Misplaced Pages

Mongol Stuff

I'd rather avoid getting into a revert war, mainly because quite honestly this isn't my field of expertise. I've completely mined out my library (which is quite extensive on medieval subjects, just not anything on THIS medieval subject (I suppose i should take a picutre of it, huh?)) so I feel uncomfortable with doing any major alterations on the article any time soon. I also don't read French, so I can't do much with the French sources, leaving me further handicaped. (I almost put in a complaint about using all these French language sources in an English Misplaced Pages, but felt that would be wrong, and not supported by policy). The best I can do is to critique the sources that I can see, kibitz on the organization, and try to get a hold of the sources at some point. I also have some rather large Misplaced Pages projects of my own (i'm trying to get all the medieval bishops of England up to snuff) and am trying to get help out at Misplaced Pages:Equine and at GA also. I don't intend to leave the article alone, but first priority on book buying has to go to the other two projects first, honestly. And the libraries around here suck. Even the university in town has a bad history section (I've checked) so it's either Interlibrary Loan or drive an hour to the U of I in Champaign, which given the weather lately, I don't like doing. I know, this sounds like a whine, sorry. Just wanted you to understand why I'm not willing to jump into things head first. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I just sat down and ordered the following from Amazon: Tyerman's God's War and England and the Crusades, 1095-1588; Housley The Later Crusades, 1274-1580: From Lyons to Alcazar and Contesting the Crusades; Lock's Routledge Companion to the Crusades; Richard's The Crusades, c.1071-c.1291; and Riley-Smith The Crusades: A History. Any other suggestions? They should be here Tuesday. (This was a much cheaper part of my order than the bishop stuff I ordered, OUCH! $180 for the newest edition of The Heads of Religious Houses: England and Wales, II. 1216-1377 OUCH!) Anyway, if I missed something I must have, catch me tonight so it can still go out tomorrow and get to me Tuesday. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and started on the Crusades books not just for this whole brooohaaha, but because a number of the bishops I'm working on went on and/or died on the First and Third Crusades, so I need general overview works on them as well as the more specifically Mongol-Franco stuff. I'll go ahead and get the Jackson and the Morgan. I have Morgan's first edition, but for something like that I hate having an outdated editon. You miss too much if you're trying to argue details. Books are a passion for me, I'd rather have books than a lot of things! I'm still trying to convince the local university that JSTOR should be printable.. I think they are still flumuxed that a middle aged lady is in doing library research, it scares the little barely-out-of-teenager-hood males. Thanks for the suggestions!Ealdgyth | Talk 06:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Got the things I mentioned, also Mayer's The Crusades and Saunders' The History of the Mongol Conquests. This should give us a bit more diversity in sources. (Also ordered four more Anglo-Saxon Christianity books, more fun!) Hopefully this will help with sourcing and getting details worked out. The Housley and the Tyerman "England and the Crusades" should be very interesting, I'm hoping. Since I don't read French, I can't order the Grousset, unfortunately. Ealdgyth | Talk 06:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not trying to attack you about the bulls thing. I can see that that sentence is a legacy sentence. (grins) Ealdgyth | Talk 03:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

pl:Zbigniew Dunin-Wąsowicz

FYI.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your biography

Hello Elonka. How are you? I was reading your biography and I noticed that there was something missing. What is your religion? And, are you a cryptographer? I am interested in Cryptography. How did you become a cryptographer? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Mongols, again

I was wondering if you would be willing to acquiesce to PHG's express wish to begin any dispute-resolution process from his version of the article (200k long)? I feel confident that a slimmer, more accurate version will be the result if we can force him to voluntarily abide by the process, not to hold his own dissent as refuting "consensus", and not to edit the article in the interim, there will be no way for him to argue against the resolution and nobody will be taking his side at all. But perhaps I am being optimistic. If you think that my suggested dispute-resolution process cannot work from the 200k version of the article, then I would suggest you take the allegations of ownership seriously and (since I have no idea how WP works with regards to these things) do whatever it takes to have him removed from working on this article. Here's to hoping we're not still doing this come next August! Srnec (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand, but if you are right, I cannot understand why putting off ArbComm is worth it: PHG will just revert your version constantly and an accuracy tag will always be there. That said, unless my proposal becomes accepted by all, I will make any improvements to the 70k version. Srnec (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrator recall

In light of your commitment to be an “open to recall” Administrator, I hereby formally request you to resign from your position, due to a conduct which is unrespectfull of Misplaced Pages rules and unethical. This, on three main counts:

• False claim of consensus (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#False claim of consensus)
• Breaking a promise made on Mediation. (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 4#Introduction sentence)
• Undue personal attacks

For a more complete set of my issues, please see User talk:PHG#Use of userspace I still believe you are a competent editor, with high technical skills, but I am now convinced that your dogmatism, harassment patterns and lack of ethic behaviour clearly do not make you fit for the responsibilities of a Misplaced Pages Administrator.PHG (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A thread about this has been started here. Grandmasterka 14:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Changed link as section has been renamed Orderinchaos 23:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I formally request that you don't put yourself up for recall in this circumstance. None of the accusations has anything to do with admin tools. If admins considered stepping down every time there was a disagreement about a content dispute we would run out quickly. _{(1 == 2)} 15:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There were several admins and a 'crat involved in the dispute and not a single one of them used their admin tools in this dispute. As such, this is a dispute between editors and requesting that Elonka step down as an administrator simply doesn't make sense. While I don't believe Elonka will, I have to concur with User:Until(1 == 2) and formally request that Elonka doesn't put herself up for recall due to this issue. Justin 17:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above posts by Until(1 == 2) and Justin, Elonka: recall is for abuse of the admin tools, not disagreements over content. This is not the correct usage of the recall system, and there is no reason at all for you to step down. There has been no abuse of the tools on your part. Acalamari 22:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what this has got to do with Elonka's admin powers. Seriously, Elonka is a normal content editor, and happily has continued as such. Elonka shouldn't for one second consider putting herself up for recall because of these alleged misdemeanors, and the threat of recall shouldn't be hung over her head everytime someone has a disagreement. That's just absurb. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't not see a need for a recall either. Since I joined the discussion, Elonka has never made a single admin action or a threat to use her tools in an inappropriate way. And I wasn't aware that we were swearing oaths when we edited, that perjury was a concept that applied on Misplaced Pages.Ealdgyth | Talk 00:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, this is just ridiculous. Recall is for occasions in which there are allegations of misuse of admin tools, which is certainly not the case here. The process is not intended to be nor should it be used for escalation of content disputes or obviously long-entrenched battles as it very much appears to be here. I would almost classify this as harassment. LaMenta3 (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Recall is for situations relating to the person's adminship. This matter relates to a dispute which predates the granting of adminship, and the fact it continues today is only incidental to that. Admin tools weren't even involved. Therefore, the question of recall is entirely irrelevant in this case, even before one assesses any merit or otherwise in the proposal, and hence should be rejected entirely. Orderinchaos 23:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support everyone. And correct, I do not see PHG's request as being in good faith. He was just recently blocked (by someone else) for edit-warring and deceptive behavior at the Franco-Mongol alliance article. As soon as the block was up (14:16), he was in here on my talkpage within a half-hour (14:47), calling for my resignation, obviously out of some desire for revenge. But I have never abused admin tools, and I obviously have no intention of abusing them in the future. Since PHG's request was not made in good faith, and had nothing to do with my use of admin tools, I agree that it should be ignored. --Elonka 08:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is not about abusing administrative tools, it is about an Administrator having unethical conduct, making false claims of consensus, and making false accusations. Regards. PHG (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance

I have filed a request for arbitration where you are named as a party. Please feel free to make a statement. Jehochman 15:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"New content" at Franco-Mongol alliance

Hi Elonka. I have shown that your claim that I added 50k of new content to the article as I was reinstating the full version is untrue: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Why is the "longer version" get even longer?. I would appreciate if you could apologize and rescind your comment. Best regards. PHG (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, please stop with the wikilawyering. You know, and I know, that you were doing "reverts", but using them as a cover to insert new information into the article. You weren't just restoring, you were inserting information that had never been in the article in the first place. The two most blatant examples were that you inserted pages of information into a single ref (#1), and you inserted new information into the lead, to push this bias about a Mongol alliance. If you have any proof that either one of those was in the article before your "revert", I'll be happy to review it. But you and I both know that that's not possible. --Elonka 13:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, as I reinstated the main article, you know very well that I just rewrote the introduction to accomodate your lead phrase (compromise...), and added complete references to that. That's a quite normal thing to do. In contrast, you've make totally innaccurate and grave accusations of adding "50k of new content", "lying" etc..., so I think you should retract yoursef. It is just a matter, again, of ethical conduct. Otherwise, it just seems you throw all the accusations you can at someone, and just walk away silently when it proves innacurate. Apologies are clearly in order in such a case. PHG (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me repeat this back to you: "It just seems you throw all the accusations you can at someone, and just walk away silently when it proves inaccurate." Somehow, I get the feeling that you're saying this to me, because you've heard it said to you, hmm? Is this a normal pattern for you? I mean c'mon PHG, have you actually read the statements from multiple other editors at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Franco-Mongol alliance? Your behavior over the last few months has been appalling. You have been misinterpreting sources, you have been lying, and you have been leveling false accusations at other editors. You have been wasting the time of a lot of good editors, and yet it seems that you are completely oblivious to what people are saying to you. Do you understand the damage that you are causing to Misplaced Pages? If so, you need to acknowledge it, you need to apologize, and you need to promise to do better in the future. Unless you can recognize the problems that your behavior is causing, you will likely end up permanently blocked from Misplaced Pages. Is that what you want? --Elonka 08:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I dispute every single of your claims about "misinterpreting sources, lying, leveling false accusations at other editors". To me, this is nothing more than your typical aggression tactics against editors who disagree with you. All I write is based on referenced material, and I don't think you have shown misinterpretation of sources anytime (on the contrary, your mis-translation of French authors and deletion of sources are proven). "Lying"? It seems you are using any pretext to throw the worst possible accusations at your oponents. All the few additions I made to the article were properly outlined, and I don't think slightly adapting an intro (especially as I was compromising to accomodate your preferred intro sentence) and updating refs in order to provide "a full basis for further discussion" is anything wrong. Should I also keep calling you a liar because of your mis-representation of consensus and false accusations ("50k of new content")? This is just disgusting. Honestly, I do not care about a few editors comments, many of whom are your undefective friends, I only care about facts: all my contributions are from proper published sources, so contributing them to Misplaced Pages can't ever be wrong. Stop with your ridiculous accusations. Stop imposing your own versions without a consensus. Stop misrepresenting things. Stop making continuous false accusations. Stop being rude. For my part, if it can help, I am ready to apologize for any false accusation I could have leveled against you. Regards. PHG (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, you need to stop accusing, and you need to start listening. Please go and actually read the statements that people are making at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Franco-Mongol alliance, and at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. This isn't just me saying this, this is a wide variety of editors, but you don't appear to be hearing what people are trying to tell you. Based on what everyone is saying, this is what is probably going to happen: Page protection at Franco-Mongol alliance is going to be lifted in about a week. The condensed article is going to stay there, and in fact is probably going to be condensed and rewritten even further, based on talkpage discussions. Any remaining POV forks that you have created (including the subpages that are in your userspace) are either going to be cleaned up or deleted. So you can throw a tantrum and accuse me all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that cleanup is going to continue, and if you interfere with that cleanup, you will probably end up blocked again. --Elonka 02:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources and etcetera

Have we started on a chart type thing of sources? I offer up: User:Ealdgyth/History References, which is still getting added to. I got in some of the Crusades books today, the others should be here in dribbles over the next few weeks. Right now I'm adding journal articles, but I've got all the current Mongol-Crusades type things there for now. The additions for the evening are all English and Ecclesiastical. Oh, yeah, why I stopped by, I agree with your assessment of Dream and the Tomb, but unfortunately, it sold well so it would go under "popular culture" or whatever it is that they are titling those things now (Am fighting an person who is insisting on putting in references to video game characters into Richard Beauchamp, so I'm a bit jaded right now on the whole 'cultural relevance' thing) That of course, was what got me over here, which i promptly forgot in the time I typed the first part of this message. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Just grab a copy for yourself and play with it. I use that list for when I'm writing articles. It's a lot easier to just copy paste the source over than retype it all the time. Most of the top we won't need for the Franco-Mongol stuff, it's for User:Ealdgyth#Bishops, which I really should be working on. I was trained to put in the most recent publication date when using references, and stating if they are reprints, it's just habit for me now. Feel free to play with anything you grab off the list, change them around or tweak them. I was figuring we could set up a chart like you were talking about in someone's userspace, but I'm not volunteering my list itself, since I use it constantly for when I'm writing (grins). Maybe columns for rating (A-B-C-D) plus main subject area (i.e. Cilicia, Armenia, Holy Land, Ilkhanate, etc) and perhaps language, so we can find out folks to translate if needed. Have you seen the sortable charts yet? I haven't gotten brave enough to fiddle with them, but there are some in some of the football guys I've been GA reviewing, like Gordon Bell (American football). That might be handy to sort by subject area. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Updated for what I got today. Will add some more source quotations up to the talk page shortly also. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Trust me, I would rather not rewrite the thing, but... what I'm reading leads me to believe the title is wrong. Alliance implies one over arching alliance, and nothing I'm reading supports that. Your version is much better, but it's still based off a pretty flawed base. Having read both versions pretty close, I'm just not convinced yet etiher way. i'm being wishywashy, and I know it. I really need to read more, and will try to. I do not wish to work on the long version, it seriously brings my browser to its knees opening it, and I've got a nice newish Mac Pro with enough memory and processor speed to run a nice huge monitor with Photoshop and have PS scream. Bringing this computer to its knees is impressive. I can only imagine what loading that long article on dialup would be like. I've not chosen either way, and it's certainly not an attack at your efforts, you did an amazing job with what you had to work with, and you were working pretty much alone, since no one would help out. Hang in there, keep editing other things, and sooner or later something will work out. At least you don't have the half inch of ice we got here tonight. The stupid temp dropped almost 50 degrees in just about two hours too. Gotta love the Midwest! Ealdgyth | Talk 03:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Nah, didn't think you'd really scream, but you've been working hard to try to keep things organized, figured the least I could do was comment elsewhere. I haven't actually met you in person, but we've been at cons before and I have GM friends, so I know that you wouldn't get that upset about commenting! Ealdgyth | Talk 03:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I got caught up on bishops so... User:Ealdgyth/Sources. Take a look and let me know what you think. I'm still adding right now, getting what I have on the shelves in there, then you can play too. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There, got what I have in hand in, at the moment. Didn't put journal articles in since all of them fall into the "A" or "B" category. It's all yours!Ealdgyth | Talk 03:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Updated. And changed the ratings on what is in there. Now to go run and get snack food for the game this afternoon... Ealdgyth | Talk 15:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance

Please to not move around the comments of other contributors on the Talk Page. Thanks. PHG (talk) 08:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Bits and pieces

Besides, I'm playing DR too so don't wanna make a big booboo! I'm just going to go through the sourcing bit by bit and double check everything. Tedious, but won't hurt, I suspect. Don't want you thinking I'm out after you. Just figure that the article was condensed down and it could use another set of eyes cross checking. Hope you're not offended. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wykagyl

Done - not sure who protected it, it certainly wasn't me and nothing shows up in the log. c_c east.718 at 23:01, January 31, 2008

Cilicia

I forgot about the continuing dispute. As far as I can see, there does seem to be an issue of undue weight regarding the Mongols in some of those articles (not sure about Cilicia yet, I haven't checked it thoroughly). To be honest, I'd rather avoid contributing to the Arb. I was marginally involved in a particularly bad one earlier this month and I've got plenty of Wiki-conflict elsewhere. I'll probably leave this article alone until we've seen what the outcome of the dispute is. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Administrators_open_to_recall#Bad_faith_requests

I've replied to your suggestion, further discussion may be merited. That page runs in fits and starts. ++Lar: t/c 17:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Dreamguy

Hi again. New at all this. Don't know how to do:

• Move the new request to the top of the page, above the archive line
• As Dmcdevit said above, be sure to include a link to the ArbCom page

Jack1956 (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I've done it correctly. Jack1956 (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC), note User:Thatcher is the clerk, not me, I'm just opening for him. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Tampering with others' edits

STOP moving around my contributions on the Franco-Mongol alliance Talk Page (), especially my response with the Muslim sources about the capture of Jerusalem. You are not just archiving here, you are taking away critical parts of a thread. This is highly disruptive and unethical. In the real world, tampering with the evidence is a criminal offense, you know... :) PHG (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)