Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:34, 24 October 2007

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Just a question

Hello Elonka. You are a well known and pretty contoversial Misplaced Pages editor. You're articles on family members and yourself are constantly under scrutiny. Personally, I do believe some of them are notable, but others not so much... including your personal page. Here is my question, if you did not have so many Wiki-Allies would the articles still exsist? Additionally, what is the purpose of placing obscure family members on Misplaced Pages? These questions are not asked with any malicious intentions, merely curiosity. Thanks. м info 05:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair question, though I'd point out that most of these articles were ones that I created over a year ago, and I really haven't edited any articles about my immediate family in quite some time. But when I did create them, it was my genuine desire to simply "fill in gaps" in Misplaced Pages. I felt (and still do) that Misplaced Pages's quantity of articles tends to be a bit more skewed towards pop culture than actual history, and more focused on people from English-speaking countries, and not so much on the rest of the world. I did feel that several of my relatives met WP:BIO guidelines, but there weren't articles on them yet, so I went ahead and created a few. In most cases the notability claims and confirming sources are pretty clear (Raphael Kalinowski, Ladislaus Hengelmuller, Edward Werner, Henryk Leon Strasburger, Alfred Niezychowski, etc.). In others, I decided to be bold and create articles for individuals who I knew would meet WP:BIO, but for whom the sources were still a bit weak. In any case, where there are good faith challenges, I'm fine on the wiki-community making up its mind on whether the articles should stick around or not, and I'll abide by whatever the consensus is. Where I have trouble with some of the actions though, is where "attacks" are made on some of the articles about my relatives, for no other reason than because they're my relatives. In other words, if I had created the articles and then simply never edited Misplaced Pages after that, the articles probably wouldn't be subject to these constant attacks.  :/ For example, see here, which continues to drag on, as seen here. I find these kinds of "revenge" actions by people who seem to have no other purpose on Misplaced Pages except to snipe at other editors, one of the more unpleasant parts of participation here. I also find it unfortunately distracting, since what I want to be focusing on right now, is a series of articles about medieval Egyptian history and the Crusades.  :) For example, I just got Fustat (the city that was capital of Egypt before Cairo) to Good Article status, and I'm working on Franco-Mongol alliance, which I think will make a great featured article someday.  :) As for who's participating in the AfDs about my relatives, it would not be correct to say that it's just my friends, as I honestly have no idea who most of those people are. I definitely have not been canvassing and telling people to go participate -- word is getting out through the normal wiki-processes. As for whether I myself am notable, you are welcome to question that, though you may find it interesting to watch this 12-minute video and see what PBS says. I hope that answers your questions? If you'd like to know anything else, please feel free to tell me.  :) --Elonka 05:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair answer Elonka, I apreciate it. м info 03:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Franco-Mongol Article

Hello Elonka,

I happened to come across your contributions on the Franco-Mongol page and noticed that you have been engaging in an edit-war with PHG. You seem very reasonable in your position and sincere in your attempts at composing legitimate, accurate history. Although I am not as steeped in these details as you are, in my studies of world history, I did read of the french attempt at forging an alliance, but I also read that it was dismissed by the mongol court. In fact, when the islamic world was under siege from the Mongol invasion, there were accounts about how a number of european leaders refrained from pressing their advantage, recognizing the common threat from central asian tribes (the mongols after all did advance as far as Hungary). Regardless, I will not involve myself as I too have had numerous edit wars with PHG, and he would use my involvement as a means to slander you and your cause. I also wish to caution you:

• Much as he's done with that interview on the franco-mongol article, he uses obsolete/discredited/suspect sources, original research, and personal opinion to advance his positions.
• He will read up just enough on a subject to convince admins who are unfamiliar with the topic that he is a fair and legitimate editor. This is how pulls off his "featured articles" even though they are clearly poorly composed, biased, and unwieldly.
• Anyone who disagrees with him is branded a vandal once sufficient resistance has been demonstrated.
• He will load up an article with unrelated or unnecessary primary source references until it is unwieldly beyond belief. Casual readers can't get the main points and face an almost unreadable article. This is unfortunate for wikipedia,which is after all an encyclopedia and not a thesis.
• If there is a position he doesn't like, but is validated by fact and confirmed by a consensus among modern scholarship, he will then quote primary sources and then reinterpret them to support his opinion and cast doubt on the valid modern consensus.
• Worst of all, he will romanticize figures or peoples that interest him.

• He will also enlist "objective editors" such as Aldux and Giani G who are actually his cronies and support him without question or legitimate dialogue with the other side. This gives the illusion of a majority on his side, when in fact you have the numbers.
• PHG and his team don't respond to reason, but ignore the question, misquote either you or the source and attempt to slander you through cheap histrionics.
• Most importantly, PHG refuses to negotiate fairly with anyone and will back out of agreements once editors are inactive or move on to other things. He has done so on India related articles and is clearly applying those tactics here again.
• His last line of defense is, "I have barnstars, this is a featured article, so clearly it must be right as is" or "all sides must be heard" even though he is trying to silence yours.

I know how frustrating it can be to deal with someone who makes emotional appeals on NPOV when in reality he's pushing exactly the opposite. Don't let him intimidate you with baseless accusations, threats, and dialectical acrobatics. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best of luck in this debate. I hope the wikipedia administators recognize that your respectable attempts at forging consensus and ensuring accuracy must be supported.

Best Regards,

Devanampriya 16:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Elonka,

Did not mean to join in the Misplaced Pages review of PHG, but I saw that you were being attacked by outsiders so I figured I would bring forward my evidence in spite of the predictable knee jerk attacks on me. Not sure how much difference it will make ( I apologize for the length), but I, and other editors, have been meaning to complain about him for some time as well. Thank you for your courageous stand. Please let me know if you need anything else. Good luck!

Best,

Devanampriya 00:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Elonka,

Devanampriya drew my attention to your administrator noticeboard complaint about PHG and I just wanted to give you a pat on the back. I'm glad somebody is finally putting a stop to him. As if his POV sins weren't grievous enough, his articles are long, boring, and completely opaque to the reader. It wouldn't be so bad if he'd let other people edit the damn things, but he treats them like his personal fief. I can't even begin to explain how frustrating it is to deal with him and his posse, but I get the feeling you can sympathize. Feel free to tip me off on my talk page if you ever need me to weigh in.

Windy City Dude 04:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Elonka,

My apologies again for the monster post. It appears my note was as unwieldly as phg's inane 160kb articles, heh, just a little joke for you there. Anyhow, I hope my new post helps you somewhat. As for your other questions:

• I repeatedly requested arbitration from admins, the latest being admin Blnguyen. However, they all noted that they did not have the requisite knowledge of the topic. Blnguyen did note that if PHG's skewing of article pov was verified, it would be an offense serious enough for banning. I believe we have the evidence.
• I requested a neutrality review of the article and posted a "Neutrality disputed" banner at the top; however, PHG repeatedly deleted it and no admin ever responded.

Please let me know if you need anything else. I hope my condensed post was more helpful.

Best,

Devanampriya 05:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Elonka,

My apologies :(. It is just that PHG has a habit of ignoring inconvenient evidence and prematurely ending debate. I sincerely take your advice to heart and will make it a point to refrain from anything approaching incivility in all cases (although, I am only this heated with PHG and Co).

I did post one more time on the review page. I am not sure if it will help much, but at least I became the target instead of you ;). Anyhow, at this stage, I will defer to you in the matter. If you need specific resources or references, I am at your disposal. I believe it might be best if we refocus this discussion onto PHG, and to do that, I need to withdraw myself as a target for his antics. There is a clear cut case for original research (given the phg's flimsy foundations that even user ghirla has noticed). I suggest we focus on both that and PHG's tendency to OWN pages.

Sorry I could not be more effective. Please let me know if you require anything. Good luck!

Very Best Regards,

Devanampriya 01:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to email me at Devanampriyadarshi@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devanampriya (talk • contribs) 01:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

You have been sent one. :) Acalamari 18:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've just move protected your user and talk page for a day each. You just had an impersonator and vandal move your pages. Acalamari 21:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for staying on top of it. I haven't been hit by that particular kind of vandalism before... Any idea what it's related to? --Elonka 22:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) It was most likely just someone simply wanting to cause trouble, judging by their impersonation-username, and by the fact they vandalized four days after they created their account. The move feature only comes to users with accounts more than four days old. However, they have now been reverted, and blocked. :) Acalamari 22:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Attacks

Dear Elonka. This is so nice of you to attack me on all boards you can think of... Why don't you just stick with specifics and recognize what sources say? Balanced editing and NPOV presentation of sources should help you stay away from this kind of ridiculous arguments. Best regards. PHG 07:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the discussions at:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mongol conquests and Jerusalem
• WP:ANI#POV-pushing by User:PHG
• Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Request for comment
• Talk:Mongol raids into Palestine

It would seem that the vast majority of other editors are disagreeing with you. Perhaps you should rethink your own position, before this escalates further? It would be helpful for you to apologize for your actions, acknowledge community consensus, and promise to cease edit-warring and engaging in tendentious editing. But as long as you keep insisting that you are right and everyone else is wrong, I'm afraid that this is going to get worse before it gets better. --Elonka 08:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Elonka. Number 1) is about keeping a title or not for a sub-article: no big deal, and this is very peripheral to our main subject. Number 2) is about you slandering me, and I just responded. Number 3) is an ancient discussion. Number 4) is basically the same as Number 1). So how about the central subject matter of the Franco-Mongol alliance?: you lost the vote to change the name, your vaunted 3:1 support disappeared, and it has been made obvious that you misinterpret sources to fit your storyline. Keep you attacks as long as you want, but there is no way you can deny, eliminate and corrupt reputable sources in favour of your point of view. Best regards. PHG 08:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD

Hi Elonka. I was browsing through the templates and I noticed this one, and it seems that it should be deleted. I wasn't really sure where I would go about doing that so I was just passing it along to the right person. Thanks! Dh993 23:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: personal remark

Hi, Elonka. I appreciate your efforts to make Misplaced Pages a better place and would be delighted to work with you some day when I shall have more time for Misplaced Pages. You should excuse my statement about your need to always be in the right, if it is disconnected from reality, since it was not intended as a negative assessment of your general activity and was based primarily on my acquaintance with the recent RfA dramas which certaintly don't highlight the penchant for easy compromises you spoke of.

As for the matter at hand, I urge you and PHG to reconcile your differences without alleging some terrible misdeeds on the part of one's opponent. For as long as I know him, PHG has been given to speculative theories and building elaborate castles on rather flimsy foundations, but overall he is an inestimable contributor of material on rather obscure topics. I suppose you both have the best interests of Misplaced Pages at heart and will find a way to honourably emerge from this imbroglio. --Ghirla 12:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Dear Elonka. Please kindly note I have filed a claim for "Editorial and procedural abuses by User:Elonka" on ANI: WP:ANI#Editorial and procedural abuses by User:Elonka. Best regards. PHG 18:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Smile

LaMenta3 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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Seems that you could use one of these things again. Take it easy and remember why we're all here to begin with: to have fun! LaMenta3 19:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Windy City Dude

Yes it really is me. Sorry, nothing is wrong with my login, it's just that this account has a template that's not really intuitive to navigate with and I've been too lazy to figure out how to change it back. I'll make sure to keep logged in in the future. Thanks Windy City Dude 16:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Bengali / Bangladeshi

Hi Elonka, thanks for your message. Sadly, Bengal is not a country by itself, rather divided into two parts, the country of Bangladesh, and the Indian state of West Bengal.

Bengali people are an ethnic group who are the majority in the ethno-linguistic region of Bengal ... the common factor is the Bengali language spoken by them.

On the other hand, Bangladeshi is a nationality, used for citizens of Bangladesh. A person can be both Bengali and Bangladeshi, or Bengali or Indian, or a Chakma and Bangladeshi ... and so on.

In case of Fateh's father, he is definitely a Bangladeshi citizen of Bengali ethnicity. So, both the ethnic adjective Bengali and nationality adjective Bangladeshi applies to him. For Eenasul Fateh, the same thing might apply.

The Category:British Bengalis, on the other hand, includes people of Bengali descent, from both Bangladesh and West Bengal, who are British.

Thanks. --Ragib 19:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

T (disambiguation)‎ question

Hello! I was wondering, what do you think needs to be cleaned up in the T (disambiguation)‎ article? I'd like to know what you think so that I can clean it up if needed. Thanks! -- ArglebargleIV 03:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: British Bengali

Yes, it would have been more desirable if we had only linguistic and natural geographic classification of people, instead of nationalistic devisions. May be something along the the line of "Bengali-speaking people of the British Islands". But, that may be a bit far fetched in current social orders around the world. The Bangladeshi-origin population in Britain is not only a really large crowd, it also drws special attention of the home and foreign offices there. Much negotiations between Bangladesh and UK governments revolve around these people. Besides, Bengalis who come from India are already classified as British Indians. There is no reason why the same logic should not be applied to Bangladeshis as well. Not doing so would be as inadvisable as identifying an Urdu-speaking British only as such, blurring the difference between the Indian-born and the Pakistani-born people, or even identifying Mexican Americans as just Spanish-speaking people. Baroness Paula Manzila Uddin, the Brick Lane (both in reality and in the novel), Londonis from Sylhet are all Bangladeshi stuff, not merely Bengali. There is already a budding sub-South Asian genre of British Bangladeshi literature, and most Indians restaurants in the UK are owned and run by Bangladeshis. Bangladesh has been in existence for three hand a half decades, and the language may not be the only way of classification used in recognizing people from Bangladesh. Sorry to butt in uninvited. I hope you don't mind. Aditya 06:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I really have no strong opinion on the matter. I'm glad to see that others have given it a lot of thought, and I will bow to your decisions on it.  :) --Elonka 15:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I really need a bonk on the head for not watching talk pages. Sorry for not noticing the reply. Anyways, thanks for the understanding. Cheers. Aditya 05:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Matt Casamassina

Hi Elonka. I'm glad to see that you still are smiling. Matt Casamassina is an article to which you have contributed (the last time was on 11/21/2006). A blast from the past, but the article needs some TLC. Matt appears to have addressed the Matt Casamassina Misplaced Pages article in his recent blog, here, where he writes

"When my brother called me the other day and told me that I even have a Misplaced Pages page that calls into question my Halo DS blog, I realized I had to at the very least prove that I hadn't completely hatched the entire thing."

Would you please review the situation and take the appropriate action. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 13:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

May I have your opinion ?

May I have your opinion of Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem? I have cleaned it up from what I felt was a long bunch of lists, but I think your knowledge of some of the details and dates might help. Personally I think they are kind of hoaky, and the implications at legit-ness are awfully thin. " Smile and they wont suspect a thing." Exit2DOS2000 22:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Soaps!

Hey, long time no chat! I'd love your input on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Soap Operas, Oh Wise One; I fear I'm looking like an a-hole in a new ratings discussion but don't know how else to put it. TAnthony 04:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You see, your last comment at WP:SOAPS is a perfect example of why you ROCK.  ;) --TAnthony 18:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Awww, thanks. You've been doing amazing work yourself! Sorry I haven't been participating more... Most of my attention these days has been on articles about the Crusades, but I'll do my best to help out when I can. Thanks for drawing my attention to the debate!  :) --Elonka 18:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources for Stanley Dunin

Greetings, I have been keeping an eye on the Stanley Dunin article after its AfD, and from this dif you can see that the infomation about your father's aerospace engineer days has been removed. I noted in this autobiography that you verified these facts, but do you know of any other sources for this info? Fosnez 07:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I do, do you have skype? My microphone is stuffed at the moment, but we can still type. Just search for my username --> Fosnez 07:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just found your contact details now, i'll add you on msn. Fosnez 07:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to head out of the house for a few hours. But drop me a message on msn if you want, it should have come through by now. Fosnez 07:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny Message from Jehochman

		Ready to swab the deck!
		Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Have a fantastic day. Arrrgh! - - Jehochman 03:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Jacques de Molay

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jacques de Molay. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. PHG 09:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems this a pretty unnecessary warning - Elonka has only made 2 reverts to that page whereas PHG has made 3... Reading though the talkpage I am struck by the fact that you have never participated there. Recalling the discussion on another talkpage that the consensus of historians is that Jerusalem was not captured by Mongols in the period in question (a view confirmed by impartial editors such as Danny), it seemed to me that your caption was not representing scholarly consensus on the matter. Elonka's caption seemed preferable. Given that the incident depicted did not occur, the "legends" section seems appropriate to me. WjBscribe 09:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I only did one edit, and then two revs when Elonka reverted my edit twice. I think Elonka's caption is uncesseraly POV and could take a more neutral stance: a painting is not "Erroneously-titled".. it is just titled by its author, and modern scholars are divided on the question of the occupation by the Mongols and Armenians in 1300. Regards. PHG 09:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No, your "edit" was a revert of the change I'd made a couple weeks ago. --Elonka 09:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it was certainly not a revert, just a rewrite I did afresh to implement a better neutrality. You are wrongfully claiming a revert when it is not the case: this is just not called a revert. Regards. PHG 09:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

PHG, you clearly made 3 reverts: 1, 2, 3. As to issues with the text, I suggest you agree a compromise text between you on the talkpage. WjBscribe 10:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but Nb 1 is an edit and a rewrite, certainly not a revert. Regards. PHG 10:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, its a revert of this prior edit from September 18th... WjBscribe 10:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid not, it is rewrite and balancing of that edit. Nothing to do with a revert. PHG 10:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Its a revert because it undid a previous edit by another user, the context is immaterial. You may wish to read WP:3RR#What is a revert? If you want to put it to the test, try reverting the article again and see if a hereto uninvolved admin blocks you - I really don't recommend that course of action though... WjBscribe 10:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It certainly did not undo a previous edit by Elonka, it was just a modification of what she had written, a very normal process on Misplaced Pages. She did, however, bluntly revert my edit. Regards. PHG 11:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Ned Scott

A "revert" from half a month ago has little to nothing to do with a current 3RR accusation. I know this is none of my business, and I don't really care who's right or wrong, but nitpicking at reverts like this is just silly. Instead of doing that, shouldn't you be telling them to talk it out on the talk page, or to just stop it to both of them? -- Ned Scott 10:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have encouraged discussion, but I think people need to be clear on what a revert is. I wasn't referencing the edit from last month to include it as a revert, but to bring to PHG's attention that his first edit was indeed a revert (it undid an edit that had previously been made to the page) and therefore counted for 3RR purposes. WjBscribe 10:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ned, if you really want to read up on this, check out Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance. There's more going on here than just 3RR. --Elonka 10:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care, but it bothers me to see WJB taking sides like this, as if your two reverts were somehow "less bad" than PHG's. -- Ned Scott 10:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the page myself - so I can hardly claim impartiality. The reason I did so was that reading though the talkpage I was struck that PHG had taken no part there despite the presence of a related discussion. I also recalled the discussion on another talkpage that the consensus of historians is that Jerusalem was not captured by Mongols in the period in question (a view confirmed by Danny - who you will remember is far from Elonka's greatest fan). My only conclusion was that PHG's caption did not represent scholarly consensus on the matter and that Elonka's caption was preferable. I therefore reverted. It is my practice to warn all editors who have made 3 reverts to a page about 3RR so I warned PHG accordingly. I have offered advice on how to structure the talkpage discussions but I am also being careful to make sure PHG understands 3RR so that he does not do anything foolish (like revert again). While I wish Elonka had not reverted twice, her conduct does not seem nearly as problematic. WjBscribe 10:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, fair enough. -- Ned Scott 10:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ned Scott. WJBscribe, I understand 3RR perfectly, but branding "a revert" a rewrite of an edit that is 1-month-old really makes little sense. I consider Elonka actually reverted twice an edit I did in good faith to have a more neutral point of view. No big deal, really. Regards. PHG 11:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Peasants Revolt

Hi Elonka. There's a redlink to Peasant's Revolt in the Knights templar article. Is it refering to English peasants' revolt of 1381? It's the obvious candidate, but I don't want to fix the link wrong.... J.Winklethorpe 21:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like that's a new statement that got added in without any kind of source. I'd just delete it. :) --Elonka 21:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, you already got it. Being on the main page looks like all kinds of fun :) J.Winklethorpe 22:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup it's a combination of being affirming to have an article there, and also like being the target of a game of Faceball.  ;) --Elonka 22:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Oversight

Re: the impersonation account a couple weeks ago, the edits weren't actually oversighted, they were deleted. They are still viewable by administrators. In this case, you may want to pursue true oversight which removes the edits even from administrator view. See WP:OVERSIGHT and WP:RFO. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Deleted edits are fine, I trust the admins with the info.  :) --Elonka 02:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Saudi Arabia

Hello! We are a group of editors working to improve the quality of Saudi Arabia related articles. You look like someone who might be interested in joining us in the Saudi Arabian WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you in our project :-) And a special thanks for your extreme care about Mecca's articles  A M M A R  19:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the kind words, I have added my name to the Participants list, and look forward to working with the project to further improve these very important articles.  :) --Elonka 19:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Good , To which fields are you interested ?  A M M A R  22:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Right now I am working primarily on pre-Islamic history around the Hijaz, plus improving the articles on the Kaaba, Mecca, Hajj, Isra and Miraj, and similar. Today I was expanding the article on the Zamzam Well. I wanted to link it to articles about Saudi Arabian hydrogeology but couldn't find anything (yet?). --Elonka 23:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok , This is perfect . Whenever you need help just ask . If you can read Arabic in a high level i can find you more references about Zamzam well. but i think you don't . Anyway's , have a nice day and thanks for your expensive time working in our project :)  A M M A R  03:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Alas, Arabic is not (yet) one of my languages, though I'd definitely like to learn it someday. :) --Elonka 03:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You can do it , you seem genius :)  A M M A R  04:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Knights Templar

Was that Knights Templar I saw on the front yesterday? Congrats. - Jehochman 22:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, edit history on the article got quite busy for about 24 hours.  :) --Elonka 22:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats an understatement :P Exit2DOS2000 07:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Template Help

Sorry it took me so long to reply. I have been absolutely swamped with work. I did figure out the template thing though, and I am still working on getting to JSTOR and trying to find some accurate maps. Thank you for the offer, however. Windy City Dude 02:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Rennes-le-Chateau/Priory of Sion Myths

===Rennes-le-Chateau/Priory of Sion Myths===

Nice to see that you seem to have snapped out of believing in the Rennes-le-Chateau/Priory of Sion Myths!

wfgh66

Archiving

Please don't archive, and especially don't set up a bot; one reason I am behind is that I do want to keep some of these in active space. But I will get to it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Soap character infobox

Hey there, what's your take on this? — TAnthony 15:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Books on the Mongol alliance

Since you seem to claim something else, for your information, here are the books I personnaly own and have read in relation to the Mongol alliance topic. Regards. PHG 06:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Stanley Dunin

Stanley Dunin, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Stanley Dunin satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and the Misplaced Pages deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stanley Dunin 3 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Stanley Dunin during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Carbon Monoxide 23:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Hey Elonka, can I move your infobox to Template:Infobox EastEnders character 2 ? I was going to just go ahead and move it but I dont know what the procedure is. Is it just the same as moving a normal page? I want to start using it in some of the other character articles :) Gungadin♦ 20:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, go right ahead. :) --Elonka 17:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks Elonka, I'll move it now, good luck settling in again :) Gungadin♦ 17:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Larmenius Charter

Hello Elonka, Did you know that the Larmenius Charter is a fake document? http://en.wikipedia.org/Larmenius_Charter Have you read the books by JM Roberts, Mythology of the Secret Societies and by Peter Partner, The Murdered Magicians: The Templars and their Myth?

Quoting from the Misplaced Pages article: "(the Larmenius Charter) resurfaced again in the Court of the Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte in 1804 by a Court doctor to Napoleon, Bernard Raymond Fabré-Palaprat." Do you know why the Larmenius Charter "resurfaced" again when it did, and why to of all people to Bernard Raymond Fabré-Palaprat? Wfgh66 19:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll try to get over to Larmenius Charter to take a look. If you think the article should be deleted, you can also add a {{prod}} template to it. --Elonka 19:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the article should be deleted because the Larmenius Charter is an important entry in the chronological framework of the Templar Myth. Fabre-Palaprat founded the "L’ordre du Temple" in 1804 and the document was an important "discovery" used to give his new Order some credibility (new Orders usually claim to have made new "discoveries" in attempt to bolster their reputation and integrity). The Larmenius Charter belongs to what is called Johannite Freemasonry - The first part of the document is purported to have been written in Greek in the year 1154 and claimed the original Templar Commanders to have been initiates to a secret affiliation of primitive Gnostic Christians under the leadership of the Patriarch Theocletes who had made Grand Master Hughes de Payens heir to the Apostolic Succession of John the Divine. It then moves back to 1118 and to the consecration of Hughes de Payens (after describing how Moses was taught wisdom from the Magi of Egypt). There's no need to analyse the handwritten Latin style if the historical claims made within the document are unrealistic! Here's the List of Grand Masters the document contains:

1313-1324 John-Marc Larmenius

1324-1340 Thomas Theobald of Alexandria

1340-1349 Arnaud de Braque

1349-1357 Jean de Claremont

1357-1381 Bertrand du Guesclin

1381-1392 Bernard Arminiacus

1419-1451 Jean Arminiacus

1451-1472 Jean de Croy

1472-1478 Bernard Imbault

1478-1497 Robert Leononcourt

1497-1516 Galeatius de Salazar

1516-1544 Phillippe Chabot

1544-1574 Gaspard de Galtiaco Tavanensis

1574-1615 Henri de Montmorency

1615-1651 Charles de Valois

1651-1681 Jacques Ruxellius de Granceio

1681-1705 Jacques Henri Duc de Duras

1705-1724 Phillippe, Duc d'Orleans (time when alleged statutes written)

1724-1737 Louis Augustus Bourbon

1737-1741 Louis Henri Bourbon Conde

1741-1776 Louis-Francois Boubon Conti

1776-1792 Louis-Hercule Timoleon, Duc de Cosse Brissac (executed)

1792-1804 Claude-Mathieu Radix de Chavillon

1804-1838 Bernard Raymond Fabre Palaprat

Wfgh66 21:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Found

Something of interest to you, perhaps: Count Dunin-Wonsowicz. Needs first name, category, etc. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Purple Star

The Purple Star So sorry for all you're getting hit by. --AnonEMouse 13:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)