Misplaced Pages

User talk:Elonka: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:57, 15 February 2010 editPer Honor et Gloria (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers53,031 edits →Oh! Jerusalem! (1300): thank you so much← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:47, 5 January 2025 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,138,989 edits →Administrators' newsletter – January 2025: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery 
Line 1: Line 1:

{{administrator}}{{User:MiszaBot/config {{administrator}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 300K
|counter = 38 |counter = 45
|algo = old(5d) |algo = old(5d)
|archive = User talk:Elonka/Archive %(counter)d |archive = User talk:Elonka/Archive %(counter)d
Line 13: Line 14:
{{tocleft}}{{-}} {{tocleft}}{{-}}


== Could you have a look ==


== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
At these contributions and thanks. <span style="border:1px solid green;padding:0px;">]</span> 10:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
: I take it from your inaction that you intend to do nothing, I will inform Domer that 2 reverts are now allowed while on 1rr per week probation. <span style="border:1px solid green;padding:0px;">]</span> 09:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
::The second of those is clearly not a revert so no breach of 1RR. ] (]) 09:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
:::So you are saying is not a revert of ? Looks to be a clear breach of 1RR to me. ] (]) 09:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
:::: I've been too busy to take a look, but if someone feels that a breach has occurred, try taking it to ]. --]]] 17:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
::::: You weren't to busy to make 37 edits before my post and your reply hmmm, Domer gets a block and probation extension aprox 10 seconds after a breach, makes you wonder if someone is grinding an axe. <span style="border:1px solid green;padding:0px;">]</span> 17:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::: It's a matter of time available. Sometimes I help out in the Troubles topic area, sure, but I'm also doing other things on Misplaced Pages (like right now I'm deep into untangling messes related to medieval Christianity in Asia). Or in other words, "Troubles-monitoring" is not my 24/7 job. So please, if you think there was a breach, take it to ]. --]]] 17:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::: So your not the new flag carrier for all troubles related stuff, seems like you have went from ''uninvolved admin'' to just plian old ''uninvolved''. So you dont have a spare 10 seconds to look at a clear breach, it is at AE already but there it will stay and get closed due to inaction, typical. <span style="border:1px solid green;padding:0px;">]</span> 17:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Wait, you go on at Elonka for a full page in the above thread about her actions in this topic but run to her the next time you think there's a problem in the same area? Am I the only one that's confused here? ] <sup>]</sup> 19:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
: Yep your confused, it is her actions and lack thereof that I am talking about. <span style="border:1px solid green;padding:0px;">]</span> 19:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
::No actually I'm not. First you go on for days that she's handling AE incorrectly and now you're berating her for not jumping when you wanted something done relating the AE in the area you've already complained about. Elonka hasn't been appointed a "guardian" of the Troubles AE; you know how to properly handle things if you have an issue. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
:: Your still confused and it is coming, just trying to resolve before hand. <span style="border:1px solid green;padding:0px;">]</span> 19:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
== Mongol conquest of Jerusalem ==
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I looked over the sources cited at ] for the alleged conquest of Jerusalem in 1300, and the only historian I see there cited as disagreeing is Schein in her ''Gesta Dei per Mongolos''. So I read it. It is not clear to me at all that she denies the Mongols held Jerusalem. There is one non-European contemporary source for it. It is, all in all, completely unexceptional. A large, powerful army invaded a rather weakly-defended territory belong to its chief enemy and had control of it for some four months or so, including the strategically unimportant, but religiously significant, city of Jerusalem. Schein highlights how much Christendom could, in a Jubilee year especially, magnify such a non-event into a miraculous turning point in their fortunes. So can you cite a historian who denies explicitly that the Mongols had control of Jerusalem? I think the sources we have cited say that they did. And it is not a big deal. Certainly their brief running-over of Palestine represents nothing objective in connexion with Europe, only subjectively in those fourteenth-century imaginations. ] (]) 02:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
: There was not a large powerful army in Palestine, there were just some raids for a few months, and when the Egyptians returned from Cairo, the Mongols retreated without resistance. For more info, I recommend reading Reuven Amitai's article. If you don't have JSTOR access, let me know and I'll send you a copy. --]]] 02:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
::I said "large, powerful" because (i) Ghazan himself appeared to be present with his forces and (ii) it was large and powerful relative to the completely absent Mameluke army. I am relying here on Schein, 810. Amitai confirms all this except Ghazan's presence (244–47). Every source I have read confirms that Mongol forces entered Jerusalem and that for a brief period of time (on the order of months) there was no other authority in the entire region of Palestine. ] gives the Mongol army under Mulay as 10,000- or 20,000-strong (obviously exaggerated greatly, but it does show that my denomination "large" has a contemporary source to back it up!). I think you may be over-reacting to PHG's own version of a ''Gesta Dei per Mongolos''. (By the way, the event of 1299–1300 appears to have been a single "raid" not many.) ] (]) 03:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
::: It's not just Schein and Amitai. Phillips, too, said, "Jerusalem was not taken or even besieged." In any case, isn't this pretty well covered at ]? If you know of other sources, feel free to add them there. My own feeling is that it's not up to us to decide the dispute, we're just here to describe it. Based on my own reading of sources, there is disagreement among the historians, so that's how it's written in the Mongol raids article. We would be doing a disservice to our readers if we were to try and state as categorical fact that the Mongols were in Jerusalem. Instead, we state that there's disagreement, quote what the different historians say in a neutral manner, and then let the reader make up their own mind. --]]] 03:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
::::What I am saying is that it doesn't seem that there is any disagreement that the Mongols were in Jerusalem in 1300 (both Schein and Amitai say they were). I don't care if we bring this up in the Franco-Mongol article or not (although a treatment like Schein's would belong there). I care that we not invent a dispute where there isn't one. As to Phillips (can I get a page number?), nobody is saying Jerusalem was besieged. Who would have defended it? And what does he mean by "was not taken"? Does he mean that it was not taken as the result of a military action? Then I agree, none of the sources suggest it was. The army just walked in. There was nobody there to defend it. But I don't think Phillips is here nearly so reliable as Schein or Amitai, who are wrestling with the primary sources directly. Did Phillips? If you don't mind, I've left a note on Adam Bishop's talk page to see if he can enlighten us, since the problem seems to be our interpretation of the secondary literature. ] (]) 03:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
::::: How about we centralize this discussion at ]? --]]] 03:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::Good idea. Just one note though - I don't think Jerusalem's walls were rebuilt after 1244, so it would have been easy to just walk in and take it (and obviously there couldn't have been a siege). I might be wrong about that though. I haven't really looked at the Palestine raids article but I'll put it on the list... ] (]) 04:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
== Why is it so difficult to come by uninvolved input? ==


</div>
If you ever read your colleagues asking this question, I hope you will not just recall what happened at AE, but remember to refer them to what happened (textbook wikihounding). ] (]) 18:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->


== Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards ==
== ????? ==


Voting is now open for the ] ] and ] awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes ] and ] respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via ] (]) 23:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Dear Elonka. You have absolutely no right to ask me that . This is totally out of place. No article can be your exclusive domain. This is also completely unfair if you look at the quality of the contributions I am making to this article and its talk page (online sources, balancing). Best regards. ]&nbsp;] 20:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Hawkeye7@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Military_history/Members/Active&oldid=1259903100 -->
: I am not saying it should be my exclusive domain. There are plenty of other editors who are welcome to participate there. Your actions, however, have become disruptive, especially since you are now de-railing the GA nom. It's time to stop. Please let other editors determine how the article should be written. Please find another article to work on. --]]] 20:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
::No Elonka, I am not derailing anything, quite the contrary. Have you looked at the positive atmosphere on the Talk Page? Even '''you''' finally recognized that the Mongols may have been in Jerusalem, while ] now confirms that "reliable sources say unequivocally that the Mongols were in Jerusalem" , which is quite a progress knowing how much you attacked me for putting forward this fact in the first place ("This DID NOT HAPPEN!!!")? I am committed to making some of the best, most interesting and most referenced contributions to Misplaced Pages, and I only wish to be your friend and fellow contributor, so please relax and let's have some good cooperative time together! Best regards ]&nbsp;] 20:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Elonka I think you should now retract you threat to me . As far as I know, you have no right to impose a non-community approved article ban on anybody, especially using threat. This is especially so as an involved Administrator. Combined with the incivility of your posts and your mistaken treatment of historical facts to pursue me , I am afraid you are putting your status of Administrator at risk. I am allowed to edit the ] article (which I created in the first place), and I don't think you have anything substantial to prove your claims of POV-pushing or disruption, beyond pure rethoric . You typically overreact to simply seeing me contributing to articles you tend to consider your own playground: this is much too possessive. I wish to be your friend, and that we could edit peacefully about our common interests. Cheers ]&nbsp;] 18:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
::::Where in that diff is a threat of a non-community approved article ban? ] <small>(] ] ] ])</small> 18:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::'''' ]&nbsp;] 18:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, I see that, but it's not an imposition of any sanctions. She is insisting that you ''voluntarily'' accept those terms, or else she will seek a formal, what I am assuming will be community-endorsed, article ban. ] <small>(] ] ] ])</small> 18:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


== Administrators' newsletter – December 2024 ==
== PHG ==


] from the past month (November 2024).
I just looked at ] and was rather shocked about the manipulation of sources. There are good sources for the ancient history and archaeology of Marseille, but these are not used in the article (particularly French sources). The statement about ], a Celto-Ligurian settlement taking its name from a Celtic god, is quite misleading and counts as original research. PHG inserted images in the article on ] (which he insists on spelling Marseilles) with captions which already indicated that he was pushing another one of his unsupported theories about contacts between different areas/cultures. The images had very little to do with the article (one map was already present in the gallery). I noted that you were filing a RfE, because your Work1 page is still seemingly on my watchlist. My objection to PHG's editing is that he is pushing what might be speculative footnotes as significant parts of a main article, where the sources do not discuss the particular point in any detail. "Greeks in pre-Roman Gaul" is deeply problematic, because of the superficial use of sources. PHG has failed to locate the main sources and has written information which seems misleading and possibly self-invented. It was only just recently that I worked out why PHG was editing ]. I would support your one-year extension of a ban on medieval and ancient history. I would also probably suggest that the article on Greeks in pre-Roman Gaul be deleted, because it's so badly sourced and researched. I haven't had time to look at anything else at the moment, but I would suggest you broaden your RfE to include this as an example of ] and cherrypicking in ancient history. ] (]) 09:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
: Thanks for letting me know. I agree that it's rather disappointing to see him return to this behavior, especially because we just finished the 2-year cleanup on the ]. If you haven't yet, I recommend also bringing PHG's mentor, Angusmclellan into the loop. --]]] 17:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


]
:Hi Mathsci. As a matter of fact, my statement about Glanum (''"The ancient cities of ] (today ]) and Mastramella (today ]) may have been founded by the Greeks in these earlier times"'') is sourced from , hardly a disputable source I think, and certainly not Original Research (I can hardly be closer to the source). Of course, if you have alternative information about Glanum, feel free to insert it into the article. Let me dispute your assertion that my sources would be improper. Most of them are now online sources in the English language from scholarly authors, so that so that anybody can check them anytime, and include for this article such luminaries as ''The Cambridge ancient history'', ''Celtic Inscriptions on Gaulish and British Coins'' by Beale Poste, ''The hellenistic world'' by Frank William Walbank or ''The History of Cartography'' by John Brian Harley. Should you have additional sources to bring to the article, I can only be delighted. Be carefull though, as offline French language sources can easily be mis-translated or mis-represented in case your contributions are challenged (I've paid for that). Mes meilleures salutations au soleil du Sud. My very best regards, and thank you for the nice comments. ]&nbsp;] 18:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
:: Hi PHG, it is my understanding that your mentor, Angus, is trying to get in touch with you. May I strongly suggest that you communicate with him ASAP? --]]] 18:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


] '''Administrator changes'''
:What am I missing here? Apparently I'm missing something because I find Mathsci's comments confusing. The claim that Glanum owed its name to Glanis wasn't added by PHG so far as I can tell. The Greeks in Gaul piece seems like a passable start. What exactly is the problem here? We've already been over the argument that articles should spring into existence, Athena-like, fully formed and NPOV. This can only rarely happen. It generally takes multiple authors, and multiple versions, to get to that happy state. Criticising PHG for producing a first draft that represents his view is unreasonable. Others can and should edit to fix any biases. It is only if PHG or any other creator seeks to prevent the process of improvement, as was claimed and accepted to be the case at FMA, that there is a problem. As usual, paint me puzzled. ] ] 22:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''Interface administrator changes'''
::Glanum was excavated by Henri Rolland (1887-1970). It has an extensive literature and is described not as having been settled by the Greeks, but by the Celto-Ligurians under hellenistic influences from the Greek colony in Marseille. The whole pretext of PHG's article seems unscholarly and contradicts the main sources. The fact that he started to do this in a major article like ] was where he slipped up: if he'd kept to his walled garden of articles, it would have gone unnoticed. No reputable sources imply that the Greeks went inland to settle St Remy. There are detailed books on the excavations. The settlement in the second century BC used Celto-Ligurian units of measurement and incorporated various hellenistic elements. There are books devoted to the history of Marseille and Provence (in French): PHG has not used them. Even the Michelin guide of Provence would have been a better source. There is for example a book called "Pre-Roman Greeks in Gaul" by Charles Ebel. Why is it not in the references? Why was it not used to write the article? There's a related book by him here. When writing articles, isn't it standard practice to use the best possible sources, not what can be cobbled together online as spurious conjecture? I had to buy Stanley Sadie's ''Handel concertos'' myself before embarking on ], because (a) this is the principal existing reference (b) it was stolen from the Cambridge University library. Isn't this how wikipedia articles are normally written? ] (]) 08:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
:::Hi Mathsci. Your statement is a bit disputable... My source for the possible foundation of Glanum by the Ionians is the ''Cambridge ancient history'' . Do you mean I should drop that, and use the ''Michelin guide of Provence'' instead??? Feel free to modify the article in light of what you know though, I have zero problem with that. The Glanum claim is very, very, marginal, and I would have no objection to even drop it from the article if you're uncomfortable with it (too bad for the authority of the ''Cambridge ancient history'' though). Just don't put too many '']'' references in :-) Cheers ]&nbsp;] 08:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
|]
:::Surprise! I'm seeing your Charles Ebel is using the ''Cambridge Ancient History'' as a source too , so I guess it's not too bad of a source, is it? :-) I'll read it to see how we can use it in the article. Thanks for pointing us to this author anyway. Cheers ]&nbsp;] 08:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
|]
::::Your continued refusal to see the distinction between one throwaway line in a non-specialized tome and specialized articles on the exact topic of pre-Roman settlements in Gaul is not encouraging. I also note that you have added various images to ]. There was already another map of Marseille by ] in the gallery from a long while back. What's going on? ] (]) 09:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
}}
:::::You deny the ''Cambridge Ancient History'', but instead recommend as a source a collection of Misplaced Pages articles published by print-on-demand ??? And what's the problem with offering my images on a Talk Page when I can't edit the article itself, please? May I sugggest a cup of tea? ]&nbsp;] 10:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
:] ]
'''Comment''' There are multiple texts on the well-trodden theme of Celtic Gaul and its ], particularly in Provence. For example Anthony King's UC Berkeley book on Roman Gaul has a long discussion on the Celts and the Greeks, on hellenization and the role of Massilia. The books of Charles Ebel are other examples where there is a prolonged account over many pages. This is valuable content which could be summarised in an article on pre-Roman Gaul. The key word is hellenization.
This affected language, but not local Celtic deities, buildings, but not necessarily Celtic measurements, trade, etc, etc. The true picture is complex and described in detail in these sources. My main point is that almost all of this material is absent from the article at present. Hence my comments. ] (]) 17:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
:Thank you Mathsci! This is much better. I removed the ''Cambridge Ancient History''-sourced sentence about Glanum which you seemed so troubled about in order to be agreable to you (normally you should have balanced the ''Cambridge'' statement with your own research). Now, anybody who is knowledgeable about the subject of the ] is more than welcome to contribute and further expand the article! I'm not so knowledgeable about the subject myself (''culture générale'', a few books on Celtic numismatics, Boardman's book on the transmission of Hellenistic art, a few visits to relevant museums (], ], ]), Google Books online sources), so it is, of course only a start, and could be brought to a much higher level. My thanks to Angus McLellan for his kind and courageous intervention. Best regards to all. ]&nbsp;] 17:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


] '''CheckUser changes'''
== Mongol Mamluks ??? ==
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}

] '''Guideline and policy news'''
* Following ], the ] has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the ] within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
* Following a ], a new speedy deletion criterion, ], has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.

] '''Technical news'''
* Technical volunteers can now register for the ], which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.

] '''Arbitration'''
* The arbitration case '']'' (formerly titled '']'') has been closed.
* An arbitration case titled '']'' has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.

----
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 16:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1259680487 -->
== ] of ] ==
]

The article ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
<blockquote>'''I see no evidence of notability per NCORP.'''</blockquote>

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 22:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

== CIR issue with editor you warned once for lack of sources ==

See https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Proudbharati huge number of terrible changes, done in haste. ] ] 11:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

:Ignore, I CIR blocked. ] ] 12:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==

] from the past month (December 2024).

<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">

] '''Administrator changes'''
:] ]
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}

] '''CheckUser changes'''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]
:] ]

</div>
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
]

] '''Oversight changes'''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


</div>
You wrote: ''"In the early 1400s, Mongol relations with Europe again became friendly, this time with the ], under ] (Tamerlane), who was attempting to form an alliance against both the Mongol Mamluks and the ]"'' Mongol Mamluks?? This can't be right I'm afraid. ]&nbsp;] 18:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
</div>
: Relax, it's just a typo (too many two-syllable "M" words). I've fixed it. --]]] 18:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
::A bit careless in your sweeping rewrites? Glad to help anyway :-) ]&nbsp;] 19:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
==Oh! Jerusalem! (1300)==
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
Hi Elonka! Among your numerous edits to the ] article, I took good note that you now write that '''the Mongols ''"probably"'' raided Jerusalem in 1300'''! . Before this seminal event, ] painstakingly studied the sources himself and strongly challenged your former interpretation, declaring that ''"the modern, reliable sources say unequivocally that the Mongols were in Jerusalem"'' . After pursuing me so harshly for so long for writing about the Mongols and Jerusalem in 1300, this is quite a change isn’t it? I think a small word of apology for getting the facts wrong, and accusing me unduely, would be in order don’t you think? Best regards ]&nbsp;] 17:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
: I really have no interest in getting into another long drawn out debate about this. Quite simply: There is a difference between the Mongols ''conquering'' Jerusalem, and a Mongol raid having briefly passed through Jerusalem. --]]] 17:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
] '''Technical news'''
::I'm afraid you're playing on words, to now make it sound like the Mongols just walked down Jerusalem's ] and left... This is still quite a mis-representation of facts. The Mongols "raid" actually resulted in an ] indeed, even if short or "symbolic" (actually a few months) . The raid of 10,000 to 20,000 Mongols resulted in huge depredations reported in detail by Muslim sources , and validated by modern scholarship. Can't you recognize when you make a mistake and wrongfully accuse another contributor? ]&nbsp;] 18:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.


] '''Arbitration'''
::: I am sorry to have had to take this step, but because you refuse to let this go, are continuing to disrupt the GA nom, and are not listening to the advice of your mentor, I have filed an AE request to extend your topic ban, at ]. --]]] 23:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}.


] '''Miscellaneous'''
::::Thank you so much Elonka for such kindness. Still not a small word of apology for the Jerusalem business? Don't you feel a bit how you over-reacted and harassed me for the wrong reasons in that matter? :-) Best regards ]&nbsp;] 06:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]


----
==Sockpuppets==
{{center|{{flatlist|
{{vandal|Roddy Stauner}} and {{vandal|Randy Stauner}} would appear to me to be clear sockpuppets of {{vandal|Dick Stauner}} who you blocked, could you possibly block these two new ones? Thank you. ] (]) 01:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
* ]
: Both blocked, thanks for letting me know. --]]] 01:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
* ]
::Thank you very much. ] (]) 01:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->

Latest revision as of 15:47, 5 January 2025

Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45


This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.


ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

added
readded
removed

Interface administrator changes

added
readded Pppery

CheckUser changes

readded

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Games, Learning & Society Conference

Notice

The article Games, Learning & Society Conference has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I see no evidence of notability per NCORP.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

CIR issue with editor you warned once for lack of sources

See https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Proudbharati huge number of terrible changes, done in haste. Doug Weller talk 11:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Ignore, I CIR blocked. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

added Sennecaster
readded
removed

CheckUser changes

added
readded Worm That Turned
removed Ferret

Oversight changes

added
readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)