User talk:Elonka/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 44

Bullying

Do not bully me about how infractions of the VERY clear instructions about questioning are dealt with. And do not order me about on my talk page. Tony (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not bullying, it is stating in a civil manner that your actions were inappropriate. I was not alone in my concerns. And my statement stands: You should not edit other people's posts in the way that you did. Instead of accusing me of bullying, what you should have done was this: When I expressed my concern, a better response from you would have been, "Thanks, I'll keep that in mind going forward." Instead, you responded with emotional language, and then, a day later, an accusation of bullying? This too is inappropriate. --Elonka 16:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman and ChrisO

Elonka, I was disappointed to see that you had referred to Jehochman and ChrisO as disruptive editors.[1] As neither of them are standing for election this time around, and your userspace is an area where they can't defend themselves, there is no reason to even refer to them. Would you please redact that remark? NW (Talk) 00:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that I can speak to Jehochman, but given that ChrisO has been sanctioned time after time after time, despite being given way too many chances, I think Elonka's statement is a valid one, if Phil did indeed defend Chris. I would argue that the problem with Phil runs a bit deeper, but that's a story for another day. IronDuke 00:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• I came here on the same errand as NuclearWarfare. Get a grip, Elonka. No personal attacks in your voter's guide, please. Going out of your way to insult Jehochman, who is indeed not running for arb this time round, is just pathetic. I have posted an inquiry to the election coordinators here, in case you'd like to discuss the matter. Bishonen | talk 02:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC).

Medcom

Howdy Elonka. Ya know, I might just seek a seat on Medcom next year. A touch of jocularty would help in that area, anyways we'll see. GoodDay (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

They can definitely use the help! --Elonka 05:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the requirements & I'm sunk. The mailing thing, isn't my style. GoodDay (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Your guide...

I thought yours was thorough, despite not asking any questions. You took the time to read and analyze the RfC against me. Apologies if it sounded like I was placing yours in the less useful half. Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no need to apologize, I didn't take it personally! I was just explaining my rationale for not asking questions. Thanks for the kind words though, and good luck with the tallies! --Elonka 04:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Eh, we'll see. I'm not too optimistic, but I actually liked the excuse to sit down and write and length about what I liked, disliked, and wanted to change about Wikipedia. At this point, the votes are cast, and I predict that I will come in somewhere in the middle or slightly below the middle. Thanks, though! Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on the data I compiled from the voter guides (it's in a Google spreadsheet, let me know if you'd like access), you're at # 10. So, we'll see! I am also very much looking forward to seeing how well the guide data from 20-odd members of the community, predicted the actual results of 850 voters! --Elonka 04:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Pedro

Pedro's an admin. His admin log makes it clear he knows about WP:NPA.©Geni 01:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That is still no excuse for blocking an established editor without a single warning. --Elonka 03:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

Hello. Please pay your attention to this. I will not remove the propaganda that he wrote.Sentinel R (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please pay attention to my reply there and you will see exactly what has really happened.Kermanshahi (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you please have look at the discussion here as soon as possible. I really neeed an administrator to help me here and point out to Sentinel R who is right here.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think that by adding this: "Jundullah have been refered to as seperatists by various media,[33][34][35][36][37] the group's leader Abdolmalek Rigi, has however always denied the organisation had any seperatist agenda,[2][5][6][8]" to the article I basicly did represent both views and adressed the dispute in as neutral way as possible?Kermanshahi (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I do not know that much about the topic, so it is difficult for me to tell what is and is not neutral at this point. The best way that I can help, I think, is to provide a structure within which the two of you can try to work through your disagreement. The wording that you described sounds fine to me, let's see what Sentinel thinks, and if he would like to propose alternate wording? --Elonka 20:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If he makes a reasonable proposal on how to alternate the wording, I have no problem with it. I however do strongly believe that the organisation's own official goal should be listed in the infobox rather than what some others have to say about them.Kermanshahi (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Other options are to list both views, or simply remove that section of the infobox entirely. There is no policy requirement that Wikipedia articles have infoboxes, nor is there any requirement that all entries in a box must be listed. --Elonka 20:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That could be an option, but I dont' see why that would be needed since they have stated an official motive of their organisation, which is equal righst for Sunnis, while stressing many times that they are not seperatist. Just because of some wiki editor not wanting that to be put into the article (for some reason) doesn't mean people should be deprived of sourced information.Kermanshahi (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Elonka. Need your attention here. I made some concessions and offered a compromise.Sentinel R (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I am very glad to hear it. Did you see the wording that Kermanshahi suggested above? What do you think? --Elonka 04:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that he should stop insisting on one version and to accept my offer.Sentinel R (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

He rejected the compromise. The choice is yours, which of us is right?
And about Balochistan conflict, dispute at an impasse. Decide you are, otherwise we will both be a couple more weeks to argue.Sentinel R (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If two weeks of discussion would bring you to a compromise, by all means try! There is no deadline here. Take your time. --Elonka 06:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Voting table

Hi, your very interesting table of daily votes: do I gather that there's no issue with first and second voting? Can we print this in next week's Signpost Election Report, or are there problems in interpreting it? Tony (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd be honored if you were to include it. As for the first and second voting, I just used the dates that showed up at the log. My understanding is that this means that anyone who updated their ballot still has the date listed from their first vote, not their update, but I am not certain so that might be worth doublechecking. --Elonka 14:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Elonka. It partly depends on where we're at when the next edition comes out, and how many other graphs/tables might be important. But your count is interesting enough to be mentioned, I think. Tony (talk) 08:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Now the results are out, a comparison with the guides might be good as well. I think you (Elonka) had been doing a spreadsheet that attempted to use the guides to predict the outcome? It would be interesting to see which guides tallied most closely with the community vote, and which didn't. Carcharoth (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

See also what I did at Sandy Georgia's guide... (second table) User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2010/Guides ++Lar: t/c 04:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the table Lar. For my own data, I'm trying to decide where to draw the cutoff. For example, it doesn't feel right to just assign 1 point if someone supported candidates 1-12, 1 point if they opposed candidates 13-21. If someone supported candidate 13, but candidate 13 didn't get elected, I don't necessarily see that as getting it "wrong". Ditto if someone marked a neutral on a candidate, I don't see that as an error. However, if someone supported a candidate that got less than 50% of the vote, then yes, that might be worth marking that guide down a point? For example, Giano came in 18th, with 40.77%. How do we rate the people who supported him? Minus one point for supporting someone who lost? Minus one point for supporting someone who ended up in the bottom 5? The votes really aren't spread evenly: The bottom candidate got 10% support. Next was 17%. Then there are 7 candidates who got 38-45%, 3 candidates from 51-56%, and in that latter batch, 2 probably won. So many are pretty close.

Also, how do we rate people that didn't provide opinions on all the candidates? Piotrus supported 5 candidates, opposed none. 4 came out in the top 5, 1 at #15. But it wouldn't feel right to put his guide at the bottom of the list for getting all the others wrong, simply beause he chose not to offer an opinion! --Elonka 06:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Very good questions. Ncmvocalist didn't like my methodology and changed my table around... so I made a copy and now there are two... he factored out neutrals (while I penalized them for not having a view). I have no idea how to really score this. As I said at the start I wrote my guide as advocacy not prediction. So Maybe Maybe next year I will find someone to escrow my predictions and write two tables, one advocacy and one (secretly so as not to skew results) predictive. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly it. The guides were mostly written as recommendations, not predictions. And I wouldn't think very much of anyone who chose to vote based on, "Here's who I predict is going to win," rather than, "Here's who I want to win." This isn't a multiple choice test, it's decision-making on who should be the voices of authority within our community. Voting for someone because, "Well, this person is probably going to win, so I should vote for them because of that," may be how consensus decision-making works, but not in a secret poll! Unless maybe we're Cardinals voting on the next Pope.  ;) And even then, we'd have the benefit of seeing the results of previous polls, before casting our next vote. --Elonka 15:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly!!!! Exactly what I was trying to explain to Casliber yesterday but he didn't seem to get it. If you are going to vote exactly how the election is going to result you can skip voting. So all this analysis is fun, I guess but ultimately just fun analysis. (don't stop! We just need to know how to take it: fun)... ++Lar: t/c 15:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup, was just working on that!  :) I've included my first pass at the data below. In a nutshell: The top five candidates from the guides, and the top five candidates from actual results, were the same, just in a different order. The biggest changes between guides and votes were Xeno and John Vandenberg doing much better; and Giano and Georgewilliamherbert doing much worse:

Candidate	% based on guide data	Order based on guide data	Percentage based on prelim results	Order based on prelim results	% diff	Order diff
Newyorkbrad	91.67%	2	89.01%	1	-2.66%	1
Casliber	80.95%	4	78.73%	2	-2.22%	2
SirFozzie	86.36%	3	78.45%	3	-7.91%	0
Iridescent	95.00%	1	74.04%	4	-20.96%	-3
Elen	70.00%	5	72.57%	5	2.57%	0
Xeno	42.86%	12	70.64%	6	27.78%	6
David Fuchs	68.42%	6	62.88%	7	-5.54%	-1
Chase	55.56%	8	60.61%	8	5.05%	0
PhilKnight	63.16%	7	60.38%	9	-2.78%	-2
John Vandenberg	35.00%	17	57.73%	10	22.73%	7
Jclemens	43.75%	11	56.71%	11	12.96%	0
Shell Kinney	40.00%	13	56.70%	12	16.70%	1
Sandstein	39.13%	14	51.30%	13	12.17%	1
Stephen Bain	27.78%	18	45.54%	14	17.76%	4
Harej	38.89%	15	44.62%	15	5.73%	0
Georgewilliamherbert	46.67%	9	44.26%	16	-2.41%	-7
FT2	36.36%	16	42.13%	17	5.77%	-1
GiacomoReturned	45.00%	10	40.77%	18	-4.23%	-8
Balloonman	20.00%	19	38.64%	19	18.64%	0
Off2riorob	0.00%	21	16.87%	20	16.87%	1
Loosmark	0.00%	20	9.87%	21	9.87%	-1

As for which guides were "most accurate", that's really difficult to analyze. No one guide was a direct match. If we look at the four candidates that were most different between guide average and vote average though, we have Xeno and John Vandenberg being strongly supported by the community, and Giano and Georgewilliamherbert not so much. Of the guides that got those calls right, we have Aiken Drum and Secret who agreed with those 4 decisions, and myself and WereSpiel who got 3/4. But even among those four, there are many other differences. If anyone knows of other ways to crunch the data though, I'm open to suggestions! --Elonka 02:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wants a spreadsheet of the 2010, 2009, and 2008 votes, I can email it. Tony (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The median support percentage for the top 12 was around 67%. The median percentage for those outside the top 12 was 42%. The middle of the range between 12th and 13th was 54%. You could choose to equate those percentages with "Support", "Oppose", "Neutral", if you wanted to assign a predictive value to each of the opinions offered by a guide writer. That would allow a coefficient of correlation to be calculated for a guide. Not terribly accurate or to be taken seriously, but it could be used as a basis for comparisons. Just for fun, I calculated the correlation for Elonka (0.39), Lar (0.31), and SandyGeorgia (0.58). You could refine it by using intermediate values like "Strong Support = 78%", "Weak Support = 58%", "Weak Oppose = 45%", "Strong Oppose = 28%", but that would disadvantage guide writers who didn't use those categories. Caution: this is a gross violation of statistical methods, and is only offered for entertainment purposes :). Anyone wanting a copy of the spreadsheet I used can download it from http://www.metropolis2.co.uk/Bish/ACE2010-guides.xls . Regards, --RexxS (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for your support of my reelection in your voter guide, as well as for your overall thoughtful observations there. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, well, I didn't really offer much of an opinion involving you, other than general support. I guess it's because I knew that you were going to be a slamdunk, so it didn't really matter what I said! Congrats though, and I'm glad you're still on ArbCom. Wikipedia is a better place because of your involvement, so thanks for all your work! --Elonka 03:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If you didn't say much before, you've made up for it now. :) Much appreciated, once again. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at AN/Edit warring

I brought up your comment at Talk:Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative at [2]. I feel that you have urged OhConfucius to violate policy, which reduces his culpability but in my mind makes you responsible. WP:PRIMARY in no way prohibits the use of primary sources in any article. This should especially be true when using the actual CFDI list as published to build an article about the CFDI. Further, I would say that since the 2008 CFDI list was compiled by the DHS and other agencies and transmitted via an official cable to solicit revisions from various government officials for the next year's version, it is not a primary source, but a secondary source under considerable editorial control. Wnt (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Elonka. You have new messages at Silver seren's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Silverseren^C 19:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I replied again. Silverseren^C 21:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Contribution Team

Hi there! This is a message sent to all members of the Contribution Team. We're letting you know that there has been a rather major update - you can read more about it at Wikipedia talk:Contribution Team#Backlog Drive Update And Other News. Kind regards, Panyd and Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding personal attack allegation

Yesterday I posted a response to something you had written at User talk:Wnt#Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative containing an allegation about personal attack that you had leveled at Wnt. If you you acknowledge at the least, or respond to it otherwise, that would be appreciated. __meco (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have replied there several times, so I'm not sure what you are referring to. I did scan through the thread again, and it looks like there was some confusion on one point, but it was cleared up by another editor, so did not require an additional reply from me. If there's some other specific question I missed though, please let me know? Thanks, --Elonka 16:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. It's the entry starting "Assertions of users having..." There were some irrelevant points being made, but the main issue remains. __meco (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing what remains unanswered. Could you simply repeat the question here? --Elonka 02:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Here:

Assertions of users having made personal atack (PA) on another user is always a very serious allegation. Such allegations should of course only be presented if the attack is indeed that. In the case of the edit made by Wnt which you label as a PA, the closest example we find at Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack? seems to be "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence", but obviously even that criterion does not describe Wnt's criticism of Ohconfucius. Strictly to-the-point criticism (even, as in this case, accompanied by a critical comparison—"run of the mill Wikipedia deletionist") should never be painted out as a PA. I urge you to be more discerning in making the distinction between acceptable criticism and personal attacks as introductions into these conflicts of claims of the latter can swiftly cause the conflict level to mount. __meco (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This[3] was a personal attack. Comments on article talkpages should focus on the content of the article, not on the contributors. --Elonka 15:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It may very well be a personal attack by your personal standards, but when you accuse another editor of making personal attacks on Wikipedia you need to get in line with Wikipedia's definition of what constitutes a personal attack on a fellow editor. That you have neglected and thus your censure directed at User:Wnt is unreasonable and unconstructive. I'm not sure you actually have read WP:PERSONAL recently. If you haven't, now would be a good time to refresh that knowledge. __meco (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the diffs, I agree with Elonka that it was a personal attack according to the most basic reading of WP:NPA. Meco, you distracted away from the topic and attacked User:Ohconfucius, claiming that he was "imposing himself as the supervisor-in-charge over all other editors." You also said he was "acting like a run of the mill Wikipedia deletionist." Meco, you were making accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence, and this isn't the first time you've done this. Tell me, Meco, is this the reason you were kicked off no.wikipedia.org? Honest question. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Meco, I appreciate the support, but the relevant AN/Edit warring thread was dropped without action of any kind, so there's really no point to continue the debate. Viriditas recently admonished me about a different 'personal attack' on my homepage, which I believe to be specifically excluded by WP:NPA as I responded there. In general, these allegations of "personal attacks" are an unwelcome distraction from the larger Wikileaks debate. No one involved in these disputations has let loose with invective to match many other political debates I've seen here. Wnt (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I've analyzed the debates, and I came to the surprising conclusion that all the heated rhetoric, all the accusations, all the incivility, and all of the personal attacks, have begun with people promoting the WikiLeaks cables over and above best practices and reasoned self-restraint, and anyone who tries to discuss this issue in terms of policy, is automatically set upon by account after account crying "censorship". So, you've got a lot of explaining to do. We're here to write encyclopedia articles, not advocate or campaign for any topic or group. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

RSN

Other users at the RSN discussion have said that both Business Insider and the Armenian news service are reliable. I just wanted to let you know. Silverseren^C 22:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am following the discussion, and look forward to acquiring more input from uninvolved editors. --Elonka 02:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer uninvolved yes, but Fifelfoo is not. Wnt announced that he was involved, the fact that Fifelfoo didn't is a bit of a problem, I think. I'm going to go put a comment beneath his, labeling him as also involved. Silverseren^C 02:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which, it's not a good idea for you to declare consensus on the RSN thread either, as you just did at WP:AN, saying that the Business Insider source has been approved, when obviously it has not.[4] --Elonka 02:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If more uninvolved users say that it isn't, i'll obviously change that wording. But currently, no one that is uninvolved has opposed the use of them. RSN discussions usually only get 2-3 people that respond. Silverseren^C 02:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: "been approved" is not the same as a consensus. I just stated that it was approved by uninvolved editors, not that it had gained a consensus. Silverseren^C 02:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It has not been approved at RSN. It is misleading for you to say that it was approved at RSN. --Elonka 02:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you define approval as? Silverseren^C 02:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It can vary from case to case, but in general it would involve a preponderance of strong policy-based arguments, preferably by uninvolved voices. If two uninvolved voices were disagreeing, but both making strong policy-based arguments, then more voices would be required to try and determine consensus. As for how "uninvolved" would be defined in this case, I would look at contribs, to see who has been editing (for example) any Wikileaks-related articles. --Elonka 15:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Work1

I came across your User:Elonka/Work1 on the list of pages linking to the CFDI article, so I've prepared a rebuttal at User:Wnt/Work1. I don't know if there's anything we can agree on out of all that, but if there is, it will make things a little less complicated if we take our cases to other editors. Wnt (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look! --Elonka 23:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Administrator discussion

I object strongly to both your insertion of an "admin only" section into the thread about classified documents and to your moving of comments into it. The determination of consensus and the discussion of proposals such as yours are not admin-only matters, and the moving of comments in an active thread distorts the record and makes it much harder for other editors to follow the flow of a discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That is way out of order. Please desist from removing objections to your behaviour. DuncanHill (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but the whole point of the thread was to get the comments of other administrators. I am interested in your opinions though. If you feel that the consensus determination is incorrect, then what would you replace it with? If it were up to you to write a summary of consensus, what would it be? --Elonka 16:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only non-admin whose opinion you are interested in? You do not own the thread and you do not have the right to decide on who may or may not post within it. DuncanHill (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

All opinions are welcome, within the proper structure. --Elonka 17:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no structure to exclude non-admins from such a debate. You need to propose a new policy if you wish to have debates about consensus restricted to admins only, not do it on the fly. DuncanHill (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You are not excluded from the debate, your comments are simply in a different section. We have plenty of precedent all over the project for certain types of structured discussions. For example, at an RfC, you may wish to disagree with what someone has said, but you are not allowed to comment there on the RfC, instead you have to comment at the talkpage. --Elonka 17:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The start an RfC. AN doesn't work like that, as I'm sure you'll have noticed. I do wonder what your motive is in all this. Several editors have commented that your "summary" looks biased, and others have pointed out incorrect assertions from you about what policy already says. Your attempt to exercise ownership of the thread looks very poor. DuncanHill (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The AN thread is absolutely not intended as an RfC, it is intended as an attempt to summarize the community opinions that have already been offered. --Elonka 17:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

And still you give no valid reason to try to exclude non-admins from it. DuncanHill (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)a

I should let you know that I've commented about you on the current AN thread in reference to possible conflict of interest, based on the Wikipedia article about you that you reference on your user page. The access you appear to have had to the CIA would seem to suggest to me that you can't actually change your opinion on this topic without repercussions. Likely it is merely pride, but I'd like to hope that otherwise I would have changed your mind about at least some of the points we've disputed. Wnt (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Your speculation is incorrect. I did speak at CIA once, and I have spoken at several other schools, government agencies, and other organizations (Such as Rotary Clubs). But I am not a government worker, I have no special access, and I am under no obligation to comment one way or the other about classified information. --Elonka 04:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

A slightly quieter corner for discussion of admins "determining consensus"

Consensus is indeed determined by the community, and the administrators judge that consensus, write up consensus determinations, and enforce. [...] 17:33, 13 December 2010 Elonka [5]

Based upon several of the comments you've made over the last few hours, and including the use of {{adminnote}} in general discussion, I'm struck by how differently we appear to be judging the role of an administrator. The specific concerns I have are that you appear to be elevating administrators’ voice in determining consensus, and that you appear somewhat cavalier in restricting the editing privileges of "normal" users. You have twice stated that it is "not uncommon to have "administrator-only" discussion sections, such as at WP:AE"

• I've looked over the guidelines/policy/essays/etc at [[Category:Wikipedia administration]] and am unable to find anything that supports the top-down "administrators have editing privileges when deciding consensus" you appear to be proposing.
• Do you have any examples where general discussion is limited to administrators?
• You have uses Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement as your example, for the benefit of the uninitiated can you please be specific in doing so, and link to a section or a discussion?

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this,
brenneman 02:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not trying to say that administrators are the only people who judge consensus. For example, at AfDs, it is not uncommon to see non-admins closing obvious discussions. However, in general, it is administrators who tend to have the most experience in closing complex discussions. In some cases, bureaucrats are usually the ones to judge consensus, per Wikipedia:BUREAUCRAT#Promotions and RfX closures. As for my use of {{adminnote}}, it was the first time I had ever used it, and I thought it would be useful in that particular case, since most of the editors who had participated so far were both non-admins, and also involved editors in the dispute. So I wanted to to set my own comment apart. I have checked the page at {{adminnote}} to see if there are different guidelines on the use of that template, and did not see anything. If I violated some common practice, I do apologize. Could you please point me to where there are instructions on the proper use of that template? We may also wish to link to those instructions, from the template itself. As for where there are discussions by a certain access-level of user, this is routine in the arbitration area. WP:AE is one example, and there are other pages which are only for the use of arbitrators, etc. For a specific example chosen at random, see Wikipedia:AE#Result concerning Benkta, where it begins, "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above." Arbitration workshop pages are also routinely separated to allow arbitrators to comment in a different section than other users. Such as in this example, where there are different sections for "Comments by arbitrators", "Comments by other parties", "Comments by other users". These kinds of separate discussion areas can be very useful to give structure to discussions, especially when there are many users with strong opinions, or things are scrolling rapidly. RfCs are another example where discussions have a certain structure. For example, someone can say pretty much anything they want on an RfC page, but any replies are expected to go on the talkpage, etc. See this random example, and note the instructions at the top: "All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page." I hope that answers your question? If anything's still unclear, please let me know! --Elonka 02:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that response. Rather than extend this ad nauseam, I'll make a few final comments then leave you to your day:

• The link to Wikipedia:BURE_etc. may not say what you've intended to convey? It's actually a counter-example, saying the debates "can be closed by non-bureaucrats."
• The example you've provided with respect to enforcement is again a very specific case, in that there are uses of the tools required. Please note that the "uninvolved administrators" phrase appears only in the context of enforcement.
• The baroque structure of request for comment endorsements is again a poor example. It is quasi-voting, not general discussion; the process has been much debated and has wide support.
• I've been looking for examples where segregation of the privilege flags (such as you've proposed and enforced) occurs in general discussion. I have not found any.

Finally, I'm trying to convey to you that simply being an administrator has no bearing on experience or ability to "judge" consensus outside of those edge cases where it is unavoidable. Even thinking that "set[ting your] own comment apart" based upon the flag should be anathema to you. And in the future I would request that you do not remove another contributor's comments based upon self-created editing restrictions.

brenneman 03:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on Template_talk:Did_you_know#Critical_Foreign_Dependencies_Initiative

I apologise for returning to your talk page. Prefacing your comments with "As an administrator monitoring this article..." and the aforementioned use of {{adminnote}} are identical behaviours. You have received negative feedback from parties other than myself on this issue, and I note that this feedback has occured in various forms over a protracted period of time.

I would again ask that you reflect on community standards for adminstrator's behavior, including the almost sancrosect "no big deal" aspect of being an adminstrator. The nutshell at Wikipedia:Administrators says very clearly "never to use [adminship] to gain advantage in a dispute." Every time you casually discuss blocking you're gaining advantage. This is a content dispute: There is a complex set of policy interactions here and as it's not a clear-cut case it's just your opinon of policy that you're advocating.

But I am *really* going to find something else to do now, so thank you for listening. brenneman 05:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hiya, thank you for taking the time to offer an opinion, but I'm afraid that you are not accurately interpreting the concept of "involvement in a dispute". If I were actively editing the article, got into a dispute about content, and then used my administrator access to try to gain an advantage over other editors, then yes, that would absolutely be inappropriate. However, I have never edited the articles in question, I have never edited in this topic area, and have no prior involvement with the editors who are working on the article. You may wish to review WP:UNINVOLVED: "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'.". Also the "no big deal" definition of adminship is not sacrosanct. Adminship is a big deal, and this has been affirmed by ArbCom. Administrators are authority figures, they are held to high standards of conduct, they are often the public face of the community, and they are expected to set a good example. They are not just "normal users with bits". And lastly, you seem to be placing some great weight on my one-time use of the {{adminnote}} tag, stating that I used it incorrectly, but I must ask you again, what is this based on? If there is some policy or guideline about when it is or is not supposed to be used, you have not provided any link to it. If I violated a guideline, please state which guideline. --Elonka 14:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you've totally missed the point of "no big deal". Yes, Arbcom do rightly expect proper behaviour from those with the power to block editors and delete content. However, the opinion of an admin is no more worthwhile than the opinion of any other editor in good standing, which is why it is extremely rare for any discussion to be "admin only". I've never seen admin only discussions on AN or ANI before your attempt to invent them recently. With regard to whether or not you are uninvolved in the matter of linking to primary sources and particularly wikileaks - you have made it clear that you want a "consensus" that they should not be linked to, via your post at AN, as well as making it clear that you intend to block editors who do link to them - even while discussion continues as to their appropriateness. That makes you involved. I must say I'm surprised that you appear to have so little knowledge of behavioural norms for admins. DuncanHill (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not invent the concept of admin-only discussion sections. It is routinely used at WP:AE, where there are admin-only discussion sections on each request. --Elonka 14:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It may have escaped your notice, but AE is not AN. Hope that helps! DuncanHill (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, this is rapidly becoming my personal tar baby. There are several threads in your response, so I'm going to split them in my reply:

• You have (on several forums) re-iterated the text from Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved_admins. Please note that I have not raised this issue with you (your previous involvement or lack thereof) at any time, that I do not consider it to pertain this discussion, and that I will therefore not be responding further to those statements of yours at this time.

Turning to the second half of your text,

• Can you please link for me where the Arbitration committee has stated that adminship is a big deal? Thank you.
• With respect to "adminnote," A) I do not appear to be communicating effectively with you and B) You appear to be suggesting that all behavioural standards are black letter law. I'll attempt to address this by both answering your direct template-based question (hopefully so that we may lay this part of the discussion to rest) and by restating my actual intent.
  • Please see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Admin-note, click through those links, and note that this template is used to alert editors to administrative actions: page moves, sock checks, etc.
  • There is also the Template documentation, which I just wrote.
  • As above, I will not be discussing this (very minor and somewhat distracting) issue any further. In its stead I will be addressing the substantiative issue.
• You have received strong negative feedback (on your possession of the privilege flag as an appeal to authority) from multiple editors over the last few days. Several {{trout}}s have come you way. If it is required, I will list the diffs to this feedback below.
• Finally, there was not a single voice raised in support of your "admin only" concept, and that I was not alone in deprecating it. Please note that when it was removed strong language was used.

Cheers,

brenneman 05:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

For an example of an ArbCom ruling on the status of administrators, see this case, which includes the principle: "Administrators are held to high standards of conduct, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Wikipedia. Administrators must be courteous, and exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others." --Elonka 07:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a very pertinent ruling Elonka - "Administrators must be courteous, and exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others" - your blanking of non-admin comments and duplication of admin comments while reformatting the thread was both discourteous and displayed very poor judgement. Your stated desire to avoid further debate of the individual points also looks rather impatient. Could you shew me the Arbcom ruling which says it's OK for admins to exclude non-admins from debate on AN? I would be grateful. DuncanHill (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

To repeat: My goal with the AN thread was to pull together the links from several discussions around the project, and try to summarize the consensus. This was a complex process, and I knew it would be controversial, which is why I did not "declare" consensus, but instead suggested a possible interpretation of the consensus and then sought the advice of other administrators to see if they agreed. I had multiple reasons for seeking the opinions of administrators, mostly because administrators tend to have the most experience with closing complex discussions, and because administrators are more likely to be in tune with specific policies and guidelines, so would understand to discount inappropriate arguments that are not correctly interpreting policy. Silly me, since I was seeking the opinions of administrators, I thought the most appropriate place to post my question was at the Administrators' Noticeboard. I now see that this was a mistake, since trying to get the opinions of administrators, at least in that venue, appears to have hit a nerve and just caused more chaos. If there's some other venue to ask for admin opinions on this kind of thing, aside from IRC, I am not aware of it.

Further, I see that trying to summarize a complex consensus and asking for opinions, seems to have simply resulted in a lot of people attacking me personally and accusing me of bias, rather than anyone actually offering constructive opinions, or a different summary of consensus. My hope at the time that I posted, would be that I would get comments such as, "Good summary Elonka, though I think point 2 may not have strong enough support to call it consensus. I would recommend removing that, and replacing it with <text>." And then we could have had a civil discussion, in a public format, about the best way to define consensus from those many complex discussions. Again: I am not trying to push my definition of consensus over anyone else's: I just didn't see anyone else stepping up to the plate, so I opted to give it a shot. If my suggested summary does not meet with the community's approval, so be it, I'm fine on passing the buck to someone else.

Anyway, the best course of action at this point is probably a centralized RfC, and one is being prepared here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Use of classified documents. I encourage anyone, admin or non-admin, to participate in that discussion. It is my hope that a clear consensus will emerge from that format, which will help to decrease the disputes at articles such as Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative, United States diplomatic cables leak, Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak, and others that will doubtless be sprouting up as soon as Wikileaks releases another batch of classified documents. --Elonka 17:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There is More Classified than Unclassified

Maybe this Harvard Univ. source could be used to provide some context for making any decisions related to classified documents. "as many as a trillion pages are classified (200 Libraries of Congress)."

Peter Galison, a historian and Director[6] in the Science Dept. at Harvard University, published research showing that the U.S. Government produces more classified information than unclassified information.[7].

"..about five times as many pages are being added to the classified universe than are being brought to the storehouses of human learning, including all the books and journals on any subject in any language collected in the largest repositories on the planet."

Peter Galison is the Mallinckrodt Professor of the History of Science and Physics at Harvard University. His main work explores the interaction among the principal subcultures of physics: How Experiments End (1987), Image and Logic (1997), and Einstein’s Clocks, Poincare´’s Maps (2003). Several projects explore crosscurrents between science and other fields, including his coedited volumes The Architecture of Science (1999), Picturing Science, Producing Art (1998), and Scientific Authorship (2003). In 1997, he was named a John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Fellow, and in 1999 he received the Max Planck Prize. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Good work on Mongol Empire!

Hello Elonka, Viriditas has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks! It's getting close to GA status, I'm looking forward to nominating it! --Elonka 02:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox articles

Hi Elonka. Thank you for your message. As you might remember, I am encouraged to make suggestion on Talk Page regarding the Mongol etc... Accordingly, these sandbox articles represent material I would like to propose to the community in Talk Pages through questions or RfCs. As Arbcom does not make ruling on content (unfortunately!) the proper way for me is to ask the community of editors (which I will gladly do). A recent example, if you have not noticed, is the Mongol elements in Western medieval art article, which, after being in my sandbox for months, has now just become a valuable and interesting mainspace article through RfC (Mongol influences in European art RfC). I am afraid it would be quite unfair if you attempted to stop me making suggestion to the community like this, especially as such positive outcome turn out to be possible through discussion with other editors. As an Administrator, I believe you should encourage idea exchange and editorial discussion, not try to block it. At least Arbcom has the wisdom to encourage such exchanges. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 19:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ellingham Hall

   I'm trying to sort out the mess of the Ellingham Hall-related pages with minimum destruction of edit histories. Your edit at Ellingham Hall (disambiguation), summarized "(Changing to redirect since there is only one valid target)" is probably at best a substantial part of the problem, since no "(disambiguation)"-suffixed Rdr may ever target a page unless that target is both a Dab and titled with the corresponing "base" name. If you have further thots about the Ellingham Hall-related pages, please refer to WP:MoSDab (and if necessary WP:Dab) to get the background on what i've said above. I'd suggest forgoing BOLD editing in this group of pages with "Ellingham Hall" in their titles. TIA.
--Jerzy•t 23:38 & 23:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

   I've gone further, at talk:Ellingham Hall#Old edit history, and will an article or a Dab be moved over the accompanying Rdr? (and similarly characterized your edit -- without naming you). I welcome your input here (will be watching for a while), re concerns that are purely between us, and on the talk page i named about what should be done with that mainspace page. Thanks again.
--Jerzy•t 04:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no strong preference, do whatever you think is best. :) --Elonka 06:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Granick.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Granick.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 09:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Evgenia Obraztsova

Hello! Your submission of Evgenia Obraztsova at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! PM800 (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

In particular, there appears to be a WP:BLP problem. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to review the article for DYK status. I believe I have addressed the issues that you pointed out, but if you have any other concerns, please let me know! --Elonka 01:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I posted another question relating to this nomination. If I'm just missing something, then I apologize. - PM800 (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

For no particular reason except that I was looking ovr my old talk messages and remembered you, Happy New Year! Jdorney (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Evgenia Obraztsova

The DYK project (nominate) 02:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Adrienne L. Kaeppler

Materialscientist (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

With respect to "admin only" discussion sections at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

There is insufficent debate for consensus to be determined on having "admin only discussion" section in requests for enforcement. I have thus deprecated it, while changing the text to reflect that an admin must, in the end, be the one who performs the action. Dropping this note here due to your stated preference for admins to have their comments given greater prominance in debate, audi alteram partem and all. I will not be looking for any response here.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson

Hi Elonka.

You left a message on my talk page about Jacques Hadamard. I think you knew that I had edited the biography and had also written Hadamard's method of descent. You asked me to help improve the disambiguation page. In doing so I rewrote extensively parametrix and created the redirect Hadamard parametrix construction. Pmanderson, whose conduct has recently been discussed at length, followed me to the newly expanded disambiguation page that you had solicited and changed grammatically two entries, ostensibly to remove repetition of the word "equality". However, in doing so, he introduced mathematical errors. I corrected the two entries which he then he reverted, claiming "hounding" in his edit summary.[8] I have restored my edits because what he wrote was mathematically incorrect (stylistic concerns seemed to have taken precedence over content). Please could you have a word with this user to clarify what was going on with this disambiguation page? Since these days he rarely contributes any mathematical content, there does seem to be some sign that he was following my edits. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have since created a new article Hadamard three-lines theorem this morning, because I was surprised to see that it didn't exist when expanding the disambiguation page. I added it to the disambiguation page and Pmanderson has now removed it. He does not seem to have noticed that I extensively rewrote and restructured the disambiguation page. He must surely be aware that the majority of my edits even now are in mathematics and that I have used links to Hadamard extensively in long articles like [[[Differential geometry of surfaces]], Orbifold and Plancherel theorem for spherical functions. I edited the disambiguation page, at Elonka's request, 24 hours before he made some minor edits, I can hardly be described as following him. It would seem indeed that he was following me. His first edit was after I had made eight edits to the article changing it from 744k to 1632k. With the additional new article, I cannot understand how Pmanderson figures I am following him. He has not checked how the article has been edited and is jumping to conclusions which are not in any way reasonable in these circumstances. Mathsci (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Why do I believe this editor is WP:HOUNDING me? Because of this edit on a topic on which he has shown no interest whatever - and on which he "corrects" me by denying a statement clearly made by the source and inventing claims unsupported by reliable authorities.

In any case, his Hadamard three-lines theorem is back on the dab page; if I cared enough, I'd merge it with Hadamard three-circle theorem, since the two are trivially equivalent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This request was immecessary; the subject has been brought up on WT:WPM, which is where I found it. This unhelpful editor has been following me around claiming other errors (contrary to sources); he has been discussed unfavorably at WikiProject Mathenatics before. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson, I have a great deal of respect for you and your edits, but regarding the Hadamard (disambiguation) page, it really does look like you followed Mathsci to that page. It was also disappointing to see you using the word "hounding" in your edit summaries. Further, to both of you, as soon as it appeared that there was some sort of dispute on the page, the more appropriate thing would have been to raise issues at the talkpage. And lastly, guys, c'mon, it's an obscure disambiguation page. All that's needed at the entries is enough to direct someone who has accidentally linked Hadamard, to find a more precise page. It's really not worth a dispute over exact wording, since the reader is only going to be at the disambig page for seconds, before going to the actual article that they wanted in the first place, and if they go to the wrong article, it's trivial to backup and look for a different one. To be honest, if you care that much about disambiguation pages, we could definitely use more help at Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup... --Elonka 16:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

More or less what I said on the talk page of the disambiguation page. Most of my effort has been in adding mathematical content; I think I mentioned to Elonka that I am quite busy in RL at the moment, so helped out as a favour to her. Usually if I look at a mathematics article on WP there is something that can be improved, so I stay away from them unless I'm adding appreciably new content. But I was very happy to help, Elonka, and if you have a similar request in future and I'm not too busy, please don't hesitate to ask.

On a personal note, did you know that Roger Davies is almost a neighbour down here? Mathsci (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"Edit war"

(comments copied from other talkpage) Hi Smartiger, regarding your changes to the Waivers disambiguation page, some of your changes do not appear to be in accordance with policies and guidelines. You may wish to review WP:MOSDAB to see the latest Manual of Style guidance on how disambiguation pages should be formatted? --Elonka 17:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Two edits in four days, well-spaced by a talk-page discussion that seems to be going nowhere, are an "edit war", now? That aside, could you be more specific as to what aspects of the disambig style my edit was "not in accordance" with? Smartiger (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's easier to just go in and fix than to take the time to explain each line, but when an experienced editor did the fixes, you just reverted them. Why? --Elonka 17:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That user's "experience" seems to be in the area of ignoring the page naming conventions, and keeping a page at the name he personally prefers, as best as I could tell. The subsequent edit I made was made necessary by the page move. I'm still in the dark as to what you feel was incorrect about it; making an edit while having a redlinked user page, perhaps, and thus presumptively wrong, when contradicted by an "experienced user"? Smartiger (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Making personal presumptions about another editor is not helpful, let's just focus on the content of the encyclopedia. As for my concerns:

• First, a Wikipedia page should never be moved unless there is clear consensus for the move. Since there was obviously a conflict, it was inappropriate to change the page's title without discussion.
• When a page has a title such as "Doodad (disambiguation)", the top line of the page should be formatted "Doodad is <whatever>."
• There should not be an extensive line of text defining a category of list entries.
• A disambiguation page is simply an aid in navigation, not a page for definitions.

For more information, please see the manual of style. --Elonka 18:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure you were the one making "assumptions about editors" -- I was addressing the specific point you raised. As I just pointed out, there was considerable discussion, during which no new points had been raised to argue against the move, for which the case seems overwhelming. By the same token, on what basis have you just moved it back? Isn't that precisely "edit warring"? Especially as I've cited material reasons for the move, whereas you seem to be simply going with the "experienced editor" and the prior status quo, regardless of the merits thereof. Your remaining remarks do not seem to relate to the edit I actually made, which was solely regarding the singular vs. plural issue. If there were pre-existing "issues" with the disambiguation page, that's hardly to be blamed on me, for trying to fix one of them. (In point of fact I'd earlier fixed several others, if you review the history.) Smartiger (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a reasonable case to be made for moving the page from Waivers to Waiver (disambiguation), but since there's a dispute, it's important to follow the appropriate WP:RM process to do so. Otherwise we just get into a tug of war and the article is yanked this way and that and things get muddled. So I have moved the article back to its original, most stable, title. If you feel strongly that it should be moved, please either obtain an obvious talkpage consensus, or file a request at WP:RM. As for the rest of the page, I went ahead and did my own cleanup and expanded it with other appropriate entries. You are welcome to continue editing the page. And if you would like to help with other disambiguation cleanup, we could definitely use the help! Just check Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup. --Elonka 18:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, my strong preference is for messages (at least notionally) to intended to be read by me to go on my talkpage, where I'll actually be notified of them; but my preferences aren't doing very well in this discussion so far in general. I already mooted the possibility of an RM, but given the guidelines, the lack of counterarguments, and the delay of four days, I hardly think it rises to the level of an "edit war", and I think you're even more clearly in the wrong by reverting on the basis of treating it like one. But as I've indicated, I don't plan to respond in kind, if the other editor maintains his objections (guideline-compliant or otherwise).

I don't see any real "cleanup" in your edit to the page in question, so I remain mystified on that account. OTOH, a pretty thorough job of expanding it (perhaps bordering on over-thorough in places). As it happens, I think that disposes of the "majority plural" objection (but I shall wait and see before getting too carried away on that score).

I think I'll decline your suggestion to involve myself with more of these. I got into this by "cleaning up" a clearly non-guideline-compliant page (overlinking, overbolding, etc), and I've been drawn into two lengthy and unproductive discussions. That's why I gave up editing WP in the first place; I only have this account at all as anon editing from my entire IP has been "rolling blocked", due to someone's determination to lock out a single problematic editor. (Not me, in case you're wondering.) So much for sticking to "straightforward" edits. Smartiger (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the term "rolling blocked", did you perhaps mean autoblocked? If so, I'd be happy to take a look into getting that cleared up for you. --Elonka 19:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Rolling block" in the sense of a rolling contract, or indeed I suppose a rolling maul. It's been getting blocked for three months over the entire /17 range, then blocked again shortly after it expires, thus effectively permanently blocking a near-maximal set of addresses. As far as I can see this isn't very consistent with the blocking policy and anon-editing "non-negotiable principle", but it happens in any event. I'd be most obliged (and frankly, impressed) if you can get it cleared up. Before you expend too much time on it, however, in the interests of full disclosure I should tell you that at least one very "experienced" (and indeed, credentialed) editor seems to have made their mind up on it. Good luck if you do try, and thanks for the offer, at least! Smartiger (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Or more recently, a six-month block, to be slightly more up-to-date. Smartiger (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, you made a comment about asking me "ISP to improve their headers"; was this a reference to Wikipedia:WikiProject on XFFs? Smartiger (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Local page created for this weekend's meetup

I just created Wikipedia:Meetup/St. Louis to parallel the page on the WP10 site. Easy to watchlist! Hope to see you there. Cheers.--Chaser (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent idea, as I rarely go over to the other wiki. Unfortunately though, I have to be out of town this weekend, which is a bummer because I was looking forward to meeting folks. Do keep me in the loop for future meetings though! Also, you may wish to contact Tim Vickers (talk · contribs) since he's in the city as well. --Elonka 18:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That's too bad. Hope to see you at a future meetup. I will email Tim.--Chaser (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You are an involved administrator with respect to me

I have e-mail evidence to prove it. Remove your comments from that section or I will begin the process of asking arbcom to recall you. jps (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about? --Elonka 23:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Almost, but not quite

Elonka, regarding this, the 'Fat Hen' is not the eagle from the German coat of arms, it's its particular incarnation in the chamber of the Bundestag, and more specifically the one in the old Bundeshaus. Were the article any good I would have pointed the link to Bundeshaus (Bonn). I know what I am talking about. Do you? 74.65.111.74 (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The important thing is that the listing at the Fat Hen disambig page have a blue link to an existing article. The Coat of arms of Germany article (under "Current usage") refers to the "Fat Hen" (fette henne) term, which is why I used it. If you think another article is more appropriate, or would like to modify the wording, feel free to swap things around. Per WP:MOSDAB, as long as there is a blue link on the disambig page, I don't much care how it's worded. --Elonka 06:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Question about unified account, and German wikipedia identity (and maybe Finland)

Admin help or direction? I irregularly edit on other language wikis (usually adding photos, bibliographic citations, etc. nothing heavy requiring linguistic skills). I have a unified account under my user name "Quartermaster" that covers almost all of the wiki universe. The exceptions are for the German and Finnish wikipedias. I.e., there were pre-existing users named "Quartermaster" on both of those. My question is specific to the German wikipedia - it appears that there is no one inhabiting the "Quartermaster" user name on that wiki and I don't know how to usurp it. What's odd also is that all of the edits by that user name were ones that I did while originally logged in as "Quartermaster" on the English language wikipedia. It appears that the German "Quartermaster" has never made an edit (but appears to get credit for my edits). Is there any way you can point me in the direction or assist me in usurping the German "Quartermaster" name so I can include it in my unified ID? The Finnish one is more problematic since there appears to be a real user "Quartermaster" but their last edit was in 2008, and they only did 84 total edits over a period of a couple of weeks. Nothing earth shattering or time sensitive here, I'm just anal retentive enough to want to have a REAL unified account. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, to be honest, I'm not certain how that works. I can dig a bit to check, but am on the road right now so it might be awhile before I can give a coherent reply. Perhaps ask at WP:HELPDESK? --Elonka 03:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem (knew you were "on the road"). I rarely bug you but thought you might have some personal magical knowledge - since you don't (how dare you not know everything!) I will indeed proceed to the Help Desk. Happy gaming! --Quartermaster (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Alliance...

As I raised the question about what should be called an "alliance" on the WikiProject Military history, and Ed pointed me to you. I just visited the Franco-Mongol alliance and it looks like it's a bit early to start that over again, but I hope you don't mind that I contacted you. Actually, as I'm not a native speaker, it's very difficult for me to see whether the word rapprochement (as proposed in Talk:Abbasid–Carolingian alliance) is the right one... but as these "alliance articles" were translated I came here first. I think the best to do know would be to ask on wp:fr. --Anneyh (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have replied at the article talkpage and the MilHist thread. --Elonka 03:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, take a look at your talkpage on Commons. 2 uploads have been requested for deletion as being copyvios. --Túrelio (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix

Please merge back in the materials you split out from Phoenix. The pages created violate WP:INCOMPDAB, and we have an entire project dedicated to eliminating such pages. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Monitor. WikiProject Poland Newsletter: Issue 1 (April 2011)

WikiProject Poland Newsletter • April 2011 For our freedom and yours Welcome to our first issue of WikiProject Poland newsletter, the Monitor (named after the first Polish newspaper). Our Project has been operational since 1 June, 2005, and also serves as the Poland-related Wikipedia notice board. I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions. We hope you will join us in them, if you haven't done so already! Unlike many other WikiProjects, we are quite active; in this year alone about 40 threads have been started on our discussion page, and we do a pretty good job at answering all issues raised. In addition to a lively encyclopedic, Poland-related, English-language discussion forum, we have numerous useful tools that can be of use to you - and that you could help us maintain and develop: we have an active assessment department. As of now, our project has tagged almost 80,000 pages as Poland-related, out of which 1,500 still need a quality assessment, and 20,000, importance assessment. we have also begun B-class quality reviews on our talk page, and if our activity increases, hopefully we will be able to institute our own A-class quality reviews. As of now, we have about 500 C-class articles in need of a B-class review. If you'd like to help with them, instructions for doing B-class reviews are to be found in point 10 of our assessment FAQ. once an article is assessed it will appear in our article alerts and news feed, which provides information on which Poland-related articles are considered for deletion, move, or are undergoing a Good or Featured review. Watchlisting that feed, in addition to watchlisting our project's main page, is a good way to make sure you stay up to date on most Poland-related discussions. you can also see detailed deletion discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Poland (which is another good place to watchlist!) also, those articles will be included in our cleanup listing, which allows us to see which top-importance articles are in need for attention, and so on newly created Poland-related articles are listed here. They need to be reviewed, often cleaned-up, and its creators may need to be welcomed and invited to our project we are maintaining a Portal:Poland automated Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Popular pages lists the most popular Poland-related pages from the previous month(s) This is not all; on our page you can find a list of useful templates (including userboxes), awards and other tools! With all that said, how about you join our discussions at WT:POLAND? Surely, there must be something you could help others with, or perhaps you are in need of assistance yourself? You have received this newsletter because you are listed as a [member link] at WikiProject Poland. • Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes

Hi Elonka, please have a look at the redirect page [Bibliothèque de l'École des chartes]. It's currently pointing visitors to École Nationale des Chartes. Shouldn't it point to Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes (with a capital "C") instead? SteveStrummer (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's been quite awhile since I worked on that article, so feel free to change it to whatever you think is best! --Elonka 20:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Done! I just thought I should check in with you before making the change. Thanks! SteveStrummer (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Mary Mae Ward article

OK, I have seen the research you've done on the character and I've been trying to build a website dedicated to General Hospital and I always thought Bradley and Isobelle's other daughter wasn't mention, but you have her as Hope Ward. Do you know of a source that could confirm this for me.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 08:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall whether I added that, or it was there from before. If you're unsure about it, feel free to change it to whatever you think makes sense. --Elonka 21:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of John A. Wise for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John A. Wise is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John A. Wise until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Image alt text in popups

Hi, I saw that a while back you requested image popups to show alt text if defined. I just implemented it. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow, I've been wanting that for ages. Thanks! You totally rock.  :) --Elonka 21:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

COI

Since you've raised this question yourself elsewhere [9], I think it only reasonable to ask. You have been very active in support of the article Lackadaisy. Am I right in thinking that you and the author work or worked at the same company? Are you acquainted with her? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have met the author, but do not have a lot of contact with her. We do work at the same company, but on different sides of the building. I definitely wouldn't list myself as a fan of the comic though. I've been aware that it's one of her side projects (unrelated to her work at the company), but I don't read it, and have no financial interest in it. For more information about my own projects, you can see my bio here.[10] I do think (as I've mentioned at the article talkpage) that the Lackadaisy article has been getting a raw deal, since it's gotten caught in the crossfire between groups on Wikipedia who are attacking articles related to the Web Cartoonists Choice awards, and they're pretty much showing a double standard, where they attack the Lackadaisy article for things which they completely ignore on other articles that they're promoting. So the Lackadaisy article has gotten caught in the crossfire, and people are trying to use it as the poster child for WCC articles that should be deleted, regardless of how many sources the article may have. If it weren't for the wiki-politics around the WCC awards, I doubt there would be so much angst on the Lackadaisy talkpage, and I am certain that it never would have been nommed for deletion in the first place. --Elonka 15:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. It's always a good idea to avoid even the appearance of being overzealous in the promotion of the interests of a co-worker. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Outing

Your edit which suggests the identity of another Wikipedia editor has been hidden from view. Please avoid guessing or pointing out the real life identity of any Wikipedia editor. Discuss conflicts of interest in terms of the edits the user has made. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems a bit of an over-reaction. I did not suggest, I merely asked. And I included plenty of diffs about the user's edits. Why did you remove the entire thread? --Elonka 17:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

He didn't -- at least, I can still see it. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I must have been looking at an in-process version. Okay, thanks! --Elonka 17:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)