User talk:Elonka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to User talk:Elonka/Archive 6.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Contents

[edit] Exposure in Magic WikiProject

Just wondering if you have any opinions about publication of methods behind magic tricks. I've posted some thoughts on the project talk page but no one's leapt into the debate yet.

Also, I'm having a minor dispute with someone called DannyDunn over the Table of Death article. I'd welcome your advice on the line I've taken.

Circusandmagicfan 15:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Thanks for your contributions - they are helpful and encouraging. I will put some thought into drafting guidlines as you suggest.Circusandmagicfan 13:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

[edit] Elonka, you wrote...

something on my page about personal knowledge.. what page do you mean??? allie_collegegirl21 01:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't cut entire sections of writing....

You cut alot on the cooper barrett site for no reason. These are real so don't cut them. allie_collegegirl21 01:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Well i didn't

I know how to change info! I didn't steal. I put them in my own words or got them from a non-citable source. Thanks allie_collegegirl21 01:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Aharri29 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Are you not qualifiying for Wikipedia?

Hello! Unfortunately, your article at German Wikipedia (de:Elonka Dunin) ist a candidate for deletion at de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/15._März_2007#Elonka_Dunin. It is stated that you don't qualify for an entry. I hope you can take part in the discussion. Greetings, -- Bapho 13:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Profitip spam?

Hello Elonka. Since I'm relatively new, I don't want to delete someone's work or propose deletion without asking someone with more experience first. What do you think of Profitip's contributions? They seem like spam to me. Thank you for your help. VivekVish 16:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sainted???

[quote] He was evidently sainted by the late Pope John Paul II.

I believe that the correct term that you are probably looking for is 'canonised' - that is according to the Vatican, but there again, I suppose that they could be wrong. Lord Knowle 19:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could state which article you were referring to? --Elonka 19:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk: Knights Templar

Hiya, if you have time, could you pop in to the talk page? We're running into some POV questions, and I'd really appreciate a third opinion, from someone else who's familiar with the article's history. :) --Elonka 23:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I popped in as requested. Hope it helps. ;) --Loremaster 22:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Answer to Query

Nope relation that I know of. Just a naming coincidence. Reasonably common name, actually. --Sean Martin 00:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article history at Opus Dei

Hi Elonka,

Thank you for your work at Opus Dei when you put its article history. May I ask a question? Is it right and is there a way to put in the version at that time when it was GA at this date or that date, so readers can click on it and find out what happened since then? Thanks, Walter Ching 10:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your immediate action! Fantastic! :-) I notice that the January 22 thing is a talk page instead of a version. Not that I do not want it but it does not seem to be consistent with the other things in that column where you find versions as per date.
Really a good idea to put in talk pages as of those dates as well-- separate from the versions. Is there a way of doing that? Like another column?
And should the Date column be renamed something like Version or Version/Date?
Wow, I ask too many questions. Well, they're all for Wikipedia... :-) Thanks, Walter Ching 07:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's the version of January 22: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opus_Dei&oldid=36168442

Walter Ching 05:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, Elonka!! I did what you suggested. Hope it gets approved. :-) BTW, the article was also featured in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries/October_2 But am not sure that's supposed to go into the template...Thanks so much... :-) Walter Ching 06:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nominal GDP stock index

Elonka, I am new to the Wikipedia world and still learning. The subject is currently under review by a major index company. Please do not delete. References will be added shortly. Thanks B Leclere.

PS: I noticed a message entitled "Profitip spam?". This message originated from somebody whose main contributions go for a competing project... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Profitip (talk • contribs) 10:31, March 23, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template_talk:Welcome#Requested_addition

Done but I did it in a slightly different way then you requested. Is that acceptable to you? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Autoblock of HexToxis, possible collateral damage

Hello: in light of User_talk:Newyorkbrad#Account_block, might you have any advice on whether or not to grant the un-autoblock request at User talk:Pstansbu? Thanks, Sandstein 20:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Very well, the autoblock has been lifted. Thanks for the investigative work, Elonka. Sandstein 21:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New interesting article

Check this out: Battle of Jarosław, and please, make it better :) Pan Wikipedia 13:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Today's featured article request for Knights Templar for 13 October

Hi, in response to the message you placed on WP:TFA/R, I have left a note for UberCryxic on his take page. Let's see what he says. Regards, — BillC talk 22:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Per his note on my talk page, he's very kindly postponed his request for two years. I've gone and made the necessary changes. — BillC talk 23:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Can you change your archive to 15 days

It gets cluttered b/c people keep adding stuff. allie_collegegirl21 15:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aharri29 (talk • contribs) 15:53, March 27, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for Autoblock help

Hi Elonka,

Thanks for your help in getting my Autoblock lifted - while I cannot match your contribution level I like to do my little bit and certainly have no interest in abusive or similar behaviour - joys of dynamic IP addressing.

Best regards,

Peter aka Pstansbu 21:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal note

I've really quite admired the resiliance shown recently and for attending to all the boring crap little stuff too. That last re-arrange you did of the pictures was a big improvement, it lifted that horizontal visual bar that stopped the visual flow, nice stuff.--Alf melmac 23:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Awww, thanks for the kind words, they mean a lot! I'm working on the FA nom now, I'll let you know when it's up! :) --Elonka 00:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Elonka/Images

I've linked some of the images in this gallery as textual links, because they are not compliant with Wikipedia image policy (since they're fair use, they can only be used in articles about the subject of the photo, and not in userspace). Ral315 » 03:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

By all means, it's fine now. The CC and GFDL images can stay as they are now, but any additional fair use images would have to be linked as text only. Ral315 » 03:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woohoo!!!

Yes!

http://www.elonka.com/elonkaQ.html

She is, in fact, single!

Now, of course, the only question left is how to ask her out without looking like a WikiStalker.

 ;)

Ciao for now —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.251.125.85 (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Bradford Anderson

Thank you for adding bradfordanderson.net to the links section on the article of Bradford Anderson.

I wanted to check if your intention was to include the link to an single entry of the site or to the main page at http://bradfordanderson.net/

Fine ether way just was checking. Your blog entry on Bradford was great by the way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pinkdinkydo (talk • contribs) 14:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] re: Knights Templar

Elonka, please see the reply to your comment on my talk page. -- Pastordavid 17:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Great work ... my word count put the section at just over 2,000 now, a definite improvement. I have changed my vote to support, a very fine article; well done. -- Pastordavid 07:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colby Chandler merge

Back in October 2006, you merged some content into Colby Chandler. Do you know where this content came from? --- RockMFR 05:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Klingon Language

Klingon LanguageDaq bIQanmo' qatlho'. Qapla'. Alpha Omicron 14:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responding to an old Stargate question

Hi a long time ago you left a message on my talk page about Stargate and a naming dispute. [1] I was on an unplanned wikibreak at the time, and I apologise for taking so long to respond. I assume you all have already resolved it, but I just wanted to check. Thanks, Armed Blowfish (mail) 18:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC), 18:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Student Politics

With the greatest respect, your current activities surrounding the Australian student politics pages are, whilst no doubt made with the best of intentions, misguided. As someone who is not an Australian, I understand the reasosn that you do not appreciate the importance, or the complexity, of the internal political nature of the NUS, however, The NUS articles database has been painstakingly created over many years by hundreds of editors, from all factions, to become a genearlly accepted history of the goings on in Australian Student Politics. It must be noted that Australia's NUS, and its predecessor, has no rival in the Western World, and these Wiki pages are the only account we have, and, I must add, an account that has cross-factional support. You will see that, despite the edits through time and occasional disputes, the Liberals, Labor-Right, Labor-Left, Grassroots Left, Independents, Socialist Alternative members who are Wiki editors have all come to an agreement. As is the nature of such things, reliable sources for absolutly every comment may well be difficult to find, however, and if you force us to go and reference every single sentence, the value and credibility of the NUS project shall be destroyed. I recognise that you do this with the best of intentions, and I certainly don't want to sound like I'm saying "leave it to us, we're the important people here, we'll take care of it", however, prod warnings about factions that contain hundreds of members, dozens of full-time paid office bearers, budgets of tens of thousands and have in time contributed to many of Australia's most notable political figures simply because there isn't a reference to thigns in a newspaper, despite the fact that the relevant facts are known to all concerned, is a sure way to lose knowlege. 220.237.125.217 03:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your feelings on the matter, but I would respond that Wikipedia probably isn't the best place for this kind of information. Wikipedia is really only intended as a location to summarize information that is already published in reliable sources. For the kind of project that you're talking about, some other location would probably be better. I would recommend a separate webpage, or perhaps one of the locations at Wikia. --Elonka 04:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I certainly see where you're coming from, however, most of the informaiton on all of these pages is independently verifiable from reliable sources, whether it be mainstream media reports, or, more frequently student newspapers, electronic media and so forth. I would certainly agree with you that improvement is needed regarding citation, however, there is a significant difference between improving sourcing and citation, attributing more information from articles to reliable sources etc, and saying that an article ought be a candidate for deletion. 220.237.125.217 04:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Then all that's needed is to add references to a few of these mainstream media reports, to prove that these student organizations are independently notable, per Wikipedia guidelines at WP:CORP. --Elonka 04:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Would that, therefore, not mean that rather than a 'prod' you should simply put up whatever tag it is that asks for more sources? LibStu 04:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Depends on the current state of the article. Which one are you referring to? --Elonka 04:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Danny RFA

Thanks for making one of the more eloquent oppose votes in the whole page, IMO. I agree with the vast majority of what you say there, even though my conclusion as to Danny's candidacy differs. I personally feel that Danny was asked to handle a workload way greater than he should have (or took it on personally without being asked) and the stress of it caused errors that I believe would not happen as a regular admin. I could be wrong, though, most certainly. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organic Design

Hi Elonka, I followed you here from the mediawiki.org and was very impressed with your writing and dedication/passion for the Wikipedia project. I work on the OrganicDesign:Project which involves development work in a variety of languages and technologies that all integrate tightly with mediawiki and wikipedia. We're working on a lot of amazing new ideas for the next generation of wiki such as p2p-wiki, applicational-content and collaborative organisational tools. But we're all developers and have no one who can present the project in a publically digestable way, so I'd just like to invite you to our wiki to have a look around to see if it catches your interest (please excuse the disorganisation, it's kind of like a busy workshop with a lot of unfinished machinery lying round :-/) --Nad 09:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Danny's RFA

Hello. Look, I stand by my comment: it is patently absurd to question Danny's contributions to quality articles. There are tons of good reasons to oppose his RfA but this is not one of them and he shouldn't have to stand there and just take blows below the belt. Jtmichcock made a stupid comment, got called on it and then had the nerve to whine about it? Come on Elonka, you're letting your own dislike of Danny cloud your judgment here. Pascal.Tesson 18:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my comment, too.  :) I have been looking (I mean really looking) to try and find any proof that Danny has made substantial contributions to a featured article, aside from creating the initial stub. So far I haven't found anything. However, I am open to reviewing new evidence. --Elonka 18:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/l/o/User_talk%7EElonka_f038.html"