User talk:Elonka/Archive 7

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BigrTex 19:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Added to

Matthew

19:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the comments and tell me that this guy isn't a Sock Puppet. Same tone, same issues raised. He claims to be a 'friend' of Sanchez, which is also suspicious and the account seems to have been created with the sole purpose of editing the Sanchez article. Also, user:bluemarine, Sanchez's account suddenly went dead right before the GSSchool account took an active interest in the Sanchez article. GSSchool also claims to be a fellow Marine with Sanchez. This is a known Matt Sanchez MO that he's used in various web forums. Aatombomb 01:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making one of the more eloquent oppose votes in the whole page, IMO. I agree with the vast majority of what you say there, even though my conclusion as to Danny's candidacy differs. I personally feel that Danny was asked to handle a workload way greater than he should have (or took it on personally without being asked) and the stress of it caused errors that I believe would not happen as a regular admin. I could be wrong, though, most certainly. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Elonka Dunin, it's a shame in my view that you weren't banned for your disgraceful behaviour during the naming conventions dispute. 12.154.210.2 00:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy has become upset with me, and it seems like at one point he may have thought I was you (see diff). Is there any reason for that? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, I see you asked for reliable sources that Matt admitted to having been a hooker. The audio, which I transcribed has Alan Colmes asking him "You were a male prositute" and he responds "That as well". That *used* to be part of his article. It was cited to that show with the audio feed and was removed. Now do you not think that Alan (and Matt himself) is a reliable source and that we should include that bit? That the excellent-top.com website was registered at the same address when Matt Sanchez himself was registered was also cited and reported and removed. Those citations are to Alexa.com and the US Public Records Database at ancestry.com, both reliable sources. So now what do you think? You think someone's trying to game this? Wjhonson 04:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the word "prostitute" can mean different things to different people, and that if a Wikipedia article is going to call someone that, we had better be 100% sure of our sources. --Elonka 19:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that, which is why I've been pushing to simply use a direct quote from the Radio show, right out of Matt's own mouth. By the way, since you've not contributed for several days does that mean you're done with this article? There are more things to agree upon than just the current wording. Quite a lot was removed and if you want to go back through it piece-by-piece you'll need to come back to the Talk page. Wjhonson 23:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments at User:ALM scientist/Is wikipedia Anti-Islam. It is currently pathetic shape. I will rewrite it and double the number of references. I will appreciate your help and guidannce. I might file arbitration case after finishing it to resolve Muhammad picture dispute. --- A. L. M. 10:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that the problems are over on Gnostic Gospels... I was reading your user page and noticed the desire to be nominated. Not sure how much weight by nomination would carry but I'd be happy to nominate and describe what I saw. jbolden1517^Talk 17:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you are very kind to offer.  :) My guess is that if/when I go for admin again, it's going to be a high-participation debate, so having a strong nominator is definitely an important consideration. But multiple co-nominations couldn't hurt! Have you ever done an admin nom before? --Elonka 17:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I've done 2, I'm 1:1. OTOH I'm not a strong nominator, and so if you've made enemies I can't help (not won't just can't). Sorry I'll still vote for you though (or co-nominate if you think that's useful). jbolden1517^Talk 17:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had to protect this article from editing due to revert warring. I see from the talkpage that you have been involved in mediating this dispute previously. I am trying to start fresh discussions on the talkpage so that a version can be arrived at that meets

"Mediating" would be an incorrect term in this case.Wjhonson 04:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Your removal of comments left by one editor on another editors talk page is out-of-line. Please refrain from the removal of other editors comments unless they are targeted specifically at you and are libelous. Merely sniping does not pass this bar. Wjhonson 03:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

(blink) Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about? Please provide a diff. --Elonka 03:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that an article that I'd created quite some time ago,

Done. I don't think it would pass an AfD, but I'm going to err on the side of not speedying. --Selket ^Talk 07:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of this New Yorker (Hasan K, Steve P. or whatever name it is)? If they are the same people, he seems to be on a crusade against you.

Well, I've been online far too long on such a glorious day, so I need to say bye and get my tuchus planted on a bike seat going anywhere... RoyBatty42 23:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate it. And I appreciate that you kept an open mind during the adversarial process ;) Wjhonson 03:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Elonka, my soap opera couple article

Re [1]: No, there isn't. The way this is supposed to be handled is that while the article is in development in the sandbox, the images should be linked, not displayed. --Durin 16:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As a commentor in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey debate, I thought you might want to know that the debate has been re-started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey (2nd nomination) because of significant changes in the article during the debate. Mangojuice^talk 17:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking that we should keep the title about Babe's fake death, but instead of titling it what it was when I created it, it just be Babe's Fake Death.

• Do you feel that the section that was about J.R.'s recovery should be combined into the love triangle section? If you removed the "Recovering, Giving Babe Another Chance" section, I agree.

It looks like a little gap is left there though.

• Where you mention "but Josh helped him to again rekindle his love for Babe" in the J.R, Babe, Jish love triangle section...did you mean Tad? Or were you saying that since Josh had saved J.R's life?

I'll go ahead and replace Josh's name with Tad's name, since stating Josh would be a bit confusing to some viewers of the show.

Hi, you recently pointed out that the "

Hi, I tried to shorten Dawn's history, what do you think? BTW, what sources aren't shown; there's links to episodes but I don't know what else you mean. Also, I don't really know what you mean by overly long plot summaries. I looked at FA articles and found

Legend of Zelda. His page has loads of in-universe stuff, but is still an "FA". Also, Captain Marvel's page has lots of plot summary; just split up with lots of sub-headings. Is it because the Buffy pages don't have enough out-of-universe stuff to counter-balance the in-universe stuff? How much plot summary is too much? I tried to shorten Dawn's to one paragraph a season but I still had to explain her confusing origin, so it was still pretty long. What do you want us to do with Buffy's page? Shorten it to one paragraph a season, or condense everything into one little paragraph? If you could please be more specific on what you think should be done to these pages, because I'm kind of confused... Paul730

20:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

IMs...? Sorry, I only recently got the internet, so I'm pretty new to all this. Oh, and as you might have have noticed, I'm a hardcore Buffy geek, so I'm too happy about your comment that Dawn doesn't deserve her own page... How dare you! She's Dawnie for crying out loud! :) Paul730 21:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, Elonka, one of us should probably re-word that part in which states..."In 1992, after ABC executives decided that the show needed new blood, and promoted Agnes Nixon's protege Megan McTavish to the position of head writer, McTavish began adding new dimensions to the show. As part of this, she created the character of Babe Carey, who first appeared in the fictional town of Pine Valley in 2003."

• I mean, Megan McTavish was promoted, but then she left, and then came back, where at around the point of 2003 she created the character of Babe Carey. You think it sounds confusing the way it's worded at this moment?

After the part where it says..."McTavish began adding new dimensions to the show"...we should state something such as..."A little later"...Or "Some time after that, she created the character of Babe Carey, who first appeared in the fictional town of Pine Valley in 2003."

Or something along those lines. It'd probably be best to find another way to place that internal-link that links to the article about McTavish infuriating fans. I say that because she didn't infuriate fans to that extent until until around the year of 2003 and so up. Or maybe that link should stay where it is since it seems to start off from McTavish first changing the show to some significant degree.

• Elonka, did you reply to me? My account said New Messages, but I couldn't find your message.
  Flyer22
  04:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, but not at the top of the page. To check, you can look at the history of the page, or my contribs, or look here: [2]. Also, when you get the "New Messages" box, you can click on "diff" to see just what was added.  :) --Elonka 04:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, I checked the history page, that's how I got your first internal message, but I guess I got lost after that.

• The date to the SID Top ten list is from the 5/22/07 issue. If it's really important for me to find out the publisher, or for the date to show up on that scan of the poll, I'll ask barb of the marybarb Jacob Young site to either give me the information on that, or see if she can scan the Top 10 list in a way that at least shows the date of the article. That is, if it's necessary.
  Flyer22
  05:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What's SID? --Elonka 05:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• It stands for Soaps In Depth. And SOD, when it comes to soap operas, stands for Soap Opera Digest.

Do you watch the show General Hospital? It seemed like you did/do. I don't necesarily watch that show, but I got the impression that you did/do.

Certainly not everyone who watches a soap opera knows what SID is though. My mother doesn't either. She knows of soap opera magazines called Soaps In Depth or Soap Opera Digest, but not their nicknames.

Hey Elonka. I've reduced the storyline section substantially, by about 6000 characters. When you get the change can you let us know what you think on the talk page. Regards. Gungadin 19:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As you should be aware, under the current Wikipedia:Non-free content guidelines, non-free images of living people are not acceptable. There is no meaningful commentary of Image:Miranda Kerr.jpg. Several of your other uploads have the same issue, ie. they are being used simply to illustrate the appearance of a person (examples of unacceptable use 8). Also, if you receive permission to use an image that permission needs to be registered with the foundation, see Wikipedia:Example requests for permission and Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission, if permission doesn't allow the image to be freely used then the image cannot be on wikipedia. --Peta 07:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to ask your advice on something. I recently re-wrote Willow, Giles, and Dawn's pages quite drastically, and am now working on Xander's. However, I am not sure exactly how these articles are supposed to be written; the Buffy Summers page does not reference any episodes and as such reads more smoothly. But then, that same page has a "primarily in-universe style... clean-up yada yada" box on it suggesting that that shouldn't be how articles are supposed to be written. I'm trying to work from what has already been written on these pages, but each page is written in a slightly different style. Should character histories be written from the perspective that the charcter is real, without referencing individual episodes? Or should it be written from a "real world" perspective. For example, in the Willow page, it mentions that Will and Tara have one of the longest lesbian relationships in TV history. But the Buffy page has no references to the real world whatsoever. I want the Buffy pages to be consistant with each other, so what do you think? BTW, I also asked this question to Nalvage since he seems like an expert on the Buffy pages, but I wanted to get your opinion too since you were the one who put the box thingy there. Paul730 17:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, have you noticed the guy on the talk page and his claims? Does it come under fair use for us to use it with it being released by the National Geographic or whatever...we could always use an image off the DVD sample...Englishrose 17:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What I was thinking of, if we take a screenshot of the DVD (or the DVD sample, a sample of what's on the DVD from the Book of Cool site) then it's classed as fair use because it's a screenshot. Englishrose 20:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a sample of the DVD showing you what's on from the Book of Cool site, as the sample comes from the DVD, it's classed as DVD screenshot if you see my meaning. Englishrose 20:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorted :-). Ooooh, wait there's one more thing to add. His IMDb link. Englishrose 21:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've been working a lot recently on the Willow Rosenberg page, and was wondering if you could take a look at it and give some feedback for improvements. Also, quick question, when you're making links to other wiki pages, do you have to make a link every time a word is repeated? For expample, every time Buffy is mentioned on Willow's page, should I link to the Buffy Summers page? Cos that seems a little excessive.  :) Paul730 15:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, advice and offer of more help. I don't have the spectacular curriculum vitae that you do, but I went and turned my link blue! Marieblasdell 00:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, I appreciate the olive branch. I have laid out some of the history behind the adverse event section to illustrate my position more clearly. I hope you understand why I have been so insistent. If you wish to discuss specific issues regarding the content in the AE section, please outline them on the talk page rather than deleting the section again. Rhode Island Red 06:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the wikipedia mechanisms here; I have just had a look at the

If we are to request that the powers that be check his behaviour, then it needs to be clear that all procedures (whatever they are!) have been followed correctly. He seems to have plenty of time at his disposal, so if any such request is started it will be a long and wearisome process. Would a warning based on

See also User_talk:EdJohnston#Juice_Plus. I regret that RIR is so attached to the Adverse Effects section, which I believe we could do without. I haven't received any news of a possible change of heart. EdJohnston 22:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, I'm truly grateful for (and amazed at) the work you are putting into getting the Juice Plus article back on track. I am quite optimistic that we can get a balanced and objective article at the end of the mediation process. TraceyR 23:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You said if I had any questions to ask you. How come if you put proof of something somewhere someone will still change it?DJ-Siren 03:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

On a show page I see you working on sometimes, I put proof of one of the cast members being only Recurring, not contracted, and someone insists on putting them as contracted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ-Siren (talk • contribs) 05:54, May 29, 2007

Hi Elonka, thanks for all your help on the Pauline Fowler article. I would be interested to hear your comments on two other eastenders articles, Phil Mitchell and Grant Mitchell (EastEnders). They have possibly the longest real world context sections of any of our character articles, so I would like to get them promoted to GA level at some stage. I'm sure you wont like the storyline sections (Grant's storylines arent referenced yet and the Phil is long), but i'd still be interested to hear what improvements you think we can make. Gungadin 17:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please point me in the right direction to where I can request a policy to be changed? I really don't think that articles about past characters and TV shows that have ended should be written in present tense, and I want to get the policy on that changed. Could you help me out? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for starting up the tense discussions, and for the advice about Wikipedia politics! I've added my two cents to the two discussions, so hopefully they'll get a response. Also, I'd like to take this chance to say sorry for the way I reacted to you when you first suggested changes to Pauline Fowler - and thanks for helping me out a lot despite this! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello! You look like someone who might be interested in joining the EastEnders WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you help us :-)

	Links for Wikipedians interested in EastEnders content
Register: Participants of the EastEnders WikiProject - EastEnders WikiProject - EastEnders Portal

-Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For helping out with Pauline Fowler, and for pointing me in the right direction and giving me valuable advice. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 23:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are some things you can do to help:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Expand : All articles listed in Category:Stub-Class EastEnders articles and Category:EastEnders articles in need of real-world perspective Other : Improve to FA standard: EastEnders: E20 Improve to GA standard: EastEnders Maintain: List of EastEnders characters (2023), List of EastEnders characters, List of former EastEnders characters, List of awards and nominations received by EastEnders Get involved in the Wikipedia EastEnders Project.

-Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, thanks for creating the bot, but I had a question. It keeps putting flags on Image:David Perry.jpg, an image that I've moved over to Commons, and would like to get deleted from Wikipedia now. I've tried fixing the image file to address whatever the bot's concerns on, but it's still not happy. Can you please advise what I can add to the Commons page, to get the bot messages to stop? Thanks, Elonka 17:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the bot is that it's not great at detecting whether the image on commons has an acceptable source, so it will put the tag if it's not sure. Basically, it's not sure if it's the same, so it will keep re-adding the tag until it's happy. I'm still working on the bot, and I'll try to fix that problem. —METS501 (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Fox News thinks he is at Irvine, [3]; I would not be surprised if he used the title after he had left the position. He has published no peer reviewed articles (at least since 1950). The basic bio I have some ideas for--more tomorrow. DGG 07:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, it's probably redundant to have both the TV and Soap projects listed on soap articles; however, TV Project is currently larger and more active, and I figured adding these articles directly would increase the visibility of the articles themselves as well as the Soap Opera Project, encouraging more editing and participation.

By the way, I'll try to work on a potential barnstart this week, we can discuss. TAnthony 07:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, so I am not "double-tagging" any articles I have tagged for the Soaps project since you've voiced your concern. I can go back and AWB the WP:TV tags out of the doubled articles, but its a big job and I won't get to it right away. In the meantime, perhaps it will drive a little traffic our way. TAnthony 16:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, it seems that one the one hand you are arguing that we should assume good faith on the part of other editors on the Juice Plus page, but on the other hand, you are making accusations of impropriety about me.[4] I took a break from editing for a few days because quite frankly I was getting burned out from all the pointless bickering on the talk page. You had even suggested that I take such a break. I have no relationship with the anon editor 85.71.60.166 and it seems very presumptuous and improper for you to suggest otherwise. Please stop making such inflammatory accusations. Rhode Island Red 16:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, before we're at each other's throats over the issue of tense (LOL), do you have any ideas about how to recruit more members to the Soaps project? Many soap articles are such a mess, all kinds of random users are constantly changing and twisting articles — there are so many guidelines and policies that are needed, but we can't really come up with and enforce these things with 13 people. I was thinking about just going through edit histories and inviting people manually, but ... TAnthony 20:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response; I am on IM but hardly use it. My AIM username is xtommy and I'm actually on right now if you're awake. I'm not sure of the time diff ... TAnthony 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I just signed onto AIM (invisibly), are you available? TAnthony 20:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Check the comments I just left at User talk:Johnyajohn. Maybe you already knew about this. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, a few weeks ago you said that

Hey, Elonka, a few articles within the scope of Wikipedia: WikiProject Soap Operas have been nominated for deletion. But this is before we've gotten around to truly improving these particular articles. At this rate, if these articles are more so targeted because they are soap opera couple articles, I find it very off, given that these articles are a work in progress. I was hoping that you could lend your voice on this matter in their deletion debates, as I will contact all participants of Wikipedia: WikiProject Soap Operas to weigh in on this matter as well. I do not believe that getting rid of these or any supercouple articles on Wikipedia is the answer, improving them is.

So far, I know of three true supercoupe articles nominated for deletion:

• Alan Quartermaine and Monica Bard

• Victor Newman and Nikki Reed
  .

• Flyer22
  13:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please report irresponsible action of User:^demon here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges

• "Sandbox" versions of some of these couple articles, Elonka? If so, sure.
  Flyer22
  00:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Juice Plus . For the Mediation Committee, ^ [omg plz] This message delivered by contact the Mediation Committee directly .

Sorry, i don't have any pictures from Loveland in Jeju. -littlet889

Erm, I'm a bit confused by your revert at

I reverted the article because the information was cited. I would rather have information that is cited left up on the article page then no information at all. I really don't care about the outcome of the article, except that the information is cited. Their is no reason to remove cited information. If you would like you may revert back to the version before mine; I have no problems with that. Just remember

WP:CITE. I will leave this article up to the the Mediation council, to the editors working on this article, and to the admins to sort everything out. Thanks! --T_{Talk to me}

01:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to thank you for putting together the mediation request. Even though the attempt didn't work, I think we can learn a lot from it. I haven't been an editor for long but I've been around long enough to see dedicated editors become disenchanted and give up on the Juice Plus article due to the same stonewalling tactics that we saw this week. If we can't get around the wall, let's just drive through it. :) Please keep fighting for this page. Citizen Don 03:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I see, I know you probably don't watch

A lot of the trouble is going to be sourcing. I own two soap opera books: The Days 30th Anniversary Family Album, and All My Afternoons by Annie Gilbert (the latter of which ended up sourced in the Mary Stuart article). Where do you think would be really good internet sources? There is a good article on soaps (dated from 1976) called "Sex and Suffering in the Afternoon" (it's the story on the TIME cover in soap opera). I cited the actual page where the article is on Lisa Grimaldi; it was very helpful and I'd suggest reading it and seeing what we could glean from it and how we could cite it in different articles. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you could help me find sources for recurring status, which I helped write (which is different from recurring character), I'd appreciate that as well. Do you have AIM? Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)