User talk:Elonka/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Windy City Dude

Yes it really is me. Sorry, nothing is wrong with my login, it's just that this account has a template that's not really intuitive to navigate with and I've been too lazy to figure out how to change it back. I'll make sure to keep logged in in the future. Thanks Windy City Dude 16:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Bengali / Bangladeshi

Hi Elonka, thanks for your message. Sadly, Bengal is not a country by itself, rather divided into two parts, the country of Bangladesh, and the Indian state of West Bengal.

Bengali people are an ethnic group who are the majority in the ethno-linguistic region of Bengal ... the common factor is the Bengali language spoken by them.

On the other hand, Bangladeshi is a nationality, used for citizens of Bangladesh. A person can be both Bengali and Bangladeshi, or Bengali or Indian, or a Chakma and Bangladeshi ... and so on.

In case of Fateh's father, he is definitely a Bangladeshi citizen of Bengali ethnicity. So, both the ethnic adjective Bengali and nationality adjective Bangladeshi applies to him. For Eenasul Fateh, the same thing might apply.

The Category:British Bengalis, on the other hand, includes people of Bengali descent, from both Bangladesh and West Bengal, who are British.

Thanks. --Ragib 19:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

T (disambiguation)‎ question

Hello! I was wondering, what do you think needs to be cleaned up in the T (disambiguation)‎ article? I'd like to know what you think so that I can clean it up if needed. Thanks! -- ArglebargleIV 03:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Matt Casamassina

Hi Elonka. I'm glad to see that you still are smiling. Matt Casamassina is an article to which you have contributed (the last time was on 11/21/2006). A blast from the past, but the article needs some TLC. Matt appears to have addressed the Matt Casamassina Wikipedia article in his recent blog, here, where he writes

"When my brother called me the other day and told me that I even have a Wikipedia page that calls into question my Halo DS blog, I realized I had to at the very least prove that I hadn't completely hatched the entire thing."

Would you please review the situation and take the appropriate action. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 13:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Re: British Bengali

Yes, it would have been more desirable if we had only linguistic and natural geographic classification of people, instead of nationalistic devisions. May be something along the the line of "Bengali-speaking people of the British Islands". But, that may be a bit far fetched in current social orders around the world. The Bangladeshi-origin population in Britain is not only a really large crowd, it also drws special attention of the home and foreign offices there. Much negotiations between Bangladesh and UK governments revolve around these people. Besides, Bengalis who come from India are already classified as British Indians. There is no reason why the same logic should not be applied to Bangladeshis as well. Not doing so would be as inadvisable as identifying an Urdu-speaking British only as such, blurring the difference between the Indian-born and the Pakistani-born people, or even identifying Mexican Americans as just Spanish-speaking people. Baroness Paula Manzila Uddin, the Brick Lane (both in reality and in the novel), Londonis from Sylhet are all Bangladeshi stuff, not merely Bengali. There is already a budding sub-South Asian genre of British Bangladeshi literature, and most Indians restaurants in the UK are owned and run by Bangladeshis. Bangladesh has been in existence for three hand a half decades, and the language may not be the only way of classification used in recognizing people from Bangladesh. Sorry to butt in uninvited. I hope you don't mind. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I really have no strong opinion on the matter. I'm glad to see that others have given it a lot of thought, and I will bow to your decisions on it.  :) --Elonka 15:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I really need a bonk on the head for not watching talk pages. Sorry for not noticing the reply. Anyways, thanks for the understanding. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

May I have your opinion ?

May I have your opinion of Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem? I have cleaned it up from what I felt was a long bunch of lists, but I think your knowledge of some of the details and dates might help. Personally I think they are kind of hoaky, and the implications at legit-ness are awfully thin. " Smile and they wont suspect a thing." Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 22:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Soaps!

Hey, long time no chat! I'd love your input on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas, Oh Wise One; I fear I'm looking like an a-hole in a new ratings discussion but don't know how else to put it. TAnthony 04:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You see, your last comment at WP:SOAPS is a perfect example of why you ROCK.  ;) --TAnthony 18:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Awww, thanks. You've been doing amazing work yourself! Sorry I haven't been participating more... Most of my attention these days has been on articles about the Crusades, but I'll do my best to help out when I can. Thanks for drawing my attention to the debate!  :) --Elonka 18:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources for Stanley Dunin

Greetings, I have been keeping an eye on the Stanley Dunin article after its AfD, and from this dif you can see that the infomation about your father's aerospace engineer days has been removed. I noted in this autobiography that you verified these facts, but do you know of any other sources for this info? Fosnez 07:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I do, do you have skype? My microphone is stuffed at the moment, but we can still type. Just search for my username --> Fosnez 07:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just found your contact details now, i'll add you on msn. Fosnez 07:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to head out of the house for a few hours. But drop me a message on msn if you want, it should have come through by now. Fosnez 07:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny Message from Jehochman

		Ready to swab the deck!
		Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Have a fantastic day. Arrrgh! - - Jehochman Talk 03:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Jacques de Molay

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jacques de Molay. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. PHG 09:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems this a pretty unnecessary warning - Elonka has only made 2 reverts to that page whereas PHG has made 3... Reading though the talkpage I am struck by the fact that you have never participated there. Recalling the discussion on another talkpage that the consensus of historians is that Jerusalem was not captured by Mongols in the period in question (a view confirmed by impartial editors such as Danny), it seemed to me that your caption was not representing scholarly consensus on the matter. Elonka's caption seemed preferable. Given that the incident depicted did not occur, the "legends" section seems appropriate to me. WjBscribe 09:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I only did one edit, and then two revs when Elonka reverted my edit twice. I think Elonka's caption is uncesseraly POV and could take a more neutral stance: a painting is not "Erroneously-titled".. it is just titled by its author, and modern scholars are divided on the question of the occupation by the Mongols and Armenians in 1300. Regards. PHG 09:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No, your "edit" was a revert of the change I'd made a couple weeks ago. --Elonka 09:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it was certainly not a revert, just a rewrite I did afresh to implement a better neutrality. You are wrongfully claiming a revert when it is not the case: this is just not called a revert. Regards. PHG 09:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

PHG, you clearly made 3 reverts: 1, 2, 3. As to issues with the text, I suggest you agree a compromise text between you on the talkpage. WjBscribe 10:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but Nb 1 is an edit and a rewrite, certainly not a revert. Regards. PHG 10:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, its a revert of this prior edit from September 18th... WjBscribe 10:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid not, it is rewrite and balancing of that edit. Nothing to do with a revert. PHG 10:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Its a revert because it undid a previous edit by another user, the context is immaterial. You may wish to read WP:3RR#What is a revert? If you want to put it to the test, try reverting the article again and see if a hereto uninvolved admin blocks you - I really don't recommend that course of action though... WjBscribe 10:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It certainly did not undo a previous edit by Elonka, it was just a modification of what she had written, a very normal process on Wikipedia. She did, however, bluntly revert my edit. Regards. PHG 11:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Ned Scott

A "revert" from half a month ago has little to nothing to do with a current 3RR accusation. I know this is none of my business, and I don't really care who's right or wrong, but nitpicking at reverts like this is just silly. Instead of doing that, shouldn't you be telling them to talk it out on the talk page, or to just stop it to both of them? -- Ned Scott 10:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have encouraged discussion, but I think people need to be clear on what a revert is. I wasn't referencing the edit from last month to include it as a revert, but to bring to PHG's attention that his first edit was indeed a revert (it undid an edit that had previously been made to the page) and therefore counted for 3RR purposes. WjBscribe 10:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ned, if you really want to read up on this, check out Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance. There's more going on here than just 3RR. --Elonka 10:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care, but it bothers me to see WJB taking sides like this, as if your two reverts were somehow "less bad" than PHG's. -- Ned Scott 10:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the page myself - so I can hardly claim impartiality. The reason I did so was that reading though the talkpage I was struck that PHG had taken no part there despite the presence of a related discussion. I also recalled the discussion on another talkpage that the consensus of historians is that Jerusalem was not captured by Mongols in the period in question (a view confirmed by Danny - who you will remember is far from Elonka's greatest fan). My only conclusion was that PHG's caption did not represent scholarly consensus on the matter and that Elonka's caption was preferable. I therefore reverted. It is my practice to warn all editors who have made 3 reverts to a page about 3RR so I warned PHG accordingly. I have offered advice on how to structure the talkpage discussions [1] but I am also being careful to make sure PHG understands 3RR so that he does not do anything foolish (like revert again). While I wish Elonka had not reverted twice, her conduct does not seem nearly as problematic. WjBscribe 10:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, fair enough. -- Ned Scott 10:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ned Scott. WJBscribe, I understand 3RR perfectly, but branding "a revert" a rewrite of an edit that is 1-month-old really makes little sense. I consider Elonka actually reverted twice an edit I did in good faith to have a more neutral point of view. No big deal, really. Regards. PHG 11:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Peasants Revolt

Hi Elonka. There's a redlink to Peasant's Revolt in the Knights templar article. Is it refering to English peasants' revolt of 1381? It's the obvious candidate, but I don't want to fix the link wrong.... J.Winklethorpe ^talk 21:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like that's a new statement that got added in without any kind of source. I'd just delete it. :) --Elonka 21:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, you already got it. Being on the main page looks like all kinds of fun :) J.Winklethorpe ^talk 22:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup it's a combination of being affirming to have an article there, and also like being the target of a game of Faceball.  ;) --Elonka 22:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Oversight

Re: the impersonation account a couple weeks ago, the edits weren't actually oversighted, they were deleted. They are still viewable by administrators. In this case, you may want to pursue true oversight which removes the edits even from administrator view. See WP:OVERSIGHT and WP:RFO. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Deleted edits are fine, I trust the admins with the info.  :) --Elonka 02:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Saudi Arabia

Hello! We are a group of editors working to improve the quality of Saudi Arabia related articles. You look like someone who might be interested in joining us in the Saudi Arabian WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you in our project :-) And a special thanks for your extreme care about Mecca's articles  A M M A R  19:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the kind words, I have added my name to the Participants list, and look forward to working with the project to further improve these very important articles.  :) --Elonka 19:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Good , To which fields are you interested ?  A M M A R  22:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Right now I am working primarily on pre-Islamic history around the Hijaz, plus improving the articles on the Kaaba, Mecca, Hajj, Isra and Miraj, and similar. Today I was expanding the article on the Zamzam Well. I wanted to link it to articles about Saudi Arabian hydrogeology but couldn't find anything (yet?). --Elonka 23:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok , This is perfect . Whenever you need help just ask . If you can read Arabic in a high level i can find you more references about Zamzam well. but i think you don't . Anyway's , have a nice day and thanks for your expensive time working in our project :)  A M M A R  03:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Alas, Arabic is not (yet) one of my languages, though I'd definitely like to learn it someday. :) --Elonka 03:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You can do it , you seem genius :)  A M M A R  04:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Template Help

Sorry it took me so long to reply. I have been absolutely swamped with work. I did figure out the template thing though, and I am still working on getting to JSTOR and trying to find some accurate maps. Thank you for the offer, however. Windy City Dude 02:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Knights Templar

Was that Knights Templar I saw on the front yesterday? Congrats. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, edit history on the article got quite busy for about 24 hours.  :) --Elonka 22:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats an understatement :P Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Please don't archive, and especially don't set up a bot; one reason I am behind is that I do want to keep some of these in active space. But I will get to it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Soap character infobox

Hey there, what's your take on this? — TAnthony^Talk 15:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Books on the Mongol alliance

My books about the Mongol alliance.

Since you seem to claim something else, for your information, here are the books I personnaly own and have read in relation to the Mongol alliance topic. Regards. PHG 06:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Hey Elonka, can I move your infobox to Template:Infobox EastEnders character 2 ? I was going to just go ahead and move it but I dont know what the procedure is. Is it just the same as moving a normal page? I want to start using it in some of the other character articles :) Gungadin♦ 20:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, go right ahead. :) --Elonka 17:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks Elonka, I'll move it now, good luck settling in again :) Gungadin♦ 17:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Larmenius Charter

Hello Elonka, Did you know that the Larmenius Charter is a fake document? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larmenius_Charter Have you read the books by JM Roberts, Mythology of the Secret Societies and by Peter Partner, The Murdered Magicians: The Templars and their Myth?

Quoting from the Wikipedia article: "(the Larmenius Charter) resurfaced again in the Court of the Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte in 1804 by a Court doctor to Napoleon, Bernard Raymond Fabré-Palaprat." Do you know why the Larmenius Charter "resurfaced" again when it did, and why to of all people to Bernard Raymond Fabré-Palaprat? Wfgh66 19:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll try to get over to Larmenius Charter to take a look. If you think the article should be deleted, you can also add a {{prod}} template to it. --Elonka 19:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the article should be deleted because the Larmenius Charter is an important entry in the chronological framework of the Templar Myth. Fabre-Palaprat founded the "L’ordre du Temple" in 1804 and the document was an important "discovery" used to give his new Order some credibility (new Orders usually claim to have made new "discoveries" in attempt to bolster their reputation and integrity). The Larmenius Charter belongs to what is called Johannite Freemasonry - The first part of the document is purported to have been written in Greek in the year 1154 and claimed the original Templar Commanders to have been initiates to a secret affiliation of primitive Gnostic Christians under the leadership of the Patriarch Theocletes who had made Grand Master Hughes de Payens heir to the Apostolic Succession of John the Divine. It then moves back to 1118 and to the consecration of Hughes de Payens (after describing how Moses was taught wisdom from the Magi of Egypt). There's no need to analyse the handwritten Latin style if the historical claims made within the document are unrealistic! Here's the List of Grand Masters the document contains:

1313-1324 John-Marc Larmenius

1324-1340 Thomas Theobald of Alexandria

1340-1349 Arnaud de Braque

1349-1357 Jean de Claremont

1357-1381 Bertrand du Guesclin

1381-1392 Bernard Arminiacus

1419-1451 Jean Arminiacus

1451-1472 Jean de Croy

1472-1478 Bernard Imbault

1478-1497 Robert Leononcourt

1497-1516 Galeatius de Salazar

1516-1544 Phillippe Chabot

1544-1574 Gaspard de Galtiaco Tavanensis

1574-1615 Henri de Montmorency

1615-1651 Charles de Valois

1651-1681 Jacques Ruxellius de Granceio

1681-1705 Jacques Henri Duc de Duras

1705-1724 Phillippe, Duc d'Orleans (time when alleged statutes written)

1724-1737 Louis Augustus Bourbon

1737-1741 Louis Henri Bourbon Conde

1741-1776 Louis-Francois Boubon Conti

1776-1792 Louis-Hercule Timoleon, Duc de Cosse Brissac (executed)

1792-1804 Claude-Mathieu Radix de Chavillon

1804-1838 Bernard Raymond Fabre Palaprat

Wfgh66 21:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Found

Something of interest to you, perhaps: Count Dunin-Wonsowicz. Needs first name, category, etc. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Purple Star

The Purple Star So sorry for all you're getting hit by. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:3D Nature logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:3D Nature logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Elonka, I noticed your comment on the bot page; I was about to leave my own frustrated message and then realized what was going on. The bot's edit summary is too vague, but the tag left on the image refences WP:NFCC#10c, which is basically that each article which uses the image needs to be noted in the fair use section and a rationale provided for each. I've been holding off implementing the current FUR template on many images because there is a group working on a new, more-efficient one. — TAnthony^Talk 16:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I'll ahead and tweak the rationale and see if that helps. --Elonka 16:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Rember the dot's RfA

Hi Elonka. I'm a bit surprised by your stated opinion on Remember the dot's RfA. I don't mind the concerns with the image policy (since I actually share them) but the username concerns seem uncharacteristically shallow. In the past, you supported PulltoOpen and Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington‎ whose names are certainly just as confusing (if not more). It's one thing to voice concerns about a username or a signature you find confusing but is this really worth withholding support for a potential admin who'd worked in a seriously understaffed area? Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 22:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it's not just the username. If it were, I would not have spoken up. However, I do share other concerns already listed by other opposers. They've already been articulate about the issues though, so I did not feel it necessary to duplicate what they'd already said. --Elonka 22:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Roche-Guillaume

I was wondering when you were going to find/sink your "claws" into this article. I came across it and cleaned it up/expanded it awhile ago when I was having fun with the Random Article button, and realized later that it was kind of in your area of interest. (I'm particularly proud of the work I did on it because it's one of the few articles that I really built from the ground up based entirely on a foreign language source.) From what little I learned about it while reading the one source I had found, it seems to have an interesting story. I'm glad that you have/found more sources. LaMenta3 22:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. As you may be aware, it was closed as "no consensus". Since your vote was one of the reasons why it did not succeed, I would like to personally address your concerns so that I can reapply successfully. Your primary concern appeared to be "I'm just not comfortable with choice of name", but looking at the discussion above, I see that you also had "other concerns". Could you please elaborate, so that I can work with you to resolve these concerns? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Rennes-le-Chateau/Priory of Sion Myths

===Rennes-le-Chateau/Priory of Sion Myths===

Nice to see that you seem to have snapped out of believing in the Rennes-le-Chateau/Priory of Sion Myths!

wfgh66 —Preceding unsigned comment added by wfgh66 (talk • contribs) 23 October 2007

Rodryg Dunin

As a courtesy, I am notifying you that:

AfD nomination of Rodryg Dunin

An article that you have been involved in editing, Rodryg Dunin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodryg Dunin (3rd Nomination). Thank you.

The admins informed me I needed jump through hoops to get the information from the PBD; now the article is either almost entirely from the offline PBD or isn't there at all. Mindraker 11:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Mindraker, enough, please. Please stop obsessing about articles related to me. There are plenty of other places on Wikipedia that could benefit from your attention. You're a linguist, how about checking here? Articles that need translating from Dutch --Elonka 13:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• You're kidding, right? Mindraker 17:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Granówko

Note the palace, according to pl wiki it is being renovated by the owner. Which would be...? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you can estabilish contact with them, they will not only have info about your family, but stuff to contribute to wiki (photos of how the palace looks now would be nice, for example).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Knights Templar

You have correctly tagged the article for cleanup and placed a prominent reminder on the talk page as talk page discipline has been poor there. There has been no improvement in 2 weeks, so I added a reminder to the talk page, particularly to the main contributor Paul McGowan some of whose comments are a little inappropriate e.g. "...debasing the cr*p" and and who I think caused by User:Jehochman to tag the article for WP:COI? There has been no response. What would you suggest now? --Sannhet 16:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a note

Hi, Elonka. I just wanted to drop you a note to clarify that, although I'm against the idea of having an issue running simultaneously on two different fora and concerned about failings in the dispute resolution process on Wiki (among other things), I recognize that your actions have been a sincere, good faith effort to address issues. My concern is not with your action, but reform of the overall process.[2] Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Accession Date of Kaykhusraw II

The date of Kaykhusraw’s accession provided in the Cambridge Illustrated History of the Middle Ages is incorrect. The coins of Kayqubad end and those of Kaykhusraw begin in AH 634 (AD 1236-1237). See Mehmet Eti’s fine site on Anatolian Coins. cf. Claude Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey: A general survey of the material and spiritual culture and history c. 1071-1330 (Taplinger, New York), 133; H. Crane, "Notes on Saldjuq Architectural Patronage in Thirteenth Century Anatolia," Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient (v. 36, no. 1, 1993), 38; Répertoire chronologique d'épigraphie arabe 4148. There is ample numismatic and epigraphical evidence to support AH 634-AD 1237. There is no controversy about Kaykhusraw's accession date.

Perhaps you as the more experienced editor can comment on sources. For many of the articles on the Sultans of Rum, I have used Cahen almost exclusively to start the article. I figured it was better to have information from one source than no information at all. I have not put a reference for every statement but cited Cahen as the source at the bottom of the article in the style of most print-media encyclopedias. Which particular statements require specific citation in the article Kaykhusraw II? Aramgar 18:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go ahead and reply at the talkpage. --Elonka 18:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

AWOL mediator

Tariqabjotu, hi, I don't mean to be a pest, and I do understand that off-wiki activities can take priority. But I did want to point out that you haven't been in the mediation at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance since October 25. PHG and I are no closer to finding common ground than we were before mediation started, a month ago. We really need a mediator who's going to be in there at least a few times a week, otherwise I'm afraid that this is just going to be a fruitless endeavor. Do you think that you'll be able to mediate on a more frequent basis? Or if not, could you please suggest another mediator who might have more time? I'd really rather find a way through this dispute via mediation, rather than having to escalate through some other part of the DR process, but without a mediator to do the mediation, it is really limiting my options.  :/ --Elonka 16:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that I haven't contributed to the mediation in a week. That's a longer gap than I would like, but far from alarming. Part of my absence was due to me being out of town this weekend. I suppose I could have told you all about that in advance, but I didn't think those days would be a problem. However, I understand you want the mediation to be more fast-paced. So, I'll devote more time to it; contributing to it a few times a week, or more often than that, should not detract from my (cumbersome) real-life endeavors too much. You are still free to change mediators at any time though. -- tariqabjotu 02:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol Alliance

Just seen your message. I'm probably going to be low on time this week but I might pop by. I'm no expert on the Crusades, although I know a little about Armenia. Cheers. --Folantin 17:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, je suis sensible au compliment, mais pour travailler sur l'article Franco-Mongol alliance (interesting subject), il me faudrait plus de temps, et j'ai bien du travail sur fr:WP (a little WP !). For example, I must do an accurate expansion of Laurent Dailliez... For my first activity on en:WP, it was nice to meet you. --Acer11 18:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What is incivility?

I hope you understand my reasoning on the censorship accusation. I've been a radical anti-censorship campaigner all my life, so such an accusation strikes me very viscerally, more so even than accusations of racism, sexism or homophobia. Thus, I felt that the bogus claim that anybody who calls for keeping to Wikipedia's standards is really a hypocritical censor of The Truth™, hiding their real agenda behind technicalities, was highly incivil. --Orange Mike 14:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol whatever

Asides from copyediting issues (like hyphens where en dashes should be and a link to Hugues III), I don't see any major drawback to your revision of the Franco-Mongol alliance article. I should point out that I don't like "See also" sections because they are arbitrary and devoid of context. There were a few claims (such as that about Mongols having enemies and subjects but no allies, which I know to be true) which could use preemptive citations.

As to the larger issue of the article as it stands, I don't see a way to move forward at so long as the issue of whether there was an alliance remains foremost. First, let me tell you where I stand in a few brief and definitive statements:

1. An alliance does not require effective military collaboration. It only requires the mutual intent or agreement to do so given certain circumstances.
2. The term "Franco-Mongol alliance", being used in reputable scholarly publications, is an acceptable title for the article.
3. The alliance can be spoken of as if existed insofar as it did exist as an ideal towards which there was actual, ultimately ineffectual, progress.
4. Neither "western Europe", "Christendom", nor "the Crusaders" ever allied with the Mongols. They are not the sorts of entities which can form alliances.
5. I believe some level of agreement was made between Abagha and James I of Aragon in 1269, even though it failed to be militarily feasible.
6. Edward I of England, on the Ninth Crusade, achieved successfull military cooperation with the Mongols.
7. In 1289 Arghun promised a military alliance, pledging to undertake a campaign in Spring 1291. Only his illness and death and the Mameluke advances prevented this. Small Persian, French, and English contingents were in the Holy Land in 1291.
8. In 1300–1301 Henry II of Cyprus and Ghazan effectively cooperated against the Mamelukes through the mediation of Isol the Pisan.
9. I believe the above instances to be the few and brief examples of the Franco-Mongol alliance, usually a chimaera and not a reality, coming into effect before inevitably lapsing (again) into a series of friendly gestures and diplomatic parleys.

In short, I think we can speak of the alliance as if it existed, always being clear to stress those times when negotiations failed to lead to its actualisation and those when, miraculously, they breifly did. I would, therefore, rewrite your lead. On the whole, however, your shorter article seems to be an improvement on the current one. I will probably do some work at thinning out some of the more needless content at the current article in the coming weeks in an attempt to make its progressive improvement and streamlinging more realisable, since the likelihood of your version being implemented in article space any time soon is nil.

Sorry if this message is rather long, but this whole "discussion" is over two months long. Now a question: given my examples above (all of which I could cite in a moment) in the context of near-annual negotiation and friendly diplomatic activity, do you not think that there was a Franco-Mongol alliance which was realised on at least four (albeit brief) occasions? That effective cooperation and actual concrete agreement being achieved through the ceaseless endeavours at least four times, the whole thing can be called the "Franco-Mongol alliance"? Flimsy perhaps, but I think it certainly easire to discuss the "Franco-Mongol alliance" than "the series of unsuccessfull attempts to establish a Franco-Mongol alliance"? Srnec 03:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Now I am wondering how all the information we have collectively amassed ought to be organised and in what kind of articles contained. A "Franco-Mongol alliance" article might not be the best method, but as the term is used by historians it seems we're obliged to go with it. For now I suggest that those instances of actual military agreements and effective collaboration between the "Franks" and Mongols (pretty much the ones I listed) be discussed in their own sections while the remainder of the article be limited to discussing the negotiations which filled the interims. This way the article, however it begins, is clearly divided into those instances of what might be called "alliance" (it is called "cooperation"/"promise" in sources) and the intervening periods when there was no more than diplomacy and (stalled or failed) negotiation. Does this make sense? Srnec 03:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

hey man, just wanted to say i've gone through your re-write and its very good. Much more clear and concise, well done :)

regards --Tefalstar 20:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Alliance Franco-Mongole

Bonjour Elonka, et merci pour ton gentil message. Je ne suis pas du tout "en colère" concernant l'article sur l'Alliance Franco-Mongole. Toutes les opinions sont bienvenues, mais je croie profondément aux principes "d'équilibre" et de NPOV défendus par Wikipedia. J'insiste non pas pour qu'un point de vue particulier soit représenté, mais au contraire pour qu'une position de compromis soit représentée ("An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance..."), ce qui est très différent et très Wikipédien. Ma proposition intègre déjà la tienne, alors que ta position est exclusive et unique ("Only attempts at an alliance"). Ce n'est vraiment pas très difficile, et je sais que "la loi Wikipédienne" est de mon coté sur ce point ("According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable" [3]). Je respecte tes contributions si elles sont correctement citées et sourcées... and I expect you to to do the same with mine. Ce n'est pas un combat d'un POV contre un autre, mais juste une question d'intégrer différents POVs académiques autour d'un sujet donné. Meilleures salutations. PHG 12:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've started looking through some of the Dailliez discussion. I haven't yet perused the entire talk page or the mediation (there are a lot of words in both) but a question pops into my head - would it be possible and acceptable to add a note (possibly even a parenthetical one) about how "historian Dailliez claims an alliance but the claims are yet to be substantiated"? He gets a mention but the tangential nature of the mention gives it appropriate weight per WP:UNDUE. Just a thought which I figure has already been covered. I will look more tomorrow morning. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice that his book was 35 years old. Good point. On the other hand, I also found Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/PHG and Elonka where quite a few people have weighed in on this dispute in general. I'm concerned that those people have apparently not joined the discussion at the talk page. In general, the whole dispute has gone on for months and hit five or six pages so it doesn't seem like the consensus can be judged based on the one talk page section that you've referenced. Something's not right here... —Wknight94 (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wise Choice

Reaching out to WKnight94 was very smart Elonka. He is a very respected editor with gravitas and he has taken you to the mat in the past. If PHG resists his suggestions, PHG will need to stand down on this issue. 72.110.123.177 01:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, erm, thanks, I think.  :) And if you'd like to offer an opinion on the consensus check at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance, please do. I'd definitely like more outside opinions, even if they're from anons, as long as they're from well-meaning anons.  :) --Elonka 01:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

pot, kettle, black

Calling someone out for being in an edit war is a fairly silly endeavor. Seems like that kind of activity would require more than one actor... —Preceding unsigned comment added by IntelligentVoter (talk • contribs) 19:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagreement with PHG

Dear Elonka: Neither of you are budging on the Mongol-alliance issue. Even if you concede that you "may" have gotten a little carried away, it will make this issue go a lot more easily. Mindraker 13:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Elonka:

I'm afraid that I simply am not qualified enough on this subject. I know absolutely diddle squat about Mongolian history. I will agree, however, that the web has rather slim pickings on the Franco-Mongol alliance subject. It does seem like an "alliance" of sorts existed, although I can't vouch for the nature of the alliance -- whether the two entities would fight to the death for each other, or merely shaking hands as a formality, or a trade alliance, etc. Mindraker 21:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a few libraries in my city (even a college library), but they all really, really suck. I've even donated cryptology books to the local library, that's how bad they are. Anyway, the nearest library with your book on the Mongols is the ASU library, which is 64 miles away. I might be able to get it on interlibrary loan with my Dad's faculty ID (they won't let UNCA alumni do interlibrary loan, that's how sucky the university library is). Mindraker 01:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello! RS-ness

Hello! I would really appreciate your opinion here. Could you please check the site indicated in this link and give your opinion about its reliability. It's very important to me. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You deserve this:

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		It is my pleasure to award Elonka, this Barnstar of Diligence in recognition of all her hard work in raising Franco-Mongol alliance(hope it will soon overcome the dispute) Avinesh Jose 05:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I only get partial credit for it... The majority of the work has definitely been done by PHG. But yes, we have both been working on it very hard, and I'm confident that once we get the last disputes ironed out, it's going to be an excellent FA-class article. :) --Elonka 05:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)