User talk:Elonka: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:48, 24 October 2009

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 .

WP:RfArb regarding West Bank vs. Judea and Samaria

I have started a Request for Arbitration regarding the use of northern/southern West Bank vs. Judea and Samaria. Since you have been involved in this debate, I have included you in the request.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 25.02.2009 09:33

Username

Hi Elonka. Sometime ago I changed my username from Xoniagar to User:Xashaiar (I am the same person). I want to stop using Xashaiar and instead I want to make my contribution under the username "Xoniagar". Is it OK or I need to put a formal request somewhere? xoniagar - talk 15:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Notification' at Irish Bulletin Talk Page

Hi Elonka! What is the significance of this notice. I've followed the links and am none the wiser. Does it determine specific guidelines as to how editing on this article should proceed, in some way differently from other articles? Best. RashersTierney (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking! I've gone ahead and clarified what it means on the talkpage. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask! --El on ka 16:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested the possibility of restricted, moderated use of the disputed source. This is the diff. Trying to find some way of resolving this issue. Hope my bringing this to your notice is not somehow inappropriate (walking on eggs these days:-) Anyway it might be a way to break the deadlock and get energies diverted back to the Article. RashersTierney (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely appropriate. :) Feel free to bring up anything you like, including any concerns about sockpuppetry, disruptive editing, etc. The key is venue. On the article talkpage, it's important to keep discussions focused on the article. But on an administrator's talkpage, you can bring up pretty much anything you want, as long as it's done in a civil fashion. :) --El on ka 01:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think I've made my case too well, judging from reaction, at the RSN. I thought this new initiative might help. RashersTierney (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a content issue with me, I don't have any text I wish to remove at the moment, and I think it quite possible that your content will remain unblemished with neither tag nor faulty ref as simply uncontentious. Let's give it a moment to consider and if no issues arise - remove the ^{[citation needed]} tag in the near future.99.135.170.179 (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Could you explain this edit please. BigDunc 19:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was an attempt to clarify which restrictions are still in force, so as to assist with further arbitration enforcement. --El on ka 19:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

99

Hi, I see you are involved with this (dynamic) 1P 99, this user has similar editing history, if it is of interest to the present case the details are on my talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 ::: Completely appropriate.  :) Feel free to bring up anything you like, including any concerns about sockpuppetry, disruptive editing, etc. The key is venue.  On the article talkpage, it's important to keep discussions focused on the article.  But on an administrator's talkpage, you can bring up pretty much anything you want, as long as it's done in a civil fashion.  :) --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 01:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 ::::Don't think I've made my case too well, judging from reaction, at the RSN. I thought this new initiative might help. [[User:RashersTierney|RashersTierney]] ([[User talk:RashersTierney|talk]]) 01:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
+:::::It's not a content issue with me, I don't have any text I wish to remove at the moment, and I think it quite possible that your content will remain unblemished with neither tag nor faulty ref as simply uncontentious. Let's give it a moment to consider and if no issues arise - remove the {{cn}} tag in the near future.[[Special:Contributions/99.135.170.179|99.135.170.179]] ([[User talk:99.135.170.179|talk]]) 01:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 == Question ==