User talk:Elonka/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Supercouple article

Elonka, I also left this message for Mike, but if there's no huge objection from other editors here within the Wikipedia: WikiProject Soap Operas, I'm going to expand the Supercouple article a little. I feel that since supercouples exist in real life, a portion of the article should be dedicated to celebrity supercouples, past and present. After all, the term supercouple isn't limited to soap operas alone. And these days, supercouples seem to be more prevalent in celebrity couples than the fictional couples. I'll also add an external link to each fictional supercouple on the main supercouple list just like this: [1] I feel that besides making the list more "solid" upon glance without necessarily having to enter the article, this will also deter new editors from just adding a couple that they like when that couple isn't "notable"...especially editors who only sign up here to add their favorite couple to the list that has no notability. This way, if they notice that -- unlike all of the other couples on the list -- they don't have an external link in which to validate the claim that the couple they want to add is a supercouple, they may not add the couple. Flyer22 01:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

So I was actually kind of stumped with where to begin creatively; I wasn't too crazy about my first attempts using Image:Hollywood Barnstar3.png so I just did a quickie using the basic barnstar image and the "paper dolls" icon I used for the other WP:SOAP icon. Not sure how I feel about it, but I named the image in a way that I can upload a replacement whenever. I guess there's no hurry in implementing the barnstar because who would we give it to?! Anyway, how is this first attempt? TAnthony 02:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

		The Soap Opera Barnstar
		Elonka has been awarded The Soap Opera Barnstar for helping bring WP:SOAPS back from the dead! — TAnthony 02:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Pauline Fowler

Hey Elonka, I think we have sorted every issue brought up in the peer review for this article. Do you think it is in a suitable state to submit for FA now? or should we be making anymore changes? Gungadin 15:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Monomyth

It appears that there is a clear consensus to merge Monomyth and Hero's journey, please proceed, thanks!  :) --Elonka 17:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I'd forgotten I'd made that proposal; thanks for the reminder. I'll get at that as soon as I have a chance. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Lacey Schwimmer

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Lacey Schwimmer, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RandomHumanoid 04:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Lacey Schwimmer

I've nominated Lacey Schwimmer, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Lacey Schwimmer satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lacey Schwimmer and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Lacey Schwimmer during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. RandomHumanoid 04:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Another admin nomination?

I noticed on your user page that you were previously nominated for adminship, and I looked into it a bit to see what went on with the nomination. Seeing as the only strike against you was that you edited articles relating to yourself and your family, and that your last edit in these articles was now over a year ago, I think it's quite appropriate for you to be renominated. Editors with bad histories (even vandals) have become admins in the past, and your "bad" history is trivial, so I really see no reason it should be held against you now.

So, if you'd still like to become an admin, let me know and I (or "we" if you'd like some input) can start drafting up an RfA. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't any experience with an RfA before, so if someone else who has does, it would likely be best for them to lead the charge. I'll be happy to help out and co-nom, though. Just let me know if there's anything I can do to help. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 04:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Brenda Barrett returning

Have you read the source that is given for the return of Brenda Barrett on the General Hospital Actors List Page? It's basically a rumor that she may return in August. Nothing even remotely official or confirmed by ABC. I don't think this should be included until it is made official. Zackfins54 16:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the only website that I can find with this information. My position is, that since the character of Brenda is certainly one of the more popular characters on GH, that ABC would have confirmed the characters return somewhere such as TV Guide or one of the Soap Magazines. I just feel like until an official word comes from the network, it is just s rumor. I don't want to get into an edit war, so if I am outnumbered in this, then OK, but I just wanted to state my position. Thanks. Zackfins54 22:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't point out an instance that they have provided inaccurate details before so I will agree to go ahead and leave it for now an wait and see what happens. Thanks. Zackfins54 22:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the page and it looks like someone has taken it down. I will go ahead and revert it to you last edit. Zackfins54 22:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried removing the info last week and got a message telling me not to do it. I guess this site encourages rumors. I was told to go play in the sandbox instead of removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmw1975 (talk • contribs) 18:46, June 20, 2007

Blocks

1. Are you admin, 2. why were blocked previously? Just some questions... --SWEETCARMEN♥ 02:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay :). --SWEETCARMEN♥ 02:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Days of our Lives

I saw your request for semi-protection on WP:RPP, but there's not enough activity. However, you might want to put this template on the article to signify that you're working on it: {{inuse}} Here's a link: Template:Inuse. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 23:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Try what again? bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 00:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It depends, but I'd say five or more vandalistic edits from 2 or more anons or new users. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 00:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Tom Stone

Hello, Elonka. We seem to be having an edit disagreement on the disambiguation page Tom Stone. In Wikipedia articles, redlinks are allowed if it is likely that an associated article will be created. Is the rule different for disambiguation pages? If so, please point me in the direction of that policy. In the meantime, I have re-added Tom Stone (coach) to the page. Thanks! --Wordbuilder 03:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a policy that states that the associated article must be "imminent" and then defines "imminent" as "within a day or two" (or something similar)? I definely plan to create the article but have a lot on my plate in addition to the time I devote to Wikipedia so haven't gathered any references needed to even write a stub. As far as notibility, that shouldn't be a problem, since articles regarding college coaches are plentiful (for examples, see Bob Knight, Mike Leach, Dennis Franchione and Augie Garrido) and secondary sources covering Texas Tech Red Raider sports are plentiful. --Wordbuilder 03:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I will create a stub. But, that doesn't have to be done within your timeframe unless your timeframe is supported by Wikipedia policy. --Wordbuilder 03:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB#Redlinks. What this basically boils down to, is that you feel that an encyclopedia article could be written about this person. I, however, do not. If there were a stub, the name could at least be subjected to review from multiple editors, and possibly an AfD. But on a disambig page, all we really have so far is your say-so. If I were confident that the individual passed WP:BIO, I'd make a stub myself, but I'm not. So, I'm willing to give it another few days, per WP:AGF. After that, if there is still neither a stub nor any proof that the individual is notable, I still think that the redlink should be removed from the disambig page. Bottom-line, I just don't think that the person meets WP:BIO, but I am open to be being proven wrong. --Elonka 03:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I will link another portion of the entry on the disambiguation to an existing article. This will further satisfy WP:MOSDAB#Redlinks, which states, "Redlinks should usually not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information." I will write the stub within the next week or two (neither guideline you provided cites a timeframe). It's interesting that you don't think he is notable. Is this based on any knowledge or research on your part or just a well-I've-never-heard-of-him feeling? --Wordbuilder 15:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I created the article (got to it sooner than later). I'm confident that it is notable and will pass review if you should choose to tag it as an AfD. --Wordbuilder 02:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Days

Whenever you get a moment, if you can sign on to AIM, that would be great...I have some things to discuss with you about the Days of our Lives article. I've started a peer review, fixed fair use rationales on the pictures, and I'm now up to 47 sources. I need to know what you think, so whenever you're free, please sign on to AIM. Thanks. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 23:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Found it!

We briefly corresponded over the length of this article several weeks ago, and you mentioned that the plot summary might be a copyright violation. It indeed appears that it was taken from this page, and that User:Redtoe may have done so in a number of other articles. I've deleted the whole summary from that article, and I'll see what I can do about cleaning the rest of them up. JavaTenor 03:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Expanded on the supercouple article

• Elonka, I left this exact message on Mike's talk page as well, but of course I wanted to let you know straight from me also: It took me longer than I had initially planned, but I finally expanded on the supercouple article.

Also, I edited this statement out of the soap opera section of the supercouple article -- "and thousands of people called NBC as well as their local affiliates to petition for the right for Doug and Julie to marry, since the actors were married already" -- because I couldn't find the citation for it.

If we find the citation for it, then of course that part of the article can be edited back in.

Speak with you later. Flyer22 12:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your comments. You make some very good suggestions and I'm going to look for other articles that could use my assistance. I love surfing Wikipedia and reading about all kinds of random things so your suggestions are right up my alley. I only wish I had more time to do it. Working a full time job while trying to make it as a screenwriter in Hollywood doesn't give me a whole lot of time. I'm gonna try to stick with it though. :) Citizen Don 03:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Days peer review

Someone put major suggestions on the peer review. I've responded to all the objections thus far but can you take these ones? Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 19:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been hit with a lot of unexpected stuff at school and work. Will you please respond to the objections in the peer review for me soon? Thank you. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 20:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Pauline Fowler FA

Hi Elonka. I've gone on at some length about my reasons for opposing this FAC on its review page. One of the things I like about reviewing FA candidates is that if I'm wrong, the community will over-rule me. You have the option (which I'm predicting you'll take) of ignoring my oppose, and seeing how it gets weighed. I just wanted to assure you that it was based on a careful consideration of the article (i.e. I read the whole thing twice, and researched around WP:WAF etc). If it passes anyway, you'll have my congratulations. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 12:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Elonka

Elonka, I know that you're busy, but as I informed Mike as well, I wanted to inform you on some of what User:Anetode and I are discussing in concerns to the supercouple article, which you can read on my user page. Here's the link...[2] Flyer22 09:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

danah boyd

Hi, I noticed that you're one of the more consistent opponents to moving the article Danah Boyd to "Danah boyd, which would be the most factually-correct title Wikipedia is technically able to provide for that article. While I don't know danah, I have made use of her research and commentary and so it annoys me that the article on her is incorrect. I'd like to propose once again that the article be moved, and so I'm looking for opinions from those who've opposed or reverted such moves in the past.

I've read through previous debates about the article, and the rationale which has consistently been applied is threefold:

• Some mainstream media sources list her name as "Danah Boyd".
• WP:NAME indicates that proper names should be capitalized.
• Users searching for a proper name will be likely to capitalize it, and would be confused if such a search returned no result.

But there are problems with this:

• First and foremost, "Danah Boyd" is inaccurate; she indicates that she has legally changed her name to "danah boyd", and searching publicly-available records should easily back this up and make it a simple case of verification. There is no online access I could find to perform a search for California name-change records, so no hyperlink to that is available for citing in the article, but the University of California does publicly identify her on her departmental web page as "danah boyd". Additionally, publications from respected academic sources -- papers by danah and papers by others which cite danah -- include the name "danah boyd", not the name "Danah Boyd". For purposes of WP:V, this should trump apparent typographic mistakes in mainstream media sources (in previous debates, it's been mentioned that mainstream news has occasionally identified her as "Dana" -- without the final "h" -- and that Wikipedia has already chosen to ignore such references on the grounds that they are verifiably typos).
• WP:BLP indicates that the highest priority is to "get the article right", and the current article verifiably does not do so. Worse, it propagates inaccurate information against the known, published beliefs of the subject regarding her own identity; this violates BLP. This also seems to be a case where BLP's guidelines for using the subject of the article as a source apply and provide another strong argument in favor of "danah boyd", because there is no reasonable doubt that she is the one claiming her name is lower-case and this information is not "unduly self-serving".
• Search issues can easily be mitigated by providing a redirect from "Danah Boyd" to a more correctly-titled article.
• The explanatory text of WP:IAR indicates that it should be applied when other rules get in the way of improving Wikipedia. Providing factual information about a living person while respecting that person's beliefs is pretty much undeniably an improvement of Wikipedia, so IAR should trump everything, including naming conventions.

If I'm misunderstanding something, please let me know, but as I see it there's no reason why Danah Boyd should not be moved to "Danah boyd", with a redirect for search purposes, and with a note on the final location of the article indicating that Wikipedia's technical limitations prevent the title from being presented in the proper case. And I see several reasons why the title should be presented as closely to the correct lower-case version as possible. Do you know of any other objections I've missed in the above reasoning? Ubernostrum 01:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Family notability

Since you had some experience with those issues, what do you think of Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family? See del (nom by me, result keep) on talk.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Responded on the RFC talk page. Cheers, >Radiant< 12:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Dunin Surname page

Hi Elonka,

I just read the message you left about the Dunin Surname page in October 2006 (The last time I logged in, I know kind of pathetic *LOL*). You had enquired about my sources on genealogic information. Information on the origin of our house was from our clan site and using webbed based genealogic sources on the Royal lines. Behind Princess Maria and her father Svyatopolk II are several thousand Royal ancestors (some better substantiated than others), including many of histories most famous rulers. The sources for information on the Dunin-wilczynski members (my branch of the family) is direct from my family. Information on other individuals is mostly webbed based, but from trusted sites (news articles, encyclopedias, Universities, etc.). I left off titles (ie Hrabia), since they are difficult to verify, although I had read several years back that many historians use "count" for the Dunins because they lack any other term. One historian suggested that minor princes was a more accurate term to describe us (Princess Elonka does have a nice ring to it, don't you think *L*), since our origins are royal (Piotr Wlast was probably from the old line of Silesian Princes and if legend is correct from a line of Danish princes) and our family did rule Silesia for a time after we exiled Wladyslaw II. If I can ever find the web site again I will let you know. I dislike the use of Slachta to desribe us, since we predate the petty Polish aristocracy and we out rank most of them. Our family has had such a significant impact on the history of the region that we are in a class by ourselves. Even today the Dunins are still having an impact since so many of us are scientist, physicians and university professors.

If you have any questions you can e-mail me at RDunin@Juno.com. I am heading for Krakow in a few weeks and will be gone for about a month (I am going to try and get a picture of the Dunin swan hanging in Wawal Cathedral). Now if I can avoid being married off by my family I will be all set *L*.

A little about me: I am planning on going to Med school just as soon as I re-take my sciences (why I am going to put myself through this at 47 is beyond me, but it was what I originally wanted to go to school for. To make matters worse I just found out my High School "sweetheart" (we both planned to go to med school) is a local physician, so evan after 28 years there is just a little added pressure *LOL*). I currently hold a bachelors in Computer Science and worked way to long in little cubicles writing code *L*. I use to be an amateur astronomer with the South Shore Astronomical Society before I moved up to Maine and I am a bit of a rock hound. I also share your interest in ancient codes and mysteries (I suspect it is a Dunin trait). In 2003 I hiked the Appalachian Trail from Georgia to Maine (2174 miles, 1400 of them with stress fractures, but it was worth it!) and My trail name is "Rick the Lone Wolf".

It looks like your enjoying life, Elonka, so keep on going on your adventures!

Richard (Ryszard) Svan Dunin-Wilczynski

(PS. I suspect my middle name "Svan" is actually the english word "Swan" as it would be pronounced by a Polish speaker. Misfortunately my Dad died young so I never got to ask him.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickTheLoneWolf (talk • contribs) 10:52, June 13, 2007

images

Hey Elonka, would you mind helping me to tweak the image rationales on Pauline please? we apparently need "strong and specific rationales", i'm not really sure what to add. Gungadin 17:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your work in upholding our encyclopedic standards and BLP policies, and especially the patience you have shown in dealing with difficult contributors. WjBscribe 23:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Give your comments

There is discussion about you on ANI. I suggest you contribute there. --- A. L. M. 09:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Danah Boyd. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC).

Ken Uston

Excellent copy editing on the Ken Uston article, I was kinda surprised that anybody even had heard of him, nice job! ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 07:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Boyd mediation/WikiProject idea

Hi Elonka

Since I'm not too familiar, let alone experienced with Wikipedia mediation proceedings, I was wondering if you could make any predictions how this might or might not go down. Also, since MoS-related formatting disputes seem to come up all the time these days, I'm currently contemplating the foundation of a WikiProject Style. Any opinion/thoughts on that? Regards - Cyrus XIII 11:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You got mail. :) - Cyrus XIII 20:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

NSA Logo

Hi Elonka - I’m sorry, but we only allow use of our logo on materials created for and approved by NSA. We appreciate your request to include the NSA corporate logo on your posting to Wikipedia. More broadly, we also appreciate the interest in and importance of various online vehicles in today's communications environment – and we want to be as supportive as possible. However, we must reserve the right to allow the use of our logo only when we are responsible for the content with which it appears. I trust that you understand why we must respectfully decline your offer. CHT9

Actually, I think it's fair use for Wikipedia to use a company logo on an article about the company. No permission is required, to the best of my knowledge, but I am not a lawyer because I dropped out of Columbia Law School after one year. Jehochman ^Hablar 04:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Sears

This is the reason I came here. Did you ever get an answer if User: Dr sears is William Sears (physician)? This looks like either a COI issue with Juice Plus, or a case of impersonation. Something should be done either way. Jehochman ^Hablar 04:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Dirty Dancing

Hold on, just put "After the movie" as a sub-section under "Reception", and retitle it "Legacy". I'll try and get a closer look soon. Alientraveller 19:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Tanbur (Persian)

Greetings, you were involved in a discussion concerning the content of Tanbur (Persian). I plan to replace that article with the rewritten text at Tanbur/Temp, and then move Tanbur (Persian) to Tembûr (more details at Talk:Tanbur (Persian)#Improvement, nomenclature etc.). I would appreciate any constructive criticism or additional assistance you are willing to offer. I completely understand if you already feel weary of the entire matter. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2007--Christopher Tanner, CCC 19:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Updated two soap opera character articles now as referenced, and with a Cultural impact section

• Elonka, I've updated the Bianca Montgomery article and the Josh Madden article, to where they now provide references (reliable) and real-world impact, and I want your thoughts on their overall presence, and, if you will, their status on what they should be rated. I know that the Bianca Montgomery article is longer in plot than the Wikipedia: WikiProject Soap Operas standard of 500 words, but that's to be expected from a long-running character, in which that policy states may be acceptable for. Anyway, give me your thoughts on these two articles as of how they now are. Flyer22 19:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sale, Greater Manchester FAC

Hi. I'm sorry to bother you, but as you are one of Wikipedia's top writers, I just wondered if you would be willing to have a look through the Sale, Greater Manchester article. It is currently a Featured Article Candidate and needs a copy-edit for grammar. Any other ways to improve the article would also be welcome. We would be very grateful, if you can. Thanks. Epbr123 07:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Depiction of Muhammad

You have messed up the introduction, making it appear that it is normal to depict Muhammad. Why you have done that? --- A. L. M. 07:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

All the references supporting cartoon and written after incident of cartoon violates neutrality. However, I cannot remove them and has not removed them per wikipedia policy. btw now I owe you a oppose vote in your next bit for being an admin. --- A. L. M. 08:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have concerns about the neutrality of the article, please bring them up at the article talkpage. And if you choose to oppose me as admin over a content issue, well, that's your choice. --Elonka 16:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

General Hospital

Oh alright, thanks for clarifying, about the General Hospital thing. Not knowing General Hospital, I assumed it was a real person and that it was just not long enough. Delete away! Smkohnstamm 00:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Kaaba#Pictures of Muhammad

I like your summary of the policy on depictions of Mohammad. I'll need to think about it a bit, but I think you might have changed my mind on the topic. --P3d0 18:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Marcin Dunin

Currentlu I don't have any close-up of face of statue, but I can do it ;) If You are interest in this theme - sculpture was made by Andreas Friederich from Strasburg in 1846. It is currently on the top of epitaph of archbishop Dunin in Chapel of St. John Cantius in Poznań Archcathedral Basilica. Archbishop himself is burried in Archbishopric Crypt in underground of basilica second coffin from the right Radomil talk 09:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Could You check this article, because it was written by German (it was started as Martin von Dunin) and Pole (me). Non of us is English native speaker Radomil talk 09:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Elonka - Thanks for your recommendation to comment on the Request for Comment/RIR Page. My comment is now posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CHT9 (talk • contribs) 19:27, June 26, 2007

Elonka - Do I need to go back in and add the line: 'Users that endorse this summary'? I thought this was going to be automatic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CHT9 (talk • contribs) 20:09, June 26, 2007

Soap episodes

If you think I should not add future dates, come back and let me know when I'm wrong. Let me know that it was pre-empted and I made a mistake. Until then, nobody else seems to have a rpblem with it...and the Passions page is updated by someone else...thanks Soapfan06/June 30 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soapfan06 (talk • contribs) 06:05, June 30, 2007

Dunin Surname page

Hi Elonka,

I added a some information on both Piotr and Princess Maria.

I also added a Wiki link for the charge on Rokitna hill, but it does not mention Captain Zbigniew Dunin-Wonsowicz lead the charge. There are several good external web sources available on Rokitna charge, but the information is a long ways down on the page so I did not add a link to it.

I added a link to a page on www.Lituanus.org about Napoleon's 1812 Russian Campaign. It mentions Count Dunin-Wonsowicz a ways down on the page.

I will try to add more supportive information in the future, but I am flying to Krakow on July 18th and will not be back till the end of August. It is unclear if I will have internet access at the home I am staying at, so it might be a while before I can add any more links and information.

Best Wishes,

Richard (Ryszard) Dunin-W (aka. RickTheLoneWolf)

Talk:Reform_Act_1832

GA holds are for no more than seven days. This article needs to be checked to see if issues were addressed bringing the article up to standards. If so, the article needs to be listed. If not, it needs to be removed from GAC. Regards, LaraLove 04:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

...and it was written of those of the circumlocutious ministery that they had found in their scribe a champion

Good grief! Well, your diagnosis of the events is correct, but what was going on in the passage, besides passive voice constructions so thick that reading is like being slowly buried in a treacle flood, is that quaint nineteenth century habit of indirect discourse. Really, really conservative people still didn't like to repeat speeches from Parliament (illegal, after all), and so they would report speeches indirectly in indirect discourse. "The duke his lordship indicated that he would prefer a sharp poke in the eye than to read his speeches printed and went further to say that I would rather be electrocuted by Mr. Volta's spirit gun and Leiden cells than read myself transposed" was their way of doing a speech and staying clear of the law (even though they didn't have to). The reference almost certainly is of speeches. ¶As for the history, the entire passage can be and should be half the length, as the events are much shorter when told in the indicative mood. Wellington's comments shocked the Whigs and scared the Tories. His government failed through a no confidence vote. Grey, now Earl Grey (apparently turned into a brand of tea in the interim), forms a government.... Geogre 12:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about problematic user

Hi there Elonka. I am another user who has had the misfortune of crossing paths with User:DreamGuy. Well, actually, s/he initiated our “run in” when he removed the content of an entire article of mine (which I spent considerable time researching and cited heavily), claiming it was a WP:FORK and calling my contribution “worthless”. Apparently, he is allowed to completely ignore the WP:Deletion process and didn’t even make an attempt to merge. Regardless of my experience, I find that it is impossible to work productively together with DG. Judging by his/her list of blocks, crudeness and past history, I assume that I am not the only person who has had this problem. Honestly, I just want to leave the whole thing behind and avoid this user entirely, but s/he keeps initiating personal attacks and accusing me of ridiculous things (note: I have never been blocked or accused of violations like this before…which cannot be said for User:DreamGuy). It is surprising to me that nothing more serious can be done about this user besides countless temporary blocks even though he is obviously belligerent and likes to have personal vendettas against other users (WP:DICK). I find this to be a significant flaw in the process. My question is: do you have any suggestions on what I should do? I’d greatly appreciate any input in this matter. Oh and I’d prefer not to sign in, in fear that DreamGuy will come after me for making this edit. Regards, 145.236.110.178 11:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that you have been having an unpleasant experience on Wikipedia. It has been my own experience that the editing environment here can be a bit "rough and tumble" at times, and that behavior which is not tolerated in other communities, often is tolerated on Wikipedia, because the community goals are more towards "build an encyclopedia" than "everyone get along." Also, when someone spends time trying to address a grievance, it's often seen as a waste of their time, when they could be spending time working on articles instead.  :/ Don't get me wrong, there are indeed processes in place to deal with disruptive users, but, when it comes to dealing with problems from established users, these processes generally rely on proving a pattern of disruption, rather than dealing with a single incident.

In terms of DreamGuy in particular, I have to be honest with you that though he can be very brusque at times, the brusqueness is often justified, as he is dealing with bonafide spammers and POV-pushers, who are seeking to intimidate him on very specific issues. Unfortunately, I think that because of this pattern, he may occasionally react to good-faith editors in a stronger way than is necessary. For your own case, I can't make a judgment one way or the other, since you haven't given me any indication of which article(s) you're talking about.

My own advice to you in dealing with anyone on Wikipedia is:

1. Don't post as an IP address. Maintain an identity, to prove that you have a history of constructive constributions.
2. Stay excruciatingly civil at all times. Keep in mind that to other harried admins who are reviewing a situation, they often have only a few minutes to come up to speed on a dispute. They're not going to read the pages of history that have led up to a dispute, they're often simply going to look at the last day or two. If they see two people being equally rude to each other, the admin is likely to assume that both are equally at fault. So it is essential that your own behavior be exemplary at all times.
3. Follow the procedures at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. In a nutshell, these are: Talk to the other party involved. Get discussions going on any related article talkpage. Build consensus. Request an RfC on the article. Try to build consensus among other editors, don't try to go at things solo.
4. If discussion doesn't work, seek something more formal. You can go one of two ways here, depending on whether the core issue is one of article content, or user conduct. If article content, try Mediation. If user conduct, go for a User Conduct RfC. But be aware that such an RfC is a major step, and to be successful, you must have proof of multiple attempts to resolve the situation via other means.
5. Lastly, there's arbitration. But to get that far, it's essential that there's a record of having tried all the above steps first.
6. Keep things balanced. Try not to focus on your dispute, but also spend time editing other parts of Wikipedia at the same time. For every talkpage message you generate about the dispute, try to have 5 or more edits on other non-dispute-related articles. Prove that you're not a single-purpose account.

I hope that this helps. If you're still uncomfortable talking on-wiki about this, feel free to contact me off-wiki, by clicking on the "E-mail this user" link in the lefthand toolbox. Or you can also contact me via IMs. Check the "contact info" section on my userpage for whichever address is most appropriate. Best wishes, Elonka 17:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Buffy Summers

Hi, I recently created a sandbox User:Paul730/Buffy Summers to work on the Buffy Summers article (I really hope to get this to FA one day), and was hoping for your opinion since you've been working on a fictional television character yourself (Pauline Fowler). How long and detailed should the plot summary be? Currently, it is quite short. However, I was looking at the Andrew Van De Kamp article, and that page's plot summary is much more detailed and now I'm worried that mine's isn't good enough. I've also been using the Jason Voorhees article as something of a reference, but it's difficult because Buffy is such a different character from them.

I realise that my sandbox is far from finished, but I'm wondering what direction to take it in. I've changed the list of relationships into a prose section, but it's still too long and detailed, and I'm wondering whether to keep it at all. I'm also a little worried about upsetting the other Buffy editors by deleting large portions of articles that they have been working so long on. My current plan is to make it quite a short article in the style of Andrew Van De Kamp's, consisting of a character history and some information on her personality based on interviews etc. If you could just give me some general advice about how you think I should deal with this article, I would greatly appreciate it. Paul730 07:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Depictions of Muhammad

Hi Elonka, that article is horrible, actually. What does one learn about the history of depictions of Muhammad? Almost nothing. It is an unhappy marriage of a proper depictions article, represented by the image gallery, and Islamic aniconism, as the text is more about Islamic doctrine and reaction. I realize that we cannot conjure expert labor out of thin air, but ideally one would discuss the actual history and characteristics of depictions of Muhammad, and another the religious doctrine. Placing the depictions themselves amidst a sea of recentist criticism does a disservice to the reader and to the artists who created them.Proabivouac 07:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it needs a lot of work, feel free to help out.  :) --Elonka 19:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"I think that the show/hide option is reasonable. It still makes the image available in an uncensored form, but removes it one simple mouse-click away. As for the Depictions of Muhammad page, I don't think that would be a good solution for that page, since the title clearly states that there will be depictions, so the images should be left on the page. But for here at Kaaba, I would support either using SlimVirgin's show/hide solution, or replacing the "Muhammad placing the stone" image with a simple image of the Black Stone itself, and then linking to Depictions of Muhammad via a "See also". --Elonka 22:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)"

Thank you for your this post. --- A. L. M. 08:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC),

Thank you once again :) --- A. L. M. 09:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

RM of Podlachian Voivodeship

A re-request to move Podlachian Voivodeship has been made at Talk:Podlachian Voivodeship. Thought you might be interested. —  AjaxSmack  07:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please respond for Images of Muhammad

You've consistently ignored my responses on this issue when I told you that removing images of Muhammad is against policies. Why are you ignoring policies? Is finding a compromise and doing something that doesnt offend a small group of people more important than Wikipedia policies? You've made a big mistake by giving more attention to this thing than it deserves. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:ProfessorandLarryJennings.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:ProfessorandLarryJennings.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for the kind comments. If you'd like to see all the boxes I've created, you can check them out here. I understand some people are opposed to warning "boxes", I do not understand why, they are much easier to find, especially when it comes to the shared IPs that have multiple warnings. That being said, I still feel that they are useful, in certain situations.

I do not use them all the time. For obvious vandalism, that contains profanity or hate speech, I use normal warnings, because these are users who have shown deliberate intent, and will probably not respond well no matter what the warning looks like.

However, there are many times that people blank pages, or possibly remove content, without (seemingly) intending to, and those users, I believe, should not be scolded, but gently, and courteously informed. Using graphics triggers psychological clues as to the intent of the person doing the warning, (me) so if I post something on a page about blanking a page, text only, it can be taken as a reprimand. However, when I add a cute smiley face to it, it transforms into a completely gentler, kinder "warning".

For people whose "vandalism" was intentional, but not horribly profane or rude, I prefer to assume they are kids who are new to the site, simply playing around, so I use the cute "gasp" face, which is funny, but also conveys the image that what happened was probably not supposed to happen. There are similar boxes for Copyright violations, and editing others' talk/user pages, each with an appropriately associated image.

I prefer to take on faith most of the non-obvious blanking/vandalism issues, so I try to both welcome, and inform, along with the "welcome" links, and hopefully those users will contribute constructively in the future. :)

(Yes I know I am long-winded, lol, I need more people to talk to here!) Anyway, thank you very much for the kind words, and shoot me a message any time you like. ^Ariel♥Gold 17:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Truthfully, I'm not a big IM person. I have MSN on Trillian, but I really only open it to talk to the site manager of another site I write for, which isn't very often, lol. I am always in the IRC #vandalism-en-wp (irc.freenode.net) channel, (when I'm awake, lol) and opening a talk with me there will get my attention, since that's how I monitor activity. (Same name as here) Shoot me an email with your MSN name if you want, and I'll add you there, maybe I'll start using it more, lol (P.S. I saw you played piano too! I've played piano since I was 4 years old, my favorite is Danse Macabre, (Saint Saens), but I love Rachmaninoff as well.) ^Ariel♥Gold 18:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for running down the copyright permission on the Larry Jennings image. I appreciate it. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks RE: Mark Hudson Biog....

I'm happy with Elonka's arbitration. But if we find other documented sources from Disney and elsewhere - we will post them.....what this did was to condone actions by someone "repected" in the industry as "acceptable" behaviour. However to those of us who were the victims - they almost feel "raped" by it.... Canderel 07:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Prince/New Creation Church articles

Thanks for taking the time and effort to rewrite an article that I'm sure you've never heard of until a few weeks ago. - 218.186.9.4 18:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC) (This is a shared I.P. address by the way)

You are most welcome. I try to scan random articles every so often to see where I can help out, and that one popped up on my screen, so I decided to dig in a bit and find references for it. It's an interesting topic!  :) --Elonka 18:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Elonka,

We would appreciate if you could stand out and clarify the reason for constant undoing the History of New Creation Church page. Unless you can convinced us on this two accounts:

1) Why should there be other churches name in OUR history page? As in the email that I have sent 3 days ago, we have clearly indicated that we have no problem to include other churches name, only if they are placed under under segment such as "Other Mega Churches".

2) We do not have church building, from the begining of our church history, we NEVER HAD A CHURCH building, and as stated in my email to you, we have our church services in an auditorium that is situated inside a SHOPPING CENTRE.

We understand you meant well to keep those info, but I am here to express to you we are not here for fight over who is right or wrong, we just want things that are true to stay true. And I am here to tell you that we appreciate you for doing all this good work, but please, we know our church best, we live in this church, some of us has been with the church since it started, we know very well what is true and what is not true. And again, I seek your understanding in this issues. You are a great wikipedian, and again, please, let the truth stay truth. Please. Newcreationwebmaster 02:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)