User talk:Elonka/Archive 17

Thanks for the clarification regarding voting. I got the original concept from

I am interested in the little gizmo that let's one see user or article history by running one's mouse over. Technology! what an amazing thing.  :)

Sure thing! It's one of those neat tools, that once you've gotten used to it, you never want to be without it.  :) It used to be that you needed to mess with javascript pages to get it to work, but things are a lot easier now:

• Click on "my preferences" at the top of the page
• Click on the "Gadgets" tab
• Select the checkbox that says "Navigation popups"
• Click "save"
• Go to some other article on Wikipedia, and hover your mouse over links and footnotes, and a whole new world should be open to you (note that if the server is running slow, you may need to hold the mouse over a link for a second or two to get it to "catch".)
• To see someone's contribs, hover over the link to their name, then move the mouse to the "user" submenu on the popup, then pull down to "contributions" (this gives you the same list you might see if you went to someone's userpage and clicked on "User contributions" in the lefthand toolbox). Then hovering over "last" on each line will show you a quick popup of what was done on each edit (if you're looking at the "full" page, this is the same thing as hovering over "diff")
• It's also fun to go into "Recent changes" and hover over the various links there as well.
• If you have a Firefox browser, I also strongly recommend the WikEd gadget. It makes editing complex pages sooooooooooo much easier, since it color-codes everything and gives you a lot of good editing tools such as search and replace, the ability to "turn off" embedded references to make text more readable, and lots of other very handy devices.

Enjoy, and let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka 19:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, Elonka. A quick question regarding something said by MZMMcBride above. He says: "And really, I'd like to hear what he [Tundrabuggy] has to say on the issue (if anything) before others come jumping to his defense. More than likely, he knew that his actions would result in a response like this. " Was this just an rhetorical comment, or would he really like me to discuss the issue with him personally?

Couldn't hurt to ask him, though to strengthen your voice, I'd recommend getting a couple other articles into your contribs list first.  :) --Elonka 03:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see this Talk page thread: [15]. It involves Ramdrake, Alun/Wobble, and Slrubenstein; the editors from the R&I article. Is this type of collusion/meatpuppet-like activity acceptable; that is going from article to article, working as a team? --Jagz (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent question, that doesn't have an easy answer, as there are both good and bad reasons for the behavior that you describe. On the one hand, it is very common for editors who work in a certain topic area, to often show up on the same articles (for example, if doing substantive work on articles about the Crusades, you rapidly get to know the major players, and when a new name shows up, it's obvious, so we often do our best to welcome them immediately). On the other hand, some editors do develop political networks, where if one of them runs into a conflict somewhere, they contact their wiki-friends and say, "Come help me win this argument". That kind of behavior is strongly discouraged (see

SPAs

. It's reasonable for you to offer a (civil and good faith) query such as, "Didn't I see all of you (name) over on (article X) recently? How is that you're all now suddenly on this article too? Is there a noticeboard that I should be watching? If so, I'd like to join."

Also, be aware that if it wasn't them in particular, it might be other editors doing the same thing, so it is often best to focus less on who the editors are, than what they are saying or doing. If their behavior is within policy, then there is usually not a problem. But if the behavior is leading to an article that is becoming biased or unverifiable, then that's an issue, and you should address that issue in a frame of, "protecting the article" rather than "excluding certain editors". It's a subtle point, but very important in wiki-culture. Hope that helps, Elonka 14:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but I'd like to point out that there was good progress on the R&I article after it was unlocked on February 1 until a couple of weeks after this message [16], that's when Ramdrake became active again. After Ramdrake became active again, Alun/Wobble and Slrubenstein soon afterwards became active again too and progress soon became next to impossible. --Jagz (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what you mean by "progress"? In the context of changes to the article, what do you think is being thwarted? --Elonka 15:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, progress can be subjective. I define progress to mean an improvement in the readability of the article by a layperson for one thing. May I suggest that although there had been some normal editing conflicts prior to this, that the turning point in an ability to make progress on the R&I article started at about the time of this edit [17] on March 18. Ramdrake added the edit summary: "Revert - it is the responsibility of the editor pushing for inclusion to gather consensus on the talk page once edits have been challenged." However, since these edits had already been in the article for several weeks, discussion should have occurred on the Talk page prior to removing the material instead of the other way around as Ramdrake maintained. Afterwards, I reverted Ramdrake but Ramdrake reverted me to remove the material again. Although not just limited to those three editors I mentioned above, I believe that the editing became a battle of POVs after that instead of being an effort to create a NPOV article. I was perceived as having a particular POV and was not able to make edits in favor of that POV afterwards regardless of the merit of the edit, regardless of whether the edit improved the NPOV of the article overall, and regardless of edits I made in favor of another POV. It has become a battle of POVs rather than an attempt to produce a NPOV article, granted that different editors may have different views of what constitutes a NPOV article. Maybe that is the solution to the problem, to get everyone to agree to what constitutes a NPOV article, that is if it is possible. --Jagz (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the three editors I mentioned above, they point each other to certain articles by leaving subtly worded messages on each others Talk pages. --Jagz (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are the same 3 editors on another article [18]. I don't think I would be mistaken to say that this type of activity can lead to a contrived consensus. --Jagz (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added it to my watchlist. But the issue remains, that it's not against policy for editors to be working together in the same topic area. For an administrator to get involved, there would need to be some indication that a policy was being violated. If you do see such a thing, you should bring it up at the article talkpage. If it seems that you are continually being "overruled" by the same editors, then try to get more opinions into the mix, perhaps via a Request for Comment. You can also suggest mediation. See

dispute resolution for more options. --Elonka

14:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you enlighten me on how Wikipedia's reliance on consensus building is consistent with "Wikipedia is not a democracy"? These 2 principles seem to conflict with each other but maybe I am overlooking something. Also, is it okay to inquire about an editors qualifications/expertise on a particular article? --Jagz (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus" is a slippery word. It's defined one way at

WP:DDV page helpful. As for qualifications, no, that's probably not a good angle to take. On Wikipedia, anyone can contribute regardless of their qualifications, since the goal here is to rely on published sources, not on an editor's personal knowledge. So if a child could come in and be a good researcher and dig up good solid sources, their voice would have just as much weight (or even more!) than a PhD who was arguing from personal knowledge and saying, "That's not so!". The PhD would be required to produce sources to back up their opinion. And if they couldn't, well, then that would say bad things about their methodology. And I'm not exaggerating. I've actually had those kinds of arguments with people who claimed advanced degrees, but when asked for sources to back up the claims that they were making, they couldn't produce any. Wikipedia runs on reliable sources, not on expert opinions. Experts are definitely welcomed and encouraged to participate, and I greatly value their input... But when it comes to a dispute, they'd better be able to back things up with sources. --Elonka

15:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've left a suggestion on MZMcBride's talk page. To be frank, I'm not sure Tundrabuggy deserved a serious long-term sanction with his activity on the page. However, it is not my place to judge this event.
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If I am understanding MZMcBride's comments, he has authorized other uninvolved admins to reduce the restrictions if they feel it appropriate. I have encouraged

talk · contribs) to work on other articles in the meantime, to reduce his SPA-like contrib list, and he has been responding well to guidance (check the history on his userpage). My plan is, that if he continues positively in this vein, to lift restrictions so that he is allowed to participate at the al-Durrah talkpage, and then if his good editing on other articles continues, to also allow him to resume editing at al-Durrah. Or MZM (or some other admin) may do it sooner. It couldn't hurt to bring up Tundrabuggy's new contrib history to MZM and ask him to re-review the situation. --Elonka

13:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering the heated exchanges and attempts to have people sanctioned, I got into this as far as I'm willing to... possibly too much even. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think things are resolving pretty well at the moment. The

Muhammad al-Durrah article is unprotected and seems to be fairly stable at the moment, the talkpage discussions are proceeding in a much more civil fashion, and various editors who were laser-focused on that one page, are starting to work on other things. Tundrabuggy is continuing to improve his (her?) editing skills, and will probably be off sanctions soon. As for other attempts to have people sanctioned, I can make a guess as to what you're referring to, but am not sure. If you'd like to enlighten me, go ahead. :) I am also accessible via IMs and email. --Elonka

20:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I could use some fresh administrative eyes on this user. I've been going through his edits and the various edits to Carly Corinthos, and I'm almost positive he's a sock of User:Randy Jaiyan who User:Yamla banned. Randy and his many, many socks originated from an IP in Toronto that has been extremely active on the same pages as Santos. Randy has a history of moving pages, uploading copy-vio images, edit warring over characters names (especially Carly's), and creating multiple articles on Claudia Zacchara. KellyAna apparently was his wiki-nemesis, but since she's been banned, I don't think anyone really knew about Randy. Anyway, the behavioral pattern is exactly the same, especialy in regards to not understanding naming conventions at all. I'm not just talking about common names, but a total inability to understand when married names apply to characters and actresses and when middle names should be used. Anyway, could you take a look at Santos for me? He's been blocked for a week by User:Gwernol already, but appears to be evading that block with a number of IPs originating from Toronto. Thanks. AniMate 20:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I also recommend filing a report at

WP:SSP or WP:RFCU. --Elonka

20:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought about it, but Elonka this is really, really obvious now that I know there's a bigger picture to be looking at. I've been considering filing a RfCU, but am doing two things at once and I don't think I can focus on the computer hard enough right now to fill the form out correctly and hunt down all of the diffs. If there are still some doubts, I can do it later this afternoon. AniMate 20:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying about the diff-collecting. However, SSP reports don't have to be too complicated... They could be as simple as what you just presented to me here on my talkpage, and then if it's not enough to convince folks, you can continue to expand information as you have time. Up to you though!  :) --Elonka 20:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've realized that having my laptop open right now is a monumentally bad idea right now if I'm going to accomplish my goals for the day. I'm doing a very half-assed job with my work right now and I really need to be focused on getting some of my cels in order. I'll get on it later tonight. Still, I'd like you to check it out, because I know I'm not jumping at shadows here. AniMate 20:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's too pretty outside to be stuck working indoors, so I took my lap top to the park and went ahead and filed a report here. Difs and everything included. AniMate 22:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, if you will review the full contribution history of this user, along with the history of his user talk page, you will find that he did get multiple warnings, for multiple repeated offenses (

Yes, I may go to ANI, but I would like to give MastCell a chance to reconsider first, as I think that an ANI thread could get messy. I think that a better way of dealing with Jagz would have been with maybe a one week block, rather than jumping from a 24-hour block in May, to an indef block in June. I just don't think that his recent behavior was that bad, that such an extreme measure was necessary. --Elonka 15:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

On 13 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eleanor King, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Nice article. --Gatoclass (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much!  :) --Elonka 20:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to draw your attention to this. Your credibaility and the appearance of a fair and honest mediation is on the line here. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm, no it's not. It's your understanding of Elonka's clearly stated rules that's faulty. I've answered this on the talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Elanka for being willing to help out and learn about

RichardMcCoy 03:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues here: [19]

One is content the other is procedure:

Did I follow proper procedure? If not what could be better? Did Tarc followed the rules you laid out ? if not what should be the sanction ? You should have a zero tolerance especially that one editor already banned from the article (actually for no good cause at all). It takes only a quick look at the I/P arbCom sanction section to see that pro-Israeli editors get a sanction that 100 times more severe than pro-Palestinian editors. Is this the normal way things are done around here ? I hope not.

As for content: The image was loaded by an editor that is now banned. It is unclear that the image pass copy-right usage, it is sourced to some pro-Palestinian web site so it fail both

I'm unsure if you have a concern about my good faith - I may have picked some of your comments up wrong. The last part of your comment to Jehochman[20] seems to paint a picture of me as acting in bad faith. Why would Jehochman's action constitute him "running interference" for me? I also want to ask you this: are you worried that I was tag teaming Jagz? You have used the term "opponents" in your comment at ANI - that bothers me in regard to how my position in that issue is being perceived. I have never edited

From a mix of concern and confusion I would respectfully request that you elaborate about any concerns you have about my behaviour in this issue - I would be very interested to hear them and would certainly take them on baord. And BTW thank you for the note you left on my page--Cailil ^talk 12:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and sorry for any confusion. I don't believe that I have implied anywhere that you were to blame for Jagz's block, nor that you were disruptive. I do think that a few editors have been reacting to Jagz more forcefully than they should. Beyond that, I'm still investigating the backgrounds of all involved. I am curious though, what is your own opinion on the Jagz situation? If you were looking at his behavior, as an admin, what do you think would be the appropriate methods to deal with him? Was an indefinite block appropriate? --Elonka 12:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I misinterpreted anything and thanks for your reply. From my own investigations I haven't seen Jagz make a positive contribution to the project for a few months (I know he created an article recently but this seems to have been a POV fork that ignored consensus). That doesn't mean he can't be a positive contributor.

I'm also concerned about the way he has "retired" from wikipedia but returned a couple of times for the sole purpose of making uncivil posts at or about other editors. Even since his agreement at ANI he has not removed himself from the topic. As you said yourself he has highlighted some issues and you are looking into them - his vigilance is no longer necessary. Why the continued comments about Ramdrake? Why the edits to Mathschi's pages - when it is clear that such an action is inappropriate? I'm also cogniscent of the spurious and very serious remark that I explicitly asked him to refactor at ANI (about me having a COI) and his refusal to do so. This shows an inability (or refusal) to distinguish between substantive policy concerns of outsiders and the issues of involved editors with whom he is engaged in a content dispute.

I do however believe in second chances, but only if Jagz agrees to abide in the spirit and to the letter of

I hope Jagz would take such an opportunity to learn more about the project and help develop it. The reason, as far as I can see, that a number of other sysops agree with MastCell's block is that Jagz has not attempted to change his behavoiur even after the ANI thread, even after a full set of template warnings, even after being blocked twice. Personally I might have blocked him for 3 weeks and asked him to consider WP:ADOPT etc but I do think the indef serves a valid purpose too--Cailil ^talk 14:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. And please, don't take my comments as attacks on you, but more as constructive criticism for how you can improve. Especially since you are considering adminship, some "tough love" criticism can actually help strengthen your practices quite a bit, so I hope you can take my comments in the spirit with which they are offered. Okay, to start: Your statement "I haven't seen Jagz make a positive contribution to the project for a few months" is pretty strong, and is not matching my own analysis of his activity: Jagz (talk · contribs). I also have concerns about your subpage, where you seem to be labeling things as "trolling" and "vandalism" which are not backed up by diffs. For example, when accusing someone of making an attack, you really need to have a diff of a blatant attack. A diff of someone else calling it an attack isn't enough. And a statement like, "I don't trust you to be a neutral mediator", isn't really a blatant attack. It may be unfair, it may be personally targeted, but I wouldn't call it an attack. Ditto with a statement like, "Please don't make provocative statements." I wouldn't call that uncivil, nor trolling, especially when it's being said in response to someone else's less-than-civil comments.

If you would like to be an admin, it is very important that you be able to accurately recognize what is and isn't vandalism (see

trolling. You also need to be able to present an analysis of someone's behavior in a neutral way, without going into hyperbole. Making accusations of vandalism and trolling, without strong diffs to back up the accusations, can sometimes be as disruptive as actual disruption, especially when the accusation is coming from an authority figure. When in doubt, it is better to understate the situation than to overstate it. I recommend that you re-examine your subpage, stick to truly egregious diffs, and focus less on your interpretation, and more on what the target (Jagz) actually said. To keep it a well-rounded view of the situation, it would also be helpful if you could take a clear-eyed look at the context of Jagz's behavior, and point out similar issues with other related editors. Because Jagz really isn't the sole problem in this situation. --Elonka

16:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Elonka and thank you for taking the time to go through this. Let me say this I do think the Jagz report was rushed so I would like to ask, if you have time, that you consider User:Cailil/Complex_vandalism_on_feminism_and_gender_studies_related_articles, User:Cailil/pepper and User:Cailil/cailil_sandbox_4 before concluding on my judgement about vandalism etc. Each of these reports took a lot longer to compile and becuase the issue has (in Anacapa's case) not gone away are much more detailed. I'm also happy to delete the Jagz sub-page. In the spirit of AGF, he deserves a fresh start if he wants one. I take your point about interpretation and will act to address that in future and where necessary in older reports.

On the matter of the whole Race topic dispute I think there are other disruptive elements and I really hope that the mediation works or at least goes ahead. I will step back and examine things, especially if further disruption occurs. BTW the level of off-site 'interest' in Race and intelligence was playing a significant part in problems there and should not be under-estimated - I'm almost 100% sure that Jagz is not involved in that however--Cailil ^talk 17:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, I'll take a look. There's a lot there, so it may take some time. As my initial impression, there definitely are some places where you are correctly identifying "attacks" and providing diffs of actual attacks (some of them are real doozies!). However, I still see other places where you are making claims of "vandalism" and "trolling", that the diffs aren't backing it up. They might be correct if you called it "disruptive editing" or "incivility" though. What I'm trying to get across, is that "vandalism" is a frequently misused word, and that if you use it, you had better have a diff that is blatant vandalism, otherwise you shouldn't use that word. Ditto with the word "troll", it requires diffs of blatant attempts to disrupt, for the sole purpose of trying to stir things up and get people to react. Just because someone is pushing a POV, makes them neither a vandal nor a troll.

Regarding the Jagz page, you are of course welcome to delete it, but if you really want to address my concerns, I would prefer if you rewrote it. That would help to demonstrate that you were understanding the issues that I have been bringing up. It would also be helpful to me, because in all the diffs that people have been providing, I am still not seeing proof that Jagz was as disruptive as people are claiming. Instead I see multiple good faith efforts on his part to write, and the same editors jumping into every attempt, often with incivility and name-calling. Frankly, if I had that many people calling me a troll everywhere I went, I'd get a bit testy too. But if you seriously feel that Jagz is the core reason for the disruption here, I would like to see you make that case on your subpage. --Elonka 17:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

For the most part I agree that vandalism usually means adding blatant nonsense etc - but there is also the term "complex vandalism" ala Durova's use of it - I do however see that that term may be a bit confusing for some. But on the other hand perhaps we should write an essay explaining that complex vandalism equals partial and selective usage of sources - twisting them out of context and misrepresenting their points. BTW I will rewrite the Jagz report--Cailil ^talk 17:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of other things to call it: POV-pushing, disruption, misinterpretation of sources, tendentious editing, violation of WP:UNDUE, etc. But I disagree with calling it vandalism, because that term means, "Deliberate attempts to damage the project". For example, if someone is blanking a page and replacing it with a picture of their genitals, that's blatant vandalism. If someone is sneakily going through hundreds of articles and changing everyone's birthdate by one year, then I'd call that "complex" vandalism. But good faith disagreements on content are not vandalism. Such an editor may be stubborn, tendentious, and infuriating. But they're still not a vandal. --Elonka 17:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What about someone who deliberately & blatantly misrepresents a source, that severely damages the project - in fact it places it in danger - hence ArbCom's recent remedies and requests regarding the CAMERA case--Cailil ^talk 18:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I would still be reluctant to call it vandalism except in truly obvious cases, like if someone was sourcing the Encyclopedia Britannica to say, "Thomas Jefferson was born in 1225". I'd have no trouble calling that vandalism. But if it's a source where someone could plausibly interpret it in a different way than "most" people, I wouldn't call it vandalism. I've written more on this (and found an appropriate photo, heh) at

Wikipedia:New admin school/Dealing with disputes#Dealing with entrenched views. --Elonka

18:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the picture :). What do you think of the term complex disruption since it really is POINTY when somebody misrepresents a source. I am in most cases talking about wild mis-characterizations and at least in regard to Anacapa and MoritzB my use of complex vandalism would be correct by your standards but I would not include Jagz as having done this, to my knowledge--Cailil ^talk 18:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

For me to agree that that was vandalism, things would have to be laid out in a very clear way. For (a fictitious) example: "Merlin is deliberately misrepresenting sources, and I believe that this rises to the level of vandalism. For example, here is a diff of him adding (statement) to (article) and sourcing it to to (source). However, if you actually look at the source, it says the opposite from what Merlin added, it says (quote from source). This was pointed out to Merlin.(diff) However, he disagreed (diff). We requested comments from other editors, and they agreed that Merlin was misinterpreting the source.(diffs) Merlin, however, continued to disagree with everyone, and kept adding more misinterpreted information to the article.(diffs)" But even there, I'd still rather call it "tendentous editing" or "misinterpretation of sources", than vandalism. Or to put it another way, why insist on calling it vandalism in the first place? It just muddles the issue, when other terms could be much more clear. --Elonka 19:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I accept your position Elonka but I think humanities people respond quite differently to misrepresentation of sources - in our training & rubric it's right-up there with plagiarism. If it happened for example that somebody deliberately presented a mis-characterization of a thesis in their research it would get legal, fast. Even innocent mis-representation has led people to fail doctoral and masters degrees. That said I take your point about the confusion and will iron it out. Thanks for the advice and constructive criticism--Cailil ^talk 19:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that misrepresentation of sources is a serious offense that should be dealt with aggressively. I just disagree that it should be called vandalism. We block people for vandalism, constantly and rapidly. But interpretation of sources is something that takes more judgment. I have seen both sides of the coin, where an editor used a source and it was misinterpreted, or when an editor used a source, was accused of misinterpretation, but it turns out they were correctly using the source. Neither side though should be called vandalism. --Elonka 19:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, I happened to notice a comment you made about an arbitration so looked at your talk page... and realised you are (a) editing under your own name and (b) a computer scientist in practise (whether or not by academic qualification) and (c) interesting in magic. Given I'm also matching all three of those, I thought I'd randomly ask you for some help given I've just about given up with Wikipedia.

In short, a user tried suggesting a site I run was unsuitable as a reference after he took issue with me for material I published in the press. He also tried various other tactics of causing me trouble such as falsely accusing me of being someone else. Anyway, when his suggestion was rejected by a number of admins in informal discussion on the admins notice board, he went and personally removed every link to the site. Only about 2 of these links were put there by me, and they were relevant. The other links he removed were placed by a variety of people including some admins. His excluses for removing them vary, including accusations for "spaming" when editor history shows that the links were included in the very first draft of various articles by people who are experts and key contributors on those topics. He also removed links to archives I hold of historic documents, prefering to leave just the paper references with no online source. This has damaged Wikipedia, and the mixed advice and lack of actual assistance I've been getting from the couple of admins and arbcom members I contacted leave me with little faith in the process either. It's not that they've said I don't have a case, it's that they don't seem keen to help me resolve the issue.

Anyway if you're willing to help, please let me know. I really don't know what to do with this any more. If you drop me a note on my userpage I can sent you more information if you want and are willing to help. In either case, thank you for your time. Oboler (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

My plate is pretty full at the moment, but if you can point me at an article or two that you have concerns about, I'll take a look. --Elonka 23:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)