User talk:Elonka/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance

Please to not move around the comments of other contributors on the Talk Page. Thanks. PHG (talk) 08:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"New content" at Franco-Mongol alliance

Hi Elonka. I have shown that your claim that I added 50k of new content to the article as I was reinstating the full version is untrue: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Why is the "longer version" get even longer?. I would appreciate if you could apologize and rescind your comment. Best regards. PHG (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, please stop with the wikilawyering. You know, and I know, that you were doing "reverts", but using them as a cover to insert new information into the article. You weren't just restoring, you were inserting information that had never been in the article in the first place. The two most blatant examples were that you inserted pages of information into a single ref (#1), and you inserted new information into the lead, to push this bias about a Mongol alliance. If you have any proof that either one of those was in the article before your "revert", I'll be happy to review it. But you and I both know that that's not possible. --Elonka 13:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, as I reinstated the main article, you know very well that I just rewrote the introduction to accomodate your lead phrase (compromise...), and added complete references to that. That's a quite normal thing to do. In contrast, you've make totally innaccurate and grave accusations of adding "50k of new content", "lying" etc..., so I think you should retract yoursef. It is just a matter, again, of ethical conduct. Otherwise, it just seems you throw all the accusations you can at someone, and just walk away silently when it proves innacurate. Apologies are clearly in order in such a case. PHG (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me repeat this back to you: "It just seems you throw all the accusations you can at someone, and just walk away silently when it proves inaccurate." Somehow, I get the feeling that you're saying this to me, because you've heard it said to you, hmm? Is this a normal pattern for you? I mean c'mon PHG, have you actually read the statements from multiple other editors at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Franco-Mongol alliance? Your behavior over the last few months has been appalling. You have been misinterpreting sources, you have been lying, and you have been leveling false accusations at other editors. You have been wasting the time of a lot of good editors, and yet it seems that you are completely oblivious to what people are saying to you. Do you understand the damage that you are causing to Wikipedia? If so, you need to acknowledge it, you need to apologize, and you need to promise to do better in the future. Unless you can recognize the problems that your behavior is causing, you will likely end up permanently blocked from Wikipedia. Is that what you want? --Elonka 08:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I dispute every single of your claims about "misinterpreting sources, lying, leveling false accusations at other editors". To me, this is nothing more than your typical aggression tactics against editors who disagree with you. All I write is based on referenced material, and I don't think you have shown misinterpretation of sources anytime (on the contrary, your mis-translation of French authors and deletion of sources are proven). "Lying"? It seems you are using any pretext to throw the worst possible accusations at your oponents. All the few additions I made to the article were properly outlined, and I don't think slightly adapting an intro (especially as I was compromising to accomodate your preferred intro sentence) and updating refs in order to provide "a full basis for further discussion" is anything wrong. Should I also keep calling you a liar because of your mis-representation of consensus and false accusations ("50k of new content")? This is just disgusting. Honestly, I do not care about a few editors comments, many of whom are your undefective friends, I only care about facts: all my contributions are from proper published sources, so contributing them to Wikipedia can't ever be wrong. Stop with your ridiculous accusations. Stop imposing your own versions without a consensus. Stop misrepresenting things. Stop making continuous false accusations. Stop being rude. For my part, if it can help, I am ready to apologize for any false accusation I could have leveled against you. Regards. PHG (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, you need to stop accusing, and you need to start listening. Please go and actually read the statements that people are making at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Franco-Mongol alliance, and at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. This isn't just me saying this, this is a wide variety of editors, but you don't appear to be hearing what people are trying to tell you. Based on what everyone is saying, this is what is probably going to happen: Page protection at Franco-Mongol alliance is going to be lifted in about a week. The condensed article is going to stay there, and in fact is probably going to be condensed and rewritten even further, based on talkpage discussions. Any remaining POV forks that you have created (including the subpages that are in your userspace) are either going to be cleaned up or deleted. So you can throw a tantrum and accuse me all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that cleanup is going to continue, and if you interfere with that cleanup, you will probably end up blocked again. --Elonka 02:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bits and pieces

Besides, I'm playing DR too so don't wanna make a big booboo! I'm just going to go through the sourcing bit by bit and double check everything. Tedious, but won't hurt, I suspect. Don't want you thinking I'm out after you. Just figure that the article was condensed down and it could use another set of eyes cross checking. Hope you're not offended. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources and etcetera

Have we started on a chart type thing of sources? I offer up: User:Ealdgyth/History References, which is still getting added to. I got in some of the Crusades books today, the others should be here in dribbles over the next few weeks. Right now I'm adding journal articles, but I've got all the current Mongol-Crusades type things there for now. The additions for the evening are all English and Ecclesiastical. Oh, yeah, why I stopped by, I agree with your assessment of Dream and the Tomb, but unfortunately, it sold well so it would go under "popular culture" or whatever it is that they are titling those things now (Am fighting an person who is insisting on putting in references to video game characters into Richard Beauchamp, so I'm a bit jaded right now on the whole 'cultural relevance' thing) That of course, was what got me over here, which i promptly forgot in the time I typed the first part of this message. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Just grab a copy for yourself and play with it. I use that list for when I'm writing articles. It's a lot easier to just copy paste the source over than retype it all the time. Most of the top we won't need for the Franco-Mongol stuff, it's for User:Ealdgyth#Bishops, which I really should be working on. I was trained to put in the most recent publication date when using references, and stating if they are reprints, it's just habit for me now. Feel free to play with anything you grab off the list, change them around or tweak them. I was figuring we could set up a chart like you were talking about in someone's userspace, but I'm not volunteering my list itself, since I use it constantly for when I'm writing (grins). Maybe columns for rating (A-B-C-D) plus main subject area (i.e. Cilicia, Armenia, Holy Land, Ilkhanate, etc) and perhaps language, so we can find out folks to translate if needed. Have you seen the sortable charts yet? I haven't gotten brave enough to fiddle with them, but there are some in some of the football guys I've been GA reviewing, like Gordon Bell (American football). That might be handy to sort by subject area. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Updated for what I got today. Will add some more source quotations up to the talk page shortly also. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Trust me, I would rather not rewrite the thing, but... what I'm reading leads me to believe the title is wrong. Alliance implies one over arching alliance, and nothing I'm reading supports that. Your version is much better, but it's still based off a pretty flawed base. Having read both versions pretty close, I'm just not convinced yet etiher way. i'm being wishywashy, and I know it. I really need to read more, and will try to. I do not wish to work on the long version, it seriously brings my browser to its knees opening it, and I've got a nice newish Mac Pro with enough memory and processor speed to run a nice huge monitor with Photoshop and have PS scream. Bringing this computer to its knees is impressive. I can only imagine what loading that long article on dialup would be like. I've not chosen either way, and it's certainly not an attack at your efforts, you did an amazing job with what you had to work with, and you were working pretty much alone, since no one would help out. Hang in there, keep editing other things, and sooner or later something will work out. At least you don't have the half inch of ice we got here tonight. The stupid temp dropped almost 50 degrees in just about two hours too. Gotta love the Midwest! Ealdgyth | Talk 03:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Nah, didn't think you'd really scream, but you've been working hard to try to keep things organized, figured the least I could do was comment elsewhere. I haven't actually met you in person, but we've been at cons before and I have GM friends, so I know that you wouldn't get that upset about commenting! Ealdgyth | Talk 03:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I got caught up on bishops so... User:Ealdgyth/Sources. Take a look and let me know what you think. I'm still adding right now, getting what I have on the shelves in there, then you can play too. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There, got what I have in hand in, at the moment. Didn't put journal articles in since all of them fall into the "A" or "B" category. It's all yours!Ealdgyth | Talk 03:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Updated. And changed the ratings on what is in there. Now to go run and get snack food for the game this afternoon... Ealdgyth | Talk 15:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Cilicia

I forgot about the continuing dispute. As far as I can see, there does seem to be an issue of undue weight regarding the Mongols in some of those articles (not sure about Cilicia yet, I haven't checked it thoroughly). To be honest, I'd rather avoid contributing to the Arb. I was marginally involved in a particularly bad one earlier this month and I've got plenty of Wiki-conflict elsewhere. I'll probably leave this article alone until we've seen what the outcome of the dispute is. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Administrators_open_to_recall#Bad_faith_requests

I've replied to your suggestion, further discussion may be merited. That page runs in fits and starts. ++Lar: t/c 17:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Dreamguy again

Hi again. New at all this. Don't know how to do:

• Move the new request to the top of the page, above the archive line
• As Dmcdevit said above, be sure to include a link to the ArbCom page

Jack1956 (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I've done it correctly. Jack1956 (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, me again. Can you advise me please how I elevate my RfCU to the ArbCom Enforcement area, as DG is under their purview. Dmcdevit has taken on the role of Checkuser for the case but just seems to be sitting on it. Thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Post in this thread: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#DreamGuy. Assume that whichever Arbs are reading it, have no familiarity whatsoever with the case, and aren't going to give you more than a few minutes of their time. Keep your post short (1-2 paragraphs max), include diffs and links such as to the previous request(s), quote the relevant policy that is being violated (from WP:SOCK), and make a clear statement about what exactly it is that you would like them to do, and why. Good luck, --Elonka 21:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Jack1956 (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence

I've asked PHG to remove the mention of me from his evidence, and in fairness I must ask you to do the same, or at least to modify your assertions. For instance, the heading PHG has been uploading images that are copyright violations goes beyond anything I have claimed. To the best of my knowledge, the 54 uploads I questioned are all viable as copyright/fair use and the problem is that he uploaded them to the wrong site with the wrong license statement.

Since the matter is not actually settled at Commons it's premature to raise this as evidence in the Wikipedia arbitration case. PHG's response suggests improper motives and I have asked him to modify it, so that I can avoid posting a rebuttal. Due to the technical nature of the licensing issue my evidence post would be a lengthy one and could distract from the main points of the Franco-Mongol alliance case. Durova^Charge! 23:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look and see what I can do. --Elonka 23:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

Columbia Daily Spectator has replied to my query and affirmed that the paper and photographer Francis Bartus share joint ownership of the rights to the portrait. I replied to request reproduction permission and am awaiting their response to that. Meanwhile I have changed my opinion to delete at the Commons discussion because Commons doesn't host copyrighted images. It may be possible to transwiki this to Wikipedia. I have also posted to the Commons AN board to request assistance with the OTRS mechanisms; this is an unusual situation. Your cooperation would be a help. I'd like to settle the image issue so it doesn't rear its ugly head again. Durova^Charge! 00:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Spectator has given permission to use the photo if we credit them and their credited photographer. I suppose this means a transwiki to en:Wikipedia and a new OTRS submission. Currently I'm asking around for the details on that. Durova^Charge! 09:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Viam agnoscere veritatis

Elonka: Thanks for the third opinion and suggestions at Talk:Seljuk Sultanate of Rûm. I will resume cleaning that article up soon but at the moment have been working on Viam agnoscere veritatis. Would you have time, amid the many other projects you are working on, to return to Viam agnoscere veritatis and discriminate among the sources? I remember reading somewhere a sound pronouncement by Adam Bishop that discouraged editors from piling citation upon citation when one would suffice. Some sentences there have several sources. You know these sources better than I. Would you clear some brush so that I may plant? Aramgar (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Working Group login

Hi Elonka, just letting you know I've sent an email (via the English Wikipedia email function) to you with details about your Working Group wiki login details. Be sure to change your password once you log in, for security reasons! If there's any problems with the login (passwords, username not working, or anything), fire me an email and I'll try and sort them out for you. Looking forward to working with you as a fellow group member! Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC), note User:Thatcher is the clerk, not me, I'm just opening for him. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As I told Kafkta this... Feel free to use my name in the ArbCom case. I'm still on the fence about submitting, mainly since most of it is content related, but have no issues with someone else using examples involving me. I've been super busy this weekend, so haven't had time to write anything up either. (Although at one point I was a hairsbreath away from doing something...) Ealdgyth | Talk 02:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation and ArbCom

Tariq, I notice that you re-added PHG's statement about mediation to the ArbCom evidence page, per some sort of off-wiki discussion.[1] Could you please fill me in on the exact details here, so that I know what I can and can't refer to from the mediation, myself? Thanks, Elonka 20:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion seemed to have died down a couple days ago, but for some reason the re-addition has just about immediately resurrected the discussion (sigh). In any event, the heart of what was said so far is that PHG's evidence -- the "breach" -- occurred after the mediation, on the talk page of the article. There was, however, some dissenting opinion. -- tariqabjotu 20:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, I'm not sure I see the distinction here. If I'm understanding right, then all I would have to do, to bring up something from the mediation, would be to talk about it at the article talkpage, and then cite the talkpage? For example, I would like to bring up that PHG was citing Latin as a source, but the Latin didn't actually say what he was saying it did. So now, that I've posted that here on your talkpage, I should just diff your talkpage as my "evidence" since I am talking about it post-mediation? That seems bizarre. A cleaner solution would just be to remove any mention of mediation from any talkpages, be it from the Arb evidence page, or the Franco-Mongol alliance archives. Or, as I mentioned above, let's just open up the entire thing. --Elonka 20:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I won't say much about the idea of opening up the entire mediation, but, as for the rest, I'll say that you're not understanding correctly. Something was agreed during the mediation. At some point after the mediation, you (as noted on the article talk page) changed your mind regarding the agreement, and so agreed to something else. That clearly did not occur during the mediation, unlike (I presume) the content of your example. I have to leave, by the way. -- tariqabjotu 20:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wykagyl

Done - not sure who protected it, it certainly wasn't me and nothing shows up in the log. c_c east.718 at 23:01, January 31, 2008

Tampering with others' edits

STOP moving around my contributions on the Franco-Mongol alliance Talk Page ([2]), especially my response with the Muslim sources about the capture of Jerusalem. You are not just archiving here, you are taking away critical parts of a thread. This is highly disruptive and unethical. In the real world, tampering with the evidence is a criminal offense, you know... :) PHG (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

PHG, I am not "tampering", I am "archiving." The talkpage has been fast-moving, and I have been routinely archiving any threads which have had no replies in a few days. If you still want people to see the information, all you have to do is link to the archive: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 5#Thread name. It doesn't have to be on the main talkpage. --Elonka 17:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, cutting a thread midway is just misleading and dishonest. Leave threads together, and archive them as a block. PHG (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I am unaware of cutting any threads midway. Everything I archived was in sections. --Elonka 17:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheering from the sidelines

Hi - just want to say "thank you" for being able and willing to follow through on PHG. As far as I can tell, dealing with this type of editor is the absolutely most painful part of editing Wikipedia, and I'm sure many others would just have left the case, saying "others will have to solve it".

Here's to hoping sanity wins! --Alvestrand (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Hopefully what i just posted helps. Let me know if I botched something terribly? Ealdgyth | Talk 03:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just plain exhausted. And tired of having that hanging over my head. I'll sleep on it and rework it some in the morning, I think. Definitely try to work in your suggestions. Given the great big case that just landed on ArbCom's lap today, Im thinking this F-M case is going to be slow-tracked. You might be done with the trade show before they start! Heck, I might be deep into foal pictures by then.. ugh! Ealdgyth | Talk 04:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Totally unrelated to Mongols

Question, since you seem to be around tonight. I recently added some information to a new article Bitless bridle started by a new editor. The article as he started it was very much "anti-bit" POV, and I merely added referenced and sourced information to expand the article, as well as removing a commercial external link. Soon after I finished up, the new editor came in and removed most of what I had added, bringing it back down to what he had written, with some source citations I'd added and one sentence left. I left a note on the talk page and the editors page, but quite honestly I don't usually deal with this sort of behavior. Chance you could take a look at the situation and tell me if I'd be out of line to just revert him or what? We're talking mainstream sources here in what I added, nothing controversial. Mainly an expansion of what the bridles are used for. But his edits leave the article with a distinct (to a horseperson at least) anti-bit feel. Not helped by some talk page comments he made to another editor either. Thanks! Ealdgyth | Talk 01:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I also wonder if this isn't somewhat tied into promoting something commercial, given the name of the editor's account and the name of the bridle given in the caption. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I'm actually going to be on the road for the next week or two, so my wiki-time will be severely curtailed. I'm on my way to the airport now, but will try to take a look when I'm more stationary.  :) --Elonka 16:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Events seem to be taking care of the issue, I think. A couple of other horse editors have stepped in. Perhaps some newbie biting is going on, but the newb's biting back so... all is fair or something. So don't let it stress you. I'm off Wed also for Vegas, so I sympathize. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I gladly agree to your proposal to open up the content of our mediation on the Franco-Mongol alliance. PHG (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Brian D Foy/brian d foy

Hi Elonka, would you care to join us or at least have an eye on the current discussion at Talk:brian d foy? The whole thing is probably just another routine quarrel on formatting, but I do get a little tense once opposing editors feel the need to point out their admin status, so having another sysops wielder around for checks and balances might considerably improve the climate over there. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 07:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

PWNO

Elonka, I don't wish to distrub thee too much from the time-sucking thing that is the [{Franco-Mongol alliance]], but I fear your moderating voice is needed for the WP:PWNB. Things had gotten good for a while, but there are signs that it may go back to its old ways. I refer you to comments such as this and this. As Piotrus has let such comments go, I'm requesting you to put in a word. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd love to help, but I'm currently traveling, and just snatching a few minutes here and there for Wikipedia, while perched in my hotel room. If you think things are bad enough, you could try taking it to ANI. Or if not, I'll try to take a look when I'm back home again. Good luck, Elonka 22:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Just don't want things to return to their old ways. Enjoy your trip! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Kaaba

Hi, You had previously voted to support a Kaaba picture at FPC. An edit has been made to that picture and is up for voting again. I would be pleased if you could please vote for it. Regards, Muhammad(talk) 14:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

KT

I wondered why your recent edit to this article has a misleading edit summary suggesting it was merely MoS:DP cleanup. The addition of Template:Tocright could be considered as such, but you also added alternative capitalisations to the lede as expressly forbidden in the start of MoS:DP, re-ordered many entries without explanation (not that I actually wish to dispute that), removed redlinks and their most relevant wikilinks for reasons I can't fathom, added entries and increased the length of some entries by re-writing them into WP:DICDEFs describing the words rather than the concepts (as is expected in an encyclopedia).

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 12:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well first, WP:MOSDAB is a guideline, not a policy. I reviewed my changes but don't see exactly which problems that you're referring to.[3] In any case, on Wikipedia, if you see something you would like to change, the best way to deal with things is usually to just change it, not to chase after the previous editor who was on the page. There are preferred methods of doing things, but that doesn't mean that they're required. Either way, your change seems fine, it could really be done either way.[4] --Elonka 19:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

Hi Elonka, I was sent here by Jehochmen because I had a dispute about an edit at the quantum cryptography page ([5] here is a link to the diff). He deleted a large amount of text that I feel didn't need to be deleted. I explain my stance in the talk page. I already undid his edit, then he redid it, and I dont' want to get into an "undo" war, so if you could help me it would be much appreciated! Thanks!--MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In theory...

My ISP has fixed my issues. Note I said in theory. Things seem to be working for now... we'll see what happens. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words

I appreciate the kind words. Honestly, I'm just a kid playing with a new toy, User:AWeenieMan/furme -- RoninBK _{T C} 05:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet hunt

(This relates to your question to DarkoNeko)

Howdy,

If you're looking for user:Geir Smith, yes he's the creator of the French version of the Boubouleix article. IP 86.207.56.195 also intervened, as well as the 4 IP and users below. No other contributor of significance.

FYI: fr:user:Lord Hearntown, fr:user:D A A Boubouleix and fr:user:D Boubouleix are all sockpuppets of one another (+IP 86.207.121.187), but seem to be distinct from G.S. (we ran a Check User on them names, see here).

Hope this helps! Cheers, Popo le Dog ^{throw a bone} 10:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

what he said :) DarkoNeko x 11:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) --Elonka 16:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

G. Smith incident

It was a very strange incident. Both the main perpetrators, Geir Smith and Dominique Boubouleix (plus his various socks), have been banned from Wikipedia. They posted some bizarre conspiracy theory rants about you here and on the French Wikipedia. You can see the unfolding saga at WP:FTN. We concluded that Smith was a crank who was trolling for hits for his website(s). He was desperate to get PHG on his side but we haven't found evidence that PHG was involved in any way. As Dbachmann said: "it transpires that [PHG] is embraced as a brother in arms by the Warriors of Shambhala because he is in dispute with Elonka. I am sure he will be nonplussed to learn of his popularity among the Immortals". Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"My CIA handlers will be pleased". Boubouleix's sock puppet "Lord Hearntown" also alleged you were really Jewish and a Mossad agent on French Wikipedia (since blanked). I haven't kept track of PHG's editing history in detail but we found no on-wiki evidence of collaboration between him and Smith, so I have no idea whether he's been inducted into the Warrior Cult of Shambhala, knowingly or unknowingly. This whole episode has been the strangest I have encountered on Wikipedia and has left me wondering about the quality of mental health care in France. --Folantin (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Dirty Dancing

Let me know if you want me to look at the article. I'm certainly not the greatest FAC reveiwer, but I can usually see where something is unclear. Normally I don't do "modern" stuff much, things past the Reformation bore me usually. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

ah, and I keep forgetting about this resource, you can dig around at WP:PRV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to get to it tomorrow. I do most of my reviewing in the morning while my eyes are still fresh and I can face the task of being utterly picky. (grins). Ealdgyth | Talk 04:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There, later than I hoped (stupid Daylight savings time change always annoys me) but got it done. I put a few questions/concerns/suggestions up on the talk page. Hopefully it helps. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Request for review

Thanks for the message Elonka. Arabo-Norman civilization did not exist... and a quick Google search for the term shows the Wikipedia article as the only result. It should be speedy redirected to Norman conquest of southern Italy... because that is the time period in which Sicily went from been a Muslim country, to once against a Christian country (under the Normans). I'll redirect it myself due to it been a completely invented term. - Gennarous (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorkhagtni bekh

Dear Elonka and Friends,

I read the secret history of mongols 3 times. Because I am mongol. Although I am a financer, i love medieval history especially mongolian.

I think the right spell for her name is Sorkhagtni but not Sorgaghtni. I think mongols did not use K instead of Kh or H in early times. K is foreign letter for us. For example, people call some names such as Kublai, Kaidu (or Qaidu)and more. Mongols call them Khubilai and Khaidu in mongolian.

Thank you!

Enerelt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enerelt (talk • contribs) 01:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Baghdad (1258)

I imagine you're already aware of the baloney going on around this article, but I thought I'd alert you just in case. I've already deleted some of the dreck on the talk page per WP:TALK but it's been reinstated. Several good quality editors now have an eye on this article so there's a limit to how far the nonsense will be allowed to go. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, and I'm glad to hear that others are keeping an eye on it. I'm still going to be traveling off and on for the next week or two, and my wiki-time is severely curtailed. Looks like I'll have lots of !entertaining reading to do when I get back! :) --Elonka 18:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That certainly sounds like our old friend Dr B. (I'm not the only one to think so either [6]). --Folantin (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: blocked indefinitely by Moreschi [7]. Dr. B and his possible imitators are already indef. blocked so their socks can be instantly blocked too. --Folantin (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

longissimam agnoscere veritatis viam

Elonka: your recommendation at Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis seems sound. Would you mind, however, proposing the redirects cognoscere and agnoscere for speedy deletion by way of {{db-author}}? These are ordinary Latin infinitives with many other uses. Aramgar (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The solution for cognoscere and agnoscere is good. Aramgar (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

This Arbitration case is closed and the final decision has been published at the link above. PHG (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to medieval or ancient history for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion. PHG is reminded that in contributing to Wikipedia (including his talkpage contributions, contributions in other subject-matter areas, and contributions after the one-year editing restriction has expired), it is important that all sourced edits must fairly and accurately reflect the content of the cited work taken as a whole. PHG is also reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and it is essential that all editors work towards compromise and a neutral point of view in a good-faith fashion. When one editor finds themselves at odds with most other editors on a topic, it can be disruptive to continue repeating the same argument. After suggestions have been properly considered and debated, and possible options considered, if a consensus is clear, the collegial and cooperative thing to do is to acknowledge the consensus, and move on to other debates.

PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects in other ways, including by suggesting topics for articles, making well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, and continuing to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons.

For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 01:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, while my mind was on other things, somebody just quietly got on with a very careful and well researched job, and got a result that will help raise the quality of Wikipedia's medieval studies articles. Well done, Elonka. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

User:KellyAna

Hi, don't want to bother you, but you're an Admin now — with that and your vast experience (and participation in WP:SOAPS), I'd like your advice on how to deal with KellyAna. I have just hit my limit with her behavior and misguided edits. As you may know, she does not accept criticism or advice, but I am hoping there is an official way to get through to her. Her edit summaries and history and behavior on her own talk page (she ignores or deletes critical comments because they're placed "in the wrong place" on her page) should prove my case alone, but there are also several editors I feel she has terrorized and steamrolled lately and their interaction would also be illuminating. Please advise. — TAnthony^Talk 03:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. I have previously warned this user several times for her edit-warring, falsely labelling good-faith edits as vandalism, a technical problem with her user talk page, etc. Because of the idiosyncratic way she 'archives' her user talk, you may want to read the history, from about here on to get a picture. Best wishes, and I hope adminship is suiting you. --John (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This may also be of interest. --John (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Elonka, as always ... I have never felt the need to intervene with an editor like this before, so I appreciate your advice. I of course don't wish to get KellyAna "in trouble" or even blocked, but hope to somehow get her to listen to reason. I do plan to post a detailed comment on her talk page, and amass links to the various recent situations I feel have been a problem (like John's, above). I may even ask you to look it over before I post it, so expect me to get back in touch ;). Thanks again. — TAnthony^Talk 05:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your work in ensuring historical accuracy across a wide range of articles, I award you this Barnstar of Diligence. Horologium (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsensical

A comment that makes no sense is nonsensical and I have a right to remove anything from my page that I don't understand the wording of. It is not "uncivil" it is fact. Have people speak in normal English and I'll not remove their comments. Comments that makes no sense will be removed as "nonsensical." KellyAna (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And how is it I can be called INSANE and that editor doesn't get a warning but I remove a nonsensical comment and I get a civility warning? Double standard much? KellyAna (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently your warning to TAnthony went unheeded. I removed it from my talk page because you told us to stop but you can see his personal attack within my history. KellyAna (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The Real G-Unit BarnStar!

		The Fraternity/Sorority Barnstar
		For being apart of WikiProject Freemasonry! InvisibleDiplomat666 05:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm, thanks, but I'm not comfortable accepting a barnstar just for belonging to a WikiProject. I'd rather know that I actually did something to deserve it. --Elonka 05:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Crusades task force

Hi Elonka, I've created a Crusades task force as part of the Middle Ages WikiProject, which I thought you might be interested in. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Request to amend Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

Hi Elonka. I hope you've been keeping well and enjoying your new shiny buttons :)

Just letting you know that I've filed a request to amend the Franco-Mongol alliance case, mainly the restriction on PHG and medieval or ancient history. Your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance would be much appreciated. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Your new, er, friend

Ok noted. Do you have a policy here on :en that allows you to ban people whose username translates into asshole and clearly state that they're not coming to help[8]? I guess that'd save you a loooot of time :-)

Cheers, Popo le Dog ^{throw a bone} 20:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Rude people

[9]. Basically I told him to get off my page if he was going to be rude "clean your glasses" but you've asked me to play nice with others. How is this possible when people attack you just for questioning an uploaded picture. Seriously, I asked TAnthony and he even agreed the picture was not Lorenzo Lamas. KellyAna (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey Elonka. Thanks for blocking 98.194.118.152, I just found out they blanked my user page earlier. Mad Props!--InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 16:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

RE - Do it. That would be peachy. --InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 17:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

List of supercouples

This article has unfortunately taken up far too much of my time at Wikipedia as of late, and I have no time these days to give to it. As it is, I'm limiting myself to one edit a day here since I've got a ridiculous amount of drawing to do in the next week and don't want to overuse my moneymakers typing unless I absolutely have to. Significant progress has been made on this article, but it's come at the price of hurt feelings and more than one editor deciding to leave the article. The current debate centers on an article from "Mount Holyoke News" independent student publication (which is the schools official newspaper I believe) and whether or not it is a reliable source. I've removed it from the List of supercouples article but it is still currently in the Supercouple article.

Anyway, I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look at the current debate and maybe give some feedback on the source and the direction of the article. I've contacted you because I know that Flyer22 and KellyAna (who has all but left the article) both hold you in high regards, and would rather solicit the advice of a friendly and familiar admin that take a crap shoot with the reliable sources noticeboard or filing an RFC. Thanks, Animate

I'm breaking my own rule about posting once a day, but I'm dealing with a little insomnia and am hoping briefly dealing with this will get my mind off work and ready to shut down. Anyway, you should know that this isn't a huge conflict and none of the editing relationships are beyond repair. There are clear "sides" for lack of a better term, but I think (for the most part) everyone has been relatively civil, refactored uncivil comments, and apologized when necessary. The reason I contacted you, is because I think we just need an new set of uninvolved eyes. Right now, there are three or four editors going round and round in circles and it's not productive. I guess this is my own bastardized version of the third opinion option in the dispute resolution process, and what better opinion than that of a fellow editor I know the other editors on the page trust implicitly. AniMate 10:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:USER rationale

Hello. Thank you for stating a rationale at [10].

As wikipedia is a consensus system, it helps to record the rationale behind each decision and best practice, since people are required to supply such a rationale when asked for one. (else negotiation becomes rather difficult ;-) )

Could you please update WP:USER with your information as well?

Thank you very much! :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Meh, why does that sound like a template? Think of it this way: Update the page, and you might avoid having to answer that question again ;-)

re: Advice

The thing is, aside from being an utter [[WP:DICK}tool]], I am not sure which of his ArbCom sanctions he would be violating. The same edit, offered over and over again wth naught but edit summaries to provide his reasoning is disruptive, sure. And yes, he is the ony one being disruptive in the article. And yes, he has chased away at least one editor. I am not sure how - aside from being a disruptive lout - this is anything more than an AN/I complaint. I welcome your thoughts on how to proceed, though. People are getting fed up in the article, and I don't want more to walk away, afraid to comment. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Supercouples

Hello Elonka, Thank you so much for agreeing to help out on the list of supercouples. Trouble is brewing again down to a conflict of views - as evidenced on AniMate's talk page. You expert guidance skills would be appreciated here! And yes, I need to control my temper....Paul75 (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Elonka, trouble's not brewing, I'm too busy pulling my head out of my ass and trying to figure out how to deal with people in the real world to cause trouble on the article. Not that I need to tell you, but please view my talk page. KellyAna (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If my comment about how KellyAna dealing with people outside of Wikipedia crossed a line, I apologize, but I've noticed what seems to be a pattern of immediate incivility with people who she doesn't agree with. You say she's getting better, than I'll believe you. Still I think a reminder of what you said here might be in order. AniMate 00:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't "immediately incivil," I said I just couldn't go back to the page after Paul's insistence the lists must go. That's not uncivil, it's fact. You attacked me, my real life existence, my job, my personal interactions. I wasn't even talking to you and you attacked me. That's a fact that can't be swept under a rug by apologizing to a third party. And those conditions were to be upheld only if Elonka and I were to participate in the article. I gave a waiver and said I couldn't adhere because of Paul's comments and I wouldn't be participating. KellyAna (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)KellyAna you were immediately uncivil with me in our first interaction. You misinterpreted something I said and refused to accept my apology. I see multiple instances on your talk page of confrontations with other users. If I offended you I apologize, but your interactions with people at Wikipedia are problematic and I was merely wondering if you are so quick to fight in your "real" life. I'm guessing no. The thing about being anonymous on the 'net is that we say things we might not normally say in everyday life. I do it. You do it. Elonka and Paul both do it. It was a roundabout way of saying we should interact with each other as if we are sitting across from one another at a table. It was done inartfully, but it was not an attack and I again apologize for offending you. Please accept it.

Also, those conditions Elonka set out are conditions every single Wikipedian should follow no matter what is going on. AniMate 00:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an apology? KellyAna (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Again, I apologize if I offended you. AniMate 00:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't accept what my mother called "back handed apologies" and that's what that was. I never attacked your personal life or being and you can't say the same. I left the article because you and Paul made it your mission to ruin it. I wanted out and you not only tried to pull me back you insulted me in the process. Paul did everything he could to bring me to tears. Your back handed whatever isn't enough. KellyAna (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You have misinterpreted what I said. I never meant to insult your personal life. I am sorry for what I said. AniMate 01:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I can't speak for Paul, but AniMate sounds sincere. If AniMate isn't using words which properly convey that to you though, then the thing to do (per that Transactional analysis thing I told you about), is for you to decide for yourself, "What would I need to hear from AniMate, to help improve our ability to communicate?" Instead of just saying, "You're not meeting my needs" (which is the "C" in the PAC at TA), the more adult way to handle things is to take the responsibility for communication of just what your needs are. Another way of describing it, is with a mother and a baby. If a baby has a wet diaper, the baby just cries, and it's up to the mother to try and deduce what the baby wants, and fix it. But what I'm trying to encourage you to do, is to deal with things in a different way. So instead of just "crying" (not saying that you are, I'm just using that as an analogy), imagine that you were a baby and you could say, "Um, mom, the diaper's wet again. I'd change it but I obviously don't have motor control (or reach past the crib walls here) to do it. Think you could take care of this for me? Thanks so much, I really appreciate it."  :) --Elonka 01:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I am sincere. I never want to hurt anyone's feelings. I do think you misinterpreted what I said, and I really am sorry. That being said, I still think all of the principles Elonka laid out on your talk page are things every single Wikipedian should follow every time they post. Paul certainly did not do that on my talk page, and Elonka correctly warned him. However, I do think incivility and not assuming good faith are real problems with you. We're discussing it here, and it's being discussed on your page by another admin. My mission has never been to ruin anything. All I've wanted is to collaborate with all sides in this and improve the article. AniMate 01:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's what "pisses" me off. I asked weeks ago to get away from the article. I was happy, content to be away and some how someone tried to suck me back in and this happens. Do you see why I wanted out? I wanted nothing to do with any of it. Why did you do this to me? I wanted out, done, gone, bye, over, not to touch again because I can't deal with people like Paul. I don't appreciate this escalation over an article I stepped away from weeks ago. It's very unfair. KellyAna (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason I asked you back is because I was unhappy that you left the article. I wanted to work with you and thought it possible that two people like us with vastly different opinions could work something out. It's as simple as that. No one should feel they have to flee an article. I was simply reaching out to see if maybe you would want to participate in something I knew you had cared about in the past. AniMate 01:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, this is the internet, no one can force you to do anything you don't want to do.  :) If you think someone is "coercing" you to do something, close the browser. :) Unplug the computer, walk away. You have complete control over what you do or don't do online. If you don't want to work on the article, don't. It's as simple as that. You don't need to justify, or explain, or react... Just go work on something you do want to work on.  :) --Elonka 01:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, I cared about it but according to Paul's accusations I claimed to own it. I guarantee you I don't own that article and NEVER claimed to. I've always said that was Flyer's article and I just a contributor. I don't even know that it is you that would be "to blame" but rather Paul. I think maybe, but not necessarily likely, you, Flyer, and I might be able to work things through but Paul is the one I can't work with which is what I was replying to on your page. I just think it's better for me to not be involved because, quite honestly, the removal of the "notable wave" section infuriates me. I know me, I know when it's better to walk away. It was what was best for me and all involved for me to walk away. Look what happened tonight. I've made more enemies than friends tonight and it's all because of that stupid Supercouple list set me off. Just let me walk away. PLEASE. It's what I wanted weeks ago, it's what I still want. And what else I want is for Elonka to help me and this article isn't part of that agenda when the talk about it includes comments like "what planet" and "pull your head out." I just don't need that abuse, I have a teenager, I get enough abuse at home =)KellyAna (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I also apologise to KellyAna for my comments if it is any use. In defending myself in probably an undefenbisble situation is thyat you are increasing difficult to work with KellyAna. From the moment myself and AniMate came across this article, if you have been aggressive and uncivil. All i did was stumble across an article by sheer mistake that I thought needed some help. Correctly or incorrectly, I thought it didn't adhere to Wikipedia guidelines and thought it could be improved - AniMate obviously felt the same. I feel incredibly frustrated that every time we attempt to do something, you turn on us and cry foul. This is the reason why I suggested you behave as if you own the article. When I made one of my first edits to the article you left me a message saying something along the lines of "Thank you for experimenting on the List Of Supercouples article - please don't do it again, next time use the sandbox". That is not a very helpful attitude. It is this frustration of being able to get anywhere with you that lead me to lash out yesterday with some unkind language. I am sorry, it shouldn't have been said and yes I have problems control my temper. My apologies go out to you, AniMate, Elonka and everyone else involved. It was a stupid thing to do and did not advance the case any further. But KellyAna, please, no matter what I have said in the past can you try and be a little more flexible with us, and not shout us down everytime we say something? We are NOT trying to ruin this article, despite what you think. We are not the Wicked Witches of the West patrolling Wikipedia in an attempt to destroy things. We both just happened to see an article we thought needed help. OUR thoughts. No-one elses. Wikipedia is there to be read, used, edited and changed by everyone and we have the right to our own opinion. From day one both myself and AniMate have been confronted with rudeness and uncivility, but we have weathered the storm. If you could please accept that we have differing views and then we can all move on. And yes, I don't like lists - so what? Do you really think that means I will be a one man army that will destroy every list on the site? I really don;t have the time or inclination. By walking away from this list now, you are effectively giving control to the evil twins leaving us free to do whatever we want to the article, and I don't think you want that.  :) Why don't you stick around, I don't care if you hate me, internet snipings don't bother me. Just please please try and accept that we all have different views and are not insidiously evil out to ruin things. Paul75 (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Paul, anything and everything you say only makes things worse, as you've done here AGAIN. The message, Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. is just a default message used by Wikipedia, it's a template not my words. If you'd been around as long as you claim, you should know that and not have taken it personally. What absolutely gauls me is I haven't even touched the article but to add one reference in a long time and when I repeated WHY I won't touch it, because of you and what you've done, you immediately attacked. You should have celebrated because I was stating I wasn't coming back and you could continue ruining the article to your hearts content. Why when I'm saying "I'll leave you to your destruction and won't interfere" are you still attacking me? I really think you need to look at the past conversations and stop attacking me for NOT PARTICIPATING. Stop dwelling and stop attacking me. And what "walking away now"??? I walked away WEEKS AGO see here where my last comment was February 28 so LEAVE ME ALONE and move on and go back to destroying the Supercouple list but LEAVE ME OUT OF IT. Your apology is not accepted as it is backhanded and lacks knowledge of my lack of involvement and lack of desire to be involved. KellyAna (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

What the?

Any thoughts on this one? [11]?? IRC? Banned? Blocked because I'm pissy tonight but banned and what is IRC? Is this a joke? KellyAna (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

DreamGuy at AE

Not sure if you were aware of it, but I submitted a report on DreamGuy at AE. I am also not sure if you want to be involved with it, but perhaps you could tell me how long it takes for investigation/action to be taken on a submitted enforcement complaint. Either way, thanks for pointing me int he right direction with your comment on my User Talk page. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, GMTA, I actually just posted. As for how long it takes to get action, it really depends who's watching the page. It might be worth posting a note at ANI, reminding the admins there to check the enforcement board since no one else seems to be watching it at the moment. If you do post at ANI, let me know and I'll weigh in too. --Elonka 17:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering your long history of wikistalking me, Elonka, you know you shouldn't be getting involved here. But then you never seem to care. DreamGuy (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

DreamGuy, the above comment is uncivil, an assumption of bad faith, and a violation of your ArbCom restrictions (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2). Please, understand that I do see the good work that you do. I know you have expertise in certain topic areas, and I do see you working hard to fight spam and vandalism and POV-pushing, and I appreciate how much you care about Wikipedia. What I don't like though, is when you mistreat other editors, when you assume bad faith, and when you play fast and loose with the truth. When you are uncivil, you make Wikipedia a more unpleasant place to work. I also take exception with the way that you throw around terms such as "harassment" and "stalking". When you make false accusations like that, it makes situations more difficult to resolve. Even when you are being faced with rude behavior, it does not give you the right to be rude in return. And when people caution you about rude behavior, you most especially do not have the right to react to them with abusive comments and false accusations, and thereby further escalate the situation.

I wish that you could hear the good things that people say about what you do, and take enough pride in that, that you didn't have to react so defensively to the bad. I wish that you could acknowledge your temper, and say, "I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said that, I'm going to try and do better in the future." If you could do that, I think you would find an enormous number of people here who would be eager to put aside old grievances, and genuinely try to give you another chance. Apologies can be powerful. I wish you would consider one once in awhile. --Elonka 23:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for trying

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For grace under fire and for effortless diplomacy in tense situations. AniMate 23:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Your "Dancing With the Stars" analogy was dead on. I know how much effort goes in to playing referee with two people bound and determined to piss each other off, but... you make it look easy. Cheers. AniMate 00:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to butt in on the barnstar but if you REALLY think I was "bound and determined to piss Paul off" then you are sorely wrong. You came to me, I came back and said why I had to decline and then he attacked, as did you AniMate. How exactly does that make me "bound and determined to piss him off?" KellyAna (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm, Kelly, he didn't mention you. I work with other disputes, too. :) In fact, if you look at my contribs, I think you'll find some things that you might find interesting. --Elonka 01:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was the only one she was "involved" with. LOL. Believe me, I know you deserve the Barnstar. If I knew how to create one you'd get the "BARNSTAR FOR PUTTING UP WITH PAINS IN THE ASS" which is one you really need. =) I've admired your work for months since the Pauleen Fowler article. Didn't mean to rain on your parade. KellyAna (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Well, I could link you to a page that shows how to create Barnstars, but I shudder to think what the graphic might look like for that particular one.  ;) "I hereby award you the Hemorrhoid Barnstar"....  :) --Elonka 02:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not that bad. This is what I thought would be appropriate (you get to throw little Ninja stars at me and those like me =)

		The Barnstar of Putting up with the Likes of Me
		For putting up with all of us that try your patience and make you want to pull your hair out but who really do appreciate your efforts, grace, understanding, and patience. KellyAna (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The other option was:

		The Barnstar of Putting up with Crabby People
		For putting up with all of us that try your patience and make you want to pull your hair out but really do appreciate you. KellyAna (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

*ahem* My name is gender neutral, but she is actually a he. As an aside, I know it's not in your area, but I've been working on getting Nazi human experimentation up to GA status. A terribly unpleasant subject, I know, but an important one. Would you mind taking a look and giving me some feedback. If you do I'll forgive you for your pronoun foible. AniMate 02:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that explains SO much.

Elonka ~ I have a friend helping me and we are going to have a great Barnstar for you. You'll love it. KellyAna (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

AniMate, sorry about the pronoun thing! As for your article, I'm afraid all I can do is wish you well. I unfortunately had family at Auschwitz, who yes, had contact with Mengele. I already bump into the Nazi atrocities enough while I'm doing genealogy work, because of all the holes in my family tree, and death dates from World War II.[12] I do not think that I could maintain my cool while working on that kind of an article. :/ --Elonka 02:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Very understandable, it's the worst article I've ever worked on. I had family at Mauthausen-Gusen, so I understand how hard working on Holocaust articles can be. Still, thanks for everything. I'm just going to go ahead and submit it for GA review once I've tweaked some retrieved dates. I've had to really be clinical and detached with this, and I still feel bad whenever I work on it. Thank you anyway, and you're forgiven for the pronoun slip. And KellyAna it does explain SO much. It explains why I'm so incredibly awesome (which I'm sure is what you meant). AniMate 02:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Kindly explain

Hi Elonka,

regarding your arb enforcement call, if you could provide the rationale for your decision, as I'm not too clear on how you arrived at said decision. It doesn't have to be long, if you can just give me a general idea of how you perceived the situation, I'd appreciate it.

--Skyelarke (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka,

Thanks for taking the time to reply - the thing is, several of your statements on the noticeboard appear to me to be innacurate, I'm sorry to say - but I don't want importune you with a long discussion about them - but there are three points that I'd like to raise -

1) The whole problem to me hinges on the relevance of those images - I must reiterate that they are very important to the discussion - I would not have called a RFC without being able to include them - and the image question is mentioned in remedy 2 of the arb decision (and is mentioned prominently elsewhere on the RFA page).

2) Edit warring? Does one instance of reversion consitute edit- warring? If so, then by definition should not User JGreb should also be included in that instance?

3) I am curious as to why the unusual (and to me rather severe) enforcement i.e. contrary to the steps stipulated in the enforcement indications, when normally an initial offense is usually met with a warning, as was the first case?

Cordially,

--Skyelarke (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanky for the reply,

What can I say? I must respectfully disagree with most of your replies - although I won't pursue my objections any further - again thanks for your time -

I would like to make one suggestion however - maybe wait a while before continuing to handle arbcom enforcement cases? (I don't mean to sound condescending, but I think it is one of the tougher areas to handle on Wikipedia, for anyone).

I say this because the impression I get is that although I think you handled the request OK on the whole and consciensciously so- I get the impression that there's a lack of pragmatic experience in dealing with conflict resolution situations, image questions, edit warring, etc...

Maybe deal with some less complex stuff at the community notice notice board or the adminstrator's incidents noticeboard a bit before tackling the arbcom thing? No offense intended, just trying to make a pragmatically helpful suggestion.

All the best,

--Skyelarke (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)