User talk:Elonka/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17 →

Contents 1 Templates 2 Proposed naming convention, way forward? 3 Block 4 controversial edit? 5 Angel nom 6 Priory of Sion 7 Your warning 8 Reply 9 Robert Fico 10 Mediation Lecture 11 Question 12 Missed that comment 13 Articles per day 14 Ms Crisp 15 New Project 16 Dimitrion Yordanidis 17 Etretat 18 Dirty Dancing 19 RE: Dirty Dancing 20 Race and Intelligence archiving cutoff 21 User talk:204.113.176.3 22 5/7 DYK 23 Dejeuner ... 24 Condolence 25 Courtesy note 26 :-( 27 Your comment 28 Thank you from Horologium 29 Sophia Bekele 30 Sceptre 31 Question 32 RfA thanks 33 Wikipedia:Lectures 34 Hello 35 Problem 36 THX 37 User:Hoipolloi906 38 Truce 39 Thank you 40 SLR 41 Turkic people 42 Nungesser and Coli 43 Re: Rhetoric 44 Thanks

Templates

Obviously you haven't looked! Johnbod (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Internet Explorer - don't know my screen res I'm afraid. I see this very commonly, when the picture is at the start of a section. If it was just below the template itself it would have been ok. Johnbod (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed naming convention, way forward?

Hi Elonka, thanks for guiding the Slovaks and Hungarians out of the trenches! Now that there has been quite some constructive discussion about the proposed naming convention for Slovak places, what would be the way forward? Is it a good idea to create a separate naming convention, and vote about the modifications? Or should we make it a sub-rule of WP:NCGN (and vote there)? Markussep ^Talk 09:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Block

Yeah, I hesitated about the block, but while I was hesitating, the large edits were coming fast and furious, I couldn't be sure if they were things easily undone or not. Plus the talk page had a note at the top saying that any addition would be deleted unread - what does one do to get an editor's attention then? Stan (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I used up an irreplaceable chunk of my life dealing with User:Wik's disruptive wikignoming, so I have very little patience for that anymore. Your attitude is commendable though. Stan (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Would I do it the same way again? I think so. I did look at the history of her talk page, and saw the pattern of deletion of remarks posted, so the "delete unread" claim seemed plausible, and while I was doing all this, several more edits came in. My usual experience with fast-and-furious editors has been that they ignore talk page notes anyway, so between that and the advance notice that a polite warning was going to be ignored, a short block seems like the appropriate clue-by-four. Stan (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

controversial edit?

Hi, I am wondering what was controversial about my edit at Pilisszentkereszt? I didn't remove any info, added new and improved the layout. The only controversial part was Rocket's comment that misinterpreted my edit. At least he had the decency to remove it.--Svetovid (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

At Pilisszentkereszt you modified the lead, but left a version you would never apply for a Slovak place with Hungarian majority. If you say everything was all right with your edit, I ask you if I can modify the lead at Slovak cities/villages (with Hungarian majority) to your version.

It is simply tiresome dealing with your edits all the time, that's why I removed my comment. Squash Racket (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You are lying again. See the original version of the article. Also, do not assume what I would or wouldn't do.--Svetovid (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Angel nom

You're going straight to heaven, if I have any say in the matter. I'll cancel my WP hiatus now. <grin> Thanks for being the voice of common sense. --TheEditrix2 23:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and I do hope you will consider "redecorating" your user page. Let me know when you're done, I'd love to take a look! :) --Elonka 13:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Priory of Sion

In light of my previous request, I just wanted to let you know that Priory of Sion has just been listed as a good article. :) --Loremaster (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Your warning

If you post once more on Johnbods page, I'll take it to AN/I. Really, what do you hope to achieve here. Nice deflexion, bty. Ceoil (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Be my guest. You may however wish to review this AN thread first though.[1] --Elonka 02:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation. Remember what I said about context, intention, edit history or reputation, and bots? Judgement and research please. This is going on for days, and still you are rigidly following the letter of the law to is barest most desperate reaches. The edit was about image positions. Ceoil (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

And the edit summary was grossly uncivil. That's the core issue here, that the summary was inappropriate. I am frankly surprised that you are continuing to defend it. --Elonka 02:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes you said. A number of times. But note A number of times. Also you just switched argument. Do you hunt down and demand an personall apology from all established editors who make a flippant remark to an ip. That would seem a wasteful way to spend life, and a detriment to the project. Ceoil (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not defending it, I saying you are blowing it out of all portion. He did explain, end of story. Ceoil (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ceoil, you are the one who jumped in, 5 days after the original incident, to stir it up again, and further escalate things by accusing me of harassment, on two pages now. And now you're also threatening an ANI thread? Talk about "out of all proportion", see WP:KETTLE. To answer your original question though, yes, while this project of calming the ethnic dispute is in-process, I will absolutely continue to contact any editor who jumps into the middle of it with an uncivil comment or attack. It is now my recommendation that you drop this, instead of continuing to escalate this even further. --Elonka 02:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

It would be great, thanks. Hobartimus (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert Fico

New thread on the experiment page[2], please, have a say. --Rembaoud (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Lecture

The next Wikipedia:Lectures will be by User:Vassyana about how to mediate disputes. Might be interesting!

--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

I just want to ask a question, i saw that you semi-protected the user page of Hobartimus because of vandal edits but when i look at the page history here i can only see one vandal edit. Why is it that we cant see the rest? Is it because when a user gets blocked, their contributions dont show up? Can you please help me out, i was just curious thats all. I thought it was only Oversights who can hide certain edits in certain circumstances. Thanks Roadrunnerz45 ^{(talk 2 me)} 12:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It does thanks, i always wanted to know about the deleted edits. You puts my mind at rest:) Roadrunnerz45 ^{(talk 2 me)} 14:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Missed that comment

You are lying again. See the original version of the article. Also, do not assume what I would or wouldn't do.--Svetovid (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed this comment. Svetovid, please don't accuse me a day after my comment with anything, especially not on someone else's talk page. What I said is true: you modified the lead at Pilisszentkereszt, but left there a version you would never accept at Slovak villages/cities (see for example your controversial edit at Zilina, where you deleted the Hungarian name from the lead even though there is not even a separate names section).
Also administrator Thatcher referred to your misuse of Twinkle at the MarkBA sockpuppet page, but you don't seem to get the message. These edits were not vandalism.
Elonka, may we include archived threads that are not yet included at the experiment page? Squash Racket (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, yes, feel free to expand it with any threads that I haven't spotted yet. :) --Elonka 14:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Before I get attacked again, I translated an article here, this is a citation of the linked article almost word by word. I am not drawing any parallels etc. and the article comes from a newspaper of record. Squash Racket (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles per day

Yes, the net increase in articles is 1,500 to 2,000 per day. But there are actually around 2,500-3,000 articles added every day. (About 1,000-1,500 or so are deleted every day, but that doesn't affect the number that are added.)

I was using User:Dragons flight/Log analysis, though that's a bit dated, but it sounds like our numbers aren't that far apart. (As an aside, "several", to me, means "two to four"; at the rate of even 1,000 articles per day, a week's worth would exceed "several" thousand, as I interpret the word.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ms Crisp

I am relieved that you are looking into the matter of Mathsci v. Michellecrisp. I am another victim of Ms Crisp’s harassment and stalking, but unlike Mr Mathsci I confess that in the face of her relentless stalking I have simply given up and largely desisted from further Wikipedia editing. I do hope that you will indeed thoroughly investigate Ms Crisp’s aggressive behaviour and possibly urge her to take a more positive, courteous and encouraging attitude. Masalai (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masalai (talk • contribs) 23:19, April 26, 2008

Indeed I was provoked to intemperate comment in explanation of edits. Her rudeness has that effect. As I say, I have largely abandoned the project since every single contribution I have made, she has followed: it is more than a little creepy, to be frank. Masalai (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

whilst I encounter incivility sometimes on Wikipedia, simply blaming me for persistent personal attacks (which resulted in your blocking) is really passing the buck, in the end you take responsibility for your actions/comments on Wikipedia like sensible adults including how you react to others. I welcome any investigation of my edits. "Every single contribution" is a gross exaggeration. As for following edits, one thing I had to correct (which admin LaraLove also supported) was Masalai's constantly incorrectly labelling References sections as Notes in direct contravention of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Standard_appendices_and_descriptions This persisted despite warnings to the contrary. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

While I am not condoning the things that Masalai (talk · contribs) said (they were clear violations of WP:CIVIL), I still have to point out that the comments were not made in a vacuum. I have found no evidence that Masalai was actively pursuing Michellecrisp (talk · contribs). Most of his comments seem to have been reactions to notes that were placed on his talkpage, and then began a vicious cycle, as Michellecrisp placed a message, Masalai removed it with a snarky comment, Michellecrisp warned him again, he removed that with another snarky comment, and so forth. Then Michellecrisp went to a bunch of articles that Masalai had been editing, and either changed or criticizing the referencing. Though her comments might have been completely innocuous in some other context, in the highly-charged atmosphere at the time, any edit by Michellecrisp was seen as an attack, especially when she was suddenly popping up at several other articles on his watchlist. Masalai reacted defensively (and again, unfortunately, with incivility). At which point Michellecrisp would place another warning, and 'round the cycle would go again.

Though these activities occurred a couple months ago, it appears that both editors are still carrying a grudge, and neither is willing to "let it go". Masalai feels that Michellecrisp was stalking him, and regards her actions as rude and aggressive; Michellecrisp feels that Masalai is uncivil, and that he's the one that is rude and aggressive.

But as regards their current editing practices, except for their conflict with each other, both are otherwise pretty good editors. Does that pretty much sum it up? --Elonka 14:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, thanks for your comments, it is appreciated. as you know I've done many many edits since Feb so this issue was over for me (especially as the attacks ceased) until it popped up just then. So I'm prepared to put it to rest, especially since you've now investigated it. hope Masalai will do the same. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, Ms Crisp appears to follow me everywhere I go, even after many weeks of my forbearing to edit at all. Does she want me to desist utterly from contributing to the Wikipedia project? Possibly you could investigate Ms Crisp's stalking behaviour. It is beyond creepy and surely cannot be healthy. Masalai (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Masalai, I've looked through your contribs over the last month, and I'm honestly not seeing any place where you and Michellecrisp have intersected at all. Am I missing something? If so, please give me a link. If not, my recommendation is to just go back to editing at this point. If there are disputes somewhere, let me or some other admin know, and we can deal with those as they come up. But it's really looking to me like the problem is over at this point. If I've missed something though, definitely tell me. --Elonka 09:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Elonka, of course there is no interaction between myself and Ms Crisp, infelicitous or otherwise, in the past month. As I say, Ms Crisp has accomplished her goal as to me (as to how any others?) of ridding the Wikipedia project of contributors like myself. I have barely edited at all since she began weirdly stalking and harrassing me personally: one assumes that Ms Crisp's negative agenda must be to discourage contribution to Wikipedia altogether. But what is her positive agenda, if any? Ms Crisp appears not to have made any original contributions at all beyond one or two articles of hers that were soon deleted as being insignificant ("Pubs of Newtown" appears to have been one of her contributions, and it was soon thrust out.)

Do you think there is any favourable comment to at all to be made as to Ms Crisp's interventions among Wikipedia contributors, as to their contributions and on their talk pages, which it seems to me thus far are wholly malign? Masalai (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Masalai, I have to admit confusion here, as to what exactly you want? What would you like to see happen, for you to feel comfortable about editing again? --Elonka 10:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it appears that Ms Crisp has gone on to other projects than stalking me -- I even note in one or two articles I have contributed to that she has recently even made positive contributions instead of merely idly criticising -- so perhaps the combination of my taking a long rest while bringing the matter to your attention has had a salutary effect. I confess that had Ms Crisp been minimally courteous in the first instance I would not have taken umbrage at her interventions, which may well have been ultimately constructive: I am annoyed at gratuitous rudeness. Thank you for your assistance, however passive: it appears to have been helpful. Masalai (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome, and if there's anything else I can do, or if you notice anything else which is interfering with your ability to edit in a productive manner, from any source, please do not hesitate to get in touch.  :) --Elonka 13:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Dimitrion Yordanidis

Hi, I'd be interested to know why the article on Dimitrion Yordanidis was deleted? --Kathlutz (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

At the time I tagged it (December 2006), I wouldn't go so far as to call it an article. All it had was the following: "Dimitrion Yordanidis was the oldest person known to have completed the marathon. On 10 October 1976, at age 98, Yordanidis completed the Athens Marathon, Greece, in approximately 7 hours, 33 minutes. His name is listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greeks. Please note this information is based on limited information obtained from wikipedia.org and other public web sites".

I intended no disrespect, but in order for an article to pass Wikipedia's notability requirements, it requires proper third-party sources. See WP:V and WP:BIO. Wikipedia receives thousands of attempts at new articles each day, and over a thousand are deleted within 24 hours, as they are inappropriate, unsourced, non-notable, or in many cases simply hoaxes or spam. Teenagers will often make up a name and just insert something like what you saw above, so we have no easy way of knowing whether or not the information is accurate, since no sources are provided. Yes we could do our own research, but things are moving too fast for that, and it would be, unfortunately, a colossal waste of time if every time a child added some unsourced dubious claim, other editors had to spend time researching whether or not it was true. So our community consensus, is that the responsibility of providing sources is on those who wish to add the information. Anything that is unsourced, can be removed on sight. If an editor thinks the removed information is appropriate, then they can simply add it back, with actual sources.

If you would like to go ahead and create a new version which is more fleshed out, please proceed. --Elonka 12:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. Yordanidis has an entry in the Guinness Book of World Records and is often named in websites and newspaper articles as the oldest person to have finished a marathon. However, there are severe doubts about the validity of his record in sports circles (although I have found only secondary sources so far), and as far as I can see, he is excluded from all official or semi-official sports statistics about age related marathon records. Recently, he's been frequently mentioned in connection with Buster Martin and the 2008 London Marathon. I think it is worth considering to reinstate an article about him that expresses both the widely believed record claim as well as the doubts but there is no need to rush it.--Kathlutz (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw the Guinness source, and agree that it's a strong enough claim of notability to justify an article. And I also agree that it would be an excellent idea to include both the claim and the doubts. That would be a perfect example of neutrality.  :) I'd do it myself, but my plate is already very full with many different projects. Good luck with it though!  :) --Elonka 14:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I took the plunge and created the article on Dimitrion Yordanidis. I hope it passes muster. I will continue to look for more information on the validity of his race result. Marathon runners in their 90s are still extremely rare today and this result for a 98 year old from 1976(!!!) is highly unusual. No one but Guinness (and those who quote Guinness) seem to know about it/him. I am convinced that the issue of very old runners (in their 80s and 90s) will become more prevalent in coming years and there is a need and an interest for reliable information. BTW, Werner Sonntag has an entry in the German version of Wikipedia. Can I/should I link to it, and if so, how? --Kathlutz (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Stub looks good! I've added links to it from a couple places, such as List of marathoners. You might also want to check with someone who speaks Greek, to see if there's an article about Yordanidis at the Greek Wikipedia, so you can interwiki it. A note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece might be good. As for Sonntag, you could try either linking to his article at de:Werner Sonntag, or you could try checking at that article to see if there's a source you could use. Keep up the great work, Elonka 11:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Etretat

I'll be going there at the end of May - what part of the town do you want me to take photos of ? 14:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about Paris, we'll see - but at Étretat, I'll see what I can dig up on them (having never heard of them before ! ) ;-) Dickie (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dirty Dancing

Hi, well, I can't say the opening is good enough. I think someone fresh should go throught it. Remove "being". Screenplay was written, not film? "Concerns" rather than "details"? "teenageD"? I don't like "moment of time"; "the passage into womanhood, both ph and em., by a t g who has a relationship with ...". And lots more. Whole thing spruced up would delight the reviewers at FAC. TONY (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Dirty Dancing

I've only read the lead for now; perhaps I'll do a more in-depth review when I have the time. However, if the lead is indicative of the quality of the rest of the article, I'd be inclined to say that more work needs to be done.

• "credited as being one of the most watched films of all time." Source is an unscientific poll that gives no info on who the respondents were and how many were polled. I would hardly consider this noteworthy of mentioning in the article, let alone the very first sentence.
• "The story details the moment of time that a teenaged girl crosses over into womanhood both physically and emotionally," Quite an awkward sentence in need of a rewrite. "Details" is ungainly here. "Moment of time"? "Teenaged"?
• "(later famous for High School Musical)" He wasn't famous for Dirty Dancing?
• "with no major stars (at the time)" -> something like "featuring then-unknown actors" BuddingJournalist 15:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence archiving cutoff

Hello Elonka. I would like to respectfully suggest that the automated archive cutoff date be put back to a more standard value (say like 14 days), rather than you keeping adjusting it down. While I'll be the first to admit the talk page is impressive by its size, I think that too short a cutoff may be detrimental to continuity, and as we keep saying, Wikipedia isn't paper. However, I'll understand if you wish to submit the question first to the other editors as well. I'll abie by whatever consensus is arrived at regarding this question (which I hope will make it a potentially very easy consensus!). Thanks,Ramdrake (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your concerns. It's definitely a busy discussion! I've been keeping a close eye on it, as you can tell: Race and intelligence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). When I first spotted the problem, the page was at over 450K! Per WP:SIZE, some people's browsers start running into technical issues at anything over 32K. My goal is to try and get the page to stabilize at no more than 100K or so, but currently the page is growing faster than it is being archived, which is why I tweaked the cutoff again.

As I look through the threads on the page, it looks like a lot of them will get archived with the next cycle. If that gets things back to a manageable level, I'll definitely adjust the bot back up to a longer cutoff. As for continuity, any thread that you think that's been archived, that still needs further discussion, you can definitely copy a relevant portion of it back to the talkpage. Or even better, start a new thread, which links to the prior portion in archive, and perhaps summarizes previous discussions.

For now, I recommend we let it sit for another 24 hours, and see what the page looks like after the next cycle. If there's any one thread that you think really needs to stay on the page, just add a comment to it, to show that the discussion is still active, and then the bot will leave it alone. --Elonka 13:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:204.113.176.3

Hi! Saw your name on the RC page. Please block the user above. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! The user was blocked. Oda Mari (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The user repeatedly vandalized Cotton gin so I looked for an admin on a recent change page and found you. Btw, if it's appropriate please block User talk:Miffyandfrends. This seems to be a vandal account. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please block User talk:168.24.1.102 too. thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

5/7 DYK

On 7 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The White Bird, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford 00:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Dejeuner ...

... was ruined because I had to run home to fetch Duchene and Contrucci. I cannot help you with the caption. The fort of St Jean was rebuilt following Louis XIV's imposition of order on the City of Marseille. Glad to see you've found a new hobby. (Duchene and Contrucci cost me 32 € and is very heavy.) Mathsci (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL! It wasn't that urgent, I didn't mean to take you away from your croissant.  :) But thanks for the quick work! The Great Plague of Marseille article also desperately needs sources, if you'd like to add something there.

As for the image, what struck me is that it said it was "built on the Knights Hospitaller". Modesty aside, I guess I'd have to list myself as one of the current Medievalists on Wikipedia, which is why my interest was piqued. I was one of the key editors in bringing Knights Templar to FA status, and I have some passing acquaintance with the other military orders, though most of my attention at the moment is on the Franco-Mongol relations towards the end of the Crusades. Anyway, that caption struck me as being a bit off. My guess is that it's supposed to say "the ruins of the fort of the Knights Hospitaller", but since I'm not familiar with the sources, I didn't want to make any radical changes. Hopefully someone else will figure it out within the next few days; if not, we should probably rework the caption to something easier to understand. Do you think this might have come from a tourist brochure? I guess we could dig through the history to find out who added the information, and see if they're still around! --Elonka 12:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

At some later date I can go and check in situ. I doubt it came from a tourist brochure: it was quite a curious thing to add. However, like the Abbey of St Victor, it would not surprise me if the committee for the reconstruction of Marseille, set up by Louis XIV, had ordered the demolition of an older building, leaving only the foundations for the new fort. My history book refers to "la commanderie des Hospitaliers de Saint-Jean" buried in the foundations (Page 333, Duchene & Contrucci), so that seems completely to confirm the caption. After all, the committee destroyed the town walls and ramparts along the rue d'Aix. I haven't checked the French WP page on Fort St Jean, but there might also be something useful there. I have located two sources for the Great Plague of Marseille (one from JSTOR in English), both of which could be used to expand the article. There are also more images on the French WP site than the one I've added. In Aix-en-Provence the Benediction des Calissons is said to date from the end of the great plague (I think), a religious ceremony in early September to mark the deliverance of Aix. It takes place metres from where I live, in the place St Jean de Malte. Mathsci (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a website which contains the info in the caption. Mathsci (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the research! So looks like "command post" is the proper translation. Care to do the honors?  :) --Elonka 17:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry to hear about your loss.

I don't think it's correct to translate "Commanderie" as "command post", with its modern connotations, just as Hospitallers or Hospitaliers (Knights of St John of Jerusalem) have no modern equivalent. These are anglo-norman terms from the Crusades. As the footnote now indicates, Marseille became a stopping point on the Crusades after the visit of Richard I on the 3rd crusade. The wikilinked articles discuss the detailed way that nobility and religious institutions in the South of France organized involvement in crusades. Raymond de St Gilles, the rich and powerful Count of Toulouse and and self-declared Marquis of Provence, had rallied the "nation" of Provence around him for the crusades; but, with its own Commanderie on the Mediterranean, Marseille "the rebel" started to play an independent role. Mathsci (talk) 07:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I just looked up Commanderie on the French WP[3]: "a commanderie was a monastery belonging to a religious and military order from the middles ages". The english word, i.e. anglo-norman word, is Commandry. Mathsci (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Condolence

Sorry to hear the sad news. Squash Racket (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I add my own expressions of sympathy: you are assuredly the most helpful, disinterested, civil and — if it isn't too politically incorrect to put it this way — sweet administrator I have yet encountered. (I would say it if you were a guy too.) Masalai (talk) 08:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, they mean a lot. :) --Elonka 22:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Hi Elonka, I'm just dropping you a note because I previously said I would take a look at Dirty Dancing; however, I will not be getting involved with the article. --Laser brain (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --Elonka 22:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

 :-(

I was going to leave a note about lectures starting in 30 minutes... but ..

Saw the note at the top of the page. My condolences. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I couldn't make it, I'll definitely read the capture though.  :) --Elonka 22:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

Regarding your comment here, while I sense you don't really want to engage the specific points, I do feel very strongly that nobody shouldt worry that they're jeopardizing their future with Featured Articles by making criticisms of it. I speak from much self-interest here -- I've clashed fairly often with Sandy, Tony (especially Tony), and others whom might be identified as FA regulars -- I've never found any of them to be vindictive about it, but I don't want to tacitly participate in a system that stifles criticism or I'll soon find myself sidelined as well. So I want to offer this sincerely, if you find yourself going through a content process and feel as if the process has become retributive, please seek me out. I'll be more than willing to raise hell about it on your behalf. --JayHenry (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but weren't you also the person who threatened that anyone who opposed the nom, should be blocked? That kind of thing, even though you may have meant it in a humorous fashion, can be intimidating. --Elonka 01:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I struck the comment as soon as I read your oppose. It was intended completely in jest, but when I saw the sincerity of your oppose I realized I had erred badly in making the joke. I was looking at Jbmurray in the context of our need to welcome those editors who can help bridge the gap between academia and us. The issue of cliquishness was not one that had occurred to me when I made the comment. --JayHenry (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see you did, sorry, I was behind the times. I'm just coming off a wikibreak, so am badly backlogged. Thanks though, I do appreciate it. And yes, I have had multiple run-ins with the editors you mentioned, both directly,[4] and by them sticking up for each other (or Jbmurray).[5] I've also been hit with a "one-two" punch on an FA nom, where one editor opposed my nom,[6] and within 30 minutes (before I even had a chance to respond), the nom was then closed.[7][8] Those kinds of things are what have led to my "cliquishness" opinion. --Elonka 02:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you from Horologium

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed unanimously with the support of 100 editors. Your kindness is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Wizardman, Black Falcon and jc37 for nominating me. — Horologium

Sophia Bekele

Dear Elnoka--- sorry to keep troubling you. the article I completed on the article has this message below every time I open it. Could you pls advise on what it is and why it is there? also , why would the warning state that article would be deleted if it is not edited? Thanks so mcuh!!

"This article or section is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. Please view the edit history should you wish to contact the person who placed this template. If this article has not been edited in several days please remove this template. Consider not tagging with a deletion tag unless the page hasn't been edited in several days."

Lashford (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Elonka. Please note that this page is not finished being edited. Like you advised before, I was hoping to work in the user area before moving it for publishing. It seem now that it is appearing in the searches. Can you please correct? or advise how I can do it? Thank you.

Thank you Lashford (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I went a deleted the article'names' that refere to the NAME, which your colleage Hobartimus suggest that i do not NAME it if I do not want it ti appear in google. I notice all of these under your userId can also be seen. So I did. tx. Lashford (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Elonka---- you are back!... thanks for resuming editing. I was worried I lost you! I was away for a while, but i will look at your edits and advise with you if any corrections to be made! I am still confused where I should be doing this chat! hmm Lashford (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Best place is at Talk:Sophia Bekele. --Elonka 23:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre

Elonka, I'm sorry to bother you about this, but it looks like Sceptre has not actually disengaged. In an AN thread concerning a block review of TTN, Sceptre started a subthread on me (oldid). Could you please take a look at this? If you think another admin should look at it, I'd be happy to contact someone else. I reported TTN to AE after reading a comment at WT:AFD where Masem linked[9] to a post TTN made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. After my report to AE, TTN was then blocked for two weeks by Vassyana. --Pixelface (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, if you have no problem with it, I plan on replying to Sceptre in that thread. Do I have your permission? --Pixelface (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the thread, but my feeling is that if he (or anyone) brings up your name anywhere, I would say that you are completely within your rights to reply. Do what you can to keep things from escalating, of course. And best wishes.  :) --Elonka 22:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply. Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Is there a place where editors post articles that are getting an FA-push so that more editors are aware of it and can pitch in if they know anything about the subject? Valtoras (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the topic. Sometimes all you have to do is mention a topic, and you get a bunch of editors to help, and sometimes you can beg and grovel for weeks, and no one will help.  ;) It's usually worth posting at a related WikiProject, or maybe a "parent" article's talkpage. --Elonka 21:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason I ask this is because I'm thinking of bringing the topic of starting a WikiProject, which would be basically a list of articles that somebody (or a number of people) is trying to bring to FA-status. The point would be to bring more editors who are either kknowledgeable about the subject, or just want to help, to the article to increase productivity. I was considering bringing it up at the village pump. What are your thoughts? Valtoras (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Something like that may already exist. Try checking WP:WFA and Category:Wikipedia featured content. --Elonka 21:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Logically, it probably would have. There was Wikipedia:Featured Article Help Desk, but it's inactive - besides, it's not exactly what I had in mind in terms of what it is. I'm not sure how to go about creating such a WikiProject, but I'm thinking along the lines of something where someone who is trying to bring a specific article to FA-status would submit it and a number of editors would go along and assist in editing the article, and increase productivity. The immediate criticism that forms as I throw out my idea, is that my suggeston seems to be essentially the same thing as what the FA Help Desk was, and is more improbable to actually work, given that any article could use improvement. Please note, however, that my current blueprint idea is unlikely to be the idea I take in the end. Hard for me to work with such a difficult concept, though. Valtoras (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process. If anything, that goes all the more for those who oppose. I appreciate the time you took, your concerns, and of course your many contributions to the project. I hope to do a good job as an admin, but will appreciate people telling me if I am not. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lectures

Todays lecture is starting! The topic is "How source experts judge source reliability" and the speaker is DGG. The meeting location for setup is #wikipedia-en-lectures on irc.freenode.net. The lecture will be given over skype. Contact Filll2 or kim_bruning to be invited to the lecture chat also.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Just me, the Canadian guy, dropping by, to say hi. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem

Hi Elonka, Sorry to bother you, but I keep running into a problem on the Days of Our Lives cast member page. Several IP's keep changing a character name in the Comings and Goings section. I believe this is one person using several accounts. According to Soapoperadigest.com, the new character's name is Dean Robbins. Someone keeps changing his name to Trent. I have reverted the unsourced edits three times, but it keeps occurring. How should I handle it? Rm994 (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Make that four times now. I have warned this user repeatedly about not sourcing, but they continue to change the page. Rm994 (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Rm994 (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. To be honest though, the whole page at List of Days of our Lives cast members is badly-sourced, so it's difficult to take action against someone who may be making a good-faith change, which appears to be perfectly in line with everything else on the page. Your best bet is to ensure that you provide sources for anything you revert, and that will help it to "stick". :) --Elonka 23:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

THX

Thanks Elonka. I'll try to locate the sources or the Bluegrass Unlimited history and status, and include them in the footnote you're referenced. Much appreciated. --Samuel.harding (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Hoipolloi906

Hi, I've just reviewed this guy's edits. His account has been around for two years and he suddenly starts editing now? In view of his post-block IP sockpuppetry, I've blocked him indefinitely. In this, I am persuaded by a similar spate of vandalism ealier and I think this might be the start of a wave. He can aslways ask to be unblocked, after all. --Rodhullandemu 06:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you know more about the situation than I do. I have no objections. --Elonka 06:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Truce

I would like to propose a truce - i.e. I avoid intervening on your edits, you avoid intervening on my edits - I'm sorry, I just don't think you're being objective or civil with me in general - If you see problems with my edits, I'd prefer you report them directly to a noticeboard and not communicate with me - no offence intended, I just feel there are unworkable differences in viewpoint that require a buffer.

--Scott Free (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, to my knowledge we have never been involved in a dispute. My first interaction with you was when I was responding, as an uninvolved administrator, to a thread at WP:AE. Asking me to stay away from you isn't really an option. Or is there some other place where we have engaged, with which I am unaware? --Elonka 03:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically, at a very informal level, I'm asking that you step away from this particular arbcom case because there have been too many decisions made by yourself that, IMO, denote a lack of neutrality and objectivity - since the case is a fairly minor one and your involvement has been fairly limited, and I don't think that there is a lack of other administrators who could deal with the situation - I'd appreciate it if you would kindly not intervene in this case in an administrative capacity - I could even recommend a few administrators who have shown a level of objectivity that I don't have a problem with.

--Scott Free (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please give examples of the decisions which you have concerns about? --Elonka 05:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I just don't have the time to elaborate, nor do I think that it would be useful or productive - I think I made my position clear enough in the initial discussion in March.

--Scott Free (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, as long as there is no disruption on the John Buscema article, it won't be an issue. :) Happy editing, Elonka 16:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

You may not remember this, but when I first started editing in earnest on Wikipedia you were very kind and patient with me, and I believe you removed a block after I had gotten into an edit war on the Black Stone page. I wanted to thank you for putting up with me at that time. Peter Deer (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I don't think I removed the block, but I do remember chatting with you about the situation.[10] I'm glad to see that things are calmer now, and that you're enjoying your work on Wikipedia.  :) Personally, I don't think the consensus will ever be to remove the image from Black Stone, because it's such a clear illustration (at least to non-Muslims) about an important related story from Muhammad's life. However, I do think that there's a stronger case for removing the image from the Kaaba article, since the image is not as essential there. The best bet will probably be showing that there are lots of other images that are more appropriate, than that one. Best wishes, --Elonka 15:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

SLR

Replied on my talk page. Thanks for dropping by. Sarvagnya 23:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Turkic people

Before you posted your message, I asked the user to go to the talk page of European ethnic groups to justify his blanking. I wonder if you could remove your comments on my talk page as I am quite aware of the three revert rule. I have no history of revert warring. Your unhelpful comment there suggests otherwise. Mathsci (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be unfair of me to block one user in an edit war, and ignore the others. You are, however, welcome to blank anything from your talkpage that you wish. My comment was meant as a friendly caution, and not a formal warning. --Elonka 05:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I was the person who suggested that the blocked editor discuss this on the talk page in my second summary and in a message on his talk page, not you. He removed only the Turks from the start of the large Turkic section. There was something extremely fishy about deleting the first entry in the Turkic section, and the title of the section, both put in place by User:Dbachmann, who seemed to know exactly what he was doing. This was vandalism, since all the other entries that he left were indeed Turkic peoples. Here is the list just in case you've forgotten:

• Turkic peoples
  • Turks: (approx. 14 million in Turkish Thrace and Istanbul Province, another 5 million in diaspora)
  • Tatars (approx. 10 million)
  • Azerbaijanis: (approx. 6 million)
  • Kazakhs: (approx. 2 million)
  • Chuvash (approx. 2 million)
  • Bashkirs (approx. 1.6 million)
  • Karachays (approx. 300,000)
  • Crimeans (approx. 250,000)
  • Gagauz (approx. 100,000)
  • Nogais (approx. 90,000)

Only the first two lines were removed, despite the fact the 10 ethnic groups after Turks are classified as Turkic. Why did he leave all these other Turkic peoples, since his "arguments" applied equally to them. I would guess, in view of his own specially created anti-Turkey userbox, that he has his own private agenda. Mathsci (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I block vandals all the time.[11] There's a clear difference between content disputes, and vandalism. See WP:VAND#NOT. I do appreciate that you found a source though. However, do you think you could either find another source, or at least tweak the line, so that it actually matches what is in the source?  :) Thanks, Elonka 06:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the first two of the twelve lines of Turkic groups is vandalism, since ten Turkic groups were left in the wrong section. Now that you have made an edit to the mainspace article, you can no longer use your adminstrative tools on it: you are an editor like the rest of us. Please make any desired editorial corrections as you see fit, including adding links to subsections of the CIA factbook if that's what you want. Mathsci (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You may also wish to read WP:UNINVOLVED.--Elonka 07:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss this issue with User:Dbachmann on the talk page of European ethnic groups. I don't see any point in disussing this with you any further since all you do is post WP policy pages. Please remove me from your watch list, Elonka. Mathsci (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Nungesser and Coli

Hi Elonka. I have uploaded several free copyright photos of the two pilots, their plane (in concrete), the monument and museum at the top of Cap Fagnet, Étretat. All are named Image:Nungesser and Coli_0 (then 05 to 16).jpg Feel free to use/edit as required. I haven't made it to Paris for the street sign, or to the airport either. Dickie (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Rhetoric

Hi Elonka. Sorry, I received your message a little late (apparently the server is experiencing some lag). However, I don't really plan on continuing the discussion, as my objections are apparently too broad to make any meaningful contribution there, and any further suggestions would be that much more snow. But thanks for the reminder. ;) —Aryaman (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For the reply here re off-wiki activities. It's a subject I've seen brought up a few times. Guess I can still start my new Dravidian supremacy blog under this nick. 3rdAlcove (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)