Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on <span class="plainlinks"></span>. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:di-replaceable fair use-notice --> ] (]) 00:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on <span class="plainlinks"></span>. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:di-replaceable fair use-notice --> ] (]) 00:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For passing an RFA on your 3rd attempt, a rare feat. ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
|}
Congrats on making it, despite my hesitations. If I can do anything to help you out, let me know. ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
email
I don't use that acct for email, normally. Remember, I don't trust yahoo for email -- it's my 'throwaway' account. I'm not expecting a reply from him anyway, the "all caps" email claim was a little bizarre. Mindraker (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hm, I guess I never noticed that I tend to sign my name when I am really sincere about wanting something. I'll blame my dad on this one, heh. Mindraker (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I really do appreciate your concern, but I am rather interested to see if he will forward me the (alleged) email, seeing as he was not allowed to post it on Misplaced Pages. If his claims are true, he would theoretically be jumping at the opportunity to "spread the word". If his claims are false, theoretically, it would be more difficult to provide the evidence. So far, I have not received contact from him. Mindraker (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Dang, I was pretty sure you wouldnt get it. I thought even a 75% meant a no consensus. Had I known, I would have sent 12 more emails to your former opposers. Just kidding (did not do any of that). Anyway, you wanted it real bad and you got it so you must be happy. Congrats. --Matt5702:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You've done it, Elonka! Your RfA was successful, and had 176 supports in all! Here is a link to the school for new admins (do check this out, it's very useful! I wish it had existed when I first became an admin!), and a new T-shirt! Take great care when using your new tools! If you need help, don't hesitate to contact me or other more experienced administrators! Good luck! Acalamari01:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Echoing the above sentiments, Congratulations on your new responsibilities, and I wish you the best in your wiki-admining. ZZ ~ Evidence02:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Congrats! Although I voted against your adminship, I hope that my concerns, and those of your other detractors, will not materialise. I also do sincerely hope that you will exercise your newly-acquired powers responsibly and in the best overall interests of wikipedia. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm so happy that in the end those who did their very best to submarine you did not cripple your RfA. The proof is in the pudding, er, the bucket! :P Monsieurdl03:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I just got home from work, so I just saw that you finally got the mop. About damn time! Congrats and all that...it got ugly there for awhile.
Party on Elonka's talkpage! :) LaMenta3 (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Congrats Elonka - it was a long time coming. I feel better knowing that you are out there, protecting the streets of Gotham. :) - Arcayne()15:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, your note is much appreciated and goes a long way toward easing the concerns Kafka Liz and I had regarding your administration. There’s certainly no doubting your dedication to the project and the overall quality of your work. It says a lot to us that you have stepped forward like to this to apologize on the behalf of those involved.
Regarding how we learned of the RfA: no one emailed or contacted us in any way. Kafka Liz really did just stumble on it, as she said, and mentioned it to me. Our relatively small number of edits does not reflect the amount of time we spend at the site; Kafka Liz, in particular, does a fair bit of reading about policy (and later explaining it to me).
I’m assuming that most of the tension here stems from the Franco-Mongol alliance issue? I am aware of it but haven’t had the inclination to read through all of the pages now associated with the matter, especially when it is so clear that yours is the correct position. I too have little patience with pot-stirrers.
In any case, thank you again for your note. I think we can easily put this behind us now and believe we will work well together in the future, since our editorial interests intersect fairly closely. On that note, allow me to congratulate you on your successful RfA and wish you all the best. Aramgar (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, at the risk of sounding too much like Aramgar, I too would like to thank you for your kind words and congratulate you on your adminship. And wish you an excellent holiday season. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
God, I just read over the FA nomination of Franco-Mongol relations. Something is deeply broken there - you were not only the only person who brought up the factual inaccuracy of the article, you were the only person who seemed to even think this was something that might be questioned about the article. For anyone to pass any judgement on criterion 1C, and probably 1B, as well, one needs to have some knowledge of the subject area. All these busybodies at FAC spend all their time going on about poor introductions and too many images, and ignore incredibly serious, vast problems with the article. If the article had had a good introduction and not had too many images, it appears that, aside from you, it would have passed FAC. This is potentially disastrous - any crank with an interest in an obscure topic can make a featured article by tendentious citations. Beyond that, at certain points PHG's work approaches plagiarism - he uses pretty much verbatim quotes from his sources without making clear that they are quotations, although he does cite the source and usually include the original text in a footnote. If we're going to have featured articles, they really need to have a serious factual due diligence, and this should be a formal part of the process. Fact-checking ought to be the most important of deciding whether something is an FA, not an afterthought. This makes me deeply concerned for the integrity of the whole FA process. john k (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Arbcom may end up being the way to go, although I think the problem is really structural. Anyone with any knowledge of the specific stuff PHG talks about quickly sees that it's tendentious. The problem is that there is nothing in FAR which actually makes it mandatory that anybody with any actual knowledge of the subject reviews it. So we make damn sure that FA articles are proofread, and use summary style, and don't have too many pictures, and that there's a citation for any statement of fact. But there's nobody to check if the citations are actually good, if the article actually represents an accurate portrait of the state of the field. To be approved for publication (and that, imo, is what FA should be), a normal encyclopedia article has to be peer reviewed by people knowledgeable in the field. This is completely lacking in FA, and is a serious problem. Obviously, we are somewhat lacking in people with actual expertise, and there is, further, something of an anti-expert ideology among a lot of people here. But some kind of serious content review process for FAs seems essential, or wikipedia could be in for some serious embarrassment. john k (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
What really astonishes me about this is that I can't figure out what it's in service of. Usually the POV behind tendentious work like this is readily apparent. Here I have no idea what is motivating PHG. I can't even conceive of what possible nationslist POV would lead one to want to exaggerate the degree of alliance between Mongols and Franks. Is he a propagandist for King Hethoum of Armenia, or something? Now he's trying to claim that Bohemond could have ridden 125 miles a day, like Mongol post riders, and arrived in Baghdad from Acre in five days. Sigh. john k (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3
It was no big difficulty for me- I would have defended anyone I knew against the sort of attacks that were going on :)
It feels good going back to editing history articles instead of engaging in heated debates, and I'm sure you'd appreciate that. If you need any help, you can always come to me as you know. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Monsieurdl16:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Best of luck. Sorry for all the drama. Now, for the hard part: be very careful when using the block button, which I know from hard-won experience. :-) Bearian (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey Elonka. I know you were active on the page awhile ago, so I could use some help. A single-purpose account has been editing/hacking/butchering the article - once, twice, three times. I'm trying to assume good faith, but the page is a mess now. I reverted it twice today already, but the page could use some help. Could you take a look at it and try to work out the kinks - or failing that, give me some advice on how to proceed? Thanks! — HelloAnnyong22:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry that I'm late in saying this, but congratulations. You know that I would have supported you in this nomination as well, if I had known about it. Flyer22 (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, holidays are a lazy season. Happy Christmas and happy New Year season, be strong administrator and don't go far for a block :-) ≈Tulkolahten≈00:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Congrats from me as well. I must admit I did oppose your Rfa, but I am fully confident in your abilities, and am quite pleased your Rfa passed. Enjoy the new tools, don't let the vandals get to you, and if you ever need anything, I always have time for a fellow admin! Now... get back to work! :) Jmlk1702:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Darn it, I missed the show. Very glad of the outcome though :) While I'm here I'll take the opportunity to wish you a Happy festive time.--Alf07:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Arcayne() is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdose on cranberry sauce or cookies!
Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Arcayne/ECard}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Becoming an Administrator did not change your intimidation methods apparently! The AfD was on "Mongol conquest of Jerusalem", which was indeed voted down. The new title is "Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300)", which is not at all POV. Many authors to describe Mongol raids on Jerusalem. The article as such is totally justified (subject, size, content), and is usefull to deflate the size of the Franco-Mongol alliance article. PHG (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, you are the one who actually proposed "Ameno-Mongol alliance"... and now you say you are against it and criticize me for starting the article? (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Article split). You even wrote "I support the idea of creating a separate article for the Armenian-Mongol alliance. --Elonka 09:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)" (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Title) That's pure nonsense. I am asking you to apologize for your bullying. PHG (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hatchets
Elonka, I just wanted to reiterate that I am not holding a grudge here, and don't think there is a hatchet between us. I trust that you feel the same way, and believe you would tell me if it were otherwise. All the best, Kafka Liz (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Really?
Is this true? To my knowledge, it is not. Whose copyright are you saying may be violated? The book manufacturer? But they didn't create the picture - they got it from someone else. I'll concede I'm not a copyvio expert though so I'm curious if I'm missing something. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Sounds like you might be on to something. Perhaps one or more of the images should be brought through the Commons deletion process. Also, if the issues with PHG are really bad here, it may be time for an WP:RFC. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed this discussion while looking for something else, and my opinion is that this depends on whether it was a scan or a photograph, with cavets for how old manuscripts are "scanned". The Commons bit says:
"There have been no decided cases in the UK which directly bear on this issue, but most British academic writers agree that the UK courts probably would grant copyright to a carefully lit and exposed photograph, taken from a distance, which aims to be a faithful reproduction of a 2D work of art. The level of originality required by the UK courts is low, and there will very probably be sufficient originality in the photographer's selection of lighting arrangements, exposure, filters and so on for a new copyright to be generated. Of course, a simple scan or photocopy of a PD illustration in an old book is OK, as purely mechanical copying cannot even in the UK create a new copyright."
The important bit is the last sentence: "Of course, a simple scan or photocopy of a PD illustration in an old book is OK, as purely mechanical copying cannot even in the UK create a new copyright." I may be wrong, but the "from a distance" bit to be seems to apply to photographs from a distance of a painting hanging on a wall, not to a camera held over a manuscript and used to take a photo. In any case, for old manuscripts, the image capture process invariably involves fixed camera set-ups to faithfully reproduce the pages of the book, which is essentially the same set-up regardless of who is doing the photograph (ie. minimal originality). For obvious reasons, brittle manuscripts are not stuck in a normal scanner (at least not without a great deal of preparation). The amount of work involved in faithfully reproducing an old manuscript might be a lot, but the amount of originality is minimal. Similar examples from the Rashid al-Din book are: Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg and Image:Muammad-as-youth-meeting-monk-bahira-compendium-persia-1315-edin-550.jpg. Carcharoth (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the book by Jackson was inded published in the UK, but you will notice however that the picture was taken in France (Bibliotheque Nationale) by a German company (AKG-Images), which makes it dependent on French copyright laws. France is listed as "Inconclusive" regarding PD-Art (it is not "generally considered to be protected by copyright" for faithfull reproductions of ancient paintings), thereby allowing the PD-Art usage per Misplaced Pages . In any case "purely mechanical copying cannot even in the UK create a new copyright" as per the same page, and as per Carcharoth above, that definition should legitimately apply to un-creative photos of old manuscripts. PHG (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
RfC closings?
Hi, Elonka! I saw your comment on an RfC and I wondered how/when they get closed? Specifically, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Bluemarine was started in September - how does one know when to close it and come to resolution? I'm only interested because a user (who has not taken part in the RfC) complained about the user's "interesting take on consensus-building" and another user mentioned the RfC. Thanks for your help - I'm still wet behind the ears with this mop, so I'm not very confident in how to use it :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach.
But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole.
I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though.
But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment.
Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all.
Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled.
I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes.
Larry Pieniazek
NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s, "B"s and "C" having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "D"s, "E"s and "F"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) ++Lar: t/c18:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Jerusalem
I once read that Misplaced Pages is not about what is true or not, but about what published authoritative sources write or not about a given subject. Your comment that the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols in 1300 is not true doesn't make much sense in that context. The statement about the capture of Jerusalem is backed up by multiple reputable sources which I know of (starting with Alain Demurger), although I agree there are also opinions to the contrary. This is just a matter of presenting the various scholarly opinions on the subject. PHG (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject St. Louis
Hello, I noticed you've made edits to St. Louis articles or that you are in some way connected to metropolitan area. I thought you might want to become a member of the St. Louis WikiProject. We've recently built the project page and started a drive to improve St. Louis related articles. Please take a look to edit an article or add one of your own. Once an article's status has been agreed upon, feel free to stop by and lend a hand in getting it to featured article status. Hope you can participate!
Hi Elonka, thanks for your message. I am sure you will do well as an admin, and I wish you lots of happiness for the new year. Crum375 (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
If you have time I would like a 3rd party opinion on the page:
the "Independence movement" section. The current version verses my last version (trying to achieve census of NPOV). You will also find a lively arguments on the talk page. Best,--Duchamps_comb MFA06:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a proposed move of Scottish kings at Talk:Kenneth I of Scotland that I thought I'd bring to your attention. I think you have had things to say on this subject in the past. I suspect you'll prolly oppose, but I hope at least you will read the proposal and the reasoning. Best regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MusicaAnimalia.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MusicaAnimalia.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Possibly with a bot, though I'd need to know the specifics to say for sure either way. Javascript I'm fairly profoundly ignorant of, though I have toyed with learning some for purposes of another project. Alai (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. That looks doable, but likely somewhat convoluted, given the rather disparate nature of the information being collated. Probably the WP API is the best way to handle it: I'd have to check up on that, though. I'll try to comment in detail soonish, but it'll likely be no sooner than Monday. If you need technical input on a speedy basis, it might be a plan to drop a note at the bot requests page. Alai (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm passing this case over to ArbCom. I know you had a go at trying to sort things with the Matt Sanchez article, so you might want to comment on whether they should accept or reject the case. WjBscribe04:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter January 2008
I just found out you're an admin now. :) Third's the charm! Well, here are my belated congrats. If I'd known at the time I'd have supported you. Aw well. Congrats again and good luck with admin school! ;) Cheers Raystorm(¿Sí?)15:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't know if you remember me (posted on your page, months ago) - Congrats on becoming an Administrator, Elonka. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Belated congratulations (I'm partially off-Wiki at the moment in the Land Beyond Broadband and editing here is a serious pain over a dialup link, so I'm not on as much as I'd like to be!) My only concern with your RfA was that you seem to be spreading yourself a bit thin with all your other commitments but hey - if you think you can find the time, go for it! Plus as they say, being an admin is not That Big Of A Deal - nothing says you have to get the broom out of the cupboard every time you log on ☺ Tonywalton10:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome for the support. I have seen you on TV and I was very intrigued by your expertise. That did not affect my vote, but I am so pleased that such a distinguished and interesting person is an editor on wikipedia. I also think you will be a good admin. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Lum the Mad
Thank you for rewriting the article, thereby saving it from deletion. You did a good job. ···日本穣03:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to press on this too much, I asked twice that you to provide evidence of "bad faith and uncivil comments" made by that ip. Thx. El_C04:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I have replied at your talkpage. I'd like to keep focused on the original request, which is the extension of sanctions. --Elonka04:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I asked about this ip: "Evading sanctions how?" You replied: "bad faith and uncivil comments." I requested diffs, five times now. El_C04:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
(←dent) As per your message, the incident (which prompted my involvement in the ArbCom enforcement complaint from last November). During that time, he was editing under the anon IP 71.203.223.65. Subsequently, he supported those edits (and opinions) as DreamGuy (posting within 15 minutes as first the anon and then as DreamGuy supporting the anon user's edits). as I noted before, there was an SSP report filed to look into the socking, which found a connection.
At that point, he was blocked, and then El_C got involved, complaining about the stale dating of the complaint, and Dmcdevit canceled the RFCU which would have conclusively pointed to DreamGuy using the anon IP to edit. He has never admitted to using it and has evaded ever addressing the SSP report. The report was overlong, and I am partly responsible for it's failure, as I had little experience filing ArbCom enforcement complaints. However, if someone is actively working to conceal their identity and it doesn't come to light for a while, does that make the violation any more wrong?
Does that answer your question? I will post the diffs in my statement, in case others had questions. If you think I need any more explanation, please let me know. - Arcayne()06:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean now. I hesitated to bring up a bunch of old diffs of what DG did, since that seemed to go rather less than swimmingly the last time I did it. As well, I spent a pointless hour or so talking with El_C and Dmcdevit about this, and they seem to be firmly convinced that DG exudes a fresh pine scent and can do no wrong, and we are all manky bastards for picking on him, and you the Big Bad for drumming up a request out of "nothing". Their behavior is nothing short of disgraceful.
I don't know how to deal with admins who see smoke and repeatedly think its a dust cloud. Therefore, I advise that the next time DG (or an anon acts up), run to El_C and point out the actual existence of fire. Honestly, I think that it will be the only way that El_C is going to act.
For informational purposes, DG evaded answering Dicklyon's question; he never answered it. Can't really provide a diff for something that no one admitted to.
As for the article on how to prepare an ArbCom, no, I never knew it existed. God, that would have been SO helpful back when I was preparing my response to the ArbCom complaint. Your advice on prac app learning is valid, and I will follow it. I am going to stay out of the rest of this particular argument about DG. I don't trust El_C and Dmcdevit, and I need to give myself time to refill that cuppa AGF for them. - Arcayne()21:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Your FIRST Barnstar
Dear Elonka,
Congratulations on your Adminship! It is about time.
You may remember me, the one who gave you your very first Barnstar.
I also supported you in a number of controversies during which you were unfairly mistreated. I am very glad you have finally come out ahead.
I have never asked you for your help on anything, but I should like to now. There is a very good, new article: Liite Buddhism. I have relatives entrapped in this organization, so I take a special interest in it.
It needs Wikifying and he usual polishing new articles require. I myself have made a few minor changes.
Can you make sure that this article is not deleted, that it survives, and gets the normal Wikifying and proofreading? I am worried that Sethie will delete it as he says he will, despite the 26 references with verifiable links.
Thank you very much and once again I am delighted to congratulate you on the adminship you have so long deserved!
Good; now you're in a position to make up for the large proportion of admins who slip through that silly RfA process and turn out to want to use their position for petty ends. Congrats. Tony(talk)11:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I read your message
Surely you realize the editor is deliberately being obtuse? In any event, if you all feel the need to bend over backwards to an editor who has abused virtually the entire community, feel free. I just happened to have their page watchlisted, but have no desire to become embroiled in that particular nest of snakes. Jeffpw (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It might be wise to step back and let other people handle it, if there are still concerns about his editing. The prior bad blood between the two of you otherwise clouds the important issues. Friday(talk)20:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Elonka, thanks for your note. This appears to be an obvious violation of WP:SOCK, as you have pointed out, and as almost everyone there seems to agree. Jayjg 04:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
From your lips to God's ears. I too hope this helps DG, but, like my grandfather used to say, "salute optimism; await evidence". - Arcayne()06:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Gah. I am a fool. Damned real life job, interfering with my wiki-reality. :) On another note, i am unsure what the end result of your request for extension was. Were they adopted, or was the report adopted as evidence of wrongdoing? I am thinking the latter, but it pays to ask- Arcayne()21:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Avinesh Jose T has given you a kitten! Kittens promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and keep up the excellent editing! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Walter Dew
Hi Elonka! Our friend has turned up in three guises at Walter Dew. See the talk page there where the three identities (two unregistered and one registered) are listed. From info on talk page it seems he has admitted, somewhere else at somepoint, that they are all his, claiming memory loss. The article is quite new and the issues are quite obvious if you check it out for yourself. For the all time wikipedia multiple car-crash inferno, involving our friend see the Jack the Ripper talk page and its massive archive. However I don't recommend anyone who values their sanity to read it as they would probably end up in an institution, but it is a prime example of our friend at his worst, using a combination unregistered ips and his registered one, claiming to represent a 'consensus', then launching into personal attacks and black propaganda on other editors ad infinitum. At first I didn't know that the unregistered ips were his, but I am now a wiser if sadder person with regard to his tactics. Colin4C (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the 172.165.136.245 (talk·contribs) contribs look like him, though they're pretty old, from August 2006. As for 194.66.226.95 (talk·contribs), that doesn't look like his style to me, so that may just be another random anon that was participating around the same time this month, and happened to wander into the article for a bit. --Elonka21:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't often say that much in the way of witty, wise or pithy things, but when I do, i thought it helpful (for myself at least) to note them. I am always impressed by folk who can write extended essays on a subject. Maybe this will help me collate my thoughts enough that I can try my hand at them at some point. - Arcayne()21:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes, I hate being right
Take a look
I really do. As its now clear he's planning a complaint of his own, you might wish to be forewarned. I've already notified FT2 and Rievse. I hadn't contacted Lara Love, even though he's assuming that she was acting in bad faith/at your behest/whatever in denying DG's request for unblock. The reasoning is that, because she supported you in your RFA (1/176th of those voting for you), she cannot act as a reviewing admin. The irony of his statements regarding this isn't lost on me, - Arcayne()23:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Just saw your comment. I am not planning on responding to it, since he's not necessarily painting me with the same brush. - Arcayne()23:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. there is quite enough left on my plate to keep me busy, If the fit hits the shan, please let me know (in a new section heading. Have a good weekend. - Arcayne()23:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, i was wondering if I could impose upon you to help me evenly arrange the infoboxes on my user talk page. My skills at html are pretty sucky. the only other place where I would want some html assistance is on y User page. thelast barnstar isn't part of the rest, and I'd prefer uniformity. Once I knuckle down and learn more about it, I'd prefer to have a scroll box, but that's down the road. - Arcayne()23:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use Image:TsutomuShimomura.jpg
Replaceable fair use
Thanks for uploading Image:TsutomuShimomura.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
