![]() | 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 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
I actually meant the same thing as you, by 'remove' I meant 'remove from the tally'. — neuro (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
One tiny little thing that I should said in the first place here...can the date be in the international style (7 December 1941) to follow the article's date style? Thanks and apologies... — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
hi Elonka. I have raised an issue here. I suspect that you will not agree with me, but I hope you will agree at least that it is a topic worth discussing. I am hoping to encourage wide discussion and even if you and I disagree i hope you will register your own view or even analysis. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Elonka due to an unfortunate set of currcumstances, I will not be able to deliver the bot I promised before 21 Dec. Also, I am moving my talk to here. Thank you. IanLAMP ( talk) 15:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
You wrote on AN, "Some of the people who are doing this aggressive canvassing are people who should know better: Admins, and one is even a Checkuser." Did you report them all by name to the Arbitration Committee? rootology ( C)( T) 20:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elonka/ACE2008 You wrote "For a general real world analogy, ArbCom is sort of like the Supreme Court of Wikipedia."
I asked Risker a question on his talk page not knowing what you had said above. Part of his reply was "My first reaction is that it's a considerable exaggeration of the importance of the Arbitration Committee to compare it to the Supreme Court"
Of course, I now see that you don't support him for ArbCom! Chergles ( talk) 23:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the note that I had reverted more than 3 times in the last 24 hours. After looking at the history, I agree that I have done so. However, I do not believe that it represents an edit war, with the changes that I have reverted being those that represented vandalism either intentionally or unintentionally (One of those for example deleted more than three quarters of the article.)
The Majority of the edits to this file are by non-registered users and there has been a significant amount of mutual reversion by non-registered users between those that have a version with Alpha Kappa Rho and without Tau Gamma Phi and those without Alpha Kappa Rho and with Tau Gamma Phi (two fraternities with significant dislike of each other in the Philippines).
Having recently had an AfD end with a no resolution result, I would be happy to take any suggestions that would limit the amount of vandalism and AKP vs TGF edit wars. At one point it had semi-protection, I'd like to see that returned. I'll be happy to post to the talk page a message seeking discussion, but what has been posted there has not gotten much response. Naraht ( talk) 20:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, I spent quite a bit of time today working on the List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines page today, could you let me know your opinion? I think I've figured out my major issue with the page. I'm concerned that there really isn't anyone else who cares enough about the page to maintain it and without some level of maintenance that it will be quite reasonable for it to be deleted. I know that no one owns any pages, but it doesn't mean that I don't care more about some that are on my watchlist than others... Naraht ( talk) 20:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Elonka. I was about to post a warning message to User:Scythian77 for pushing unsourced information and posting irrelevant accusative edit summaries [6] and messages [7]. Then, i realized that you sent a warning before. Maybe it's better for you to warn this user again about the basic wikipedia policies. Regards. E104421 ( talk) 21:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Usually when I don't have an edit summary its because its blatant vandalism, POV or unsourced additions. I will try and use the edit summary from now on and and contribute to the talk pages. Hubschrauber729 ( talk) 21:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Elonka. I'm responding to this message, re "Jeff Halevy": Notability
Hello. Sorry, I missed your comments on my talk page. In answer to your question, I would be willing to contribute as a complete non-expert (Adam Bishop is the expert). I have looked a little at PHG's recent edits. It seems that he has made a lot of useful contributions in military history (various gunsmiths), but letting a non-event such as the Franco-Mongol alliance (I came across the Schein article in my Ibelin searches) spawn the spate of single purpose spin-off articles that it did was, as you, Shell, Adam and others have pointed out, major disruption. And, as you and Adam have said, his recent edits to the talk page of Guy of Ibelin (died 1304) show that he has not understood this part of WP:UNDUE. Although PHG may not realise this, the same problems have arisen with other articles: poor sourcing; spin-off articles about a major person written around a minor theme; and articles relying on primary sources. Might WP:WPMH not possibly be able to coach him? They seem extremely well organised and his interests seem to lie within that project. Although I'll be on a wikibreak for the Lent term (as happened this year), this will in fact make it easier to help out (because of the Cambridge UL). I believe the topic ban on crusader-related articles is still justified, but I believe somehow he could be guided elsewhere by the excellent team on WP:WPMH. Best wishes, Mathsci ( talk) 10:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
First, please feel free to tell me if you don’t want to deal with this anymore: I would totally understand. I’ve noticed that over the last few weeks, Nickhh has been accused of three editors of wikistalking. Though I saw it as it unfolded 1) I had no desire to intervene, as I believe Nick and I are both best served by avoiding each other where possible and 2) I did not – and have not – examined any of the claims of the three editors who accused him of stalking. I am pretty certain I was right to make the charge when I did, but cannot speak for the others. Though Nick has been hinting darkly that some sort of coordinated effort may be afoot among the four of us, I can assure you it is not.
That said, Nick thought to include me in a taunting recent edit summary [8] (he included you, too, just so you don’t feel left out). He also swept away the allegations and comments (including yours, which is his right) with the edit summary “Rm f#ckwittery and general random smears from my talk page. This is a talk page for occasional, constructive communication, not a noticeboard for people to vomit nonsense onto” (which is not). I don’t know what the best thing to do is, but I hope something can be done.
Oh, and I’d like him to know I’m posting this, but don’t want to post to his talk page, as I believe he doesn’t want me to. So… if you could at least let him know that, I’d appreciate it. Thanks. IronDuke 00:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to get too drawn into this, but almost all of his edits are looking unhelpful, and pointy, though in a minor, annoying way, rather than in a vastly disruptive way. But look at these two reversions i did on edits of his from today. [ [12]] and [ [13]] . Either his English is so bad that he can't understand requests to desist from this sort of thing (his claim that the coptic presence in kuwait, which is not controversial, was not well sourced verges on a lie. Couldn't be clearer in the linked text); or it's good enough to understand the need to desist, but he doesn't care. Either way, it's not looking like productive editing is going to come out of this). Bali ultimate ( talk) 00:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, please check the "unintentionally" part of my comment. My point was that this is unfortunately the result, and not the intention of Mervyn's comments. I thought this was clear enough, and that is why I feel surprised by your comment in my talk page. Cheers!-- Yannismarou ( talk) 19:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement. :-) I still can't believe I actually trusted a sockpuppet, though. Even so, I guess I've found a firm coaching process with my previous experiences with Spudicus. BTW, I've read that per this, your a video game developer. What current video games are you working on now? -- Dylan 620 Contribs Sign! 23:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
True to form, Frjohnwhiteford seeks to impose on every one else his opinionated views. BBC is reputed to be the most balanced news media. You should stop your destructive censorial practices. Muscovite99 ( talk) 01:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi.. some times I follow this rule Wikipedia:Be bold -- Bayrak ( talk) 06:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you block someone from editing on talk pages too (if you are an admin)? the reason is [ | this -- Ir me l a 21:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The bottom section. -- Ir me l a 21:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know anything about him, unfortunately, aside from the basic trivia. As far as I know, he was Persian. I try not to get involved in disputes between Arabs and Persians, it's depressingly futile. Adam Bishop ( talk) 03:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully, I disagree with the "Persian origin" wording, he was a Persian by nationality too (He was born under the native Iranic dynasty of Afrighids: http://www.iranica.com/newsite/index.isc?Article=http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/unicode/v1f7/v1f7a080.html ) Also, I don't think 2 editors' agreement with one and another constitutes a consensus that overides long-standing broad consensus on an issue . -- Sina111 ( talk) 06:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
What is the difference "Persian" or "Persian stock"? Persian stock means Persian!-- Sina111 ( talk) 07:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
It is quite surprising that an administrator believes there is some sort of policy-violating original research/synthesis behind describing someone as "Persian" who has been ascribed Persian stock, Persian heritage, of a Persian family, etc. by reliable sources. I do not understand how this is not a matter simply of knowing the English language. The conclusion that he was an ethnic Persian could be reached using only one of the sources. What are we synthesizing? What are these multiple sources and claims? What is novel about the conclusion? Nobody understands the distinction you draw.
Say a source said, "Al-Khwarizmi was a scholar at the House of Wisdom. He was a Persian." We might be tempted to conclude that "Al-Khwarizmi was a Persian," but is there not something slightly original here? Isn't the editor assuming that the author intends the "he" in the second sentence to refer to Al-Khwarizmi? Without a reliable source specifying that this is in fact what the author meant, it can be said that the Wikipedia editor has taken a step - however small - into the realm of original research by applying his own beliefs about how to understand the English language to the author's work to arrive at a conclusion. After all, the source was "careful" to avoid the direct statement "Al-Khwarizmi was a Persian," so we should be too.
But what if we found a reliable source saying that the "he" refers to al-Khwarizmi? Would we then be safe to say "Al-Khwarizmi was Persian?" Nope! How can we synthesize the claim of the latter source with the statement of the former? Aren't we arriving at a conclusion that is not directly stated in either source? Oh no!
I really really hope that this would seem absurd and absolutely counterproductive to you, but it is little different from your use. Somehow your use of WP:SYNTH suggests that any departure from the original wording of the sources could be considered a violation of original research since the editor uses his own "original" understanding of the English language to arrive at basic conclusions and construct unique (yet allegedly synonymous) statements for use in the article. Must the encyclopedia become a string of quotes and/or plagiarism? Given the stance you have taken so far, where do you draw the line? 67.194.202.113 ( talk) 12:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeargh. I read the first three sentences, which seemed reasonable, and restored. I should have noticed it continued in a significantly different direction. Thanks for the heads-up. Mark Heiden ( talk) 17:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you are jumping the gun abit, and there are a few other people at fault here. It was a case of mistaken identity and the IP was rightfully unblocked. I was not edit warring. I was (or thought I was) reverting vandalism, leaving a talk page warning each time, and made an AIV report after the final warning which was handled with accordingly. I was following correct procedures and your talk page template was highly offensive and an assumption of bad faith.
Also, please revert your talk page message, you are abusing your administrator tools by editing it in the manner you did. Follow the instructions on the talk page next time. Thanks. -- Charitwo ( talk) 18:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) Charitwo, you were repeatedly reverting at Oak-Land Jr. High School, putting obvious nonsense back into the page. [20] [21] [22] [23] A 3RR warning was appropriate, as if you would have reverted again after the warning, your account access would have been blocked. I am also concerned that you made an AIV report [24] on an anon, 205.178.226.113 ( talk · contribs) even though the anon was trying to remove vandalism. As for assuming good faith, when I saw the redirect at the top of your talkpage to uncyclopedia, [25] that put a reasonable doubt in my mind as to whether you were operating in good faith or not. Looking deeper into your contribs right now though, Charitwo ( talk · contribs), I do see that you do a lot of vandal-fighting, so thank you for that. It looks like in this one case, you were simply a bit quick on the draw. In the future, please also keep in mind that anyone, even an anon, is allowed to remove unsourced information, per WP:V. When someone removes a (small) amount of information, it is generally not a good idea to add it back, unless including a source which verifies that information. Anyway, how about we write this one off as a misunderstanding, and simply move on? If you would like to remove the warning from your talkpage, please feel free to do so. -- El on ka 18:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
You are right. Sorry. -- Raayen ( talk) 00:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Please see Eligibility: Mervyn Emrys at WT:ACE2008. Thanks again. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 04:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to draw calligraphy for the names of the Ismaili Imams, for their infoboxes on Wikipedia, since I don't know of any calligraphy or pictures we could use for them (or that traditionally exist, since knowledge of these Imams for much of the Ismaili community is recent). Is that allowable? I've already done (computer generated) versions for Ismail ibn Jafar and Muhammad ibn Ismail. -- Enzuru 03:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Please see the personal attack by anon on my talk page. Should I simply delete and ignore, or will you take action? Thank you. -- Zlerman ( talk) 15:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Nice idea; but at the moment I'm working through a backlog of annotations...As my computer and browser handle it very well I'm happy with it as it is until I've caught up...when I've gone through all my notes I'll get back to you, if I may... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 18:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Can we just have a civilized discussion about my block here without using the RFI policy and blocking me? IanBeOS ( talk) 21:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Why did you delete this topic, i had read only a bit of the article when i had to get off the computer. when i get back on you deleted it. with no obvious reason for doing so. stop vandalizing your privileges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeineia ( talk • contribs) 01:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for saving the article! I caught it at a really bad time when it said "web site producer." It's looking much better now. Cheers. -- digitalmischief ( talk) 04:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll keep that in mind, I am feeling a bit frustrated here though. I don't feel like Bayrak is listening at all, I explained to him in details on the talk page about how his map is from a different period, and maps can not be used as a source anyways. Without bothering to read or respond to my detailed comment, he blindly reverts me, removing the secondary source I had provided, replacing it with his map again. -- Sina111 ( talk) 05:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Your block of an IP that User:Ashley kennedy3 used to edit war on the Banias article is creating problems in editing Wikipedia for me. Despite being logged in I get a message that I'm disabled from editing. I've had to sign in on the secure server in order to post this but am loathe to continue to use the secure server as I have to confirm each new page I view. Please unblock the IP immediately as I have never edited that article, and am being affected by a block for something that has nothing to do with me. Mjroots ( talk) 08:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Hope I am not disturbing you. But this is my idea of a game. You should do a online gaming website where people can buy all sorts of cars and drive in London. They drive in traffic and stuff. To make money they have races with other cars. This is like Runescape but it specializes in driving skills. I hope you like it. Xxxsacheinxxx ( talk) 13:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
P.S. this is not a vandal, just giving my thoughts.
thanks for message i am trying to know more and more about wikipedia sorry if i done mistakes here or there -- Bayrak ( talk) 22:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, I'd like to edit my voting statements to greatly shorten them. Can I just delete my own material, or do I have to use strikeover? I'd rather delete than leave stuff there.
Mervyn Emrys (
talk)
17:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought you might be interested in the discussions going on. [26] & [27] Since you are being discussed somewhat I thought you should be informed so you can comment if you feel obliged to do so. On Giano II you'll have to look at history since he blanked his page and left a note the he was gone. I hope this helps, -- CrohnieGal Talk 18:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
If it helps, I didn't want to yell at you, just alert you to the problem. =) Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 18:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, Yannis is back, and this time he brought friends. See Law:Talk under "Further Reading." In effect, a substantial amount of content I provided was swiped and turned into at least six edits by Wikidea. Have a nice day... Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 15:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, thanks for the note on distribution of the references. Curiously, the only two I couldn't find, even in the article on US Law, were American Lawyers (1989) and Law and Lawyers in the United States (1996), both on the role of lawyers in an adversarial legal system. S'pose my question about anti-American sentiment was accurate? Don't expect you to answer that. I've cleaned them up and redistributed them to more appropriate homes as best I could. C'ést la vie. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 00:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, is it too much to move a Barn Star from my talk page to my user page? It was a pleasant surprise, but don't want to overdo it there. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 02:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it absolutely necessary that my username and/or signature be in the Roman script? —Preceding unsigned comment added by קײק פּלז ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Elonka,
Would you kindly take a look at the following article and help to resolve the dispute in the Early history section? I have placed a NPOV tag there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Hinduism
The other editor is trying to suppress a published reference contrary to his/her opinion and I am afraid an Edit War is going to break out unless a moderator intervenes.
The dispute is regarding the dating of Bhavad Gita into pre-Buddhist or post-Buddhist era.
I would appreciate your help in resolving this. Regards.
PS- If you are busy , kindly refer this dispute to another moderator.
-- Satyashodak ( talk) 23:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Be careful about autoblocking users with the same IP: Evidently me and (checking the information that was given by Autoblock) Ashley kennedy3 both use BT (Probably the largest internet provider in Britain, and which dynamically allocates). It's a little annoying to get hit with an autoblock, particularly when the Autoblock information says it was just a 3RR, which probably didn't need the extra - what is it, anti-sockpuppet? - defenses. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 09:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I want to know why I've been autoblocked as I am only a new user of Wikipedia and It all looks very sinister when someone else is using my IP address. This has wasted a lot of my time and caused me a lot of worry. Zawia Zawia ( talk) 13:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have to ask everyone who's attacking Elonka right now, how did she know that her autoblock would affect this many people? You are all making it appear like she checkusered the IP on Ashley kennedy3, saw the IP address then said, "eh, screw it, I'll block 'em all!" In reality, Elokna did what almost any other admin would do in this situation. We almost always autoblock with 3RR violations, especially when the user has been blocked in the past for sockpuppetry. Elonka had no clue that this block would affect as many people as it did, so I really suggest people back off with the cries of abuse. either way ( talk) 13:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Whee! I do one routine 3RR block, and all of UK comes to my door. :) Okay, let's have some Autoblock school. To be clear, I did not block all of you, I blocked one user, Ashley kennedy3 ( talk · contribs), who had violated 3RR on the Banias article. Ashley has a long block log, and had previously been blocked for abusing multiple accounts, [31] so it is routine to have the block extend to the IP, not just to the user. I cannot see the IP, since I do not have Checkuser access -- I just check a little box that says, "Autoblock any IP addresses used". This means that not only is Ashley blocked, but if Ashley then attempts to login via different IPs while blocked, those IPs are blocked as well, and the autoblock continues to other accounts using those IPs, as it appears to have hit all of you. To anyone trying to use these other IPs, they get a message saying that the original admin (me) blocked them, but it doesn't mean that I did a deliberate block of these other accounts, it just means that I was the admin that placed the original block on one user. For more information, and to see why the autoblock seemed to re-appear even after it was "fixed", please see: Wikipedia:Autoblock. I am sorry that all of you were temporarily blocked, but I hope this helps explain what happened? If anyone is still having problems, please definitely let us know. -- El on ka 16:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
A person who is caught by the autoblock gets very angry and comments on their talkpage... In the meanwhile the autoblock lifts but, in the opinion of an admin, the comments deserve a block but when enacting the sanction the sysop also causes the autoblock to reset... which effects those accounts previously caught. In this instance this did happen, but the second autoblock was quickly noted and reversed.
FWIW, the fact that all of an ISP's connections to Wikipedia is via one ip is further outfall from the
Virgin Killer/
Internet Watch Foundation situation of a few days ago - seems some isp's are slower to reduce restrictions than they are to enforce them...
LessHeard vanU (
talk)
17:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
BT has always been a blocking/checkusering nightmare. I'm amazed this sort of thing doesn't happen more frequently. Mackensen (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about it Elonka. Don't let any angry frustrated reactions, get ya down.
GoodDay (
talk)
16:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
PS: On thinking about situations such as these, maybe a userblock and semi prot of page maybe an option (?) I use semiprots alot these days. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:01, 14 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 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
I actually meant the same thing as you, by 'remove' I meant 'remove from the tally'. — neuro (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
One tiny little thing that I should said in the first place here...can the date be in the international style (7 December 1941) to follow the article's date style? Thanks and apologies... — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
hi Elonka. I have raised an issue here. I suspect that you will not agree with me, but I hope you will agree at least that it is a topic worth discussing. I am hoping to encourage wide discussion and even if you and I disagree i hope you will register your own view or even analysis. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Elonka due to an unfortunate set of currcumstances, I will not be able to deliver the bot I promised before 21 Dec. Also, I am moving my talk to here. Thank you. IanLAMP ( talk) 15:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
You wrote on AN, "Some of the people who are doing this aggressive canvassing are people who should know better: Admins, and one is even a Checkuser." Did you report them all by name to the Arbitration Committee? rootology ( C)( T) 20:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elonka/ACE2008 You wrote "For a general real world analogy, ArbCom is sort of like the Supreme Court of Wikipedia."
I asked Risker a question on his talk page not knowing what you had said above. Part of his reply was "My first reaction is that it's a considerable exaggeration of the importance of the Arbitration Committee to compare it to the Supreme Court"
Of course, I now see that you don't support him for ArbCom! Chergles ( talk) 23:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the note that I had reverted more than 3 times in the last 24 hours. After looking at the history, I agree that I have done so. However, I do not believe that it represents an edit war, with the changes that I have reverted being those that represented vandalism either intentionally or unintentionally (One of those for example deleted more than three quarters of the article.)
The Majority of the edits to this file are by non-registered users and there has been a significant amount of mutual reversion by non-registered users between those that have a version with Alpha Kappa Rho and without Tau Gamma Phi and those without Alpha Kappa Rho and with Tau Gamma Phi (two fraternities with significant dislike of each other in the Philippines).
Having recently had an AfD end with a no resolution result, I would be happy to take any suggestions that would limit the amount of vandalism and AKP vs TGF edit wars. At one point it had semi-protection, I'd like to see that returned. I'll be happy to post to the talk page a message seeking discussion, but what has been posted there has not gotten much response. Naraht ( talk) 20:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, I spent quite a bit of time today working on the List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines page today, could you let me know your opinion? I think I've figured out my major issue with the page. I'm concerned that there really isn't anyone else who cares enough about the page to maintain it and without some level of maintenance that it will be quite reasonable for it to be deleted. I know that no one owns any pages, but it doesn't mean that I don't care more about some that are on my watchlist than others... Naraht ( talk) 20:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Elonka. I was about to post a warning message to User:Scythian77 for pushing unsourced information and posting irrelevant accusative edit summaries [6] and messages [7]. Then, i realized that you sent a warning before. Maybe it's better for you to warn this user again about the basic wikipedia policies. Regards. E104421 ( talk) 21:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Usually when I don't have an edit summary its because its blatant vandalism, POV or unsourced additions. I will try and use the edit summary from now on and and contribute to the talk pages. Hubschrauber729 ( talk) 21:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Elonka. I'm responding to this message, re "Jeff Halevy": Notability
Hello. Sorry, I missed your comments on my talk page. In answer to your question, I would be willing to contribute as a complete non-expert (Adam Bishop is the expert). I have looked a little at PHG's recent edits. It seems that he has made a lot of useful contributions in military history (various gunsmiths), but letting a non-event such as the Franco-Mongol alliance (I came across the Schein article in my Ibelin searches) spawn the spate of single purpose spin-off articles that it did was, as you, Shell, Adam and others have pointed out, major disruption. And, as you and Adam have said, his recent edits to the talk page of Guy of Ibelin (died 1304) show that he has not understood this part of WP:UNDUE. Although PHG may not realise this, the same problems have arisen with other articles: poor sourcing; spin-off articles about a major person written around a minor theme; and articles relying on primary sources. Might WP:WPMH not possibly be able to coach him? They seem extremely well organised and his interests seem to lie within that project. Although I'll be on a wikibreak for the Lent term (as happened this year), this will in fact make it easier to help out (because of the Cambridge UL). I believe the topic ban on crusader-related articles is still justified, but I believe somehow he could be guided elsewhere by the excellent team on WP:WPMH. Best wishes, Mathsci ( talk) 10:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
First, please feel free to tell me if you don’t want to deal with this anymore: I would totally understand. I’ve noticed that over the last few weeks, Nickhh has been accused of three editors of wikistalking. Though I saw it as it unfolded 1) I had no desire to intervene, as I believe Nick and I are both best served by avoiding each other where possible and 2) I did not – and have not – examined any of the claims of the three editors who accused him of stalking. I am pretty certain I was right to make the charge when I did, but cannot speak for the others. Though Nick has been hinting darkly that some sort of coordinated effort may be afoot among the four of us, I can assure you it is not.
That said, Nick thought to include me in a taunting recent edit summary [8] (he included you, too, just so you don’t feel left out). He also swept away the allegations and comments (including yours, which is his right) with the edit summary “Rm f#ckwittery and general random smears from my talk page. This is a talk page for occasional, constructive communication, not a noticeboard for people to vomit nonsense onto” (which is not). I don’t know what the best thing to do is, but I hope something can be done.
Oh, and I’d like him to know I’m posting this, but don’t want to post to his talk page, as I believe he doesn’t want me to. So… if you could at least let him know that, I’d appreciate it. Thanks. IronDuke 00:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to get too drawn into this, but almost all of his edits are looking unhelpful, and pointy, though in a minor, annoying way, rather than in a vastly disruptive way. But look at these two reversions i did on edits of his from today. [ [12]] and [ [13]] . Either his English is so bad that he can't understand requests to desist from this sort of thing (his claim that the coptic presence in kuwait, which is not controversial, was not well sourced verges on a lie. Couldn't be clearer in the linked text); or it's good enough to understand the need to desist, but he doesn't care. Either way, it's not looking like productive editing is going to come out of this). Bali ultimate ( talk) 00:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, please check the "unintentionally" part of my comment. My point was that this is unfortunately the result, and not the intention of Mervyn's comments. I thought this was clear enough, and that is why I feel surprised by your comment in my talk page. Cheers!-- Yannismarou ( talk) 19:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement. :-) I still can't believe I actually trusted a sockpuppet, though. Even so, I guess I've found a firm coaching process with my previous experiences with Spudicus. BTW, I've read that per this, your a video game developer. What current video games are you working on now? -- Dylan 620 Contribs Sign! 23:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
True to form, Frjohnwhiteford seeks to impose on every one else his opinionated views. BBC is reputed to be the most balanced news media. You should stop your destructive censorial practices. Muscovite99 ( talk) 01:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi.. some times I follow this rule Wikipedia:Be bold -- Bayrak ( talk) 06:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you block someone from editing on talk pages too (if you are an admin)? the reason is [ | this -- Ir me l a 21:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The bottom section. -- Ir me l a 21:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know anything about him, unfortunately, aside from the basic trivia. As far as I know, he was Persian. I try not to get involved in disputes between Arabs and Persians, it's depressingly futile. Adam Bishop ( talk) 03:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully, I disagree with the "Persian origin" wording, he was a Persian by nationality too (He was born under the native Iranic dynasty of Afrighids: http://www.iranica.com/newsite/index.isc?Article=http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/unicode/v1f7/v1f7a080.html ) Also, I don't think 2 editors' agreement with one and another constitutes a consensus that overides long-standing broad consensus on an issue . -- Sina111 ( talk) 06:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
What is the difference "Persian" or "Persian stock"? Persian stock means Persian!-- Sina111 ( talk) 07:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
It is quite surprising that an administrator believes there is some sort of policy-violating original research/synthesis behind describing someone as "Persian" who has been ascribed Persian stock, Persian heritage, of a Persian family, etc. by reliable sources. I do not understand how this is not a matter simply of knowing the English language. The conclusion that he was an ethnic Persian could be reached using only one of the sources. What are we synthesizing? What are these multiple sources and claims? What is novel about the conclusion? Nobody understands the distinction you draw.
Say a source said, "Al-Khwarizmi was a scholar at the House of Wisdom. He was a Persian." We might be tempted to conclude that "Al-Khwarizmi was a Persian," but is there not something slightly original here? Isn't the editor assuming that the author intends the "he" in the second sentence to refer to Al-Khwarizmi? Without a reliable source specifying that this is in fact what the author meant, it can be said that the Wikipedia editor has taken a step - however small - into the realm of original research by applying his own beliefs about how to understand the English language to the author's work to arrive at a conclusion. After all, the source was "careful" to avoid the direct statement "Al-Khwarizmi was a Persian," so we should be too.
But what if we found a reliable source saying that the "he" refers to al-Khwarizmi? Would we then be safe to say "Al-Khwarizmi was Persian?" Nope! How can we synthesize the claim of the latter source with the statement of the former? Aren't we arriving at a conclusion that is not directly stated in either source? Oh no!
I really really hope that this would seem absurd and absolutely counterproductive to you, but it is little different from your use. Somehow your use of WP:SYNTH suggests that any departure from the original wording of the sources could be considered a violation of original research since the editor uses his own "original" understanding of the English language to arrive at basic conclusions and construct unique (yet allegedly synonymous) statements for use in the article. Must the encyclopedia become a string of quotes and/or plagiarism? Given the stance you have taken so far, where do you draw the line? 67.194.202.113 ( talk) 12:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeargh. I read the first three sentences, which seemed reasonable, and restored. I should have noticed it continued in a significantly different direction. Thanks for the heads-up. Mark Heiden ( talk) 17:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you are jumping the gun abit, and there are a few other people at fault here. It was a case of mistaken identity and the IP was rightfully unblocked. I was not edit warring. I was (or thought I was) reverting vandalism, leaving a talk page warning each time, and made an AIV report after the final warning which was handled with accordingly. I was following correct procedures and your talk page template was highly offensive and an assumption of bad faith.
Also, please revert your talk page message, you are abusing your administrator tools by editing it in the manner you did. Follow the instructions on the talk page next time. Thanks. -- Charitwo ( talk) 18:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) Charitwo, you were repeatedly reverting at Oak-Land Jr. High School, putting obvious nonsense back into the page. [20] [21] [22] [23] A 3RR warning was appropriate, as if you would have reverted again after the warning, your account access would have been blocked. I am also concerned that you made an AIV report [24] on an anon, 205.178.226.113 ( talk · contribs) even though the anon was trying to remove vandalism. As for assuming good faith, when I saw the redirect at the top of your talkpage to uncyclopedia, [25] that put a reasonable doubt in my mind as to whether you were operating in good faith or not. Looking deeper into your contribs right now though, Charitwo ( talk · contribs), I do see that you do a lot of vandal-fighting, so thank you for that. It looks like in this one case, you were simply a bit quick on the draw. In the future, please also keep in mind that anyone, even an anon, is allowed to remove unsourced information, per WP:V. When someone removes a (small) amount of information, it is generally not a good idea to add it back, unless including a source which verifies that information. Anyway, how about we write this one off as a misunderstanding, and simply move on? If you would like to remove the warning from your talkpage, please feel free to do so. -- El on ka 18:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
You are right. Sorry. -- Raayen ( talk) 00:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Please see Eligibility: Mervyn Emrys at WT:ACE2008. Thanks again. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 04:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to draw calligraphy for the names of the Ismaili Imams, for their infoboxes on Wikipedia, since I don't know of any calligraphy or pictures we could use for them (or that traditionally exist, since knowledge of these Imams for much of the Ismaili community is recent). Is that allowable? I've already done (computer generated) versions for Ismail ibn Jafar and Muhammad ibn Ismail. -- Enzuru 03:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Please see the personal attack by anon on my talk page. Should I simply delete and ignore, or will you take action? Thank you. -- Zlerman ( talk) 15:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Nice idea; but at the moment I'm working through a backlog of annotations...As my computer and browser handle it very well I'm happy with it as it is until I've caught up...when I've gone through all my notes I'll get back to you, if I may... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 18:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Can we just have a civilized discussion about my block here without using the RFI policy and blocking me? IanBeOS ( talk) 21:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Why did you delete this topic, i had read only a bit of the article when i had to get off the computer. when i get back on you deleted it. with no obvious reason for doing so. stop vandalizing your privileges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeineia ( talk • contribs) 01:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for saving the article! I caught it at a really bad time when it said "web site producer." It's looking much better now. Cheers. -- digitalmischief ( talk) 04:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll keep that in mind, I am feeling a bit frustrated here though. I don't feel like Bayrak is listening at all, I explained to him in details on the talk page about how his map is from a different period, and maps can not be used as a source anyways. Without bothering to read or respond to my detailed comment, he blindly reverts me, removing the secondary source I had provided, replacing it with his map again. -- Sina111 ( talk) 05:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Your block of an IP that User:Ashley kennedy3 used to edit war on the Banias article is creating problems in editing Wikipedia for me. Despite being logged in I get a message that I'm disabled from editing. I've had to sign in on the secure server in order to post this but am loathe to continue to use the secure server as I have to confirm each new page I view. Please unblock the IP immediately as I have never edited that article, and am being affected by a block for something that has nothing to do with me. Mjroots ( talk) 08:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Hope I am not disturbing you. But this is my idea of a game. You should do a online gaming website where people can buy all sorts of cars and drive in London. They drive in traffic and stuff. To make money they have races with other cars. This is like Runescape but it specializes in driving skills. I hope you like it. Xxxsacheinxxx ( talk) 13:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
P.S. this is not a vandal, just giving my thoughts.
thanks for message i am trying to know more and more about wikipedia sorry if i done mistakes here or there -- Bayrak ( talk) 22:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, I'd like to edit my voting statements to greatly shorten them. Can I just delete my own material, or do I have to use strikeover? I'd rather delete than leave stuff there.
Mervyn Emrys (
talk)
17:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought you might be interested in the discussions going on. [26] & [27] Since you are being discussed somewhat I thought you should be informed so you can comment if you feel obliged to do so. On Giano II you'll have to look at history since he blanked his page and left a note the he was gone. I hope this helps, -- CrohnieGal Talk 18:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
If it helps, I didn't want to yell at you, just alert you to the problem. =) Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 18:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, Yannis is back, and this time he brought friends. See Law:Talk under "Further Reading." In effect, a substantial amount of content I provided was swiped and turned into at least six edits by Wikidea. Have a nice day... Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 15:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, thanks for the note on distribution of the references. Curiously, the only two I couldn't find, even in the article on US Law, were American Lawyers (1989) and Law and Lawyers in the United States (1996), both on the role of lawyers in an adversarial legal system. S'pose my question about anti-American sentiment was accurate? Don't expect you to answer that. I've cleaned them up and redistributed them to more appropriate homes as best I could. C'ést la vie. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 00:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, is it too much to move a Barn Star from my talk page to my user page? It was a pleasant surprise, but don't want to overdo it there. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 02:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it absolutely necessary that my username and/or signature be in the Roman script? —Preceding unsigned comment added by קײק פּלז ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Elonka,
Would you kindly take a look at the following article and help to resolve the dispute in the Early history section? I have placed a NPOV tag there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Hinduism
The other editor is trying to suppress a published reference contrary to his/her opinion and I am afraid an Edit War is going to break out unless a moderator intervenes.
The dispute is regarding the dating of Bhavad Gita into pre-Buddhist or post-Buddhist era.
I would appreciate your help in resolving this. Regards.
PS- If you are busy , kindly refer this dispute to another moderator.
-- Satyashodak ( talk) 23:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Be careful about autoblocking users with the same IP: Evidently me and (checking the information that was given by Autoblock) Ashley kennedy3 both use BT (Probably the largest internet provider in Britain, and which dynamically allocates). It's a little annoying to get hit with an autoblock, particularly when the Autoblock information says it was just a 3RR, which probably didn't need the extra - what is it, anti-sockpuppet? - defenses. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 09:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I want to know why I've been autoblocked as I am only a new user of Wikipedia and It all looks very sinister when someone else is using my IP address. This has wasted a lot of my time and caused me a lot of worry. Zawia Zawia ( talk) 13:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have to ask everyone who's attacking Elonka right now, how did she know that her autoblock would affect this many people? You are all making it appear like she checkusered the IP on Ashley kennedy3, saw the IP address then said, "eh, screw it, I'll block 'em all!" In reality, Elokna did what almost any other admin would do in this situation. We almost always autoblock with 3RR violations, especially when the user has been blocked in the past for sockpuppetry. Elonka had no clue that this block would affect as many people as it did, so I really suggest people back off with the cries of abuse. either way ( talk) 13:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Whee! I do one routine 3RR block, and all of UK comes to my door. :) Okay, let's have some Autoblock school. To be clear, I did not block all of you, I blocked one user, Ashley kennedy3 ( talk · contribs), who had violated 3RR on the Banias article. Ashley has a long block log, and had previously been blocked for abusing multiple accounts, [31] so it is routine to have the block extend to the IP, not just to the user. I cannot see the IP, since I do not have Checkuser access -- I just check a little box that says, "Autoblock any IP addresses used". This means that not only is Ashley blocked, but if Ashley then attempts to login via different IPs while blocked, those IPs are blocked as well, and the autoblock continues to other accounts using those IPs, as it appears to have hit all of you. To anyone trying to use these other IPs, they get a message saying that the original admin (me) blocked them, but it doesn't mean that I did a deliberate block of these other accounts, it just means that I was the admin that placed the original block on one user. For more information, and to see why the autoblock seemed to re-appear even after it was "fixed", please see: Wikipedia:Autoblock. I am sorry that all of you were temporarily blocked, but I hope this helps explain what happened? If anyone is still having problems, please definitely let us know. -- El on ka 16:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
A person who is caught by the autoblock gets very angry and comments on their talkpage... In the meanwhile the autoblock lifts but, in the opinion of an admin, the comments deserve a block but when enacting the sanction the sysop also causes the autoblock to reset... which effects those accounts previously caught. In this instance this did happen, but the second autoblock was quickly noted and reversed.
FWIW, the fact that all of an ISP's connections to Wikipedia is via one ip is further outfall from the
Virgin Killer/
Internet Watch Foundation situation of a few days ago - seems some isp's are slower to reduce restrictions than they are to enforce them...
LessHeard vanU (
talk)
17:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
BT has always been a blocking/checkusering nightmare. I'm amazed this sort of thing doesn't happen more frequently. Mackensen (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about it Elonka. Don't let any angry frustrated reactions, get ya down.
GoodDay (
talk)
16:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
PS: On thinking about situations such as these, maybe a userblock and semi prot of page maybe an option (?) I use semiprots alot these days. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)