User talk:Elaragirl/Archive 4

Albert Hofmann

Thank you for your reversion on Albert Hofmann, but please be more careful. You only reverted one vandal edit and that nearly masked the other vandal edit. I will go revert that one now. Hu 15:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. It's the rush hour when kids in the US hit the schools and kids in Europe get out. Hu 15:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's nominated again

Calling this to the attention of the deletionists cabal. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the support.

Thanks for the support. Normally things don't get to me on wikipedia, but this was just getting ridiculous. PS, I like your userpage. It gave me a chuckle especially as I'd just got done playing NWN 2, and I'm probably the only Army vet I know to have navy presidential unit citations. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Oh, the humanity! I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll still have it the next time around. Kafziel ^Talk 14:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting for Justice

What is the meaning of the comment you made about me, in the biography section concerning David Westerfield and my arguments with a child-killer apologist? Do you support child-killers as well? Fighting for Justice 02:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right I'm sorry. I was not aware of the lingo. But thank you for clarifying it. Have a good evening. Fighting for Justice 03:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Fight, Just a Question

You said in your vote that you don't like me. If you don't like me, you presumably don't want me on your talk page, or engaging in a debate ... so may I just ask this, with the promise that I'll listen, nod, and go away without attempting to debate you on it? Question being: What don't you like about me, and what could I do to improve that? — Whedonette (ping) 03:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate your honesty, and I appreciate someone looking me in the (metaphorical) eye and being a straight-shooter like that. I think there's a lot of value for me in what you've said. I will not be stepping out of this MfD discussion while it's in progress, but once it's completed, I can promise you that I will give what you said some very serious thought in terms of where I might better apply my efforts in Wikipedia. I would ask one last thing: you say you suffer from the same flaws, but soften your fangs. Any advice for how to soften one's fangs? — Whedonette (ping) 03:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, when you restored your comment, your signature was left off. — Whedonette (ping) 03:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate the further advice. As for soft versus hardness — I'm not sure precisely how to react to that. I don't know if this edit (from before we ever talked, so not in reaction to anything you've said) would make you feel differently. — Whedonette (ping) 03:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just need a quick clarification: "yeah, that's what I mean" — was that in reference to the cruelty, or in reference to the "be nice"? Because that highlighted diff was supposed to be one where I was being nice, not one where I was being a bitch ... if that diff is interpretable as me being a bitch, I may be in trouble ... — Whedonette (ping) 03:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification on that one. I appreciate you taking the time to expand on all of this — and although I'm not sure how I'm going to handle the rest of the MfD, what you said will be rather significantly considered. Thanks again. — Whedonette (ping) 03:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go add it in, I like seeing your sig - I know I'm in for a laugh somewhere along the line when it's around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by riana_dzasta (talk • contribs)

MFD

Hi Elaragirl,

What is going on with this edit? As a general rule, we do not remove others' comments when adding our own. Even if you disagree with a *FD comment (and it's clear you do, from the edit summary you left), you shouldn't remove them. Also, what is up with your browser? It appears to be refactoring Doug Bell's signature. Are you using some obsolete browser? Guess it's not a huge deal, but Doug commented on it on the page. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sig refactoring is User:Yuser31415 per this. --Doug Bell ^talk 04:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake, I am not refactoring sigs on purpose. See User talk:Doug Bell#RE: Why do you keep replacing the dashes in my signature?. Yuser31415^@? 04:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why if it was already fixed -- and I said it was a mistake -- it's coming up again. (sighs) --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 04:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to imply that it was on purpose, but it continues. (At least this gives me a chance to add a bunch more useless cruft to Elaragirl's talk page. :-P ) —Doug Bell ^talk 05:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Begins using the [[Konqueror]] web browser instead of nice, fast [[Dillo]]* - is this better? Yuser31415^@? 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the mdash is still OK on my last post, so maybe. —Doug Bell ^talk 05:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arg, my beautiful talk page! Spammerz! :p --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 05:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, mistakes happen; I was just asking, as I'd ask anyone. Your Wikistress shouldn't go up over a talk page question. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 06:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership of user pages

See established Wikipedia guideline -- Ownership and editing of pages in the user space in Wikipedia:User page. This has been the rule for as long as I have been working here, since Jan 2005. WBardwin 06:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noobiness (from Riana's talk)

It's not complete, you need to vandalise something (but not know it's bad) first. Will ^(Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?) 18:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hilfe, Elara, hilfe!

I could do with some help here. I've nominated this for deletion - writing fake FAs in userspace on imaginary topics??? - but could do with some help listing all the subpages at the MfD. I've done a third, but am starting to get overwhelmed. The complete list of subpages can be found [1] here. Christ! If you could help out with this, I'll give you the world's most heartfelt barnstar. Cheers, Moreschi 20:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panic over. S'alright, Doug's fixed it with some superpower tools that I don't quite understand, but anyway. Cheers, Moreschi 21:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a text editor that supports regular expressions, although it helps. Using any standalone editor that can handle Unicode allows you to use replace to do mass changes. I just copied the contents off the page you sent me into my programming editor and did two replace operations to convert it into the bulleted list of page links. Then I had to do one more since I forgot to add the Wikipedia namespace the first time. Total time spent: about five minutes. Cheers, —Doug "the superuser" Bell ^talk 00:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just spammin' away

I noticed that I've been talking to a lot of other people here on your talk page lately besides you. I think I'll start just directing some of the traffic from my page over here since I can respond here as well as on my page. Since you don't WP:OWN this page, I'm not asking for permission, just kinda tryin' out my new backup talk page.  :-P —Doug Bell ^talk 00:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fishing for pike

Could you clarify why you chose delete instead of Transwikification? The transwikification won't have any ill effects on the quality of the pike article and still removes the material from Wikipedia while putting it where it belongs (on WikiBooks). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Weekly

Saw your comment on Doug's page You might be interesting to talk to, actually, considering how active you were on the EA MfD (which is the topic for this week). I'll ask David to drop you a line, if you're interested... your call. riana_dzasta 14:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother. I think it would be a complete COI for me to publically comment on EA, since I'm very clearly biased as an open deletionist. Also, I think WW needs a less biased review of the situation. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually why I asked ya! But if you don't want to, that's cool. riana_dzasta 15:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EA governance discussion

Hi Elaragirl, thanks for your ideas. The thing is, they are in part your ideas, and I would feel a little uneasy taking credit for them.

You write that "too many Esperanzans are trying to defend programs that no one outside of Esperanza uses." I think this was a failure on the part of Esperanza to make certain programs better known. Part of this is also because the programs either duplicate resources that are available outside Esperanza (e.g. birthday greetings) or the programs are seen as too unencyclopedic (e.g. the Coffee Lounge, the user page award). Regarding the birthday calendar, that could be even devolved to something that remains on the main page or community portal.

If you are curious what my contributions to Quack688's proposal were, I had suggested the idea of a meta-wikiproject of sorts, that would hopefully facilitate cross-collaboration between people who belong to one project but not another. For example, someone who likes art and someone who likes history, or someone who like music and another user who is interested in a particular country, and so on. This might duplicate the Village Pump to some extent, I honestly don't know. I also don't know which is better, a more complicated charter that spells out the reasoning behind it (Quack688's) or a short simple charter that is open to interpretation (most everyone else's).

I would never preface my own statements with "As an Esperanzan..." because that would make it seem as if I were speaking for the entire organisation, when I can't and shouldn't. Other Esperanza members should also understand that.

As for the tone and word choice of your comments... how to put this kindly? You don't mince words, you're straightforward and honest. I wouldn't have personally chosen your exact words were I in your position, and yet, I somehow find your comments witty and funny, if at times bordering on incivil.

I'm glad that you had the willpower to lift yourself out of depression, something which I couldn't do on my own. I'm also flattered by your admiration of me. I admire your strength and willpower too.

I don't mind at all your comments on my talk page, feel free to write in the future. And thanks for actually reading what I wrote regarding Esperanza! I was getting to feel as if I was being ignored! --Kyoko 15:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Keeping a Lookout for Me Elaragirl!

Seems a couple vandals decided to stroll by my way, thanks for keeping a lookout just in case anything else was about to happen. I reported the IP to AIV by the way, and the other account was blocked by the time I was about to report him.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty Nazis

Thanks for your comments. Apart from the fact that it means something like "world-view-theory", I've really no idea what Weltanschauungswissenschaften is - apart from very long! Ho hum. I will do my best to add more soon. Paul B 02:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gracenotes smites you with the mighty power of encouragement!

Gracenotes ^T § has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Don't forget to smile when you're editing Wikipedia. It shows! Smiling no longer needs to be a concrete physical action: we have moved it to the realm of the cybernetically intangible. Cherish it, and don't forget to keep the hope alive. Adopt an innocent, vulnerable kitten and love it.

Gracenotes ^T § 05:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your edit to whedonette's page

Who's likely to ban you if you have a spat over LGBT issues? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, are you telling me you don't find Whedonette's comments exceedingly irritating? And you never answered the question above. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, you're right, needling someone like Whedonette is a waste of my time, even if she is very rude and annoying. I'll get back on with my editing (though I'll keep watching her contribs, her responses to me just make me more suspicous) - see you around sometime. I'll keep an eye out for that admin... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your support with my RfA. My nomination succeeded and I've been issued a shiny new mop to slay vandals. I appreciate your support. Thanks again! =) -- Gogo Dodo 06:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-Up

As you are an administrator, I wished to alert you to this comment I left on an editor's talk page: [2]. I left it specifically because I'm not looking to get into a fight in the future and don't want someone following me around who demonstrated a marked personal enmity against me in the MfD discussion. And my advice in said comment is really best for him, too, as I think his history of exchanges with me in that MfD would work against his presumable intent of keeping me accountable for my actions. — Whedonette (ping) 06:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you are an administrator — now there's a thought that will cause some sleepless nights...  :-P —Doug Bell ^talk 09:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gundam mess

Before I saw your comment and where screed-filled battles over the PSIpower of a Gundam combat suit run to 10 pages I had never heard of Gundam. (Is that good? still don't know, but I think so.) So when I saw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series I was intrigued enough to check it out. At 120K after less than 5 days, I realize now the sad truth of your words. In what will undoubtably be an indicator of my poor judgement, I waded in to try and mediate the discussion so that something useful might come of it. We'll see. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I closed it (156K). Waiting for the shit to hit the fan—probably neither side is going to be entirely happy with me. I think I'll lay low for a bit to see how it settles out. —Doug Bell ^talk 15:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to speak too soon, but it looks like I may have pulled it off. If this holds it might even set a precedent for how to handle closing a raging mammoth of an AfD without getting trampled. And you, you call yourself a deletionist, sitting on the sidelines like this. Pwah! —Doug Bell ^talk 02:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

I love you. Thanks a million.

BTW, I think the task of clearing out the crap at WP:FUN is just about finished, assuming the two current MFD noms wind up as deletes - which they should. All the rest looks either harmless or in the sandbox, where it can't be touched, at least at present. Thanks again. Cheers, Moreschi 20:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

assuming':' My, you are an optimist, aren't you. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quit being so pessimistic, Doug. Mind Benders is doomed, and if I was the closing admin I'd keep the userpages and delete the rest at the laughable Once upon a time. Which is probably why I shouldn't be an admin. Maybe. Cheers, Moreschi 22:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and comment to Dev above. You may not like to Whedonette, and it is a bit odd, but that's no reason to go bananas over this. She's not destroying the place by trolling or vandalism, so AGF. Live and let live. Best to all, Moreschi 22:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wasn't mean because I think she's a sockpuppet, I was mean because she's a thoroughly rude and unpleasant person. Do need faith to see that. :) But ultimately, I'm wearing away my keyboard in vain, so I'm gonna stop pissing her off now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There you two go again, vandalizing my userpage with your chitchat. WP:Elara is NOT a gangbang. :p --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 22:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Warning! Sarcasm in use. Idiots with no sense of humor should cover their eyes and scream for administrators.[reply]

Well, fat lot of good it would do me if WP:Elara was a gangbang!  :-) —Doug Bell ^talk 05:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I stumbled across your wonderful user page, and wanted to say hi. Hi! -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c -- 03:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saying hi! I'm happy to meet you. :) --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 00:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC-5)

Just 'cause

For you, from me, with love...
Don't forget to water it!

Thought I'd give you a present to cheer up your day... smiles are overused (not saying a thing about smilies).   :-p

— Editor at Large^(speak) 09:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious

Not hassling, just curious. —Doug Bell ^talk 14:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our conversation

I am currently dealing with an emergency at work, and therefore cannot respond at the moment, but I look forward to continuing our conversation, hopefully this evening if all goes well. I appreciate your forthrightness, and hope that you will continue this discussion in good faith. I am responding on your talk page because you requested it, although frankly I'd prefer to keep the conversation in one place. Perhaps it would be appropriate to move it to a requests for comments, although I'd like to wait until the issues are more clearly defined, since some of your last set of statements were still rather conclusory and I'd prefer more specificity in what you consider unacceptable, as well as perhaps suggestions on how what you would have considered acceptable behavior. Regards, Kelly Martin (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal insults

Double checking here - did you intend to say Geogre is a ... ? Just wanted to make sure I read this right and you weren't quoting someone else or something. --Duk 19:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...how cynically amused I am that some personal attacks are okay while others are horrific. Personal attacks are not ok at Wikipedia.

Making a grievance that justifies itself with argument is one thing. Making a personal attack that has no justification is something else. See ad hominem.

Please, no more personal attacks or you'll be blocked. --Duk 19:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:: I strongly doubt that justifying my comment would change a thing. The irony in this, of course, is that Geogre doesn't approve of blocking for violations of WP:NPA. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 20:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only about justifying your grievance, it's also about civility, and addressing facts or behavior instead of resorting to ad hominems. There is a big difference. Personal insults don't resolve disputes, they make them worse. Civil discussion on the other hand can resolve them. It's possible for you to be just as frank as you like, as long as you are civil and don't engage in personal attacks. In fact, doing so would demonstrated that you are interested in resolving problems, instead of causing them. --Duk 20:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh) I think you fail a logical fallacy here. An ad hominem is attacking a person rather than the person's arguments. I couldn't care less about any argument Geogre posits. It's obvious to me that he (and in many ways Kelly too) are far less interested in truth, or what's right, or what's best for Wikipedia, than in what's best for their view of events and their personal beliefs. There are people who have collectively blinded themselves to what is happening for the simple reason that they hate a person he's in conflict with. I'm fully aware that personal attacks don't resolve anything. But I'm of the opinion that resolving something would require banning both of them. I don't like the ideal of "Quisnam defies auctorita quod est non increpo , triumphus". On that note, I understand what you are trying to convey (that it's unproductive). --ElaragirlTalk|Count 20:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(Sigh) I think you fail a logical fallacy here. hmm, did you intend a double negative here and mean to say I'm right? If so, I agree. An ad hominem is attacking a person rather than the person's arguments. Yes, that is what you did when you called Geogre a bad name. I don't like the ideal of "Quisnam defies auctorita quod est non increpo , triumphus". And your solution is to ban productive editors who behave better than yourself? If everyone thought this way Wikipedia wouldn't exist. --Duk 21:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so very much for only bothering to answer half of what I wrote. Your comments have been taken to heart. Have a nice day. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 21:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome; that was my intention, sticking to the point at hand. --Duk 21:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn

I appreciate your support, but have decided to withdraw from consideration for a position as an arbitrator. The community has overwhelming found me to be too controversial to hold that position. Thanks again for your support.--MONGO 20:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The personal attacks I continuously have to deal with would probably spill over into arbcom situations, and cause too much disruption. Had I been in the 70% support range, I would not have withdrawn, but I would need something like 400 more supports and no opposes to make me a contender, an unlikely event.--MONGO 20:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for support

Thank you for your supportive remarks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Loftus. Hu 22:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing and edit warring

Hello, Elaragirl, sorry to bother you, but I noticed on Kelly Martin's page that you accuse Geogre of POV-pushing and edit warring . Or not "accuse", so much as state it as uncontested matter of fact. I've seen some surprising charges brought against Geogre from people who aren't any too familiar with the events of the Kelly Martin/RFAR/Giano affair, but yours were startlingly new even in that context. Where is this POV-pushing and edit warring to be found, if you don't mind telling me?

Please note that I don't mean to harry you about any generic insults like "liar" or similar, such as your vote in opposition to Geogre; I don't want to question how you express yourself, especially not in the context of a vote. But concrete examples of the very concrete accusations of POV-pushing and edit warring, that would interest me. If it's a bother to dig out examples, you must feel free to reject my request for them, naturally. But I'm rather assuming that you're easily able to substantiate the charges. Making them would hardly be decent otherwise. Bishonen | talk 02:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Recent /wiki/Telelogic_SYNERGY reversal (a long question or so)

Howdy,

(Please excuse the length of this, I am something of a noob here 8-)

You recently (Monday 2006/12/04) reverted my edit of the page /wiki/Telelogic_SYNERGY page. The existing page is basically an advertisement posted from a Telelogic IP address. I left all the original advert text in place and basically added a substantial critical analysis that I thought would be useful to people trying to evaluate the function and paradigms in the project.

As near as I can tell from the reject blurb and pursuit of the various links, I seem to have violated the "no original material" clause and some of the stylistic intent (mostly, I can't say that the text reads all that encyclopedic since I usually have a fairly comic writing style).

The problem facing me is that the whole of the internet has very little to say about the product except for an endless supply of advertisement text nearly identical to the text inserted in Wikipedia, aparently produced by Telelogic itself.

This means that there is essentially nothing I can cite (link to) in my analysis so any kind of analysis would have to be original material. Is there a particular policy element I am missing there?

The intent of providing my analysis was to help others get some kind of understanding of the product "out there" and hopefully establish a starting point (and interest) to complete a more researched piece.

So, aside from trying to make the text stylistically read more like the page for Concurrent_Versions_System, can you recommend a way, or place, where the research for a topic like this can be built collaboratively?

The discussion pages seem to age away to archives somewhere (but that could be a noob assumption or misunderstanding on my part), and there doesn't seem to be any obvious place, other than the base page for a topic, where a topic can evolve into readiness. Is there any kind of "drafts" section to handle this sort of nascent piece?

And as a more general question, the page in question seems to have been the same quality of advertisement since June 2004. How long does this kind of marketing page typically last uncontested?

IBitOBear 10:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Brookie

Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Many thanks

Hello Elaragirl. I want to thank you for the barnstar. It is my first. Many people get involved in this project only to be discouraged later on and leave because of turmoil that arises from others. People such as you have kept me encouraged to press on and hold fast to the understanding that this project is worthwhile. I know, I ramble on when a simple thanks would suffice. In fewer words, many thanks. :-) JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 13:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou

Thankyou for supporting my application for adminship. I assure you, you will not be disappointed. Captaindansplashback 18:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfC

I appreciate you taking time to comment on that issue. May I ask you to give me some examples where I have acted improper and goaded Ghirla? I'd dearly like to resolve this issue, however currently I think I was offended by Ghirla many, many times, whie I have never offended him (or at least not more often than an occasional slip of keyboard once a year, humans are not perfect...). Therefore if I am indeed being uncivil to Ghirla (or as he puts it, if I am indeed trolling, vandalising, raising an army of pet trolls and stalking him), I would appreciate a neutral, third party like yourself pointing me to such occurences which would represent a clear trend and not the occasional 'once a year slip' for which I did apologize (here or here, and on that note if you can find a single instance Ghirla apologized to anybody anywhere I would dearly like to see it). To summarize my stance: while I admit that in a few cases I might have been incivil, I doubt I act more incivil then 'your average editor', Ghirla, on the other hand, is frequently extremly incivil (and such a level of incivility in turn increases the chances other will be incivil to him). To back up this statement let me point out that Ghirla was warned about making personal attacks by a mediator, by ArbCom, and was blocked for incivility; I have never been warned in a similar manner; thus saying 'we are both equally' guilty is something I disagree with (but I am open to evidence presented by a neutral party which would show me I indeed act no better (or worse?) than Ghirla). Once again, thank you for your comment, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly aware you are not attacking anyone. If my post above gave an indication that I condiser your post 'attack' of some kind, maybe indeed there is a problem with what I write...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since your outside view seems to be the most popular (so far), and since it is my understanding you are suggesting mediation, I'd just like you to know that I'd be willing to give it yet another try if you'd be willing to mediate. A word of warning: I already tried mediation with Ghirla once; he stopped participating after the mediator asked him to refrain from personal attacks...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Thanks for the kind words! I don't really have the time to be an admin, even allowing that I'm temperamentally suited to it. People say when they're accepting nominations "it won't affect my editing", but it's bound to. I have too much to do already, and manage to find enough excuses not to do it without adding more buttons. It's not that I wouldn't enjoy the wikipolitics, or the nomic side of things, but I should stick with editing for a while to come.

There are bound to be lots of people who could do as good job as I could, and probably better. Isotope23 (talk • contribs) seems like a good guy, bold but not reckless, AfD contributor, closes AfDs from time to time, edits in wiki space, reasonable edit count, so he might be interested if you think RFA needs more victims. Some day I'll ask you what Kelly Martin said to change your mind, assuming it's not a secret, but not today.

As for the ↑ Piotrus-Ghirla thing, vexatious litigants just about covers it. Thanks again and all the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA WP:CIVIL WP:TROLL m:dick

Hi, I urge you to read those pages. Your conduct violates a combination of those. --Cat out 06:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind citing anything specific, or are you one of these people who like to scream "NPA" and "troll" anytime someone opposes you? --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 06:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the answer to your question is self apperant.

[3] is just one example. You aren't swearing alright but your tone is irritating. State what you need to say while avoiding the "flowery irritating" tone.

--Cat out 07:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The very 'warning' on top of your talk page is another example. --Cat out 07:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Cat out 07:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(sighs tiredly) I will say to you what I have said to others. If you feel I have made a personal attack, you are free to report it to WP:PAIN. Please be aware that since I am very aggressive I am very familiar with WP:NPA and I know the precise limits to which I can and cannot go. I am sorry you cannot accept criticism and that you seem to hold unilateral action higher than policy and consensus, but you warning JzG against personal attacks when he didn't make one clearly illustrates to me that you have zero understanding of the difference between disagreement and attack. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 07:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to be aggressive. Keeping an attitude borderlining NPA is trolling. I have given you NPA warning #1 as per WP:PAIN. Ignore this at own risk. --Cat out 07:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Hi, feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elaragirl. --Cat out 09:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will comment later at this nonsense, am currently busy. Cheers, Moreschi 09:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Um, left my $0.02 as well, sorry for butting in. riana_dzasta 15:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone who has an opinion should comment. I think anyone has the right to do so, and I'm certainly not going to suggest that I haven't been uncivil to at least one person on Wikipedia...but it wasn't Cool Cat. The suggestion below that I remove a CVU despite my vandalfighting efforts is laughable. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 15:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly odd; it's not 'Stroking Vandals into Submission' Unit, it's CVU, guns blazin', ass kickin'. Oh well. riana_dzasta 15:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CVU

I ask you not to display the counter vandalism logo on your userpage. You are far to hostile to be remotely affiliated with the CVU I founded. --Cat out 10:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. When I violate the CVU's policies of being uncivil to vandals or biting newcomers, I will aquiese to such a request. Until then such a thing merely makes you look rather petty, for you cannot be suggesting such a thing for any other possible reason than to goad me. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 15:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool cat, how ya doin? It's been a while since we've chatted. Are still mad at me about the GAP project article? Anyway, sorry to bust in here, but after my earlier chat with Elaragirl I got the distinct impression that I knew her in a previous life. What do you think?

Hey Elaragirl, have you ever edited under a different screen name? --Duk 17:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. And if you want to make such an assertation, I strongly encourage you to make a request at RFCU. Correctly suggesting I might have been uncivil is one thing. Correctly pointing out that my statement on the ArbCom Election was a direct personal attack is also just fine. Vague accusations of editing under another username, however, is neither constructive, nor corrective. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 17:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just asking. Have a nice day. --Duk 17:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for violating WP:NPA

Hi Elaragirl,

No doubt this will raise your WikiStress, and for that, I apologize. I think you are a good contributor, and I hope you continue to edit the encyclopedia. However, you have been warned repeatedly against making personal attacks on Wikipedia. While I can appreciate that you have a sarcastic nature, and want to express yourself, edits like this are clear examples of violating WP:NPA.

Please take a break for a short while and come back ready to build the encyclopedia. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 17:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I am currently blocked for 24 hours. Any question, issues, etc that would somehow require my unblocking should be addressed to User:Firsfron. I do not intend to challenge or appeal the block. Anyone with concerns should email me --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 17:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had posted a question on the talk page of your RfC, before you were blocked (or at least before I knew you were blocked). If you care to, please feel free to answer it here instead. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... isn't that violating a block? (Is not being sarcastic but is asking a serious question!!!) I though the only reason we were supposed to post to our user page was to do with things involving the block... --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 17:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say you could - Brad's question seems directly related to the circumstances behind your block. riana_dzasta 18:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ive never actually heard of talk page restrictions - looking into it now  Glen  18:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are free to post what you wish here, provided its not vandalism, personal attacks or unblock abuse. WP:BLOCK says:

A blocked user cannot edit any pages other than his/her own talk page. An admin may restart the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the original block if the user commits further blockable acts. Accounts and IPs used in evading a block may also be blocked.

Ask an admin to come to me anyway if it comes up,  Glen  18:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A short answer, since it just feels wrong to edit. I know the limits of NPA and I'm agressive because that's my personality. When I skirt it, I do so because a person is either acting in a disinginous manner or is blatantly and openly violating a policy and refusing to see it. I am too sarcastic as well, which does not always translate well over the net. I think I'll go to lunch and come back this weekend, to work on some articles I've been typing out at home. If this answer isn't sufficient, I would strongly prefer to give a more complete one -- once my block expires. This user is going offline --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 18:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, despite repeatedly feeling very glad that I'm not on the other end of one of Elara's, er, barbs of brilliance, I've never seen her actions amount to trolling. She invariably quotes policy, and encourages others to do so. That said, that section in your admin criteria was definitely... risky. I strongly advise taking a break from AfDs, MfDs, DRVs etc for some time - I hope you don't feel I'm patronising you, I am genuinely concerned that your stress caused by deletionist activities may spill over into other facets of your work here. All the best, riana_dzasta 18:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum WP:DICK value

Hello again, Elaragirl. From the way you left my post "POV pushing and edit warring" to gather dust above, while you edited away at other matters (until blocked), it appears you were... stalling (ha! found polite synonym!) when you claimed on IRC that you did have evidence for your charges, and undertook to reply Real Soon. And yet the groundless insults are still there,[4] you don't reply to me, you don't apologize to your target, etcetera. I urge you to reconsider your determination to get maximum dick value out of this and other incidents. Bishonen | talk 18:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, please don't taunt Elaragirl, and especially not when she is blocked and trapped on her user talk page. It's like tormenting caged prisoners ... it doesn't help solve anything, and it's disturbing that someone would even find enjoyment in it. As for Elaragirl: please tone it down a notch. That latest diff that you were blocked for was clearly beyond the pale. I would recommend that you steer clear of unproductive arguments with Bishonen and others and just get back to working on the encyclopedia once your block expires. --Cyde Weys 20:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, Bishonen, there is simply so much information that I must find a way to sort through it all effectively. Per the tone of your discussion on IRC however, it was made clear to me that you were not concerned in what I thought but in denegrating me, so I will follow Cyde's excellent advice and steer well clear of you. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 21:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Please email me instead of posting here[reply]

Mail

In case you hadn't noticed. Cheers, Moreschi 21:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still stuck at work for an hour or so. On the plus side, there has been a betting pool at work to see how long before I got in trouble for some of my own stupidities. I'm out $5.

exhales I'll be the first to admit I crossed the line. Firsfron is an admin I can solidly respect for never being full of shit. I feel like blocks are an affair of honor -- if you fuck up, and you know you did, and you did it anyway, you have to do the time. The statements I made were personal attacks -- sadly, depressingly, they were also right and there are probably lots of people who feel the same way but who have enough sense not to say so on-wiki. I should apologize to some admins for not sticking them on the excellent and good list. I aught to apologize to some of the admins on the bad list for posting my opinion. I'm bad at apologies. I apologized to Kelly Martin (and damn me, that was hard for me to swallow) because , no matter how I hated what she said, she was right.

brightens Still, you're my friend, and I do appreciate what everyone has said here and on that RfC by CoolCat and on ANI. This , however, remains an excellent example of why I don't wanna be an admin. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 22:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were those on-wiki or off-wiki stupidities that cost you $5? This is supposed to be a free encyclopedia.

More seriously, if you're trying to move past being blocked for personal attacks, it would be better if you didn't simultaneously emphasize how accurate they were.

As for not becoming an administrator, no problem: I think the community is ready to meet you halfway on that one. :) Newyorkbrad 22:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the sentament, I am the kind of person who accepts responsability. I see too many people, when accused of being disruptive/edit warring/personally attacking, behaving in a manner that denies they did anything wrong. I think that kind of attitude suggests you haven't learned anything. Instead, I now have a small voodoo doll of WillyOnWheels, and when I get frustrated I plan to stab that with a hair pin to let off my bad chi. Moving past my block involves admitting I could very well have been blocked for longer, or indef. (Grins wickedly) Some people would have cheered. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 22:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could very well have been blocked for longer, or indef. (Grins wickedly) Some people would have cheered.
And some people would have rushed to your defense. An indef block would have been a huge over reaction—I think Firsfron was appropriately measured in his choice of duration, although it will be a less interesting 24 hours.  :-) —Doug Bell ^talk 23:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I can think of at least 3 people. At least. I'd be willing to stake my super-solid rep on it ;) riana_dzasta 03:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept the Vladimir Nabokov SYMBIO (Speak Your Mind Bluntly, Intransigently, Openly) Award. (Read the full post linked for the significance of this.) – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 00:37, 8 Dec 2006 (UTC).

A gifty for you

The Cluestick is awarded to users who have demonstrated that they, in fact, have a clue. You, Elaragirl, deserve it more than most. Maybe it will come in handy to....well, let's just say, "whack-a-mole". Jeffpw 21:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :D --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 22:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating reading

you may be interested in reading these [5] [6] --Moby 09:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

clarifying a comment I made

Hi Elaragirl, I just wanted to clarify a comment I made on the talk page of your RfC. The comment was:

"You (Cool Cat) say that your comment isn't directed at anyone, and yet you wrote, 'I am bailing out of this request. Too many trolls and/or members of the deletionism cabal. If Elaragirl's conduct is acceptable, please delete WP:CIVIL', with the implication that those who disagreed with you were trolls or members of the deletionism cabal. Either you were indeed referring to the partcipants in this RfC, or you typed something regrettable in the heat of the moment. Please take more care with your choice of words. That is something that Elaragirl would do well to heed as well."

What I meant is that at times, your choice of words does rub people the wrong way, as could be seen in the Esperanza MfD. I can post this explanation on that RfC talk page, if you would like. I hope your current block isn't stressing you, and that it has given you the time to find more articles to delete, er, contribute to, er, modify however you see fit to make Wikipedia better than ever! --Kyoko 15:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]