User talk:Elonka/Archive 39
 | 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 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 44 |
Mongol conquest of Jerusalem
I looked over the sources cited at Mongol raids in Palestine for the alleged conquest of Jerusalem in 1300, and the only historian I see there cited as disagreeing is Schein in her Gesta Dei per Mongolos. So I read it. It is not clear to me at all that she denies the Mongols held Jerusalem. There is one non-European contemporary source for it. It is, all in all, completely unexceptional. A large, powerful army invaded a rather weakly-defended territory belong to its chief enemy and had control of it for some four months or so, including the strategically unimportant, but religiously significant, city of Jerusalem. Schein highlights how much Christendom could, in a Jubilee year especially, magnify such a non-event into a miraculous turning point in their fortunes. So can you cite a historian who denies explicitly that the Mongols had control of Jerusalem? I think the sources we have cited say that they did. And it is not a big deal. Certainly their brief running-over of Palestine represents nothing objective in connexion with Europe, only subjectively in those fourteenth-century imaginations. Srnec (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- There was not a large powerful army in Palestine, there were just some raids for a few months, and when the Egyptians returned from Cairo, the Mongols retreated without resistance. For more info, I recommend reading Reuven Amitai's article.[1] If you don't have JSTOR access, let me know and I'll send you a copy. --Elonka 02:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- I said "large, powerful" because (i) Ghazan himself appeared to be present with his forces and (ii) it was large and powerful relative to the completely absent Mameluke army. I am relying here on Schein, 810. Amitai confirms all this except Ghazan's presence (244–47). Every source I have read confirms that Mongol forces entered Jerusalem and that for a brief period of time (on the order of months) there was no other authority in the entire region of Palestine. Baibars gives the Mongol army under Mulay as 10,000- or 20,000-strong (obviously exaggerated greatly, but it does show that my denomination "large" has a contemporary source to back it up!). I think you may be over-reacting to PHG's own version of a Gesta Dei per Mongolos. (By the way, the event of 1299–1300 appears to have been a single "raid" not many.) Srnec (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's not just Schein and Amitai. Phillips, too, said, "Jerusalem was not taken or even besieged." In any case, isn't this pretty well covered at Mongol raids into Palestine? If you know of other sources, feel free to add them there. My own feeling is that it's not up to us to decide the dispute, we're just here to describe it. Based on my own reading of sources, there is disagreement among the historians, so that's how it's written in the Mongol raids article. We would be doing a disservice to our readers if we were to try and state as categorical fact that the Mongols were in Jerusalem. Instead, we state that there's disagreement, quote what the different historians say in a neutral manner, and then let the reader make up their own mind. --Elonka 03:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- What I am saying is that it doesn't seem that there is any disagreement that the Mongols were in Jerusalem in 1300 (both Schein and Amitai say they were). I don't care if we bring this up in the Franco-Mongol article or not (although a treatment like Schein's would belong there). I care that we not invent a dispute where there isn't one. As to Phillips (can I get a page number?), nobody is saying Jerusalem was besieged. Who would have defended it? And what does he mean by "was not taken"? Does he mean that it was not taken as the result of a military action? Then I agree, none of the sources suggest it was. The army just walked in. There was nobody there to defend it. But I don't think Phillips is here nearly so reliable as Schein or Amitai, who are wrestling with the primary sources directly. Did Phillips? If you don't mind, I've left a note on Adam Bishop's talk page to see if he can enlighten us, since the problem seems to be our interpretation of the secondary literature. Srnec (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- How about we centralize this discussion at Talk:Mongol raids into Palestine? --Elonka 03:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Good idea. Just one note though - I don't think Jerusalem's walls were rebuilt after 1244, so it would have been easy to just walk in and take it (and obviously there couldn't have been a siege). I might be wrong about that though. I haven't really looked at the Palestine raids article but I'll put it on the list... Adam Bishop (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- How about we centralize this discussion at Talk:Mongol raids into Palestine? --Elonka 03:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- What I am saying is that it doesn't seem that there is any disagreement that the Mongols were in Jerusalem in 1300 (both Schein and Amitai say they were). I don't care if we bring this up in the Franco-Mongol article or not (although a treatment like Schein's would belong there). I care that we not invent a dispute where there isn't one. As to Phillips (can I get a page number?), nobody is saying Jerusalem was besieged. Who would have defended it? And what does he mean by "was not taken"? Does he mean that it was not taken as the result of a military action? Then I agree, none of the sources suggest it was. The army just walked in. There was nobody there to defend it. But I don't think Phillips is here nearly so reliable as Schein or Amitai, who are wrestling with the primary sources directly. Did Phillips? If you don't mind, I've left a note on Adam Bishop's talk page to see if he can enlighten us, since the problem seems to be our interpretation of the secondary literature. Srnec (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's not just Schein and Amitai. Phillips, too, said, "Jerusalem was not taken or even besieged." In any case, isn't this pretty well covered at Mongol raids into Palestine? If you know of other sources, feel free to add them there. My own feeling is that it's not up to us to decide the dispute, we're just here to describe it. Based on my own reading of sources, there is disagreement among the historians, so that's how it's written in the Mongol raids article. We would be doing a disservice to our readers if we were to try and state as categorical fact that the Mongols were in Jerusalem. Instead, we state that there's disagreement, quote what the different historians say in a neutral manner, and then let the reader make up their own mind. --Elonka 03:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- I said "large, powerful" because (i) Ghazan himself appeared to be present with his forces and (ii) it was large and powerful relative to the completely absent Mameluke army. I am relying here on Schein, 810. Amitai confirms all this except Ghazan's presence (244–47). Every source I have read confirms that Mongol forces entered Jerusalem and that for a brief period of time (on the order of months) there was no other authority in the entire region of Palestine. Baibars gives the Mongol army under Mulay as 10,000- or 20,000-strong (obviously exaggerated greatly, but it does show that my denomination "large" has a contemporary source to back it up!). I think you may be over-reacting to PHG's own version of a Gesta Dei per Mongolos. (By the way, the event of 1299–1300 appears to have been a single "raid" not many.) Srnec (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Why is it so difficult to come by uninvolved input?
If you ever read your colleagues asking this question, I hope you will not just recall what happened at AE, but remember to refer them to what happened here (textbook wikihounding). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
?????
Dear Elonka. You have absolutely no right to ask me that [2]. This is totally out of place. No article can be your exclusive domain. This is also completely unfair if you look at the quality of the contributions I am making to this article and its talk page (online sources, balancing). Best regards. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 20:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- I am not saying it should be my exclusive domain. There are plenty of other editors who are welcome to participate there. Your actions, however, have become disruptive, especially since you are now de-railing the GA nom. It's time to stop. Please let other editors determine how the article should be written. Please find another article to work on. --Elonka 20:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- No Elonka, I am not derailing anything, quite the contrary. Have you looked at the positive atmosphere on the Talk Page? Even you finally recognized that the Mongols may have been in Jerusalem, while User:Srnec now confirms that "reliable sources say unequivocally that the Mongols were in Jerusalem" [3], which is quite a progress knowing how much you attacked me for putting forward this fact in the first place ("This DID NOT HAPPEN!!!")? I am committed to making some of the best, most interesting and most referenced contributions to Wikipedia, and I only wish to be your friend and fellow contributor, so please relax and let's have some good cooperative time together! Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 20:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Elonka I think you should now retract you threat to me here. As far as I know, you have no right to impose a non-community approved article ban on anybody, especially using threat. This is especially so as an involved Administrator. Combined with the incivility of your posts [4] and your mistaken treatment of historical facts to pursue me [5], I am afraid you are putting your status of Administrator at risk. I am allowed to edit the Franco-Mongol alliance article (which I created in the first place), and I don't think you have anything substantial to prove your claims of POV-pushing or disruption, beyond pure rethoric [6]. You typically overreact to simply seeing me contributing to articles you tend to consider your own playground: this is much too possessive. I wish to be your friend, and that we could edit peacefully about our common interests. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 18:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Where in that diff is a threat of a non-community approved article ban? Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Do not edit it, do not participate at the talkpage, do not participate at the GA nom. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 18:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Where in that diff is a threat of a non-community approved article ban? Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Elonka I think you should now retract you threat to me here. As far as I know, you have no right to impose a non-community approved article ban on anybody, especially using threat. This is especially so as an involved Administrator. Combined with the incivility of your posts [4] and your mistaken treatment of historical facts to pursue me [5], I am afraid you are putting your status of Administrator at risk. I am allowed to edit the Franco-Mongol alliance article (which I created in the first place), and I don't think you have anything substantial to prove your claims of POV-pushing or disruption, beyond pure rethoric [6]. You typically overreact to simply seeing me contributing to articles you tend to consider your own playground: this is much too possessive. I wish to be your friend, and that we could edit peacefully about our common interests. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 18:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- No Elonka, I am not derailing anything, quite the contrary. Have you looked at the positive atmosphere on the Talk Page? Even you finally recognized that the Mongols may have been in Jerusalem, while User:Srnec now confirms that "reliable sources say unequivocally that the Mongols were in Jerusalem" [3], which is quite a progress knowing how much you attacked me for putting forward this fact in the first place ("This DID NOT HAPPEN!!!")? I am committed to making some of the best, most interesting and most referenced contributions to Wikipedia, and I only wish to be your friend and fellow contributor, so please relax and let's have some good cooperative time together! Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 20:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Mongol Mamluks ???
You wrote: "In the early 1400s, Mongol relations with Europe again became friendly, this time with the Timurid dynasty, under Timur (Tamerlane), who was attempting to form an alliance against both the Mongol Mamluks and the Ottoman Empire" [7] Mongol Mamluks?? This can't be right I'm afraid. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 18:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Relax, it's just a typo (too many two-syllable "M" words). I've fixed it. --Elonka 18:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- A bit careless in your sweeping rewrites? Glad to help anyway :-) Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 19:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
PHG
I just looked at Greeks in pre-Roman Gaul and was rather shocked about the manipulation of sources. There are good sources for the ancient history and archaeology of Marseille, but these are not used in the article (particularly French sources). The statement about Glanum, a Celto-Ligurian settlement taking its name from a Celtic god, is quite misleading and counts as original research. PHG inserted images in the article on Marseille (which he insists on spelling Marseilles) with captions which already indicated that he was pushing another one of his unsupported theories about contacts between different areas/cultures. The images had very little to do with the article (one map was already present in the gallery). I noted that you were filing a RfE, because your Work1 page is still seemingly on my watchlist. My objection to PHG's editing is that he is pushing what might be speculative footnotes as significant parts of a main article, where the sources do not discuss the particular point in any detail. "Greeks in pre-Roman Gaul" is deeply problematic, because of the superficial use of sources. PHG has failed to locate the main sources and has written information which seems misleading and possibly self-invented. It was only just recently that I worked out why PHG was editing Marseille. I would support your one-year extension of a ban on medieval and ancient history. I would also probably suggest that the article on Greeks in pre-Roman Gaul be deleted, because it's so badly sourced and researched. I haven't had time to look at anything else at the moment, but I would suggest you broaden your RfE to include this as an example of WP:OR and cherrypicking in ancient history. Mathsci (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I agree that it's rather disappointing to see him return to this behavior, especially because we just finished the 2-year cleanup on the last batch of PHG articles. If you haven't yet, I recommend also bringing PHG's mentor, Angusmclellan into the loop. --Elonka 17:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Mathsci. As a matter of fact, my statement about Glanum ("The ancient cities of Glanum (today Saint-Rémy-de-Provence) and Mastramella (today Saint-Blaise) may have been founded by the Greeks in these earlier times") is sourced from The Cambridge ancient history p.754, hardly a disputable source I think, and certainly not Original Research (I can hardly be closer to the source). Of course, if you have alternative information about Glanum, feel free to insert it into the article. Let me dispute your assertion that my sources would be improper. Most of them are now online sources in the English language from scholarly authors, so that so that anybody can check them anytime, and include for this article such luminaries as The Cambridge ancient history, Celtic Inscriptions on Gaulish and British Coins by Beale Poste, The hellenistic world by Frank William Walbank or The History of Cartography by John Brian Harley. Should you have additional sources to bring to the article, I can only be delighted. Be carefull though, as offline French language sources can easily be mis-translated or mis-represented in case your contributions are challenged (I've paid for that). Mes meilleures salutations au soleil du Sud. My very best regards, and thank you for the nice comments. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 18:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- What am I missing here? Apparently I'm missing something because I find Mathsci's comments confusing. The claim that Glanum owed its name to Glanis wasn't added by PHG so far as I can tell. The Greeks in Gaul piece seems like a passable start. What exactly is the problem here? We've already been over the argument that articles should spring into existence, Athena-like, fully formed and NPOV. This can only rarely happen. It generally takes multiple authors, and multiple versions, to get to that happy state. Criticising PHG for producing a first draft that represents his view is unreasonable. Others can and should edit to fix any biases. It is only if PHG or any other creator seeks to prevent the process of improvement, as was claimed and accepted to be the case at FMA, that there is a problem. As usual, paint me puzzled. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Glanum was excavated by Henri Rolland (1887-1970). It has an extensive literature and is described not as having been settled by the Greeks, but by the Celto-Ligurians under hellenistic influences from the Greek colony in Marseille. The whole pretext of PHG's article seems unscholarly and contradicts the main sources. The fact that he started to do this in a major article like Marseille was where he slipped up: if he'd kept to his walled garden of articles, it would have gone unnoticed. No reputable sources imply that the Greeks went inland to settle St Remy. There are detailed books on the excavations. The settlement in the second century BC used Celto-Ligurian units of measurement and incorporated various hellenistic elements. There are books devoted to the history of Marseille and Provence (in French): PHG has not used them. Even the Michelin guide of Provence would have been a better source. There is for example a book called "Pre-Roman Greeks in Gaul" by Charles Ebel. [8] Why is it not in the references? Why was it not used to write the article? There's a related book by him here. [9] When writing articles, isn't it standard practice to use the best possible sources, not what can be cobbled together online as spurious conjecture? I had to buy Stanley Sadie's Handel concertos myself before embarking on Handel concerti grossi Op.6, because (a) this is the principal existing reference (b) it was stolen from the Cambridge University library. Isn't this how wikipedia articles are normally written? Mathsci (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Mathsci. Your statement is a bit disputable... My source for the possible foundation of Glanum by the Ionians is the Cambridge ancient history [10]. Do you mean I should drop that, and use the Michelin guide of Provence instead??? Feel free to modify the article in light of what you know though, I have zero problem with that. The Glanum claim is very, very, marginal, and I would have no objection to even drop it from the article if you're uncomfortable with it (too bad for the authority of the Cambridge ancient history though). Just don't put too many Michelin Guide references in :-) Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 08:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Surprise! I'm seeing your Charles Ebel is using the Cambridge Ancient History as a source too [11], so I guess it's not too bad of a source, is it? :-) I'll read it to see how we can use it in the article. Thanks for pointing us to this author anyway. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 08:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Your continued refusal to see the distinction between one throwaway line in a non-specialized tome and specialized articles on the exact topic of pre-Roman settlements in Gaul is not encouraging. I also note that you have added various images to Talk:Marseille. There was already another map of Marseille by Piri Reis in the gallery from a long while back. What's going on? Mathsci (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- You deny the Cambridge Ancient History, but instead recommend as a source [12] a collection of Wikipedia articles published by print-on-demand Alphascript Publishing??? And what's the problem with offering my images on a Talk Page when I can't edit the article itself, please? May I sugggest a cup of tea? Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 10:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Your continued refusal to see the distinction between one throwaway line in a non-specialized tome and specialized articles on the exact topic of pre-Roman settlements in Gaul is not encouraging. I also note that you have added various images to Talk:Marseille. There was already another map of Marseille by Piri Reis in the gallery from a long while back. What's going on? Mathsci (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Glanum was excavated by Henri Rolland (1887-1970). It has an extensive literature and is described not as having been settled by the Greeks, but by the Celto-Ligurians under hellenistic influences from the Greek colony in Marseille. The whole pretext of PHG's article seems unscholarly and contradicts the main sources. The fact that he started to do this in a major article like Marseille was where he slipped up: if he'd kept to his walled garden of articles, it would have gone unnoticed. No reputable sources imply that the Greeks went inland to settle St Remy. There are detailed books on the excavations. The settlement in the second century BC used Celto-Ligurian units of measurement and incorporated various hellenistic elements. There are books devoted to the history of Marseille and Provence (in French): PHG has not used them. Even the Michelin guide of Provence would have been a better source. There is for example a book called "Pre-Roman Greeks in Gaul" by Charles Ebel. [8] Why is it not in the references? Why was it not used to write the article? There's a related book by him here. [9] When writing articles, isn't it standard practice to use the best possible sources, not what can be cobbled together online as spurious conjecture? I had to buy Stanley Sadie's Handel concertos myself before embarking on Handel concerti grossi Op.6, because (a) this is the principal existing reference (b) it was stolen from the Cambridge University library. Isn't this how wikipedia articles are normally written? Mathsci (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment There are multiple texts on the well-trodden theme of Celtic Gaul and its hellenization, particularly in Provence. For example Anthony King's UC Berkeley book on Roman Gaul has a long discussion on the Celts and the Greeks, on hellenization and the role of Massilia. The books of Charles Ebel are other examples where there is a prolonged account over many pages. This is valuable content which could be summarised in an article on pre-Roman Gaul. The key word is hellenization. This affected language, but not local Celtic deities, buildings, but not necessarily Celtic measurements, trade, etc, etc. The true picture is complex and described in detail in these sources. My main point is that almost all of this material is absent from the article at present. Hence my comments. Mathsci (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you Mathsci! This is much better. I removed the Cambridge Ancient History-sourced sentence about Glanum which you seemed so troubled about [13] in order to be agreable to you (normally you should have balanced the Cambridge statement with your own research). Now, anybody who is knowledgeable about the subject of the Greeks in pre-Roman Gaul is more than welcome to contribute and further expand the article! I'm not so knowledgeable about the subject myself (culture générale, a few books on Celtic numismatics, Boardman's book on the transmission of Hellenistic art, a few visits to relevant museums (Cabinet des Médailles, Museum of London, Metropolitan Museum of Art), Google Books online sources), so it is, of course only a start, and could be brought to a much higher level. My thanks to Angus McLellan for his kind and courageous intervention. Best regards to all. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 17:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh! Jerusalem! (1300)
Hi Elonka! Among your numerous edits to the Franco-Mongol alliance article, I took good note that you now write that the Mongols "probably" raided Jerusalem in 1300! [14]. Before this seminal event, User:Srnec painstakingly studied the sources himself and strongly challenged your former interpretation, declaring that "the modern, reliable sources say unequivocally that the Mongols were in Jerusalem" [15]. After pursuing me so harshly for so long for writing about the Mongols and Jerusalem in 1300, this is quite a change isn’t it? I think a small word of apology for getting the facts wrong, and accusing me unduely, would be in order don’t you think? Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 17:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- I really have no interest in getting into another long drawn out debate about this. Quite simply: There is a difference between the Mongols conquering Jerusalem, and a Mongol raid having briefly passed through Jerusalem. --Elonka 17:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you're playing on words, to now make it sound like the Mongols just walked down Jerusalem's main street and left... This is still quite a mis-representation of facts. The Mongols "raid" actually resulted in an occupation indeed, even if short or "symbolic" (actually a few months) [16]. The raid of 10,000 to 20,000 Mongols resulted in huge depredations reported in detail by Muslim sources [17], and validated by modern scholarship. Can't you recognize when you make a mistake and wrongfully accuse another contributor? Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 18:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- I am sorry to have had to take this step, but because you refuse to let this go, are continuing to disrupt the GA nom, and are not listening to the advice of your mentor, I have filed an AE request to extend your topic ban, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request concerning Per Honor et Gloria. --Elonka 23:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you so much Elonka for such kindness. Still not a small word of apology for the Jerusalem business? Don't you feel a bit how you over-reacted and harassed me for the wrong reasons in that matter? :-) Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 06:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I apologize for any confusion. To be clear: If you are willing to promise to avoid the Franco-Mongol alliance article and any related GA/FA noms, I will withdraw the AE request. --Elonka 07:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you so much Elonka for such kindness. Still not a small word of apology for the Jerusalem business? Don't you feel a bit how you over-reacted and harassed me for the wrong reasons in that matter? :-) Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 06:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you Elonka, I accept your apologies about Jerusalem in 1300. In summary, you attacked me repeatedly over a period of several years on this subject, simply because you had misconceptions about this historical event. This said, doesn't this mistake encourage you to have more humility in your interpretations of history? You have been deleting the referenced academic mentions of the few instances of collaboration between the Franks and the Mongols: can't you just accept that Wikipedia reports the simple facts described by scholars? History is about facts, not about polemics. I am ready to back-up my material with the best sources, most of the time making it available online through Google Books, so that we can objectivize the process and move forward in the most transparent and objective manner. I promiss to discuss openly and fairly if we have a disagreement about the sources. Can we agree on this fundamental, most Wikipedian, mode of functionning?
- Thank you Elonka, I accept your apologies about Jerusalem in 1300. In summary, you attacked me repeatedly over a period of several years on this subject, simply because you had misconceptions about this historical event. This said, doesn't this mistake encourage you to have more humility in your interpretations of history? You have been deleting the referenced academic mentions of the few instances of collaboration between the Franks and the Mongols: can't you just accept that Wikipedia reports the simple facts described by scholars? History is about facts, not about polemics. I am ready to back-up my material with the best sources, most of the time making it available online through Google Books, so that we can objectivize the process and move forward in the most transparent and objective manner. I promiss to discuss openly and fairly if we have a disagreement about the sources. Can we agree on this fundamental, most Wikipedian, mode of functionning?
- You offer me to remove your "AE request" if I promiss I stop editing the Franco-Mongol Alliance article (which I created!!!). Well, no thanks, I'm not interested, and you don't have a case anyway. You've shown that you pursue people through misrepresentation of facts (Oh! Jerusalem!). Your offer is also unethical: the Arbcom has formally determined that I could resume normal editing now, so, normal editing I will do. As a former militaryman, I don't take bullying, ever. If you have some issues with my work, just raise the issues, discuss them specifically, and let's resolve them according to Wikipedia rules. My very best regards. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 20:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppets
Roddy Stauner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Randy Stauner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) would appear to me to be clear sockpuppets of Dick Stauner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who you blocked, could you possibly block these two new ones? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Sent last week. I wondered if you recieved it. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but too busy to look into it, since I'm busy in other topic areas right now, sorry. --Elonka 21:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Your case against PHG
Without commenting on the merits or otherwise of PHG's edits and your criticisms of them, I am disturbed by some of your actions in pursuing this case. This is bordering on canvassing whereas this is quite unacceptable -- an article talk page is for improving that article, not a place to comment or solicit or collect comments on the perceived inadequacies of another editor. Rhomb (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, it appears that you are unaware of the context. If you will review the history of my talkpage, you will see that Mathsci specifically asked to be kept informed. Also, as regards the list, if you look at the top of Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#List of articles for review, you will see that this practice of maintaining a list of PHG articles has been ongoing for years, and has also been reviewed at ArbCom. --Elonka 21:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
assume good faith argh
Yet another new editor has suddenly chimed in on Talk: Mar Thoma Church with a series of vituperative personal attacks based solely upon good faith disagreements. See [18], [19], [20], [21], and my request here [22]. Any assistance you can offer would be helpful. Tb (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
It was suggested that you might be interested in this. (Posted February 14, 2010, in case it rolls off into the archive.) 58.147.58.28 (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- It has rolled off into the archives here: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010_February_14#Code. 58.147.58.28 (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. :) I haven't really spent any time on it (people send me these all the time, and I just don't have time to work on them all). But my guess is that, if there's even an answer at all (sometimes these things are just hoaxes to waste time), that Jarry1250 would be on the right track. --Elonka 19:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Crusades symposium
Hi Elonka, I saw you on the list of participants, but I never saw you there. Oh well. My paper went pretty well, but people came out caring as little about Wikipedia as they did coming in, which I guess is to be expected. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- So sorry to have missed you. I had a death in the family, and had to leave town suddenly. I was only able to attend the first day of the symposium, which was an incredible disappointment for me because I'd been looking forward to your talk so much. I did ask others there to say hello to you for me, but I guess they forgot. :/ In any case, will you be giving the talk anywhere else? Or if there's a hardcopy proceeding, please let me know! --Elonka 19:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, my condolences. I missed the first day, I didn't arrive until Thursday afternoon. I don't think I'll be talking anywhere else, or publishing it, but I'm sure I'll be there for the next conference in 2014! Adam Bishop (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Fifty-year rule
You propose here that only modern sources, say fifty years or less, can be reliable. Is this your personal view, a Wikipedia guideline or a policy? Or is it a specific restriction on that article which you are imposing under some specific authorisation? Rhomb (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for any confusion. It's not a Wikipedia-wide guideline, but it is a request towards PHG, who has been sanctioned in the past for using poor sources and pushing POVs. I have replied in more detail at Talk:Timur. --Elonka 14:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Suleyman I of Rûm
Hello Elonka. I'd like to get Suleyman I of Rûm moved to Suleyman/Suleiman/Sulaiman/Sulayman bin/ibn Kutalimis/Kutalmish (and probably I am missing some variants). But I still don't have any of my pre-Ottoman history books with me here, so I am struggling over the orthography, and more importantly, the "right" orthography to match the current contents of Category:Seljuk Sultans of Rûm. Can you help me out? Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm also trying to clean up the naming of articles in Category:Samanids. To me anyway, "of Samanid" looks unspeakably odd! So if you have any thoughts there, please do leave a message. I'm running them through the usual requested move process, one-by-one, rather than going for a mass nomination. Angus McLellan (Talk) 03:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sure thing. I'm reminded of Jack Weatherford's comment about how some of the Central Asian names have a "stupefying" array of spellings, so there may not be one "best" option though. But I'm happy to discuss it! Want to ping me in IMs, or shall we centralize the discussion on-wiki somewhere? --Elonka 03:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Block an IP user
User:66.178.154.21 has a track record of offensive vandalism. I'm not sure of the procedure, but this guy seems like he criteria for blocking or some similar treatment.
Is there a convenient way to undo all his edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcoole (talk • contribs) 04:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear Elonka,
Someone has recently amended the above article, written by me a few months back, to stick accents on Hue to give it its Vietnamese orthography. The same sort of thing happened a few months back with my articles on the Cochinchina campaign, and I resolved the issue by glossing the English spelling of Vietnamese place names with the Vietnamese spelling in brackets afterwards. The Hue edit is no big deal, of course, but I'd like to adopt a consistent policy on Vietnamese nomenclature, and would be interested to know where I stand. Surely we should be using the most commonly-used English versions of place names, as this is an English-language encyclopedia. Yes? No?
The criterion 'commonly-used', if I am right, also has implications for the Nestorian articles. We should be using Timothy for the patriarch of that name, not Timoteos or Timotaos or whatever barbarous vocable they use in Assyrian.
Is there a policy statement somewhere on nomenclature that I can wave at the Hue vandal?
Djwilms (talk) 09:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun
The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.
Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.
Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!
Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Papa (Catholicos)
|
On March 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papa (Catholicos), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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. |
Calmer Waters 06:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Hotel5550 Message
Hello Elonka!
I leave this message to say hi. I've heard about you from other users that have been blocked. I know those people and they encouraged me to say hello. So, I'm saying Hi and just to let you know that you may leave any messages on my talk-page. Thank you and hope to hear from you! Hotel5550 (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox EastEnders character 2
Template:Infobox EastEnders character 2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. RL0919 (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Howdy Elonka. Would you consider moderating? GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
GA: Franco-Mongol Alliance
FYI: I took on the GA review for Franco-Mongol alliance. I'm still reading through all the prose but I've already noted a number of things that should be fixed. It appears to me that if those (and perhaps a few others small things) are fixed that it should pass.
--Mcorazao (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Propsoal To Promote wp:quote
Hello, this is a friendly notification.
In the past, you supported promoting wp:quote into protocol. Currently, there is a discussion in an attempt to gather consensus to this ratification.
If you are interested, you can show your support there.
Thank you.174.3.110.108 (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Disruptive IP editor you tackled is back
Elonka, you dealt a few months ago with a disruptive IP editor who was frequently changing IPs ([23]), uncovered a sock farm (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles/Archive) and eventually blocked the IP for three months (which he promptly evaded). He is back and still causing problems. I've proposed a permanent site ban on this individual; please see WP:AN/I#Enough is enough: proposal to ban 99.142.1.101. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know, ArbCom is moving this matter to the front-burner, and will likely consider some sort of motion in the near future. Cool Hand Luke 14:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Question from Hotel5550
Hey, Elonka! It's me again! I was wondering how you do the archives of your talk-page. How do you do it? Hotel5550 (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- See WP:ARCHIVE. Or if you'd like, I can set up an archive bot for you? --Elonka 22:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hotel5550 Message
Hey Elonka! It's me again! I am now doing something fun! I am doing ten headlines from Jay Leno per year. Choose the one you think is the funniest and I will cast the deciding vote. Whatever headline gets the most votes stays on the list and the rest will be taken off the list and replaced with a 9 new headlines. If you have a Jay Leno headline, send it to me. It's got to be an old one, not the new ones, or things can be spoiled. Hope to talk to you soon! Happy editing! Hotel5550 (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI: Franco-Mongol alliance
FYI: I'll try to go over the article again this weekend. Thanks for all the hard work.
--Mcorazao (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you
My apologies, but the number of Admin's who have gone the distance with Irvine22 are view and far between. You boxed him into the corner on the Troubles issues so he went silent for a few months but has now emerged again taking a very similar approach on Wales and UK articles in general. This has included editor waring and his normal vein of seemingly innocent comments etc. Its also involved him in disruptive edit waring on my own article Dave Snowden. Given that it takes time for new Admins who get involved to understand what they are dealing with (the reason I think he goes silent then emerges elsewhere) is is possible that you could take a look at the talk page of WP:UKPLACE where I have raised the content issue. The pages involved are David Lloyd George, Harold Wilson, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. --Snowded TALK 07:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ah that's right, his probation expired in February. Thanks for letting me know. I'll try to take a look, but my wiki-time at the moment is somewhat limited. In the meantime, if anything urgent emerges, I recommend requesting assistance at WP:ANI or WP:AE. --Elonka 16:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think he may have gone too far this time with direct accusations against other editors of racism here. He has also been playing fast and loose with BLP policy on my own article Dave Snowden as well, although I have so far let that go. I've given him a chance overnight to consider his words, but I am planning (if there is no withdrawal) to make an ANI report tomorrow as I think its time for the community to deal with the problem. I could be over reacting, so if you could find five minutes to take a look and provide some advise I would be grateful. Don't worry if you don't have time or the energy, dealing with editors such as this can be exhausting. --Snowded TALK 22:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK can that, I made the ANI report and he got an indef in short order. Will be interested to see what happens when the west coast wakes up. --Snowded TALK 10:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think he may have gone too far this time with direct accusations against other editors of racism here. He has also been playing fast and loose with BLP policy on my own article Dave Snowden as well, although I have so far let that go. I've given him a chance overnight to consider his words, but I am planning (if there is no withdrawal) to make an ANI report tomorrow as I think its time for the community to deal with the problem. I could be over reacting, so if you could find five minutes to take a look and provide some advise I would be grateful. Don't worry if you don't have time or the energy, dealing with editors such as this can be exhausting. --Snowded TALK 22:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Another Stauner sockpuppet
Gerhard von Stauner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), thank you. O Fenian (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Motions regarding Per Honor et Gloria
Per motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:
1) PHG's mentorship is renewed
- For the next year:
- Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs) is required to use sources that are in English and widely available.
- Per Honor et Gloria may also use sources in French that are widely available—if a special language mentor fluent in French is appointed. The special language mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. Mentors shall ensure that Wikipedia's verifiability policy on foreign language sources is followed—that quality English sources and reliably-published translations will be used in preference to foreign language sources and original translations. When Per Honor et Gloria uses sources in languages other than English, he is required to notify his mentor of their use.
- and
- Per Honor et Gloria is required to use a mentor to assist with sourcing the articles that he edits. The mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. In case of doubt raised by another user in respect of a source, citation, or translation provided by Per Honor et Gloria, the mentors' views shall be followed instead of those of Per Honor et Gloria.
- Angusmclellan (talk · contribs) is thanked by the committee for serving admirably as PHG's mentor, and it is hoped that he will continue to serve in that capacity.
2) PHG's topic ban is renewed
- ArbCom renews the topic ban from the PHG arbitration. Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India—all broadly defined. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Kagay
Donald J. Kagay distinguishes between the alliance and its outcome too, and explains that an alliance was hammered out, but that it bore little fruits. He mentions a "Papal-Mongol accomodation" (Crusaders, condottieri, and cannon Donald J. Kagay p.151). He explains that "the Ilkhanate alliance with Rome was extended to Jaume I of Aragon and Edward I of England (p.153), but that the negotiations "accomplished very little" (p.153). The alliance began to unravel in 1275 with the death of Bohemond VI (p.154). He further writes that "despite the alliance hammered out at Lyons, the Mongols never engaged in joint operations with the Franks" (p.154). In 1280 "only a contingent of Hospitallers fought alongside the (Mongol) invaders" (p.154). Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 19:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, no, Kagay said no such thing. Kagay edited the work, which was a collection of articles by other authors. Try looking at the top of the page? --Elonka 01:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
New request
[24] Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 20:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
South Ossetia war title
I have made a number of attempts to have the article title changed to no avail. When this war first started it was limited to South Ossetia and as such the title was legitimate. The moment it expanded beyond South Ossetia and into Abkhazia and the west coast a number of editors began suggesting the name be changed to reflect the scope of the conflict. At the time there was no clear alternative name and it was subject to such constant edit-warring that the article was move-protected. Since then the only recourse has been to have discussions on the title in the hopes of reaching of a consensus. Unfortunately, no matter how much time passes and how much stronger the case for a change gets a group of editors with an extremely biased position always flood the discussions to prevent a change.
In the most recent discussion I started on the current talk page one editor supportive of a change decided it was a lost cause because he felt any discussion would see a number of pro-Russian editors flood the discussion and prevent a consensus from being seen. So far it seems the only way this title is ever going to be changed is by an admin's decision. I gave a decent summary of the arguments for a change a few months ago here, more importantly it contains the most recent arguments for keeping, and this earlier discussion showed strong support for a change, though there was some funny business done with the discussion by a non-admin. The admin reviewing it did however say that objections based on neutrality were invalid and only left the issue of descriptiveness and common name as no consensus. However, I do not see any legitimate argument for keeping this article and plenty for changing it. This is something I am sending to a few admins who appear to have no involvement in the article or the name dispute in the hopes of getting some authoritative position on the current title. If you can think of any admins who might be more interested in this then feel free to say--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Elonka. I have heard of your excellent work in dealing with articles related to The Troubles. I haven't corresponded with you directly before and I was hoping you could review the following diffs regarding a point of contention over the use of the heavily POV term "martyrs" in a non-quotation context and give me your opinion. Thanks.
- Also, is it possible to challenge the name of the page as the term "Manchester martyrs", although it has gained currency in the Irish republican community, where it originated, is hardly universally accepted sentiment or terminology. Yours,
Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox soap character 2
Template:Infobox soap character 2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. AniMate 22:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Request
[28] Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 12:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Łiesand Dunin
An article that you may be interested in or have an opinion about, Łiesand Dunin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Łiesand Dunin. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Kpalion(talk) 21:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Franco-Mongol alliance
I have archived the MILHIST peer review that you have initiated for this article. I do have a suggestion for you since you mentioned wanting to take the article to FAC after the review. Instead of making the jump direct to FAC, why not try our A-Class review before. Many editors have been pleasantly surprised to see how much easier FAC is for MILHIST articles if they go through our ACR first. -MBK004 05:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Complete Maria mosaic
I think you might be interested [29]. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 19:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Viewing article status in page headers
Re this, for logged-on users the option already exists for the full range of article ratings other than FA to be displayed in the header—open your preferences; select the "Gadgets" tab; check the "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article" check box. The proposals currently under discussion is whether to display GA status, or the full range of statuses, to all readers, or whether that will be too confusing to people who don't understand Wikipedia's assessment scale. – iridescent 23:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Bilateral relations redux
You once brokered a peace in bilateral relations, you may want to express an opinion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 21. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
It is getting more out of hand. I have just been given a punitive audit where over 50 images I uploaded are being threatened with deletion by User:Treasurytag. See: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Is it wikistalking to give a punitive audit. During Watergate Nixon gave punitive audits from the IRS to people on his enemies list and that one of the reasons for his impeachment. If this isn't a punitive audit, I don't know what is: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Punitive audit --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Template for ARBPIA
You've previously added a line to the template notifying users of the sanctions, to say that the notice is only effective if given by an admin. You may want to comment here Powder Hound 3000 (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Just letting you know that not only was the change to the template proposed on the talk page, but it was unilaterally implemented prior to any discussion by a non-admin here. Breein1007 (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Please recuse yourself
Elonka, given our past interactions I don't think it is appropriate for you to intervene like this. You are too involved, you have too much of a conflict of interest and you have been asked in the past by other administrators to steer clear and let other admins deal with issues concerning me. With the best will in the world it is not possible for you to act, or be seen to act, neutrally - and I do not consider you neutral. Please consider this request. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- I am definitely not involved in the dispute, and I have no idea what conflict of interest you think I might have. I have no financial interest in this topic, nor have I edited the article in question. It is true that I have worked as an administrator in this topic area before, and did issue a few sanctions on various editors, including yourself, about two years ago (see User:Elonka/ArbCom log). But that does not prevent me from continuing to work as an administrator in this topic area. See WP:UNINVOLVED, which states, "...an administrator who has interacted with an editor or article in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not prevented from acting on the article, editor, or dispute either in an administrative role or in an editorial role. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about communal norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'." --Elonka 21:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Had you forgotten the RfC on your actions as an administrator two years ago? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- The link is included at User:Elonka/ArbCom log, just like everything else I've done in ArbCom Enforcement. It's routine for sanctioned editors to challenge arbitration enforcement actions. But that still doesn't make an administrator too "involved" to continue to work in that topic area. Especially when the appeals (RfCs, noticeboard threads, etc.), continue to uphold the administrator's actions. --Elonka 21:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Had you forgotten the RfC on your actions as an administrator two years ago? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
?
Elonka, concerning this, am I as a non-admin allowed to notify another user with the P/I notification template and log the notification? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- You can definitely inform other users about the case, but should leave any logging on the case page, to uninvolved admins. Can you be more specific about who you think needs to be notified, and why? --Elonka 03:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi
Hi, Elonka. I know you have played a major role in articles and debates relatign to the Irish Troubles. Regarding Peter Hart (historian), as per this diff, you will see that User:RepublicanJacobite rv wholesale my edit, at least once as of this writing, while refusing to provide any reason or justification. I do not wish to get into an edit war with this individual, so I would greatly appreciate some assistance. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hello. Just to be clear, I did not intentionally revert without an edit summary. I accidentally reverted whilst not logged in. Then, I logged in, made a null edit, and provided an edit summary, which still was not clear enough. So, my reasoning is that negative unsourced commentary about a living person should always be reverted. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Elonka, I see that you wrote [this article http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vizier&diff=1851108&oldid=495464] so.. I want to request help in contributing [Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vizier] to know more see [this http://books.google.com/books?id=Zc0UAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA170&dq=Vizier+wzr&lr=&hl=ar&cd=5#v=onepage&q=Vizier%20wzr&f=false] thank in advance --Rondiar99 (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Bad Twin.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Bad Twin.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
|
|
|
June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members |
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
This editor reports"anti-israel" IP addresses to MOSSAD affiliated organizations
This editor reports"anti-israel" IP addresses to MOSSAD affiliated organizations72.100.174.159 (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey
Hey elonka, could you please notify user Chesdovi of ARBPIA and then log it?
His behavior at the Golan heights article is far from acceptable. He first repeatedly removed a quote when there was no consensus at the talkpage to remove it. His "summary" did not follow the source and twisted what the source said:[30] He also added that "which according to independent historians were of doubtful historical accuracy" when the source clearly did not say that:[31]
You can clearly see from the entire Dayan quote interview that its about that Moshe Dayan saying that Israel provoked Syria. After having repeatedly removed this he then cherry picks that 1% of the quote he personally likes and puts it in large quotations:[32] clearly out of context, really twists the entire meaning of that interview.
Another admin has reacted to this, but he is involved [33]
A uninvolved admin need to notify him and log it here:[34] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm in the middle of a crunch at my dayjob, and don't currently have time for arbitration enforcement. If there is an issue that needs handling, the best way to handle it is probably to post a request at WP:AE. --Elonka 13:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
|
|
|
July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy |
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
A problem
Hello. I saw that you have created the redirect page of Khwarazmian Turks. If you read khwarezm, you'll understand nothing in the name of Khawarazmian Turks has ever ecisted. In my opinion it's better that this redirect page be deleted as soon as possible. Aliwiki (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Your userpage is in a category
Your userpage User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment has a category, and so appears in Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution.
As the guideline on userpages describes, this is undesired. It is suggested that you edit the userpage to prevent this showing. It can be done by adding a colon (:) before the word Category, like this: [[:Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution]]. -DePiep (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)
|
|
A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound |
Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants |
|
|
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC) | |
FYI
Hi Elonka, it's been awhile. I just felt you should know I mentioned you in an arbitration case here. A question was asked if there was any administrators using their real name who are notable enough to have their own article. I could only think of you and your notability. I hope this is ok to make mention, if a problem please pop over to my talk page and I will remove it or you can. Thanks, be well, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Davies talk 21:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Ozy and Millie
My argument still stands. You can tell me those awards are notable all you like, but where the frak are the secondary sources? I'm not seeing a single one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Civility hasn't helped me one iota. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Case
Thank you for your consideration... Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Franco-Mongol alliance Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 04:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Nomination of LegalMatch for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article LegalMatch, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LegalMatch (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
System T listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect System T. Since you had some involvement with the System T redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Slovak Spectator.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Slovak Spectator.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
- I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
- I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
- If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
- To opt out of these bot messages, add
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}to your talk page. - If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)
|
The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals |
|
|
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |
Orphaned non-free image File:HJ Logo black.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:HJ Logo black.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
- I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
- I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
- If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
- To opt out of these bot messages, add
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}to your talk page. - If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Mongol occupation of Jerusalem
Hi Elonka. Could you be more specific when you state that "there is no support for the theories presented in your sandbox page" [35]. The sandbox article in question (User:Per Honor et Gloria/Sandbox/Mongol occupation of Jerusalem) uses mainly online, checkable, references, foremost of which is Reuven Amitai who concludes the subject in 2007: "The Mongol forces rode as far as Gaza, looting and killing as they went, and they entered several towns, including Jerusalem" [36]. "Finally, it is quite clear that the Mongols did enter, and terrorize, Jerusalem" [37]. Other users who researched the subject seriously, such as User:Srnec, have strongly challenged your past interpretations of the subject, saying that "the modern, reliable sources say unequivocally that the Mongols were in Jerusalem" [38]. Do you have issues with specific facts, the wording, or something else? Maybe we can discuss constructively to find common ground? Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 02:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Though a few of the statements and sources in the sandbox page are appropriate (and indeed are copy/pasted from other existing articles on Wikipedia), the main theme of the article is decidedly non-neutral, and is a violation of Wikipedia's policy of WP:NPOV. There is definitely not sufficient information to support an entire article with the provocative title of "Mongol occupation of Jerusalem". As has been discussed at the ArbCom page, even a simple Google search shows that "Mongol occupation of Jerusalem" is not a common term in any way. Instead, most of the links point only to your sandbox page, and your comments.[39] The general context of the events that you are trying to describe, is already covered in the Wikipedia article Mongol raids into Palestine, and as such, a separate article is not needed. Any additional information or sources, can simply be added to the existing article, or, since you are under a topic ban, you can of course make suggestions at the article's talkpage. --Elonka 14:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your last intervention. That was kind of you. I appreciate. It gives me heart to continue with our discussion here... Why don't we take your issues one by one?
- I don't quite see why a title such as "Mongol occupation of Jerusalem" would be "provocative". You can see it exists in the literature, for example Jacob De Hass writes "Moulay's occupation of Jerusalem" [40], and Anthony Leopold "the brief Mongol occupation of Jerusalem" [41] etc... I wouldn't mind however to have something different. What do you think?
- The article project in my sandbox (here) is currently 40K, and only about 20% is information from other existing articles. The subject is quite abundantly treated in the historical literature [42] or [43] (please check Google Books, rather than just Google). Usually, it is quite normal to document individual events in a military campaign. That's something we do constantly throughout Wikipedia. You may have noticed, I also worked on other military events in the campaign: Aleppo, Damascus, Gaza, which I incorporated into a Campaign Box (also standard Wikipedia practice), attached. Of course, this can still be expanded.
- Feel free to work on these articles yourself if you wish. You can put them in the main space if you wish, and take the credit for their creation, I don't mind. Cheers. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 02:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think the subject of whether Mongols were or weren't in Jerusalem is already sufficiently covered in the article Mongol raids into Palestine. The concept of a "Mongol occupation of Jerusalem" is not in common use in academia. Regarding your link,[44] just because a book uses the words "Mongol", "occupation", and "Jerusalem" on different pages, does not mean that the book is discussing a "Mongol occupation of Jerusalem". Passing mentions in one or two sources (especially if they are long outdated sources) are not enough to justify an entire Wikipedia article.
- My recommendation is that you choose the information which you think is best sourced (meaning multiple modern sources with non-trivial coverage) and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, and to then suggest an addition at Talk:Mongol raids into Palestine. Be specific, such as to say, "Please add the following sourced sentences" and give specific wording, with sources. If other editors agree with your changes, the information can be included in the article that way. If a particular section of the article becomes large enough, then we can also discuss, on the talkpage, whether it's worth splitting it off to a new article, and what would be an appropriate title. --Elonka 15:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Messedrocker
Elonka, if you check the history (such as Harej's talkpage archive), I think you will find that the "Messedrocker" name was being misused by a serial vandal after the original Messedrocker changed his username to Harej. (This became a frequently problem with renames around that time.) I fear that the current wording of your guide leaves the misimpression that Harej himself was misusing multiple accounts, which was not the case; I would ask you to consider rephrasing. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the information, I will be happy to investigate further. I am not that familiar with Harej, or Messedrocker, so am still coming up to speed. It is also my hope that Harej will disclose his previous identities in his statement, as is required. --Elonka 02:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Elonka, given the concerns about the representation of Harej and Chase me's prior accounts in your guide that have been voiced on your guide's talkpage, I've temporarily suspending it's listing in the main template. Could you take a look and clarify that neither of the candidates are responsible for the misconduct by those who took over their former usernames? Fwiw, I initially made the same mistakes in the election guide, since corrected. Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience, Skomorokh 12:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- What happened to "all guides written in good faith are eligible for inclusion"? --Elonka 16:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Guides that contain unequivocal mis-statements of fact, such as attributing one editor's block log to another editor, may be de-linked (or corrected). I requested this option instead of the more invasive option of somebody redacting your guide to remove the faulty contribution and block log links. Just above Newyorkbrad brought this matter to your attention several days ago, and so did I at User talk:Elonka/ACE2010. Given the lack of a correction (you appear to have been mostly offline, and did not respond to my inquiry), delinking the guide was deemed appropriate at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010/Coordination#Material_errors_of_fact_in_guides. Once you made the necessary correction, your guide was welcomed back to the template. For what it's worth, the election coordinators who put together Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Guide made exactly the same mistake that you did. Jehochman Talk 23:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- The issue that Newyorkbrad brought up was already addressed. And now, Jehochman, as has been asked of you many times before, will you please go away and leave me alone? Looking at your recent contribs, a sizable percentage of them are Elonka-related. Please try to break this habit. There are a lot of other things to do on the wiki, please try to find something else to occupy your time than tracking my every move. --Elonka 00:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Guides that contain unequivocal mis-statements of fact, such as attributing one editor's block log to another editor, may be de-linked (or corrected). I requested this option instead of the more invasive option of somebody redacting your guide to remove the faulty contribution and block log links. Just above Newyorkbrad brought this matter to your attention several days ago, and so did I at User talk:Elonka/ACE2010. Given the lack of a correction (you appear to have been mostly offline, and did not respond to my inquiry), delinking the guide was deemed appropriate at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010/Coordination#Material_errors_of_fact_in_guides. Once you made the necessary correction, your guide was welcomed back to the template. For what it's worth, the election coordinators who put together Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Guide made exactly the same mistake that you did. Jehochman Talk 23:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)