Misplaced Pages

User talk:Elonka

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hipocrite (talk | contribs) at 03:10, 26 January 2006 (Let me clarify). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:10, 26 January 2006 by Hipocrite (talk | contribs) (Let me clarify)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome to User_talk:Elonka!

C'mon in, set a spell.  :)

In hope that editing snarl will permit a post...

Elonka,

Welcome to the crypto corner of WP. It's a small place, but those of us demented enough to work in it enjoy it. You will have probably already noticed various index pages to help crypto editors (eg, open articles, list of existing articles, the crypto WikiBook, prject, ...) and if you look hard enough the record of the Teapot Tempest, cy... v ci...

As a linguist, perhaps you know crypto terms in other languages and can enlighten we monoglots (either AE or BE or AusE or ... as the case may be)?

Congrats on the kryptos! Welcome aboard...

ww 07:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding crypto terms, yes, I think I can help with that. Is there anything in particular that's needed at the moment? Elonka 02:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
E,
That's the spirit!! A new vic... volunteer to help us reach crypto world domination. We'll share with Tux, though.
Sorry I didn't notice your response promptly, I don't normally prowl your talk page. Maybe I should start?
There's a list of open articles (needed but not yet written) at WikiProject:Cryptography. In addition, any article in Category:Cryptography is a candidate for improvement as always. A couple have achieved Featured status, and we cryptiacs fondly look forward to the day when all the crypto articles have done so. When pigs fly, and the Arctic Ocean freezes over again! For amusement, you might want to investigate the cy vs ci debate, a true teapot tempest. Kind of like eccentric letters to the Times vehemently disputing obscure topiaric points. Don't hesitate to chyme in (see talk:cryptography at cypher vs cipher and links from there, and there's some extended comment on my talk page). There's also the Wikireader:Cryptography project which is in its last 10 or 20% and, naturally, has slowed down a good bit.
Pointers to most of this at cryptography. Best wishes and welcome to the crypto tar pit. ww 23:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Enjoy

Agnieszka Baranowska - done. Merry XMAS (if a bit late).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, happy new year, and welcome to the Crypto WikiProject! You might be interested in helping review the article on Polish codebreaker Marian Rejewski, which we hope to have selected as a Featured Article soon. — Matt Crypto 19:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks and can do! I've been looking it over and it's excellent so far. When I'm finished, should I officially sign off on it somewhere? Or just keep a general eye on it for future reference? Elonka 02:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out on it. It'd be very welcome if you were willing to keep an eye on it for future changes. Soon, hopefully, we'll nominate it on the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates page, where users can support or oppose it as a "Featured Article" (articles which are meant to be the "best of Misplaced Pages"). — Matt Crypto 11:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hello I'm Filip Dunin - Borkowski. Jan Dunin Borkowski is my grandfather. I would to know: want you invite to Dunin Society?

More I will wirte to you in futere (now I don't have time and I have to go sleep :)

P.S. My English isn't very good so sorry for my mistakes :) Best Regards, Borkowicz 21:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Better that you request to me on my polish wikipedia discussion site

Kronprinz Wilhelm

Thanks for the heads-up about Kronprinz Wilhelm - a great article. mervyn 14:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Marian Rejewski

Thanks for your contributions to this article, which have helped clarify some points.

I haven't had a chance to check Simon Singh's sources on some of the details he gives that you cite. But I would be careful about including, without verification, some of the more colorful ones.

For example, where did he get the description of Langer dramatically pulling a cloth off Rejewski's bomb?

Also, the Enigma replicas did not have to be "smuggled" by a French playwright and his actress wife (I think it was Bertrand or Braqueniè who took them to Paris). As so often is the case in events of some notoriety, lots of extraneous people have been attempting to write themselves into the history of Enigma decryption.

logologist|Talk 10:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, truth is indeed elusive sometimes! That's why I think it's wise that the wikipedia policy is to go for "verifiability" more than "truth", heh.
I checked his sources on that chapter, and he lists books by Hinsley, Hodges, Kahn, Stripp, Smith and Harris. I'll also write to Singh and ask him if he remembers the details of those particular incidents so we can get them properly referenced. If they're incorrect, perhaps he got them from the Polish film? If so, we could probably update the page to say something like, "In the Polish film, this scene was represented with the dramatic flourish of a black cloth... It is unknown whether or not this scene has any basis in fact."  :) Elonka 10:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't recall about the cloth, but I'm pretty sure there were no French thespians in the movie. (Incidentally, it wasn't a very good movie: heavy on drama, some of it apparently made up, and light on cryptology.) I suspect that, if anyone was waving cloths around, it would more likely have been the BS-4 chief, Ciężki. My inclination would be to eschew gratuitous dramatics of uncertain provenance. logologist|Talk 11:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Taczanowski

Hi. I've now put one of my references on the article. I'm afraid I can't find much more. This website looks interesting http://forumakad.pl/archiwum/2004/12/27-gwiazdy_i_meteory.htm unfortunately I don't read Polish. Smallweed 16:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Czartoryski

Hi, in the article about Maria Amparo you wrote that her son was named Francisek. Are you sure it was not Franciszek?--SylwiaS | talk 09:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question, and I'm not sure. I got the information from here, but in searching on Franciszek, I agree that that seems like the more likely spelling.  :) Elonka 09:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Here, I found him on Polish Wiki . His full name is Augusto Franciszek Czartoryski. That makes sense as his parents used to called him Gucio which is short for Augusto:)--SylwiaS | talk 09:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Polish naming dispute

Elonka, first, in the Polish monarchs naming dispute I think there was a majority supporting the moves. Although I admit that I was disapointed with how few people were interested to state their opionon - but the discussion was advertised as best as we could. I still think that the Polish first name is prefferable to English, especially as the series of Google searches I did (you can see them linked from the list discussion page) indicated that there 1) is no single English translation, but usually several 2) Polish one is usually the most dominant anyway . Why therefore should be back up one of the several translations, when we can go with original? I think logologist put it well with his comment about the 'most common mispelling'. As far as fist names are concerned, I think we should stick to first name, no exceptions (unless it's an international person like Pope John Paul II. Why should monarchs be different then scientists, presidents, artists, ect.? We use Polish name for everyone except kings - that's strange for me (yes, ok, I can see the rationale for using a latinized version for Saints, but not for kings). And even if some encyclopedias have non Polish names, it doesn't mean they all agree on this or that this a dominant usage, consider just examples of redirects to Jan Łaski, perhaps my favourite case of how you can mispell a name with English/Latinized variants.

I am not sure to what proposal you are reffering in the second part of your comment. I'd be happy to help you frame it. Plese check out another discussion related to Polish names at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions/Geographic names, I think you may find it interesting (and again it's one where very few peope are commenting on something with a potential for much changes in our naming structure).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a question

Is it customary to respond and wait indefinately, or can a wikipedia user just stop commenting/editing completely without a large explanatory paragraph detailing each reason? Informationguy, 12, January 2005 (UTC)

Text MMORPGs

i moved the "List of Text Based MMORPGs" to "List of Turn Based MMORPGs" due to the definitions on Turn-Based MMORPG and Online Text-Based Role Playing Bame. I think there must be some clarification of these terms, as I exposed in the talk page. What's your opinion? Waldir 18:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an photo

I would think that once the picture is released under GFDL the photographer no longer has any say over what is done with it. Besides, she is not the subject of the photo... if she were identifiable, then it would be different... Jwissick 00:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. Thanks for your comments about the Quran photo. You're right: I don't have any legal control over whether the image is used in the article or not, but I thank you for considering my opinion on the matter. Quadell 13:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Mieczysław Dunin-Borkowski

Okopy Świętej Trójcy article mentions him - perhaps he is another one of your ancestors :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

aladin

Please join Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection#Current requests for unprotection. Mukadderat 02:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'll be honest...I'm amazed that DreamGuy isn't permently blocked considering the way he speaks to admins, look through some of his history you'll know what I mean. DreamGuy enjoys deleting things...just look at how many templates he's put up for deletion and lost due to strong support. I don't know what you can about his attacks...he seems to have a few friends in high places that strongly support him. You can try and tell them here: Admin Noticeboard but they might ignore it. DreamGuy's behavour is set to cause stir up a frenzy so that people reading his comments will think that the article is most bad thing is the world and will vote delete. We've just got point out the facts and explain that what he's saying is wrong. Best thing we can do. Englishrose 07:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Río de la Plata

Please note that you have voted in the wrong poll at talk:Río de la Plata. Where you put your vote is an old poll, whereas the new one is at "Final naming poll" at the bottom. violet/riga (t) 14:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I see you've now voted there - thanks. violet/riga (t) 14:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

aladin

An earlier version mentioned coverage in the Magic Times, so I contacted Meir Yedid and asked them about him, but all they had was one press mention. I'll have to look it up to see if the publication is reliable and if his mention is significant enough. Still, I would vote keep merely because of the repeated nominations. If the article is wrong, someone should fix it rather than nominate it. - Mgm| 11:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy

These are the links that I was sent over MSN about the past history of DreamGuy, I understand though that they cannot be re-used to compile evidence against him apparently, which probably won't help, but there is a very general theme within all the pages here.

] ] ] ] ] ]

(above unsigned, but looks like User:RBlowes)

Fun... Let's see here...
  • First link is to elvenscout complaining, who was wrong on his definition of mythology and resenting have it changed on him. Note that he himself later says nevermind. He just has a bit of an ego problem and didn't like being proven to not know as much as he thought he did. He and I have since worked together on the same article against others trying to add bad info.
  • Second through fourth links, request for arbitration started by Gabrielsimon, who has spent probably 80% of the last six months totally banned from this site due to his harassment and POV-pushing and getting upset when I or others undid his bad edits. He is an example of someone having used something like 8 dfferent sockpuppets. Go look him up. But the important part there is that the arbcom members overwhelmingly rejected the claims against me because The evidence for this case is scant and utterly unpersuasive -- so if you are going to try to argue that I did something wrong, the arbitrators disagree with you. But if you'd like to side with the guy almost permanently banned....
  • Fifth link, an RFC started by someone who got upset that he didn't get his way and launched into attacks. Went nowhere. Everything he tried to do that I opposed him on he ended up being opposed on by several other people as well and he left the project completely.
  • Sixth link. A new RFC by three people... one of whom has since een permanently blocked for lying, sockpuppeting and POV-pushing, another is the same Gabrielsimon who filed the arbitration that was "utterly unpursuasive" and has been blocked almost nonstop since then, and a third person who was a known vandal who later apologized, distanced himself form the other two, and has offered to nominate me for adminship on multiple occasions.
So, really... if you'd look into these things, you'd see that, yes, a number of people have complained about me, but most of them were people upset because I was forcing Misplaced Pages policies and they didn;t like that and who don;t get along with anyone else either, plus a couple of people who changed their tunes later and realized I was right. But then User:RBlowes here obviously is just hoping you only glance at them and don't read them or look into who was making the complaints. DreamGuy 14:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah I'm only having a "glance" at them. He asked for info, so I forwarded what I was given to him, it's up to him whenever he wishes to take evidence/accuasions from those links, not me, try not to twist things around here yeah. Further anymore comments directed at me feel free to use my own talkpage, I'm sure you can find it yourself eh? --RBlowes 16:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop false accusations of personal attacks

DreamGuy, please stop the personal attacks and name-calling. I realize that we have different opinions on the deletion discussion at Aladin (magician), but that is no excuse for the abuse and accusations that you have been leveling. I am exactly as I present myself: a Misplaced Pages editor who saw a notice on the RfC page, and went into the situation to offer an opinion with a fresh pair of eyes. I had never heard of you, Aladin, or any of the other parties involved before I entered that discussion last week.

I've been looking into your background, and you seem to have had a reputation, at least in the past, for being able to spot scams in other parts of the wikipedia. In this case though, I think you may have gotten over-sensitive to the jerks, to the point where you are seeing liars and sockpuppets everywhere you look. It's time to re-tune your "scam meter". I'm about as honest as they come, so if you still see me as a liar and scammer, something is clouding your judgment, and you may wish to think about taking a break. I'm one of the good guys. Elonka 13:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"please stop the personal attacks and name-calling" coming from someone making personal attacks on me and calling me names is really rich. But to get to the point, you are either a liar and scammer or someone tricked by one.
The very first deletion vote on the article had a lot of people show up and see the hoaxed sources claiming that Inside Magic called him the greatest magician ever and all that and vote to keep when it turned out that it was all lies, led by a string of people proven to be sockpuppets of each other and the "Englishrose" person who is now back making yet more claims on sources. Frankly, everytime someone tries to tell me that I am paranoid about seeing sockpuppets, I have always been proven right.
Your claims to being one of the good guys would go over a lot better if you weren't running around attacking me nonstop all over the place and making false claims that I was redirecting without consensus and so forth. We had a two to one margin to delete the article through use of a redirect, anyone who told you otherwise has deceived you. The only reason the redirect got undone was some people upset at the outcome managed to lie to enough other people that they swooped in trying to help but only screwed things up more. You need to stop giving me lectures and start listening, because I was on the article seeing evreything happening the whole time and know what's going on, as compared to yourself admitting that you don't know anything about the article up through last week. Do you typically barge into things and pick a side without knowing what was going on and then try to lecture? If so, you really need to rethink that plan, and if not, why are you doing it in this case? If you claim to be a good guy, BE a good guy, stop regurgitating whatever nonsense someone else told you about the article history, and look it up yourself.
But I can tell you think, if you trust Englishrose or this "RBlowes" character who appeared out of nowhere recently, you are being played for a fool. I would bet you anything "RBlowes" is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of the hoaxer who put the article up in the first place... just look at his contribution history... he joined very recently, showed up immediately to start voting on things that a new user would have no way of knowing about, and then after a handful of edits made aladin his pet project. Come on, use your alleged good guy brains here, that person is clearly a sockpuppet of someone and not a new, unbiased user. Look at the personal attacks they made against me out of nowhere. That's someone with a history on an agenda. If you really want to be doing good here, you'll look at these things and not just assume that what they tell you is right. DreamGuy 14:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I urge you to make your own mind up about my and look through My contributions. Englishrose 15:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop moving the conversation to my page... accusations of personal attacks are considered harassment, restoring them after I remove them so that other people coming along might think there is truth to them is not a cool thing at all.

Furthermore you said that the admins call that the results were keep on the second vote were questionable but that it was his call to make... That admin specifically said he only looked at keep versus delete and not redirect... he also said that a call to keep the article by itself does not overrule consensus to redirect it, but that in his interpretation that was not what the delete vote is for. He himself said he had no problem with the article being redirected after the vote was over, and several admins have backed that up. Your understanding of how the process works seems to be quite flawed, and apparently you used your flawed understanding to judge that I was going against what people wanted. I think you need some more experience with these things before you fly off the handle with accusations like that. Articles can and are redirected all the time without a vote for deletion. The editors clearly said they wanted the article deleted, either totally or through a redirect, so that's what we did. That's how things work, NOT "oh, but they voted "kep but redirect" so that must mean we aren;t allowed to redirect. Englishrose and the Mukka guy both knowingly misrepresented both policy and the votes to try to keep the article against consensus. You apparently were duped by them.

Now, at this point you can either be stubborn and ill-informed on how consensus and votes work and be mad at me still (but not post to my tlak page, as those comments are not welcome there and pointless, as I don't need you trying to lecture me when you don;t understand policies), or you can take the time to educate yourself. Up to you. But, again, Englishrose and RBLowes are clearly making bad faith edits and distorting things, and Mukka might just be well-intentioned but clueless and angry or possibly also purposefully distorting things. You got caught up in a situation you didn't understand and got duped by people with a long history of misleading people here for self-promotional purposes. DreamGuy 06:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

My reply is at User_talk:DreamGuy. Elonka 08:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Update: My reply (and the full thread of messages that DreamGuy kept deleting) can be found here: DreamGuy dispute. Elonka 21:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Río de la Plata

Hi! I've seen that you voted in Talk:Río de la Plata. I would just write to let you know that it's a multiple choice poll. The reason I say that is because I saw your vote for "Rio de la Plata" but not for "Río de la Plata" (note the diacritic). In the case that "River Plate" obtains more votes than both of those (separate) the page may move in that direction. If you prefer "Río de la Plata" (with diac.) more than "River Plate", please add a vote for that option to help that cause. Thanks for your attention.

Sebastian Kessel 19:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

Very nice of you to turn things upside down. What do you think about trying to discredit my opinion by pointing out that I am new? And therefore I don't understand what is original research? Please be advised that I can read and understand englih texts (unfrtunately better than write). And if the policy is so complicated that a newcomer cannot understand it, then it is your, oldcomer's fault. I trust next time you will not invoke experience of fellow wikipedians into dispute and operate only in terms of merits of articles (and leave personal comments to your family members and close friends who know you personally and will not treat your remarks as personal attacks). Mukadderat 19:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

For anyone reading my talk page who is curious what Mukadderat is talking about (he was upset that I pointed out that he was a new user), please check the deletion discussion here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aladin (magician). Elonka 08:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Your attitude to switch the focus from article content to editor's profiles is deplorable. YOu failed to address a single concern I expressed about this article. Instead you started teaching me policies. The same smoke and mirrors as this aladin guy. I am no longer discussing this issue and regret that I got dragged into this discussion. We are speaking different langauges. Mukadderat 16:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom Stone

Hi Elonka. I've made a reply over at my talk page. Also, if you have the time, please take a look at Tom Stone (magician), which I have marked as a possible vanity article --TStone 07:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Will do, thanks for the information! Elonka 08:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if I might have gone a bit too far, and that some heated words might follow, but the reality and the real issues should be reflected in Intellectual rights to magic methods, because the things that was there were just irrelevant things about "secrets" and "exposures", while all the real issues weren't mentioned at all. Oh well, just wanted to give you a notice, as there might be some wielding of words there soon. (oh, how I wish my english was better..) --TStone 07:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

My talk page

I already very clearly told you to not post harassing and misinformed comments on my talk page. Any edit you place there will be deleted unread, much like blocking an annoying person who emails constantly despite being told not to. I am sorry that you don't understand policies and are upset with me for pointing them out to you, but that would be your problem, not mine. Please stop your petty harassment. DreamGuy 08:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages:Talk pages#Can I do whatever I want to my own talk page?. Elonka 08:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Elonka, I hate to say it but I think your wasting your time. If you through his talk page history you'll notice that every comment that he doesn't like gets reversed. I admire your determination though. Englishrose 11:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you please post that on his page? I'm building a case, and witnesses will help, thanks. The more things he deletes, the easier it is to make the case. He's actually being quite helpful in that regard.  :) Elonka 11:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I've chosen three examples. Just look through his talk page history, it's easy to spot.

First example: Comment: Revered to: . Explanation: "Aladin - my talk page is not a page for editors to argue with what other editors who posted here said".

Second example: Comment: Summary: (want additional info on why an edit of mine was reversed). Reversed to:

Third example: Comment: Summery: I was told to contact you. I did. Here Reversed to: Explanation: already told beckjord never to post to my talk page again and if he did I would revert without reading, so I am doing that now.

There's plenty more. To be fair he always gives some kind of explanation, whether or not it's correct is questionable. Englishrose 11:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Saint Metrophanes

Hi there. As one of the participants in the Saints WikiProject could you perhaps take a look at Saint Metrophanes. There are contradictions on the page and I haven't been able to find a good solid source to base a factual article on in my admittedly rather quick web search. I have no special knowledge of this subject and only came to the article in order to fix a dead external link but had to stay around to clear up some of the mess. Can you help? --Spondoolicks 12:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Your debate with User:DreamGuy

Just to let you know I have become aware of the situation, and would like to help both of you if possible. I explained a bit about what I am doing, and asked DreamGuy a couple of questions at User_talk:DreamGuy. If you have any comments at this stage please feel free to make them here or on my talk page. Thanks, Petros471 14:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've created a subpage at User talk:Petros471/Mediation between DreamGuy and Elonka to keep discussion together. --Petros471 10:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Elonka and Petros, please note that I'm also aware of the situation, as an uninvolved admin. You may not be aware that users have a quite wide-reaching right to keep their talkpages the way they like them. Some people disapprove when they remove posts, and it's your prerogative to "disapprove" of DreamGuy removing yours; but kindly do not continue posting the very same thing after he has asked you to desist.
Elonka: I see with concern that you note your "7th attempt" to communicate with DreamGuy on his talkpage, as if that was something to be proud of. On the contrary, it amounts to harassment. If all these post have more or less the same content, you are also violating WP:3RR (please review that policy urgently, as it's a blocking matter). Please desist. I also note that your material on the page User talk:Petros471/Mediation between DreamGuy and Elonka isn't really anything to do to do with mediation. If you refer to Misplaced Pages:Mediation, I believe you'll see how inappropriate it is to call for "some corrective action" and call that mediation. If you think you have a case against DreamGuy — I'm no judge of that — you'd much better prepare an WP:RFC or WP:RFAR. That seems anyway to be in pracice what you're doing. I strongly advise you to keep anything like that more discreetly in your own userspace, though, unless you want it speedily deleted as a mere attack page.
Petros: I will post to you on your own page. Bishonen | talk 15:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC).
Each of my posts to DreamGuy's page was substantially different. See: User:Elonka/DreamGuy dispute. If an RfC becomes necessary, that is the way that I will proceed. To have a valid case in an RfC though, I need sufficient evidence that I have already attempted to resolve this directly with DreamGuy. The 7 posts that I placed on his page, document those attempts. That is not harassment, that is good faith effort. Elonka 15:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Two or three attempts would be sufficient. Seven borders on harrassment. android79 16:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Seven identical posts, yes, but that was not the case. The first message was a good faith effort on my part to make sure that DreamGuy understood that I had a concern. Messages #2 and #3 were in reply to messages that he had placed on my talk page. #4 was a a short and clear post explaining what actions would resolve things (either removing the personal attacks, or engaging in a discussion about them). #5 was to inform him that I was going to request mediation if he persisted with the behavior. #6 informed him where I had requested review, as I'm told it is proper Misplaced Pages policy to inform someone when a review is requested about them. #7 was in response to Petros' involvement. I numbered each time I said something, to help maintain a record of past comments. Since DreamGuy was repeatedly deleting anything I posted, I knew that this was going to cause confusion in the future, about what I said, and when. I have built enough cases in other online communities, to know that if my good faith efforts had no effect, I would want an easy way to refer to them later. The quantity of good faith efforts differs from online community to online community. Since this is my first dispute at Misplaced Pages, I was unclear on how many were necessary for "case building". But again, please assume good faith. It was not my intent to harass, it was my intent to make every possible attempt to resolve things through civil communication, before having to drag other Wikipedians into it. Elonka 22:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not it was your intent, it came out as harrassment to the recipient. Common sense dictates that if someone ignores you twice, they're likely to ignore you in perpetuity. From the outside, it looks like the repeated messages, despite all indications from the recipient that they were unwelcome, were intended more to "build a case" than to resolve the dispute amicably. android79 22:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
May I ask how you would have dealt with the situation, if you were personally attacked, asked the target to stop, and they responded by deleting your message, refusing to respond to your request, and continuing to attack you on other pages? Elonka 22:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I would have posted a notice to the administrator's noticeboard. android79 22:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Really? I have to admit that I'm still trying to understand the in's and out's of Misplaced Pages policy and procedures, so I'd appreciate if you could explain the subtleties on this. I did review the administrator's noticeboard page, but it says clearly at the top that the page is not for posting reports of abusive behavior, but is instead to get the attention of administrators on other matters, like when a user is bypassing a block. Are you saying that my reading of it was incorrect, and I should have posted the matter there instead? Elonka 23:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
(Actually, I meant WP:AN/I, though either probably would have been fine.) Well, you did ask what I would do. :-) That's what it might say at the top of the page, but in practice, abusive behavior gets reported on ANI all the time, and admins do act on those reports. Whether or not that's the way it should be is another matter entirely -- maybe a discussion is in order for either changing the text at the top of ANI or changing the page's focus. You could also have reported it at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts or followed the steps at dispute resolution -- the reason I would have done so at ANI is turnaround time. android79 23:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I guess you haven't read the posts at User:Elonka/DreamGuy dispute yet? Or maybe I need to make it more clear somewhere, hmm. I did report it to Wikiquette alerts, in message #6. So far there hasn't been any reply though (at least that I know of). Thanks for the advice about the Noticeboard. I will keep that in mind in the future! Elonka 23:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
In fact, I did read that stuff. My point with the "turnaround time" comment above is that ANI has turned into a de facto place to report this kind of behavior since response time at other project pages tends to be slow. YMMV, of course. android79 01:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Harassment

Just for the record, this is the last time I will tell you: Stop posting on my talk page. There is no dispute between us because I am ignoring and avoind you. You insisting upon posting to my talk page when I already told you not to bother -- and doing it over and over when I remove your posts unread -- is outright harassment.

Furthermore, this Petros471 person is a brand new editor, one who doesn't understand policies here very well, and who is not a mediator of any sort. By pretending to be a mediator when he is a new editor here, he is being deceptive and also harassing. He has no official say here, he doesn't possess the knowledge to offer any advice, and I explicitly am ignoring him trying to pretend to have some official capacity here.

I have alerted a number of admins about both of your actions, and let them know that both of you are banned from my talk page and that Petros471 is impersonating a mediator. Please desist or the next responses will be from one or more admins and not myself. DreamGuy 15:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Documentation of the dispute is being collected here: DreamGuy dispute. I am also being advised to file an RfC. If you wish to stop this, please apologize for your personal attacks, or remove the attacks that you have placed on such pages as Talk:Eenasul Fateh. Repeated charges of harassment are not helping your case. Elonka 15:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:DreamGuy

Responded on my talk page - I am quite impressed with your accomplishments I was talking to a celebrity :-)! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 16:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Links to pre-move page

I have been asked by Bishonen on my talk page to consider removing the links to the page I created before moving it to your userspace. As most of the links to it (viewable here) are in posts you make, and I don't want to go around editing other peoples posts, would you mind changing them into a link for the page in your location? Also there probably isn't a need to link to it from the new location, as it appears in the page history quite clearly (I am all for full openness with everything, but in this case I think reduced aggravation means removing it). As I'm sure you have (or will do) read on my talk page one of the main issues seems to be me calling it 'mediation' when it wasn't in the official Misplaced Pages sense of the word. Therefore it would be helpful if links with 'mediation' in it were changed. I wish you the best with resolving this, it seems that I cannot help any further at this stage, though please feel free to keep me informed of any developments (although I will obviously be keeping the relavent pages on my watchlist). --Petros471 20:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen appears to be very sympathetic to DreamGuy's side, and evidently pre-disposed to believe the harassment claims since he was a victim of harassment himself. I would recommend considering a second opinion to anything that Bishonen asks. Others have pointed out that you did nothing wrong by offering to mediate, though something about the page title itself seems to have violated a Misplaced Pages guideline that I'm not entirely clear on. In any case, yes, I am fine on updating links to point to the new location. Also, I still have your name on the page as an "interested party". If you would like me to remove that, let me know. You are also of course welcome to remove it yourself, or to continue to participate by offering any other comments you wish on the dispute page or its related talk page.  :) Thanks again for trying to assist, Elonka 21:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Whilst it is very true that others have made it clear that 'informal' mediation is fine if (and in this case not) both parties agree, I still think it would be best if Bishonen's advice was followed to prevent unnecessary conflict. As for me being listed as an "interested party", I'll remove it when/if I want to. Thanks, Petros471 21:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Elonka, I came here to take issue with your sly mention of me to Solipsist ("Admin User:Bishonen has also gotten involved, as can be seen at DreamGuy's talk page. My guess is that DreamGuy knows more admins than I do, so anything that you can do to help would be greatly appreciated. :)"), but I see now that you refer to me even more cavalierly just above. You don't have to like me — I did criticize you, after all — but I put stock in the integrity of my admin actions and my good faith, and I find remarks like "very sympathetic to DreamGuy's side", "evidently pre-disposed to believe the harassment claims" and "I would recommend considering a second opinion to anything that Bishonen asks" quite careless and disrespectful. I'll certainly be happy for anybody to ask a second opinion on anything I say or do, but the context of your "recommendation" to Proteus makes it an insult to my integrity. Before you spread that kind of talk on any more Misplaced Pages pages, you might care to inform yourself about whether I'm generally thought of as a respectable, neutral admin or not. I could give you a few links for the purpose (ask, if you like, and I will), but I would rather urge you to not impugn the motives of any stranger you come across here in that way. (You seem to be aware of the assume good faith policy, at least to the extent of recommending it to other people.)
FIY, I don't know DreamGuy and he doesn't know me. He and I have both submitted evidence to a recent RFAR on User:Beckjord, and in that context I think I may have put a minor direct question to DG on User talk:Android79, where the RFAR was being discussed. That's the sum of our previous contact — I don't think he even responded directly to the question. We've never worked together or had a conversation or interaction of any kind. If he had been a friend of mine, I would certainly not have presented myself as an "uninvolved admin". Please show respect for other wikipedians. Bishonen | talk 22:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

Re:

Sorry, but I'm with Encyclopedist on this one. I'm not at all interested in getting involved inyet another dispute with him, and I have no current arguments against him. I haven't looked into your dispute with him, so I won't say who's right, but (if he's wrong) he'll ultimately be proven so and accept it. And if he's right, well... elvenscout742 21:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

AIM

I've added u on AIM, if ur ever on give me a shuot. I have the UK bit at the end of my name. Englishrose 22:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:Auto

Please note WP:AUTO. If there are substantial edits needed on the page about you, please propose them on the talk page for discussion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the page! Elonka 16:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, lol

I'm a boy. Although my name may seem female, it's actually based on a popular song by the band The Jam. No worries, lol...I'm actually getting used to it. :-) Englishrose 23:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Eep! A thousand apologies, my mistake. Do you have a picture anywhere? I'll get the problem fixed ASAP -- if I miss any spots, let me know! Again, sorry. Elonka 23:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Responded on my talk page. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 01:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify

You are a misguided user, and those comments were not removed, I refactored them to the talk page. Your behavior in this whole instance is anything but laudable. A plague on both of your houses. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)