Jump to content

User talk:Elonka/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

Just In Case You Haven't Noticed

Direct your attention Elonka, to this page. Thanks and happy editing, DustiSPEAK!! 23:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Coker article

I was just passing through that article after seeing it dragged around a bunch of places, so I don't think I'd have much to contribute at this point, my notes are at Oreo Priest's talk page as to the content I reverted. Thanks for asking though. MBisanz talk 04:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea, any discussed changes (or any changes for that matter), are fine by me (its not even on my watchlist), iirc, the talk page wasn't in that much use when I did the revert though. MBisanz talk 04:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks.  :) --Elonka 04:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

RedSpruce

  • That is what the RFC was for, at this point three people have reverted RedSpruces deletions. Isn't that consensus? He was blocked once for "edit warring" and a second time for 3RR violation, all in this same set of articles. Yet, he is still making the same deletions, overriding consensus. If you count them, he has made the same deletions over 5 times. He has also referred to me as an "idiot" and a "moron". Here Redspruce explains why he chooses to edit war. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm working on several articles at once, could you please be more specific about which one you're referring to? Also, I generally like to give a fair bit of amnesty for previous actions when I start looking into a dispute, so it would be better to stick with more recent diffs. Not saying that what he did was right, but I try to keep in mind that people can change. It's only when they refuse to change, that admin action is usually needed. Thanks, Elonka 04:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The best place is the edit history at this article:
Do you want to make a declaration at:
Reviewing now. Can you also please point me at any relevant guidelines, or discussions on guideline talkpages? Thanks, Elonka 05:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe there is an active RFC on each talk page. The issue is again quotes, and also the removal of ancillary information that RedSpruce labeled as "trivia", such as employer= in the infobox for Bentley.
  • For Remington, this was his last deletion: here. Although in the deletion just a day or so before, he had been removing larger chunks of information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No wonder your up late, your in the "Home of the homeless". It is still PM there. Is Wikipedia slow on your end? It is taking about 15 seconds to load each page tonight. Not a fan of Le Show? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Al durah

Thank you for your message, and for the compliments :) i of course know that this article has recently been a matter of much controversy - that is how i found it to begin with, seeing the many references to it on the administrators boards. i understand your concern - but i do not fall into any of your categories - i have been editing for a while on the Hebrew wiki, and occasionaly dabble on the English wiki, on articles where i have some interest (mostly wine, some Israeli politics). i appreciate the notice with regrds to the conditions for editing - i don't expect to be contributing much to the article in the future.Hadashot Livkarim (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Serafin sockpuppets

Oh, his pattern is extremely clear. Just look at the last three edits made before the block. Then go through the edit histories of each of those articles to see hundreds of socks making exactly the same edits with exactly the same edit summaries, going back months. Recently he has taken to making a string of essentially null edits to a set of articles before making the same three NPOV, vandalism edits. I'm not sure why, I suspect he thinks he is "hiding" somehow. Of course, he isn't. Best, Gwernol 00:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, the Copernicus edit does give it away, yes: Mmuusda (talk · contribs). I'd seen the account earlier in its "establishing" phase with just the small punctuation changes, one of which was to a controversial article that I'm watching, Great Moravia, which is why I thought it was MarkBA (talk · contribs). Looks like it was just random though, and I agree with the Serafin (talk · contribs) explanation. Thanks!  :) --Elonka 00:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Article talk page

Thanks for your note on my talk page. In truth, I'm undecided about whether it's worth coming back to it; you seem to have succeeded in stopping the edit warring but the talk page is (as before) dominated by soapboxing and unproductive contributions, with the productive contributors giving up on it. I'm sure I'm not imagining the note of frustration in some of your recent comments. I'd like to discuss with you where you see the article going - are you likely to be on IRC at any point? -- ChrisO (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Not on IRC, no (I usually only pop in there once a month or so), but I'm usually pretty easy to find on IMs. --Elonka 14:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SSP#User:Klaksonn

Saw you were involved in this. Can it be closed. Is there actions still to be taken? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd check with FayssalF, as he was doing most of the work. As far as I'm concerned though, yes it can be closed. --Elonka 15:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Restoring Israelinsider

Done. Cheers, --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource and 1911EB template

Hi Elonka. I just found and used Template:1911EB at amber. I did this after digging around following a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism. I know you are a writer, so I thought you might be interested in adding something there about attribution and how best to integrate old PD-text into Wikipedia. There seem to be two main methods: (1) Start from a copy of the old text, wiki-link and correct it, and rewrite and expand it until we get a reasonable article, with only fragments of the original text remaining. These type of articles have attribution templates stuck on them, like the ones in Category:Attribution templates (the 1911 one being the canonical example). Wikisource doesn't seem to have a lot of 1911 stuff (maybe because lots got put into Wikipedia back in 2002), but where it does, I think a link to the original text is useful for the article, so people can compare the original and the Wikipedia article without rummaging around in the page history. Failing that, a diff to when the text is added, is the next best thing. (2) The second approach is to write an article the normal way, using modern sources, and then to use inline citations to reference any extra material that can be added from the older source. As always, of course, any sources and their text can be removed if the modern author thinks they are out-of-date or unreliable or not relevant. Anyway, I am writing at length because I am hoping, because you created that template, that you have experience with this and wikisource. If not, don't worry, but I would be very interested to hear your views on the proposed plagiarism guideline (it is very early days yet). Carcharoth (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

When I have Wikisource questions, I normally go to User:Jayvdb, he's the expert.  :) I did create that template quite awhile ago, but have no strong preference on how things are handled at this point. Deal with it as you see fit. :) --Elonka 17:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Unless you know whether there is a difference between the Stanovoi Mountains in Chukotka Autonomous Okrug and the Stanovoi Range in (well parts of them anyway) Amur Oblast? I think it is an EB1911 thing, but you never know who will know about that sort of thing! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

William Remington

  • Too many undiscussed changes were made at once, I reverted and I am going through them one by one. Especially during an open RFC we should be discussing changes on the talk page first, and making them one by one. I had already added back the spacer line. But removing the Time magazine source and leaving the information in the article unsourced, should have been discussed on the talk page. The only reason to remove a source from an article without discussion, is if it is incorrect. You told him trimming was ok, so he is now deleting the same material as before and leaving the word "trim" in the edit summary. He likes his book references, and doesn't seem to like references from periodicals. I leave his references in place, he tends to delete mine in favor of his. I see both reference types as good for the casual reader and serious researcher. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I may be in error too. He may have just changed the formatting, so that the reference showed up in red as a deletion when I looked at the difference. I restored it back. Maybe you can double check. With so many changes at once, its difficult to see, and the edit summary didn't help. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


List of Military occupations

Your intervention, as a non-involved admin, could be useful on this article. An editor who appears to be an Egyptian nationalist (note the ‘I am Egypt, and Egypt is me’ tag line on his user page is ) is edit warring over several articles to remove any information that is unfavorable to Egypt. Most recently, he has been removing well known and well sourced information from this article, sometimes with false edit summaries, sometimes with flat out jeering ones. He has removed this information five times in the last 48 hours (so technically, not a 3RR violation) despite a lack of support for his position on the talk pages. This article (and certainly the specific reverts being made) are covered under the I-P ArbCom case. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll take a look. --Elonka 21:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Help again

Hello again Elonka, I need some more assistance on the Days of Our Lives cast member page. Someone keeps removing references, removing your warnings and changing spellings of character names to incorrect spellings. I have sourced and re-sourced over and over like you told me to, and I cannot get this IP to stop vandalizing, despite my warnings. The IP changes everytime, but it is the one that begins with 67.68..... Since I create a talk page with warnings everytime and it keeps changing, I have had to leave warnings hidden in the actual page. But the vandalism continues. Please advise. Thank you so much! Rm994 (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Israelinsider

With all due respect, I still don't think the web site is notable enough for inclusion, so I have tagged it with an {{nn}} tag. The site traffic doesn't strike me as being all that high, and the section also seems to contradict itself. I appreciate your mentoring this user, but I still stand by my original action, and I probably would tag it for deletion again had it not been for your intervention. As it is, I've given you plenty of time to work on this, so have at it. (I must admit, some of the material on the site is interesting, particularly that questioning Barack Obama's status as a natural-born citizen.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on the notability, so will remove the tag. However, if you feel strongly about this, you are welcome to submit the article for AfD. I do not, however, feel that the article was an appropriate candidate for speedy-deletion. It had sources, and plausible notability. Speedy tagging should only be done for unambiguous cases. Other types of articles should go through {{prod}} or AfD. --Elonka 22:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


T-word

Thanks for your comment. Just that I didn't want the debate to go in circles. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood, but remember that since you're the more experienced one here, it's incumbent upon you to set a good example. You're definitely allowed to delete the messages from your talkpage, just please keep the edit summaries civil. Also, remember WP:BITE, there might be a way to get a good new editor out of this.  :) --Elonka 03:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Well one way is to encourage them to edit a variety of articles especially ones that are similar to the ones of most interest. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

List of military occupations

Several points:

  1. IMHO List of military occupations does not fall under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles.
  2. List of military occupations is a list and as such it is a summary. Only those military occupations that are challenged or likely to be challenged need to be cited. As many of the items in the list can be checked in parent articles, few of the items are likely to be challenged. How do I know that? The list has existed in this form for several yeas with few to no challenges (other than this current one, one on Northern Ireland and one on Tibet) this has been proven by the edit history.
  3. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, there is no need to source something that is obvious to a reasonably well educated adult. Otherwise we would need to source that the Thames flows through London and that the sun rises in the east. The definition is given in the article Military occupation (As explained in the Military occupation, if the army of one belligerent army invades the territory of another country it has by definition military occupied that territory under GCIV) and that article is included in the first sentence of the list article.

I hope that helps. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. As I read it, the dispute is specifically about Israeli and Egyptian campaigns. As such, it falls within the scope of the ArbCom case. Though hopefully the dispute can be handled with normal measures, and no escalated restrictions will be required.
  2. Lists may be summaries, but they still require sources. Having a list of links to other articles, is fine, but as soon as something is challenged, it needs to be sourced. Provided that the external articles are sourced, this should be easy enough to comply with.
  3. It does not matter what the definition of Wikipedians is. Neither the opinions of editors, nor other Wikipedia articles, can be used as a source. What matters is "reliable published sources". For List of military occupations, if an entry is challenged, then it is necessary to provide a reliable source which calls a campaign an "occupation". If such a source cannot be provided, the entry can and should be removed. --Elonka 23:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Britain and France invaded Egypt over the nationalisation of the canal and only pulled out due to pressure from the US it is not usually seen in Britain as anything to do with Palestine.
Are you stating that if someone challenges well know facts such as The "sun rises in the east" that it should be removed until a citation must be provided? Usually there is an assumption that challenges should be made in good faith and not to be deliberately selective to introduce an non neutral point of view into articles, by selectively deleting information that a reasonable person with a reasonable level of education can infer from the information provided or would be expected to know from a general level of education (such as the "sun rises in the east", "water is wet", "murder is against the law" or the "invasion by a hostile army must involve the occupation of territory by that army"). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm good on the first two, per WP:ASF. For the second two, sources would be required. Things like "against the law", "hostile" and "occupation" can vary from country to country, opinion to opinion. Also, by the mere fact that there's an edit war about this, is enough to prove that the information is being challenged. And per WP:V, as soon as it's challenged, sources are required. --Elonka 00:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
But in this case, sources have been provided. I've provided at least 3 different sources that describe the result of the Suez campaign as an "occupation", and PBS has added a fourth one, yet they keep getting reverted, with a false claim that this is unsourced, or with no reason at all ("stupid enough to delete"). what is the proper next step in this case, against such persistent deletions? Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Murder is defined as unlawful killing (in the OED), so if one understands English one should know that murder has to be against the law or the killing is not murder. If not what does murder mean? If a hostile army invades another country it has to occupy territory because it takes up physical space. Ever since 1899 there has been specific international laws that defines the obligations that such an army has when occupying an enemies territory and since the Nuremberg Trials these have been seen as part of customary law and binding on all states whether or not they signed the original conventions. Now some (probably a lot of) people may not know that, but it is explained in the lead section of the list and a such it is not unreasonable to expect a person who reads the list to understand the lead, particularly as there is a link to the article with more details. Now if one wishes to challenge the statement in the lead and ask for more citations for clarification that is quite reasonable, but given the information in the lead, not to understand that invasion by a hostile army means some form of military occupation is like not understanding that murder is unlawful killing.
As you will see from the talk page of the list, not all the occupations are belligerent occupations for various reasons and some are border line, in which cases sources are needed, but many occupations should be beyond doubt (such as the occupation of parts of the Soviet Union by the Third Reich during WWII) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Philip Baird Shearer: If something is obvious, then there will be sources to prove it. I could provide plenty of examples of disagreement about whether an army "occupied" a territory, "conquered" it, "invaded" it, "raided" it, "passed through doing a temporary truce", "sent in some observers", etc., which is why I think it's important to have sources that clarify the term. The term "occupation" can conjure up images which some people may object to, if they are used to describing something in a softer term such as "official guests" or something. --Elonka 01:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I am sure that a thesaurus could proved plenty of synonyms for occupation, and as you point out people such as yourself can think of plenty of euphemisms, but belligerent military occupation has a specific meaning under international law "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." Hague IV (1907) Art. 42. (Military occupation#Military occupation and the laws of war) and thanks to WWII there is lots of cases law to back it up. As can be seen on the talk page there are occasions were under international law were there is a debate about whether an occupation by a 'hostile army took place and in those cases a citation is necessary, but in the case of the Suez Crisis there is no question but that some of Egypt was under military occupation by a hostile army or three as even a brief skim of the Suez Crisis article confirms. This really does fall under the category of "murder is unlawful killing" or as the OED puts it occupation is "The action of taking or maintaining possession or control of a country, building, land, etc., esp. by (military) force;" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 06:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
If it's "obvious" and no one challenges the information, then no problem. However, if it's obvious to one person, but not obvious to another, and the information is challenged, then a source is required. If a source is not provided, the information can be removed. If one editor removes unsourced information, then it shouldn't be added back, unless a source is also provided. --Elonka 14:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Strange then that you do not think that "water is wet" needs a source if someone challenges it. Wikipedia is not written in simple English and it is not a dictionary, so people ought to look in one if they do not know what a word such as murder or occupation means otherwise every word in Wikipeda would need a source. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Canadian Monkey: I cautioned Pharoah at his talkpage, and to my knowledge he hasn't repeated the behavior since then. If it does start up again, let me know. --Elonka 01:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
fair enough. I will. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Michelle Crisp

Please, with my apologies, come in on this again. I have largely refrained from editing for some four months but this person continues to stalk me and she also now again enlsts Ms LaraLove. I am sorry to have to ask for your assistance, but honestly! Masalai (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

What has she done which you feel is stalking you? Details please. --Elonka 15:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

But dear Elonka, I have forborne to edit for the better part of three months after her last attack, and now she or he still again tracks my edits. What more do I say? Are these not details enough? And now she or he accuses me of not being in Queensland but being in Saskatchewan (!). I shouldn't have thought that being in Saskatchewan rather than Queensland was really much of an accusation but apparently so it is. As it happens, anyone might easily find out by tracking my internet address that I am indeed right here in Queensland. What on earth must I do to rid myself of this -- dare I say it? possibly not -- stalker? Masalai (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well. But are you really sure that you want to encourage an editor who only destroys, but does not create; who only demolishes but does not build; who puts down but does not put up? And what do you make of the oddness of Ms Crisp's accusation that one is not oneself in Brisbane, Australia, but in Saskatchewan, Canada, as though that were any sort of accusation? She (or indeed he) might readily discover by investigating my internet origins that I am certainly in Brisbane, Australia but what of that? I have largely forborne to edit on Wikipedia for the better part of three months and still Ms or Mr Crisp continues to stalk my edits. Surely this constitutes grounds for a slap on the wrist. In the courts of Queensland, where I assure you I certainly am, this would certainly be the basis for a stalkking order. Masalai (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of these accusations? Which pages are these accusations being made on? --Elonka 18:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry: I am not familiar with this term "diffs." Is this a Wikipedia term of art? Masalai (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
See WP:DIFF. If you say that someone is attacking you, you need to provide proof, such as what they said, where they said it, and when it happened. --Elonka 21:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

POV edits

I've been discussing these very same edits with the editor making them at Settler colonialism - see this as an example. But you are probably right that other editors who are not privy to that discussion might not get it - I'll add more discussion on other pages where I've de-POV'ed these kind of edits. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) --Elonka 22:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your note. I am a lawyer who easily appears to be invested, even if I am just arguing out of interest. Anyway, I would like to hear from you about whether your commment might apply, as well or even better, to the editor on whose behalf you seemed to be speaking. Please review the personal attacks higher up on my talk page, as well as the deletion debate we are in. I have been editing on WP for years (never before under a username) but have never been in a deletion debate. I can't see the fun in it if deletionists run amok with the condonation of an administrator, to be honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osloinsummertime (talk • contribs) 02:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And just what "amok-ness" are you seeing? --Elonka 03:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Dei patris immensa

Oh, is that allowed on Wikisource? There's no rule against "original research" there? I suppose I should fix up the translation, since it is currently filled with question marks and nonsensical English! Adam Bishop (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Dawson made English translations in 1955 of the first two letters of Innocent IV. The book "The Mongol Mission" was republished in 1980 (reprinted in 1995) as "Mission to Asia". I have added the references to the two articles DPI and CMS. (The book is reviewed on Jstor and the review explicitly indicates that these particular letters were translated; it is also mentioned in the link to David Wilkinson's website on Innocent IV.) Some months ago, you asked me on my talk page about Latin translations. I presume that you were referring to these texts, as well as VAV / VCV. Mathsci (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Excellent find, Mathsci! Thank you. And yes, when I mentioned Latin awhile back, I was referring to those, and others at List of papal bulls. --Elonka 15:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole of Dawson's book is available to subscribers on www.questia.org. Here is the start of Dawson's translation of DPI:

"God the Father, of His graciousness regarding with unutterable loving-kindness the unhappy lot of the human race, brought low by the guilt of the first man, and desiring of His exceeding great charity mercifully to restore him whom the devil's envy overthrew by a crafty suggestion, sent from the lofty throne of heaven down to the lowly, region of the world His only-begotten Son, con­substantial with Himself, who was conceived by the operation of the Holy Ghost in the womb of a fore-chosen virgin and there clothed in the garb of human flesh, and afterwards proceeding thence by the closed door of His mother's virginity, He showed Himself in a form visible to all men. For human nature, being endowed with reason, was meet to be nourished on eternal truth as its choicest food, but, held in mortal chains as a punishment for sin, its powers were thus far reduced that it had to strive to understand the invisible things of reason's food by means of inferences drawn from visible things. The Creator of that creature became visible, clothed in our flesh, not without change in His nature, in order that, having become visible, He might call back to Himself, the Invisible, those pursuing after visible things, moulding men by His salutary instructions and pointing out to them by means of His teaching the way of perfection: following the pattern of His holy way of life and His words of evangelical instruction, He deigned to suffer death by the torture of the cruel cross, ... "

This is flowing English. This is what you uploaded to wikisource:

"The immense benevolence of God the father, considering with ineffable piety the fall of mankind, which came to ruin by the sin of the first man, and wishing with great love to mercifully revive him whom diabolic envy has made prostrate by deceitful suggestion, has sent his only-begotten son, sharing the same nature with him, from the highest throne of heaven to the lowest dirt of the world, he who, conceived in the womb of the pre-elected virgin by the grace of the Holy Spirit and endowed there with the clothing of human flesh, thenceforth appeared to all, having exited from the enclosed gate of his mother's virginity. For human nature, although it was reasonable, ought to have fed on the eternal truth as its own best meal: (but the penalty of sin, detained in mortal chains because of this, was reduced from decreasing, so that through interpretations of visible things it tried to understand the invisible things of a reasonable meal????). The creator of that creature became visible in our fashion not without a change of nature, so that, made visible, he might recall those following visible things to himself while invisible, informing men with his teachings of salvation, and, showing them the way of perfect life with his teaching as proof, after his examples of sacred conversation and his speeches of angelic instruction, he deigned to suffer death under the torture of the harsh cross ..."

The second translation, in its current form, has various serious problems. It seems hard to justify how it could be used on WP. Mathsci (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The translation continues:

"that, by a penal end to his present life, He might make an end of the penalty of eternal death, which the succeeding generations had incurred by the death of their first parent, and that man might drink of the sweetness of the life of eternity from the bitter chalice of His death in time. For it behoved the Mediator between us and God to possess both transient mortality and ever-lasting beatitude, in order that by means of the transient He might be like those doomed to die and might transfer us from among the dead to that which lasts forever.

He therefore offered Himself as a victim for the redemption of mankind and, overthrowing the enemy of its salvation, He snatched it from the shame of servitude to the glory of liberty, and unbarred for it the gate of the heavenly fatherland. Then rising from the dead and ascending into Heaven, He left His vicar on earth, and to him, after he had borne witness to the constancy of His love by the proof of a threefold profession, He committed the care of souls, that he should with watchfulness pay heed to and with heed watch over their salvation, for which He had humbled His high dignity; and He handed to him the keys of the kingdom of heaven by which he and, through him, his successors were to possess the power of opening and of closing that kingdom to all ..."

Mathsci (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The neat thing about Wikisource, is that multiple editors are allowed to work on improving a translation. We unfortunately can't use the book translation (because of copyright issues), but if you see specific locations where Adam Bishop's or Aramgar's existing translations could be improved, by all means feel free to dive in and tweak.  :) --Elonka 04:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Other authors (Robert Norman Swanson, Caroline Walker Bynum) quote the whole or part of the passage I've indicated (with citations) in their texts, so I am not sure that you're correct about this particular issue of copyright. The fact that the translation already appears on your own WP talk page must presumably already be a copyvio (it is pages 72-73 in Dawson). Please remove it a.s.a.p. if you know for sure that that is the case. Mathsci (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, remove what? Your above post? You are welcome to delete it if you would like. --Elonka 06:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I can see that quoting these translations on WP, with citations, is permissible and does not violate copyright. This makes wikisource, with its copyright restrictions, not so useful here. Many of the papal bulls have been translated elsewhere, often by religious institutions, and are accessible on the web. In the particular case of the 2 letters of 1245, Dawson's book seems the best source at the moment. It would be interesting to locate a published translation of the third letter. (I actually came across a new copy of Peter Jackson's scholarly book on the Mongols yesterday, but, despite a brief description of the 3rd letter, it does not cite a translation.) Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I know some Wikisource editors who would disagree with you.  :) --Elonka 12:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If I didn't know better...

...it would appear that you are wikistalking me, as at User talk:JohnGalt65. Thanks again for taking the time and effort to keep an eye on all of the various fronts here. Alansohn (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I prefer to call it "closely mentoring", but okay.  :) --Elonka 15:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Semantics. Alansohn (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
It's all about the intent.  :) If you'd ever like to contact me off-wiki, I can give you more info about why this particular case is so interesting to me. --Elonka 04:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Off-wiki message has been sent. Alansohn (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

FreepRipper and Fyunck

Both of these accounts are still being used, apparently in disregard of the original purpose of the block of these sockpuppets. See 1, 2, 3. Best regards. Tennis expert (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he made his choice on a primary. I went ahead and blocked FreepRipper (talk · contribs) indefinitely. If you see any other accounts or anons pop up which you think are the same user, let us know. --Elonka 04:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute..... I have to read and then leave your box up FOREVER??? Is there a way you can make Tennis Expert leave me alone on my talk page? holy moly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I placed the banner on your talkpage rather than your userpage, so eventually it can scroll off. Keep busy, and it won't be an issue. The category, however, is permanent. I also recommend making a userpage so your name doesn't keep showing up as a redlink. As for Tennis Expert, he has the right to contact you if you and he are both editing the same articles, and he needs to communicate with you about something (just as you have the right to communicate with him). Communications have to be WP:CIVIL though. If any are not, let me know. --Elonka 16:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Explanation

In fact, Svetovid made some controversial edits yesterday, that's why Nmate got a bit upset (not that I'd defend his behavior). He deleted a number of Hungarian names from articles as "irrelevant in English" but carefully left there the Slovak ones. He also went against the spirit of the new naming convention.
If he wanted to refer to that paragraph, he applied it wrongly to say the least. And we still don't know who this IP is basically doing the same across a number of articles. Squash Racket (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is in any way fair or encyclopedic. Squash Racket (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I have blocked the IP as a probable sockpuppet of User:MarkBA. As for Svetoid's edits, many of them look reasonable to me, and his rationale also makes sense, that if Hungarian names are to be re-added, that they should be included with an English-language source proving that it's a common name. If such a source is added, and Svetovid (or anyone) continues to revert, please post about it at the Experiment page, and we (myself, Shell Kinney, or EdJohnston) will take a look. --Elonka 15:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a problem here

I have an admin deciding to close out IfDs, using his own personal interpretation of NFC to evaluate and close arguments. After contacting Nc8200p to try and clear up what I thought was a mistake in an IfD discussion, he instead told me his personal take on IfD and suggested I go to DRV, which I have. I am getting the impression that wagons are circling, and the only one losing is the rest of us editors. Maybe give me your take on the situation? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

One last compromise

Can you help with the Elizabeth Bentley compromise. I have compromised and reduced the information to a footnote, and removed the link to Time magazine. Currently it is the only documented job in her biography. It is still being labeled as "trivia" and "non notable", despite appearing in Time magazine. Labeling info as "triva" is subjective, appearing in a reliable source is objectively notable, since Time magazine took notice of it. I also believe that stating that Time magazine published it "only" for some other reason constitutes "original research". Again it is a matter of objective reality (published in a reliable source) vs. subjective reality (Time published a piece of trivia). Again its become a matter of compromise (moving it to a footnote) vs. absolute deletion. Your input and guidance would be helpful. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Just how many articles are you and RedSpruce battling at? Would this really be the "last" one, or just one more in a long series of disputes? --Elonka 00:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"Personal attacks must cease"

It sounds like a good policy, but forget it. If you make this a goal in and of itself, you will only make matters worse. I don't mean "you" personally; I many anyone with less than god-like omniscience.

The problem is that a great many insults come veiled in lies and distortions: "Ever since the WP:ANI that resulted in your being blocked for 3 days..." for example. Insult or not? It depends on whether that's an accurate description of the ANI and its results. And how might the insulted (we'll assume) party respond? "You're a damn liar" would be perfectly honest and correct, but some (not all) admins believe that all editors should be held to the Christ-like standard that no level of provocation justifies a personal (counter)attack. We'll leave that question aside. What if the insulted editor responds with "Your characterization of that ANI is laughably inaccurate." Some, with all the facts at their hands, might think that this is a remarkably civil response to a damned lie. Others, who don't have all the facts at their hands might think that the question of who is being civil and who incivil must depend on those unknown facts--what's the story with that ANI after all? Still others need read no further than the word "laughable", which sets off the "personal attack" light on top of their heads, and the matter is settled.

That's a bad way to do things. If your approach to rooting out personal attacks is just to keep an eye out for the Seven dirty words, you're going to spend a lot of time being wrong. Worse than that, you're going to end up rewarding those editors who have learned the slimy skill of painting over their insults with lies and distortions. Those who choose to remain honest, even in the face of their strong feelings of injustice, will lose out.

It was because the situation with RAN, Alansohn, and myself had deteriorated so much that I was suggesting the strict and punishable set of ground rules that prohibited any off-topic discussion whatsoever. This would have prevented all of the usual insults (painted over or otherwise), non-sequitur, circular arguments, willful illogic and other forms of stonewalling that have characterized previous attempts at discussion. IMO, you should have encouraged that idea, instead of playing find-one-of-the-seven-dirty words.

RedSpruce (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


In need of arbitration

Hello. I am not sure this is the right way to do it but I understood you can arbitrate in some cases. I am registered here for a few months and created mainly articles related to firearms technology, development and history.

I could bring a lot of informations unknown because of the barriers of language and secrecy surrounding such development in France. For these reasons, the French touch in this field was quite uncovered until recently the Armament Archives could be accessed and books appeared. On the other hand, I edited many articles because of inaccuracies. I added some informations to already good articles as well.

Recently, I made some edits related to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G3 and brought some datas and pictures to make the history of the development better known and more importantly more accessible to the readers. For example, I added the missing period between the german experimental weapons in 1945 and the spanish development after 1950. this period saw the german technicians in France, they accomplished a major part of their work there. I posted cutaway views of the roller delayed locking to allow the reader to visualize the system the article was referring to under the "development" title. I replaced a 1988 picture irrelevant on a technical and historical point of view by pictures of the precursors of the G3 and technical pictures. The replaced picture was a low quality that did not even allow identification of the G3, I replaced it by a high definition picture with a crisp quality and placed it in the relevant part of the article related to variants.

Since then another member, Koalorka, started an harassment war by systematically removing my edits and complaining I removed an historically very important picture.

More over he obliges the reader to go back and forth between 4 articles by removing these pictures I posted all related precisely to the major technical and historical step that made the G3 what it is.

Please indicate to me what I should do to get out of this stupid war I am drawn into by only trying to bring a better quality information.

Thanks

Edmond HUET (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Specifically, I am not seeing any discussion at the article talkpage. I would start there, and see if you can find a compromise. --Elonka 00:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I answered on the talk page.

Edmond HUET (talk) 10:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit Restrictions

Elonka, I was hoping you might reconsider and lift my edit restrictions for the Al Durrah page. I have created several stubs on my 'vacation' including Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Israel) , Israelinsider , Palestinian Centre for Human Rights , Kaleet River and am working on putting up something about Yom-Tov Samia shortly. I have learned a lot in my time off and would appreciate an opportunity to try again. Thank you. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have been very impressed with the excellent work that you have been doing, especially in creating some much-needed stubs. Thank you for your efforts. I am lifting your editing restriction at Muhammad al-Durrah, and you are free to resume editing. I do still strongly encourage you to continue and find a balance, with no more than 50% of your edits being al-Durrah-related. Other than that, welcome back!  :) --Elonka 01:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Needing sources?

  • From WP:NCGN:

    Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages

No sources needed for English usage; I hope I don't need to provide sources that Hungarians lived/live in Upper Hungary (today's Slovakia). Tankred had added a Slovak name to the city of Szeged where 0.1% of the population is Slovak.

  • From WP:UE:

    The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is known.(...)If there is a significant number of alternative names or forms it may be helpful to keep only the most common two or three in the first paragraph and a list of them in a separate section or footnote to avoid cluttering the lead

The subject is definitely "known" by the Hungarian name, English usage is not specified there.

What convention/guideline applies to buildings? According to Markussep's comment:

OK. Since Wikipedia:Naming conventions (architecture) is inactive, WP:NCGN is the next best thing for buildings. "group of people that used to inhabit the area" would refer to a larger area than the building itself of course. (...)Markussep Talk 11:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

So we add names to the lead of buildings based on WP:NCGN? Or WP:UE?

Here exclusively the Hungarian names were removed from an article with zero references. Edit summary: "unsourced for 50+ days" (no citation needed tag placed earlier). Squash Racket (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I cautioned him about using {{fact}} tags before deleting things as unsourced. He's right though, that anything that's challenged and unsourced, can be removed per WP:V. If someone goes crazy with it, we can block them per WP:POINT, but if they're just challenging information in a few specific cases, the better course of action is to go and find sources. --Elonka 03:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I repeat: or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place does not require any proof of English usage, only proof for minorities living there. Squash Racket (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so provide a source which proves that then.  :) --Elonka 04:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That was frustrating

Re: Teardrop trailer
The IP didn't explain what they were doing until after they received the final warning. I made sure I used the removal of content warning the first time, but if a user continues to do that without explaining what they're doing I usually just consider it vandalism. I think I did the right thing considering the circumstances, but thanks for the heads-up. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You were definitely doing the right thing... My only constructive criticism here is about the terminology used. Or in other words, before using the vandalism word, think about, "Could I report this at WP:AIV"? They'll generally only take action on blatant cases of vandalism, otherwise they'll bounce them back as "content dispute, wrong venue". So it's best to get into the habit of only using the term in blatant cases. --Elonka 03:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks --Closedmouth (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikifan12345

Grateful if you could have a word with this editor. His latest contributions [1] [2] do not strike me as at all helpful. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Jagz

FYI, I have reinstated the indefinite block of Jagz (talk · contribs). Please see his edit to User talk:MastCell for the reason. --B (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the indefinite block, thanks for letting me know. --Elonka 01:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

nasty edit

Maybe you would look into this edit made on my TALK page? [3] Thanks, Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, sorry about that. Appears to just be random vandalism, nothing to do with you. I have blocked the user for a month. --Elonka 03:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. What a jerk! Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay.

i appreciate the "polite" warning.

though i think u might be a little confused. i went to the talk page first, explained my proposal to change a SINGLE WORD in the intro, several members endorsed it, so i went on ahead and did it. i came back today and somebody reverted it with little reason why, so i went ahead and reverted it back. in response to your included links, i know it's hard to be fair and truly neutral in a hot environment like that, but let's be real honest. it's very easy to pick and choose another users comments without considering the whole situation and throw the book at them. if you take a full look at my history in the pal/israel discussions, ive been more than cordial. more cordial than most that ive been in contact with. if you take a gander at several of the users in the al-Durrah discussions, you'll many users have violated Editing Conditions laws and many other rules that have been established to protect abusive persons, yet i have not seen them receiving warnings as i have. im not quite certain why youre motivated to pin me out here, as i havent really been involved a lot with al-durrah. i suggest before giving somebody an unnecessary and unwarranted warning, please review all available information. id also add that i am under no restrictions in any of the wiki sectios as far as i know. thank you Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide a link to where you explained your proposal, and several members endorsed it? Thanks, Elonka 04:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad_al-Durrah#rephrasing_intro please make an effort to respond in my discussion. thanks Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
also, so we're clear: I did NOT start a revert war. that seemed to be the core of your warning so it needs to be emphasized and accepted. again, thank you. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Based on my view of that discussion, opinions were pretty evenly split, so I wouldn't exactly call that a "consensus" discussion. I think it's also an overstatement to say that "several" members endorsed it, since I only saw two. However, if you'd like to change the wording in the lead again, and cite the source that Tundrabuggy mentioned, including perhaps a quote in the reference to show that the source does use the word "allegedly", that would probably be okay. Remember, the restriction only applies to reverts. You are still welcome to make changes, as long as each one is a bit different than something you tried last time, and you stick carefully to reliable sources. I encourage you to try and find a compromise. --Elonka 04:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you're missing the game Elonka. We're talking about a single word here. If anything, I was making a correction. The source used was over eight years old. please make a strong effort in considering the entire situation before issuing unnecessary citations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
When making a correction, it is best to include a source, which confirms the correction. See also WP:V. --Elonka 04:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I don't usually butt in on others' talk page sections, but this really needs to be dealt with IMO. A lot of us spent quite a bit of time a few weeks ago hammering out the al-Durrah lead, especially the "reported to have been killed" bit. While not perfect, it was at least something accepted all around. Now weeks later we have Wikifan here swapping it out with "allegedly", the veritable King of weasel words, because "the source is old?" Well, it may be, but since nothing in a reliable source has been found to contradict it in those 8 years, then that is what we can and should go with. This is the heart of the matter here; do new unreliable sources trump old reliable sources? IMO, our policies here clearly say "no". Tarc (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Could you please provide a link to that discussion? Also, please remember that consensus can change. According to the link that Wikifan12345 provided, there is no solid talkpage consensus. But again, everyone is welcome to change the text to try and find a compromise version, that is in accordance with current reliable sources. --Elonka 15:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, possible POV fork here

Please take a look at this. It seems to me to be uncomfortably close to a POV fork of Dysgenics, although I'd like to hear what you think of it.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the content, but if you think it's inappropriate, go ahead and tag it for a merge, like I did with Dysgenesis. Add {{mergeto}} to that one, {{mergefrom}} to the other, and start a section for the discussion. --Elonka 17:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

excuse me?

I'm sorry, but I see no wikipedia rule/article that explains what constitutes borderline civil attack. My message was not targeted at any specific person, I didn't use foul language, or innuendos, or anything "borderlined" mean. No less than many of the posts authored by NickH or administrator ChrisO. Unless of course you consider capitalization a civil attack. Look, I respect your position as an administrator, but you if continue using frivolous citations I will be forced to seek another administrators opinion and file a complaint against you. thank you Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, I have wide latitude in imposing restrictions, towards the goal of stabilizing the article. You were already informed of this on June 8,[4] though if you would like a second official warning, I can definitely provide one. If you are indeed banned from the article, you are welcome to file an appeal. However, you might wish to read this first: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for appeal: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. In any case, just make sure that you abide by the conditions for editing, and keep your communications and edit summaries extremely civil, and no ban will be placed. --Elonka 20:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Response on my talk page

Hi Elonka. Thanks for the message. I've been away for a bit, but I'm back now and have replied over there. Carcharoth (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Jagz

I'm sorry. I'm very disappointed in his behavior. I'm honestly shocked that he's done this. DustiSPEAK!! 05:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dont be sorry. You guys tried, and that is admirable. I was skeptic of the entire exercise (I first thought that it was a waste of time, then I thought that perhaps you were just giving him more rope to hang himself), but, in the end, you guys made me better at assuming good faith! I am pretty good at WP:AGF on the keyboard, but you got me to do it off the keyboard too! So, at least one good thing came of it. Thanks! Brusegadi (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Dustihowe: Yes, I'm disappointed too.  :/
Brusegadi: Thanks, and yes I knew there was some risk that it wouldn't work, but I felt it was a gamble worth taking. My gut tells me that he's not completely gone though... He probably has another account, or has moved his efforts to Wikia. I don't think we've seen the last of him. However, because he decided to "go out with a bang" on the Jagz account, his next accounts (if any) are not going to get much sympathy in terms of a second chance. If he would have stayed on good behavior with his Jagz account, then if another account was discovered, that was behaving in a constructive and collegial manner, we might have adopted a "wait and see" attitude. But as it is, anything new is just going to be blocked on sight. --Elonka 15:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, you guys had gotten me to believe he could really change his ways in the end. My hat off to you for trying.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not surprised, given some of the opposing editors kept stalking and edit warring with Jagz, combined with MastCell's threat to ban Jagz the next time he'd make an edit to a policy page. --Zero g (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I think in a way, we are kind of responsible for his actions, because quite simply, individuals crack under pressure. Maybe he just got the final nudge? DustiSPEAK!! 18:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you and Elonka took on a difficult challenge in mentoring Jagz. Ultimately Jagz, and not other WP editors, must take responsibility for his own actions. MastCell's warning after Jagz's edits to policy pages was a completely normal response from an administrator, following Jagz's edits from a considerable distance. Nobody can excuse Jagz's obscene and disproportionate response. Mathsci (talk) 04:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
You know Mathsci I agree with you, but, I don't think that some editors helped the situation much by watching his every move and being overly critical of his every edit. DustiSPEAK!! 19:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Pauline Fowler

hi elonka. I made an edit to remove 5 of this article's 7 fair use images. It's been reverted. Will you take a look and see if you still think these images are appropriate? 86.44.16.82 (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That article has already been through extensive review processes, including WP:FA status. If there's a dispute, I recommend taking it to the talkpage. If there's consensus to remove the images, then proceed, otherwise, should probably leave them alone. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Elonka 18:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
From your contribs, 86.44.16.82 (talk · contribs), it seems fairly obvious that you've got experience with Wikipedia. Care to identify your other account(s)? If nothing else, I would recommend creating a named account if you are going to get involved in disputes. --Elonka 18:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm somewhat taken aback by your responses. I have never had an account, just a series of IPs. I am not really in what I would call dispute, I'm just editing. As you are the main contributor to this article, I was asking for your specific opinion on the image use, rather than advice. My next step in lieu of good arguments or agreement would probably be FAR, rather than dispute resolution. 86.44.16.82 (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Get lost, GNU freedom troll! You are exactly the kind of people who make Wikipedia suck, by insisting on ruining our fine articles with your idiotic ideology. Go back to commons where you belong. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The anon's actions do appear to be in violation of WP:POINT. --Elonka 19:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry Elonka for my lack of civility. I'm afraid I'm a little frustrated about this nonsense and will be having a nice cup of tea now. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and feel free to refactor any of your previous comments.  :) --Elonka 19:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
You're a little late mentioning refactoring, since you've already given Dragon's comments your tacit support. I'm completely taken aback by all this. What point am I making, and how am I being disruptive? What's the problem? 86.44.16.82 (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Just saw the ANI thread. Perhaps you might see fit to pop over and apologize for your error in characterizing me as edit-warring. Your accusations of WP:POINT violation and threats are equally bogus failures of good faith, but unfortunately they are the kind of accusations one can not easily disprove. 86.44.16.82 (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. People are encouraged to get an account, but they are not forced to do so. All users should be treated with respect. Just because a person is using an IP address instead of a logged in account doesn't mean they are less than equals here. An apology is in order. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
To Anon, I am sorry for my outburst, I have redacted my comments. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't see the redaction yet, but thanks, Dragon. I prefer the nomenclature "IP editor", btw. :) 86.44.16.82 (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
And which other IPs might those be? --Elonka 21:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
There are no others in this thread, so there'd be no confusion. Are you asking for a list of IPs I've edited under?! 86.44.16.82 (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, indeed I am. And/or named accounts. --Elonka 22:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
For what reason? And you have already been told that I have not now nor have I ever had a named account. Continue on with your rude inquisitorial bluntness, false assertions, failures of good faith and implications that I am a liar regardless, though. After all, I made an edit to an article then enquired as to your opinion on the issue at hand! 86.44.16.82 (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I've no problem telling anyone as best I can, btw. I expect to know why you wanna know, though.86.44.16.82 (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
For the reason, 86.44.16.82 (talk · contribs), that I believe you to be in violation of both WP:POINT and WP:SOCK, specifically, "it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts — or to edit anonymously without logging in to your account — in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions." So I guess we could go to SSP or CheckUser, but I was hoping to save time. --Elonka 22:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Your beliefs are less than fascinating, though it is charming that you feel no need to back them up with reason. 86.44.16.82 (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, the IP editor has already informed you that he has never had an account, yet you continue to assume bad faith and refuse to believe his assertions. Further, he's asked you to point out what abuses he's supposedly committed, and you've failed to provide any. You can have whatever beliefs you want to have. But, continuing to make the accusations without assuming good faith and without backing up your accusations with evidence is behavior not in line with best practices here. I encourage you to reconsider your position. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The anon has been blocked (not by me) for one week, for trolling. I support the block, and have placed my reasoning on the anon's talkpage. --Elonka 03:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I only came across this on your talk page because we've come into contact over Muhammad al Durrah. I would just make the point that someone editing under different IP addresses is not of itself evidence of sockpuppetry - people might edit from different PCs at different times, and even when they edit from the same PC, as I understand it some ISPs assign rotating numerical addresses to the same internet account. And I haven't looked at the detail of the dispute, but from what I can tell the editor made - yes, a bold - removal of some images. When they were reverted, they did not edit war, but entered discussion on the article talk page and also came to your talk page to ask for your view. Then they were subject to some pretty childish abuse (which elicited a smile from you) and also to accusations of sockpuppetry, trolling and WP:POINT, as well as to general criticism based on the fact that they were an IP editor. Things seem to have now got out of hand from there. --Nickhh (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Nickhh, outside opinions are helpful. And you are correct that just editing anonymously is not necessarily a problem. However, some editors do hide behind anonymity to be disruptive and avoid blocks, and that's when it does become a problem. As for your investigations, you're close, but I'd make a few small changes in the timeline: The editor was participating at one of multiple AN/ANI threads that had been started about Fair Use images, and then in the middle of that, made a no-notice deletion of several images from the FA-class Pauline Fowler article. They were reverted, told me about it, and then after prodding from me, took it to the talkpage. There was then a strong comment from another editor that the anon was, in effect, making WP:POINT edits about the "fair use" controversy, to which I agreed in principle (if not language). Things escalated from there, and the anon was then blocked (not by me). I did support the block, as did another admin who reviewed the unblock request. For more information, check the anon's talkpage. :) --Elonka 19:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I was a bit loose in describing part of the chronology, but I still don't see anything blockable - I can't see any trolling or point breaches. And they actually took your advice to go to the article talk page of course, so it seems a bit unfair to now come out in support of a block. --Nickhh (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Elonka, you state that the IP editor was participating in multiple AN and AN/I threads on the issue and then in the middle of that removed fair use images from Pauline Fowler. A review of the IP editor's contributions shows this accusation to be false, as the IP editor had made only two Wikipedia space edits prior to the Pauline Fowler edit, and neither of those edits to the Wikipedia space had anything to do with fair use images. You are in error. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to these edits to the AN thread "Non-free images in "List Of" articles",[5][6] which thread was later closed[7] since it was overlapped with this ANI thread "non-free article discussion and 3RR".[8] --Elonka 19:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You asserted the IP Editor engaged in editing Pauline Fowler after initiating discussions on fair use images. You are wrong. You have also continued to refuse to provide diffs showing incivility on the part of this editor. Would you please take the opportunity to provide those diffs now please? Thanks in advance, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hammersoft, you're bordering on attacking Elonka at this point and I can't even figure out the point of this discussion. She was not the blocking admin, so you're aiming your vitriol at the wrong person entirely. She has provided diffs multiple times both on this page and on the talk page of the anon in question, so please stop badgering her. If you have a problem with this block, I'd suggest you address it with the blocking admin or on ANI. Shell babelfish 21:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If pointing out where Elonka is wrong and asking her to provide diffs to support her accusations counts as attacking, then by all means please immediately find me guilty of violating WP:NPA and seek to have me blocked. You claim she's provided diffs regarding the IP editors incivility. Would you care to point those out please? Thanks so much. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have missed the point where you're talking to the wrong person if your aim here is an unblock. Obviously, you disagree with Elonka on this point and I doubt further argument is going to change that. How about we go at this through proper channels if you'd like to see the block lifted? Shell babelfish 21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Then I'd suggest you read the talk page of the IP and check the diffs there. Since the IP is now unblocked, it should be a moot issue at this point. Shell babelfish 21:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elonka/Archive_19&oldid=1144706265"