![]() | 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 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
Do not bully me about how infractions of the VERY clear instructions about questioning are dealt with. And do not order me about on my talk page. Tony (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 22:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Elonka, I was disappointed to see that you had referred to Jehochman and ChrisO as disruptive editors. [1] As neither of them are standing for election this time around, and your userspace is an area where they can't defend themselves, there is no reason to even refer to them. Would you please redact that remark? NW ( Talk) 00:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Howdy Elonka. Ya know, I might just seek a seat on Medcom next year. A touch of jocularty would help in that area, anyways we'll see. GoodDay ( talk) 05:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I thought yours was thorough, despite not asking any questions. You took the time to read and analyze the RfC against me. Apologies if it sounded like I was placing yours in the less useful half. Jclemens ( talk) 04:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Pedro's an admin. His admin log makes it clear he knows about WP:NPA.© Geni 01:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Please pay your attention to this. I will not remove the propaganda that he wrote. Sentinel R ( talk) 12:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
If he makes a reasonable proposal on how to alternate the wording, I have no problem with it. I however do strongly believe that the organisation's own official goal should be listed in the infobox rather than what some others have to say about them. Kermanshahi ( talk) 20:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
That could be an option, but I dont' see why that would be needed since they have stated an official motive of their organisation, which is equal righst for Sunnis, while stressing many times that they are not seperatist. Just because of some wiki editor not wanting that to be put into the article (for some reason) doesn't mean people should be deprived of sourced information. Kermanshahi ( talk) 20:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
He
rejected the compromise. The choice is yours, which of us is right?
And about Balochistan conflict, dispute at an
impasse. Decide you are, otherwise we will both be a couple more weeks to argue.
Sentinel R (
talk)
04:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 22:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, your very interesting table of daily votes: do I gather that there's no issue with first and second voting? Can we print this in next week's Signpost Election Report, or are there problems in interpreting it? Tony (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Now the results are out, a comparison with the guides might be good as well. I think you (Elonka) had been doing a spreadsheet that attempted to use the guides to predict the outcome? It would be interesting to see which guides tallied most closely with the community vote, and which didn't. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Candidate | % based on guide data |
Order based on guide data |
Percentage based on prelim results |
Order based on prelim results |
% diff | Order diff |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Newyorkbrad |
91.67% |
2 | 89.01% | 1 | -2.66% | 1 |
Casliber |
80.95% |
4 | 78.73% | 2 | -2.22% | 2 |
SirFozzie |
86.36% |
3 | 78.45% | 3 | -7.91% | 0 |
Iridescent |
95.00% |
1 | 74.04% | 4 | -20.96% | -3 |
Elen |
70.00% |
5 | 72.57% | 5 | 2.57% | 0 |
Xeno |
42.86% |
12 | 70.64% | 6 | 27.78% | 6 |
David Fuchs |
68.42% |
6 | 62.88% | 7 | -5.54% | -1 |
Chase |
55.56% |
8 | 60.61% | 8 | 5.05% | 0 |
PhilKnight |
63.16% |
7 | 60.38% | 9 | -2.78% | -2 |
John Vandenberg |
35.00% |
17 | 57.73% | 10 | 22.73% | 7 |
Jclemens |
43.75% |
11 | 56.71% | 11 | 12.96% | 0 |
Shell Kinney |
40.00% |
13 | 56.70% | 12 | 16.70% | 1 |
Sandstein |
39.13% |
14 | 51.30% | 13 | 12.17% | 1 |
Stephen Bain |
27.78% |
18 | 45.54% | 14 | 17.76% | 4 |
Harej |
38.89% |
15 | 44.62% | 15 | 5.73% | 0 |
Georgewilliamherbert | 46.67% | 9 | 44.26% | 16 | -2.41% | -7 |
FT2 |
36.36% |
16 | 42.13% | 17 | 5.77% | -1 |
GiacomoReturned |
45.00% |
10 | 40.77% | 18 | -4.23% | -8 |
Balloonman |
20.00% |
19 | 38.64% | 19 | 18.64% | 0 |
Off2riorob |
0.00% |
21 | 16.87% | 20 | 16.87% | 1 |
Loosmark |
0.00% |
20 | 9.87% | 21 | 9.87% | -1 |
Thank you very much for your support of my reelection in your voter guide, as well as for your overall thoughtful observations there. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I brought up your comment at Talk:Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative at [2]. I feel that you have urged OhConfucius to violate policy, which reduces his culpability but in my mind makes you responsible. WP:PRIMARY in no way prohibits the use of primary sources in any article. This should especially be true when using the actual CFDI list as published to build an article about the CFDI. Further, I would say that since the 2008 CFDI list was compiled by the DHS and other agencies and transmitted via an official cable to solicit revisions from various government officials for the next year's version, it is not a primary source, but a secondary source under considerable editorial control. Wnt ( talk) 14:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Silver seren C 19:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi there! This is a message sent to all members of the Contribution Team. We're letting you know that there has been a rather major update - you can read more about it at Wikipedia talk:Contribution Team#Backlog Drive Update And Other News. Kind regards, Panyd and Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 23:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday I posted a response to something you had written at User talk:Wnt#Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative containing an allegation about personal attack that you had leveled at Wnt. If you you acknowledge at the least, or respond to it otherwise, that would be appreciated. __ meco ( talk) 16:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Other users at the RSN discussion have said that both Business Insider and the Armenian news service are reliable. I just wanted to let you know. Silver seren C 22:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I came across your User:Elonka/Work1 on the list of pages linking to the CFDI article, so I've prepared a rebuttal at User:Wnt/Work1. I don't know if there's anything we can agree on out of all that, but if there is, it will make things a little less complicated if we take our cases to other editors. Wnt ( talk) 22:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I object strongly to both your insertion of an "admin only" section into the thread about classified documents and to your moving of comments into it. The determination of consensus and the discussion of proposals such as yours are not admin-only matters, and the moving of comments in an active thread distorts the record and makes it much harder for other editors to follow the flow of a discussion. DuncanHill ( talk) 16:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Based upon several of the comments you've made over the last few hours, and including the use of {{adminnote}} in general discussion, I'm struck by how differently we appear to be judging the role of an administrator. The specific concerns I have are that you appear to be elevating administrators’ voice in determining consensus, and that you appear somewhat cavalier in restricting the editing privileges of "normal" users. You have twice stated that it is "not uncommon to have "administrator-only" discussion sections, such as at WP:AE"
Thank you for taking the time to discuss this,
brenneman
02:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I apologise for returning to your talk page. Prefacing your comments with "As an administrator monitoring this article..." and the aforementioned use of {{ adminnote}} are identical behaviours. You have received negative feedback from parties other than myself on this issue, and I note that this feedback has occured in various forms over a protracted period of time.
I would again ask that you reflect on community standards for adminstrator's behavior, including the almost sancrosect "no big deal" aspect of being an adminstrator. The nutshell at Wikipedia:Administrators says very clearly "never to use [adminship] to gain advantage in a dispute." Every time you casually discuss blocking you're gaining advantage. This is a content dispute: There is a complex set of policy interactions here and as it's not a clear-cut case it's just your opinon of policy that you're advocating.
But I am *really* going to find something else to do now, so thank you for listening. brenneman 05:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe this Harvard Univ. source could be used to provide some context for making any decisions related to classified documents. "as many as a trillion pages are classified (200 Libraries of Congress)."
Peter Galison, a historian and Director [6] in the Science Dept. at Harvard University, published research showing that the U.S. Government produces more classified information than unclassified information. [7].
"..about five times as many pages are being added to the classified universe than are being brought to the storehouses of human learning, including all the books and journals on any subject in any language collected in the largest repositories on the planet."
Peter Galison is the Mallinckrodt Professor of the History of Science and Physics at Harvard University. His main work explores the interaction among the principal subcultures of physics: How Experiments End (1987), Image and Logic (1997), and Einstein’s Clocks, Poincare´’s Maps (2003). Several projects explore crosscurrents between science and other fields, including his coedited volumes The Architecture of Science (1999), Picturing Science, Producing Art (1998), and Scientific Authorship (2003). In 1997, he was named a John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Fellow, and in 1999 he received the Max Planck Prize. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 04:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Elonka. Thank you for your message. As you might remember, I am encouraged to make suggestion on Talk Page regarding the Mongol etc... Accordingly, these sandbox articles represent material I would like to propose to the community in Talk Pages through questions or RfCs. As Arbcom does not make ruling on content (unfortunately!) the proper way for me is to ask the community of editors (which I will gladly do). A recent example, if you have not noticed, is the Mongol elements in Western medieval art article, which, after being in my sandbox for months, has now just become a valuable and interesting mainspace article through RfC ( Mongol influences in European art RfC). I am afraid it would be quite unfair if you attempted to stop me making suggestion to the community like this, especially as such positive outcome turn out to be possible through discussion with other editors. As an Administrator, I believe you should encourage idea exchange and editorial discussion, not try to block it. At least Arbcom has the wisdom to encourage such exchanges. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 19:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to sort out the mess of the Ellingham Hall-related pages with minimum destruction of edit histories.
Your edit at
Ellingham Hall (disambiguation), summarized "(Changing to redirect since there is only one valid target)" is probably at best a substantial part of the problem, since no "(disambiguation)"-suffixed Rdr may ever target a page unless that target is both a Dab and titled with the corresponing "base" name. If you have further thots about the Ellingham Hall-related pages, please refer to
WP:MoSDab (and if necessary
WP:Dab) to get the background on what i've said above. I'd suggest forgoing
BOLD editing in this group of pages with "Ellingham Hall" in their titles. TIA.
--
Jerzy•
t 23:38 & 23:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Granick.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 09:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Evgenia Obraztsova at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
PM800 (
talk)
16:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
For no particular reason except that I was looking ovr my old talk messages and remembered you, Happy New Year! Jdorney ( talk) 20:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() | On 2 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Evgenia Obraztsova, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Evgenia Obraztsova, who appeared as a ballerina in the film The Russian Dolls, really is a First Soloist at the prestigious Russian Mariinsky Theatre? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 02:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 2 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adrienne L. Kaeppler, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that for the 80th birthday of King Tāufaʻāhau Tupou IV of Tonga, Adrienne Kaeppler, curator of Oceanic Ethnology at the Smithsonian Institution, set up a special exhibition at the Tongan National Museum? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 14:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
There is
insufficent debate for consensus to be determined on having "admin only discussion" section in requests for enforcement. I have thus
deprecated it, while changing the text to reflect that an admin must, in the end, be the one who performs the action. Dropping this note here due to your stated preference for admins to have their comments given greater prominance in debate, audi alteram partem and all. I will not be looking for any response here.
Aaron Brenneman (
talk)
05:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Elonka.
You left a message on my talk page about Jacques Hadamard. I think you knew that I had edited the biography and had also written Hadamard's method of descent. You asked me to help improve the disambiguation page. In doing so I rewrote extensively parametrix and created the redirect Hadamard parametrix construction. Pmanderson, whose conduct has recently been discussed at length, followed me to the newly expanded disambiguation page that you had solicited and changed grammatically two entries, ostensibly to remove repetition of the word "equality". However, in doing so, he introduced mathematical errors. I corrected the two entries which he then he reverted, claiming "hounding" in his edit summary. [8] I have restored my edits because what he wrote was mathematically incorrect (stylistic concerns seemed to have taken precedence over content). Please could you have a word with this user to clarify what was going on with this disambiguation page? Since these days he rarely contributes any mathematical content, there does seem to be some sign that he was following my edits. Many thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 07:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
More or less what I said on the talk page of the disambiguation page. Most of my effort has been in adding mathematical content; I think I mentioned to Elonka that I am quite busy in RL at the moment, so helped out as a favour to her. Usually if I look at a mathematics article on WP there is something that can be improved, so I stay away from them unless I'm adding appreciably new content. But I was very happy to help, Elonka, and if you have a similar request in future and I'm not too busy, please don't hesitate to ask.
On a personal note, did you know that Roger Davies is almost a neighbour down here? Mathsci ( talk) 17:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
(comments copied from other talkpage) Hi Smartiger, regarding your changes to the Waivers disambiguation page, some of your changes do not appear to be in accordance with policies and guidelines. You may wish to review WP:MOSDAB to see the latest Manual of Style guidance on how disambiguation pages should be formatted? -- El on ka 17:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, you made a comment about asking me "ISP to improve their headers"; was this a reference to Wikipedia:WikiProject on XFFs? Smartiger ( talk) 07:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I just created Wikipedia:Meetup/St. Louis to parallel the page on the WP10 site. Easy to watchlist! Hope to see you there. Cheers.-- Chaser ( talk) 15:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I have e-mail evidence to prove it. Remove your comments from that section or I will begin the process of asking arbcom to recall you. jps ( talk) 23:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
|
Elonka, regarding this, the 'Fat Hen' is not the eagle from the German coat of arms, it's its particular incarnation in the chamber of the Bundestag, and more specifically the one in the old Bundeshaus. Were the article any good I would have pointed the link to Bundeshaus (Bonn). I know what I am talking about. Do you? 74.65.111.74 ( talk) 04:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Admin help or direction? I irregularly edit on other language wikis (usually adding photos, bibliographic citations, etc. nothing heavy requiring linguistic skills). I have a unified account under my user name "Quartermaster" that covers almost all of the wiki universe. The exceptions are for the German and Finnish wikipedias. I.e., there were pre-existing users named "Quartermaster" on both of those. My question is specific to the German wikipedia - it appears that there is no one inhabiting the "Quartermaster" user name on that wiki and I don't know how to usurp it. What's odd also is that all of the edits by that user name were ones that I did while originally logged in as "Quartermaster" on the English language wikipedia. It appears that the German "Quartermaster" has never made an edit (but appears to get credit for my edits). Is there any way you can point me in the direction or assist me in usurping the German "Quartermaster" name so I can include it in my unified ID? The Finnish one is more problematic since there appears to be a real user "Quartermaster" but their last edit was in 2008, and they only did 84 total edits over a period of a couple of weeks. Nothing earth shattering or time sensitive here, I'm just anal retentive enough to want to have a REAL unified account. -- Quartermaster ( talk) 15:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
As I raised the question about what should be called an "alliance" on the WikiProject Military history, and Ed pointed me to you. I just visited the Franco-Mongol alliance and it looks like it's a bit early to start that over again, but I hope you don't mind that I contacted you. Actually, as I'm not a native speaker, it's very difficult for me to see whether the word rapprochement (as proposed in Talk:Abbasid–Carolingian alliance) is the right one... but as these "alliance articles" were translated I came here first. I think the best to do know would be to ask on wp:fr. -- Anneyh ( talk) 20:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Elonka, take a look at your talkpage on Commons. 2 uploads have been requested for deletion as being copyvios. --
Túrelio (
talk)
13:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 15:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 21:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Please merge back in the materials you split out from Phoenix. The pages created violate WP:INCOMPDAB, and we have an entire project dedicated to eliminating such pages. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Poland Newsletter • April 2011
For our freedom and yours Welcome to our first issue of WikiProject Poland newsletter, the Monitor (named after the first Polish newspaper). Our Project has been operational since 1 June, 2005, and also serves as the Poland-related Wikipedia notice board. I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions. We hope you will join us in them, if you haven't done so already! Unlike many other WikiProjects, we are quite active; in this year alone about 40 threads have been started on our discussion page, and we do a pretty good job at answering all issues raised. In addition to a lively encyclopedic, Poland-related, English-language discussion forum, we have numerous useful tools that can be of use to you - and that you could help us maintain and develop:
This is not all; on our page you can find a list of useful templates (including userboxes), awards and other tools! With all that said, how about you join our discussions at WT:POLAND? Surely, there must be something you could help others with, or perhaps you are in need of assistance yourself? You have received this newsletter because you are listed as a [member link] at WikiProject Poland. • Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
Delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 21:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Elonka, please have a look at the redirect page [ Bibliothèque de l'École des chartes]. It's currently pointing visitors to École Nationale des Chartes. Shouldn't it point to Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes (with a capital "C") instead? SteveStrummer ( talk) 03:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, I have seen the research you've done on the character and I've been trying to build a website dedicated to General Hospital and I always thought Bradley and Isobelle's other daughter wasn't mention, but you have her as Hope Ward. Do you know of a source that could confirm this for me.-- Nk3play2 my buzz 08:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 01:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 22:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis ( talk) 17:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John A. Wise is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John A. Wise until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 10:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that a while back you requested image popups to show alt text if defined. I just implemented it. Cheers, AxelBoldt ( talk) 18:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Since you've raised this question yourself elsewhere [9], I think it only reasonable to ask. You have been very active in support of the article Lackadaisy. Am I right in thinking that you and the author work or worked at the same company? Are you acquainted with her? Sergeant Cribb ( talk) 06:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Your edit which suggests the identity of another Wikipedia editor has been hidden from view. Please avoid guessing or pointing out the real life identity of any Wikipedia editor. Discuss conflicts of interest in terms of the edits the user has made. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:04, 2 June 2011 (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 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
Do not bully me about how infractions of the VERY clear instructions about questioning are dealt with. And do not order me about on my talk page. Tony (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 22:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Elonka, I was disappointed to see that you had referred to Jehochman and ChrisO as disruptive editors. [1] As neither of them are standing for election this time around, and your userspace is an area where they can't defend themselves, there is no reason to even refer to them. Would you please redact that remark? NW ( Talk) 00:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Howdy Elonka. Ya know, I might just seek a seat on Medcom next year. A touch of jocularty would help in that area, anyways we'll see. GoodDay ( talk) 05:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I thought yours was thorough, despite not asking any questions. You took the time to read and analyze the RfC against me. Apologies if it sounded like I was placing yours in the less useful half. Jclemens ( talk) 04:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Pedro's an admin. His admin log makes it clear he knows about WP:NPA.© Geni 01:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Please pay your attention to this. I will not remove the propaganda that he wrote. Sentinel R ( talk) 12:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
If he makes a reasonable proposal on how to alternate the wording, I have no problem with it. I however do strongly believe that the organisation's own official goal should be listed in the infobox rather than what some others have to say about them. Kermanshahi ( talk) 20:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
That could be an option, but I dont' see why that would be needed since they have stated an official motive of their organisation, which is equal righst for Sunnis, while stressing many times that they are not seperatist. Just because of some wiki editor not wanting that to be put into the article (for some reason) doesn't mean people should be deprived of sourced information. Kermanshahi ( talk) 20:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
He
rejected the compromise. The choice is yours, which of us is right?
And about Balochistan conflict, dispute at an
impasse. Decide you are, otherwise we will both be a couple more weeks to argue.
Sentinel R (
talk)
04:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 22:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, your very interesting table of daily votes: do I gather that there's no issue with first and second voting? Can we print this in next week's Signpost Election Report, or are there problems in interpreting it? Tony (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Now the results are out, a comparison with the guides might be good as well. I think you (Elonka) had been doing a spreadsheet that attempted to use the guides to predict the outcome? It would be interesting to see which guides tallied most closely with the community vote, and which didn't. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Candidate | % based on guide data |
Order based on guide data |
Percentage based on prelim results |
Order based on prelim results |
% diff | Order diff |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Newyorkbrad |
91.67% |
2 | 89.01% | 1 | -2.66% | 1 |
Casliber |
80.95% |
4 | 78.73% | 2 | -2.22% | 2 |
SirFozzie |
86.36% |
3 | 78.45% | 3 | -7.91% | 0 |
Iridescent |
95.00% |
1 | 74.04% | 4 | -20.96% | -3 |
Elen |
70.00% |
5 | 72.57% | 5 | 2.57% | 0 |
Xeno |
42.86% |
12 | 70.64% | 6 | 27.78% | 6 |
David Fuchs |
68.42% |
6 | 62.88% | 7 | -5.54% | -1 |
Chase |
55.56% |
8 | 60.61% | 8 | 5.05% | 0 |
PhilKnight |
63.16% |
7 | 60.38% | 9 | -2.78% | -2 |
John Vandenberg |
35.00% |
17 | 57.73% | 10 | 22.73% | 7 |
Jclemens |
43.75% |
11 | 56.71% | 11 | 12.96% | 0 |
Shell Kinney |
40.00% |
13 | 56.70% | 12 | 16.70% | 1 |
Sandstein |
39.13% |
14 | 51.30% | 13 | 12.17% | 1 |
Stephen Bain |
27.78% |
18 | 45.54% | 14 | 17.76% | 4 |
Harej |
38.89% |
15 | 44.62% | 15 | 5.73% | 0 |
Georgewilliamherbert | 46.67% | 9 | 44.26% | 16 | -2.41% | -7 |
FT2 |
36.36% |
16 | 42.13% | 17 | 5.77% | -1 |
GiacomoReturned |
45.00% |
10 | 40.77% | 18 | -4.23% | -8 |
Balloonman |
20.00% |
19 | 38.64% | 19 | 18.64% | 0 |
Off2riorob |
0.00% |
21 | 16.87% | 20 | 16.87% | 1 |
Loosmark |
0.00% |
20 | 9.87% | 21 | 9.87% | -1 |
Thank you very much for your support of my reelection in your voter guide, as well as for your overall thoughtful observations there. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I brought up your comment at Talk:Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative at [2]. I feel that you have urged OhConfucius to violate policy, which reduces his culpability but in my mind makes you responsible. WP:PRIMARY in no way prohibits the use of primary sources in any article. This should especially be true when using the actual CFDI list as published to build an article about the CFDI. Further, I would say that since the 2008 CFDI list was compiled by the DHS and other agencies and transmitted via an official cable to solicit revisions from various government officials for the next year's version, it is not a primary source, but a secondary source under considerable editorial control. Wnt ( talk) 14:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Silver seren C 19:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi there! This is a message sent to all members of the Contribution Team. We're letting you know that there has been a rather major update - you can read more about it at Wikipedia talk:Contribution Team#Backlog Drive Update And Other News. Kind regards, Panyd and Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 23:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday I posted a response to something you had written at User talk:Wnt#Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative containing an allegation about personal attack that you had leveled at Wnt. If you you acknowledge at the least, or respond to it otherwise, that would be appreciated. __ meco ( talk) 16:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Other users at the RSN discussion have said that both Business Insider and the Armenian news service are reliable. I just wanted to let you know. Silver seren C 22:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I came across your User:Elonka/Work1 on the list of pages linking to the CFDI article, so I've prepared a rebuttal at User:Wnt/Work1. I don't know if there's anything we can agree on out of all that, but if there is, it will make things a little less complicated if we take our cases to other editors. Wnt ( talk) 22:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I object strongly to both your insertion of an "admin only" section into the thread about classified documents and to your moving of comments into it. The determination of consensus and the discussion of proposals such as yours are not admin-only matters, and the moving of comments in an active thread distorts the record and makes it much harder for other editors to follow the flow of a discussion. DuncanHill ( talk) 16:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Based upon several of the comments you've made over the last few hours, and including the use of {{adminnote}} in general discussion, I'm struck by how differently we appear to be judging the role of an administrator. The specific concerns I have are that you appear to be elevating administrators’ voice in determining consensus, and that you appear somewhat cavalier in restricting the editing privileges of "normal" users. You have twice stated that it is "not uncommon to have "administrator-only" discussion sections, such as at WP:AE"
Thank you for taking the time to discuss this,
brenneman
02:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I apologise for returning to your talk page. Prefacing your comments with "As an administrator monitoring this article..." and the aforementioned use of {{ adminnote}} are identical behaviours. You have received negative feedback from parties other than myself on this issue, and I note that this feedback has occured in various forms over a protracted period of time.
I would again ask that you reflect on community standards for adminstrator's behavior, including the almost sancrosect "no big deal" aspect of being an adminstrator. The nutshell at Wikipedia:Administrators says very clearly "never to use [adminship] to gain advantage in a dispute." Every time you casually discuss blocking you're gaining advantage. This is a content dispute: There is a complex set of policy interactions here and as it's not a clear-cut case it's just your opinon of policy that you're advocating.
But I am *really* going to find something else to do now, so thank you for listening. brenneman 05:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe this Harvard Univ. source could be used to provide some context for making any decisions related to classified documents. "as many as a trillion pages are classified (200 Libraries of Congress)."
Peter Galison, a historian and Director [6] in the Science Dept. at Harvard University, published research showing that the U.S. Government produces more classified information than unclassified information. [7].
"..about five times as many pages are being added to the classified universe than are being brought to the storehouses of human learning, including all the books and journals on any subject in any language collected in the largest repositories on the planet."
Peter Galison is the Mallinckrodt Professor of the History of Science and Physics at Harvard University. His main work explores the interaction among the principal subcultures of physics: How Experiments End (1987), Image and Logic (1997), and Einstein’s Clocks, Poincare´’s Maps (2003). Several projects explore crosscurrents between science and other fields, including his coedited volumes The Architecture of Science (1999), Picturing Science, Producing Art (1998), and Scientific Authorship (2003). In 1997, he was named a John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Fellow, and in 1999 he received the Max Planck Prize. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 04:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Elonka. Thank you for your message. As you might remember, I am encouraged to make suggestion on Talk Page regarding the Mongol etc... Accordingly, these sandbox articles represent material I would like to propose to the community in Talk Pages through questions or RfCs. As Arbcom does not make ruling on content (unfortunately!) the proper way for me is to ask the community of editors (which I will gladly do). A recent example, if you have not noticed, is the Mongol elements in Western medieval art article, which, after being in my sandbox for months, has now just become a valuable and interesting mainspace article through RfC ( Mongol influences in European art RfC). I am afraid it would be quite unfair if you attempted to stop me making suggestion to the community like this, especially as such positive outcome turn out to be possible through discussion with other editors. As an Administrator, I believe you should encourage idea exchange and editorial discussion, not try to block it. At least Arbcom has the wisdom to encourage such exchanges. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 19:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to sort out the mess of the Ellingham Hall-related pages with minimum destruction of edit histories.
Your edit at
Ellingham Hall (disambiguation), summarized "(Changing to redirect since there is only one valid target)" is probably at best a substantial part of the problem, since no "(disambiguation)"-suffixed Rdr may ever target a page unless that target is both a Dab and titled with the corresponing "base" name. If you have further thots about the Ellingham Hall-related pages, please refer to
WP:MoSDab (and if necessary
WP:Dab) to get the background on what i've said above. I'd suggest forgoing
BOLD editing in this group of pages with "Ellingham Hall" in their titles. TIA.
--
Jerzy•
t 23:38 & 23:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Granick.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 09:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Evgenia Obraztsova at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
PM800 (
talk)
16:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
For no particular reason except that I was looking ovr my old talk messages and remembered you, Happy New Year! Jdorney ( talk) 20:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() | On 2 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Evgenia Obraztsova, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Evgenia Obraztsova, who appeared as a ballerina in the film The Russian Dolls, really is a First Soloist at the prestigious Russian Mariinsky Theatre? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 02:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 2 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adrienne L. Kaeppler, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that for the 80th birthday of King Tāufaʻāhau Tupou IV of Tonga, Adrienne Kaeppler, curator of Oceanic Ethnology at the Smithsonian Institution, set up a special exhibition at the Tongan National Museum? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 14:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
There is
insufficent debate for consensus to be determined on having "admin only discussion" section in requests for enforcement. I have thus
deprecated it, while changing the text to reflect that an admin must, in the end, be the one who performs the action. Dropping this note here due to your stated preference for admins to have their comments given greater prominance in debate, audi alteram partem and all. I will not be looking for any response here.
Aaron Brenneman (
talk)
05:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Elonka.
You left a message on my talk page about Jacques Hadamard. I think you knew that I had edited the biography and had also written Hadamard's method of descent. You asked me to help improve the disambiguation page. In doing so I rewrote extensively parametrix and created the redirect Hadamard parametrix construction. Pmanderson, whose conduct has recently been discussed at length, followed me to the newly expanded disambiguation page that you had solicited and changed grammatically two entries, ostensibly to remove repetition of the word "equality". However, in doing so, he introduced mathematical errors. I corrected the two entries which he then he reverted, claiming "hounding" in his edit summary. [8] I have restored my edits because what he wrote was mathematically incorrect (stylistic concerns seemed to have taken precedence over content). Please could you have a word with this user to clarify what was going on with this disambiguation page? Since these days he rarely contributes any mathematical content, there does seem to be some sign that he was following my edits. Many thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 07:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
More or less what I said on the talk page of the disambiguation page. Most of my effort has been in adding mathematical content; I think I mentioned to Elonka that I am quite busy in RL at the moment, so helped out as a favour to her. Usually if I look at a mathematics article on WP there is something that can be improved, so I stay away from them unless I'm adding appreciably new content. But I was very happy to help, Elonka, and if you have a similar request in future and I'm not too busy, please don't hesitate to ask.
On a personal note, did you know that Roger Davies is almost a neighbour down here? Mathsci ( talk) 17:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
(comments copied from other talkpage) Hi Smartiger, regarding your changes to the Waivers disambiguation page, some of your changes do not appear to be in accordance with policies and guidelines. You may wish to review WP:MOSDAB to see the latest Manual of Style guidance on how disambiguation pages should be formatted? -- El on ka 17:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, you made a comment about asking me "ISP to improve their headers"; was this a reference to Wikipedia:WikiProject on XFFs? Smartiger ( talk) 07:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I just created Wikipedia:Meetup/St. Louis to parallel the page on the WP10 site. Easy to watchlist! Hope to see you there. Cheers.-- Chaser ( talk) 15:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I have e-mail evidence to prove it. Remove your comments from that section or I will begin the process of asking arbcom to recall you. jps ( talk) 23:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
|
Elonka, regarding this, the 'Fat Hen' is not the eagle from the German coat of arms, it's its particular incarnation in the chamber of the Bundestag, and more specifically the one in the old Bundeshaus. Were the article any good I would have pointed the link to Bundeshaus (Bonn). I know what I am talking about. Do you? 74.65.111.74 ( talk) 04:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Admin help or direction? I irregularly edit on other language wikis (usually adding photos, bibliographic citations, etc. nothing heavy requiring linguistic skills). I have a unified account under my user name "Quartermaster" that covers almost all of the wiki universe. The exceptions are for the German and Finnish wikipedias. I.e., there were pre-existing users named "Quartermaster" on both of those. My question is specific to the German wikipedia - it appears that there is no one inhabiting the "Quartermaster" user name on that wiki and I don't know how to usurp it. What's odd also is that all of the edits by that user name were ones that I did while originally logged in as "Quartermaster" on the English language wikipedia. It appears that the German "Quartermaster" has never made an edit (but appears to get credit for my edits). Is there any way you can point me in the direction or assist me in usurping the German "Quartermaster" name so I can include it in my unified ID? The Finnish one is more problematic since there appears to be a real user "Quartermaster" but their last edit was in 2008, and they only did 84 total edits over a period of a couple of weeks. Nothing earth shattering or time sensitive here, I'm just anal retentive enough to want to have a REAL unified account. -- Quartermaster ( talk) 15:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
As I raised the question about what should be called an "alliance" on the WikiProject Military history, and Ed pointed me to you. I just visited the Franco-Mongol alliance and it looks like it's a bit early to start that over again, but I hope you don't mind that I contacted you. Actually, as I'm not a native speaker, it's very difficult for me to see whether the word rapprochement (as proposed in Talk:Abbasid–Carolingian alliance) is the right one... but as these "alliance articles" were translated I came here first. I think the best to do know would be to ask on wp:fr. -- Anneyh ( talk) 20:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Elonka, take a look at your talkpage on Commons. 2 uploads have been requested for deletion as being copyvios. --
Túrelio (
talk)
13:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 15:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 21:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Please merge back in the materials you split out from Phoenix. The pages created violate WP:INCOMPDAB, and we have an entire project dedicated to eliminating such pages. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Poland Newsletter • April 2011
For our freedom and yours Welcome to our first issue of WikiProject Poland newsletter, the Monitor (named after the first Polish newspaper). Our Project has been operational since 1 June, 2005, and also serves as the Poland-related Wikipedia notice board. I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions. We hope you will join us in them, if you haven't done so already! Unlike many other WikiProjects, we are quite active; in this year alone about 40 threads have been started on our discussion page, and we do a pretty good job at answering all issues raised. In addition to a lively encyclopedic, Poland-related, English-language discussion forum, we have numerous useful tools that can be of use to you - and that you could help us maintain and develop:
This is not all; on our page you can find a list of useful templates (including userboxes), awards and other tools! With all that said, how about you join our discussions at WT:POLAND? Surely, there must be something you could help others with, or perhaps you are in need of assistance yourself? You have received this newsletter because you are listed as a [member link] at WikiProject Poland. • Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
Delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 21:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Elonka, please have a look at the redirect page [ Bibliothèque de l'École des chartes]. It's currently pointing visitors to École Nationale des Chartes. Shouldn't it point to Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes (with a capital "C") instead? SteveStrummer ( talk) 03:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, I have seen the research you've done on the character and I've been trying to build a website dedicated to General Hospital and I always thought Bradley and Isobelle's other daughter wasn't mention, but you have her as Hope Ward. Do you know of a source that could confirm this for me.-- Nk3play2 my buzz 08:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 01:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 22:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis ( talk) 17:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John A. Wise is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John A. Wise until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 10:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that a while back you requested image popups to show alt text if defined. I just implemented it. Cheers, AxelBoldt ( talk) 18:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Since you've raised this question yourself elsewhere [9], I think it only reasonable to ask. You have been very active in support of the article Lackadaisy. Am I right in thinking that you and the author work or worked at the same company? Are you acquainted with her? Sergeant Cribb ( talk) 06:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Your edit which suggests the identity of another Wikipedia editor has been hidden from view. Please avoid guessing or pointing out the real life identity of any Wikipedia editor. Discuss conflicts of interest in terms of the edits the user has made. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)