It's good to have you back!bonadeacontributionstalk08:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea: thanks!Elemimele (talk)21:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember if we directly interacted during the big Tim Hunt brouhaha, or whether we were just participating in the vicinity of each other; whichever it was, I thought your contributions were consistently thoughtful and constructive. I was sorry to see you unhappy about it all, and I'm glad that you've returned. Happy editing,JBL (talk)23:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks loads, I've really appreciated all the supportive, positive comments since coming back - and I'm definitely steering clear of controversy for the foreseeable future!Elemimele (talk)16:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HiElemimele! I wanted to welcome you back to Wikipedia and let you know that I'm happy to see that you've managed to work out your emotions and feelings and resume your volunteer work on the project. The self-evaluation of one's own emotions (unfortunately) isn't a commonly observed behavior with editors on this project; the fact that you did this on your own is commendable and a rare (and special) personality trait - don't ever let it leave you! ;-)

I'm also messaging you because I saw that you madethis request (now archived) and while you were logged out of your account (you obviously had no choice, since you had wikibreak enforcer enabled on your account, you couldn't log into it). To keep your personal information (namely, your IP address) safe from public exposure and possible harassment, I went ahead and redacted your IP information from the discussion andsuppressed the information from both the revision history ofANI, as well asthe archive page that the discussion was eventually moved to. No action is required on your end; I've already taken care of everything in that regard for you.

Please let my know if you have any questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to answer them and discuss them with you. :-) Cheers -~Oshwah~^{(talk)(contribs)}18:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Really appreciate that, thank you!Elemimele (talk)09:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elemimele - Of course; happy to be of assistance. ;-)~Oshwah~^{(talk)(contribs)}09:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Elemimele. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:Joachim Richborn, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you canrequest it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.FireflyBot (talk)21:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulative density function has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on thediscussion page. Thank you.Trovatore (talk)21:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend todelete your post inWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pes-caprae: I have a faint memory of half-dropping my phone and wondering whether I'd done something like that: should have checked my contributions list to check. Sorry about that!PamD23:08, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: no worries, I often fade out of AfD conversations anyway; I feel that when I've said my bit, it's time to step back and let others say theirs, and trust the closer to balance it all up. I didn't feel all that strongly about pes-caprae anyway. I ought to stop AfD-ing and get back to translating organ builders... (although that involves being frustrated with German wikipedia for general referencing, and AfC reviewers for their not liking general referencing)Elemimele (talk)09:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elemimele. I wonder if you noticed that I responded to your comments atTalk:Oleg Burlakov#Merge proposal. I also re-posted the merge tags, to try to get a robust discussion going on the Talk page. I hope you can continue in the conversation, and if you have any ideas how to get more voices to join so we can make some progress on this issue, I would really appreciate it. Thanks so much,MarcusEllington90 (talk)09:38, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I raised it at the BLP noticeboard, but no one seems terribly interested. I am frustrated by this particular article because it doesn't seem to me to conform to Wikipedia's standards, but I can't assess the Russian sources, and don't know the Russian press. It looks like a case of an article that's doomed to be inadequate because the main proponent of the article can simply ignore all attempts at change, and you've got a COI. It's a stalemate. I have no idea what to do. It's not really my field of expertise anyway, I can't remember how I came to be mixed up in it.Elemimele (talk)20:07, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for posting this issue to the BLP noticeboard. I share your frustration, especially when the merge tags have once again (for the third time) been deleted, and this time with no explanation at all. I understand that trying to figure out what's what on theBurlakov case page can be overwhelming. I plan on carefully going over the article and isolating exactly what content would remain after the redundant (already onOleg Burlakov) and gossip/slanderous and poorly sourced information has been removed. Hopefully then you and others can get a better idea of whetherBurlakov case merits being a stand-alone article (maybe by another name) or should be merged intoOleg Burlakov. I'll ping you when that's done. Thanks so much for your efforts to help.MarcusEllington90 (talk)10:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm involved in this, so there's little I can do. I'm frustrated that the BLP noticeboard discussion seems to have got archived without the problem being solved. The previous ANI fizzled out without anything getting solved. I've raised it again at ANI, which I consider such an unpleasant place that it should be treated as a last resort, because this really is last resort territory. Hopefully this time it might attract attention from someone who can assess the situation independently from outside. Ideally this would be a case for a mediated dispute resolution, but my feeling is that it's unlikely there would be enough engagement for the situation to be resolved.Elemimele (talk)12:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your apology when offering a well justified delete rationale for a poor article. Wikipedia is improved by creation of worthwhile articles on notable entities and by the deletion of those which fail to meet the inclusion criteria. Please never apologise for doing what you genuinely believe is the correct thing. I am not saying this because you agree with me. I would say it were you to disagree, too. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸11:30, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You had asked whetherDRN can handle a dispute where one of the parties is a paid editor, and I answered that question with a Yes. However, I also said that the Burlakov dispute could not be discussed at DRN while it was pending atWP:ANI, where you opened the case. You expressed a concern that there were two editors who were approaching the article from opposite directions. I will add that another reason why I would be uneasy about trying to moderate a dispute between ME90 and Ssr is that Ssr doesn't appear to be editing constructively. I don't know what they are trying to do other than complain about sockpuppetry, but there is a right way to address concerns about sockpuppetry, and it isn't by yelling. So one of those editors is a paid editor, which is not a problem as such because they have made a declaration, but it would impose an additional responsibility on the moderator to maintain neutrality. I am not sure what the other editor is trying to do. I am relieved not to be trying to moderate between them. As we know, I started theMerge Discussion, and you took part in it. Maybe that may take care of things.

By the way, I think that Ssr was right in removing the Merge tags. Those were edits that should not have been made by a paid editor. So now they were made by a volunteer editor in good standing.Robert McClenon (talk)05:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I very much appreciate your action in making everything above board and regular. It's frustrating because Burlakov is a subject in which I really have no interest, but I can't really walk away from such a messy article without trying. ANI is not a great place but I did feel that there was a layer of intractable behavioural stuff going on, which prevented getting down to the content beneath; having tried interacting with the editors and with the BLP noticeboard, I couldn't think where else to go. When I wrote my merge support yesterday, I realised that the gossipy, attacky stuff weakens the Burlakov Case article's only real claim to exist: that it's a type-specimen of Russian oligarch inheritance controversy. If the reader can't see the overall picture because of a morass of irrelevant details, then the article has lost its value. I hope when the yelling is over, we will get a cleaner article. Thank you for your efforts and calm input.Elemimele (talk)06:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for your recent participation in AfD. I would like to hear your thoughts about the process. Please checkthis survey if you are willing to respond.Czarking0 (talk)02:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]