User talk:Elonka: Difference between revisions

Archive 1

Pazmaneum is a school, the Collegium Pazmaneum, a Catholic seminary founded in 1623 by Péter Pázmány for Hungarian students in Vienna. Pázmány was a big figure in the Counter-Reformation, archbishop, primate of Hungary, and also founded the first Hungarian university in 1635, which still survives in Budapest. But him being a Catholic archbishop, he is probably not your ancestor :-) See also: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11595c.htm

The surname is likely related ^[1] to the Hont-Pázmány clan (also Hont-Pázmán, Hunt-Pázmán, Huntpázmány), which has an interesting history. According to the chronicles, the brothers Hont and Pázmán were Swabian (i.e. German) knights, who came to Hungary in the 10th century. They received huge tracts of land in what is today Western Slovakia, and the county Hont. They were the ancestors (documented from the 13th century) of a large number of noble families in Hungary, e.g. Forgách, Batthyány, Kővári, Bánki, Lázár, Ujhelyi, Szentgyörgyi and many more. Perhaps this gives you a starter...Hollomis 02:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts about Wikipedia are refreshing and exciting. It can be interesting to be inside of a thing and outside of it at the same time... Wikipedia is sort of like a blog on steroids which is under the control of WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency)! Lmcelhiney 18:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created the badvertising article and have since noticed that it is tagged for clean-up and wikification. I wrote it pretty quickly and I know that certain aspects of it aren't encyclopaedic enough yet, but I was wondering what exactly you had in mind re the tagging? thank you. Saccerzd 14:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to return the thanks. I'm happy with the compromise, and I'm hopeful that we can build strong season articles, possibly even getting some of them to GA status. --Kahlfin 20:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that we're finally through the mediation. And I'm especially happy that I somehow avoided the onslaught of those angry mobs with pitchforks. :) Let's move forward. -- PKtm 21:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I know we've had our disagreements in the past (and still have some), but it looks like everything turns out for the best in the end. While we may not always see eye to eye, I enjoy working with people like you who are equally as passionate about making great, encyclopedic articles. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I'll try and keep an eye on the Elonka Dunn page. I do think it's strange how your page is being targeted, I noticed that one of the vandals reacted to putting a notability tag on of their created articles by vandalising yours. It wouldn't suprise me if they're all related. Also I've been a bit busy recently but I'll have a look at the Fateh Snr article when I have more time. Englishrose 22:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Sigh, so it looks like we've got multiple vandals.Englishrose 19:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your encouragement - you are most kind. I will proceed as suggested. Ben MacDui 18:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are not related. I nominated the article for deletion for the reasons articulated herein. Then unfamiliar with the rules of Wikipedia, I initially deleted the article with comments. I now know there is a quasi-democratic (perhaps excepting the content of this and related pages) process for deletion.

However, I feel the malicious comments made by others about this page and its subject are appalling and disgusting.

In trolling through comments and contributions made over time by Elonka, I might suggest that she edit in a less heavy-handed fashion so as to engender less hostility. Abrupt deletion of content in the face of her own somewhat grandiose family biographies can only engender a sense of imbalance. Nothing however justifies the crude and juvenile actions of the person posting under the 199 IP! DO NOT associate that with me.

Harangus

We're all still learning. You are correctly pointing out that there are two separate issues: 1) Elonka's editing style within the wikipedia universe, and 2) the status of the wikipedia article about Elonka Dunin. The appropriate place for discussing the former is on her user talk page, and the appropriate place for discussing the latter is here. If you do go to her user talk page you'll see quite a lot of spirited give and take (it ain't all pretty). -- Quartermaster 13:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Elonka. I'm a friend of Clyde Butcher, and an author. He doesn't use the web much. His daughter maintains his website. I stumbled across his entry in Wikipedia and saw the info was incorrect and challenged, so I expanded on it. I'm new to Wikipedia so pointers on what I need to do to clean it up are appreciated. I did read the basics of Wikipedia but am unsure how much description beyond that which can be referenced to other web links is permissible. Thank you.Sfriendfla 04:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put some references in holster. They are all firearms related, and all but one are to commercial sites; one commercial link is to a Gun Tests review of holsters (trying to sell you on the magazine) and the rest are to various manufacturers of holsters. I think that they are still valuable references despite the commercial nature, since they do provide information on the holsters in question. Let me know what you think--if the commercial to information ratio is too high, if some are redundant, or anything you see that is lacking. scot 18:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added thermoplastic to the description (and I'm going to add Kydex to the list of thermoplastics therein), sectioned it, and completely re-worded the kydex vs. leather comparison to make it flow a bit better. That section is still a bit choppy, and I think that the article needs to list the non-holster related applications to be complete; most if not all of that information can probably be found on the corporate website. scot 20:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found the necessary references for birth date and early life. Thanks for your assistance. Now I know what a Wikipedia bio sketch needs to look like! Regards. Sfriendfla 02:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! I deleted it quite a while ago, so the "it was going to be expanded shortly" argument doesn't seem to apply. I strongly suggest that you increase your use of the Preview button. There is no reason an article cannot avoid being a CSD A1 at any point in its lifecycle. The article also met the A7 notability deletion requirement, I merely chose A1 at the time because it was the most relevant. I look forward to reading a new version of the article that asserts its notability and contains enough content to stand on its own as an encyclopedia entry. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created the stub last night, and was going to expand it this morning. That counts to me as a "too quick" deletion. As for A7, I strongly disagree, as there is a clear consensus that all public high schools are deserving of pages. Or are you just in the "anti-school" camp? In any case, since you're obviously active on Wikipedia at the moment, I would appreciate if you would undelete the article so that I can continue working on it. --Elonka 19:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly! I've restored the content to your userspace here. I'm not anti-school, I'm just pro-CSD and anti-cruft. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an external link to a Soap Central page and have deleted your original research tag. In this case, I continue to believe that the show alone serves as the only "text" and "reference" needed in this article as it does in all other General Hospital articles that I have contributed to. There are any number of other articles related to television shows and fictional characters which I did not write in which that is also the case. I don't feel that an original research tag is appropriate here or would be unless the article contained incorrect information about the character or clearly one-sided opinions, which it does not.--Bookworm857158367 00:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your comment, but I continue to disagree with your definition of original research. The show itself is the text and should be sufficient.--Bookworm857158367 19:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, yes I'd be happy to do some general review. A thorough review I am not certain I have time for at the moment. I'm sorry for the late response, as it's been nearly a week since you wrote me. That's my life right now :/ --Durin 15:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your continued diligence in editing the Lost (TV series), I award you the "Lost Barnstar." Thank you for keeping watch over the articles! Please feel free to award this barnstar to those you believe deserving. —LeFlyman 21:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC) As far as I'm aware there are no official guidelines, just diligence and dedication to Lost related articles. Do you not have one? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you've definately earned one! Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 12:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]