User talk:Elonka/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Citations

Yes, thanks, I have moved them to the talkpage to offer them to anyone who should want to use them for additional additions, in future I will leave them in the article, I dislike citation farms and don't think that we should be a link station for newspapers and so on, thanks for your fair comments. Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

1RR Claim

Would you have a quick look at the BNP article? Myself and SlaterSteven have gone backwards and forwards this morning getting to an agreed text in the lede and are now both been accused of breaking the 1RR restriction by Off2RioRob. My understanding is that what we have done is what you have been trying to encourage. If I'm wrong please advise. --Snowded ^TALK 16:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised that you are claiming at this stage of your wiki career not to know what a revert is, the talk page is the place to discuss content and agree on an edit, not the edit summary box. Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll let the edits stand for themselves. Its been a progression of different edits (without any bad feeling) leading to what looks like a consensus. Either way, I don't think it breaks 1RR you do, I've asked for advice which seems reasonable. What is the problem with that? --Snowded ^TALK 16:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said the talkpage is for discussion not the edit summary box, the article is under a one revert condition, you are wrong if you think you have produced anything sustainable or anything with any consensus, it was simply you and stephen reverting each other, I had no chance to join in any discussion as it was not being done on the talkpage it was being done in the edit summary box, to let you know, if your bothered, I disagree with both your positions. Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Its clear the classification of the article as a troubles related article is not helping to improve the article simply getting in the way of people making goood progress and changes. British National Party should be delisted as a troubles related article right away. Where do i nominate it for a review? We should not have to wait 30 days before this mistake is corrected. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Jericoman clearly told you to take it to arbcom if you want a review. Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The enforcement page hardly seems the correct location to take this matter. I am not asking for enforcement on a user or an article. I want a mistake corrected. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

@Snowded: I took a quick look, and didn't see anything that looked like a 1RR violation. Instead, the edits seem to be progressing in a healthy way, with each editor trying to build on the edits of the last. That's an excellent healthy way to edit.  :) If I could make one suggestion though, it would be to avoid putting sources directly in the lead (lede?) of the article. The lead should only be a summary of what's already in the main body of the article, so if there's a source in the lead, that's often a sign that the information it's sourcing is only in the lead, which is not how things should work. It's also a problem then if someone removes that sentence, because it looks like they're deleting a reliable source from an article (which is frowned upon). So instead, it's better to put the actual full sources in the body of the article, and then just use a tag in the lead. For example, if linking to cnn.com, the full source in the body of the article might be: <ref name=cnn>http://www.cnn.com/127897.html</ref>, and then in the lead, the ref could just be: <ref name=cnn/> That way the lead would still have the little footnote superscripts, but if someone removes them, they're not deleting an entire source, they're just deleting the reference to the source. Sorry if that's confusing, let me know if you'd like another example? --Elonka 17:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Elonka, a helpful response and I had forgotten the references in the lede issue, I appreciate the reminder. --Snowded ^TALK 18:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, a revert is a revert, discussion should be on the talkpage and not the edit summary, could you please clarify then elonka exactly what is defined here as a revert? Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, could you please provide a link to policy to support your position. Off2riorob (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you asserting that ..two editors reverting each other without discussion on the talkpage, using the edit summary box for communication and without input from any other edits who may be watching mesmerized unable to join in, if other editors join in reverting also, in a friendly way, is that totally acceptable, a good way to edit? I would ask you to please clarify the position here with a link to policy, Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am asserting that if editors are working on the article where they are trying to find a compromise, each making tweaks to the edits of the last, that does not count as a "revert" in my book. I see a revert as when one editor makes one or more changes, and then another editor comes along and clicks "rollback" or "undo" or something, and just does a clean wipe of everything that the previous editor did. That's an obvious revert, and is not helpful towards finding a compromise. But two or more editors "circling in" towards something that they find mutually agreeable, that's fine. In an ideal situation, they'll keep tweaking and tweaking, until everyone is more or less equally happy (or unhappy) with the text, and tah dah! That's consensus.  :) --Elonka 18:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments but as I said a revert is a revert and the article is on a 1RR, please...provide a link to where this is in guidelines about reverting, you are saying that I could have joined in with this tweaking and my tweaks would not be reverts? Is there a guideline that talks about this being ok? I ask only in the desire to understand policy, not one persons view but the guideline. Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Tweaks are not reverts, as long as they're good faith attempts at compromise, and are not "tweaking" the article back to an identical state of what it was in recent history. The goal is to find a different way of wording something, that may be agreeable to everyone, and then being open to the possibility that others may then tweak your wording, again in an attempt at finding a compromise. As for policy, see Wikipedia:Consensus. --Elonka 18:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If the status quo is Chair & somebody changes it to Rocking Chair & you change it to Lawn Chair, it's not a revert. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Though the next question after that would be: "Does the source on that sentence use the terminology of both 'Rocking Chair' and 'Lawn Chair'?" Because if not, whoever changed the text to say something not in accordance with the source, may get in trouble for different reasons. --Elonka 18:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well excuse me if I have been wrong, I thought that a revert was any alteration of a good faith edit. I will join in with this tweaking, I can't wait. Tweak tweak. Off2riorob (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

question

Could you please explain what troubles related edits have led to your 1RR measure? Verbal chat 17:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I see there is a related thread above, but you haven't provided an answer that I could see. Could you please explain, Elonka? Verbal chat 18:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka has said "It doesn't have to be The Troubles-related to be within the scope of the case." [1]

It looks as though restrictions can be imposed on any article that mentions Ireland or where certain editors involved in the troubles go. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I would still like to hear Elonka's answer, as I find that unsatisfactory. All British, and several American political parties, amongst others, could also be placed under this case when the problem edits have nothing to do with the troubles. And it wouldn't stop at those articles. This is a problem, and seems to be a case of having a hammer making all problems look like nails. However, I don't want to jump to conclusions so I would like to hear Elonka give her reasoning - or are all political parties under 1RR per week and I didn't know? Please let Elonka answer, as admins should respond to reasonable queries about their admin actions. Verbal chat 21:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

See my above post from 01:25. --Elonka 21:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That is not an answer. Please answer the question. Verbal chat 22:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no justification for the BNP article being listed as troubles related. One editor on the BNP talk page claimed it was troubles related because several editors involved in troubles articles were also involved at the BNP one. Elonka appears to agree and imposed the restrictions on it, the only defense of this i have seen is that the article mentions a policy towards Ireland. I agree with you this would apply to a huge number of articles and its certainly not within the original arbcom rulings as far as im concerned. What makes this even worse is Elonka is trying to increase admins powers to impose more sanctions on these matters right now over at Arbcoms Request for Amendments. If the current sanctions can apply to an article like the BNP goodness knows what will happen if the powers are expanded. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Verbal: No, all political party articles are not under 1RR/week. In fact, Ireland articles aren't even under 1RR/week. The only editors who are under 1RR/week, are those who are specifically told that they're under 1RR/week, which means that they're limited to 1 revert per article per week, on articles within the scope of the Troubles case. There's no specific list of which articles are within the case's scope, but just because an article mentions Ireland in it, doesn't mean that it's necessary to go slap a {{Troubles restriction}} tag on it. Instead, administrators should first look to see if the article is even the subject of ongoing conflict. If there's no conflict, then there's no need for restrictions. However, if such an article is the subject of edit wars between editors who routinely edit Ireland-related topics, and the article appears to be being used as the latest battleground between these editors, then it's reasonable to see that article as possibly falling within the case's scope. The scope is defined as "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland . . . When in doubt, assume it is related." That last sentence of "When in doubt, assume it is related," is pretty powerful, and was supported by a strong community consensus in October 2008.[2] The wording clearly covers these kinds of quibbles about whether an article does or doesn't fall within the scope of the case: "When in doubt, assume it's related." The benefit of the doubt for these restrictions is given to the "assume it's related" side. If there's disagreement about whether the scope should be interpreted that way, bring it up at a noticeboard, offer different wording, build a different consensus. As an admin, I'll support whatever is decided by either ArbCom, or a consensus of uninvolved editors. --Elonka 01:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"When in doubt". There is no doubt, this is doubtlessly unrelated. If you want to restrict certain editors then fine, but please don't twist the communities words or intentions to do so. This is your initiative, don't paint it as a community endorsed action. As I am not a "troubles" editor, I understand from what you write above that even if your "slapping on" of {{Troubles restriction}} was appropriate, then I am not bound by it? Verbal chat 13:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Following dispute resolution, I have raised this on the article talk page. Verbal chat 18:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

USC

Your help would be appreciated in onoging clean up and de-pov work here at Ulster Special Constabulary. I'm having problems with some reverting. Jdorney (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:ArbComOpenTasks

Thanks for fixing and updating the documentation. KnightLago (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. If you need any other help with the template logic, just ask. :) --Elonka 22:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Will do. I had attempted to fix the issue you reported, but it was beyond my knowledge. I will ask if the arbs want the Clarifications & Amendments section open. I think it may speed things up as you suggested. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to follow-up and let you know the template's default was changed to open per your suggestion. Thanks again! KnightLago (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

BNP

Hi Elonka. Please could you offer some clarification at User_talk:FormerIP#BNP. Many thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Also can you clear up a point, does the 1RR rule restrict editors to only 1 alteration of the page a day? this seems to be the sugestion here [[3]]. In other words what constitutes in this case a revert?Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

1RR means one revert per editor per day per article. By "revert", this means to wipe out another editor's changes, usually by using the "undo" or "rollback" buttons, or some other means that restores the page to an earlier version. However, editing the page is okay, and encouraged, especially when attempts are being made to find a compromise version of the text. As long as each edit is making a good faith attempt to try different wording than what has been tried before, it's probably not a revert. --Elonka 18:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

so this [[4]] would not be a revert, as has been alledged?Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. Before you answer that, can I just chip in. I'm a little concerned that you say "wipe out another editor's changes, usually by using the "undo" or "rollback" buttons, or some other means that restores the page to an earlier version". I'm worried that Steven has interpreted this to mean that all other types of edit are okay, which would very clearly go against policy. To be clear, WP:EW states that "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part". This means that a revert includes anything that removes text that someone else has added, even if you then replace it with your own wording.

I'd add that I'd be worried about having to live with a 1RR regime where what counts as a revert is based on the subjective opinion of an admin as to whether it is constructive or not. 3RR and 1RR are supposed to be clearcut so that editors know where they stand. --FormerIP (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The key word is "reverses". Reversing someone's edits means to totally wipe out their edits. However, to change their wording in a good faith attempt at compromise, is actively encouraged. It's the wiki-way.  :) For more info on this, see the policy at Wikipedia:Consensus. --Elonka 02:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't seem very clear to me, Elonka. Are you saying that, in your view, only blanking or "straight" reverts which take things back to a previous version are really reverts? If you type the word "black" and I change it to "white", does that count as a revert? Or is that what counts is whether I am in good faith. I'm asking these questions seriously, because I don't understand what your position is.

The most important thing IMO is that, if the article is under 1RR, then editors need to be able to tell with reasonable certainty whether any given edit is a revert or not, rather than having to take a guess at what judgement an admin will make as to the psychology of the editior. Do you get what I mean? --FormerIP (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In its simplest form: If the article says "white", I type "black", and then you change back to "white", you have reverted me, because the article has been restored to an identical state to what it was. However, another factor here would be what the source says. Does the source say "this thing is both black and white"? In that case, we should change the article to reflect the source, and say, "according to (source), the thing is both black and white". If the source only says "This thing is black", then the article probably shouldn't have said "White" in the first place. See also WP:ASF. --Elonka 24 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, but as far as I can see, everything you say after "However...", relates to the question of whether the edit has improved the article. The question I am asking is, more specifically, does it count as a revert? Are you saying that something that would ordinarily classed as a revert is not to be considered a revert if an admin determines that it has improved the article?

Also, I don't mean to be over picky, but you've changed the question compared to what I asked. If you type "black" and I change it to "white", that's normally considered a revert, isn't it? --FormerIP (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It would depend what the article said before I typed the word "black"? --Elonka 03:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would, Elonka, but lets say it said nothing before you typed "black".

I'm really trying to find out two things. Firstly, I get the impression that you think admins have wide discression allowing them to judge whether an edit is or isn't a revert based on the quality of the edit. Is that what you think? Second, I also get the impression that a revert is normally only an edit that takes the page back to an idential state to a previous one. Is that what you think?

It seems to me that thinking either of these things would be plain wrong, but I just want to know where you stand so that I know where I stand. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your second statement is correct. In its cleanest example: If a page were completely blank, and then I added the word "black", and then you changed it to "white", that would not be a revert. This is because you would be changing the text to something different from what it had said before. If, however, I then again changed the text back to "black", that would be a revert, since I'd be reversing your change, and putting the article back to an identical earlier version. Does that help?. --Elonka 14:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification, this is what I thought. I hope we can now move on.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Elonka, that partly helps, in that I understand your position in relation to the second question I just asked, even though I think you're wrong. I'm still not clear what you think about the first question, though.

You think that only edits which takes things back to a state of affairs identical to a previous one are reverts. Other edits, which remove other editors contributions but replace them with something new are not reverts - they are merely changes. This would seem to have some strange implications.

For example:

• you type "The ink is black",
• then I replace it with "The ink is white",
• then you replace that with "The ink is black",
• then I remove that and substitute "The ink is mauve",
• then you change it back to "The ink is black",
• then I change that to "The ink is purple",
• then you change that to "The ink is black",
• then I alter it so it says: "The ink is tricycle"
• then you change "tricyle" to "black".

For argument's sake, looking at the context, none of my edits count as vandalism, defamation etc. Following your logic, your latest edit is a clear breach of 3RR (you have taken thinks back to a previous state four times), and you get a ban. However, all of my edits are merely changes (none make things identical to any previous version). There may be things wrong with my edits (they do look rather disruptive) but, for the strict purposes of 3RR, I have done nothing wrong.

So, to get around the 1RR on the BNP article, I can remove other people's contributions as much as I like, as long as I am careful to ensure that I replace with brand new wording on each occasion. If other editors also do this, then we can effectively neutralise the 1RR (?).

I don't think this discussion is moot or hair-splitting. You've imposed a 1RR on the page, but you don't seem to me to have a good understanding of what it means, which makes it difficult to edit with confidence.

Thanks for your time, though. --FormerIP (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Per your example above, and considering no other elements, I would have violated 3RR, and you would not have done any reverting, correct. However, we still have to consider the policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability. As soon as there's a disagreement on the color of the ink, the next thing that needs to be done is to look at the source reference for that sentence. What does the reference say? Does it say that the ink is black, white, mauve, purple, and tricycle? If so, then the article should probably be changed to say what the source says. If, however, the source only says, "The ink is black", with no mention of the ink being white, mauve, purple, or tricycle, then that completely changes the above equation. And in that case, I'm not violating 3RR: Instead, I'm restoring the information to indicate what's in the source, possibly even reverting vandalism. And you would be warned or blocked for either "tendentiously re-adding unsourced information", or for vandalism.

Getting into a more practical example as far as the British National Party article, the whole point of 1RR is to keep people out of a back and forth, "my way, your way, my way, your way" loop, and instead encourage them to find compromises which are acceptable to both sides. So yes, if you make a good faith attempt each time to try and find brand new wording, you will never have violated 1RR. --Elonka 21:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. You seem to be saying one of two things, either:

1) As long as I am careful never to change things back to something identical to an earlier version, I can have full confidence that I will never be in breach of 1RR on the BNP page - I can delete other editor's contributions as much as I like and, although I may be guilty of other things, it can never be said that I reverted anything for the purposes of the 1RR; or:

2) As long as I am careful never to change things back to something identical to an earlier version, none of my edits to the BNP page will look like reverts on the face of it - however, if you or another admin looks at one of my edits and takes the view that it is faulty (for example, on the grounds of verifiability), then in that case it will be considered a revert.

Neither of these seems sensible to me, since they both undermine the basic purpose of 1RR. The first one will allow me to play the system, and the second one seems worryingly close to a policy of "it's okay to edit-war, as long as you are in the right".

I think I'm going to post on ANI for some fresh eyes. --FormerIP (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

In #1, your use of the phrase "delete other editor's contributions" is worrying, because it does indeed sound like an attempt to game the system. Instead, the concept that I'm trying to communicate here is that good faith attempts at a compromise are generally not going to be seen as a revert. In #2, if you add unsourced information, it's not going to be called a revert, it's going to be called "adding unsourced information". --Elonka 21:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, are you agreeing that your take on 1RR allows for gaming, or are you saying that I am not understanding correctly? Is it your view that something that wouldn't otherwise be a revert will be one if an admin determines that I am not in good faith (similar to (2) above).

On "adding unsourced information", yes I understand what you are saying. If I do that then I may get reverted and if I do it a lot then I may attract admin attention. But it does seem that I can use the technique I describe above to evade the 1RR and an automatic ban. --FormerIP (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Instead of spending so much energy on hypotheticals, just go edit the article. As long as you are editing in good faith, you probably don't need to worry. If you start straying into the red zone, you'll get a warning first. If you're not sure if a particular edit is appropriate or not, then you may wish to suggest it on the talkpage first. --Elonka 22:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, it isn't hypothetical, because you have imposed 1RR on the page. --FormerIP (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Elonka. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

History

Elonka, I have made this edit. I confirm that my prior attempts in 2008 to use wikiprocess to get you desysopped were motivated by personal pique, were a mistake, and should not have been done. I very much hope never to make such mistakes again. Should you have any problems with my current or recent contributions, please leave diffs on my talk pages and I will consider taking whatever corrective measures may be appropriate. Should you desire me to post further retractions, statements or clarifications to set the record straight, feel free to communicate with me via whatever media you find convenient. Sincerely, Jehochman ^Talk 22:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Forgive me for being skeptical, but you've done this before, apologizing and saying it's over, and then shortly thereafter you're right back to following me around the wiki and stirring the pot wherever possible. I've lost track of the number of times that you've jumped into threads where I'm involved, done everything in your power to undermine me as an administrator, spent periods of time where nearly 100% of your on-wiki edits were related to me, and engaged in extensive off-wiki campaigns as well. So, to hear you make a generalized apology sounds like just more insincere politicking. To help restore trust and make me believe that you really mean it this time, how about you start with full public disclosure of the political games that you've been playing? --Elonka 07:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman and I are still in dialog; hopefully this is one of several concerns that are being finally clarified. We're trying to untangle the various issues involved, and when we have, we will summarize things openly and in full, to ensure it's all dealt with once and for all.

At the moment it's still mid discussion. I would ask simply, to be patient just a bit more. It's been a while in the discussing, and it will ultimately be easier if we clarify as much as possible via the present dialog beforehand. It shouldn't take too long, but it's probably best we finish the present discussion first. Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(clicks stopwatch). So let's see, from Jehochman posting about his "mistake" above, to filing a new RfAr case,[5] I count, hmm, about 65 hours? His pattern seems to be holding pretty steady. Next round of drama-stoking, ding! --Elonka 16:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Kryptos image

Hello Elonka. I was wondering whether the permissions on File:Kryptos01 1.jpg extend to high resolution use also (min. 1000x1000 pixels). Thanks Calmer Waters 10:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It means that we have permission for that particular 100K image that's on Commons, but not for anything else that you may find on the web. Now, if you want to stretch that image to 1000x1000 (or whatever keeps it in proportion), that would probably be fine, as long as the actual file size stays the same. --Elonka 14:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I was asking because I was thinking of trying my hand at WP:FPC with it. I have not yet submitted a nomination to this area of Wiki and have looked at the criteria along with the write-up needed to present it. You have taken a picture and have been given permission of a very interesting work of art that few people will ever have the opportunity to see in person or replicate on film do to obvious restrictions (assess, permission, etc.) It also may become prolific in the following months to come. Just wanted to get your opinion. Thanks in advance Calmer Waters 16:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#FT2-Jehochman and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Jehochman ^Talk 16:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed when you filed the RfAr case you used an edit summary of "there appears to be a shortage of requests; here's one".[6] May I say that that is a colossally stupid reason to start a case? What is it, you're not getting your Minimum Daily Requirement of drama? --Elonka 16:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the reason for the request is clear enough in the request. I'm actually a rather humorous person in real life and it occasionally leaks into my edit summaries. I have four kids; I get my daily overdose of drama already. What I'd really like is to just end this once and for all. Earnestly, Jehochman ^Talk 16:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks

I know there is some policy about removing redlinks from disambig pages, but as far as I know WP:RED supports redlinks in other places. Now, I fully support referencing articles, and if you want to add unreferenced/fact templates to such lists, be my guest. But unless the list is getting spammed (such as often happens at List of Poles), I don't see a reason for the helpful and uncontroversial links to be removed. PS. For now, I stubbed Jan Bohdan Dembowski for you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If you'll read the top section of WP:RED, you'll see that it says, "However, rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and instead use the wikiproject or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles." It is standard practice to remove redlinks from lists unless there is a source to affirm that the redlinked name is notable enough for an article. Now, if these articles do have stubs on the Polish Wikipedia, and there are sources on those stubs which you are willing to affirm are genuine sources, simply add a ref next to the redlinks, and that will be enough to weight them down. --Elonka 02:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Encouragement noted :) But per RED, "Good red links help Wikipedia", and those are good ones (all notable subjects). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Block of User:71.175.53.72

Firstly, thank you for defending my honour and civility policy (in no particular order!). I only became aware of the trolling and block as an unblock appeal just popped onto my watchlist. The editor seems to think they are still blocked, although your block should have expired by now (the link shows no active blocks). The unblock request is unfortunate, but I'm happy for it to be ignored and any autoblock lifted, and then we can see what the editor does next. However, I'll leave it to your discretion and I'll be unwatching their userpages. Thanks again, Verbal chat 14:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Irvine22

Despite your warning the above editor has ignored WP:BRD and reverted the material. This is the same pattern as we saw on the IRish pages for which multiple blocks have been issued. I am not sure of the status here, I get a sense of an editor attempting to trap other people into breaking 1RR. My first inclination is to revert per WP:BRD but I will keep to the 1RR rule on the assumption that some action will now be taken. If you look at this editors contribution and block history you will see this pattern as a constant feature of their behaviour. Does this need to be ANI? I would have thought there was enough evidence now for individual admin action. --Snowded ^TALK 19:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI is only for obtaining the attention of administrators... But you've already got admin attention.  :) I've already blocked Irvine22 for one week, and he will be on a very short leash after that. For the article, it would be better if some other editor fixed the infobox, since you've already reverted once today. Personally, I wouldn't block you for restoring the infobox to the consensus version, while including a clear link in the edit summary to the current talkpage thread that verifies the consensus. However, other admins might react differently, so it's probably best to be cautious. --Elonka 19:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I had already done it! I referenced the talk page so hopefully its OK. --Snowded ^TALK 19:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to lift the veil on Verbal - More questions

Elonka - I understand that Verbal did not block me, but is it true that he had nothing to do with it? I am normally much more than civil. I have often been complemented on my diplomacy and tact, but this user's approach to editing seems overly aggressive and not helpful enough. It seems to me that Verbal is abusing his position. Let me give a simple example. There were many edits made to the page in question with much valid data. Verbal simply deleted them with the cryptic note about them being non-notable (nn), or RS (or similar). This does nothing to help those who were attempting to improve the page. There is a term for this kind of bullying when one in the know smacks down new users without giving appropriate guidance. On the page in question. There were dozens of books listed with ISBN numbers. Is that not verifiable enough? If that is inappropriate, what is the 'proper' way to cite books? At the very least his reverts are ham-handed and trashed many valid and verifiable items along with a few that were unverified. How is that helpful? Verbal's standard seems to be if the reference includes a link to another existing Wikipedia page, then it is acceptable. Some of those pages are not sufficiently verifiable themselves. Given Verbal's aggressive approach, why not delete those other pages for lack of verifiability as well? I appreciate your guidance and assistance. I will do my best to bring the deleted content up to the standards once I understand them and once I have a contact like yourself to help keep an eye on Verbal who refused to respond to my previous inquiries. I will use my logged in credentials when I feel I am safe from being abused by Verbal's overly aggressive approach. I do not want to lose my account. He refuses to help or answer valid questions. He simply deletes entries with terse edit summaries. He's not helpful in teaching newer users what he is seeking. That's not what I understood was the helpful nature of the Wikipedia community. Look at all the credentials on his page. It's quite clear that he's an ego maniac. The more credentials, the lower the self-esteem, IMO. I question whether all of those credentials are even valid. Are they subject to any verification process? Would there be any censure if he were found to be overstating his resume? Thanks for letting me vent. I just believe in being clear, in communicating, and in helping people to learn to be better Wikipedia contributors." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.53.72 (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, first, I really must insist that you use a more civil tone. See Wikipedia:Civility. If you have concerns about Verbal's approach, fine, but you need to be able to talk about the behavior without talking about the editor. As soon as you resort to name-calling, it weakens everything else that you are trying to say.
• Next, for citations. See WP:CITE. There are many different ways to provide citations. Which method you use, is not that important, as long as you can put a source next to the information that is challenged. For example, if you are citing an article from CNN, you could add it as a link next to the line on the Wikipedia article: [http://cnn.com/134756.html] (that's just a sample URL, doesn't actually point to anything). Another option, say if you're using a book, is to list the book at the bottom of the article, and then next to the line of the article that's being challenged, add something in parentheses, like, (Smith, The Magic of Cheese, p. 27) Again, don't worry too much about formatting -- other editors will come along and clean things up later.
• Next, if there's a disagreement about an article, take the disagreement to the article's talkpage. Do not discuss Verbal there, or any other editor. Instead, keep discussion strictly focused on the article, as though you were having a polite and collegial conversation with another author about the best way to present certain information. Stay civil, keep an open mind, be ready to compromise, and assume good faith. Even when someone disagrees with you, chances are pretty good that their motives (from their point of view) are still positive. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Hope that helps, --Elonka 04:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough. My frustration was due to the lack of communication and the immediate reverts by the other user. The user has been unhelpful. Please tell me how I should cite books. Is ISBN insufficient? Do I need to cite Amazon? - Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.53.72 (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Don't link to Amazon. Do include ISBNs. If you'd like examples that you can refer to, check WP:FA, which lists Wikipedia's best articles, so you can see how they handle sourcing. If you're working on a list article, you may also find it instructive to review some of Wikipedia's best lists, which can be seen at Wikipedia:Featured lists. --Elonka 04:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, please review page List of channelled texts. Verbal reverted all seven extensive updates I made with book lists and ISBNs. Deleted/reverted by user Verbal on Nov 29th. This is clearly abusive. Now the page is marked for deletion! What do you say about this? (Note I am the user above on another machine. Please help. Verbal is out of control.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.53.72 (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

IRA

Thanks for your support on the IRA article. It needs work. --BwB (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom RFC

Hi, I'm posting to you because I too am concerned about the way the ArbCom RFC was closed. I am concerned that the decision to move to a system of secret ballot seems to have been a "done deal" and one that lacked consensus.

I've prepared an RFC (another one!) the issue. I haven't publicised it yet but would greatly appreciate your opinion about it. Is it be worthwhile opening up and RFC on the question of the decision to the community? Do you have any advice on the design of such an RFC? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Though I agree that I have strong concerns that 57% was declared as "consensus", I'm not sure it would do much good to start an RfC right now. If the community were as divided as they were during the RfC itself, I doubt there would be sufficient consensus to reverse the existing decision, especially while voting is on-going. However, it might be worth filing another RfC after the election is over and the new arbs are announced, to gauge community opinion about how well the secret balloting worked, and whether or not this is a method that should be used again in next year's election. --Elonka 00:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There is wisdom in your words. Let's hold fire for now. A more sensible approach would be, as you say, to let the election run, to allow folk to get a feel for it and ask them then what they think. If people say yea then ... well, at laest we were all in a better position to judge.

Could you delete the page for me? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)|

Arbcom election guide

I hope you've had a great time in Mexico. I used your election guide. I seem to know most of the candidates by name but I needed something to jog my memory in some cases. Thanks for putting the work in on that. --TS 16:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI

You might want to respond to this post here. BigDunc 19:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak

{{wikibreak|message=Elonka is on wikibreak for a bit, vacationing on a cruise along the [[Mexican Riviera]], and should be back online on December 14th.}}

Have fun! --Sushi Shushi! (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

WB... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 10)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 10). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 10). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinion requested

Welcome back. Given your interest in resolving some of the intractable issues around British and Irish pages I wonder if you would take a look at this. I've been struggling to get a process in place to resolve multiple edit wars over when it is right or wrong to use "British Isles". Some time ago I managed (with the support of Admin Black Kite) to get a single page to consolidate the various issues into one place. Based on the last 18 months I've proposed a way forward which has some support. An expert opinion would be appreciated before I move it on a stage. --Snowded ^TALK 21:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Initial thoughts (feel free to ignore, as I'm not that familiar with the debate about the subtleties of including the term "British Isles"):

• Coming up with a protocol guideline, is generally a good idea. Then it can be linked from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United Kingdom
• Trying to get agreement that "no one should change something without agreement", is generally difficult to enforce, both because editors constantly come and go, and because Wikipedia generally works on the principle of be bold rather than "get agreement first".
• Creating an arbitration panel is also tricky, again because editors tend to come and go. So even if there were agreement on who the panel members might be, it is likely that such members might be absent for long periods of time.
• The best way to proceed, IMHO, is to come up with a set of guidelines that can be shown to have strong community consensus, and then everyone can simply work from those guidelines. It might also be worth coming up with a template that can be used on problematic articles. For example, see what was done with {{Gdansk-Vote-Notice}}.
• In terms of enlisting specific administrators, I'm happy to help out as I can, but it's important to keep in mind that admins tend to come and go as well. A better solution might be to make use of the WP:ECCN noticeboard, or just use ANI. If there are clear consensus-backed guidelines, it's easier for admins to deal with editors who may be editing in opposition to consensus.

Hope that helps, --Elonka 02:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It helps, thanks. The reason for the proposal is that attempts to create guidelines in this area have consistently failed over the last two years. Hence the idea of creating a body of precedents from which guidelines can be created. I'll spell that out and modify the the proposal to accommodate the ideas above and see where it goes. --Snowded ^TALK 06:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me at the failed discussions for guidelines? I took a quick look at WP:BIDRAFT2, and it seemed fairly stable. Or is there another discussion going on elsewhere? --Elonka 13:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks for the note. I always do use talkpages. The problem here though is that recent responses like this one to editors concerns on that self same talkpage, coming hot on the heels of similar outbursts make it very difficult to have confidence in the talk page as a means of reasoning with this editor. Yes talk pages should always be used but when an editor is refusing to engage constructively and dismissing alternative viewpoints as petty POV and "purile jibberish" (sic), editors will reluctantly conclude that normal means of resolving disputes are a waste of time as long as such uncivil behaviour remains unaddressed. Valenciano (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs. That editor is already on probation, and has been blocked for a week. In the meantime though, I still strongly encourage everyone to use the article talkpages. Even if there's one editor who you feel cannot be reasoned with, it's still important to get your opinion onto the talkpage, to help establish consensus on the matter. I see that you've done so already, so thanks.  :) --Elonka 13:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Narai

I'm sorry I couldn't remember it well.--Clestur (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom election

FYI - there's a request for feedback on the ArbCom election. No question about the choice of switching using a secret ballot, but I dropped a line on the talk page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Have a look

Seeing as you are handing out blocks will you look at this contributions of this editor here BigDunc 00:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, once I get caught up with the paperwork from History of Sinn Féin. :) --Elonka 00:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, took a look at Trickyjack (talk · contribs). If it were a longterm established account, it might be worth placing it under probation, but based on the short contrib history, it's looking like a possible throwaway sockpuppet account anyway. Do you have an idea of who it might be? --Elonka 01:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The only other editor with that particular obsession is User:Irvine22 who has a single incident of sock puppetry and a series of bans for disruptive behaviour. S/he has been fairly passive for a week or so but is aware that a fair amount of editors have his/her account on watch. My gut feel says that s/he would not run a sock at the moment but its worth checking out. Oh, and in case you didn't know the song on their user page is an Ulster/Glaswegian Unionist song, its one of the milder ones but the history of quotations on this users page is worth a quick study --Snowded ^TALK 06:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like Irvine to me. From the contributions it feels more like a person actually from NI. But I see no reason to keep Trickyjack around anyway. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Every single comment here is from a Republican. Elonka, you were looking at the History of Sinn Fein, what a surprise. I can pretty much sum up the history of Sinn Fein, but it won't be allowed in that article. They killed thousands of people, many of them children, in an open attack on democracy in MY country. So you can sit there in the USA and block unionists all you like, but rest assured, I know a lot more about Sinn Fein and issues in Northern Ireland than you, whether i'm on wikipedia or not.

Stu, unlike a lot of these ROI editors I am actually from Ulster, yes. My opinion on matters is irrelevant however, because I am on the wrong side of the political divide as far as wikipedia is concerned.Trickyjack (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wowsers, this is a switch. There's usually complaints about pro-unionist PoV. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats because the vast majority of editors are nationalists. They see unionist POV in articles which are essentially Republican propoganda.Trickyjack (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hethum II, King of Armenia

Elonka, you have recently returned to editing PGH related articles. At present you are changing content about the murder of Hethum II and his nephew. If you look in the references, you will see that there is an article from 2005 by Angus Donal Stewart entirely devoted to a discussion of his death, which places the murder on November 17th, 1307. However, your own editing makes no reference to this article and actually what you write does not agree with the fairly detailed analysis of Angus Donal Stewart, which explains that the murder took place following an invitation to either a counsel or a banquet. I wonder whether you could read that article carefully and modify what you have written accordingly. Even Mutafian on page 253 of "La Cilicie au carrefour des empires, Volume 1‎" places the murders in 1307. The other reference linking to the Gallica archive in France makes no mention of the dates on the page cited: indeed in footnote 21, Stewart refers to that source as giving the date as 1307 on page 490. (This article is on my watchlist and I originally added the source and info for the murders.) Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Since this is related specifically to that article, let's go ahead and continue the discussion on the talkpage there. --Elonka 22:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

User:BigDunc

This User has decided to trawl through Northern Irish football articles to remove the term "Northern Irish" from the description of each football club, on the pretext that the term is "POV". A similar previous campaign was waged by User:Vintagekits (now banned), but no consensus was ever established that the term is "POV". There were resulting edit wars at that time, of which BigDunc was aware. I have reverted the user as per WP:BRD, opening up discussion at Talk, but he has simply reverted again at each article. I raised the matter with him on his Talk page, but he removed my comment, with the advice that I should "report away" (i.e. report him). I'm raising this with you first, rather than going to AN/I or the Arbcom Troubles page.

Diffs:

• Killymoon
• second Killymoon edit
• Coleraine
• second Coleraine edit
• Linfield
• second Linfield edit
• Glentoran
• second Glentoran edit
• Ballymena
• Cliftonville
• Crusaders
• second Crusaders edit

• Raised on user's Talk page
• Undid and told to "report away"

Mooretwin (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

From Northern Ireland is neutral Northern Irish isn't, also this is a content dispute and ANI is not the place for such issues, not sure what you want Elonka to do about a content issue, are you seeking advice from her? BigDunc 15:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(sigh) --Elonka 18:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

How do the reliable sources describe the clubs? Or are there sources which use both forms? --Elonka 18:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be alot easier if clubs from England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland, were called British. But, things can never be that easy, eh? GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay. When it comes to football clubs in the UK, they belong to their respective Associations and are regarded by FIFA to be--dare I say it--countries. Cheers. --Bill Reid | (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I know & it stinks. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What stinks? the fact that E,S,NI and W have there own football associations or FIFA's rules regarding them? --Bill Reid | (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It stinks that Canada, USA, Germany, Brazil etc etc each have 1 team. Where's the United Kingdom has 4 teams. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeh. And ironically Ireland is forced to have two teams though it only wants one. Sarah777 (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The republic has 2 teams? That, I didn't know. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ireland has two teams. Which "republic" are you talking about? Sarah777 (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ireland the independant country. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Irish Republic of Southern Eire? Irvine22 (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It has one of the two teams. Sarah777 (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you're speaking of the island. I was speaking of the UK having 4-teams, not the island of Great Britain. PS: we should continue this at yours or mine talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think our discussion probably belongs on our talk pages rather than here. I'll respond there. --Bill Reid | (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry Elonka. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as presumptive "Northern Irish". Unless someone claims to be such they must be regarded as either Irish or British. Some NI Unionists would perhaps claim to be both Irish and British or perhaps even "Northern Irish" but then some also claim to support Glasgow Rangers but we would not allow Wiki-articles to class then automatically as 'Ranger supporters". Sarah777 (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Call'em British as Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The GFA was agreed between the Irish and UK Governments, voted in by all the people of Ireland and registered with the UN; it allows Irish people in NI to regard themselves in all regards as Irish. They can choose not to be British or described as such. Read before you leap G'Day. Sarah777 (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't recognize that agreement. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't accept the result of the GFA poll? You have some higher authority? Sarah777 (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Higher authority? Yep, me. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I am less interested in personal opinions, and more interested in actual sources. Does anybody actually have one? --Elonka 22:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the usage of 'Northern Irish'? I've absolutely none. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

People in NI have always been "allowed" to regard themselves as Irish, and always have done. They didn't need the GFA to tell them how they could and couldn't regard themselves. That has nothing to do with football clubs or the personal opinions of a small group of editors about the term Northern Irish. Mooretwin (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The onus is on those seeking to remove the term "Northern Irish" from the encyclopaedia to put forward a sourced argument and win consensus. Mooretwin (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the onus is on either side to provide a source for their preferred term. If there's no source for "Northern Irish", then it's just as inappropriate as anything else. --Elonka 22:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If both terms are equally appropriate or inappropriate, then the onus is on the person seeking the change to achieve consensus for that change. WP:BRD "Northern Irish" is consistent with football articles across the encyclopaedia. Mooretwin (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is sources. If there are no sources, then the information can be removed, no matter what it says. --Elonka 22:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

UEFA. When Saturday Comes "Northern Irish champions Glentoran". RTÉ. Breakingnews.ie. Irish Football Association. And what if there are sources for both? Mooretwin (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Elonka. You've just rewarded BigDunc for edit-warring. Mooretwin (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, when I use the search engine for "Northern Irish" [7] the first few results are Northern Ireland on Wikipedia, then thefreedictionary.com defining Northern Irish as Northern Irish followed by, guess, Northern Irish Football, the one regulated by the Irish Football Association since what a hundred years? Isn't that surprising? Do people have to pick on Elonka because she tries to stop the bickering? If they want to change it they will do so themselves in the real world. Wikipedia will not. Why don't we all crawl back in now? Here is a story, Jackanory. Is that okay? Good. ~ R.T.G 23:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been picking on Elonka, she's pretty. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You're at it again G'Day!

Someone from Donegal is obviously Northern Irish but they'd play in the RoI team. I'd accept a definition of "northern Irish" that doesn't exclude people from the most northerly part of Ireland, such as the Malin. Sarah777 (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

So would I but I couldn't accept one that said Northern Irish didn't exist. Thet wood bee messing. ~ R.T.G 00:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC) In fact first post contained "Southern Irish" but I thought keep it simple ~ R.T.G 00:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This is quite ridiculous, the land is Northern Ireland, the people are Northern Irish. The clubs are Northern Irish because they are governed by the IFA. This is like asking for a source to call Manchester United an "english" football club.Trickyjack (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Very poor attempt at an analogy. Man U supporter? Sarah777 (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all. Biased Republican?Trickyjack (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That makes Jack Irish, right? ~ R.T.G 15:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if that starts some abuse but folk know what I am driving at and I doubt Jack is too worried anyway. The is or not Ireland thing is new and is not backed up by concrete. Carry on Jacko. Non-biased republican. (see republic, monarchy pretty much follows that these days, no? Democracy, right? Well good for them I wouldn't try to kick them out of their own house.) It's funny, when I wrote that I looked up prince Harry, it says he is descended of, along with others, Irish and pre-conquest which I would imagine meant pre-1066. So, you ask Harry what about the football teams. You too Jack. ~ R.T.G 17:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Are there any 'lines' regarding blocks - or is it just a cumulative process?

I must say when I read Irvin's comment, I wondered if Jeanne had previously commented about her father. If not, then the comment is beyond mere clumsiness I feel. I started to write something last night about this, but though I'd better wait for Jeanne's response. I personally think Wikipedia is block-crazy (and content-work shy), but I'd have supported a serious block here, as there simply has to be a line somewhere. The problem though it that he's already been caught up in the block 'method', which completely blurs the lines.

I think the strategies I see around are far too primitive:

Label a nuisance editor for removal and poke a bit.. remind of any prior indiscretions and threaten. Provoke a little more... then hand out a block. Fully goad... then block for longer. Completely castigate the editor.. and finally 'remove'. And in doing so ensure that they will never bother sticking with a single account ever again (if he's not irrevocably down that road already). Or some 'fast-track' version perhaps.

I think the provocations include drawing support and, fankly, ganging up. The offending editor should never be addressed regarding technical/block matters within prejudiced multi-editor discussions about him - it is really unprofessional. I don't see the logic in these methods, and admin should always try to non-partisan in notoriously political topics anyway, as problems can easily occur elsewhere when they show/exclude favour. I'm not supporting Irivin here - I'm genuinely being neutral - I'm basically concerned about editing rights on Wikipedia.

IMO, Wikipedia admin have generally made a pig's ear of all that is 'Troubles' related. They have been policing a neighbourhood of closed shops. Admin need to accept responsibility for their failings and stop blaming the 'crazy editors' involved – it makes no sense at all to single-out so relatively few editors over all, esp when the dramas are compared to the real world. Too many subjects have been sacrificed for the sake of leaving the stew simmer away. How many admin have anyone's genuine respect regarding these subjects (never-ending politics aside), including those who have kept away, allowing good editors to back off or burn out?

I can think of two initial reactions admin could have to this kind of criticism: to look at my own branded skin and apply the trademark disinterest, or to actually apply the notorious 'WP:AGF', which has vastly more value to administrators than it does to decent honest editors (for whom it is too often a serious handicap that at times infringes on their human rights, and is nothing short of a gift for the skilled Machiavellian).

The cumulative block method leads to all manner of problems and injustices, not least the active way they are - perhaps even unwittingly - persued. The Wikipedia legal system should be about lines, laws and mitigation. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The thing is Matt, that if you read Irvine's comment on Talk:Gerry Adams you'll see that it was a sly, nasty flank attack against Irish Catholic fathers akin to Lord Stanley's attack against Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth. He started out by pretending he was against the inclusion in the Gerry Adams article, then quickly moved in for the flank attack with his appalling bigoted remark. I fully support Irvine's block.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 20:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Irvine

This type of comment is really not acceptable from a blocked editor. BigDunc 19:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, depends how you look at it. Assuming good faith, it might be a genuine apology. --Elonka 19:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It might! But irony junkies might doubt that :) Sarah777 (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Come off it Elonka, an editor makes remarks about another editors father, [remarks brought back some unpleasant memories of your father], assuming good faith what does that mean? BigDunc 19:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If enough bad faith is assumed, anything could be regarded as sarcasm. But why not take the comment at face value, as a genuine apology? Or let me turn things around. Assuming that Irvine22 genuinely wanted to make an apology, how else could he have worded it, to make others believe his sincerity? --Elonka 20:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Simple I am sorry would suffice, not give an implication that because another editor had an Irish Catholic father that maybe they were abused and that it was a sore subject for them, it is BS and not an apology Irvine is a sectarian bigot, and is not shy about claiming that he was racially abused by another editor. BigDunc 20:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. But a borderline comment which on its face appears to be a genuine apology, given by a blocked editor on his own talkpage, is not disrupting the encyclopedia. Your comment, however, is an unequivocal personal attack. If Irvine's comment was an apology, good. If not, then it's obvious bait. So please, swim away? --Elonka 20:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Me - I'm dog-paddling furiously in an away direction! Sarah777 (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, we should let Jeanne decide on weither the apology is sincere, appropiate etc. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

With all the suspicion directed towards Irvine22 at the moment, he could probably say something like, "I feel terrible, please accept my humblest apologies," and even if he was genuinely sincere, some would still assume that he was being sarcastic. --Elonka 20:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I reckon the problem is: Irvine apologized for his comments upsetting Jeanne, but didn't apologize for the comments in particular. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

As an "Irvine Watcher" I would say that is the nearest I have ever seen him come to an apology so I would accept it and move on. Unless there is a radical change, two weeks hence it will all start up again (as it has too many times before)--Snowded ^TALK 20:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, this is just to clarify things. The fact of the matter is that Irvine made a sweeping, bigoted statement against Irish Catholic fathers in general, therefore I took offence as someone who had an Irish Catholic father (who was a wonderful, erudite man, sadly departed since 1990). However, as the remark was directed not just at my dad but against all Irish fathers, I asked him to apologise to all of the Irish editors here. His apology to me, from my POV, seems to be a cupcake flavoured with vinegar. His snide insinuations about whether he had "touched a sore spot" or "brought back unpleasant memories" don't merit a response. He appears to be a pseudo-matador waving his red flag at Irish and Scottish (yes, he has a history for insulting Scots as well-in particular Glaswegians) editors, then when the bulls charge, he scurries off into a corner and whines racism. In my opinion he doesn't bring anything to the party except the apple of discord.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's no secret that the Catholic Church is more prone to sexual abuse than most Protestant Chruches. So why is it even sectarian bigotry to suggest that a follower of such a church might be more prone to abuse than the average? Irvine never said all Irish Catholic fathers were this way, he simply suggested the figure for that group might be higher than average. He might bring the "apple of discord" to wikipedia in some peoples minds, no doubt his political opinion is very inconvenient to the majority of "irish" wikipedia editors. Kind of a bitter pill to swallow when they are out there in force, in talk:Gerry_Adams, praising the man to the heavens who led a terrorist organisation that killed friends of mine, and friends of every protestant in Ulster. Fair play to irvine, wikipedia needs more great men like him to add a bit of neutrality to the discussion. Trickyjack (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Certain elements in the media for obvious political reasons prefer to highlight and promote coverage of the small fraction of abusers within the Catholic Church (muting cover of other religions and professions). But that by no means there are "more". In any case, Adams' father wasn't a clergyman at all, he was just a lay person. Thus the comment was bigoted at most and uncalled for at least. Is it sectarian? No the One True Church, founded by Jesus Christ has never been a "sect". Most of Irvine's contributions to republican articles are amusing and are legitimate; often adding information republicans would like to cover up, especially regarding ancestry or sexuality of various peoples. I don't see why Irvine needs to make dubious comments on Catholicism, on articles about terrorist organisations and international Marxism. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WilmerAndTheDukes.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WilmerAndTheDukes.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:LizMyers.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:LizMyers.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Errr....

Sorry to bother, but is your website[8] supposed to look how it is? I don’t think it’s displaying properly for me… Or do you just keep it plain looking? :P --Misortie (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Imposing on your patience ..

I realise you must be heartily sick of the whole British Isles/Irish sagas by now, but I admire your fortitude. Would you have a look at this. Its one of the range of centralised discussion topics on the use of BI. This was one of the straightforward ones with most editors (including the then supervising admin Black Kite) agreeing that this one should not be BI. However we have an auto-revert and accusations against other editors (as is the norm). Its a petty individual issue, but the refusal of some editors to accept any changes is as bad as those wanting to change all instances. I went through the whole list earlier today and added comments for the use of BI in about three cases against in two, including this one. --Snowded ^TALK 00:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Rhode Island_Red#Juice Plus

Just FYI. I know you've been involved with this editor re. the Juice Plus article, so you may wish to comment - Alison ^❤ 04:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Elonka!

Hi! Thanks for helping out on the Korcula pages. It's realy good to have someone with your experience on these Wiki pages and have a "Happy New Year" Sir Floyd:) Sir Floyd (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's all cool, I'm easy! I'm thinking of adding the other chivalrous dance tournament unions from Korcula to the article, if thats OK. Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me, add away, and Happy New Year. :) --Elonka 05:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Sir Floyd (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Elonka! Love what you did on the Moreska-Sword dance societies (Kumpanija) chapter. :) Sir Floyd (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Elonka! The redirect on Blato properly should be "Blato, Curzola" :) Sir Floyd (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Curzola? I checked the article, which is listed as Blato, Korčula. Is there another Blato? --Elonka 07:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think there is a suburb in Zagreb. Elonka if you want to expand on these articles, please do so. I'm of to the movies. Cheers Sir Floyd (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Seen this?

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thegoodlocust William M. Connolley (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, looks like he was particularly bored yesterday. --Elonka 19:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi, I reverted your archive at Talk:Sinn Féin because the discussion on "Foundation" is still very much relevant to the ongoing dispute on that Talk page. I hope you see this as reasonable. I've no objection to archiving the two short discussions before "Foundation". Mooretwin (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Fix the archives as you see fit. My only desire is that the length of the talkpage stays manageable. --Elonka 23:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's pretty long, but unfortunately all relevant to an ongoing dispute. Mooretwin (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Saint Vincenca

Hi Elonka! I'm seeking feedback (please) on my new article: Saint Vincenca. Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Great stuff! Thanks Elonka. :) Sir Floyd (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Mike Perry (Maxis)

I have nominated Mike Perry (Maxis), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Perry (Maxis). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ash (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Could you have a look at Dunmanway killings and the "new" editor who is inserting controversial material. BigDunc 16:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look now... --Elonka 16:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Pretty clear sock looking at the range of edits, provocative in all cases and they look oh so familiar. --Snowded ^TALK 16:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree on the sock. BigDunc 16:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on the obvious disruption, so I've blocked for 24 hours, for now, while we sort things out. I'll extend the block once we know more. Who do you think it is? --Elonka 16:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The obvious suspect is Irvine22, he has run a sock before and if you look at the edits they match his pattern. Small changes to key words on Irish articles such as adding "extensively" to "infiltrated" on the IRA article. insertion of Freddie Scappaticci implies deep knowledge of detail which is typical of Irvine Gerry Adams sexual abuse is one of his pet subjects, provocative use of British Isles on the Republic Article which entails a lot of familiarity with debates here. Normally there would be a few suspects, but the small word changes and knowledge of detail mean that Irvine22 is the prime suspect. He also showed little or no acknowledge of fault after you last block, but knows enough about wikipedia to know he has to lay off for a bit, so the motivation to create a sock is there. --Snowded ^TALK 17:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is 67.189.107.193 (talk · contribs) also connected? --Elonka 17:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Similar, although the talk page comments were fairly childish, Irvine22 is a normally more sophisticated. It probably worth bundling them all in a checkuser. --Snowded ^TALK 17:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that a CheckUser or WP:SSP report would be a good idea. Having a centralized location for data-gathering will also be helpful for any future incidents of disruption, as we can simply point at the SSP report when we spot the latest sock. --Elonka 17:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

OK I made the report here. First time I have done one of those so if you could check it out? --Snowded ^TALK 17:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Good start!  :) Be sure to place notices on the various users' talkpages to notify them of the report. That'll also alert any other watchers to come in and offer their opinions on whether they think the socks are the same people or not. --Elonka 18:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Dick Stauner appears to have confessed to being Irvine22, [9], though that still doesn't make it certain as Irvine22 has made no comment. Also, for your information, in Glaswegian slang stauner means erection, thus Dick Stauner. Jack forbes (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've upped the block to indef on the DS account, and made a note at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Irvine22. I'm also inclined to indef block Irvine22 as well, but would like to gather some more opinions first to check consensus. If you (or anyone) has an opinion, please post it on the report? --Elonka 20:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Could you also look at the contributions of User talk:86.153.167.164, looks like Trickyjack evading their block thanks. BigDunc 13:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, but what in particular makes you think that it's Trickyjack? --Elonka 15:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)