User talk:Elonka/Archive 38

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.

Hello, Elonka. I have concerns about your behavior in the sockpuppet investigation and have raised them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Elonka_on_a_fishing_expedition.3F —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvine22 (talk • contribs) 03:43, January 12, 2010

Specifically, Irvine has asked for diffs to support the allegations of sockery. These I feel he is due. Would you mind pointing out the edits that you believe support the allegation? Thanks, 05:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

nvm, SPI is closed. Happy editing. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Noting archive link, for future reference.[1] --Elonka 18:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Elonka. Unfortunately the ANI thread I started seems to have been closed before you had a chance to comment. I feel there are some outstanding issues here, and I'd like to try to thrash them out short of a report to the Audit subcommittee at Arbitration. As you know, it is my opinion that that you requested a Checkuser in my sockpuppetry case without evidence - certainly not evidence that met the verifiability standards of the guidelines. Can you explain the evidentiary basis on which you were proceeding? Are you confident that it was within the guidelines? Irvine22 (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC) SPI guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Evidence_and_SPI_case_guidelines

I requested the Checkuser request Irvine22 not Elonka and I really have no problem if you take it any forum you want, but I suggest you read the reaction to your ANI thread before wasting your and other peoples time. --Snowded ^TALK 18:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You made the initial request at Elonka's prompting, and on the basis of "evidence" that was not verified by diffs, as the guidelines require. Elonka then bundled another four users into the check on the basis of no evidence whatsover that I can see. Believe me, I am quite bored with this matter. I am also quite prepared to persevere with it until some clarity is reached. The privacy of users is a very serious matter, don't you agree? Irvine22 (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No, we had a sock and you were an obvious suspect. Having come to that reasonable conclusion the responsibility for making the report was mine and mine alone. Centralising similar cases is normal practice. There is no evidence that you are bored with the matter. At no stage was the privacy of any user threatened in the making of this SPI report or its follow through.--Snowded ^TALK 18:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nobodys privacy has in anyway been revealed by the CU. In fact you are the one with your edits from your IP that have revealed your location. BigDunc 18:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not my privacy that concerns me - I have already stated that I am in Southern California. But it seems there are four other people who have been checked up on, on the basis of no verifiable evidence, and in apparent violation of Wikipedia's own guidelines. Irvine22 (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

@Snowded - did you read the guidelines for SPI before filing your report? Have you read them now? Having read them, would you do anything different? Irvine22 (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

In the same circumstances I would do the same thing Irvine --Snowded ^TALK 18:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

So when the guidelines indicate that evidence must be "verifiable and in the form of diffs", why do you feel it is okay for you to disregard that? Irvine22 (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)If the evidence had not been good enough then it would have been rejected--Snowded ^TALK 18:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

So that's where we need to hear from Elonka and perhaps Nathan, beacuse it looks to me that the "evidence" did not meet guidelines and should have been rejected. Irvine22 (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

So its nothing to with Elonka, but the patrolling admin who has already answered you on the ANI thread.--Snowded ^TALK 19:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No, Elonka made additional requests to bundle four more users into the check. Nathan, as Clerk, evidently approved the request. I'd like to hear from them on the evidentiary basis for their actions, and whether they feel their actions were within the guidelines. It's all about accountability, innit? Irvine22 (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well in their shoes I would ignore you, you enjoy this thing far too much and accountability is a two way street. I should really have ignored you here, I just wanted to make it clear that responsibility for the SPI report was mine and mine alone.--Snowded ^TALK 19:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If they wish to ignore my good-faith efforts to settle this dispute short of a report to Audit, that is obviously a matter for them. I'll wait a couple days to see whether they wish to respond. Irvine22 (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have had a CU done on me 3 times I think with a lot less circumstantial evidence than was on your case. So the editors you are defending have nothing to fear, Disclosure of CheckUser results is subject to privacy policy, which broadly states that identifying information should not be disclosed under any but a few circumstances. And none of the circumstances are happening here. So this can be dropped now. BigDunc 18:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I may be overstepping my bounds here, but I'm going to make the same request on behalf of Elonka that I made on my talk page: Please take this conversation elsewhere. This is not a matter to be discussed on multiple users' talk pages. Irvine, if you truly intend to pursue the matter, then do so. I'm having a great deal of trouble understanding what you hope to accomplish by engaging in arguments in a variety of different fora. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The responsibility for determining whether a check is merited rests with the checkuser, and the same is true for any subsequent disclosures. If a checkuser determines that a check is unnecessary, then you'll see  Declined on the request. While others may request a check be performed, CUs have the final discretion on the use of the tool and the data it provides. While different checkusers might come to different decisions on individual requests, all checkusers abide by the same general guidelines set by the privacy policy - which basically requires that the check and derived data be used to prevent disruption to the project. A reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry is usually enough to meet that threshold. Nathan ^T 22:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is what the SPI reporting guidlines say:

" If there is no evidence showing forbidden sock-puppetry, then nothing will happen and the case is likely to be speedily closed by the SPI clerks. Most SPI cases are decided based upon behavioral evidence, that is, the behavior of the accounts or IPs concerned. This evidence needs to be explicit; that is, use verifiable evidence in the form of diffs, links to the pages in which the sock puppetry is occurring, and reasonable deductions and impressions drawn from said evidence. Evidence solely consisting of vague beliefs or assumptions will be rejected." (my emphases)

Is this guideline no longer operative? It clearly wasn't followed in this case. Irvine22 (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, I posted the RFCU template and endorsed it for checkuser attention, and a checkuser performed the check. Any concerns about privacy should be addressed directly to and with that checkuser,

WT:SPI. If you have questions about the use of checkuser in your case, you should address them to Dominic. Nathan ^T

23:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

In my view it's all about politcal opinion, the likes of Snowded have no other aim but to attack the United Kingdom, push for POV terminology and accuse editors they dislike of various wrongdoings. A quick look at your userpage Snowded explains your motives clearly. A Welsh nationalist, with a dislike for the union and any union terminology, whose aim is to support your gaelic brothers across the irish sea in their noble endeavor to kick the British occupiers out of Ireland back to Britain. Trickyjack (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at your edits is more than enough to explain your motives clearly. You say you were the subject to pretty severe personal attacks. Provide the Diff's! Here are the Diff's for your edits since you started!

1st edits (supposed): Edit waring against

More Edit warring [26][27] and again [28][29] and yet again [30]

Again inserting unsupported personal opinion. [31][32]

Now provide the diff's!--Domer48_'fenian' 23:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I've ignored all the nonsense they have posted on their own user page, including the personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith! --Domer48_'fenian' 23:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your tireless contribution. I really wanted to create articles about Ogedeids and Arghun. BTW, I am gonna expand the Ilkhanate, please correct it if I make any mistake.--Enerelt (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure! It's one of the fun things about Wikipedia, is collaborating in the topic area of medieval history. You obviously know quite a bit about the Mongol Empire, and I have learned a great deal from your additions. If I might request one thing though, it would be if you could provide more sources? Sometimes I see you add something to an article which I would like to verify or expand, but since I don't know where your information came from, it becomes difficult for me to know where to look. I guess that I can add some {{

cn}} tags though! Keep up the good work, --Elonka

22:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I know it appears that editors are free to abuse Domer without sanction see the thread I started on Fozzie's page here but the latest offering from recently blocked Trickyjack are not acceptable [33]. He has been warned about civility before. BigDunc 16:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Already blocked. ;) --Elonka 16:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats good for all of our faults in The Troubles area I believe we are all here for the same purpose to build an encyclopedia, but I can't say the same for this editor. BigDunc 16:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have sent you an e-mail. --

Hello again, Elonka. I refer to matter of the on-going dispute over your actions in the recent SPI/Checkuser of myself and five other users. I have received intelligible answers to my questions about the way this was handled from Nathan and Dominic, respectively Clerk and Checkuser in this matter. You have yet to comment in your capacity as (I think) patrolling admin. I would prefer to settle this short of a report to the Audit subcommittee at Arbitration. If you don't want to engage with me on this matter in any of the venues where discussion has been on-going, might I suggest we agree to engage in an informal mediation with an uninvolved third-party? My concerns, as you know, center on your adding four additional users to the checkuser request on the basis of no verifiable evidence whatsoever. I feel this was an improper "fishing expedition". If you are agreable, please so indicate and we can proceed to consider which third parties to approach. Thanks! Irvine22 (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Irvine22, enough. You're already on

stick, and back slowly away from the horse carcass. It's time to get back to writing articles. --Elonka

02:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Except you haven't participated (until now) in the discussion on your talkpage. The Clerk and Checkuser provided explanations I found convincing as to why they acted on Snowded's unverified report about "Dick Stauner". The sole outstanding issue for me is the basis on which you added the four other users to the check. If you can explain that, even in a brief paragraph as did Nathan and Dominic, I expect this matter will be over and done with. I'd certainly like to move on - but privacy issues are important, as is accountability, don't you agree? Irvine22 (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I added them because they looked like obvious sockpuppets, all being disruptive on Troubles-related articles in the same period of time. It is classic behavior for a sockmaster, to have a burst of disruptive activity on multiple accounts. --Elonka 06:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A-ite. Irvine22 (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Elonka, hope you're well. I have told PHG that he may edit the Imperial Japanese Navy article, which is currently being reviewed - see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Imperial Japanese Navy/archive1. I am sure this will turn out for the best. Well, I sure hope so anyway, because I'm going to look awfully stupid if it doesn't. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No objection, thanks for letting me know! I see that he's also changed account names, to Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs). --Elonka 04:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, two issues:

1. There's confusion about your question here, i.e. - Regarding the issue of how to deal with the question of the founding year of the Sinn Féin organization, what do you believe is the consensus of the above discussions? Not your personal opinion of how you'd like the article to be written, but what do you think the group consensus is at this point? Most editors seem to have answered this question as though it were asking about consensus on the issue itself, rather than how to deal with the issue. Could you assist by clarifying? (I've emboldened the relevant part of the question.)

2. At History of Sinn Féin, a dispute has arisen which - under the Arbcom Troubles remedy - I believe needs to be brought to the attention of an outside opinion (in order to avoid an edit war). As you know, there is an ongoing dispute at Sinn Féin about the foundation of the party:

• The party split in 1970 into two. Some editors claim, however, that the minority faction to that split (the party currently known as Sinn Féin, and previously referred to as Provisional Sinn Féin) now "owns" the continuity of the pre-split party; while other editors say that to favour one side of the split (the Provisionals) over the other (the party currently known as the Workers Party, and previously referred to as Official Sinn Féin) is (a) to go against the large majority of sources, and (b) in breach of NPOV. (Those supporting "continuity" argue that the sources favouring 1970 are not acceptable because they doubt the veracity of the primary research of some, and because some book titles and structures imply continuity.)

The

This is an attempt to move the consensus building to another article. BigDunc 13:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No it's not. It's what it says it is: an attempt (a) to clarify the question, and (b) to avoid an edit war and resolve a dispute. Mooretwin (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

So your attempt to stop an edit war is to insert content that has been removed by 3 editors, that's a good strategy. BigDunc 14:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The alternative is to take the hatnote away altogether, as there was no consensus for it. Maybe you'd be better advised discussing this on the relevant talk page? Mooretwin (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's let the poll run for a few more days, and then we'll see where we stand. --Elonka 19:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

But we need to know what the poll is meant to be about! See request for clarification at (1) above. Mooretwin (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You are the only one confused Mooretwin, read the responses, everyone understands its to state what we thing the consensus is, and so far we have all said that its the current version. --Snowded ^TALK 23:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that helpful intervention. The stated question is "Regarding the issue of how to deal with the question of the founding year of the Sinn Féin organization", which appears to imply it's about how to deal with the issue rather than the issue itself. Whether or not that it correct, only Elonka can clarify - not you nor anyone else. Mooretwin (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming, Elonka, from your failure to respond to this request that you are unwilling to assist with the dispute at History of Sinn Féin. Accordingly, I intend to take the request to another admin, as there is a real danger of edit-warring, given the recent comment by Domer48. Mooretwin (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What a surprise you are going to find somewhere else to discuss this. The forum shopping king. BigDunc 13:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for that heads up. I was unaware of that. That rule didn't exist when I was here before so I had no idea. In the meantime, not knowing of that rule I did another revert. Apologies.

I pity your attempting to deal with the quagmire that is Sinn Féin on here. When I was active here a few years ago it used to drive most Irish posters up the wall with frustration. A small but vocal group of activists from various sides would wage edit wars against each other (well, I suppose it was a change from they and their respective IRAs waging actual wars against each other) and factual inaccuracies would be defended from one side or the other almost to the death even when every neutral historian knew for a fact that what was claimed was demonstrably factually accurate. For example Griffith did not join SF in 1905 and in fact the name "Sinn Féin" as a specific party name, going from memory, only dates from 1907. What was created was "Sinn Féin clubs" which meant that the organisation was just an umbrella for other organisations, and only became one identity in its own right later on.

Anyway, apologies for the second reversion. I'll unrevert (or is it re-revert) it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the self-revert, that works.  :) Also, since you have experience as an admin (though I understand you're participating here as an involved editor), I'd appreciate if you could participate in the "Consensus poll" thread on the talkpage? It would be helpful if you could take a look at the previous discussions, and add your own opinion to the list, of what you think the current consensus is. Even if you disagree with that consensus, it might still help to provide a baseline for future discussions and changes. Thanks, --Elonka 00:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You placed me on probation here citing this ruling here. I dispute this and you have not provided any supporting diff’s which would support the accusation that I engaged in edit-warring or disruptive editing on “Troubles” related articles I'm asking you now to do so. Editors who make claims and accusations should support them with diff's or withdraw them. Now Editors would like to see diff's which directly support your accusation and not explanations. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, probation was placed on your account in November, for 3 months, due to edit-warring and also defying consensus at

WP:RSN about the AHS publication (I'd have to double-check for exact diffs). The probation would have expired in February, but since you were blocked in mid-December for violating the 1RR restriction, this extended it to mid-March. If you'd like to check diffs or your block log, check here, look around the time of early November 2009: Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). --Elonka

00:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You were asked for the diff's to support your accusation not explanations! Now Editors would like to see them please. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The diffs are here: Domer48 (talk · contribs). Click on your contribs, then review actions from November 1-11, 2009. Or is there something in particular that you're looking for? If it's helpful, here are the warnings (including diffs) which I placed on your talkpage leading up to the probation, on October 25, November 4, November 6, and November 8,[39] I might also point out that after you were placed under probation, your next edit summary was Please stay away with your nonsense. Does that help jog your memory at all? --Elonka 16:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made a reasonable request and asked for the diff's which support your accusation! Now I'm not looking for a big song and dance about it! So one more time! Provide the diff's of me edit warring! Is that simple enough for you to understand!--Domer48_'fenian' 18:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Elonka a reasonable request was made to you to provide diffs for Domer being placed on probation, your contention of edit warring is very hollow if you cant supply diffs. Why won't you supply the diffs you are asked for? I have asked you previously to supply diffs which I am still waiting on, what is this aversion you have?BigDunc 19:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you not able to see my above post, with diffs, from 16:50? --Elonka 19:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see the post but no evidence of edit warring only warnings from you. BigDunc 19:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If you read the warnings, then you will see that they include diffs of the edit-warring and other behaviors which led to the probation. Which tools do you use to edit Wikipedia? I use

WP:POPUPS, which means that I can just hover my mouse over a diff to see what it says. It's a great time-saver! --Elonka

19:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Opening a request for comment involves the formality of attempting to resolve the issue with the editor involved. Now I know I was not edit warring, and I'm unable to find diff's which would support this accusation and that is why I'm asking. Now Elonka, you can prevaricate all you want here if you want, but on a request for comment you will have to provide the diff's! --Domer48_'fenian' 19:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What issue exactly are you trying to address? You feel that you shouldn't be on probation? --Elonka 19:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Domer-why are you bringing this up now vice when the probation was put in place? Your demanding tone here is not helping you at all. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

We are dealing with the accusation of edit warring! You have accused me of it and will not provide the diff's to support you claim. I'll then deal with your accusation of me defying consensus at

Domer48, if you feel that the probation was inappropriate, your best tactic is to open a thread at

WP:AE and ask for it to be reviewed. I have no objection to obtaining input from other uninvolved administrators on this matter. --Elonka

20:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No I consider a request for comment the best course! Since you will not provide the diff's to support you claims and accusations. The request for comment will be about you and focus on your actions. you will have to support the probation and you will need to provide the diff's. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's talk about the Aubane Historical Society. The dispute sparked at the

forum shopping. Please, it's time to let this one go. --Elonka

23:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you bring it up again, the 'initiating editor' was later blocked for 3 months as a sock (although his talk page from that iteration does not reflect this fact for some reason). That process was a farce from the beginning. RashersTierney (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, more accusations! Elonka I'm not Threatening a RfC I've told you quite clearly that this was my intention should you continue to ignore reasonable requests. I have provided you the opportunity here to address the issue of diff's to support your claims and accusations against me and you simply prevaricate. Now as part of the RfC process, editors are encouraged to try and resolve the issue informally, and that is what I've attempted to do. The request must be supported by at least two editors who have attempted and failed to resolve the issue, to date I can count four editors who have asked you to supply diff's to support your accusations and on each and every occasion you ignored the request. While RashersTierney has summed up the issue of the sock abusing banned editor on the issue of the Aubane Historical Society quite well I will address Elonka's peculiar notions on what constitutes consensus, next. The fact is, I was not put on probation because of the Aubane Historical Society I did not "defying consensus at WP:RSN about the AHS publication" either and it seems pointless to ask but!!! Can you provide a diff of me defying consensus? I was put on probation for edit warring! I've asked for the diff's to support the accusation and still have not got anything other than more accusations. This type of conduct from an Admin is too common on the project and is detrimental to it in my opinion and perhaps it is beyond the scope of a RfC.--Domer48_'fenian' 20:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Domer you were given multiple warnings which include diffs to the edits that were problematic. If you can't be bothered to look at those (even after Elonka linked directly to them here) then its not up to anyone on this project to lead you around and read them to you. If you want the probation reviewed now, there are appropriate ways to do so - railing at Elonka and pretending to be blind aren't appropriate. Shell ^babelfish 23:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Aubane Historical Society

Please note on Reliable Source Notice Board discussion who closed it. It was the same sock abusing IP who opened it. The attitude to this on ANI was quite clear and simple! This is the trainwreck of a WP:RS noticeboard discussion. Closure by IP editor did not seem to match consensus - I would say it should have been closed "no consensus". Regardless... here it is. Simonm223 (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Even the sock abusing IP accepted this in the original discussion and ANI's determination. [44][45] To even suggest that the follow-up thread at RSN also endorsed [your] determination.[46] is without any merit at all. To suggest that this comment here by DGG was a ringing endorsement of your determination is again tendentious, it was not even part of the discussion at ANI or on Reliable Source Notice Board it was on the article talk page and was posted before the ANI tread. In light of all this your comment above "The consensus of the multiple threads seems pretty substantial..." I'll let editors judge it on its merits. I'll also leave it to editors to find if they can were I was "defying consensus at WP:RSN about the AHS publication"? You could help by providing a diff? Elonka you made a determination, your determination is not consensus. Now you have not being able to support you claim on consensus, can you now support your accusation of edit warring? --Domer48_'fenian' 22:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearing the air and putting this behind us

The IP must be laughing his rocks off. This whole fiasco began when a disruptive editor with an agenda to have AHS put on a 'black list' began to edit disruptively. At the time no 'involved editor' dare question his bone fides without being smacked with a

Can I ask your opinion whether this represents incivility? If you think I was uncivil as well feel free to tell me, but I don't think I was. Scolaire (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(sigh). I left him a note, thanks for letting me know. --Elonka 00:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Scolaire (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's me! And my paper is based on a Wikipedia article...which may be a terrible idea, or a brilliant one... Adam Bishop (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Butting in, but I'd bet it's either William the Carpenter ... how much is the conference, anyway? I might boogie down from Central Illinois for some of it if it's not too frightful. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! It's $85, or $55 for graduate students. Symposium is February 17-20, with Adam's talk on the 20th. More information here:[47] --Elonka 00:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it is William the Carpenter. The title gives it away! Adam Bishop (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The paper isn't online, by the way. Is that normal for conferences? I know history conferences sometimes publish the proceedings, sometimes years later, but I've never seen anything online beforehand, other than titles or abstracts. Actually I haven't even written it yet, and I have to whittle away my article-sized file into only 20 minutes worth of info. The germ of it is in the Wikipedia article and the talk page, but there's lots more I didn't mention there, in case there happened to be a certain convenient conference in the near future :) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It really varies with the speaker's history. For myself, I have a few talks which I tend to give in multiple venues, and a common question I get from attendees is, "Can I download your slides?" So I have a directory or three on my website from which people can download a version of my presentation. Also, I've sometimes seen speakers who publish a paper in a journal somewhere, and then give talks based on their publication. What are you planning for your own? Slides, or just speaking extemporaneously? --Elonka 03:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I was originally writing to publish but I found someone else had already written an article about him (it may not have been published yet; I haven't seen it yet, at least). No slides, I'll just speak...not extemporaneously though, I'll have to bring something to read. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Is the Symposium requiring a word-for-word read in the talks? I always hate those. Checking notes is fine, but if someone's reading something word-for-word, I'd usually rather that they just gave it to me in a handout.  :/ --Elonka 16:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Notes, yes...I'm not going to risk memorizing it or speaking off the top of my head though. It's kind of a miracle that I can speak in front of people at all, so if I have to read, I have to read! Adam Bishop (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for uploading

Awww, thanks for letting me know! I'll have to tell some of my friends that my elbow is making it onto the mainpage.  ;) --Elonka 18:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Community de-Adminship.

Hi, I moved you comment on 'editors in good standing' (and my and MacDui's responses) to the draft page, as Newyorkbrad raised the matter there, and has had some responses. It's better all in one place, and the draft page is where all the discussion currently is. I took out my comments on Ireland, they were hardly needed. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I'll keep an eye on the discussion. :) --Elonka 01:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. I'm not sure if "Church of the East" can refer to the Eastern Orthodox Church, or if the terms refer to distinctly different entities that just have similar sounding names. If the latter is true, I think the article should be reverted back to what I had put so that people do not confuse the two names. SoccerMan2009 (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's not an article, it's a disambiguation page, so it should be fine. See

WP:MOSDAB. --Elonka

05:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Bad block. Thank you. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:24, 30 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Can I just remind you to close the 'Consensus' poll on the Sinn Féin talk page? Once a poll like that is started, it is important to do the whole header, footer and summary thing so that it is not left open to "interpretation" later. The last post of any sort to that section (or that page) was eight days ago. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the nudge. I went ahead and closed it. --Elonka 02:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That's perfect. Thank you. Scolaire (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to offer my support surrounding the issue with a currently blocked user whose behaviour has been nothing short of atrocious. That’s all (= --大輔 泉 (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That a surprise, and I suppose your behavior towards the same editor when you called him a fuckwit, twat and a cunt all I might add without any restrictions being placed on you shows how neutral you are in this matter, this behavior was atrocious. BigDunc 09:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, Thanks for adding a couple of links to the section on the diocese of Shenna d'Beth Ramman. I have now shifted that whole section from the province of Adiabene to the province of the patriarch, in case you're wondering what happened to it. Do please continue making constructive edits to my articles on the Church of the East if you want some civilised company. It must be hell being an administrator.

Djwilms (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the history before making my edits. My edits did not disrupt any matters on which consensus had been reached. The prior extensive discussion concerned matters such as the title of the page and its capitalization, which I left intact. I have made edits like this on many other pages, most of which contain information that comes directly or indirectly from pages' subjects themselves. Generally my changes have been upheld by the community. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The

) 03:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:LostSeason3

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

FYI

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can't just pick one I have made reasonable and good faith queries and according to

WP:ADMIN, you should, ...respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct..., so could you please answer my questions please, thank you. BigDunc

19:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The short answer is that yes, Elonka specifically as well as any uninvolved administrator has the authority to place a user on probation or issue other sanctions in The Troubles topic area. See

friendly

) 15:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Clearly I'm answering this part of the question asked by

friendly

) 17:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Do you mean the diff where Elonka is talking about the specific points of the General Sanctions of The Troubles case? I see no mention of discretionary sanctions there. Can you provide a diff where Elonka has placed someone under discretionary sanctions where there are none?

friendly

) 17:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

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

And if she did, what then? I'm having trouble understanding what you and One Night In Hackney are trying to get out of this.

friendly

) 18:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

And again, you have asked the same questions you have been all along. What's your point? I ask because it looks like all you're here to do is harass Elonka about something she said 2 months ago.

friendly

) 14:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

friendly

) 15:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

friendly

) 15:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Have I "deliberately misrepresented my authority"? No, I don't believe I have. And anyway, to my knowledge, I have never used discretionary sanctions in the Troubles topic area. If I had, I would have logged them here:

WP:AN and get more opinions. However, it would probably be moot anyway since the ban is set to expire in a couple weeks, on February 9th. Then again, if it would help settle this issue of whether or not it's even appropriate for an administrator to place a page ban in this topic area, it might be a useful exercise. --Elonka

16:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You have "deliberately misrepresented" quite a number of things since you showed up. Some examples would include this here on Sinn Féin, in addition to this this here on Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association and the same on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles by ignoring this this discussion which clearly states that 1RR is not and never was a part of the Troubles ArbCom. So to then claim that this is was consensus for your amendment here is very wrong. But you have also claimed that consensus supported your addition here when we all know that's not true, this discussion was closed by the sock abusing IP who opened it. They looked for a second opinion here and were told no consensus. This discussion has not been closed, yet despite this you say here there was consensus. But then you also claimed here that their was still a ban in place on me when you know full well it was dropped as invalid and unsupportable. Not only did you know this, but as soon as it was dropped, you place me on probation, and went straight to the adimis talk page to tell him. you then tried to encourage him on his talk page to start a thread at

WP:AN about discretionary sanction, and since he though better of it, you had to do it herself. This request for "Discretionary sanctions for Troubles articles" at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents was rejected, and although you claimed to accepted this as not having any consensus, you still went just a couple of hours later and chanced her arm at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment but alas, you had no luck there either. Because you have "deliberately misrepresented" the situation a number of editors have asked to to address the concerns and to date you have been evasive and at this stage disruptive. You made a number of claims and allegations about me and I've asked you to support them with diff's. Now there has been a number of attempts to resolve this, and I will even at this late stage ask you to support the probation with diff's of me edit warring or remove it! --Domer48_'fenian'

20:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Domer48, I'm trying to understand this message, but most of these diffs don't make a lick of sense. Could you please take a second look at them and make sure that you've diffed what you meant to?

friendly

) 21:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Actually, I know perfectly why you're on probation and don't need anyone to supply me with diffs to see why that's the case; I'm adept enough to be able to pick them out myself. What I don't understand, however, is how diffs like this one are relevant to your

friendly

) 22:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I glad you know why I'm on probation, however I'm still none the wiser! That diff you cite is as relevant as this one, you make a claim you back it up! More so [for Admin's and they are expected to lead by example. Now I'm being very reasonable and patient and have been making every attempt to resolve this, as have a number of editors, this should really not be portrayed as editors making a

point. Now I'll allow Elonka the opportunity to respond or better still provide the diff's that you are adept enough to be able to pick out. --Domer48_'fenian'

23:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Domer48, I

tendentious behavior, your account access will likely end up blocked again. My strong recommendation is to return to building the project. Work in a collegial manner with other editors, avoid reverting good faith edits, treat people with civility and good faith, and you probably won't have to worry about any further administrative intervention. It's really not that hard. --Elonka

05:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Elonka instead of issuing more threats at Domer a simple task would be to show him the diffs of where he was edit warring, I really am at a loss to understand why you wont provide them. If I wasn't AGF, I would think that there was none to find. It's really not that hard.BigDunc 13:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Multiple diffs of Domer48's disruption have already been provided, on Domer48's talkpage, by both myself and Angusmclellan.[49][50][51] --Elonka 15:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I've seen your posts and a number of editors like me are still left asking you to support your claims, [52][53][54]. Please stop avoiding the reasonable requests as it is really starting to look like your being deliberately disruptive. Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. You put me on probation pacifically for edit warring on the Sinn Féin Article, could you please provide the pacific edits to support this as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors! I may have missed were you posted them but I don't think so? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've conceeded that its pointless asking for you to back up your claims, allegations and actions. I will put together a formal

Request for Comment on you conduct and actions. --Domer48_'fenian'

18:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A better avenue would be to file a thread at

WP:AE and request review of the probation. I have no objection to other uninvolved admins taking a look. --Elonka

18:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

I think Elonka addressed your questions in this diff.

friendly

) 14:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

See also my above post from 19:38.[55] --Elonka 16:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The question of what administrators can and cannot do in the Troubles topic area cannot be answered with a simple yes or no, other than to say that ArbCom appears to be in support of administrators doing what is necessary to prevent disruption to the project.[56] As for just exactly how that disruption is defined, or exactly when administrators are allowed to step in, or what they are allowed to do, the answer is really an "It depends". --Elonka 16:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeshuyab II

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

Thanks! I've definitely been enjoying the work on all these articles about the Church of the East. Lots of stubs to make though! If you'd like to help, pick a redlink at

List of Patriarchs of the Church of the East, and go for it.  :) --Elonka

17:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Missouri

There hasn't been much activity at

your name on the list of active participants

. If you are willing to jump in again, please consider helping to revive the project:

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

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

this list

. Thanks!

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

Assyrian Church of the East: Removal of Eastern Expansion Section

Dear Elonka,

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

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

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

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

Hi Elonka,

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of futurologists

You may be interested in this proposal. --

Michael C. Price ^talk

11:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you have a look

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

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

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

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

I've been too busy to take a look, but if someone feels that a breach has occurred, try taking it to

WP:AE. --Elonka

17:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

WP:AE. --Elonka

17:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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