User talk:Elonka - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CJCurrie (talk | contribs) at 09:24, 5 July 2008 (→Al-Durrah). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:24, 5 July 2008 by CJCurrie (talk | contribs) (→Al-Durrah)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

could you please do me a favor?

Hello,

I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Misplaced Pages be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Misplaced Pages, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Misplaced Pages according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Misplaced Pages, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?

I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.

The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.

Sincerely

JnW 05:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, happy to help. My email address is elonka@aol.com --El on ka 05:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, here is the link

Pretest webpage

If you have any question during pretest, please contact me.

Please finish it before 25 June. Thanks a lot. :)

JnW 15:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a pretty java-heavy page, and the instructions are not very clear. I tried it a couple times, and it kept crashing. --El on ka 03:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is a java applet-embedded page, and as I know, Java 6 didn't integrated with Firefox 2 very well. I don't know what your browser and the version are, but now I am using Firefox 3 with the latest update of Java 6 and everything goes well. Maybe you can try to update your browser and Java 6 to the latest version. Hope that would help you. Thank you. :)

JnW 12:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, the questionnaire is completed. Link:

evaluation questionnaire

It is no longer java-embbeded. Don't worry about it would crash your browser. :)

thanks for doing this questionnaire, and I hope that you will feel interested about this. :)

JnW 04:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

request for help, follow up

Hi Elonka, I left you a message 2 weeks ago which you promptly replied to... but which I didn't see :/ The message was here .

As you requested here are some examples to verify what I was speaking about... to recap, the editor in question was told that the source he disliked was valid as a reference, so he went through deleting all reference to it himself under various pretexts.

1. Comment: “Removed "Zionism on the Web" link. This site has been spammed onto other article pages.”

Link has been there since article creation, it was added by an Admin, Humus sapiens see and it was there for years until the user removed it as part of a mass removal exersize. This is a common theme.

2. Comment: "Removed "Zionism on the Web" link. This site has been spammed onto other article pages." (note the comment is identical to the one above!) It was added and in the article with no complaints for 2 years, it is relevant. Added:

3. Comment: The source documents are useful, but the slanted intros are more than a bit problematic. Does anyone know of other sites offering the originals, without editiorial comment?

The is irrelevant when it is providing a link to the primary source below. Further what this editor refered to as "slanted" is a biography of a historical personality... I don't see how it can be refered to as slanted as their is no controvery over any of the facts. It is not only a false claim, it is an irrelevant claim.

4. Ber Borochov Comment: (none)

Here the user removed a source with no explanation. If an online source of a historical document is available, what excuse is there for the deleting the link? It makes Misplaced Pages less useful.

5. Comment: “Cancellation of boycott: removed dodgy statement from equally dodgy source”

This removed all reference to the peace vigil that took place outside the special meeting to cancel the academic boycott by the AUT in 2005. The site (which is mine) is a known resource center for material on the boycotts. The statement is one of fact (that an event happened), the comment is therefore somewhat disconnected to the edit.

6. Comment: It's not immediately clear why AJ6's criticism would be as notable as the ADL's or Brian Klug's

Content removed is about a statement by AJ6, a movement that represents British Jewish students in their final years before university. Their statement expressing the specific concern of these pre-university students in light of an academic boycott are relevant, topical and not able to be substituted. The press release is hosted in the archive with permission from the organisation concerned.

7. Comment: I doubt this is the best possible source that one could find on "dhimmi" status

Content removed is a reference to an on topic article by Dr Denis MacEoin, an expert in the field. It is written for Zionism On The Web, so can not be got from another source. Other articles could ofcource be given, but there is no valid reason for removing this one.

8. Comment: Here -- I'll add a more notable pro-Israel site in its place. I'm not against the inclusion of this perspective, just of the specific site in question.

This is a clear statement of his intent in the comment.

The content change: Adds a link to Jewish Virtual Library, this is following a complaint after he removed a link to source documents on Zionism stored at Zionism On The Web here.

There can be no grounds for removing that links as it is provides references to key documents on the topic. His extra link is not a substitute.

Summary In summary though, these are just a few of hundreds of deletions this user made. They did this only after an attempt at Wiki lawyering failed and resulted in other editors disagreeing with their claims of a lack of notability, reliability etc. Rather than except the views of the discussion they took unilateral action using false pretexts for removals. Individually these might look like mistakes, or perhaps look plausible enough not to justify further consideration... added together it is a serious case of vandalism, those spread across many articles. Oboler (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I don't seem to be getting a reply... neither here nor on my talk page. Could you please let me know if you'll be able to take a quick look at this, or can refer it to someone / somewhere else? Many thanks, Oboler (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

FreepRipper and Fyunck

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

Looks like he made his choice on a primary. I went ahead and blocked FreepRipper (talk · contribs) indefinitely. If you see any other accounts or anons pop up which you think are the same user, let us know. --El on ka 04:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute..... I have to read and then leave your box up FOREVER??? Is there a way you can make Tennis Expert leave me alone on my talk page? holy moly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I placed the banner on your talkpage rather than your userpage, so eventually it can scroll off. Keep busy, and it won't be an issue. The category, however, is permanent. I also recommend making a userpage so your name doesn't keep showing up as a redlink. As for Tennis Expert, he has the right to contact you if you and he are both editing the same articles, and he needs to communicate with you about something (just as you have the right to communicate with him). Communications have to be WP:CIVIL though. If any are not, let me know. --El on ka 16:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Explanation

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

I don't think this is in any way fair or encyclopedic. Squash Racket (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I have blocked the IP as a probable sockpuppet of User:MarkBA. As for Svetoid's edits, many of them look reasonable to me, and his rationale also makes sense, that if Hungarian names are to be re-added, that they should be included with an English-language source proving that it's a common name. If such a source is added, and Svetovid (or anyone) continues to revert, please post about it at the Experiment page, and we (myself, Shell Kinney, or EdJohnston) will take a look. --El on ka 15:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a problem here

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

One last compromise

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

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

"Personal attacks must cease"

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

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

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

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

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

In need of arbitration

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

Thank you. I answered on the talk page.

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

Edit Restrictions

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

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

Needing sources?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I cautioned him about using {{fact}} tags before deleting things as unsourced. He's right though, that anything that's challenged and unsourced, can be removed per WP:V. If someone goes crazy with it, we can block them per WP:POINT, but if they're just challenging information in a few specific cases, the better course of action is to go and find sources. --El on ka 03:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place does not require any proof of English usage, only proof for minorities living there. Squash Racket (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so provide a source which proves that then. :) --El on ka 04:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That was frustrating

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

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

Thanks --Closedmouth (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikifan12345

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

Jagz

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

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

nasty edit

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

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

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

Okay.

i appreciate the "polite" warning.

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

Could you please provide a link to where you explained your proposal, and several members endorsed it? Thanks, El on ka 04:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Muhammad_al-Durrah#rephrasing_intro please make an effort to respond in my discussion. thanks Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

also, so we're clear: I did NOT start a revert war. that seemed to be the core of your warning so it needs to be emphasized and accepted. again, thank you. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on my view of that discussion, opinions were pretty evenly split, so I wouldn't exactly call that a "consensus" discussion. I think it's also an overstatement to say that "several" members endorsed it, since I only saw two. However, if you'd like to change the wording in the lead again, and cite the source that Tundrabuggy mentioned, including perhaps a quote in the reference to show that the source does use the word "allegedly", that would probably be okay. Remember, the restriction only applies to reverts. You are still welcome to make changes, as long as each one is a bit different than something you tried last time, and you stick carefully to reliable sources. I encourage you to try and find a compromise. --El on ka 04:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing the game Elonka. We're talking about a single word here. If anything, I was making a correction. The source used was over eight years old. please make a strong effort in considering the entire situation before issuing unnecessary citations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

When making a correction, it is best to include a source, which confirms the correction. See also WP:V. --El on ka 04:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I don't usually butt in on others' talk page sections, but this really needs to be dealt with IMO. A lot of us spent quite a bit of time a few weeks ago hammering out the al-Durrah lead, especially the "reported to have been killed" bit. While not perfect, it was at least something accepted all around. Now weeks later we have Wikifan here swapping it out with "allegedly", the veritable King of weasel words, because "the source is old?" Well, it may be, but since nothing in a reliable source has been found to contradict it in those 8 years, then that is what we can and should go with. This is the heart of the matter here; do new unreliable sources trump old reliable sources? IMO, our policies here clearly say "no". Tarc (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide a link to that discussion? Also, please remember that consensus can change. According to the link that Wikifan12345 provided, there is no solid talkpage consensus. But again, everyone is welcome to change the text to try and find a compromise version, that is in accordance with current reliable sources. --El on ka 15:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Jagz

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

Dont be sorry. You guys tried, and that is admirable. I was skeptic of the entire exercise (I first thought that it was a waste of time, then I thought that perhaps you were just giving him more rope to hang himself), but, in the end, you guys made me better at assuming good faith! I am pretty good at WP:AGF on the keyboard, but you got me to do it off the keyboard too! So, at least one good thing came of it. Thanks! Brusegadi (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dustihowe: Yes, I'm disappointed too. :/

Brusegadi: Thanks, and yes I knew there was some risk that it wouldn't work, but I felt it was a gamble worth taking. My gut tells me that he's not completely gone though... He probably has another account, or has moved his efforts to Wikia. I don't think we've seen the last of him. However, because he decided to "go out with a bang" on the Jagz account, his next accounts (if any) are not going to get much sympathy in terms of a second chance. If he would have stayed on good behavior with his Jagz account, then if another account was discovered, that was behaving in a constructive and collegial manner, we might have adopted a "wait and see" attitude. But as it is, anything new is just going to be blocked on sight. --El on ka 15:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, you guys had gotten me to believe he could really change his ways in the end. My hat off to you for trying.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, given some of the opposing editors kept stalking and edit warring with Jagz, combined with MastCell's threat to ban Jagz the next time he'd make an edit to a policy page. --Zero g (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think in a way, we are kind of responsible for his actions, because quite simply, individuals crack under pressure. Maybe he just got the final nudge? Dusti 18:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you and Elonka took on a difficult challenge in mentoring Jagz. Ultimately Jagz, and not other WP editors, must take responsibility for his own actions. MastCell's warning after Jagz's edits to policy pages was a completely normal response from an administrator, following Jagz's edits from a considerable distance. Nobody can excuse Jagz's obscene and disproportionate response. Mathsci (talk) 04:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You know Mathsci I agree with you, but, I don't think that some editors helped the situation much by watching his every move and being overly critical of his every edit. Dusti 19:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, possible POV fork here

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

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

Pauline Fowler

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

That article has already been through extensive review processes, including WP:FA status. If there's a dispute, I recommend taking it to the talkpage. If there's consensus to remove the images, then proceed, otherwise, should probably leave them alone. See also Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. --El on ka 18:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

From your contribs, 86.44.16.82 (talk · contribs), it seems fairly obvious that you've got experience with Misplaced Pages. Care to identify your other account(s)? If nothing else, I would recommend creating a named account if you are going to get involved in disputes. --Elonka 18:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat taken aback by your responses. I have never had an account, just a series of IPs. I am not really in what I would call dispute, I'm just editing. As you are the main contributor to this article, I was asking for your specific opinion on the image use, rather than advice. My next step in lieu of good arguments or agreement would probably be FAR, rather than dispute resolution. 86.44.16.82 (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Get lost, GNU freedom troll! You are exactly the kind of people who make Misplaced Pages suck, by insisting on ruining our fine articles with your idiotic ideology. Go back to commons where you belong. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The anon's actions do appear to be in violation of WP:POINT. --El on ka 19:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Elonka for my lack of civility. I'm afraid I'm a little frustrated about this nonsense and will be having a nice cup of tea now. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and feel free to refactor any of your previous comments. :) --El on ka 19:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You're a little late mentioning refactoring, since you've already given Dragon's comments your tacit support. I'm completely taken aback by all this. What point am I making, and how am I being disruptive? What's the problem? 86.44.16.82 (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the ANI thread. Perhaps you might see fit to pop over and apologize for your error in characterizing me as edit-warring. Your accusations of WP:POINT violation and threats are equally bogus failures of good faith, but unfortunately they are the kind of accusations one can not easily disprove. 86.44.16.82 (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. People are encouraged to get an account, but they are not forced to do so. All users should be treated with respect. Just because a person is using an IP address instead of a logged in account doesn't mean they are less than equals here. An apology is in order. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

To Anon, I am sorry for my outburst, I have redacted my comments. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't see the redaction yet, but thanks, Dragon. I prefer the nomenclature "IP editor", btw. :) 86.44.16.82 (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And which other IPs might those be? --El on ka 21:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no others in this thread, so there'd be no confusion. Are you asking for a list of IPs I've edited under?! 86.44.16.82 (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I am. And/or named accounts. --El on ka 22:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For what reason? And you have already been told that I have not now nor have I ever had a named account. Continue on with your rude inquisitorial bluntness, false assertions, failures of good faith and implications that I am a liar regardless, though. After all, I made an edit to an article then enquired as to your opinion on the issue at hand! 86.44.16.82 (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've no problem telling anyone as best I can, btw. I expect to know why you wanna know, though.86.44.16.82 (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For the reason, 86.44.16.82 (talk · contribs), that I believe you to be in violation of both WP:POINT and WP:SOCK, specifically, "it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts — or to edit anonymously without logging in to your account — in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions." So I guess we could go to SSP or CheckUser, but I was hoping to save time. --El on ka 22:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Your beliefs are less than fascinating, though it is charming that you feel no need to back them up with reason. 86.44.16.82 (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, the IP editor has already informed you that he has never had an account, yet you continue to assume bad faith and refuse to believe his assertions. Further, he's asked you to point out what abuses he's supposedly committed, and you've failed to provide any. You can have whatever beliefs you want to have. But, continuing to make the accusations without assuming good faith and without backing up your accusations with evidence is behavior not in line with best practices here. I encourage you to reconsider your position. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The anon has been blocked (not by me) for one week, for trolling. I support the block, and have placed my reasoning on the anon's talkpage. --El on ka 03:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And you still haven't provided any evidence of the supposed poor behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I only came across this on your talk page because we've come into contact over Muhammad al Durrah. I would just make the point that someone editing under different IP addresses is not of itself evidence of sockpuppetry - people might edit from different PCs at different times, and even when they edit from the same PC, as I understand it some ISPs assign rotating numerical addresses to the same internet account. And I haven't looked at the detail of the dispute, but from what I can tell the editor made - yes, a bold - removal of some images. When they were reverted, they did not edit war, but entered discussion on the article talk page and also came to your talk page to ask for your view. Then they were subject to some pretty childish abuse (which elicited a smile from you) and also to accusations of sockpuppetry, trolling and WP:POINT, as well as to general criticism based on the fact that they were an IP editor. Things seem to have now got out of hand from there. --Nickhh (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nickhh, outside opinions are helpful. And you are correct that just editing anonymously is not necessarily a problem. However, some editors do hide behind anonymity to be disruptive and avoid blocks, and that's when it does become a problem. As for your investigations, you're close, but I'd make a few small changes in the timeline: The editor was participating at one of multiple AN/ANI threads that had been started about Fair Use images, and then in the middle of that, made a no-notice deletion of several images from the FA-class Pauline Fowler article. They were reverted, told me about it, and then after prodding from me, took it to the talkpage. There was then a strong comment from another editor that the anon was, in effect, making WP:POINT edits about the "fair use" controversy, to which I agreed in principle (if not language). Things escalated from there, and the anon was then blocked (not by me). I did support the block, as did another admin who reviewed the unblock request. For more information, check the anon's talkpage. :) --El on ka 19:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I was a bit loose in describing part of the chronology, but I still don't see anything blockable - I can't see any trolling or point breaches. And they actually took your advice to go to the article talk page of course, so it seems a bit unfair to now come out in support of a block. --Nickhh (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, you state that the IP editor was participating in multiple AN and AN/I threads on the issue and then in the middle of that removed fair use images from Pauline Fowler. A review of the IP editor's contributions shows this accusation to be false, as the IP editor had made only two Misplaced Pages space edits prior to the Pauline Fowler edit, and neither of those edits to the Misplaced Pages space had anything to do with fair use images. You are in error. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to these edits to the AN thread "Non-free images in "List Of" articles", which thread was later closed since it was overlapped with this ANI thread "non-free article discussion and 3RR". --El on ka 19:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You asserted the IP Editor engaged in editing Pauline Fowler after initiating discussions on fair use images. You are wrong. You have also continued to refuse to provide diffs showing incivility on the part of this editor. Would you please take the opportunity to provide those diffs now please? Thanks in advance, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hammersoft, you're bordering on attacking Elonka at this point and I can't even figure out the point of this discussion. She was not the blocking admin, so you're aiming your vitriol at the wrong person entirely. She has provided diffs multiple times both on this page and on the talk page of the anon in question, so please stop badgering her. If you have a problem with this block, I'd suggest you address it with the blocking admin or on ANI. Shell 21:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If pointing out where Elonka is wrong and asking her to provide diffs to support her accusations counts as attacking, then by all means please immediately find me guilty of violating WP:NPA and seek to have me blocked. You claim she's provided diffs regarding the IP editors incivility. Would you care to point those out please? Thanks so much. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point where you're talking to the wrong person if your aim here is an unblock. Obviously, you disagree with Elonka on this point and I doubt further argument is going to change that. How about we go at this through proper channels if you'd like to see the block lifted? Shell 21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd still like to see Elonka respond here regarding the diffs supporting her accusation of incivility. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I'd suggest you read the talk page of the IP and check the diffs there. Since the IP is now unblocked, it should be a moot issue at this point. Shell 21:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

excuse me?

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

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

Response on my talk page

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

Editing restrictions

I need to replace one of the images on Muhammad al-Durrah (the postage stamp) with a higher-quality one. Any objections? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Your restriction applies only to editing the article itself. Other peripheral things such as updating an image file, participating at mediation, etc., are fine. --El on ka 14:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I will need to edit the image caption and link as well, since the image is a replacement for an existing one - see - so editing the article will be unavoidable. It will be uncontentious, though. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just make a request at the talkpage then, thanks. --El on ka 22:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Or you could, you know, reconsider the restrictions as you indicated you would do. I've followed your restrictions faithfully and discussed things calmly at talk, so how about it? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Not yet. You're definitely doing better, but I'd like to see a few days of you participating at talk, without making accusations that everyone on the other side is a conspiracy theorist, influenced solely by "right-wing bloggers" or has an "ideological axe to grind". --El on ka 23:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd thought it was clear enough that I was referring to the people outside Misplaced Pages who are pursuing this campaign, but apparently not. I hope you're not suggesting that there is no such campaign going on - it is, after all, the reason why the story is still in the news after eight years. At any rate, I've clarified those apparently-obvious-but-evidently-not-obvious-enough comments. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

When is this debate over?

I think Markussep and me provided enough evidence that a signficant Hungarian minority lives along at least parts of the river (actually in Komárno, where the Vág river meets the Danube, there is a Hungarian majority).
So Svetovid thinks it's time to remove the names (including the Hungarian one). Squash Racket (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:86.44.16.82

I had a brief exchange with this IP and didn't think much of it except that I didn't think much of his/her attitude. I've always disliked that IP editors, however good their edits are, don't really have a completely visible track record and this can avoid accountability and use that to game the system. In this case, the guy has a point that he does not need to have an account, and I await his forthcoming unblock request with interest. Since he's in Ireland, I would expect that to appear before midnight my time since we're in the same timezone. FWIW, I think he does have an arguable point about the non-free images in Pauline Fowler. Checkuser? Well I wonder what grounds there could be for that, because I think you need a pretty good reason, and merely being a "spiky" editor won't cut it. I'm in two minds about this, but I'm sure others will try to make it up for me. I'll keep an eye on it. --Rodhull andemu 17:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think much of yours either (missed in your ire that talk should certainly be unprotected, then after further prod did so without acknowledgment ... i mean i don't even have a watchlist or whatever) but i have long since forgiven you since you (and i, when i can) are the only maintainer of the constantly vandalized Graffiti article since Key moved onto other things, and since you physically remind me of a pop star that I can't put my finger on, but know that i like. 86.44.16.82 (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

RedSpruce Redux

As I said in our last conversation, arguing about quotes in footnotes at one article serves no purpose. When consensus is reached at one article, RS moves to another article. We are now here. What is your opinion? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked his account for three hours. --El on ka 18:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

my user page

yes. why do you ask? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's my concern about "setting a good example" since you're an admin. To keep that kind of thing on your userpage, tends to make it look like it was a personal vendetta, and that you might be gloating. Better would be to just take it in stride, make a "no big deal" show of it. So he's gone, so are a lot of people. It doesn't mean you need to paint a "kill marking" on the side of the cockpit. --El on ka 18:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are two reasons why I think it is wise. The first is indeed personal - Jagz and several others made various accusations against me in the course of this conflict and I want an easily accessible record to turn to if anyone ever raises the issue again. The second is not personal and to me far, far more important: trolling is a serious persistent problem at Misplaced Pages and we have no real good mechanism for dealing with it except community bans - Arb Com only enforces violations of personal behavior policies, and most of our mechanisms and policies are meant to deal with conflicts between or among users. We have never had a good formal process for policing the quality of articles and people who have a persistent pattern of sabotaging articles - this is a matter of a conflict between someone with access to the internet versus Misplaced Pages itself, not between two users. I think it is especially important for administrators to learn how to recognize such trolls and for that reason I think there is a real value in accumulating a record of these kinds of incidents. Misplaced Pages is growing too fast for there to be a good sense of institutional or collective memory about these things (I wonder what percentage of people remember the entire Lir saga?) and too big for any one admin to know all the bad and ugly, as well as the good, that is going on here. AN/I gets archived at a dizzying rate. So yes, I think it is the epitome of wisdom to maintain an easily accessible record of such problem cases. I think they are very instructive. PS - I think you are generously over-estimating the number of people who look at my userpage!Slrubenstein | Talk 18:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

?

why? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Because you are accusing other editors of bad faith, and resorting to unhelpful comments such as "Yeah whatever" and "nobody cares about facts." I think it's best if you take a break from the article for a few days. You are still, however, welcome to participate at the mediation. --El on ka 22:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with bad faith. I'm just making basic observations. The discussions are going nowhere and ChrisO and NickHH are completely ignoring relevant information. Tundra and I have repeated the same stuff over and over again and nobody cares. My comments are justified. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ward Pigman

Do you have access to the original text that was deleted on Ward Pigman? I would like to see if it is of use in the bio I am writing of him, it was deleted under BLP rules, but he has been dead since 1977. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No need, I found it in Conservapedia. How come Conservapedia doesn't give mention the info is copied from Misplaced Pages?

Beit Hanoun page

I apologise. I did agree to leave out the two phrases you mentioned, but then did not remember to check that I had done so when I went back to edit again. I'll try to be more careful in future. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_User:Elonka_using_blocks_and_threats_inappropriately RedSpruce (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Red Redux

He is doing it once again, post 3-hour block here. Again it is harassment and testing authority. A quick glance shows that footnote 85 also contains a quote but my entry has been targeted, well, because it is mine. He is also reverting to an inaccurate title for the article that is the source of the reference. He is making no attempt to trim the quote, he is just removing it, again. The pattern is to just move to a new article to avoid the consensus at the previous article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, if I was testy before, I know you have the best interest of all involved. It is very frustrating to be stalked and deleted, especially for months, and to be powerless to stop it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Harassment etc.

Hi Elonka, thanks for your input. In this particular case, content and editor are one and the same. I.e., an outlandish policy interpretation is being put forward by an editor who manifestly does not believe it (his "favorite article" by his own admission violates the interpretation), in what appears to be part of a campaign of harassment and lying regarding another editor.--G-Dett (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide some diffs? Thanks, El on ka 04:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Re

She hasn't made any more incivil comments since this, but yes I agree with you. Khoikhoi 06:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2008

--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Al-Durrah

CJCurrie has started reverting again at Muhammad al-Durrah, so I am hoping you can underline that the article is still subject to 0RR.

I made an edit to remove from the first sentence that the IDF was reported to have shot the boy, and I also removed a new editor's addition of how the Palestinians are now being blamed by some, because it looked awkward. I wrote instead that he had been reported killed during a clash, without saying anything in the first sentence about who is saying who fired the shots. Both the new editor and I left explanations for our edits on talk.

CJCurrie didn't reword the edit, he just reverted without explaining on talk (at the time of writing), yet he is aware of the 0RR. This is my edit at 07:45 July 5. This is his revert half an hour later with "not a revert" in the edit summary, though it clearly is. SlimVirgin 08:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me state, in the first instance, that I have not been actively engaged with the discussions on this article's talk page in recent weeks. I was a frequent contributor to Muhammad al-Durrah in the days following the recent court decision, when some editors made what struck me as questionable and unwarranted content changes. I was unaware that the article had been placed on 0RR until I received this post less than a week ago, and in fact I had forgotten this point when I first engaged with the al-Durrah page tonight. I apologize for this, though I'll also note that I self-reverted within two minutes: , .

When I consulted the ground rules that you provided on talk, the following point struck me as the most relevant to the current situation: If you see someone add something that you disagree with, don't revert it, change it. Specifically: Try to change it to a compromise wording, or add some (sourced) alternate view wording nearby.

I interpreted this to mean that a constructive change in wording would be, for our purposes, defined as something qualitatively different from a revert. This differs somewhat from the standard interpretation, wherein a "revert" is defined as any change to another contributor's wording.

Working within this framework, I suggested a compromise wording to the "Reports of the shooting" section (which has now been retitled). I will note that SlimVirgin has not taken issue with the wording I've proposed (, ). SlimVirgin subsequently added another clause to this section, whereupon I again provided a suggestion for an alternate wording (, ). To the best of my knowledge, this edit has not been the source of controversy either.

SlimVirgin's complaint, as I understand it, has to do with the changes that both of us made to the first paragraph. This is SlimVirgin's original edit, and this is the wording that I subsequently suggested in its place. A direct comparison between the relevant edits will show that this is not the same wording as before. Moreover, I believe that the change is qualitatively different.

My wording was intended as a compromise, incorporating both (i) a direct reference to the controversy regarding which side fired the "fatal bullet", and (ii) an accommodation of SlimVirgin's apparent preference that al-Durrah not be definitively identified as dead within the text of the lede. I would encourage SlimVirgin to reconsider this wording within this light.

It's true that I returned the words "from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)", which SlimVirgin had removed. Given the other changes that I made, I do not believe this constitutes a "revert" in the sense that the term is being used here.

I trust that I will be informed if I've misinterpreted either your instructions or SlimVirgin's complaint. My actions were carried out in good faith, and I hope they will be taken in that spirit.

Btw, I have no desire to engage in back-and-forth accusations, but I'll note that my actions were not qualitatively different from SlimVirgin's respond to an edit by User:Sposer earlier today: , . CJCurrie (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)