User talk:Elonka/Archive 29

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi Elonka. See this 3RR case. I noticed that a mediation was started in August, and you're listed as an involved party. Not clear if it is worth trying to get the mediator to nudge the participants one more time. They seem to have a lot of mutual bad feeling. Do you have any ideas for how to resolve this? EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm almost certain, and will soon assume, that you meant (in the part i've bolded in copying from your talk msg)

take all the info and source from the "disambig" page, and merge it into this one, perhaps as a section entitled "Other uses of the name" or "Other individuals named Lucius Valerius Flaccus"

what one might state as "the article accompanying this talk page". Please forgive my intolerance of ambiguity, and if i'm about to act on the wrong interpretation, lemme know ASAP! Thanks.
--Jerzy•t 19:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Centralizing the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Hemanshu. MBisanz ^talk 12:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to head to bed, but if you email me now I'll reply with copies of the pages in question. I'm about to head to bed and will handle it in the morning otherwise. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sent, and thanks!  :) --Elonka 03:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied. Goodnight. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did you try to have me banned from wikipedia for (valiantly) attempting to make this article more accurate? Anyway, apparently I'm not well-connected enough to contest your strangle-hold on this article, but that doesn't change the fact that "incorrectly linked" is not in any way a proveable statement. (Neither snopes, urban legends, nor a single 1957 article disprove this.) Since my "frequently linked" is not up to you and your friends liking, perhaps you can reword it yourself with something that is actually honest and truthful. Thanks in advance. tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcob44 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I would welcome efforts to make the

appropriate weight. --Elonka

04:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking me to provide you with sourced references that the Templars are "frequently linked" to the origin for the Friday the 13th superstition? If so, will two dozen or so suffice? And although you seem to prefer snopes and urbanlegends, can I use actual books instead? In case you are not aware, the internet is hardly a reliable source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcob44 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, show me what you've got. --Elonka 04:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you actually going to change "incorrectly linked" to "frequently linked" on this article- excuse me, I mean *your* article? Otherwise, what is the point of me doing so (other than letting you waste even more of my time)? BTW- All three of your sources still do not disprove this connection, so why do you continue to say "incorrectly linked"? tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcob44 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the urbanlegends article you cited regarding the Templar origins for the Friday the 13th superstition, "Even more problematic, for this or any other theory positing premodern origins for Friday the 13th superstitions, is the fact that no one has been able to document the existence of such beliefs prior to the 19th century. If people who lived before the late 1800s perceived Friday the 13th as a day of special misfortune, no evidence has been found to prove it. As a result, some scholars are now convinced the stigma is a thoroughly modern phenomenon exacerbated by 20th-century media hype." Logically, if "some scholars are now convinced", this means that some scholars are also unconvinced. Therefore, your statement "incorrectly linked" is, quite simply, incorrect. Of course, I would love to change the word "incorrectly" to "frequently", but I think Elonka owes it to herself to make this change personally. And although a formal apology would be nice, I will not further provoke her wrath for daring to touch her article;) tcob44 28-10-2008 6:50am —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.42.112 (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The case against "incorrectly connected": —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.97.2 (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

1.) If the 1307 event is the source of the superstition, this does not mean that it is ancient. A modern group of 'Templar-o-philes' could have originated it in the last two centuries. Countless modern secret societies, spanning the spectrum from Freemasons to the Rosicrucians, have claimed to be the descendants from the Templars. Any one of these groups could have been responsible for the origin. Not to mention, the Freemasons happen to be the most widespread and influential secret society in history. This is why the superstition is "frequently connected" to the Templars. Google books will confirm this statement. Even snopes and urbanlegends have made this connection, however, they state that this origin is not proven. Therefore, your wording is still wrong.

2.) You are correct, if the superstition did originate within a century after the 1307 event, it probably would have been mentioned in books or poems. But not necessarily. Especially considering its lack of importance as superstitions are hardly a hot topic. Regardless, the survival of these types of documents would be rare. Historically speaking, paper documents don't last more than a few centuries. That's not including the chances of their destruction or suppression. For example, the Roman Catholic church has literally wiped the history of their enemies off the face of the planet. Like the Cathars. Point in fact, had the Vatican not released the document which exonerated the Templars, the world would never had known the true history of the Templar trial. Never. And they were the largest, wealthiest, and most influential multi-national organization of their time. Yet most Templar experts acknowledge the fact that there is very little in the way of hard evidence about this organization. This is due to the fact that they were successfully suppressed by King Philip and the Vatican, despite their exoneration (apparently the Pope was pressured by Philip.)

3.) Your *own sources* declare that tracing the origins of superstitions is "mostly guesswork". In addition, only "some experts" are convinced it is a modern superstition. These are your own sources, Elonka! How can you possibly make the claim "incorrectly connected"?!? Not to mention, if you'd bother to do a search on "Google books", you'd notice that there are dozens of historians and authors who "frequently connect" the Templars to the origin of the superstition. Not to mention the hundreds of books whose content is not yet on Google, written by both experts and amateurs, which make this same connection. To say "incorrectly connected" is incorrect and you know it. Your *own* sources declare simply that "some experts" believe it is a modern connection. Not all experts. Not even a majority of experts.

4.) The bottom line is nobody knows the origin of the superstition. Plain and simple. Which does not rule out the Templars (a modern origin or ancient). And if you'd actually read your own sources, you'd notice that they don't even claim to have disproven the connection. (Mainly because they don't even have a plausible alternative historical date, ancient or modern). They merely state there is no documented evidence for the connection. And then they hedge their bets by stating that their research is "mostly guesswork". Therefore, your statement "incorrectly connected" is still wrong. Sorry.

tcob44 Oct28,2008 4:00pm EST

In order to sign a post, add four tildes to it, like this: ~~~~ --Elonka 21:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Elonka. The inherent significance of changes to the harassment policy should be self-evident, as well as the likelihood that good, substantive reasons for alterations to that policy might not be appropriate for complete open discussion onsite. Three times now I have invited e-mail contact from Wikipedians who doubt the good faith and substantive nature of my contributions there to contact me via e-mail. I have received no e-mail from you despite your continued posts. On neither of the two recent times when I attempted to e-mail you did you reply. This is cause for concern.

Has there been some good faith technical glitch getting in the way, such as a change in your e-mail service? I didn't get an 'undeliverable' message on either of the recent times I tried to contact you.

I would like to straighten things out if it's possible, because on both occasions you followed up by posting public insinuations of improper conduct. Per

I appreciate the welcome and the suggested pages. I look forward to continuing to contribute to Wikipedia ttonyb1 (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Over at my talk page, QuackGuru has stated that he is welcome to comment at any user's talk page, per your direction. I have advised him that he is not welcome at my talk page. I understand that he is welcome to post any relevant warnings on my page, however I don't see that his comments on my page will further dispute resolution at all. In general I find QuackGuru to be a disruptive editor, and have demonstrated several of his IDHT violations at Talk:Chiropractic. I don't feel that him commenting on my userpage will be productive at all. DigitalC (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm of mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, it does look like some of QG's comments have not been as collegial as they might have been. On the other, you can't really tell someone to "stay off" your talkpage if they have a legitimate comment about an article that you're both working on. That's what talkpages are for, is to enable editors to communicate with each other about articles. So as long as you're both working on

User talk:Tim Vickers, as I know that he's very interested in what QuackGuru is doing right now, so I'm sure he'd be interested in what you have to say. Tim is a real stickler for courtesy, btw, so if you do post there, do your best to be very polite and understated.  :) --Elonka

14:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this doesn't read well to me, what happened to

WP:Civil behavior. Sorry for butting in, please continue your discussion. --CrohnieGal^Talk

14:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick thanks for archiving the Coal mining talk page!--Kelapstick (talk) 04:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I love to archive.  :) You are very welcome, --Elonka 14:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the reflist template was altered a month ago, it no longer renders properly when split into colums. See here for a lopside split of the columns. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've reported this at Template talk:Reflist, and if you see any others, definitely bring them up! --Elonka 14:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

User Redspruce is up to old tricks again. I think his new strategy is to just wait a month, hope everyone forgot about him, and just remove all the quotes yet again. He has been blocked twice more since you blocked him. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

He is starting to go through the articles one by one again. He has now moved here stripping the quotes, and removing information I am adding, and not leaving an edit summary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in looking at

friendly

) 19:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Miwok Airways, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miwok Airways. Thank you. Eastmain (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Related to the above. I've endorsed your warnings at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Back to ScienceApologist. I've also pointed out a few of the other discussions. Is this being discussed anywhere else? Carcharoth (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your block of impersonation account IAmReallyKenBayfield and speedy deletion of vandalism article

Happy to help! --Elonka 19:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I created an article earlier (

Looks like you accidentally blanked the live page instead of your userpage. I went ahead and restored the article:

District B13 Ultimatum. If you'd like your user subpage deleted, I can do that too, but be careful of those redirects!  :) --Elonka

21:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll be more careful in the future. And yes, could you please delete user subpage. Thanks for restoring the article. --The Son of Man (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for the help!  :) --Elonka 21:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Never post on my talkpage again. If you need to place a warning or comment, get another Wikipedian or administrator to do it. Thank you.

Sorry ScienceApologist, you can't just tell uninvolved admins to go away. A better option would be to heed my advice: Stay civil, don't edit-war, do engage at talkpages, do follow the normal steps of

dispute resolution, do heed the ArbCom restrictions which were placed on your behavior from cases such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. --Elonka

21:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What is it like to live in a world where those who either disagree with you or who wish you to abide by the same standards of behavior as everyone else are not worthy of respect? Dlabtot (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt SA is completely in his rights to use an automated tool to rollback all of your posts on his talk page. In this context, advising you that it's futile to post on his talk page is perfectly ok. PhilKnight (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, per

WP:BLANKING, ScienceApologist absolutely has the right to remove any posts which I place on his page (with certain exceptions such as unblock templates). I don't believe I ever said that he couldn't? --Elonka

16:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, glad we agree. PhilKnight (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

more sensible topic thread

ah, well, read

Kohlberg. People are where they are... add that group dynamics can easily drop everyone involved a level, as can strong emotions, as can anonymity, distance, and other forms of social disengagement, and wiki-dynamics actually starts to make a kind of perverse sense. heck, I usually top out at stage six by all the measures, and I still find myself occasionally getting involved in spitball wars over article disagreements. C'est la vie... --Ludwigs2

05:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ever hear of the G.I.F.T.?[1]  :) --Elonka 05:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

lol - errr... can I return that GIFT, or at least exchange it for store credit? truly not the kind of thing I'd buy for myself.

there's actually a fascinating paper in this, if I ever get the time (and cojones) to write it. there's an intellectual movement in various corners of the social sciences to advocate Internet Democracy: easy access and anonymity are supposed to foster public debate, circumvent problems related to prejudice and partisanship, and provide an endless supply of information for informed reasoning. yet I think I was on WP maybe ten minutes before I realized that the community had simply created new, abstract forms of prejudice (e.g. this whole science/pseudoscience thing, though there are several others), and taken to some fairly sophisticated forms of disinformation and political pressure to back them up. Wikipedia might be the test-case that single-handedly debunks a really nice, idealistic theory. Don't know whether to laugh or cry... --Ludwigs2 06:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There's always Robert Wilensky's famous quote: "We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the internet, we know that is not true."  ;) --Elonka 06:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

OH my heavens! that one is going straight into my class syllabus. LmfAo! --Ludwigs2 08:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and to clarify on G.I.F.T., I linked you to my blog above, but the blog was in reference to this

Penny Arcade comic:[2] --Elonka

16:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(addendum) Ah, I see it's so popular there's actually

a paragraph about it on Wikipedia! --Elonka

16:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

lol - and the world comes full circle. On the flip side of this coin, though, some of my more spiritual friends talk about the 'collective guru', meaning that they go to certain sites on the internet and get really mind-opening insights from random, anonymous strangers. really, the internet is just a collective delusion (like the rest of the world, except without the pretense of physical reality) and it basically takes on whatever colors and meanings your own mind is predisposed to give to it. marvelous diagnostic tool, if you're inclined towards self-reflection; although self-reflection does not seem to be a common inclination... --Ludwigs2 00:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You'd probably enjoy reading my blog, where I collect some of those insights (and a lot of other miscellany). Also, ever seen my book? It's a puzzle book, but each of those puzzles has an answer, which means that there are several hundred quotes in the back of the book, from a variety of sources. One puzzle even decrypts to a quote by Jimbo Wales.  :) --Elonka 15:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Your book? no, sorry... you seem to have neglected to send me my free copy. what, did I fall off the 'random strangers' section of your Christmas mailing list? --Ludwigs2 19:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That is. Are you backing up Pcarbonn's behaviour? Note that:

• I get as reference John's action in this case (very correct, and full of common sense). His post came after your MiszaBot services. An your MiszaBot services came after your "actions" regarding ScienceApologist ([3],[4]).
• Instead of trying the "appropriate way", I chose the "It would be nice if Pcarbonn reconsiders it" way. And I worded it focusing on the user page. You can analyze the outcome (can you analyze it?). Do you see nothing worrying in Pcarbonn's behaviour?
• You are a member of the workinggroup, and I believe you should be more sensitized toward those aspects (mainly battleground).

Summarizing: ScienceApologist must be banned-blocked-burned, and Pcarbonn is an angel?

Now, please, enlighten me. --Owdki ^talk 23:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, all I did was archive Pcarbonn's talkpage. I archive lots of talkpages, feel free to check my contribs. One of my hobbies is keeping the category clear at Category:Archive requests, and I regularly scan for other pages that are long and need to be archived. The discussion on those pages has nothing to do with it, I just like archiving. :) --Elonka 15:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I know what you did. And I know what you didn't do.

Hmmm... ♪ ♫ I can't get no...♫ ♪ ♫

If I let working my common sense I would say that you're avoiding to answer me. ♪ ♫ 'Cause I try... ♪ And I try... ♫ And I try... And I can't get no answers to my explicit questions.

If this matter irritates me... picture ScienceApologist. That, Elonka, is a trigger for incivility, frustration and anger. Or in other personalities, a trigger for a goodbye. ScienceApologist should change his behaviour: it's obvious. He must. But you doesn't help not at all with that unbalanced (selective?) "method".

Hey, and Pcarbonn, currently, is an angel. Do you know where I look in the meanwhile? Here: "I have had to spend inordinate amount of time in a battle that in the end does do nothing but label me as a fanatic too, clearly illustrating the old adage about what happens when you fight with pigs. I am done". Do you get the point? Kirk shanahan is mashed, and he is "interested in abiding by Wikipedia community norms". I beg you to offer him your MiszaBot services as soon as possible.

I'm out. Thank you for your time, and I'm sorry for bothering you. Cheers. --Owdki ^talk 23:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh? She offered to set up a bot... you may think that's a waste of time, or a foolish inconsistency if you like, but it's certainly not a sign of favoritism. I think perhaps you might not be giving Elonka a fair shake here. ++Lar: t/c 01:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to archive the whole 400k, and leave a blank page. If possible, by some system that would preserve the order of the page. I think it best not to use an automatic system, since I am not likely to be around much, if at all, and it would only lay idle. Thanks in anticipation. Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And thanks in retrospect. Sorry for being exigent. And the extraordinary thing was, all that furiouly combative rhetoric went down without a murmur of protest. I checked and the talk has yet to make a report on AN/I about being ghosted into archival mummification without due discussion! Is there no end to wiki's wonders? Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was thinking about creating this page but saw it has been deleted. I can't find out why, however. Since you were involved, could you perhaps tell what happened or give a link to the deletion discussion? Thanks. Malick78 (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that was there was a small unsourced stub, created earlier today and then blanked within 15 minutes by the person who created it. So there wasn't a discussion, it was just deleted as "per request of creator". If you'd like to create a new stub, and you think you've got enough sources to confirm that it's a

User:Malick78/Election silence (or User:Malick78/Draft). That way you can take your time with it, and then when/if it's ready, simply move it into mainspace. --Elonka

19:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification:) The topic deserves a page, it's just the phrase is inelegant since we don't use it in English really. The BBC used it once here though, and Polish WP has a page on it here (though I appreciate you may not be able to read it:) ). Thanks again though:) Malick78 (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your work trying to keep a lid on tendentious and disruptive editors. I naturally do not perfectly agree with everything I have seen you do, but it at least should not be a thankless task. Regards, -

Well, I'm not sure what exactly I did that you're thanking me for, but you're welcome.  :) --Elonka 02:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Elonka. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention. I didn't mean any harm. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, just wanted to make sure you were aware of things. :) --Elonka 02:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Good call on the 30 day ban for ScienceApologist, I think... his approach was not at all collaborative. However I'm not sure I follow why you also banned Martinphi for the same period? I reviewed his contributions, and the messages you left him and I'm not seeing it. Can you take me through your reasoning, please? Thanks. Also, where have you placed a notice of this action? At

WP:AE? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c

02:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still working through the paperwork, but as a quick reply, the logs were placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. I'll post more once I'm caught up. --Elonka 02:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Nod, I crosslinked it from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#Back_to_ScienceApologist. What I'm not clear on is where the best place to discuss this further is, because, as I said, I'm not seeing the clear rationale for Martinphi's restriction here. Paperwork sucks, doesn't it? ++Lar: t/c 03:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Aye, especially when the appeals are flying fast and furious before I'm even done logging the initial ban. :) I'm still not caught up yet, but to answer your question, here at my talkpage is probably as good a place as any to talk about this. Or maybe Martinphi's talkpage? In a quick nutshell though: I had previously cautioned him about reverting at

WP:FRINGE, especially because he was getting into a back and forth with ScienceApologist. Then today ScienceApologist went right back to reverting, and the very next edit was Martinphi trying to downgrade the guideline to an essay. It was my feeling that this was disruptive, especially since this was just extensively discussed in July, and the strong consensus was that the page should stay a guideline.[5] The ban is fairly mild, on both of them. They're not to edit the guideline, but they are both allowed to participate at the talkpage. Which is probably how things should be done anyway: Discuss first, implement second. If there's a consensus at the talkpage, their changes will get implemented that way, by other editors. And this way neither one of them gets to jump the gun and make non-consensus edits. So we still get the benefit of their participation, sans the edit warring. Make sense? --Elonka

03:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm.... I think downgrading something that has consensus as an essay to a guideline is not a good thing to do, by any means. But it's not the same level of badness and repeated edit warring with uncollegial summaries to my way of thinking. So the remedy, being exactly equal... seems imbalanced somehow, or disproportionate. I'm interested in more views on this than just mine so that's why I asked about where else to discuss it. Perhaps on AN/I where I crosslinked from? This not being an out and out block, there's time for the paperwork to come to rest, I'm sure. ++Lar: t/c 03:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Erm, you realize that the thread you crosslinked, has already been archived, yes? So I doubt anyone will see the post that you added there.[6] --Elonka 03:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No I missed that. However it itself has been vigorously linked to by at least three people in the developing AN/I discussion. But that's rather a minor point, comparatively. ++Lar: t/c 03:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I finally got caught up on the paperwork. I've posted at ANI, let me know if you have any questions. :) --Elonka 06:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to discuss further there. However... My read is that you almost certainly don't have consensus for the Martinphi pageban, the consensus for SA is marginal at best, and there's a growing consensus that you probably are, in general, not the best admin to be involved in this area, and specifically, not the best admin to be enforcing ArbCom sanctions in this area, going forward. I tend to find myself in agreement. Because unlike Kay the other day, which was a routine action and where your charge of my being involved was pretty off the mark, they have a point, you're pretty invested in this long term. So you might want to address those points, and do so in a way that doesn't just come across as "I'm right and you're wrong", but instead shows a genuine interest in the views of others, and a willingness to modify your views to conform to consensus.

Note carefully that while I may have my doubts about all of this, which I express here, I strongly backed your action at ScienceApologist's page because, unlike you, I think it's a bad practice to undercut other admins right there on the page where the measure is put into effect, that it's better to discuss elsewhere, arrive at consensus for change, and meanwhile stand behind the action of the initial admin. Far less confusing and far more consistent. ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi isn't at all sure either about how he could have deserved it. I've already appealed it to the Committee by email, but would much much rather work it out with Elonka and just write and withdraw the appeal. Elonka has done very well in general on these articles, but I think, especially per the explanations I've been posting, that she went overboard in this case, especially in that she treated me the same way as SA- which is not based on my editing. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"...it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." the longer I'm here, the more that wikipolitics astounds me. --Ludwigs2 20:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What may be even scarier, is when/if you get to the point that it doesn't astound you.  ;) --Elonka 23:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

yeee-ikes! if I ever get to that stage, please show me where the hidden button on the euthanasia page is (you know, the one that zaps you... or have they moved that over to assisted suicide?). --Ludwigs2 23:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Please look here: [7] under "misconduct issues". I feel like there is simply an unhealthy atmosphere created by the rude behaviour of a certain admin. More importantly I wanted to ask if an admin has the right to delete items from the archives that are not his own words and do not violate any Wikipedia rules? For example I had listed three scholaly books with quotes in the archives and they had disappeared when the above admin was doing the archiving. He has also driven away different users from the discussion through intidimation and threats of permanent ban. So I have decided to basically not edit that article anymore. Despite my Wikipedia record being clean unlike that admin, I feel like there is an unhealthy bureaucracy where different admins group together to stifle other admins or users who may disagree with their viewpoints. I just wanted to thank you for your previous help. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take a look at it, but could you please provide some specific

diffs of the actions that you are concerned about? Thanks, --Elonka

23:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The user deleted these comments when archiving: [8]. These are valid sources but then he calls them

WP:OR. And finally when I remention these three valid sources, here is how he interacts: [9] and this is his comment: "I'm inclined to think that a user RfC would help to clarify the problematic behavioral issues concerned, and could provide a final opportunity for the editor in question to take account of feedback." and "Carrot first before stick?"(I do not think that is a right tone for an admin to use when he disagrees with regards to conent with another user). Note, not only comments in archives, but prior to this, he had deleted half of a crucial sentence from another scholar: ChrisO quotes Kuhrt in half(deleting the crucial part of a sentence) and cuts off half of her sentence: [10] and then deletes it from the archives when this is pointed out: [11]. This part was also deleted from the archives. Knowing that ChrisO is an administrator and has his administrator buddies, it is obvious what would happen if I edit the talkpage! Please note, I have over 12000 edits and I have not been blocked even once by admins over the last 3 years or so. I have contributed to a variety of fa articles. Note I have hardly edited the main article where disagreement has occured, where-as ChrisO has broken 3rr on that same article couple of times. One time I wanted to report him for 3rr violation but I took it back, partly due to being nice (he won't obviously do the same since he is looking for a final solution) and partly because of a threat of another admin who seems to be close to him:[12]. Note the part he says:In addition, if you file a report, your own behavior will likely be scrutinized! Actually I did not even do one revert for that article as far as I remember. So that is why I am leaving even the talkpage/userpage of that article as a protest to the fact that an admin can be rude (making the atmosphere non-conducive for any understanding) and threaten bans on users (for disagreeing with his opinion while I have not even edited the article!). --Nepaheshgar (talk

) 00:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I am also wondering does that editor have the right to defame other editors: [13] on his personal wiki-space?. For example he writes about me: Very similar problems as with Ariobarzam. Has edit-warred, pervasively pushes OR with regard to Battle of Opis in particular.. Then he writes about Ariobarzan:Edit warring, repeated incivility, pervasive OR, NPOV problems. Has created numerous unsourced/uncited articles based on personal OR. Currently indefinitely blocked. . You can look at how many edits I have made to that article, basically none. And I have never reverted in that article. Also I have never used incivility (ChrisO has in my opinion by threatening to ban users). I am wondering if he can label other editors the way he likes on his personal page:[14] --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Just in case this slips under your radar screen, Elonka, Nepaheshgar's remark, 'he (ChrisO) won't obviously do the same since he is looking for a final solution,' in so far as that is the standard English translation of

Endlösung, is nudge towards the subtextual innuendo ChrisO's edits are veined with an anti-Semitic cast of mind, a stronger statement than other innuendoes to that effect frequently made in these pages. Thanks Nishidani (talk

) 15:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You are misreading my comment and misintrepreting it. The reference was meant to my account and nothing else. By the way, feel free to also comment on ChrisO's comment: "carrots before stick". This shows exactly what type of mentality ChrisO is editing Wikipedia. He feels like he owns it and perhaps it can be taken that he thinks of others who disagree with him as animals (which shows a superiority complex and predujice). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed nobody had informed you of this. --John (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, I am

discussions. :) --Elonka

16:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, sure was.  :) I've given a couple talks at Rolla, and will actually be there again next week[15] with an updated version of my Kryptos lecture. I'll also be showing the video clip from the PBS NOVAscienceNOW program,[16] and talking about my appearance in that segment. Will you be attending the talk? --Elonka 17:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I decided that 10 years spent in undergrad and grad work there was enough, and I'm now working in Milwaukee, so, alas, I will have to miss it :( But I hope it goes well! umrguy42 17:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well, if you're interested, I'll be speaking at the

University of Wisconsin-Madison next April, probably on something to do with Wikipedia.  :) Let me know if you'd like the details. --Elonka

17:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, love to know the details, will try and keep that in mind (depends on scheduling, most likely), thanks. Heh, more randomness from the link to MS&T's SIG-SEC announcement - I haven't been able to eat at Kyoto's in Rolla (I think) since they moved into what used to be a gas/service station :p Anyway, best. umrguy42 20:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll be posting more deals on my Madison talk on my website,[17] so check there to find out the latest.  :) --Elonka 20:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

<-- unindent Hmm, yup, looks like I would've seen you in your Jan. '03 visit to Rolla... would've been the semester right after I had Dr. Ann Miller's "Trustworthy Networks" security course, and was in a course with one of the ACM faculty sponsors (Dr. Daniel Tauritz)... *reminisces briefly* ahhh, good times. Okay, enough irrelevancy, I guess :D Hope to be able to see you in April. umrguy42 20:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

You blocked the above IP for vandalism to Sonic boom. 142.30.43.159 (talk · contribs) and 142.30.43.130 (talk · contribs) also vandalized the same article, likely the same user on a dynamic IP. A range block might be needed on this.

Thanks!

Thanks for the help! I've blocked those anons too, and semi-protected Sonic boom. I was looking at Sound barrier as well, but it seems to have stabilized. If you spot any other disruption, let me know or post at ANI/AIV, and we'll take a look.  :) --Elonka 19:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, in case you hadn't noticed, another confirmed sockpuppet of User:Jagz has been contributing on the talk page of Ludwigs2's Wikipedia:Fringe theories/sandbox. Mathsci (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I'd been blocking anons too, but wasn't aware that some of the socks there were Jagz. Thanks for letting me know. --Elonka 19:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There was also User:Deadasamackerel: see the discussion on MastCell's talk page. Mathsci (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, and based on the contribs, I concur that it's Jagz. If any others are spotted, let me or any other admin know, and we'll block on sight. I have no patience for block evasion. --Elonka 19:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have specific concerns then let me know what specifically concerns you - do not simply delete things you don't like. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have posted at the talkpage. --Elonka 21:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't try that again, please, or I will block you. I'll reply to the issues you've raised on the talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

And I note you don't seem to have any concerns about

talk

) 22:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Dougweller, contrary to what you may believe, I do not follow every single thing that every editor does on Wikipedia. You haven't provided a diff, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. However, if you see any editor attacking another, I encourage you to be bold and to speak up about it on the spot. --Elonka 22:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. Everyone back to your corners. Elonka, bring it up at MfD or ANI if you feel that its a serious issue instead of edit warring - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#ChrisO.27s_attack_page. Chris, consider if you could rewrite the header to remove the focus on contributors and please don't ever threaten to block editors you're in a dispute with. Shell ^babelfish 22:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm very concerned that with the mutual history that Elonka and I have, she seems to think that she has to police my edits. It's also concerning that she seems to be setting herself up as the go-to person for anyone who has a problem with my editing. That's grossly inappropriate and borders on stalking. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm much more concerned that you've accused another admin of vandalism (and now stalking) and threatened to block them over a dispute on a page in your userspace that pretty clearly exists in part to attack contributors that again, you're in a dispute with. This is a disturbing pattern indeed. Shell ^babelfish 22:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the page does not exist for any such reason - it's the results of a survey of the contributions of a number of editors who have been engaged in systematic OR, one of whom was indefinitely blocked for just that reason. There's a systemic problem on a number of articles, and that page is a systemic effort to tackle it. You're entitled to your own opinion but I'd ask you not to jump to rash conclusions. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I should have been more clear, there's a great deal of the page that is legitimate tracking, my concern is the labeling of a few editors in the first section. I was a bit taken back by the block threat and probably didn't explain myself very well. Shell ^babelfish 22:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Understandable, and for the record I apologise to Elonka for the block threat - it was made in the heat of the moment. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, due respect, I think you blocking Elonka for any reason would be a serious, serious mistake on your part. I'm sure you know that, and I can't see you risking your 'bit, so best not to make that sort of threat again in the future. It won't achieve what you want to achieve.

^T

22:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

And likewise Elonka using her sysop bit to delete content in my userspace, given our mutual history, would be a serious, serious mistake on her part. Let's leave it at that and move on. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have started an ANI thread, at

WP:ANI#ChrisO's attack page. --Elonka

22:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, anyone who threatens to block someone they're in a dispute with or have had a past history with (such as this) is really not suited to be an admin. 5 cents. JBsupreme (talk) 05:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, thanks for asking me if I want to have an archived talk page, and the answer is YES, thank you sooo much!--Ariobarza (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Two things, I think it would be better to archive my talk page faster, and secondly I do not fully speak other languages, out of Farsi, Spanish, French, Chinese, but I speak full English, so the other languages thing is probably not a good idea for me now, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

That's okay on the languages, we can put a number on each one. For example, on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 means "I can understand a little" and 4 means "I am fluent", just rate each one, and I can put this on your page. It can be very helpful! Also, for your talkpage, how fast would you like me to set the archive? --Elonka 04:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I was wondering if you could weigh in about a dispute Nickhh and I are having. If you look at his talk page (the version before he erased my last post) [18], you'll get a pretty good sense of what the difficulty is. In my view, Nick has stalked me to

Good gravy... you posted while I was writing this!

IronDuke

23:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The smell of barbecue always brings the neighbors.  ;) Anyway, per

WP:POINTy side, but it did bring the dispute to a close. As for the other articles, I'll take a look, though it may take me some time to come up to speed. Perhaps a nice game of croquet in the meantime? :) --Elonka

23:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... as long as Nickhh leaves me alone, I don't feel the need for anything bad to happen to him -- and I truly believe he will leave me alone, so I'm hoping that's the end of it. The blanking question is curious. I mean, if you write "IronDuke assassinated JFK" on your talk page, wouldn't I have the right to rebut (leaving aside the various ways that comment would violate WP policy)? No biggie, but maybe a whole in the policy. As for croquet, well, it's not really the season, is it?

IronDuke

23:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, so now the stalking allegation is all over three pages?! Elonka I'd be more than happy for you to review all the articles referred to - as I say, we seem to be talking about 4 articles over a space of 6 months, some of which this user had been nowhere near for months when I dipped in. I recall some interaction on

talk

) 00:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I said I'm willing to drop this, barring further incident, and that offer still stands.

IronDuke

00:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Dropping this would entail you not repeating that I am a troll over and over again, I think, as you do here. That's a serial NPA violation, when you've just recently been blocked for incivility.

IronDuke

00:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, drop what exactly? Anyway, I'm out of here for now. What a waste of time all round .... --

talk

) 00:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could press that you were stalking me. I honestly don't know how people would react. Like a lot of these sorts of things on WP, it depends on who's listening at the moment. But I wasn't of a mind to create more drama; I don't care if you admit that you stalked me, I'm only interested in it stopping. My gut feeling was, after our recent exchange, that it would. However, you continue to call me a troll. In addition to that being 180 degrees wrong, it is a gross violation of NPA (something you recently quoted at me, so I'm sure you know what I'm talking about). You did this even after an administrator specifically told you not to. So... that would also be a thing that needed to stop.

IronDuke

03:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

IronDuke - stop accusing me of stalking (and of not understanding the varying definitions of the word "revert" among other supposed but more trivial sins), and making those accusations across three different user talk pages now. It's nonsense, and it's the only reason I accused you of trolling (or, in the section I linked to - "pestering and misplaced criticism"). Elonka, perhaps you could direct some of your analytical gaze towards this user, rather than just allowing them to spew their rather surreal allegations everywhere. Maybe for example you could warn them that they should be careful about flinging the word "stalker" about? I seem to recall you've provided a similar admonishment function to me when I've used words you've taken against. --

I'm not sure what you think I'm accusing you of. You said that Iron Duke has also performed 4 reverts in 24 hours himself in response to my filing a 3rr report on another user. That was false. I pointed out to you that you were wrong, you reassert that I made four reverts, going on to say. Cheers, you're a funny guy. You can't read, you can't count, and you're rude with it.. I tell you once again, that it is you who are wrong, incorrectly labeling as two reversions back-to-back edits that only count as one. At this point, if you had merely looked again, seen your error, and said, "Oh, you're right. Sorry." That part of this issue would be over. I've made similar mistakes, so I would be inclined to shrug it off. But you didn't do that. Instead, you wrongly conflate the words "edit" and "reversion" I said four edits (I have also referred to them as reverts). There are four edits... Well, first off "revert" and "edit" are not interchangeable terms, as we see here. I made four edits, not four reversions, that difference is key when it comes to 3rr violations, as you well know. Any reasonable person could see that you were accusing me of violating 3rr. Whether you did this knowing I hadn't, or did it by genuinely miscounting (I suspect the latter) no longer matters as you continue to assert, despite black and white evidence to the contrary, that you somehow felt the need to comment on the fact that I had made four edits in a post about 3rr, but didn't mean to imply I had violated it. You can see how thin that looks, can't you? And not helpnig matters is that you continued to erase my rebuttal to your points (but, curiously, not the rest of the post). Which, of course, is why this is now on three talk pages... a situation entirely of your own making. If you had left it on your talk page, all this would still be there. If you like, we can erase all mention of it on your talk page, and simply consolidate the whole thing on my talk page, or I'll make a user subpage for it.

I'm not eager to keep this interaction going, but it seems as though every time I make some move to get us past this, you find a new way to poke me with a stick. The latest is your opening up a BLP noticeboard discussion on Cynthia McKinney, the article that you... followed... me to. This after you specifically agreed that you wouldn't, right? To review:

• Me: "As for the BLP noticeboard, I've already had a word with you on your talk page re stalking -- I'd appreciate it if you did not force me to interact with you on yet another page. I hope you can see why.".

• You: Absolutely, not a problem.

I'd like to move on, but you're making it impossible. Can you just agree not to follow me and not to call me a troll anymore? Am I asking too much?

IronDuke

00:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're really still going on about the 3RR thing, please give it up. Believe me, I know exactly what I said, why I said it, what I meant and how it related to WP use of the word "reverts" way better than you do. I took your last post off my page because I'm bored of reading them and had decided the debate was at an end, not because I'm desperately trying to conceal from the world the evidence of how you supposedly bested me, but am too stubborn to admit it. As for McKinney, I did not follow you there. I was looking at the page of a US presidential candidate on, er, the day of the US election. I noticed the addition of the Dershowitz quote in the history, and it happened to provide me with a perfect example of something I had been looking for to use as a diff on the IPCOLL page. A day later it was bugging me enough to make a comment about it on the McKinney talk page itself. It's nothing to do with you, it's to do with what I see as particularly bad article content. This is either ego or paranoia at work, surely. And are you now seriously saying that I was somehow stalking you by going to the BLP board to raise a legitimate question about article content that was already being discussed between you, me and several other editors?! Really? When one of my comments on the McKinney talk page was "this really needs to go to the BLP noticeboard"? On a purely technical point, of course you were not at the BLP noticeboard, so I was hardly stalking you there (indeed of course, you followed me there if anything). And unless you're claiming ownership of the McKinney article, my post there was of course nothing personal aimed at you. Again, this is about a content problem. I called your behaviour trolling in one context only(your constant personal attacks on my talk page) a couple of days ago now, and haven't followed you anywhere (other than perhaps here). Yet you are demanding that I stop, while continuing to call me a stalker on someone else's talk page. Pretty rich. Nor do I see any evidence that you wish to "move on" at all. You're the one going over old arguments again and again while continually telling me and anyone who'll listen that I'm a stalker of some sort.

Elonka, apologies for clogging up your page, but I'm sure I'd only be accused of stalking yet again if I moved this to IronDuke's page. Even if the pretexts were not quite so flimsy, as I'm sure you are aware "stalking" is not a word that is to be used lightly (to the point where the name of the policy was changed recently). Indeed it is far more offensive and abusive than the word troll - which covers a wide range of sins and which I merely used in response to the (repeated) accusations being made against me on my own talk page, and not before warning the editor involved first. Since you saw fit to criticise me for that, could you also do the same in respect of the accusations made against me? That would seem only fair. Otherwise you would appear to be condoning sustained and fabricated personal attacks, and only stepping in to criticise the language of the editor responding to them. --

talk

) 09:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

So... you're "bored" with my argument on your talk page, yet you continue the discussion there all by your lonesome after deleting my post? It seems to hold at least some interest for you, no? I give you credit for brass, certainly, in that you continue to maintain that you didn't accuse me of violating 3rr, when I have diffs that show you did above, and denying that you promised not to file a BLP report (again, diffs right above your post). I'm not actually even asking you to admit any wrongdoing, I'm only asking that you 1) not follow me and 2) not call me a troll. That you refuse to do this is troubling.

IronDuke

00:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, if this is irritating to you, please let me know publicly or privately. But since my last post, Nickhh has, in his edit summary referred to me as a "child." If you could make this stop. I would be much obliged.

IronDuke

01:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh here you are again. Whatever, as they say. For the record - I have no interest in you as an individual or as a WP editor, and am unlikely to in the future. Is this enough to make you go away with your made-up stuff about me and non-existent 3RR allegations (anyone can check the record of course), and now utterly random claims that that I gave some promise not to file any BLP report? I assure you I will not call you a troll if you stop posting on my talk page, which you seem to have done so far. Which is progress at least. Now, where is Elonka to complain about you calling me a stalker in the first place? --

talk

) 01:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If you stop picking on each other, I'll take you out for ice cream, how's that?  :) --Elonka 01:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

He hit me first! (Okay, I've stopped. Can I have a waffle cone now?)

IronDuke

02:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, a St. Louis specialty.  :) What flavor/toppings? --Elonka 02:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

IronDuke

02:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that you saw my Article, Rj Revilla. I just wanna ask of my page is notable enough? or it is not right to put it on wikipedia. Please refer Rj Revilla it to my userpage. Thank you. Bautistar (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at what you've got at User:RJ Revilla. Unfortunately, I don't think there's enough yet. Most of the sources are about his relatives, and not about him. Except for this one.[20] Can you find any other articles about him? If not, you might want to wait until there are more articles. Or, keep working on the version of the Tagalog Wikipedia: tl:RJ Revilla --Elonka 18:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am involved with the assessment on this template, by knocking back my proposal you have essentially given me a lot more work. The only objection was making sure that everything was ready for the assessment. Once the change to the template (which I have provided all the code for you - which is working correctly) has been made I am able to start with the Iran football assessment. Please take another look at the request. —

It's nothing personal. I've replied in more detail at

Template talk:Football. --Elonka

03:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Depends how urgent it is. If you feel that it needs immediate implementation, you could try posting at

WP:AN and explain the situation. Or, just leave it for a day or so, and then if no one else says something one way or the other on the template page, check with me again and I'll go ahead and implement. --Elonka

03:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll just wait, it shouldn't have been rejected in the first place as it followed all of

Borgarde^talk

03:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, and thanks very much for your patience.  :) --Elonka 17:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

hey Elonka...You issued a 24-hour block on this user, but from the edits it's fairly clear that this is a block-evading incarnation of

It looks like he may be using proxies to bounce around to multiple IPs, so a lengthy block on any one of them probably wouldn't do much good at this point. Instead, we play more of a game of "Whack-a-mole" and block 'em as we see 'em. There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of these blocks that go on every day, so it's no big deal. As for

WP:AIV and we'll take care of them. If there are any frequently targeted articles or pages, we can also semi-protect them until whoever it is gets bored and goes away. --Elonka

17:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Elonka, do you know anything more about this Sempad letter? I don't know if it has been discussed anywhere around here; I've been avoiding all the PHG drama. Has it been edited or translated anywhere? I am attempting to transcribe it (for "fun") on my sandbox page. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking into it the other day, because I think it's an awesome image. I spent quite a bit of time looking around to see if I could find an actual image of Sempad anywhere, and came up empty. So the page graphic is probably the best we're going to get. I've seen no translation of it anywhere (aside from the public domain "all pages" translations), so I'd say go for it. You could probably start from here,[21] or use it as a double-check. --Elonka 17:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Third party butting in: According to this the letter was incorporated in an OFr version in William of Nangis's vie of Louis IX. This was not hard to track down online. Go here at Gallica and go to pages 361–3. This is William's redaction of the letter. I found several other references (at JSTOR and the like) to William's version and to other scholars who have helped to date the letter or place it geographically, but none to a Latin edition. Srnec (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Adam Bishop (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Srnec, you are always welcome on my talkpage, no need to apologize.  :) --Elonka 18:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The situation with the editor is unresolved. Why did you remove the unresolved tag when it is unresolved. Your edit summary did not give a reason for removing the tag. QuackGuru 18:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

We already have administrators monitoring the situation, at the article and with that editor. --Elonka 18:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

According to what policy regular editors can't tag a section as unresolved?

That is irrelavant we have admins monitoring the situation. What is relevant it that admins are not doing anything about the situation. If admins did something about the situation then it would of never had to be reported to ANI. Please explain why you removed the unresolved tag when the situation is unresolved. You did not put a resolved tag. The situation is still unresolved IMHO. QuackGuru 18:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read the documentation at {{Unresolved}}. It's a template that is only supposed to be used in certain rare situations. Also, admins are dealing with the situation at the Chiropractic article, on a daily basis. I can't speak for the others, but, as I posted at the ANI thread, I have reviewed TheDoctor's edits, and do not see a need to formally caution him about the Arb case at this time. He's just not active enough. We tend not to caution everyone that visits an article, because that would make the notification lists unwieldy. Instead, I try casual and informal cautions first, and then only proceed to a formal notification if other measures have not been successful. --Elonka 21:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No thanks. Just the ones I've tagged. Frickeg (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Frickeg (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I already asked him when I speedy delete, second, did ChrisO politely ask me if he could delete the articles I created? The User:ChrisO/Battle of Opis is no longer needed, why not speedydelete? It is not complete, and is no longer needed, look at Category:Battles involving the Achaemenid Empire, something does not look right. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

I am not seeing where you asked him, could you please show me? --Elonka 00:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I did a general cleanup at the talk page of Kabbalah Centre (which I wont to do when I way too much time on my hands), which included added sigs to unsigned comments. I noticed that you added some yourself, like this, but you are able to add a time to the sig. How do you that? Is there a easy way of doing it, and not have to copy and paste using the pages history? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I either type it in manually, or use the {{unsigned}} or {{unsigned2}} templates. --Elonka 03:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Shucks, I was hoping for an easy magic button :-) Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are bots now that routinely scan for new unsigned posts, and then automagically add a signature to them. But for all the older unsigned stuff, nope, I think it still has to be done manually. --Elonka 03:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, if you don't mind, I'm curious why you deleted

I just want to add that there were quite a few warnings in there (minor things like improper AIV reporting), so it makes me all the more curious what's going on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and replied at

WP:AN, but I have no objection if you wish to restore the page. --Elonka

06:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave it to others. I'm probably just being a little nutty, but I've seen smart ones sometimes keep moving their talk page around so that it creates "subpages" full of warnings and ask for them to be deleted. And of course policy is inconsistent, it's a wiki! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: your email, I'm honestly not sure exactly what you're asking or referring to, which makes it impossible for me to respond meaningfully. Could I ask you to clarify, either on- or off-wiki? Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 07:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The only revert I remember making there today was when the anon deleted the same.Tintor2 (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the edit war, shouldnt the article be reverted to an old version before the edits to decide then the changes? And then the article may required to be protected to avoid any more changes until this ends?Tintor2 (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply at the talkpage. --Elonka 18:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to inform you that Serpent132 (talk · contribs) has reverted once again with only minor changes to the article, and he has yet to discuss his actions on the talk page, though his stated in the edit summary that the article is too long compared to the articles of other characters and that the information is inaccurate. --Farix (Talk) 13:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've started working with User:Ariobarza to help her understand what is required when writing an article for Wikipedia, with the caveat that I'm not sure anything we work on will actually ever make it into the encyclopedia. Anyway, she's requested that this article be undeleted and so we can work on it at User:Ariobarza/Siege of Kapisa. As I don't have the tools to do that, I thought I'd ask you since you're aware of the situation. AniMate 09:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've done this.

talk

) 10:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Doug.  :) --Elonka 17:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I recently read

The other issue I deal with quite often is the censorship of pictures I have introduced throughout the Shi'a articles. At least once a week I see vandalism in this area.

Aside from one very unfortunate incident on Template:Islam where I and another editor argued over jurispudence being put in the article (all my other edits I have handled wonderfully on that template), I've never done anything that would be considered abusive. What is the procedure for me to get the rollback right? --Enzuru 10:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. To be honest, I am not comfortable granting the request, because I have some concerns about how you would use it. Though you have done a lot of good work on Wikipedia, I am concerned with how you define vandalism, which does not appear to be in accordance with the Wikipedia definition (see

Recent changes patroller for awhile, to get involved with project work outside of your normal topic areas. Then ping me again in a couple weeks, and I'll take another look, how's that?  :) --Elonka

17:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds good. Thanks! --Enzuru 22:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No, not the ones against POV-pushing tendentious editors. The First Crusade. I know you were involved with PHG and the Mongols end of crusading, but would you be able to do anything for the First Crusade? It is up for a featured review and my crystal ball tells me it's pretty much certain to fail. My knowledge of the crusades begins and ends with having read Runciman's books once or twice long ago, so I amn't much use. How about you? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Angus.  :) I'll add it to my watchlist, but to be honest, I'm still working on cleaning up the articles at: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#List of articles for review. You might want to contact Srnec and Adam Bishop though, if they're not already there. Aramgar and Kafka Liz might also be worth notifying. And try a note at the MilHist WikiProject. --Elonka 18:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd thought of Adam, but I'll let everyone you mention know. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw that it went up for FAR, and given I now have a number of Crusades books, thanks to ArbCom, I'll take a shot at it later this afternoon. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the template's sandbox as requested. --Farix (Talk) 00:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems we forgot a semi-colon after the border-spacing parameter. I've also found out that it doesn't work in IE except for the IE8 beta. --Farix (Talk) 03:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Updated. I'm still not sure if "top" or "subheader" is the best name though. --Farix (Talk) 04:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It's been recreated... don't know if you want to check it out.--Techfast50 (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting! I've never run into this kind of sneaky vandalism before, it's actually quite clever. --Elonka 02:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for missing Obamachick's racist comments when I posted a (premature) welcome on her Talk page. Good job on your response to those. Chuckiesdad (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I guess you were just going fast with bulk welcomes, right? What do you use? --Elonka 04:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been using Twinkle for R/C watch and noticed that a good bit of vandalism is just inexperienced users, so I've added Friendly to provide more welcome options. Still requires two hands on the wheel, though. Regards, Chuckiesdad (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think of Wikipedia more as a raging river than a highway, but I understand the analogy! Sometimes it feels like kayaking in whitewater rapids that go on, and on, and on, and on.... Whee! :) --Elonka 04:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a much better analogy, I am amazed by the speed and volume of the flow, and it never stops, just migrates around the globe. Chuckiesdad (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm rather unhappy about the sorry list of candidates at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements. Would you consider running? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Awww, thanks.  :) But no, I'm not interested in running. For what it's worth though, don't worry too much about the list of candidates, it's just the first batch on the first day. Some of them are clearly "hoax" noms, so I understand your concern. However, the list will probably triple in size over the next couple weeks, and there are definitely some high quality candidates that are planning to step forward. When the votes start next month, I'm confident that the community will make its opinion known as to which of the candidates are clearly unacceptable. So for now, keep an eye on things, don't worry about the junk candidates, do watch for the really good ones, and if you see any that are borderline, feel free to add a query to their "questions" page, to help you make up your mind. :) --Elonka 22:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, just wanted to let you know there was no consensus on the question despite some users keep reporting it [25] in order to get the IMDB removed from the infobox.--Termer (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, consensus does not mean unanimity. It looks like this has already gone through extensive discussion and an RfC, and the consensus as I read it was to remove the links. You are welcome to continue discussion to try and build a new consensus or find a compromise of some sort. If there is consensus to replace the links, they can easily be re-added. --Elonka 16:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! Consensus doesn't mean unanimity and it doesn't mean

WP:DEMOLISH and it goes against the idea of "spreading free knowledge".--Termer (talk

) 21:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

PS. And here is the dif [26] showing that an administrator who had actually read the discussion has confirmed there was no consensus. The discussion itself is over here [27].--Termer (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed your comments at AN, and added an additional note (diff) to clarify that (as usual with these things) the "facts" are under active discussion. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty familiar with this case, so if you'd like more diffs to prove that particular point, I'm happy to provide them. --Elonka 17:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

and a point about your view there

About Slrub's unblock of Deeceevoice, you say it was "even though the block was made in response to an ANI thread" but I notice you do not mention consensus at said thread. Have you looked into this?

Because I have a reasonable recollection of this having followed proceedings quite closely at the time, and it is this: involved admin contacting (with talk heading "Bad cop") what you would call an "ally" admin to get the ball rolling , post to ANI, near-immediate move to subpage, initial two supporters of ban joined by admin supporting and banning due to misunderstanding of cited Arb restriction, i believe some hours and mixed comments without this being pointed out, and early closure by (now-defrocked) admin, undone by admin (MattC?) who had previously blocked Deeceevoice, saying hold on a minute this thing is a complete shambles, as indeed it was. Hence the unblock was as much made in response to the ANI thread as the (completely premature, as subsequently admitted by blocking admin) block. 86.44.21.224 (talk) 09:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)