hope that you will exercise your newly-acquired powers responsibly and in the best overall interests of wikipedia. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm so happy that in the end those who did their very best to submarine you did not cripple your RfA. The proof is in the pudding, er, the bucket! :P Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 03:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Belated co-nom congratulations! Welcome to the team :) - Alison ^❤ 03:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

.snoitalutargnoCFerrylodge (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Long overdue, but thankfully this time was a success. Congratulations. - auburnpilot talk 05:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations again! Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto my namesake directly above. Daniel 11:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. And I didn't even have to pull out my rant about opposing you for last year's political opinions. :-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Right (write?) on ! ;) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations Elonka! Ariel♥Gold 14:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Aye.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

w00t!

I just got home from work, so I just saw that you finally got the mop. About damn time! Congrats and all that...it got ugly there for awhile. Party on Elonka's talkpage! :) LaMenta3 (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats Elonka - it was a long time coming. I feel better knowing that you are out there, protecting the streets of Gotham. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, about time too! Deb (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on your moppification. Best regards, Húsönd 23:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

From me as well, congradulations! Maser ^(Talk!) 10:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Double wOOt! Congrats, Elonka!! Dreadstar † 08:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

w0000000000000000000000t! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Aramgar, Kafka Liz and the Rfa

Elonka, your note is much appreciated and goes a long way toward easing the concerns Kafka Liz and I had regarding your administration. There’s certainly no doubting your dedication to the project and the overall quality of your work. It says a lot to us that you have stepped forward like to this to apologize on the behalf of those involved.

Regarding how we learned of the RfA: no one emailed or contacted us in any way. Kafka Liz really did just stumble on it, as she said, and mentioned it to me. Our relatively small number of edits does not reflect the amount of time we spend at the site; Kafka Liz, in particular, does a fair bit of reading about policy (and later explaining it to me).

I’m assuming that most of the tension here stems from the Franco-Mongol alliance issue? I am aware of it but haven’t had the inclination to read through all of the pages now associated with the matter, especially when it is so clear that yours is the correct position. I too have little patience with pot-stirrers.

In any case, thank you again for your note. I think we can easily put this behind us now and believe we will work well together in the future, since our editorial interests intersect fairly closely. On that note, allow me to congratulate you on your successful RfA and wish you all the best. Aramgar (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, at the risk of sounding too much like Aramgar, I too would like to thank you for your kind words and congratulate you on your adminship. And wish you an excellent holiday season. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ciphertext congratulations

Elonka,

SIL_ETNCONORITTL6TSONH__NEFANCLYY__AHISGYAUMMN__TOE_NAX__EIME__HOTYSUM_ONW_LA_SETEA__AOMBNGHDPAI__ND_IIS_IE_LSI_EISLYR_FHRTTHEMTTA__OO_EIF_YHU_CENTRTADMTKIN__OD_IIGSTOB__I_ARLPTOLGGASU8AAIEM_RSDOP

Sincerely, --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

RE:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Welcome! I hope you will do a great job as an admin. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

It was no big difficulty for me- I would have defended anyone I knew against the sort of attacks that were going on :) It feels good going back to editing history articles instead of engaging in heated debates, and I'm sure you'd appreciate that. If you need any help, you can always come to me as you know. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 16:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Best of luck. Sorry for all the drama. Now, for the hard part: be very careful when using the block button, which I know from hard-won experience. :-) Bearian (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Help with Moneybomb

Hey Elonka. I know you were active on the page awhile ago, so I could use some help. A single-purpose account has been editing/hacking/butchering the article - once, twice, three times. I'm trying to assume good faith, but the page is a mess now. I reverted it twice today already, but the page could use some help. Could you take a look at it and try to work out the kinks - or failing that, give me some advice on how to proceed? Thanks! — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 22:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats

File:Party.gif

Congrats, Elonka -- enjoy! :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me be the first -- even before the bureaucrats -- second to say congrats. Now go ahead and prove me wrong. -- tariqabjotu 01:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats as well. Horologium (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats Secret ^account 01:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Elonka! If you have any admin-related questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Best, Nishkid64 (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you should make your thank you notes mimic an RFAR summons.  :-) - Jehochman ^Talk 01:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats Elonka.. now don't go proving ned and wayne wrong.. let the massive abuse of power begin! ;) EnsRedShirt (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dang, I was pretty sure you wouldnt get it. I thought even a 75% meant a no consensus. Had I known, I would have sent 12 more emails to your former opposers. Just kidding (did not do any of that). Anyway, you wanted it real bad and you got it so you must be happy. Congrats. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, and best of luck. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well. I trust you'll prove to be a great admin. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me be the most recent (as of now) to say congratulations! I'm a fan of codes, and may check out your book. Wakedream (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

All my congratulations Elonka. I'm sure your'e going to keep on the great job !Lancet (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking for an article

Hello, I am looking for a Wikipedian who could access and send me this academic article. I was suprised to learn that my university doesn't have access to it, and I could very much use it in the series of articles I am currently working on at Wikipedia (Suwalki Agreement, Zeligowski's Mutiny and others). I noticed you are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange, and I would like to ask if you have access to this article? Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking for it! I think I have found a person with access to it now :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy request

What exactly prompted your request? El_C 03:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to press on this too much, I asked twice that you to provide evidence of "bad faith and uncivil comments" made by that ip. Thx. El_C 04:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have replied at your talkpage. I'd like to keep focused on the original request, which is the extension of sanctions. --Elonka 04:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I asked about this ip: "Evading sanctions how?" You replied: "bad faith and uncivil comments." I requested diffs, five times now. El_C 04:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have replied at your talkpage. Let's go ahead and keep discussions there. --Elonka 04:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is exasperating. El_C 04:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) As per your message, the incident (which prompted my involvement in the ArbCom enforcement complaint from last November). During that time, he was editing under the anon IP 71.203.223.65. Subsequently, he supported those edits (and opinions) as DreamGuy (posting within 15 minutes as first the anon and then as DreamGuy supporting the anon user's edits). as I noted before, there was an SSP report filed to look into the socking, which found a connection.
At that point, he was blocked, and then El_C got involved, complaining about the stale dating of the complaint, and Dmcdevit canceled the RFCU which would have conclusively pointed to DreamGuy using the anon IP to edit. He has never admitted to using it and has evaded ever addressing the SSP report. The report was overlong, and I am partly responsible for it's failure, as I had little experience filing ArbCom enforcement complaints. However, if someone is actively working to conceal their identity and it doesn't come to light for a while, does that make the violation any more wrong?
Does that answer your question? I will post the diffs in my statement, in case others had questions. If you think I need any more explanation, please let me know. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. I hesitated to bring up a bunch of old diffs of what DG did, since that seemed to go rather less than swimmingly the last time I did it. As well, I spent a pointless hour or so talking with El_C and Dmcdevit about this, and they seem to be firmly convinced that DG exudes a fresh pine scent and can do no wrong, and we are all manky bastards for picking on him, and you the Big Bad for drumming up a request out of "nothing". Their behavior is nothing short of disgraceful.

I don't know how to deal with admins who see smoke and repeatedly think its a dust cloud. Therefore, I advise that the next time DG (or an anon acts up), run to El_C and point out the actual existence of fire. Honestly, I think that it will be the only way that El_C is going to act.

For informational purposes, DG evaded answering Dicklyon's question; he never answered it. Can't really provide a diff for something that no one admitted to.

As for the article on how to prepare an ArbCom, no, I never knew it existed. God, that would have been SO helpful back when I was preparing my response to the ArbCom complaint. Your advice on prac app learning is valid, and I will follow it. I am going to stay out of the rest of this particular argument about DG. I don't trust El_C and Dmcdevit, and I need to give myself time to refill that cuppa AGF for them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Burma

Unfortunately the Internet is not exactly swamped with many references that can be used for Burma except maps! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 19:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Dreamguy

It might be wise to step back and let other people handle it, if there are still concerns about his editing. The prior bad blood between the two of you otherwise clouds the important issues. Friday (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, thanks for your note. This appears to be an obvious violation of WP:SOCK, as you have pointed out, and as almost everyone there seems to agree. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, El_C seems to disagree. Am I being paranoid in wondering if this isn't groundwork for something else? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

From your lips to God's ears. I too hope this helps DG, but, like my grandfather used to say, "salute optimism; await evidence". - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

fiery but trustworthy? nifty imagery, but where did you cull that from? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Gah. I am a fool. Damned real life job, interfering with my wiki-reality. :) On another note, i am unsure what the end result of your request for extension was. Were they adopted, or was the report adopted as evidence of wrongdoing? I am thinking the latter, but it pays to ask- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

DreamGuy has been blocked by Arbitration Clerk Rlevse for 96 hours, for gaming the system.[2] The anon account 68.47.175.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has also been blocked. My request for extension, and my subpage report, have now been archived at the talkpage of the ArbCom case. It is my hope that when DreamGuy returns, he will resume editing in a civil and good faith fashion, using only his DreamGuy account. As long as he does that, we can all move on with our lives.  :) --Elonka 22:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rejoice!

Joy

Avinesh Jose  T  has given you a kitten! Kittens promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and keep up the excellent editing! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Walter Dew

Hi Elonka! Our friend has turned up in three guises at Walter Dew. See the talk page there where the three identities (two unregistered and one registered) are listed. From info on talk page it seems he has admitted, somewhere else at somepoint, that they are all his, claiming memory loss. The article is quite new and the issues are quite obvious if you check it out for yourself. For the all time wikipedia multiple car-crash inferno, involving our friend see the Jack the Ripper talk page and its massive archive. However I don't recommend anyone who values their sanity to read it as they would probably end up in an institution, but it is a prime example of our friend at his worst, using a combination unregistered ips and his registered one, claiming to represent a 'consensus', then launching into personal attacks and black propaganda on other editors ad infinitum. At first I didn't know that the unregistered ips were his, but I am now a wiser if sadder person with regard to his tactics. Colin4C (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen this?: User talk:68.47.175.159 Colin4C (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is another one he uses: User talk:194.66.226.95 Colin4C (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is one he used last year at Jack the Ripper: User talk:172.165.136.245 Colin4C (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the 172.165.136.245 (talk · contribs) contribs look like him, though they're pretty old, from August 2006. As for 194.66.226.95 (talk · contribs), that doesn't look like his style to me, so that may just be another random anon that was participating around the same time this month, and happened to wander into the article for a bit. --Elonka 21:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think 194.66.226.95 (talk · contribs) is a terminal used by several different (cranky) editors, one of which could be him. I just had a look through the archive of the Jack the Ripper talk page from the beginning. Scary! Colin4C (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look

I really do. As its now clear he's planning a complaint of his own, you might wish to be forewarned. I've already notified FT2 and Rievse. I hadn't contacted Lara Love, even though he's assuming that she was acting in bad faith/at your behest/whatever in denying DG's request for unblock. The reasoning is that, because she supported you in your RFA (1/176th of those voting for you), she cannot act as a reviewing admin. The irony of his statements regarding this isn't lost on me, - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just saw your comment. I am not planning on responding to it, since he's not necessarily painting me with the same brush. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. there is quite enough left on my plate to keep me busy, If the fit hits the shan, please let me know (in a new section heading. Have a good weekend. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, i was wondering if I could impose upon you to help me evenly arrange the infoboxes on my user talk page. My skills at html are pretty sucky. the only other place where I would want some html assistance is on y User page. thelast barnstar isn't part of the rest, and I'd prefer uniformity. Once I knuckle down and learn more about it, I'd prefer to have a scroll box, but that's down the road. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:TsutomuShimomura.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:TsutomuShimomura.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Mongols

I'll do what I can. john k (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

God, I just read over the FA nomination of Franco-Mongol relations. Something is deeply broken there - you were not only the only person who brought up the factual inaccuracy of the article, you were the only person who seemed to even think this was something that might be questioned about the article. For anyone to pass any judgement on criterion 1C, and probably 1B, as well, one needs to have some knowledge of the subject area. All these busybodies at FAC spend all their time going on about poor introductions and too many images, and ignore incredibly serious, vast problems with the article. If the article had had a good introduction and not had too many images, it appears that, aside from you, it would have passed FAC. This is potentially disastrous - any crank with an interest in an obscure topic can make a featured article by tendentious citations. Beyond that, at certain points PHG's work approaches plagiarism - he uses pretty much verbatim quotes from his sources without making clear that they are quotations, although he does cite the source and usually include the original text in a footnote. If we're going to have featured articles, they really need to have a serious factual due diligence, and this should be a formal part of the process. Fact-checking ought to be the most important of deciding whether something is an FA, not an afterthought. This makes me deeply concerned for the integrity of the whole FA process. john k (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom may end up being the way to go, although I think the problem is really structural. Anyone with any knowledge of the specific stuff PHG talks about quickly sees that it's tendentious. The problem is that there is nothing in FAR which actually makes it mandatory that anybody with any actual knowledge of the subject reviews it. So we make damn sure that FA articles are proofread, and use summary style, and don't have too many pictures, and that there's a citation for any statement of fact. But there's nobody to check if the citations are actually good, if the article actually represents an accurate portrait of the state of the field. To be approved for publication (and that, imo, is what FA should be), a normal encyclopedia article has to be peer reviewed by people knowledgeable in the field. This is completely lacking in FA, and is a serious problem. Obviously, we are somewhat lacking in people with actual expertise, and there is, further, something of an anti-expert ideology among a lot of people here. But some kind of serious content review process for FAs seems essential, or wikipedia could be in for some serious embarrassment. john k (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What really astonishes me about this is that I can't figure out what it's in service of. Usually the POV behind tendentious work like this is readily apparent. Here I have no idea what is motivating PHG. I can't even conceive of what possible nationslist POV would lead one to want to exaggerate the degree of alliance between Mongols and Franks. Is he a propagandist for King Hethoum of Armenia, or something? Now he's trying to claim that Bohemond could have ridden 125 miles a day, like Mongol post riders, and arrived in Baghdad from Acre in five days. Sigh. john k (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)