![]() | 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. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
I'll see about putting together a User Page in the next couple of days/weeks. As soon as I get some free time - although given your schedule I should be ashamed to make that statement. 8-) Thanks again. ttonyb1 ( talk) 04:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Nice to be appreciated, I wasn't sure how to code this one, but I don't think it helps build an encyclopaedia. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 19:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your notice. I will be mindful of your words. -- Scjessey ( talk) 21:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I promise to ask questions and not do thinks out here that will violate your policies. I love Wikipedia and would not intenionally seek to do anyone any harm out here. Please give me a second chance. If in doubt about what I'm doing out here, I promise I will ask questions. Californiawine ( talk) 04:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I love Wikipedia and always tell everyone about it. Thank you for your kindness and forgiveness. I promise to abide by all your policies. Thanks again. Californiawine ( talk) 04:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Elonka,
I appreciate the apologetic note you left on my talk page the other day. I wonder if you might have a word with Hassandoodle ( talk · contribs)...I forsee that any comment from me regarding this uncivil comment may fall on deaf ears. Since you're already familiar with the edit war and 3RR report in question, perhaps you might be well-equipped to offer a bit of a clue to this editor. Thanks, — Scien tizzle 20:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
That range should not be unblocked; it is the source of a huge sockfarm, and pretty much only the puppetmaster uses that range. -- Avi ( talk) 20:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
MastCell suggested that you might be a good person to include in a podcast that Scartol and I are planning about controversial articles. We have started a series of podcasts on improving article content (our first one was on copyediting). If you are interested, please sign up here. Thanks! Awadewit ( talk) 21:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
In the RfC for Slrubenstein Elonka you provided this this diff. I wonder whether you actually bothered to read it as it was an attempted outing of me. Theresa Knott had to remove the attempted outing. The person with whom this user identified me on-wiki and on various mathematics forums in which I participated, was Alan Weinstein, Chairman of Mathematics at UC Berkeley, whom I know personally. User:Danko Georgiev MD gave full information about himself on wikipedia pages [1], subsequently removed after the incident. I have sent John Vandenberg a copy of the personal email from his acting Ph.D. supervisor sent on July 25th 2007. On the other hand I don't quite see the point of quoting a diff where I was outed on WP:AN/I as evidence of my bad behaviour: Georgiev was blocked for a day by an arbitrator jpgordon and then reblocked indefinitely. [2] Please explain why you posted this diff? You have previously not blocked User:Koalorka when he referred to me on his talk page as a "butt-hurt marxist foaming at the mouth". Are you now somehow implying that users are justified in attempting to reveal personal information about me on WP, and that somehow I deserved it? Mathsci ( talk) 04:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, thanks for the help. I inadvertently put the article on the system. I have notes that I am going to type up this weekend on to the Wiki. Sorry about the incident. -- Two way time ( talk) 18:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the offer. I generally archive my talk page manually and don't have any problem in archiving if regularly done. It became too long because I did not archive it for a long time, will archive it shortly. Thanks. -- Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 20:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I was looking at User:MBisanz/ACE2008 and noticed you were in the declined section which I thought was a shame. I suspect you would have had good deal of support from the "quieter" individuals in the admin corps and from the wider community. Ah well. Still nine days to reconsider! CIreland ( talk) 01:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
A few months ago I wrote an essay on this problem, in which you are something of a star. I didn't tell you about it then, because I wrote the article in userspace, more or less just for myself. But since then a few people have visited and made comments (mostly favorable), so I think it might also interest you. It is at User:Ravpapa/The_Politicization_of_Wikipedia.
You are welcome to read it, in fact, I would be delighted if you did. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 06:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I've made a detailed reply at User talk:Tmtoulouse. Thanks. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, you seem to be the expert on topics like this.
user:guyonthesubway put the wrong date on Paul Pantone's article, I corrected this, it was immediately reverted by user:Arthur Rubin, I asked for a 3rd opinion [3] and I put the correct date and 2 sources in the article, I do remember the date myself, the reviewing editor also reverted the date [4] and deleted my request. [5] But it's the wrong date, I asked for an explanation, [6] the response was that I should use the talk page to discuss my dispute, [7] But there cant be any dispute? The sources are correct. I then get sort-of accused of edit warring? Talk:Paul_Pantone#Edit_warring_and_possible_misunderstanding
The story is as simple as it is horrifying. Pantone was refused his right to have a lawyer, he was hospitalised indefinitely without any sentencing. This happened in 2005, the other editors want to change this into 2008. Looking over the archive everything added to the article seems to get deleted?
This is an American inventor of great importance. See this whole video, what he says isn't important, just looking will tell you enough about the oil monopoly. Hundreds of GEET engines exist, here are 100 of them in France. Trucks, cars, generators, mowers and tractors. etc All running on a mixture of water and old oil, petroleum, alcohol and just about everything else. (see the video)
People should be building this, not lying about it. There are so much lies in the edit archive it's kind of obvious. But lets focus on the date? Where does Jan 2008 come from? It was in 2005! I know it was, the news says it was, the Paul Pantone defence program website says it was. So why 2008? Where did this date come from? I don't see how I can debate the need to cite sources on the article talk page, do you?
I thought perhaps you can shine your light on this darkness :-) They are kinda obvious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Paul_Pantone&action=history
Thanks,
Resess ( talk) 18:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, in case you still want to say something about this. I've created a topic here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=252142130#Paul_Pantone
Thanks, Resess ( talk) 12:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my successful Rfa! Per your concern, I will be trying to devote some time to content creation from now on. Hope to work with you soon!-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 20:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Elonka,
My apologies, I only saw your warning on that talk page after explaining my edits which were challenged by Nishamdi on the Talk page, and then reverting Nishandi's revert of my edits. I'll take a voluntary break form this page for a while, as I don't appreciate the lack of collegiality being displayed there. NoCal100 ( talk) 02:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I really like this. You made me smile on a miserable Sunday morning. Thanks. Alun ( talk) 06:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
PalestineRemembered, please do not use such language as "racists" towards other editors. [8] If you continue with this kind of language, you may be placed under ArbCom restrictions. Instead, please limit your comments on article talkpages just to the content of the articles, and do not make comments about the contributors. Thanks, -- El on ka 22:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, you might like to know that Charles Matthews and I had discussed you in reference to Slrubenstein's RfC already on Monday. I've had a similar discussion with Paul August on a related matter some time back. It has been agreed that your interference can sometimes be counter-productive. This is just a friendly reminder, so that in future you can avoid jumping the gun and intervening in matters which don't directly concern you. Even though it is undoubtedly not your intent, this kind of intervening out of the blue can come across as bullying and threatening, and might occasionally cause offense. Many thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 00:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Shell Kinney has made a conclusion about the existence of a consensus here. When you have the time, I would like you to review these conclusions. My contention is that the "clear consensus" which she describes does not exist and that the community has not agreed to suspend the policy of WP:NOR in order to use non-chiropractic spinal manipulation research out of context in a manner which their authors did not intend them to be used (to discuss the efficacy/safety of chiropractic). Again, when you have the time, would you please review the sum of the various RfCs and see if you think such a clear consensus exists? Thank you. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Why was this one deleted? Seems a better target has been found, Land of Fire. Could you restore the redirect? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 17:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
no archives yet ( create) |
I like it. So much that I posted a preliminary description on the Fauna talk page for comments and requested elaboration. Feel free to add anything you like to it. There is actually an example on my talk page under Recent Coal Mining Edits, but that's not the only time its happened in my short stint on Wiki.
Also, thanks for your earlier message referring to the interesting essay on a different subject. We all need a little humor here sometimes. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 22:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for trying to keep things calm and focused. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Elonka, for your block here: [12]. I usually wait until a final warning has been given, but I reported this user because of the (creepy) nature of their edits. Cheers, JNW ( talk) 02:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning; I was consciously trying to avoid 3RR and would not have done a 4th revert. I will mention things like that on the Talk Page in the future (though this user claims to be 'unaware' of Talk Pages, hehe). I did attempt to contact the user directly (could have been a little more personable I guess), as you can see on his Talk, at least. DP76764 ( Talk) 20:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. I added a diff to my comment in the RFC section. I probably need to add more diffs, but I am a little tired at the moment, and need to eat and sleep. :) -- Timeshifter ( talk) 22:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Elonka, just want to drop by to say thanks for your diligence in notifying WikiProjects about related AFDs. Most recently, you flagged the Chamberlain-Ferris Act, which we weren't aware existed, and yet which moves us significantly forward in our plans to cover a broader subject. Your note, like so many before it, is very much appreciated! - Pete ( talk) 00:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
heh. oops. Do you think I should restore it? I mean, I don't think there's going to be any reliable info about it. (I know that doesn't necessarily mean it qualifies for CSD, but it seems, well, dumb to restore it and then prod it.) Thingg ⊕ ⊗ 03:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we are one and the same. -- Heslopian ( talk) 11:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed you've a Wiki-article about you. I wonder how many Wiki editors can claim that (besides you & JW)? GoodDay ( talk) 01:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
"Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content[3] is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria.
The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[4] except for the following: Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5] Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores."
I protest the speedy deletion of the Music Glue article. According to the above description, the website is significant. It was reported on by the popular New Zealand current affairs television show Campbell Live just yesterday. You can see it here: http://www.3news.co.nz/Video/CampbellLive/tabid/367/articleID/80773/cat/84/Default.aspx
It has also been reported on by this website: http://www.dmwmedia.com/tags/music-glue
As you can see in the above article, the hugely popular band Marillion has partnered with Music Glue, and is using their service to distribute their newly released album, Happiness is the Road.
I believe this is sufficient evidence to show that this web content article is significant and does not deserve speedy deletion.
Regards, Anonymousaperson ( talk) 08:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Elonka! I would definitely appreciate your help! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Thanks again! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Elonka,
I see you have removed the section about the Scheduled Tribe status of Meenas in India. Please note that "Scheduled Tribe" is a constitutional term for socially undermined groups. The term is kosher in public discourse and is not derogotary. Meenas are the most widely known Scheduled Tribe of Rajasthan. Not to allow this fact to be documented in a clear manner in the wikipedia article makes it a totally inauthentic with no reflection of the real world. If you want this article to have any semblance of crediblity , you need to restore that section (with spelling corrections, of course). All the references from reliable sources were provided there.-- Satyashodak ( talk) 19:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't aware I was being dishonest, and I certainly have no intention of causing a problem. The fact is I had grown dissatisfied with the work produced under my old user name, 6afraidof7, so I decided to simply discard it and start all over again. I share my computer with somebody else who also contributes articles via my user page, so I think that's where the misunderstanding may have arisen. -- Heslopian ( talk) 00:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead and undelete it you think it's the right call. I have to say that I also took into account the incoherence of that blurb but that may be a bit unfair. Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 17:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi! ...
MBisanz and I are crosslinking, and included you at the top of ours. Maybe you want to include us too? I think he's working up a template. If more people do this it will be nifty to crosslink further... Cheers. ++ Lar: t/ c 22:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Elonka, I'm sorry that you never got a chance to take a second look at this edit
[13]. Please let me point out that your edit was based on declared consensus by an involved editor ignoring the
Evaluating the consensus procedures that require a relevant discussion to be evaluated and closed by an uninvolved editor. But since you were never provided with a link to the actual discussion, like the first time when consensus was similarly declared
[14] but rejected by an uninvolved administrator, it never was possible to evaluate and close it with either Promote, No consensus, or Failed. In any case, I'd appreciate if you'd give it a second chance. Please take a look at the actual discussions, please evaluate and close those appropriately and then whatever your decision is going to be, either please revert your edit or leave it the same, in any case I'm going to have to respect your findings either there was an actual consensus or not and leave it with that.
The discussion has been spread a bit but here are the major parts where a number of editors support and oppose the removal of links from infobox for various reasons [15] [16] and the discussion still somewhat continues at [17] and [18]. thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 02:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, is the Copyright article talk page somehow protected? I've tried three times to create a new section there headed "Tags" and it doesn't take. Shows up in my "contributions" list tho. Following is the text of the section I've been trying to create:
For a former featured article, this one has too many tags for neutrality, verification and references. Is somebody using these tags inappropriately? The tag for neutrality says there is a dispute, but there is no dispute noted on this talk page for that section. The article appears to have adequate, authoritative references which can easily be verified with hot links. Isn't it time the tags were removed, or whoever put them there made a real contribution to the article instead of merely being critical? Dr. Perfessor ( talk) 03:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
See here and less importantly, an update to here. -- Enzuru 02:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
If you don't mind terribly, could you move your comment down to "comments after reblock?" Just my attempt to control the visual chaos.-- Tznkai ( talk) 18:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Elonka - you're sort-of looking after Muhammed al-Durrah - could you either remind editors of the importance of using good sources, or act against those defending the use of hate-mongering and WP-distorting sources? It's very difficult to edit properly or discuss sensibly when being harassed by nonsense from people who've been repeatedly told to leave me alone, and other editors so abusive that even their personal smears are transparently false. PR talk 09:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Translated, printed documents, with citations from which secondary source they have been drawn, aren't "primary sources": please don't delete the very material articles are required to cite. Deleting isn't editing: perhaps you'd be willing to incorporate the substance of the quotation in the text. Deleted material is often lost in the page history, unless a sharp-sighted editor catches it in time. Thank you. --Wetman 04:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Having spent some time looking at primary and secondary sources (I have not yet found the prize-winning Lignages d'Outremer, but am optimistic), it seems that the youngest and shortest living Guy of Ibelin on the English wikipedia did not have any high title. His father Balian (who predeceased him by 6 years) and uncle Philippe (who outlived him by 10 years) were consecutive seneschals of Cyprus. The French wikipedia is unsourced. There were later Guy of Ibelins who lived longer than this one and held high office, so that might be how this rather tantalizing confusion has arisen. (It is worth noting that without this Guy of Ibelin (1286-1308), we would not have Princess Diana. since he is apparently her 39-greatgrandfather.) Mathsci ( talk) 18:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
This hurts my feelings. What makes you think I'm kidding?-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 05:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Elonka, when you get the chace, would you mind restoring a couple of images for me please? They were orphaned and deleted, but i'd like to use them again. Image:Betty.jpg & Image:Bettyturpin.jpg Many thanks GunGagdin Moan 12:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I have put forward some referenced figures as the casualties of war on the Iranian side, from academic and government sources in Iran–Iraq_War regarding the following facts:
However, Scythian77 is reverting my edits, using not so proper language and tone. I like to reach some consensus with him. However, his attitude, including removing my discussions with him, does not reflect his readiness to any compromise. He accused me of propaganda more than once.
Could you encourage him to have a civil discussion rather than using insulting and egoistical words.
By the way, I appreciate your message regarding my discussion on his talk page. He was going to remove them anyway. It is not the first time he has been involved in edit warefare. He is also in edit war with some folks on Avicenna. If you look at the talk page of Avicenna, his attitude is so obvious.
Regards, Persian Magi ( talk) 07:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm considering nominating this at WP:AFD. It seems not to be even close to being notable. Bearian ( talk)
Elonka, I hope you will take this in the spirit in which it is offered. Please stop jabbing at Jehochman. The two of you had a conflict in August, granted, but that's some time ago now. You and he have both been asked by uninvolved users to stop nursing grudges. Jehochman responded positively to this thoughtful comment by User:AGK back in August, and J assures me that he has not addressed or discussed you since then, other than in self-defence. [27] (And here is a recent example where he does defend himself.) I don't think you replied to AGK back in August—I understood you were extremely busy IRL at the time, so it's not that I blame you—but surely you considered AGK's thoughts? Anyway.. please try to take a strictly neutral look at what you posted on Scott MacDonald's talk the other day. Try to see it from outside; to imagine that it's somebody talking about your integrity. Curiously enough, the post was couched as a protest against what you thought rude and inappropriate language used against Jehochman. And yet..
Civility isn't primarily a matter of the words you use, but of what you use them for. Scott had used bad language such as calling Jehochman a "moralistic dick", and other salty phrases, yes. (I for my part have extreme doubts about Scott's self-control when it comes to pressing Save, but he often does self-revert that type of stuff, and in this case he removed the slur against Jehochman after 2 minutes [31].) Anyway, Scott's post was not nice, even after cleanup, but does it not strike you that your post—although, I'm sure, well-intentioned—actually came out worse? More uncivil, more of a personal attack on Jehochman. "Dick" is simply a non-proper, low-discourse word with a very vague meaning; it's not personal at all. Please look, on the other hand, at the way you use the dignified word "integrity". "I have extreme doubts about Jehochman's integrity". That is a terrible thing to say, in civil words, and in a purportedly neutral voice. Incivility isn't in the naughty words, it's in what you say. Please don't just tote up the bad words, Elonka; look at what they contain. You use words which are polite, taken separately, but they strike at a person's character—they attack an actual person. I think your pedagogical eagerness to emphasize the paradox you saw in Scott's post—"don't you see that there's a bit of a problem in using incivility and personal attacks, to complain about someone being uncivil?"—may have run away with you there. (Also, in the sense that Scott hadn't complained of Jehochman or anybody else being uncivil. That wasn't what Scott was on about.)
Jehochman has been avoiding conflict with you ever since August, unless I've missed something. Please drop this grudge, Elonka. It's not actually necessary to refer to J on the wiki at all (not once you've voted on his ArbCom candidacy, I mean). Is it? Bishonen | talk 23:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC).
Hi! Please note that I have filed a request for appeal here. Comments welcome! Best regards PHG ( talk) 16:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, it may be my fault the IP's block was for vandalism rather than edit warring, I filed an ARV via Twinkle, which only gives an option for vandalism (although I did explain in the comments that it was edit warring/breach of 3RR that was the reason). Maybe there is another easy mechanism I have missed for those kind of reports. Mfield ( talk) 18:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
Feel free to change the message, I'm still learning with blocking, so I might make the odd mistake! :)
The Helpful One 18:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Nice job. I am happy that you were able to improve upon my contributions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm slightly embarrassed by how much better you made the article than did I. I am however, very gratified that my sourcing and minor rewrite gave you more to work with than was present in the pre-AfD article. So this is for you...
![]() |
The Article Rescue Barnstar | |
I award you this Barnstar for being able to make a silk purse out of a Sow's ear. Win or lose at AfD, your improvements are terrific! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC) |
Hello, Elonka ... I am concerned about the lack of discussion between Taz Manchester ( talk · contribs) and Matt57 ( talk · contribs) regarding recent edits to American Muslim Council ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ... I happen to agree with Matt57 ... can we please discuss this at Talk:American Muslim Council? Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.31 ( talk · contribs) 20:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
After some more insults by another sockpuppet account on your talk page and the original account, I protected User talk:Ianxp. I felt that continued access to the talk page wasn't productive. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 21:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
You may want to take care of this! -- Enzuru 21:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello again, Elonka ... I could use the assistance of Some Other Editor with regards to this article:
created by:
This WP:SPA author removed the Articleissues template without comment, and they have ignored my attempts at dialog on both the article's and their own user talk pages ... I think that they need to be reminded of WP:V and WP:OWN.
Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.31 ( talk · contribs) 13:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It may interest you to know that an organisation with an "interesting history" in connection to Wikipedia is linking your voting recommendations from the rolling news near he top right of thir home page [32]. In view of the history with Wikipedia, (long-term blocks of activists, block evasion, personal attacks on and off Wikipedia etc.,) you might want to place something on the linked page disassociating youself from them. -- Peter cohen ( talk) 16:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The latest actions don't need to be commented. They speak for themselves: [34], [35], and of course [36] to which you've already responded. Those edits fit into the pattern I've experienced time and again when checking recent changes. Assuming good faith, and not biting newbies are without doubt good and necessary things. I think I never fail to do that. Yet repeatedly ignoring polite and clear messages often clearly indicate a user's intentions, and to ignore this would mean putting our guidelines first, and our policies second. My experience as well as my instinct, and the advantage of not having been involved with V. S. Naipaul before, helped me in dealing with the situation. Please take that into account when handling other possible or actual cases of violations of 3RR in the future. Let me cite this from Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions: However, non-administrators may find reversion unavoidable before administrators can respond. Best wishes, -- Catgut ( talk) 22:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
You issued a 30-day page ban to ScienceApologist on November 4th ( [38]), and I am wondering if it is still in effect. ScienceApologist has made two edits on December 1st to reinstate the version of the article which he was edit warring over prior to his 30-day ban. Further, he is dismissing the objections to his edits as not "substantive" and "ignorant"; hardly very civil. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
The page looks good -> but is that just going to be an addition to the New Admin school, rather than remove it completely? The NAS has some good information on actually using the tools. Just an idea - perhaps, for IPs you should add something about the recommended time to block IPs for (if it's not already in the NAS).
The Helpful One 20:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Does Science Apologist really have a topic ban for pseudoscience? He's also been editing (and edit warring) at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts...including a 4RR violation. hgilbert ( talk) 23:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
DJ Bunji has been told many times why his version is incorrect. many users have tried talking to him and telling him to stop with his edits but he just mocks everyone. he is the one that should be blocked 142.161.180.254 ( talk) 01:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, here [39] and here [40] you accuse Jehochman of having a "history of on-wiki harassment." You don't present any evidence to back this up. [41] and [42] are only a repeat of the same accusations from one other editor, again without evidence. If you don't have any evidence to back this up, then you need to withdraw the accusation and apologize publicly to Jehochman. Cla68 ( talk) 02:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Update: Sorry, I just realized most of my note below is redundant with your and Hgilbert's exchange above. I agree with your comments. Onward... -- Jim Butler ( t) 14:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Original comments:
Thank you for explaining the situation at AN/3; I replied briefly there.
BTW, I just noticed User_talk:ScienceApologist#ArbCom_enforcement_block. A lot of his behavior at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts has been very similar, as you can see from what I posted at AN3. That means his conduct is probably sanctionable under the same ArbCom enforcement ruling. We'll see where SA decides to go from here; I don't bear a grudge, but do hate to see him disrupting good work (i.e., vigorous but civil debate among editors with pretty widely divergent views). And that's why I think the bar for sanctioning him should be damned low, given his atrocious history. Other saviors of science with decent manners will yet emerge on WP, I feel certain. :-) regards, Jim Butler ( t) 06:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you flagged this edit as possible canvassing. Here are a couple more possibilities (and of course I'm AGF-ing; it's just that recruited meatpuppets usually don't know about WP policies):
regards, Jim Butler ( t) 22:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, ST47 posted a comment on my talk page saying he/she was invalidating my votes in the current ArbCom election because I didn't have enough edits by the cutoff date. However, when I checked my eligibility using the "check your account" link on the ArbCom Elections page before voting, and again moments ago, both times it said I am eligible. ST47 appears to have invalidated a number of other persons votes as well.
Can you figure out what is going on, and how many votes have been invalidated? If the account checker doesn't work, maybe it should be removed so people don't waste their time? On the other hand, if it does work, is there mischief here? Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 03:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Following your advice, now I have Neurolysis (?) telling me to stop voting. On my talk page. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 01:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 23:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
I'll see about putting together a User Page in the next couple of days/weeks. As soon as I get some free time - although given your schedule I should be ashamed to make that statement. 8-) Thanks again. ttonyb1 ( talk) 04:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Nice to be appreciated, I wasn't sure how to code this one, but I don't think it helps build an encyclopaedia. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 19:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your notice. I will be mindful of your words. -- Scjessey ( talk) 21:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I promise to ask questions and not do thinks out here that will violate your policies. I love Wikipedia and would not intenionally seek to do anyone any harm out here. Please give me a second chance. If in doubt about what I'm doing out here, I promise I will ask questions. Californiawine ( talk) 04:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I love Wikipedia and always tell everyone about it. Thank you for your kindness and forgiveness. I promise to abide by all your policies. Thanks again. Californiawine ( talk) 04:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Elonka,
I appreciate the apologetic note you left on my talk page the other day. I wonder if you might have a word with Hassandoodle ( talk · contribs)...I forsee that any comment from me regarding this uncivil comment may fall on deaf ears. Since you're already familiar with the edit war and 3RR report in question, perhaps you might be well-equipped to offer a bit of a clue to this editor. Thanks, — Scien tizzle 20:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
That range should not be unblocked; it is the source of a huge sockfarm, and pretty much only the puppetmaster uses that range. -- Avi ( talk) 20:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
MastCell suggested that you might be a good person to include in a podcast that Scartol and I are planning about controversial articles. We have started a series of podcasts on improving article content (our first one was on copyediting). If you are interested, please sign up here. Thanks! Awadewit ( talk) 21:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
In the RfC for Slrubenstein Elonka you provided this this diff. I wonder whether you actually bothered to read it as it was an attempted outing of me. Theresa Knott had to remove the attempted outing. The person with whom this user identified me on-wiki and on various mathematics forums in which I participated, was Alan Weinstein, Chairman of Mathematics at UC Berkeley, whom I know personally. User:Danko Georgiev MD gave full information about himself on wikipedia pages [1], subsequently removed after the incident. I have sent John Vandenberg a copy of the personal email from his acting Ph.D. supervisor sent on July 25th 2007. On the other hand I don't quite see the point of quoting a diff where I was outed on WP:AN/I as evidence of my bad behaviour: Georgiev was blocked for a day by an arbitrator jpgordon and then reblocked indefinitely. [2] Please explain why you posted this diff? You have previously not blocked User:Koalorka when he referred to me on his talk page as a "butt-hurt marxist foaming at the mouth". Are you now somehow implying that users are justified in attempting to reveal personal information about me on WP, and that somehow I deserved it? Mathsci ( talk) 04:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, thanks for the help. I inadvertently put the article on the system. I have notes that I am going to type up this weekend on to the Wiki. Sorry about the incident. -- Two way time ( talk) 18:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the offer. I generally archive my talk page manually and don't have any problem in archiving if regularly done. It became too long because I did not archive it for a long time, will archive it shortly. Thanks. -- Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 20:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I was looking at User:MBisanz/ACE2008 and noticed you were in the declined section which I thought was a shame. I suspect you would have had good deal of support from the "quieter" individuals in the admin corps and from the wider community. Ah well. Still nine days to reconsider! CIreland ( talk) 01:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
A few months ago I wrote an essay on this problem, in which you are something of a star. I didn't tell you about it then, because I wrote the article in userspace, more or less just for myself. But since then a few people have visited and made comments (mostly favorable), so I think it might also interest you. It is at User:Ravpapa/The_Politicization_of_Wikipedia.
You are welcome to read it, in fact, I would be delighted if you did. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 06:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I've made a detailed reply at User talk:Tmtoulouse. Thanks. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, you seem to be the expert on topics like this.
user:guyonthesubway put the wrong date on Paul Pantone's article, I corrected this, it was immediately reverted by user:Arthur Rubin, I asked for a 3rd opinion [3] and I put the correct date and 2 sources in the article, I do remember the date myself, the reviewing editor also reverted the date [4] and deleted my request. [5] But it's the wrong date, I asked for an explanation, [6] the response was that I should use the talk page to discuss my dispute, [7] But there cant be any dispute? The sources are correct. I then get sort-of accused of edit warring? Talk:Paul_Pantone#Edit_warring_and_possible_misunderstanding
The story is as simple as it is horrifying. Pantone was refused his right to have a lawyer, he was hospitalised indefinitely without any sentencing. This happened in 2005, the other editors want to change this into 2008. Looking over the archive everything added to the article seems to get deleted?
This is an American inventor of great importance. See this whole video, what he says isn't important, just looking will tell you enough about the oil monopoly. Hundreds of GEET engines exist, here are 100 of them in France. Trucks, cars, generators, mowers and tractors. etc All running on a mixture of water and old oil, petroleum, alcohol and just about everything else. (see the video)
People should be building this, not lying about it. There are so much lies in the edit archive it's kind of obvious. But lets focus on the date? Where does Jan 2008 come from? It was in 2005! I know it was, the news says it was, the Paul Pantone defence program website says it was. So why 2008? Where did this date come from? I don't see how I can debate the need to cite sources on the article talk page, do you?
I thought perhaps you can shine your light on this darkness :-) They are kinda obvious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Paul_Pantone&action=history
Thanks,
Resess ( talk) 18:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, in case you still want to say something about this. I've created a topic here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=252142130#Paul_Pantone
Thanks, Resess ( talk) 12:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my successful Rfa! Per your concern, I will be trying to devote some time to content creation from now on. Hope to work with you soon!-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 20:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Elonka,
My apologies, I only saw your warning on that talk page after explaining my edits which were challenged by Nishamdi on the Talk page, and then reverting Nishandi's revert of my edits. I'll take a voluntary break form this page for a while, as I don't appreciate the lack of collegiality being displayed there. NoCal100 ( talk) 02:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I really like this. You made me smile on a miserable Sunday morning. Thanks. Alun ( talk) 06:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
PalestineRemembered, please do not use such language as "racists" towards other editors. [8] If you continue with this kind of language, you may be placed under ArbCom restrictions. Instead, please limit your comments on article talkpages just to the content of the articles, and do not make comments about the contributors. Thanks, -- El on ka 22:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, you might like to know that Charles Matthews and I had discussed you in reference to Slrubenstein's RfC already on Monday. I've had a similar discussion with Paul August on a related matter some time back. It has been agreed that your interference can sometimes be counter-productive. This is just a friendly reminder, so that in future you can avoid jumping the gun and intervening in matters which don't directly concern you. Even though it is undoubtedly not your intent, this kind of intervening out of the blue can come across as bullying and threatening, and might occasionally cause offense. Many thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 00:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Shell Kinney has made a conclusion about the existence of a consensus here. When you have the time, I would like you to review these conclusions. My contention is that the "clear consensus" which she describes does not exist and that the community has not agreed to suspend the policy of WP:NOR in order to use non-chiropractic spinal manipulation research out of context in a manner which their authors did not intend them to be used (to discuss the efficacy/safety of chiropractic). Again, when you have the time, would you please review the sum of the various RfCs and see if you think such a clear consensus exists? Thank you. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Why was this one deleted? Seems a better target has been found, Land of Fire. Could you restore the redirect? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 17:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
no archives yet ( create) |
I like it. So much that I posted a preliminary description on the Fauna talk page for comments and requested elaboration. Feel free to add anything you like to it. There is actually an example on my talk page under Recent Coal Mining Edits, but that's not the only time its happened in my short stint on Wiki.
Also, thanks for your earlier message referring to the interesting essay on a different subject. We all need a little humor here sometimes. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 22:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for trying to keep things calm and focused. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Elonka, for your block here: [12]. I usually wait until a final warning has been given, but I reported this user because of the (creepy) nature of their edits. Cheers, JNW ( talk) 02:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning; I was consciously trying to avoid 3RR and would not have done a 4th revert. I will mention things like that on the Talk Page in the future (though this user claims to be 'unaware' of Talk Pages, hehe). I did attempt to contact the user directly (could have been a little more personable I guess), as you can see on his Talk, at least. DP76764 ( Talk) 20:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. I added a diff to my comment in the RFC section. I probably need to add more diffs, but I am a little tired at the moment, and need to eat and sleep. :) -- Timeshifter ( talk) 22:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Elonka, just want to drop by to say thanks for your diligence in notifying WikiProjects about related AFDs. Most recently, you flagged the Chamberlain-Ferris Act, which we weren't aware existed, and yet which moves us significantly forward in our plans to cover a broader subject. Your note, like so many before it, is very much appreciated! - Pete ( talk) 00:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
heh. oops. Do you think I should restore it? I mean, I don't think there's going to be any reliable info about it. (I know that doesn't necessarily mean it qualifies for CSD, but it seems, well, dumb to restore it and then prod it.) Thingg ⊕ ⊗ 03:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we are one and the same. -- Heslopian ( talk) 11:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed you've a Wiki-article about you. I wonder how many Wiki editors can claim that (besides you & JW)? GoodDay ( talk) 01:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
"Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content[3] is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria.
The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[4] except for the following: Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5] Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores."
I protest the speedy deletion of the Music Glue article. According to the above description, the website is significant. It was reported on by the popular New Zealand current affairs television show Campbell Live just yesterday. You can see it here: http://www.3news.co.nz/Video/CampbellLive/tabid/367/articleID/80773/cat/84/Default.aspx
It has also been reported on by this website: http://www.dmwmedia.com/tags/music-glue
As you can see in the above article, the hugely popular band Marillion has partnered with Music Glue, and is using their service to distribute their newly released album, Happiness is the Road.
I believe this is sufficient evidence to show that this web content article is significant and does not deserve speedy deletion.
Regards, Anonymousaperson ( talk) 08:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Elonka! I would definitely appreciate your help! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Thanks again! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Elonka,
I see you have removed the section about the Scheduled Tribe status of Meenas in India. Please note that "Scheduled Tribe" is a constitutional term for socially undermined groups. The term is kosher in public discourse and is not derogotary. Meenas are the most widely known Scheduled Tribe of Rajasthan. Not to allow this fact to be documented in a clear manner in the wikipedia article makes it a totally inauthentic with no reflection of the real world. If you want this article to have any semblance of crediblity , you need to restore that section (with spelling corrections, of course). All the references from reliable sources were provided there.-- Satyashodak ( talk) 19:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't aware I was being dishonest, and I certainly have no intention of causing a problem. The fact is I had grown dissatisfied with the work produced under my old user name, 6afraidof7, so I decided to simply discard it and start all over again. I share my computer with somebody else who also contributes articles via my user page, so I think that's where the misunderstanding may have arisen. -- Heslopian ( talk) 00:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead and undelete it you think it's the right call. I have to say that I also took into account the incoherence of that blurb but that may be a bit unfair. Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 17:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi! ...
MBisanz and I are crosslinking, and included you at the top of ours. Maybe you want to include us too? I think he's working up a template. If more people do this it will be nifty to crosslink further... Cheers. ++ Lar: t/ c 22:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Elonka, I'm sorry that you never got a chance to take a second look at this edit
[13]. Please let me point out that your edit was based on declared consensus by an involved editor ignoring the
Evaluating the consensus procedures that require a relevant discussion to be evaluated and closed by an uninvolved editor. But since you were never provided with a link to the actual discussion, like the first time when consensus was similarly declared
[14] but rejected by an uninvolved administrator, it never was possible to evaluate and close it with either Promote, No consensus, or Failed. In any case, I'd appreciate if you'd give it a second chance. Please take a look at the actual discussions, please evaluate and close those appropriately and then whatever your decision is going to be, either please revert your edit or leave it the same, in any case I'm going to have to respect your findings either there was an actual consensus or not and leave it with that.
The discussion has been spread a bit but here are the major parts where a number of editors support and oppose the removal of links from infobox for various reasons [15] [16] and the discussion still somewhat continues at [17] and [18]. thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 02:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, is the Copyright article talk page somehow protected? I've tried three times to create a new section there headed "Tags" and it doesn't take. Shows up in my "contributions" list tho. Following is the text of the section I've been trying to create:
For a former featured article, this one has too many tags for neutrality, verification and references. Is somebody using these tags inappropriately? The tag for neutrality says there is a dispute, but there is no dispute noted on this talk page for that section. The article appears to have adequate, authoritative references which can easily be verified with hot links. Isn't it time the tags were removed, or whoever put them there made a real contribution to the article instead of merely being critical? Dr. Perfessor ( talk) 03:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
See here and less importantly, an update to here. -- Enzuru 02:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
If you don't mind terribly, could you move your comment down to "comments after reblock?" Just my attempt to control the visual chaos.-- Tznkai ( talk) 18:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Elonka - you're sort-of looking after Muhammed al-Durrah - could you either remind editors of the importance of using good sources, or act against those defending the use of hate-mongering and WP-distorting sources? It's very difficult to edit properly or discuss sensibly when being harassed by nonsense from people who've been repeatedly told to leave me alone, and other editors so abusive that even their personal smears are transparently false. PR talk 09:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Translated, printed documents, with citations from which secondary source they have been drawn, aren't "primary sources": please don't delete the very material articles are required to cite. Deleting isn't editing: perhaps you'd be willing to incorporate the substance of the quotation in the text. Deleted material is often lost in the page history, unless a sharp-sighted editor catches it in time. Thank you. --Wetman 04:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Having spent some time looking at primary and secondary sources (I have not yet found the prize-winning Lignages d'Outremer, but am optimistic), it seems that the youngest and shortest living Guy of Ibelin on the English wikipedia did not have any high title. His father Balian (who predeceased him by 6 years) and uncle Philippe (who outlived him by 10 years) were consecutive seneschals of Cyprus. The French wikipedia is unsourced. There were later Guy of Ibelins who lived longer than this one and held high office, so that might be how this rather tantalizing confusion has arisen. (It is worth noting that without this Guy of Ibelin (1286-1308), we would not have Princess Diana. since he is apparently her 39-greatgrandfather.) Mathsci ( talk) 18:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
This hurts my feelings. What makes you think I'm kidding?-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 05:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Elonka, when you get the chace, would you mind restoring a couple of images for me please? They were orphaned and deleted, but i'd like to use them again. Image:Betty.jpg & Image:Bettyturpin.jpg Many thanks GunGagdin Moan 12:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I have put forward some referenced figures as the casualties of war on the Iranian side, from academic and government sources in Iran–Iraq_War regarding the following facts:
However, Scythian77 is reverting my edits, using not so proper language and tone. I like to reach some consensus with him. However, his attitude, including removing my discussions with him, does not reflect his readiness to any compromise. He accused me of propaganda more than once.
Could you encourage him to have a civil discussion rather than using insulting and egoistical words.
By the way, I appreciate your message regarding my discussion on his talk page. He was going to remove them anyway. It is not the first time he has been involved in edit warefare. He is also in edit war with some folks on Avicenna. If you look at the talk page of Avicenna, his attitude is so obvious.
Regards, Persian Magi ( talk) 07:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm considering nominating this at WP:AFD. It seems not to be even close to being notable. Bearian ( talk)
Elonka, I hope you will take this in the spirit in which it is offered. Please stop jabbing at Jehochman. The two of you had a conflict in August, granted, but that's some time ago now. You and he have both been asked by uninvolved users to stop nursing grudges. Jehochman responded positively to this thoughtful comment by User:AGK back in August, and J assures me that he has not addressed or discussed you since then, other than in self-defence. [27] (And here is a recent example where he does defend himself.) I don't think you replied to AGK back in August—I understood you were extremely busy IRL at the time, so it's not that I blame you—but surely you considered AGK's thoughts? Anyway.. please try to take a strictly neutral look at what you posted on Scott MacDonald's talk the other day. Try to see it from outside; to imagine that it's somebody talking about your integrity. Curiously enough, the post was couched as a protest against what you thought rude and inappropriate language used against Jehochman. And yet..
Civility isn't primarily a matter of the words you use, but of what you use them for. Scott had used bad language such as calling Jehochman a "moralistic dick", and other salty phrases, yes. (I for my part have extreme doubts about Scott's self-control when it comes to pressing Save, but he often does self-revert that type of stuff, and in this case he removed the slur against Jehochman after 2 minutes [31].) Anyway, Scott's post was not nice, even after cleanup, but does it not strike you that your post—although, I'm sure, well-intentioned—actually came out worse? More uncivil, more of a personal attack on Jehochman. "Dick" is simply a non-proper, low-discourse word with a very vague meaning; it's not personal at all. Please look, on the other hand, at the way you use the dignified word "integrity". "I have extreme doubts about Jehochman's integrity". That is a terrible thing to say, in civil words, and in a purportedly neutral voice. Incivility isn't in the naughty words, it's in what you say. Please don't just tote up the bad words, Elonka; look at what they contain. You use words which are polite, taken separately, but they strike at a person's character—they attack an actual person. I think your pedagogical eagerness to emphasize the paradox you saw in Scott's post—"don't you see that there's a bit of a problem in using incivility and personal attacks, to complain about someone being uncivil?"—may have run away with you there. (Also, in the sense that Scott hadn't complained of Jehochman or anybody else being uncivil. That wasn't what Scott was on about.)
Jehochman has been avoiding conflict with you ever since August, unless I've missed something. Please drop this grudge, Elonka. It's not actually necessary to refer to J on the wiki at all (not once you've voted on his ArbCom candidacy, I mean). Is it? Bishonen | talk 23:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC).
Hi! Please note that I have filed a request for appeal here. Comments welcome! Best regards PHG ( talk) 16:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, it may be my fault the IP's block was for vandalism rather than edit warring, I filed an ARV via Twinkle, which only gives an option for vandalism (although I did explain in the comments that it was edit warring/breach of 3RR that was the reason). Maybe there is another easy mechanism I have missed for those kind of reports. Mfield ( talk) 18:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
Feel free to change the message, I'm still learning with blocking, so I might make the odd mistake! :)
The Helpful One 18:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Nice job. I am happy that you were able to improve upon my contributions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm slightly embarrassed by how much better you made the article than did I. I am however, very gratified that my sourcing and minor rewrite gave you more to work with than was present in the pre-AfD article. So this is for you...
![]() |
The Article Rescue Barnstar | |
I award you this Barnstar for being able to make a silk purse out of a Sow's ear. Win or lose at AfD, your improvements are terrific! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC) |
Hello, Elonka ... I am concerned about the lack of discussion between Taz Manchester ( talk · contribs) and Matt57 ( talk · contribs) regarding recent edits to American Muslim Council ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ... I happen to agree with Matt57 ... can we please discuss this at Talk:American Muslim Council? Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.31 ( talk · contribs) 20:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
After some more insults by another sockpuppet account on your talk page and the original account, I protected User talk:Ianxp. I felt that continued access to the talk page wasn't productive. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 21:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
You may want to take care of this! -- Enzuru 21:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello again, Elonka ... I could use the assistance of Some Other Editor with regards to this article:
created by:
This WP:SPA author removed the Articleissues template without comment, and they have ignored my attempts at dialog on both the article's and their own user talk pages ... I think that they need to be reminded of WP:V and WP:OWN.
Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.31 ( talk · contribs) 13:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It may interest you to know that an organisation with an "interesting history" in connection to Wikipedia is linking your voting recommendations from the rolling news near he top right of thir home page [32]. In view of the history with Wikipedia, (long-term blocks of activists, block evasion, personal attacks on and off Wikipedia etc.,) you might want to place something on the linked page disassociating youself from them. -- Peter cohen ( talk) 16:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The latest actions don't need to be commented. They speak for themselves: [34], [35], and of course [36] to which you've already responded. Those edits fit into the pattern I've experienced time and again when checking recent changes. Assuming good faith, and not biting newbies are without doubt good and necessary things. I think I never fail to do that. Yet repeatedly ignoring polite and clear messages often clearly indicate a user's intentions, and to ignore this would mean putting our guidelines first, and our policies second. My experience as well as my instinct, and the advantage of not having been involved with V. S. Naipaul before, helped me in dealing with the situation. Please take that into account when handling other possible or actual cases of violations of 3RR in the future. Let me cite this from Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions: However, non-administrators may find reversion unavoidable before administrators can respond. Best wishes, -- Catgut ( talk) 22:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
You issued a 30-day page ban to ScienceApologist on November 4th ( [38]), and I am wondering if it is still in effect. ScienceApologist has made two edits on December 1st to reinstate the version of the article which he was edit warring over prior to his 30-day ban. Further, he is dismissing the objections to his edits as not "substantive" and "ignorant"; hardly very civil. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
The page looks good -> but is that just going to be an addition to the New Admin school, rather than remove it completely? The NAS has some good information on actually using the tools. Just an idea - perhaps, for IPs you should add something about the recommended time to block IPs for (if it's not already in the NAS).
The Helpful One 20:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Does Science Apologist really have a topic ban for pseudoscience? He's also been editing (and edit warring) at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts...including a 4RR violation. hgilbert ( talk) 23:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
DJ Bunji has been told many times why his version is incorrect. many users have tried talking to him and telling him to stop with his edits but he just mocks everyone. he is the one that should be blocked 142.161.180.254 ( talk) 01:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, here [39] and here [40] you accuse Jehochman of having a "history of on-wiki harassment." You don't present any evidence to back this up. [41] and [42] are only a repeat of the same accusations from one other editor, again without evidence. If you don't have any evidence to back this up, then you need to withdraw the accusation and apologize publicly to Jehochman. Cla68 ( talk) 02:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Update: Sorry, I just realized most of my note below is redundant with your and Hgilbert's exchange above. I agree with your comments. Onward... -- Jim Butler ( t) 14:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Original comments:
Thank you for explaining the situation at AN/3; I replied briefly there.
BTW, I just noticed User_talk:ScienceApologist#ArbCom_enforcement_block. A lot of his behavior at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts has been very similar, as you can see from what I posted at AN3. That means his conduct is probably sanctionable under the same ArbCom enforcement ruling. We'll see where SA decides to go from here; I don't bear a grudge, but do hate to see him disrupting good work (i.e., vigorous but civil debate among editors with pretty widely divergent views). And that's why I think the bar for sanctioning him should be damned low, given his atrocious history. Other saviors of science with decent manners will yet emerge on WP, I feel certain. :-) regards, Jim Butler ( t) 06:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you flagged this edit as possible canvassing. Here are a couple more possibilities (and of course I'm AGF-ing; it's just that recruited meatpuppets usually don't know about WP policies):
regards, Jim Butler ( t) 22:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, ST47 posted a comment on my talk page saying he/she was invalidating my votes in the current ArbCom election because I didn't have enough edits by the cutoff date. However, when I checked my eligibility using the "check your account" link on the ArbCom Elections page before voting, and again moments ago, both times it said I am eligible. ST47 appears to have invalidated a number of other persons votes as well.
Can you figure out what is going on, and how many votes have been invalidated? If the account checker doesn't work, maybe it should be removed so people don't waste their time? On the other hand, if it does work, is there mischief here? Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 03:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Following your advice, now I have Neurolysis (?) telling me to stop voting. On my talk page. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 01:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 23:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)