Peter Damian? I wish he could have turned his motormouth off, great contributor but can't resist stirring, but I can't think I've opposed him on anything or taken part in any of the periodic excoriations incidents at ANI. Do correct me if I'm wrong. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I must have confused you with someone else. I admit the inability to resist stirring. In defence, I was trained in philosophy, where you are taught to test ethical principles by means of special cases which demonstrate an exception. If you claim every A is B, I am programmed to find a case of an A which isn't B. Thus I am intrigued by the principle 'anyone can edit', and so like to make endless permutations of cases which disprove that rule. 86.164.209.246 (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you blame me for getting angry? It's quite clear you've got sick of discussing saying the same things over and over and so have instead decided to attack me. Your insinuations are about as welcome as the death of my parents; who the fuck do you think you are? You have no right to say that sort of nonsense to me. If you can't stand the thought that some people don't worship you in your moral panic holiness, don't even pretend you have any intention to engage in reasoned discussion. You make me sick. J Milburn (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, I've had nothing but respect for your editing prior to this (at least the things I have seen), but your replies to J are dangerously close to being blockable for the same reasoning as here. If I see these sort of comments from you again, I will not hesitate to block. Regards, —Ed(talk • majestic titan)07:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ed17, you must of course do as you see fit. However, I think when the wider consensus gets up and edits, you may find yourself in a minority. Whichever. Could you possibly confirm that no-one has oversighted any of my posts, as I do not believe they have been. I regret that JMilburn thought I was accusing him of child abuse (this was never my intent), and, having myself identified that this exact chain of events was very likely, I do think I was unwise not to have left the field. Incidentally, I was not aware that Off2riorob had actually called JMilburn a paedophile previously. This would explain why he immediately thought I was doing the same. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you have understood what it is I was saying (or trying to say) at ANI - if not, hopefully it makes sense now. :) I don't think it's an general issue about wisdom, but just an isolated judgement lapse (we are all human...expecting perfection is not very reasonable). On the other side, hopefully J Milburn will recover with time and also appreciate why he should consider leaving that field too (should he consider going back). All in all, I think it's something we can all draw a lesson from, whether or not certain other users agree/disagree. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did understand, yes. In hindsight, it would have been much wiser to have stopped at a very early stage, as the discussion was never going to lead to an amicable outcome, and really, I knew that already. As it is, I am very sorry that JMilburn was so upset, and I quite understand why. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Relix The Underdog/ response to your inquiry
I just signed up in order to contribute an article, I didn't realize using the name of the person I think is a very talented individual should bar him from being on here. I'm sure you can understand. ThanksJaviarramirez (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, just to clarify: Off2riorob was blocked - at least on my understanding of the rev-del-ed edit - for "asking" or "suggesting", not "stating". I can understand the editor thusly implicated being extremely concerned, however I don't regard Off2riorob's as being as serious as an accusation. TFOWR10:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm glad he didn't go that far. The comment I saw, he had directly asked 'are you a paedophile', which I thought was unwise, but as there were several revdeletions, and some editors at ANI seemed to view it as the ultimate offence, I assumed he must have made a straight accusation somewhere.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was virtually the same thing as calling him one. After initially asking J if he 'supported' pedophile editing, J responded with this reasoned post. Off2riorob came back/replied with two questions which were something like 'do you support pedophilia' and 'are you a pedophile'. In my view, those questions were asked maliciously and so therefore deserved an immediate block. —Ed(talk • majestic titan)14:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the assessment of 'malicious'. Bringing a wholly false accusation of this kind would of course be deeply nasty, but I think he said it because he believed it to be true. If you read the whole page, Rob was genuinely convinced that a number of those editing the page are paedophiles - which he, like me, believes is something that exists only in an active form. That's the peril of the debate - everyone who argues against zero tolerance can start to look like a paedophile to someone who takes a hard line. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In either case, I would have blocked. A philosophical position taken in a debate (however heated) does not give someone a license to swoop in and ask questions that are meant as virtual accusations. By "maliciously", I meant 'with the intent of accusing'. Or something like that. —Ed(talk • majestic titan)15:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure he did it with the intent of accusing, but it would only be malicious if he did it without any belief that it was true. If he had emailed arbcom instead of confronting the guy directly, he would have been acting within the policy in the way that he chose to raise his concern. It's posting it on Milburn's talkpage that's the problem.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About a week late, I'm afraid. :) It closed on the 28th, but due to some very capable clerking at CCI, I didn't notice! Thank you for doing your bit with our sad backlog. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those drops do more good than you may think. Not only do they cumulatively add up, but they are inspiring to those of who try to put more time into it. It can be discouraging when nobody else seems to notice. :) (Yes, though, the ocean is vast and deep. Sigh.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Level of involvement
As you have commented here, could you please state your level of involvement (if any) next to your support/oppose/comment in that discussion? Although all input would/should be considered, this will help clarify a community consensus from a local consensus among involved users. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC) P.S. Sorry - it seems I missed your comment which is why you were not asked earlier when the other users who commented were asked.[reply]
Hi Elen. Re: your medieval traveller, it looks to me as though the critical issue is not that he set off to see within these islands, but where he then went. If he had stayed within the territorial waters of the United Kingdom, for example, then that clearly was not British Isles. On the other hand, if he spent say a few hours across the line between Dublin and Holyhead - well, the implication is obvious. A precise, day-to-day navigational map, preferably with modern updated GPS co-ordinates, would be the least reference many could accept in final proof. I hope you agree and will not regard this incident as "trivial". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! You mean you're not demanding photographic evidence? Polaroids (no chance of photoshopping) of him in front of the Blarney Stone? It's one of those where I wouldn't have changed it from "travelled in the British Isles" or whatever, because it was a throwaway sentence, and not a significant part of the article, but when someone wanted to change it, I wouldn't have argued about it either. It made me aware though that there was a campaign to remove the words 'British Isles', which seemed foolish to me, but then it is often thus with Wikipedia.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe some editors would accept a passport stamp from Ireland and only that. Others might let it through if you just said "he visited Lundy Island" or "he imagined himself visiting Rockall". OMG. Just wondering if Rockall is in the BI. Better check and fast. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you appear not to have undertaken a full review, straw poll, consensus building activity and ANI skirmishing prior to introducing unsourced material (to whit: "waveland"), consider yourself on editing supervision for 316 days. The only way you can escape this is by convincing an admin that you are stalking them. Hope this helps. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious
Hi Elen just curious what you mean here when you say your talk page fails every accessibility standard in the book (and I can't read anything on it... IMO this talk page is ok and it can be read and accessed with ease, maybe you could point me to the accessibility standards that you feel it fails thanks Mo ainm~Talk17:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could point me to one that it passes :) I wasn't accusing the chap of anything criminal, lots of people like to make userpages in wierd colours. However, if you want a list, the two international standards are:-
WCAG 1.0 2.2 Ensure that foreground and background color combinations provide sufficient contrast when viewed by someone having color deficits or when viewed on a black and white screen. [Priority 2 for images, Priority 3 for text].
WCAG 2.0 (AA standard) 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum): The visual presentation of text and images of text has a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1
In UK law (which doesn't apply to Wikipedia of course) websites providing goods or services have to be accessible or their operator risks prosecution under the Disability Discrimination act, and UK public sector websites have more specific requirements and are audited by several organisations including the RNIB to ensure that they meet these standards. I know all this because I run a public sector website
The colour contrast on the page does not meet any accessibility standard, and consequently for some people (like me) it will be impossible to read. There's no criticism of the chap - he's not required to meet these standards - but its why I didn't post on his page. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, I don't think you should have replied at the users talk page but I was just wondering. And I didn't take it as a criticism of the user.Mo ainm~Talk18:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also maybe it should be a requirement as if an editor is unable to use a talk page then it defeats the purpose of having one. Mo ainm~Talk18:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
what link were you refferring to on my talk page? I'm not sure I found a like on the book, let alone checked one out, but I may be mistaken. Keserman (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Request for mediation concerning Many Jesus-related articles, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.
Hi Elen, don't know if you've seen this post at AN. It seems to be a similar issue to one you commented on at ANI a few days ago (a user spamming consumerdirect.gov.uk links). You mentioned you might ping the relevant department? TFOWR15:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you trying to delete an article?
Why are you trying to delete the article Spiky Hair??? If you don't know what is the relevance of that term, don't take that as a fact. We, hairstylists do use that word and so do fashion designers. It's a common word and needs to be on wikipedia. If we take strict relevance and generalization, then thousands more wikipedia articles are needed to be deleted. Have you got that? previous comment was unsigned by user:Arjunr240576
Basically he seems to be just talking nonsense. I wish I could turn up a full transcript of the Iranian statement, but I'm struggling to find it. I think it must have been a read statement, without the text being handed out or posted to the official website. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it would matter even if you could. Alexander is delusional. He'd find some pretend reason to justify his reverts until he was outnumbered again. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. This is the sort of thing which impels me to consider not returning - on the other hand, we should not surrender to tactics like this. As for WWI, both Doyle and Mearsheimer treat it as a marginal case; but the reasons why Doyle does consider it difficult should certainly be included.
I'm not sure how much of Vanhanen's book is on the web, but he himself admits that his method of measuring democracy is approximate and subject to short term fluctuations, and quotes two different critics as calling it "unacceptable"; it is most tolerable for his chief purpose (calculating long term trends of democratization within individual countries, and then doing world-wide statistical analyses - the errors will disappear into the noise in both steps); perhaps least useful for the purpose this article needs: comparing the democracy of two countries, year by year.
It's a two-parameter method: subtract the percentage vote for the largest party from (a multiple of) the percentage of the population who vote, both as of the last election - applied strictly and without corrections; the list of democracies is generated by putting an arbitrary cutoff in the list. I'm sure you can see some oddities likely to result from this; and I doubt he's really independent of POLICY IV, since he seems to have chosen his relative weight and the cutoff to track them as closely as possible.
In particular, the US elections of 1994 can hardly rank much higher than the last Reichstag election before 1914, and the elections of 2006 must be lower still.
No, I think he (if it is indeed a he) sees all opposition as personal attacks - see the undignified blubbing above. Clearly never had to content with some of the professors I've encountered, who were quite happy to tell you exactly how little they thought of your latest idea. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, every single thing you two say about me is incorrect. Including the claim that I have made some sort of threat. All I asked was that you two try to conduct the discussions in a civil manner. Is that really too much to ask? (Strange. Nobody ever seems willing to answer that question). --OpenFuture (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OF, the problem is that we really are being civil. Read the section in WP:CIVIL on identifying incivility. "I do not agree with your views", "I think your interpretation is wrong", these things are not personal attacks. While they are directed at you, because it is your views and your interpretations that are being discussed, they are not personal attacks. Some of the things PMAnderson said were uncivil, and some were personal attacks, but you are doing yourself no service by accusing everyone who disagrees with you of ad hominem attacks.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, I have pointed out exactly what in your comments are uncivil. I never claimed that I do not agree with your views" or "I think your interpretation is wrong" or anything like that is uncivil. That is yet another of your straw men. As is Cynwolfes ridiculous claims about "threats". If you really are worried that I somehow are going to use your uncivility to get you blocked, there is a simple solution: Stop discussing me, and start discussing the article. Very easy. And most important of all, stop coming with untruths about what I have said. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I'm getting a good collection of straw men here. If I was discussing YOU, I might be speculating about your dress sense, or your mental health, or whether you still lived with your mother, or any number of unwarranted things that people do bring into arguments about content or policy. If you could show me where I've speculated about any such thing, show me and I will strike it at once. It is a sure sign that one is losing the argument when one starts premising one's opponents views on the state of his bank balance or love life.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Please do show me where I have said that you speculate about that. I have never said you speculate about anything. I have never mentioned my personal life or my clothes. That sure came out of the blue. Nice way to switch the topic. But I still think you should stay civil, you know, even if you can switch the topic like a professional politician. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, you need to look up the definition of "ad hominem" attack. You weaken your case by accusing everyone who crosses you of being incivil. If you believe I am being incivil, please refer the matter to WP:WQA, with diffs. On the other hand, if you only believe I am being incivil, but have no evidence that you think would be supported by others, then please accept my apologies for having inadvertantly offended you (perhaps through differences in culture or upbringing, we do seem to be having some odd disjuncts here), and be assured my interest is only in the discussion itself.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that while the conversation I started here is open for public viewing, it was not directed at OpenFuture. Very rude to butt in; I believe this is covered by WP:HOUND. He's obviously watching our pages so he can pick fights, as he has by commenting here in your space when I was talking to you, or maybe in the hope of using our conversations with others to threaten us with speech-suppression action. I find this really creepy. Also, Elen, you missed what I see as an example (as always, carefully veiled) of WP:BULLYING: If you really are worried that I somehow are going to use your uncivility to get you blocked, there is a simple solution: Stop discussing me, and start discussing the article. As you point out, we're not discussing him, we're discussing the ways in which he seeks to control the dialogue and the content of the article. We haven't speculated on his psychological motives, and we have both discussed the content of the article in buckets. Even if he parses it very carefully, this is bullying: "Be deferential to me," he's saying, "or I will use your incivility to get you blocked. Taken as a whole, I think this behavior falls under WP:HA ("The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target"), particularly the way he interfered in my conversation with you here. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you insisting that the article Spiky (hairstyle) should be deleted??? Now, it's no more stub, there are references unlike ever before since creation of the article. You stated that you don't know the relevance of the article??? I can't understand how a human being able to know all the facts underneath the sun. I am a fashion magazine writer, and we all know the very relevance of the term and existence. Then you know, there are a lot of articles in English Wikipedia that should be deleted for it's only regarding an irrelevant person, most probably the creator of the article himself. No AFD is there, though it has no references. It has been more than a week now you have put AFD notice. There is no active debate. That's why I removed AFD notice. Be sensible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.97.43.183 (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
I see that you have reverted me in the Wikipedia talk:User pages guideline.
I am not so involved or have strong feelings so I will let it go. However, be mindful that your reverting can, in some articles, turn into an edit war. Consider this....
Version A. Stable. User 1 changes it to Version B.
User 2 makes a suggestion and changes it to Version C.
User 3 (you) makes a comment and changes it to Version D, which is similar to B.
This is ok.
Version A. Stable. User 1 changes it to Version B.
User 2 makes a suggestion and changes it to Version C.
User 3 (you) makes a comment and changes it to Version A, asks for extended discussion before any changes.
This is ok.
Version A. Stable. User 1 changes it to Version B.
User 2 makes a suggestion and changes it to Version C.
User 3 (you) makes a comment and changes it back to Version B.
Very possible for an edit war to start. You did this as User 3.
This is not a criticism of you, just a comment on how human interaction works. Yesterday, I made a similar comment about human interaction (different situation and topic) to Jimbo Wales, which alerted him to make a request. That human interaction idea was whether WP wants to take a stand or de-escalate things or assert a right but not poke the FBI in the eye by taunting them.
This message to you is just a comment, please don't take offense. Also, the topic is not important enough to me that I am not asking you to do anything except ponder a moment. Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone, above, called you disturbed. Your reply is harsh. Sometimes people are aggresive for so long that they are unaware of it. Do some self introspection. I will leave the conclusion to you as I will not ask you to get a grip nor do I rebel against Jimbo for everything he says. My original message to you is just to let you know how edit wars sometimes start. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I received your message. I think it is best that we try to avoid each other.
I did not quote Jimbo Wales, trying to imply that he disagrees with you. I simply said that human interaction works in a special way and quoted another example of human interaction (choosing to be practical or to assert one's legal right) which Jimbo Wales took a position on.
As far as the user page guideline, edit warring is when there is repeated reverts back and forth. With guidelines, if there is a dispute, the copy should say with the previous stable version, which is July 31st, not the bold change, nor the 2nd bold change.
Also, I contact J Milburn randomly and because he put a Wikicup message on my page. I do not think he is the only person who has been upset with you.
"OpenFuture ignores all sources suggested by myself" - Huh? Are you saying that it's your opinion that the sources you have come up with support the view that the First Kashmir War was a war between democracies!? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying you didn't comment on them, and acted as if they didn't exist, you hadn't read them, you couldn't be bothered with them or some such. If you would discuss the research results, as I keep trying to get you to do, instead of just screaming "It says this! It says this!" at PMA, the rest of us would engage with you, and we could actually hammer out some solutions. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented a bit on them, and read them, and noticed they support my position and not Pmandersons. What more do you expect me to do? The one who ignores them is Pmanderson, who even though you add a lot of sources contradicting him, still pretends that there is no discussion and removed the tags. And now, absurdly, so do you. That makes no sense to me, sorry. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, I hope you're lying on a beach somewhere, but if not, I wonder if you would consider returning briefly to this discussion. I believe you supported an AfD nomination, so it would be nice if the exploration of that were conducted without flaming torches. I'm not sure the article needs to exist, but I would like for the decision to be made procedurally on legitimate grounds, and not just zealotry to suppress the content. (I don't see, for instance, what synth and OR have to do with deleting a list article.) So if at some point you could insert a comment, I for one would welcome it; if not, believe me, I completely understand. I'm probably violating some WP rule I'm unaware of just by asking for your input, so whoever wants to flog me can do it and get it over with. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the U.S., there's this TV ad for a pest extermination company where a giant termite attempts to gain entry to someone's orderly suburban home by posing as a pizza delivery guy. Just sayin' — you'd have a more experienced eye for these things than I. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of wars between democracies
Hi i reverted your last edit on this articles talk page, i figure you know why :) next time go have a beer before responding, just the one though as a few tends to make matters worse :) mark nutley (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't understand what I say, you are welcome to ask. It's probably a better reaction than calling me illiterate. It also has the benefit that it will be possible to correct me if I in fact made a mistake (which I didn't in this case). --OpenFuture (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But you are here. I have taken the article off my watchlist because I do not want to have to deal with you any more - I suggest you treat my talkpage likewise (watch it if you like, but don't post), and that way we can avoid each other. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HOUND again — and that need to have the last word, even after OF was told "don't post." I too have taken that page off my watchlist, Elen, but I hope to have the pleasure of working with you again in conditions not resembling Bedlam. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion requested on species bots alternative method
I posted an alternative suggestion to bots scraping databases for species stubs. Namely, if human editors rehave access to a bot that creates fully formatted stubs at their request it could remove a lot of the tedium from creating species articles. I would appreciate some input into my actual suggestion from you, whether you agree with me or not. There are 100s, maybe 1000s of comments in years of acrimonious discussions in multiple archives about various bots that have created or were designed to create species stubs from databases. The writers want these bots, in part, because of the time and work required to write a species stub. It takes much more time to write a species stub than most other types of stubs because of the taxonomy linking, boxes and authorities. I think if all species editors had a centralized location to request bots pull the taxonomy from a specific database and create a stub, this would be a great benefit for Wikipedia and species writers. Please consider commenting on this alternative proposal of mine, again, whether you agree or not, I think your opinion would be valuable. Thanks. JaRoad (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meant to append it to his response to you on your page - he's not just pasting chunks of spam, he's advertising this website. I've said same on his page. Apology for any confusion. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are lucky, see you in spiritual world some time...
"‘chaitanya-mangala’ shune yadi pashandi, yavana
seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana
If even a great atheist hears Shri Chaitanya-mangala (previous name for Shri Chaitanya-bhagavata), he immediately becomes a great devotee.
I see you've tagged this for AfD. Could you please open the discusssion with your rationale so that I can support it with my 'delete' argument. I originally PRODed it but the creator's only response was a PA, and to remove the tag. I did not want to play his WP:GAME and WP:BAIT, so I left it at that. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh! Thank you so much. The Fenimore Cooper Society have rafts of stuff, but I have to confess the only book I've ever read is Last of the Mohicans. Still, if this doesn't kill me, I might take a look. I'm about 2/3 through the plot, which I feel is essential to have for this novel, as otherwise all the points about criticism, the way the plot was changed for the films etc, becomes meaningless.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, focus on the books. I will be watching the edits on the Last of the Mohicans, so feel free to ask for help. It's been a couple years since I read it, but I am here. If you need some sources on real world stuff, check out journal databases, google books, google scholar, etc, and make sure that you can do more than just the plot, but yes plot is important. Sadads (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The next section I'd really like to add is how the book came to be written. The Society website has some stuff written by Cooper's daughter about him visiting Glen Falls and getting the inspiration for it. I'd also like to add some info about how Cooper uses history in the book, and (if I can find good sources) about what he was trying to do with the story, why he put in all the stuff about the Indians and how much of it was true. I'm also interested in how it's still going as a story, even though the book's pretty much unreadable these days, just for the length (my kids have a 3 minute attention span!), let alone Natty insisting that there's no cross of blood in his veins. A few days work, and it's just about bedtime here, so I'll see you tomorrow. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Just for your information, we will probably need to trim down the plot section so it does not overweigh the real world material. Great work though, and Trimming is a process much easier then identifying the missing content. Sadads (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find if it's all there, it's easier to compress. It needs enough detail to be able to show some of the criticisms hinted at in the current rather cryptic commentary, although some of the detail would appear in whatever review sources are used. Incidentally, I don't think it ever was B-class. Looking at the history, it was done with a semi-automated edit, which suggests it wasn't someone who had read the article in depth.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)If I may jump in here - I don't know where you are located in the world, but if you need help with some of this post a message on my talk page. I am not sure how much you want to use "recent" images but a trip to Lake George to take images that would relate is not too far off and the Fort has a section about the book and related movies. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Becky Quick (sigh)
You may no longer care a year later, but User:KeltieMartinFan is up to the same old tricks re: the Quick article. (There's a sock puppet, User:Fourviz that may do damage, too.)
Maybe this is a rhetorical question, but is it unusual at all to see someone -- months after "consensus" (or what I'd like to call fact, truth and/ or accuracy) -- refuse to concede the point and insist on editing, I.e. censoring, to his or her own whims? Wrapping it, of course, in the finest baroque pronouncements of Wiki canon?
The jousting can be sporting, but shortly becomes tedious and counterproductive. Especially when a fact itself is not in dispute. It's very puzzling, but I suppose a lot of worthwhile complexities result from chaos theory. : ) -- 76.114.197.43 (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious - where did you see that the image is from AP? All I could find was "Photo: PA" on the source page. If AP is distributing it than the file needs to be speedily deleted as a copyvio as images from AP aren't allowed, even under Fair Use. But I would need a link direct to AP, or a source that says it is from AP. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did I put AP. Sorry, brainfart. The image is copyright Press Association - I checked their library here. It's a collect photo - PA bought it rather than it being taken by a press photographer. Still, as I advised the uploader, he needs to ensure that the article contains sourced commentary about the photo.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you changed my "PA" to "AP". It's ok. That is a good find, but the problem is the photo in your link is a cropped version of the one that was uploaded and the more "full" version I linked to at the image page. However not all is lost - here is the full one. As it was your find I will let tag it for deletion because, as you said, unless the image itself is discussed images from press agency's such as PA and AP are not generally allowed. Thanks - again, good find! (PS - I updated the image page with the links to the agency and the photos there) Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I said on your talkpage, because copyright is held by one of the Press photo agencies, the picture can only be used if the picture itself is discussed in the article. The picture is in the infobox - it is being used for identification. Look for another picture, and check the Press Association library to make sure it doesn't hold the copyright.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for identifying the object as a date palm tree. I see it is under DR now at WikiCommons. I have no strong feelings here. I...just could not figure out what Byba meant. I guess it is a copyright violation of some kind and will vote delete sadly. But thank you for your kind help. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More experienced users
Greetings. You did some work on the article Thomas Jefferson and slavery & there was a problem with sources in July 2009. The problem persists. But there's far worse, and I think you understand the copyright problems pretty well. I have posted just one example of copyright infringement in the talk page that's on the article; I believe the user is... well he does so many edits it's hard to be certain, and I don't want to be incorrect. Someone else involved on the page & with more experience should check. Any asssistance would be appreciated. Ebanony (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for checking it out. There is one problem: "George Washington and slavery" has the same problem, and I've just posted a similar example sheet on the talk page; maybe it's too close, but there seem to be some problems. I don't want to take any action until others have seen it. Many thanks for clarifying. Ebanony (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I see how the discussion I had with Sadads might have caused some confusion, and I'm sorry about that; I didn't know you knew him, but this isn't about his edits (he didn't do them), and I appreciate his input too. I know who made some of the edits, but not all, and I warned him on his talk page several times to fix it, but he still hasn't. It's precisely because of npov problems, some questionable phrases (I was picky) that someone else familiar with copyright & was neutral I thought should check it. Wasn't my intention to cause any problem with you and Sadads. Ebanony (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, silly how words and quick reading and writing can cause problems. Don't worry about it, life is good :) Actually, Ebanony we need a lot more picky people like you willing to Be bold and point out the problems with current content or just remove it or help other users paraphrase better! Keep it up, and I would stick my nose into this broader issue, but I am currently wrapped up in a few to many Wiki-things and Real life things,Sadads (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Jefferson and slavery
Can you resolve a dispute between Ebanony and myself who continues to make accusations of plagerism against myself? I made changes in the article, however, nothing seems to make a signifigant difference with Ebanony. The Thomas Jefferson and slavery article was an offshoot article I started from the Thomas Jefferson article. Ebanony continues to post on my talk page making various accusations. My attempts to correct the situation have not satisfied Ebanony. I can't work on the TJ and slavery article anymore since he continues to interrupt my talk page. Your opinion counts. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander is deleting a section on stoning in Iran from this article alleging that it is a "human rights" issue and not a "women's rights" issue, with multiple reliable sources provided establishing it as a women's right issue as well as a human rights issue. Could you weigh in on the talk page please? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Razer photo clarification
Forgive me if I appear to be badgering you between here and WP:IMAGEHELP; I just appreciate that you know what you're talking about when it comes to image copyright. The article for Razer is now on the verge of being awarded GA status, and I'm keen to add the Flickr image I've mentioned before as it shows an angle which has otherwise been impossible to find in a free image. My question is: in order for the photographer to be able to publish a photo of Razer under CC-BY-SA, what form does permission from the robot's team need to take? Will I need a declaration form to send to OTRS as before when they supplied the image or, in this new circumstance, will an email saying "yeah Chris, that's OK by me" suffice?
I would *think* the email would be OK. Upload the image and note that you have confirmed with Razer that they are also OK with the image being used. You'll need to send the email to OTRS on a ticket as before, and you can quote the previous ticket to show that the Razer guys are keen on this open-source stuff. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WikiThanks
Thank you for clarifying that for me. You are a 'legend' as they say in the playground! I've emailed the roboteer and, if you're interested, am happy to keep you abreast of how it goes? Best wishes, CountdownCrispy16:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the link in the explanation, it notes that images are available for Wikimedia under the GFDL or under a PD release. I don't understand why you use this link to support your belief that there's no permission. And no complaints about your actions; you're not using rollback on me or telling me that you'll be happy to improve my woefully-ignorant understanding of copyright. Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No definitely my bad - I didn't read it thoroughly enough. I have amended the file page to confirm that the image is released under GFLD on the website - that should put an end to it, although I bet some other person comes along and tags it with orphan --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comments on the discussion and wanted to clarify something for you here. All of the uploaders later uploads were speedied via I3/F3, you may not have noticed that. This was done because the Websites terms of use was explicitly cited. In cases such as these it is normal to speedy images that are marked with variations of "For Wikipedia Use only" or "with permission Only", the Wikipedia policy is clear in these regards. In the case of the earlier uploads such as this image: they did not specifically mention the "Wikipedia use only" like license at the source website, but all use "fair use of internet" or "used by permission", or a slight variation of it. Even without the link to the website these still are conflicting terms - remember the "self" tags use generic wording and in many cases an uploader will simply use a "self" tag and than add their own licensing terms elsewhere. In order to meet Wikipedias Image use policy for free images they must *not* be listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives as those images are unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted on sight, unless they are used under fair use. As you pointed out the first part of the websites TOU/TOS is the general "everybody" license - You may not copy (other than a copy for personal use), modify, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, transfer, resell, or republish any of the Contents of this Website without the prior written consent... However the later part is what places these images into violations of Wikipedia policy - Content along with its images for re-use is permitted for WikiMedia under the GFDL or released into the public domain license. In other words these images are free "For Wikimedia use only" (And actually there is only explicit permission given for Wikimedia Commons - which would also be a violation of policy there as well). Wikipedia policy is based on, in part, the 2005 notice from Jimbo - Non-commercial only and By Permission Only Images to be deleted. I3/F3 expanded on that saying image (media) that are "for non-commercial use only" (including non-commercial Creative Commons licenses), "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only" or "used with permission" may be deleted.... Your tag was correct. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Soundvisions, I saw that. However, the webmaster released the content under GNFL and as PD. PD is one thing - it can't be PD for Wikipedia use only or anything like that. My interpretation was that the PD statement together with the GNFL release would override any other statement in the declaration.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bow to your greater experience on that. After years in local government, I've found I'm good at reading copyright legislation and caselaw and applying it (I was with the revenue department in the days of the Poll Tax, the most complex piece of bloody legislation ever delivered), but I haven't got the background yet for how it is applied (mind, I'll bet Bradford v Anderson means nothing to you (very important poll tax case), so we're probably quits on that :) :). Anyway, I'd wait a week and tag it for deletion as orphaned. Hopefully Schuminweb will deal with it, he's quite keen to clear out orphan images.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a separate matter, as you are an editor who had participated here, could you please state/explain your level of "involvement" (if any)? I'd appreciate it if you could provide a response (or a copy of it) here. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you offered to help, I will ask you a few questions, I hope you don't mind.
1. Here, do you think "is fitting out" is OK in the following sentence? Or should it be "is being fitted out"?
The latest nuclear submarine produced at the shipyard is the nuclear powered attack submarine Severodvinsk, which was launched in 2010 and is currently fitting out
2. Here, I'm looking for a better way to say "is seen as too expensive". I think it doesn't sound good because "see" is too concrete. "Has been identified as too expensive" is not good either, because "identified" is too specific. I cannot think of a good alternative.
3. Here, I'm looking for a better way to say stuff like "growth of production for military products". I'm not sure which of the following words is a good synonyme for "military products": weapons, arms, or armaments. For example, a transport helicopter is not really "a weapon", but still a military product. Would it be OK to use "arms" in place of the general expression "military products" or "defense industry products"?
4. I'm not entirely sure what the word "procurement" means, although I've read the wiktionary entry. I understand it as follow: a company produces weapons, but when the state buys new weapons, then it "procures" them. But what exactly does "Russian defense procurement" mean? Does it mean the total production of weapons in the country or just the government's weapons purchases?
1. The UK English expression would be 'is being fitted out', as we tend to prefer reflexive tenses.
2. 'is seen as too expensive' doesn't really mean the same as 'is identified as too expensive", so I agree with you there. 'Is perceived as too expensive' or 'is regarded as too expensive' would be much better.
3. 'Armaments' is the correct alternative, I would say. 'Growth in production of armaments' or 'growth in military production' would both do.
4. 'Procurement' means to obtain something. 'Procure' can be used in a domestic setting, especially if the object of the procurement is a bit odd - 'she went to the butcher to procure a pig's head' or if method is by some other means than retail purchase - 'he traded several dahlias with his neighbour in order to procure a horseradish root.'
In a business sense, 'procurement' refers to the whole process of obtaining goods and services. It may require a 'specification', describing the goods or services required, a 'tender' submitted by companies who wish to supply, a 'selection process' where a supplier is chosen, and a 'contract' with the supplying company, which will include such things as quantity, price, timescale, after-sales service, penalties for failure to supply, guarantees or warranties. (I procure goods for my company - the largest procurement I did was for £250,000).
So when your source talks of 'Russian defence procurement', it is referring to all the goods and services which have been bought/contracted for by the Russian government as part of its defence spending. This will include spending on military hardware (rockets, helicopters etc), military computer systems (eg fire control systems), but may also include spending on laptops, printer paper, toilet paper, uniforms, food, vodka (well, they are Russians), cleaning staff, the phone contract, the contract with their internet service provider etc etc. If it only means spending on military hardware, the source should make this clear.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious about this: is correct to say "M. E. Sharpe are an academic publisher"? I've seen "are" used with football teams in England, but not with companies. I think other WP articles about companies (even about British companies) always use "is" instead of "are", but football team articles like this use "are". Offliner (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, both can be used, it's a kind of custom and practice thing in the UK. So "F.Warne & Co" is a publishing firm or 'is a publisher' (singular). However, more colloquially F.Warne & Co can also be abbreviated to Warne's (as in Warne's firm of publishers I presume), giving 'Warne's are publishing my book'. Confusingly, 'Warne are publishing my book' can also legitimately be used. Whether the extra 's' is added seems to depend on whether the name of the firm is the name of the founder - Blackwell's always has it, Penguin never does, because the name was made up by someone in Pearson Longman (Longman though always used to be referred to as Longman's). So one should say 'Penguin Books Ltd is the UK division of Penguin Group'.
I suppose it's a kind of shibboleth - only the locals get it right. Football teams are always plural - conceptually, the team is the 11 players, not the business, so it is 'Manchester United are...' even when obviously talking about the business (...are raising capital to build a new stand) and not the guys on the pitch (Manchester United are playing terribly this season).
Firms of partners, such as lawyers, should properly be refered to in the plural, so 'George Allen & Unwin' are a publishing firm, or 'are publishers' (plural); 'Sue, Grabbit & Run are a firm of solicitors in Glasgow' ; 'Hobson and Holland are reliable roofing contractors'. Going back to M E Sharpe, I'd tend towards 'is', because there is only one name, so 'M E Sharpe is an academic publisher'; but it is likely that in colloquial English one would say 'Sharpe's are academic publishers'.
Convention is that companies/organizational entities are plural in British English and singular in American English, so one should follow the convention for the rest of the article, e.g. "George Allen & Unwin are planning to publish..." = British, "George Allen & Unwin is planning to publish..." = American. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK14:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ER - As you can see, List policy is one area where I believe Gavin is trying impose what he thinks policy ought to say and not what it really says or how current policy is practiced. There is pretty strong consensus against him in terms of the list policy he wants to impose but he refuses to see that. When we point out that the current 57K+ lists in WP have been created under current guidelines and policies and that his view of what policy ought to be would render 99% of those lists in violation of policy, he refuses to understand or care about the impact. It is this intractability that has caused so much turmoil. Please press him on the need to understand consensus on current policy and not to interpret that policy in the way he wants the WP list world to be. Again, thanks for your help with Gavin.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do what I can. I have a little sympathy - some lists are just accumulations of cruft, usually because the nature of the list wasn't defined well enough to start with, and Milhist did have a problem with some joker wanting to include anything that was called "War on..." in a tabloid headline. Lists need to be clearly scoped, but that's not the same as what Gavin is saying.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there is a lot of poor lists created (just like poor articles) because editors do not understand or follow policy. But that is not a reason for decimating 57K+ good lists by advocating draconian policy or gross misapplication of existing policy. Bad lists should be deleted or improved according to the consensus of existing policy. That's what Gavin needs to learn. Thanks. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ebanony continues to make plagerism accusations. He currently is claiming Rjensen is making plagiarism links on George Washington. Ebanony has rarely made any contributions to articles and seems to just criticize rather then make the article better. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ER - Sorry for weighing in on the Gavin Behavioral issues. He's just got a disruptive way of sucking us into these useless debates. In no way do I think a statement saying that I or we disagree with his position is a personal attack, but I guess as long as he feels that way, we should lay off and let you and KWW do your magic. You were right to call a stop to the bickering. Good Luck. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I declined because I didn't understand the explanation of why they were copyvios, so they weren't blatant in my eyes. Since you've given a detailed explanation, I now understand, so I've deleted all three of them. Nyttend (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If he persists in copying the text of one article into another to create the second article, without proper accreditation, he will be blocked from editing. If he had different content for the two articles that showed that they were different entities - then there would not have been a problem. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is my problem: In July 2008 I created a page entitled "Narkomfin" (See the creation page of Ministry of Finance (Soviet Union)). In December 2008 User:DonaldDuck moved the page to "People's Commissariat of Finance". Fair enough I thought. I made a number of other edits in 2009. Then in June 2010 User:Trust Is All You Need moved the page to "Ministry of Finance (Soviet Union)". I edited a completely different page, and because the Soviet Union did not exist at the time of the foundation of the "People's Commissariat of Finance" it is inappropriate to put amalgamate the two pages. I wish to return my edits to the correct page and would certainly like to see the proper edit history restored as well before User:Trust Is All You Need introduced all the confusion. At the moment the edit record makes me look stupid, if not downright deceitful. As things stand my contribution is being misrepresented and i wish to correct this. Presumably you would have no issue if I persist in moving my own edits back onto the correct page, as they will still be properly accredited. But I am not sure this adequately fixes the problem.Harrypotter (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was copypasting without accreditation, which breaches the licence by which copy is released to Wikipedia. If you say in the paste article "copied from X article" that's sufficient. As to the rest, you have some good advice on your talkpage about getting consensus if you wish to undo TIAYN's moves of the articles, or split them into two. If there is consensus for a split, an admin will be able to help with the history problem. I recommend against edit warring to move "your" content (which is of course not yours, as you have released it for other editors to do what they like with) without gaining consensus, as this is unlikely to end well. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are the same freaking articles, If you really want to create an article for the People's Commissariat for Finance of the RSFSR than create an article for the People's Commissariat for the RSFSR.. okay? Is it that hard? You can't have two articles on two different topics, It is gonna confuse the reader. --TIAYN (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from bringing your content dispute onto my talkpage. I have no opinion as to whether there should be one, two or no articles on the subject. My advice is strictly on how to discuss and obtain consensus for any action.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very kind thought, but I'm not convinced anyone would !vote for me. I don't create loads of FAs (never created an article as far as I can recall), which would mean instant opposes from many of those who take an interest in such things. I actually think it takes a different skillset - particularly when it involves sorting out edit wars, non-communicative editors, pov pushers etc - but what do I know. I only ran the complaints department for a city for ten years :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the recent candidates who passed didn't have a load of FAs, and there were several with plenty of FAs who failed RFA, your name is known in AN/I and copyrights, and you did do some article work. You should pass. Secretaccount23:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tell you what, if you are serious, I would be honored to be your second... I just came here because I just noticed that Secret had mentioned your name at WT:RFA... you are a person who I thought for sure was an admin. I would have zero problem nominating you because, in my opinion, the EotR that is not an admin would not be too different from the EotR that is an admin. E.g. you act like one and have people defer to you as if you already were... they seek your advice and input and when you comment on subjects you get the respect of a person who has seen the ropes and is able to act in an adminly manner. That's what ultimately matters (and would be the premise of a co-nom.)---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!02:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
^That. I need both hands to count the times I've been into your user rights log because (even though I vaguely remembered checking), I think I must be confused and that you're an admin. (Oh, and one time I was actually there to flip a switch, but who's counting?) I passed RFA this May with no more than a single FL to my credit. No ten FA's, not even one. (Not even once having sulled the carpet over at FAC). I mean, the stars are nice and all, but they're neither necessary or sufficient to pass RFA. Courcelles06:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: "I thought they were already an admin." Also per this and other past-interactions: editor is level-headed and has massive reserves of good-faith, helpfulness and clue. TFOWR14:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit, I did have a concern that no bugger would vote for me (oh G-d! Not that madwoman!). If you guys are serious, I suppose I could give it a shot. Tell you what, I'll do the answers to the questions on the template, you can tell me if they make any sense.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only folks I've done it to are Cyn and Davey, who had already posted their comments here, but I know 'em both, and they'd get totally enmeshed in some Latin thing and miss it. I certainly wouldn't do it to anyone who hadn't already discussed the whole thing, but I have precedent that you are allowed to notify the folks you've chewed it over with when the thing actually posts. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Drives off antique haze obscuring view with an impatient wave of hand.) I had already watchlisted the RfA because I'd been here when it was discussed, and was about to leave a link for Davey anyway. This is a perfect example of what I said elsewhere about WP being like a monastic order with its own arcane rules, and not like a Republic of Letters: in what universe does a candidate not get to campaign for votes? So unnatural. I shall now go sup in silence. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not if it is only two people and in the open and with reason. It's when people contact numerous people that they get ancy. BTW, it's been a while since I've nominated somebody, but I generally don't add my support until the candidate has broken 100 votes or is on their last day of candidacy---heck, I've had 3 noms that I never got around to supporting! It doesn't mean that I don't support, it's just my way of saying, "I think this candidate is so strong, that I don't need to rush in and !vote."---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!02:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was my take. Cyn and Davey aren't RfA regulars - they spend virtually all their time creating content. Interesting view on the adding support thing - I thought the nominators were counted anyway and didn't need to repeat themselves, so I wasn't surprised not to see you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are candidates that I don't really know, that I'll need to study in some depth before !voting. Then there are candidates like Elen, where I'm going to support "as soon" as the RfA is transcluded. I did support as quickly as possible - and there were 47 supports ahead of me. "No bugger would vote for me"? Yeah right! TFOWR09:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your RFA is on pace to reach WP:200, not acheived in a year, and that was a borderline RFA of a former admin which got desysopped a few months later, before that three years. And 200 supports is impressive considering that we are losing editors more than we gaining them. Though WP:200 is cured only Newyorkbrad is still an active sysop. Secretaccount22:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is the only one left, isn't he. that's quite remarkable. I'm not convinced this will reach 200 - I think probably everyone who would vote has voted by now, but whatever happens, I think you can take a great deal of credit for seeing more clearly than I that an RfA had a chance of success. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
dreary question
Amusingly (in light of the preceding section), I've come here, O font of procedural knowledge, to ask you a question. (Can I put a big campaign sign in my virtual yard? I'm sure that's against the rules.) Anyway.
I opened an SPI at 20:04, 17 October. The suspected user has responded, but there's been nothing from any outside party. Could you give me some sense of the timeframe for theilluminti se things? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Officially no... you cannot "canvass" votes by putting virtual signs out. But it happens all the time by people going to other people's pages and posting messages "About your !vote/comment in the {blank} RfA/AFD/XFD/RFC/Village Pump." It's one of the reasons why people are cynical about the rules related to Canvassing. Canvass still happens, people just have figured out how to work the letters not the spirit of the guideline. as for the SPI question... I'll leave that to Elen.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!14:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rules against canvassing always seem fishy to me. Rather like the "civility" rules. They seem to keep people from functioning in normally social or political ways, and encourage passive-aggressive behavior and all sorts of soul-destroying tactics, as you point out. (And surely the canvassing chart is meant to be a satire?) Both "rules" require me to accept restrictions on freedoms of speech and association that I would rebel against IRL. There's a difference between calling someone a name and saying "you can't possibly believe that load of rubbish." The former is ad hominem, the latter not. Not being allowed to post a message on the talk pages of editors I respect saying "Hey, here's an admin candidate whose wisdom I praise" shows what a bizarre "community" this is, much more akin to a monastic order than a Republic of Letters.Cynwolfe (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
) :) Re SPI - I have created userpages for User:Aldrasto, User:Aldrasto11 and User:Zanzan1. I have no idea why he couldn't do same, took me all of 30 seconds although he may not care for the results. If he would replace those templates with a message about legitimate socks, and stop editing logged out, this would solve one problem at a stroke. As it is, SPI cases do tend to hang about a bit. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. I'm aware that this may sound disingenuous, but I really didn't think there was an intention to deceive — just lack of awareness of proper procedure. That's why I tried to keep other issues separate, except to show why I thought they were all the same user (continuity of voice) and to point toward the potential for masking problems under multiple identities. As for mechanics, you may recall earlier issues with the talk page of the Glossary of ancient Roman religion — repeated entries, insistence that stuff had been deleted or reverted that wasn't, and so on. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I gathered your issue wasn't to do with deception, that's why I thought this might work as a remedy. At least if he is clear that they are all him, you can be sure who it is you might have the problem with. I do think he has a bit of a competence issue - he doesn't seem to get along well with the MediaWiki interface at all.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He has a profound command of the subject matter, but doesn't seem able to see that concerns expressed about his material have to do with how it's presented. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re canvassing - you can alert other users to the presence of an RfA/AfD or whatever TlA is on today. The idea is that once there, they will see your position on the discussion. It's kind of logical. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SPI
Thank you for fixing the userpages. However I cannot acknowledge the accounts Aldrasto and Zanzan1 as I forgot the passsword and as you can see they are no longer active. I understand that I have to write on Zanzan32 page: this is a legitimate account of Aldrasto11, have not I?Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it was fun. I wonder does Keeps ever get anyone tell him to bugger off though. SandyGeorgia's is the tricky one though, particularly as Wehwalt has somehow interpreted a personal remark I made to Malleus that I wouldn't block him (or indeed others) if he sounded off at me, because I'm used to filtering out that stuff, into a statement that I don't believe in civility. Me! Ah well. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, be careful with your responses to Weh, they are sounding a little... I dunno... defensive or aggressive? I suspect/hope that it is more a matter of you two communicating past each other, but...---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!03:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think somehow we are. He needs to evaluate my response to Sandy (when I finally post it - it's turned into a 1000 word essay, so I need to cut it back), then we may be able to communicate further.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the Liverpool debacle! Should have linked it. I doubt if any civil servant would want that on their CV; "blind passion for cause kills it stone dead". Your essay (see above) bears witness to your insight; so does every response you've made at your RfA. Very heartening, and I'll be following developments. Any comments I make on the latter will (I hope) be less obscure. Well, maybe. Haploidavey (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After the AFD you raised at a related article, I was wondering if you could take a look at this - [[7]]? It seems to suffer from the same problems you raised here [[8]]. I particularly liked your cocktail party line, and after reading this list, thought the same thing. It seems most of this list is more like trivia. There have never been more than a handful of candidates that received serious attention from anyone. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's mixing apples and oranges. I suppose you should also note that Bishonen is an involved editor who has advocated deleting all authorship articles from Wikipedia completely. You might note my comment here as well [[9]]. Smatprt (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I am aware of the background, and do not wish to say anything serious (as opposed to jokes about Darwinfish) until I have had a chance to review the lot. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Special Cases has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
You realize I am going to have to do everything I can think of to torpedo your RfA considering that with several days left you are only 5 votes shy of my total as per WP:100, right? Did you ever by any chance pose for some questionable photos I can plaster hither and yon? John Carter (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but unfortunately what's questionable is my taste in frocks (ew, mum! put it back on the rail! that wouldn't even look good on a couch!). Perhaps I should sing - yes, that's it. I can't hold a note in a pail, so if I sing all my edits from now on, that should do it nicely. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Civility
Hi Elen! I think that your answers to questions #9 and #10 in your RfA could form the basis of a rewrite of WP:CIVIL. I have thought as you have for sometime now. I also think that a lot of other Wikipedians feel the same. It would be nice to see a pragmatic civility policy take root here (#9), and to not see wheel-warring blocking and unblocking (#10). Thanks! — SpikeToronto19:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. At the very least, your answer to question 9 will make an excellent essay for the community to mull over.
When your RfA is over you might want to take your answer to questions 9 and 10, plus any other wisdom in your arsenal, and take it to RfC or somewhere similar. This might just be the best shot Wikipedia has had in months at making WP:CIVIL into something useful. It's a crumbling pillar, and has been for the longest time. I do recommend that you wait until after the RfA though, as taking this to RfC will demand careful shepherding and lots of time spent on making it work. Even clear and coherent concepts and well formulated ideas tend to be misunderstood and deliberately distorted occasionally. Sven ManguardTalk20:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Spike, Sven... Yeah, need to get this over, then see if something less rambling (and this is the cut down version) can be extracted and worked on by the community. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the talkback template; that wasn't really necessary as I am watching your RfA anyway. You asked me to clarify if I was supporting or neutral. I could only support if you further clarified your stance on civility; it isn't clear from this, for example, that you really understand the difference yet between incivility and profanity. I struck my oppose because I saw evidence in your answers that you were prepared to think about the problem of enforcement; I would need to see more to support. The arguments raised in Wehwalt's oppose still concern me, just not enough to oppose. Consider me a neutral for now; it looks like you will comfortably pass without my support anyway. Good luck. --John (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing the talkback thing as a courtesy for everyone. Your observation makes me smile: I have 25 years in customer service - I've seen pretty much every definition of 'incivility' going. My whole point is that there isn't a definition of it that everyone would agree with - sometimes people even define civility differently depending on whether it relates to how they treat others or how others treat them. The question was only a procedural one - you have struck !votes in two categories - did you intend to !vote in the third category or were you effectively withdrawing. Whichever - it is up to you. I hope if our paths cross in the future, we can continue to have civil exchanges whatever happens at this RfA. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that there are a lot of different interpretations of civility and incivility on the project. I'd like you to think specifically of two questions. I haven't added these to your RfA for good reason. Q1; where does WP:CIVIL end and WP:NPA begin? Q2; where does a campaign to reform a rule become a WP:POINT violation? Best wishes, --John (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the problem in Q1 is that so very much of it is in the perception of the hearer. In some societies, failure to use the correct form of address (inferior to superior) is considered a huge insult, in others, insisting on the correct form of address is considered a put down. So Academician Foo will be quite accepting of a joshing "that's rubbish and you know it Foo" from a respected superior, but "please remember to use an edit summary" from an inferior is just completely out of it. And yet, it cannot be left wholly to the perception of the recipient, otherwise the speaker will never know where the line is. One must give the speaker some clear minimum line, so he is not hostage to the unknown sensibilities of the hearer; and yet at the same time provide that once he knows the sensibilities of the hearer, he does not play on them. And on the third hand (OK, I'm Durga), it is possible to deliver a wholly civil personal attack. Just watch any chick flick set in a school - you'll see experts at work.
To me - and this is not a list, it's some off the cuff musings - a personal attack might be insulting someone's intelligence - but that would include the 'this is a foolish statement' kind of phrasing, where it is likely to be read as 'this is the statement of a fool'. It might be insulting their motives - and here a defense of truth really is twisting the knife. "You are a nationalist bigot" "That's a personal attack" "No, it's a statement of the truth" (and I have heard a respected admin make that argument). Sustained sniping and cattiness (not you again? did anyone hear a noise? I think we can ignore X) are intended to undermine self esteem, and so constitute attacks even if they are not ad hominem tirades.
As to the other - in the real world, campaigns for what is perceived as justice or reform can form a view that it is legitimate to use disruption - or even violence - to achieve their ends. In a Wikipedia setting there should theoretically be no need for disruption, as the governance is intended to allow anyone to raise any issue at any time and ask the community to decide on it. Where, generally speaking, disruption arises is where the party raising the issue either feel they are being ignored, or where they do not care for the general consensus, so they take more extreme actions which others view as disruptive. Since I have no doubt that you are intending this question in respect of the civility issue however, I would say that it is quite clear that the great majority of editors do not want to try to work in a bearpit, and that editors do leave because people are rude and nasty. And let us be honest here, it is not abstract 'incivility', it is downright rudeness and nastiness - I was one of the people who made submissions to Ottava Rima's arbcom case. Huge contributor, very intelligent, but it was impossible to edit with the man - he bullied, browbeat, belitled and insulted everyone he came across. And yet, our civility policy did him a huge disservice, because right up to the end, he never thought he had crossed its lines, and he thought Arbcom would uphold him. Coming back to disruption, I would say that attempting to elevate the profile of the issue by being rude to people is singularly unproductive, but continuing to raise it in a more discursive manner is not disruptive, as the matter of what exactly the policy should say is still open to discussion.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you for giving such brilliant and thoughtful answers, which more than reassured me. I think the key to the problem may be in your quote sometimes people even define civility differently depending on whether it relates to how they treat others or how others treat them; an old colleague once said to me "You should judge yourself by the outcomes of your actions, and judge others by their intentions. It's regrettable that most people do it the other way around" and that's become my expression of the insight that you have there. This is just conversation now btw; I'm definitely not going to change my !vote a 4th time over this former concern whatever you reply. --John (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear! I apologise. For some reason I thought you were spanish. I must be mixing you up with someone... Hell, yes I am. The guy who posted the barnstar on your talkpage is a Spanish speaker. Cheez, how to feel a fool. Just scrub the comment on your talkpage with the edit summary "mad woman thinks I'm spanish". --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. After numerous foul ups on my own RfA, I figured out how to do it properly. You need to indent using : after the #, and to strike from after the # not before, as the counter depends on seeing a # at the start of every paragraph in a numbered list. If it sees a different character, it treats it as the end of list. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, users may delete warnings from their talkpages. It is assumed that if they do, they have read them. In Md iet's case he does read them - he's been involved in fixing some of his copyvios, as it was a misunderstanding rather than bad faith. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing BLPs
Thanks for sourcing that tagged unsourced BLP. Don't worry, I'm not about to tag a huge load of them--yet. Please see the discussion I started a few minutes ago at WP:AN (permalink). --TS13:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! There's still time for 150 opposes! Actually, I got 40 minutes extra because of the problems with the template parser. Looie just took the time when he hacked it, not the time Secret transcluded it, so it should really have expired at 00:00 UTC --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rlevse, I think we need to talk Mr Zman into writing an RFA closing script so you don't keep getting beat to the candidate's talk page by the riff raff :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, I'm sure you will make a fine admin. Your cabal leader will be by later to give you keys to the admins lounge and show you the secret handshake. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Special Cases has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
Hello Elen of the Roads! ~NerdyScienceDude has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! ~NerdyScienceDude20:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you have already blocked someone :) I am so proud of you. I am working on some lessons in page protection in case I fight some vandals after supper. Good luck! Thanks for the yummy cupcakes you left on your page. --Diannaa(Talk)22:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, suddenly all these extra bells and whistles start sprouting on your page. The gadget toolbar is now offering me 20 more options, and I have no idea what most of 'em do. I'm terrified of blocking myself or deleting the mainpage or something :) And of course I couldn't just get the gobby ones you can tell to shut up - I helped write the child protection policy, so I know damn fine what it says. Glad you enjoyed the cupcakes :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cake defacer
[The darwinbish looks incredulously at all the weenie congrats. ] WikiLove..? [Feels sick. Decides against even commenting. Takes one dainty bite out of each cupcake and slopes off, chewing. ] darwinbishBITE21:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks
Good suggestion. I'll take it. There is too much teacher in me for my own good; I want people to understand why what they are saying is plausible or not. But you are right: that is not relevant to WP policies, and I think I should step away before things start getting to me. Awickert (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I've been involved in a few cases now where people have some new scientific theory, and in my experience arguing from first principles only encourages them to believe that this is the right process.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words on my talk page. I was trying not to answer 'cause I didn't wanna start a lot of side-bar discussion, but then Malleus said something I had to answer. Thanks! • Ling.Nut (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're an admin now.
Excellent. This is all going according to plan. Now I can move my timetable for complete and utter world domination up by 27 minutes and 4 seconds (it's meticulously detailed, you see...)
Few things I'd like to correct - I'm English, and I'm a local government officer by trade, and have been the Complaints Officer for a city - hence my rather anal interest in policy. Egyptology is strictly an amateur interest although I'm fine with you reporting it, as it's probably vastly more interesting to most people :).--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to post this on the RFC/U talk page, but I have wondered for some time now if there isn't some involvement of the Autism/Aspergers spectrum influencing the way he thinks and behaves. I don't mean that as any sort of personal attack on him, just an honest question, as it would explain a lot. BOZ (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to speculate as to cause, particularly given the modern theory that the Autism spectrum extends from normal behaviour (so at the extreme, you can label practically any male behaviour as autistic!!). There's nothing more unusual showing up than this very rigid approach, so I doubt there's anything more to it. It could be as much due to insecurity without rules, or a belief in sticking to one's guns, both of which are at least as much down to upbringing as to anything else. The issue is how to deal with it, particularly as there is a level on which he can see what we are saying, and another level on which he cannot work out how to modify his response. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got you - I wouldn't really want to advance that as an opinion; like I say, just pondering. And in case it looks bad, I want to say I had nothing to do with the IP who did just post that to the talk page. :| BOZ (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
#
[12]I've actually never understood why it is called the pound sign. As far as I know it had never been used to represent either the currency or the or the unit of measurement. The only use this symbol has in American English other than being a key on a telephone keypad is as the symbol for the word "number." Strange thing this language of ours. Here's something else odd I just discovered: if you type it into the search bar instead of leading to the article on the symbol you get the main page. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have been invited to comment in a special Request for Constructive Criticism page. I am looking for areas in which I can improve. I have identified you as both an experienced and trusted Wikipedian, and as someone that has had sufficient contact with me to able to recognize areas in which I can improve.
Please feel free to visit and post any comments or criticism you have. At a certain point, I cannot improve if no one tells me what I need to work on. Thanks in advance, Sven ManguardTalk00:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it had continued I was going to report one half for 3RR. Don't know how that would have worked though. :) I could fill a book with the posts I've had to correct. Jack forbes (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AN/I
Dear Elen: I'm so sorry for being so out of touch with how things are done these days. I do think we were more brazen once! There used to be a piece of Arbitration Committee precedent -- which incidentally I don't seem to be able to find anymore -- that used to say something to the effect of: "Users who exhaust the community's patience sufficiently to be blocked indefinitely, and no Wikipedia administrator sees fit to unblock them, are considered permanently banned from Wikipedia by community consensus." People used to quote it, but I note they don't any more and WP:BAN looks considerably different from what it did. Thanks so much for your help in explaining how it's evolved to me. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk)00:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, no worries. These changes happen, and it's hard to immediately catch up. I do remember it saying that when I started, so the change is probably around 18 months ago. I have the advantage that I've just recently run for admin, so I had to learn all this stuff. I do think the community was more given to just timing people out, but we seem to have seen more ex-users who won't stop popping up. We've also come up with WP:Standard offer, so that people who have 'exhausted the community's patience' get sent away to edit Wikinews or something for six months, and can then ask to be let back in.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*laughs* It sounds a bit like the British Empire penchant for deporting people off to the colonies! But nevertheless, Wikinews or Commons might be a kind of therapy for their editing fixation, since the interaction space will be cooler in temperature on almost every other Wikimedia wiki (except some of the WP languages) than English Wikipedia. And, as for adminship, well done for making it. I should add that in my day, I got made an admin with only 600-odd edits and three months' experience. We did things differently then! --NicholasTurnbull | (talk)00:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm....Wikinews=Botany Bay. Anyway, it works sometimes. User:Diego Grez is a success story for that policy. And thanks on the admin thing - yeah, it's hard these days if you don't have 10 FAs to your name (which I don't!). It must have been interesting in the days when more people knew each other and the whole project was smaller. More of a sense of common purpose, but perhaps less of a definition of it. These days it seems to be much more afflicted with bureaucratonium - that well known trans-uranic heavy element.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. It was calling itself Tigre Tigre, or something like that; and then various versions of TT-something. After I posted the original comment above, the user in question was indef'd as an obvious sock, and the SPI on Schwyz was re-opened yet again. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's raining thanks spam!
Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to think you are right. It feels more like the experiences I have had of people who do process information using different algorithms to the rest of us. One of my daughters is dyslexic, and while not at all suggesting that Gavin is the same, she processes info in a radically different way to "normal" people. Interestingly, it makes her very good at finding things - something noted of dyslexics generally. "Normals" look for lost items in places they expect to have put them - but if they had put them there, they would have found them in minutes. A dyslexic person has no hesitation in searching for your car keys in the fridge, because their answer to "why on earth would I have put them in there" is "why not?" --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think he has a lot to offer, but unless he can demonstrate it, perhaps by working on articles in his user space, I'm not sure what else we can do. His attack on Mike Cline mentions the idea of "mutual respect", but it isn't clear what Gavin means. Mike, who has impressed me on almost every level (as an admin and an editor) has shown great respect for Gavin throughout this process. I do wonder, and I am curious, is there anyone who can communicate with Gavin or who has in the past? He has had editors who have agreed with him on various discussions. I know, WP:NOTTHERAPY, but I tried and failed to work with him. Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In which case you need to tell me. Nevertheless, in the opinion of the admin (ie me) it does not qualify for A7. Take it to AfD, and you can G4 every further instance. I'll even salt it for you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that I know what A7 says. Can I advise that you stop digging and we leave it as an agreement to differ. As you'll see from my comment at AfD, he certainly isn't a complete unknown. The guy does get about and clearly has some dedicated fans, even if he does turn out not pass WP:N. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The A7 bar seems to move up and down depending on the admin. You still have yet to say what in the article indicated importance or significance. E. Fokker (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it does vary somewhat - also Orangemike has a low tolerance threshold for spam :) To my mind, saying he had cut a couple of records (hence Pearl the singer) that were turning up on numerous download sites, and was known on the Christian circuit (which he evidently is from the blog hits in Google) was enough to take it over the bar, as its very low. I don't just read the article, I do have a quick look to see if anyone else on teh interwebz has ever heard of the guy. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The prospect of an AfD obviously didn't appeal to them. Brian Dekkers was its previous incarnation and I'm certain it'll turn up again in the not to distant future. Sorry for the snippy tone earlier. E. Fokker (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Manwith1plan (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)) Hello Elen, I wanted to ask why was the page that I created deleted Twisted Tribe ? I saw that there was a speedy deletion in process and I contested it, trying to explain why I made it. Then I didn't receive any feedback, I just saw this morning that the page is deleted, with no explanation to my contest. I would like to know what I did wrong, so next time it won't happen. Kind regards.[reply]
Hello. I deleted the page because the company is not yet notable in wikipedia definition (see WP:ORG for the requirements to appear in Wikipedia). The product and the developer both have more coverage and pass the requirements at WP:N, but Twisted Tribe itself isn't getting the kind of coverage required to pass the notability test. If you have sources of the kind required by WP:ORG then I can put the deleted material on your userpage for you to work with, but you said it was an "up and coming" company, so I suspect that kind of coverage isn't out there yet. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thank you for your answer, I appreciate it. It would be nice if you could put the deleted material on my userpage, so when more information will be available I will add it. And I will ask somebody if there is enough material to post it. Thanks again. (Manwith1plan (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Just felt I should let you know I removed the thread at WT:AN dealing with a content dispute as it's irrelevant to the page, and didn't belong on AN or ANI either. Ordinarily I'd move it to a more suitable venue, but in this case I think the user probably needs to rephrase it and discuss it on the article's talk page. I thought I'd let you know as removing the thread also meant removing your reply; if you can think of a suitable venue for the thread I have no objection to it being restored elsewhere. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]16:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Back to the talkpage was the only place I could think of, and they don't want him back there anyway. Chap has a severe case of selective deafness. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note
I laid out everything at the start. Beyond that "an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement." Period. Very simple and very clear. F9 is about copyright violations. At this stage if everyone really knew/understood the source policies the discussion would not be taking place at all. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, as I've explained, while an invalid claim of fair use under US law would be a copyright infringement, a faulty FUR is not necessarily a copyright infringement as Wikipedia standards are a great deal higher than US law, and use of the image may well be perfectly acceptable in US law. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Than you are misreading/misunderstanding Wikiepdia Policy. I will ask you directly - what part of Unauthorized use of copyrighted material under an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement and is illegal. Media which are mistagged as fair use or are a flagrant copyright violation can be removed on sight. is not clear to you? (EDIT) Or the clarifier for material taken form commercial content providers "must only be used in a transformative nature"? They go hand in hand. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Soundvisions, Wikipedia policy does not trump US law. US law says
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
As you can see, it is a lot less specific that Wikipedia's NFCC. Failing to meet all the NFCC requirements may constitute a copyright infringement, but then again it may not. It's way less clear cut than claiming that I took that publicity shot of Britney.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, I did not ask you to quote US Copyright law or summarize it. (<= Joking) Go back and read what I have said, and I am extremely well informed about the US copyright law and no where did I say that Wikipedia trumps the law. In fact it backs up what I said *and* backs up Wikipedia policy. For commercial content of *any kind* the key section that relates is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." How that translates to Wikipedia is NFCC 2 - "Respect for commercial opportunities." In the section of the discussion that you complained about that I removed I has a link to: U.S Copyright Office - Fair use. It contains some plain English wordings that are important such as: "When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation." Translate that to Image use policy - Fair use images and than further to Non-free content criteria. And that is overlooked at Wikipedia as it relates to the types of visual material being discussed. (As I did pointed out in my removed comments - text does not seems to have nearly the amount of fair use discussions) We are discussing a type of image that is "narrow in scope" and it already fairly well defined at Wikipedia - over and over again. On Wikipedia does use of an image from a commercial content provider meet all 10 of the criteria for fair use as defined by Wikipedia? Unless it is being used in a transformative nature than it does not. It fits into the copyright violation wording because of the policy that originally existed, which was based on copyright law. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I agree with what you say - and apologies again for being so crabby earlier. I've put a new suggestion at CSD talk for what to go in F7, feel free to refactor as you see fit. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. I could not believe it when I saw that he had done it again. Even if he reverted himself, the question has to be why he even thought about doing it in the first place. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just blocked the above user on the basis of it being a suspected impersonation attempt. Still, i was wondering if the account might be made by you, for editing on insecure networks or something alike (The name could be read as a joke for that purpose). If the account was actually you, do feel free to unblock the account, and accept my apologies for the incorrect block. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)15:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see it is actually you - when the name popped up i couldn't help but smile at it, since the purpose of the account could be a funny pun on your regular name (And frankly, it would have been a waste if a troll would have come up with it). Still, i didn't want to risk it being a troll and figured that if it was you i could always unblock you later on. Good to see you already took care of that part, and i'm glad that you don't mind the block. Either way, happy editing, but mind the cars! :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at SandySucks (talk·contribs) !! Isn't Wiki fun :) Not to worry-- I realize many won't read evidence, pile on old grudges, grind axes ... typical DR on Wiki. But we have higher venues for admin abuse of tools in the event RFC/U isn't useful; I sure hope we don't have to end up there over such a silly thing. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the unblock request for Kalajan, you commented on my CU note. I don't particualirlly get what you were trying to say. On the posts he had made with his talkpage, yes, it would give an IP address, and a CU could check that to see if there are any accounts that directly match his IP/range and user agent. But that doesn't include other user agents/IP ranges that would be stale now. Especially if the user has moved. At original, I forgot about the UserTP, my bad. It is possible to find socks, just might not be hitting all the ranges (or proxies) and since such little socking was found originally, we could add a little AGF to the situation. -- DQ (t) (e)18:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the sentiments you expressed on the administrators noticeboard about the on-going controversy surrounding plagiarism issues. I don't want to personalize the discussion, but I do feel this needs a thorough airing so that the community feels comfortable. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I do think it's a shame the person concerned left, but (on no evidence except that it otherwise seems a terrible overreaction) I guess there may have been other stuff going off at the same time. But it has been repeatedly said that he was prone to plagiarism, and plagiarism is an issue for the whole project. Some of the reactions on all sides have been just ridiculous. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree, and that's why I've tried to stay clear of the scrum, save one posting on the (since deleted) user page of the individual who left. At the same time, this discussion goes to the heart of this project, and the fact that such an important discussion has now become a political football is unfortunate. But just as in journalism, the moment the public begins to feel that plagiarism is common here, the minute wikipedia loses all credibility. There must be a zero-tolerance policy for it, as I can see you agree. Thanks again for your comments on the board, and if there's anything I can do to be of service, please don't hesitate to let me know. (I do tend to stay away from heated discussions involving personalities, but this issue is paramount.) MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yes, I usually try to stay out of the scrums as well (I don't mind editors arguing over whether to include something in an article, but the political stuff.....) but as you say, this is important. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, I generally steer clear of the political scrums. But the future of this enterprise depends on folks understanding sourcing and copyright issues. While new editors might need education along these lines, it's imperative that the top ranks of this place, including administrators and crats, have a firm grasp on these issues. That's what's so worrisome about this latest episode. I'm not calling for some sort of public execution, as some folks seem to be doing. But I would like a thorough airing of this episode in full public view, and with some measures put in place to prevent a reprise. The behind-the-scenes scrambling over the latest episode, worthy of some Watergate shenanigans, is an embarrassment to wikipedia. Surely we can, and must, do better. MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question on Userspace Drafts
Hi Elen of/on the Roads who's hopefully keeping an eye out for passing trucks, ;-)
I was wondering if you could take a look at this[13] for me. It was an article on a notable company (possibly starting on the missing IBM Printing Systems Division article) that was turned into an advert during/after Ricoh's completed buyout (dunno by who). It "failed" AfD and I had it userfied so I can fix it (Yay! Finally an area and article I've got some expertise on to write about!).
So, my question is, should/could I remove the advert tag? It will be a while before I can dig up all the relevant history and technological innovations, especially as (a) IBM has been purging a lot of stuff lately (and a lot of related news items seem to be dead links), (b) I'm having difficulty in a few areas such as finding the linkages between IBM and Xerox (a portion of the Xerox DocuPrint line are, or are based on the IBM/now Ricoh InfoPrint line - in areas that were industry firsts for IBM/InfoPrint/Ricoh). Thus, my fear is, with a lot of work ahead of me, that with the tag in place, it's going to be AfD'd or speedied before I get around to finishing it.
I have taken the initiative of tagging it {{Userspace draft}} and {{underconstruction}} (with comment), but wasn't sure if leaving the advert tag left it on some list someplace thus causing people added work of going to it and realizing it should be left for now. Your insight would be appreciated. Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLITALK/CNTRB03:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tags and cats should be removed in userspace, also any fair-use images. I've removed tags and cats could you check if the logo is PD or fair use and remove temporarily if fair use.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the assist with that. And no, the image is not PD - I actually uploaded it. So, if I am understanding correctly, I should remove it (and get it deleted as there is no "Fair Use" if there's no use at all), finish the article, and then re-upload when it's back in articlespace?
Re this, there is not a single person anywhere in that discussion suggesting that he "needs to write a Featured Article", and the last time I'm aware of anyone ever suggesting it was a throwaway comment by Mailer Diablo. In 2007. Please don't feed the "people who are concerned about a lack of content contributions insist on a Featured Article" strawman, which the Hugglers have recently been trying to make up as "proof" of how unreasonable the opposers at RFA are, unless you can actually find any evidence of anyone having made that demand in the last three years. – iridescent17:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And we don't want them showing up at FAC in droves with ill-prepared nominations-- that's what we got back in the Mailer Diablo day, and it just increases the reviewer load. And some of the RFA candidates I've seen lately shouldn't be trying to write FAs anyway :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Iridescent, do you really want me to provide the diffs. Because I will, quite cheerfully. And I agree with Sandy, it really is foolish advice whenever someone gives it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I ever say I could source that exact phrase. And who was talking about credibility. I note that even you referred to the "must have 10 FAs" school in Thing's RfA. Are you going to go away and find sources to back up your statement :). Or would it be better to leave it as an armwave response to this kind of opinion [14] which was made at my RfA (perfectly valid opinion, not criticising it, but he does mention involvement with GA/FA), and concur with Sandy that actually we don't want to make people believe they have to contribute at that level if they can't do it, but we do want to encourage them to contribute to the content of the encyclopaedia as they feel comfortable - even if it's only finding proper online sources for 'popular culture' type topics. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That part of my cut-and-paste boilerplate about "the 10 FAs school" was written back when 1FA was still with us (and you're right, does need updating to reflect its deletion). I'm looking for one example of someone, more recently than 2007, saying "I won't support unless you've written a Featured Article", or any form of words to that effect. If you're alleging that someone is saying "needs to write a Featured Article", when there's no evidence I can see of anyone ever saying that, the onus is on you to demonstrate it. David Fuchs's "audited content" piece is expressly not about FAs, and says as much—he's talking about any process which involves other people looking over what you've written, be it DYK, peer review, GAN, FAC, even such esoterica as Featured Portals or Valued Pictures, and is looking expressly for evidence of collaboration and cooperation with other users. – iridescent18:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, honestly pet. I made a throwaway remark , and you've somehow read it as me making some very specific allegation. All this 2007 stuff is added by you - it's all very well you saying it was 'cut and paste boilerplate', but you added it to someone's RfA two weeks ago, not two years ago. David's not necessarily meaning that admins need to write FAs, just that they need to be involved in the FA creation process, but people are reading it as 'must create GAs', 'must create FAs'. What this gives the poor young editors (they do seem to me to be young as well as new) applying for adminship is a feeling that you have to have 10FAs - exactly as you said. Look above - I said I wouldn't run for admin because people would say I hadn't written 10FAs. It's the sort of thing people feel that people are saying. Look at what happened with User:FlyingToaster - of course the silly girl shouldn't have created content by pasting in chunks of copyright material, but it was in response to her perception that she needed to have quality content.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
attack accusation
yes im attacking those editors but they are also attacking me. especially literalka. why didnt he get a warning? [15][16][17] if you read [18] youll see he taunts others too. this is a lie [19] and he accuses me of lieing a lot [20][21][22] he wont admit he remove my text from page here [23] it all start because he vandal my page here [24] with no explanation until i ask SunHwaKwonh (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
michaeldsuarez was ask to stay away me and me stay away from him and i didnt mention him after this [28] but he follow me onto tnxman page and still follow my edits and talk about me [29]SunHwaKwonh (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ill stay away but i think its unfair because im new and they experience and picking on me because i nominate redirect to their article for deletion. they even canvas. i think probably after threat i stay away from wikipedia totally SunHwaKwonh (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is possible that this problem all arises from English not being your first language, I will say this one last time.
LiteralKa has not done anything that warrants a warning. He is entirely entitled to use the language that you object to - it is not directed at you.
Neither Michaeldsuarez nor LiteralKa posted that IP message on your talkpage. If you keep on saying that they did, you are the one that will get into trouble for making false allegations.
Nor are they stalking you or hounding you. You keep posting about them, that is why they are monitoring your posts, as they are entitled to do.
I recommend you go and edit in a different part of the encyclopaedia for a while. If you stop saying anything about them, they will not have any reason to keep watching your edits. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of people involved in the discussion. It is not partisan. It just does not support your view that the redirect should be deleted. You will have to accept this - it is how consensus on Wikipedia works.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second time you have turned down my vandalism report against Mynamismik. I see you have turned down other vandalism reports too. If you don't want to do the job, please just turn in the bit. We don't need more admins sweeping the trolls under the rug until they become another Grawp. Mynamismik is troll, plain and simple. He isn't here to edit constructively if you look at his edits. I wouldn't be posting him to AIV if I didn't think there was a problem. So....could we please get this taken care of? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and if that isn't enough. He went on a vandalism spree tonight, blanking pages, purposely adding content to others (like my userpages) and other vandalism. MuZemike blocked him for a week. This should show this guy is not here for constructive purposes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can only go on what I can see when I pick up the report. At that point, his last half dozen edits to articles were not vandalism (I checked!!), and mussing up the hidden formating on your text page could have been the sort of markup fail I'm often guilty of. The other report I turned down, the reported IP had not edited since 24 September, so what am I going to block for? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*pat on the back* No worries. We all want to believe that all users can be good, I even took a chance at being nice to that user, but it didn't work. It's OK, you made the right move and went with AGF. Last night I was mad, cause I didn't see the editor being blocked, but you were going by the rules and thatis a good quality for an admin, especially one that extends AGF to all. Hopefully you don't lose that. We need more like you and Acroterion around here to give 110% of AGF to all. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not by much indeed - I would suspect that the 1923-28 renewal is in the archive somewhere but has been missed, as they seem to have renewed everything else. I'll drop that onto RAN's page (if you haven't). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[31] Your comment there brings up much the same concerns as the ANI comment I mentioned. Do you really not see, even in hindsight, how your comment on ANI was less than ideal? Gimmetoo (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious also. I do genuinely believe your behaviour on the ani thread did have an aspect that was problematic - you got locked into some strange cycle in which you thought you had already said things, and you kept insisting that you'd fixed something that other people were saying was broken. The honest truth appears to be that you maintain a different view of what happened to that held by a number of the other participants, including myself. It used to be a frequent issue when responding to complainants that their view of what was going on failed to match that of others, or match the record, and one was always searching for ways to say that (as a previous head of revenues once wrote "mrs x complains that she made an arrangement in March to pay £60 per month, yet we have still issued a notice. what she has overlooked is that she never made any of the payments." Try to find a tactful way to say that!)
At the end of the day it doesn't much matter in this case, the key thing - the table formatting - got fixed in a way that works. However, I do understand that it has left you with a residual sense that somehow you were treated badly, which in these circumstances you do not really have an avenue to address. If you were making a complaint against my council, you'd get the opportunity to request that the matter was independently reviewed, but the Wikipedia community is not terribly tolerant of what it terms 'rehashing,' so there is no mechanism for that if the substance of the complaint is a one-off.
Elen, here I'm referring to your comment, which was condescending. I had already been through enough condescension from a user who not only insisted I was completely wrong, but even demanded I apologize. Ultimately, was your comment really helpful? What did it add to the discussion? If you didn't know the situation, rather than make an absurd assumption about an "old box", you might have asked. Did you? Did you even consider that there might be a problem, let alone AGF that a long-term user might be right? And I was correct on the technical issue. Sometimes, the majority is wrong; good leadership would have been to swim against that flow and correct the errors of the majority. And to your query about the head of revenues - sometimes the head of revenues should really be saying that "according to the current state of our records, we do not have a record of payments from mrs x being credited to the account of mrs x", because mrs x did pay but the payments were misapplied. I imagine that it would be frustrating for mrs x to try to deal with a system that can't conceive of that possibility, even as mrs x holds the cancelled cheques. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you continue to feel hard done by, but I'm not sure what you are looking for as an outcome here. I am sorry that the statement upset you as it has done, indeed, the whole incident clearly upset you, and you found it very difficult to participate in the dialogue. I do agree that practically everybody did express their exasperation towards you at some point, and you undoubtedly felt as if you were having to defend yourself rather than being able to explain the problem. However, if you look through that whole thread[32], it's fairly clear that you started out in good faith to try to fix a problem, but unfortunately you 'fixed' it so it worked in your browser and ignored anyone who told you it wasn't working in other browsersyour fix was to strip out the functionality because you couldn't get it to work for you, you edit warred to keep your version, you issued civility warnings to those who disagreed with you - you even threatened to block one of them. Even if you can't see that as problematic behaviour, the other 10 or so people in the discussion all did, and I am not sure that anyone looking at that thread would see you as a victim. What would you see as a way forward? -- Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC) (PS: In Mrs x's case, she really hadn't made any payments - misreceipts are always the first thing you look for, and I've searched enough suspense accounts in my time, but in her case she agreed immediately that she hadn't actually made any payments.)[reply]
"but unfortunately you 'fixed' it so it worked in your browser and ignored anyone who told you it wasn't working in other browsers" - That's incorrect. If you still don't get that point, which is rather central to the underlying dispute, it illustrates my point rather well. I also think you are somewhat mistaken on the behaviour issues, since you omit mentioning any misbehaviour by any other editor. What do I want out of this? I want you to recognize some ways your response was inappropriate, and try to avoid that in the future. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so in your opinion was it inappropriate because it was overly flippant (which is what I've been thinking) or because it was actually wrong, and if so, in what way. I would stand by the gist - a user's problems with a less used browser would not entitle them to unilaterally remove something that worked for everyone else (incidentally, I have refactored above, you are correct in that the action that caused everything to kick off was stripping out functionality that worked for everybody else, which caused RexxS to revert you, which was what you brought to ANI) but I do understand that during the course of the entire thing you felt that your position was not being understood, and I accept that this statement probably contributed to that feeling.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, my fix made the sorting work in Safari without apparently changing it for any other browser. (At least, I've not seen where anybody has said that it broke sorting in any other browser.) What "caused everything to kick off" was certain editors' removal of the fix and denials that there even might be a problem, coupled with condescending insults and demands. You could have said my removal of the sorting at that point was a "pointy" way to try to get them to see there was an issue. When I first brought up your diff on SG's page, you could have just said something to the effect "I'm sorry, I could see it was hurtful"; avoid calling people "pet", and maybe say you didn't examine the issue carefully before the ANI posting, and you would have had a stellar response to smooth over that ANI statement. From my perspective, the root of this is are edits in violation of various guidelines (centrally WP:CITE), which I opposed, and ended up indef blocked without talkpage access. I'm sure there are others who view this situation differently, but from my perspective, the administrator response has been somewhat inadequate and misplaced. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC) P.S., I have an experience with payments somewhat like your Mrs X case, except I did have the cancelled cheques. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can see how that incident pissed you off (incidentally, I've had the same thing happen to me, but with way more justification, see User talk:Elen on the Roads. Still annoying when you know there was a reason for it)- it would piss off even the most reasonable editor to have an account that had been editing away for ages called into question like that. And has coloured your view of things since - it seems to me as if you are taking things as slights that are not intended as such, and are assuming people know about this past history when they do not. I think in that light you are fated to get your corns trodden on from time to time - this is not a good thing, but I wouldn't know what to suggest as a way forward. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC) PS We had one chap who refused to put his a/c reference on the cheques, refused to send payment slips etc, and then complained every single time his payment ended up in suspense. What can you do?[reply]
Yep, that's it, some incident has just coloured my view, and it's all my mistake, like some chap who can't put an account reference on a cheque. You really want to be an arbitrator, eh? Gimmetoo (talk) 03:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Darwinbish getting aggravated
somehow seems suitable with reference to getting on little 'shonen's tits
Seen Tex's new name for me? Little Ankle Biter, hehehe! [Bites Elen on the ankle to demonstrate. ] Made handsome sig meself! Best coder in family! Only bishsig with contribs! littleanklebiter00:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC). (PS More cake! And Jehochman's leg!)[reply]
[ Stands on chair to get out of reach of little ankle biter ]Very nice sig. Darwinbish very clever to include contribs. Hope you enjoy red velvet cake breasticles.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those look delicious! I hope you clicked on the tits (a much vandalised article). Speaking of nice, get a load of this, lol ! Poor little IPs trying to get their bearings... Made Bunchofgrapes laugh anyway. Bishonen | talk00:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
ROFL! And yes, I did have a look at the article - I have great tits (naturally....no, try again...) I have great tits living in my garden, although sadly I cannot put up a bird table due to having four cats of my own, and three visiting cats from nearby, who all sit at my windows and rattle their teeth when they see the garden birds. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if Darwinbish isn't too busy preparing the ground for her projected arbcom candidature, I can send her over to your house for a short visit. Those cats will never bother anybody again; they'll shiver and slink off if the birds so much as look at them. Hmmm — I wonder if Little Manager could nominate the twins as a kind of double feature? They do sort of complement each other. But the true beauty would lie in Pod running under his artist name Little Stupid... [shonen falls into beautiful dreams of Little Stupid contributing to, or even listmomming, the arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org, as once she did herself, back in the old heroic days. ] [33]Bishonen | talk02:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I will not identify to the Foundation, and I will not work that hard. Or, well, at all, if it comes to that. Those newborn socks just don't know what they'd be getting themselves into. But why don't you run, or are you going to stand on that chair for the rest of your wikilife? Bishonen | talk00:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
canvassing complaint
I object to your closing the complaint against DavidOaks. You asked me to provide a response in the complaint and then closed it before I could respond. No complaint was being made against the editors who were canvassed, only DavidOaks.
Since no comments were made to my prior complaint, how was I to know what opinion was held or what information was wanted by the admins?
The unacceptable implication of closing the report is that it would be perfectly fine for me to privately canvass linguistics editors to have them affect consensus on the talk page.
Do feel free to revert me - I'm not precious about it. The community will ultimately decide whether it wants to take any notice. I think it would actually be good if you posted a similar message on the talkpage of a few linguists - there are clearly two separate concepts packed up in here, and I wouldn't begin to speculate on how to pick 'em apart.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, it wasn't me that collapsed it. Looks like the community may have expressed its lack of interest. I can see it is frustrating for you, and honestly, I don't think there would be a problem asking for input on the linguistics side. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand that I find this extremely tedious. No accusation was being made against the people whom DavidOaks canvassed, and they were not notified since they were not discussed, only his diffs on their talkpages were posted by number and not by editor. I am not expecting any decision on content by admins. This is solely a matter of DavidOaks' behaviour, which I think is a rather clear cut violation of votestacking in intent, whether or not it has worked out in his favor.
I find ResidentAnthropolgist's accusation of gaming the system on my talk page disturbing, especially since he seems to feel targetted since he was one of the people who were canvassed. (He is the one who collapsed the discussion.) Do you believe I am required to notify these editors when no accusation against them is being made?
I request that you please restore the ANI discussion so I am not accused of wrongdoing and allow me to post the response to your question which I was composing when you closed the discussion. I will be quite happy to abide by the decision made by due process once I have been able to respond. μηδείς (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking you to uncollapse it. ResidentAnthropologist did that. But he advised that you marked it as resolved. I am asking that you reopen it. I'll be satisfied with whatever happens after I can answer your last question to me. μηδείς (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, you are welcome to reopen it. It's only my take on the situation - ANI doesn't have a formal clerking process. If you think it warrants further discussion, you go ahead and reopen it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to keep bothering you. Let me clarify. ResidentAnthropologist has already all but accused me of gaming the system on my talk page. I do not wish to open a third complaint - I want a chance to answer the question you posed me before you closed the last one. How would it look if I undid the edit you made myself? I am simply asking you to undo it yourself so there is no appearance of impropriety.μηδείς (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, I have not mentioned anyone new, I don't think, but please let me know if you think I should notify anyone else of the canvassing complaint.μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Advice?
Hi Elen; i'm wondering if you can offer a little advice. I was looking through a conflict i was, regrettably, involved in about a year ago, and i notice that the talk page of the article has been archived, maybe to hide the disagreements that happened; i have no issue with that. What does surprise me, however, is that the page was edited at some point prior to being archived, so that it no longer is a correct record of what happened. To be specific, i can easily point to at least one of my comments that was completely removed here, and that isn't the only pruning done. My question is, do i ignore this? reinsert the missing comments silently? reinsert them and add a note at the beginning of the archive? put a note at the top indicating that the archive is incomplete? I don't know, so i turn for your opinion. Cheers, LindsayHi05:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If someone else refactored your comments (other than for admin reasons) then you can make a note of that in the archive. Add a diff to the refactored comment, showing what it looked like when you made it. You can do this because other folks shouldn't be rewriting your comments. If other folks changed their own comments after you left the discussion and prior to archiving, you will just have to live with it. If someone has wholesale altered the archive at some point after archiving, that would need to be fixed by an admin. Hope this helps.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; your advice/instruction is close to what i had calculated. Would you mind just taking a quick gander at what i did & see if it is appropriate? Diff here. Thanks again, Cheers, LindsayHi07:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Factstraight plastered the same message across 50 talkpages. Since the other editor he is complaining about is readily identified, that constitutes a significant personal attack. Hence I have removed them all, although I have not blocked FactStraight. If people are having problems with the other editor, the way you do it is to start a request for comment on the user, where everyone can weigh in with their take in one central place, and hopefully a resolution can be worked out. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I will keep an eye on the user in question (as I know which user FactStraight has been keeping a fixed eye on). Thanks again, Ruby2010 (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:FactStraight plastered the same message across 50 talkpages because the same argument concerns these 50 (or whatever number) articles. Reverting FactStraight and threatening to block him amounts to firing the editor of a publishing house for doing too good a job. I support his action 100 percent & my only regret is not having the time right now to clean up these articles & get FactStraight off the hook or share his fate.
The user he is referring to has been blocked several times lately for disruptive editing, and now it is FactStraight who gets it! Unbelievable! Is Wikipedia an encyclopedic venture or the publishing house for cheap novels?
Frania, you'll note perhaps that I did NOT block FactStraight. All I did was revert his edits. As I have said above, there is a procedure for dealing with a problematic editor, and that was not it. You are all welcome to start a request for comment on the user. If the evidence is that he is disruptive and unwilling to change, you then have all the evidence you need to ask for him to be banned either from this topic or from the site. Wikipedia won't work any better than the average city centre one way system if people won't go the right way round. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, I know that you did not block FactStraight, but you threatened to and, since I am quite aware of what has been going on for months, I simply had to speak my mind. While FactStraight was blocked once recently for ignoring the the 3RR, the other person has been blocked three or four times within a few days, not for ignoring that rule, but for disruptive editing where he has moved pages ignoring the process to follow, thus deleting whole history of articles. Over months, he has done this to so many articles that it is impossible to correct them all. Then, there is the trivia. I am personally trying to correct a few of his articles, but cannot find the time because the whole prose has to be overhauled & every detail checked for accuracy, and there is also life outside of Wikipedia.
If FactStraight has done something wrong by "plastering" (quoting you :) the same comment on 50 pages, is this stalking someone? Then what is called doing what the other editor has been doing for months, "plastering" the same trivia to same number of articles. What else could FactStraight do? Sure, the other contributor has also done good editing, but that does not give him the privilege to pad articles with cheap novel material, and moving articles not following procedure, thus destroying the work done by others. And, please, do not tell me that FactStraight should have reported him for that, because it has been done several times by other editors who have had it up to here with that person's attitude.
Following what FactStraight had done today, I fell upon a comment at one of the talk pages, left over a year ago by a well-known historian expert on the Guise & Orléans families, who was pointing out some of the trivia & inexactitudes in one article in particular (sorry, I can't remember which one), which she had removed. Well, I checked & noticed that, at some time in the span of over a year, the stuff had been added back. Now, if Wikipedia prefers to keep unsourced material in spite of the suggestion of a professional historian who took the time to intervene, that's really too bad. And when someone puts a tag on 50 articles because they all have some of the same inexactitudes and trivia, let's ban that someone too. I simply do not agree.
Dear Elen of the Roads, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the election and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words and declare any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee). Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.
You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! Skomorokh02:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, if you wouldn't mind adding language to your nomination statement to the effect of "I have never edited Wikipedia with an account other than those listed here", or whatever is appropriate to your situation? I am asking all the candidates to make sure their account disclosure is full and categorical. Thanks, Skomorokh12:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Best of luck in your upcoming trial by fire. As in previousyears I have a series of questions I ask candidates. This year there are restrictions on the length and number of questions on the "official" page for questions, restrictions which I do not agree with, but which I will abide by. I nevertheless think my questions are important and relevant (and I am not the only person to think so, in previous years they have drawn favorable comment from many, including in at least one case indepth analysis of candidates answers to them by third parties). You are invited to answer them if you so choose. I suggest that the talk page of your questions page is a good place to put them and I will do so with your acquiescence (for example, SirFozzie's page already has them as do the majority of other candidates). Your answers, (or non-answers should you decide not to answer them), that will be a factor in my evaluation of your candidacy. Please let me know as soon as practical what your wish is. Thanks and best of luck. (please answer here, I'll see it, and it keeps things together better) ++Lar: t/c04:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lar. Please post them, some are very interesting and at least one has made me realise that my view has changed somewhat. I may not get thru them all, but I'll do my best. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. If there's a general issue with the quality of these articles (not with a particular editor, which was the impression I first got) then stirring up the relevant Wikiproject might be a good idea. It's at least a good forum for people having a discussion about a wider set of articles. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like that. WP:RS and WP:CITE should both link to it. I always use book cites for Google books, but a lot of people just cite the URL. And even people who do cite don't always realise that the url is just the search results, and not everyone will see the same stuff. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Para.leaf
Hey Elen. Awhile back I posted on ANI about List of awards and nominations received by Paramore and this user not responding to my pleading for them to talk on the talk page. You actually left them a note reminding them to do the same. Anyway, the edit recently came back and once again added in non-notable awards and removed others that actually were notable, and did so without an edit summary and without a comment on the talk page. If you could take a look at this issue again, that'd be great. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)21:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, haven't had a chance to really look at this yet. Both of you need to be discussing why the Kerrang readers awards are (or are not) notable, as I can't really make any comment on that (some things that the public vote for are notable, I know nothing about this one). Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the page you were referring to on Uncle G's talk? Two things; I fixed the refs to properly link to the cite book instances. Click a ref in the notes section and you're taken to the corresponding bulleted cite book in the refs section. This was broken, before. By using {{sfn}}, we no longer have to manually connect multiple refs to the same page by making up a name such as name="Merridew2004p123"; the collation is now automatic. The prose is much clearer, too. The second thing is here; I know Gavin from several years ago but missed most of what has gone on in the last few years, including the stuff over the last few months that you seem to be dealing with. I'm most surprised about the copyvio aspect and would appreciate your filling me in. Cheers, Jack Merridew06:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Stockmann: Answer me this! Please, one more moment! A platoon of soldiers is walking down a road toward the enemy. Every one of them is convinced he is on the right road, the safe road. But two miles ahead stands one lonely man, the outpost. He sees that this road is dangerous, that his comrades are walking into a trap. He runs back, he finds the platoon. Isn’t it clear that this man must have the right to warn the majority, to argue with the majority, to fight with the majority if he believes he has the truth? Before many can know something, one must know it! His passion has silenced the crowd. It’s always the same. Rights are sacred until it hurts for somebody to use them.
The copyvio thing was a surprise to a lot of people, but it did explain some of Gavin's approach to original research. You can read his talkpage for reams of the stuff, and see the CCI for the gory details. Virtually every addition of content to an article has been a copyvio. What seems to have happened is described here - Gavin had an interaction with another editor (User:Peter Morell) and come away concluding that he had been accused of OR because he hadn't quoted a source verbatim. In fact, Peter was saying it was OR because he hadn't cited enough sources. It's a wierd conversation - it's almost as if Gavin has a circuit missing, or an option not turned on. Anyway, from that he came away under the impression that Wikipedia policy was that as far as possible you had to quote verbatim. He has said himself that he finds it impossible to summarise as he can't put things into his own words.
Anyway, thanks for straightening up Heroninos. I can see how it's done now. I couldn't find anything to inform me how to do this kind of cite - I don't know if I was looking in the wrong place.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go look; I had found the gory details page and see that this was the largest load of bricks to fall on him. I'm thinking he needs time intent on another project, such as Wikisource, which worked for me. It's different; a library, and verbatim is the goal. I need to spend more time there myself, before they get annoyed at my absence. Gavin's obstinacy is the other shoe, but that's really only an issue to the far end of the spectrum. I agree with a lot of what he does, at least in regard to things like our notability criteria.
There are an awful lot of good example pages about; WhatLinksHere is your friend; just find a template and then find usages. Go meet Ralph; he's quite good with this stuff. Cheers, Jack Merridew05:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll follow that one up. Re Gavin, I certainly came to the conclusion that he has a problem with something which prevents him from tailoring his arguments to audience, or following any strategy to extract a compromise. You get so far in what you think is a productive discussion, then he keeps jumping back to the beginning. Unfortunately for him, I think a consensus formed in the outer tiers that he was a troll - Vyvyan deciding he couldn't support my arb candidacy because I was too lenient with Gavin [37] is evidence of that. I don't know what to recommend for that. He's an intelligent chap, he could probably learn how to do some of this stuff if he was minded, but at the moment I don't think he can see that this - not his views - is what is the problem that got him banned.Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I left Gavin a further reply on my commons talk, recommending time at Wikisource. I believe he means well, but he does not know when to let things go. I've sympathy for him because we share views on some things; know Miller? Gavin simply believes he's ahead of the platoon. But I have seen more recent stuff that's concerning, so I'm afraid I can't make much of a case to bring him back absent time off and elsewhere.
You must know WP:OFFER; it has a huge piece missing: it encourages people to simply wait-out bans. I routinely oppose unbans where they've simply sat on the bench. I was en:banned for eight months; I didn't go away, I went UP; to the wider WMF-plane. I worked on other projects, notably id:wp, jv:wp, and s: and now I'm home. If Gavin shows interest in Wikisource, I'll show him the ropes. I've not ever thought of Gavin as a troll. He's analytical, sees how various policies and guidelines interact, and is adamant in his convictions. But you can't work with others from the extremes of things. I've let a lot go in my time here; I see it as needing to wait for the project to mature, which it has, over time. It's got a lot more cluing-up to do, though.
These annual drama-fest are always a mess, and falling at the end of the year really isn't helpful. You sure you want to be an arb? Think of 200 emails a day, of wading into oceans of bickering about things you've never heard of. I don't know what your areas of interest are (although I just glossed dry glue (I had geckos living in my roof for years;)), but I can assure you that arbtown will expose you to all sorts of new stuff.
Not read much Miller - the Crucible is my favourite. I don't think Gavin is a troll, but I do think he needs to accept that he needs a new strategy, because the platoon has just marched straight over his head :( I agree about OFFER - I need to see some evidence that the person can work with other people, even if its just editing the Duran Duran wiki. Wikisource doesn't have the OR issues, so may be a much easier place for him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I used to live near Miller; Sondheim, too. I've a serious theatre background. I never did Crucible, but like it. The Wiki-platoon is known for their hobnailed boots when they're pissed about something. I've not heard back from Gavin on my commons talk, so that's adrift. See the tail-end of User talk:Gabi Hernandez; precis is a user en:banned for disruptive editing of soap opera articles (mostly bad image uploads) and peck of socking. I'm trying the Wikisource route with her, and she's said 'hi' on my talk, there. I see your account is active there but you've not made any edits. Drop by for a tour of the ropes, if you like. Cheers, Jack Merridew01:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
candidate statement
Hi Elen, sorry to be a bore, but could you trim your candidate statement back just a little. A few words over and we can cope, but it's 411 in display mode, by my counting. Thanks in advance. Tony(talk)00:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was 400 bang on until Skomorokh asked me to include that sentence about never having edited with another account :). It should be down to 391 now by my count - let me know if you have anything different. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've got them both. Hands up, I'm checking the prose but not the links on these answers and you're right, it does look careless. I've read over both sets of questions, can't see any others. Red Queen is deliberately linked to Red Queen hypothesis rather than more generically. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to rewrite the Little Green Footballs Wiki entry in the wake of the edit war. I'm trying to bring it up to a better standard, make it in line with entries on other blogs, and update the information contained there.
This is my first attempt at a Wiki edit, so I'd really appreciate an experienced person looking over what I wrote and giving any and all criticism that you can. I attempted to write the entry from a neutral tone, though I am a poster there and do 'like' the site. I edited out a lot of stuff I felt was soap-opera-ish and entirely unsourced.
One of the larger problems I'm having is determining how much and in what way some information needs to be sourced. LGF has changed a lot since the election, and I wanted to cover that topic in that entry; LGF is run by Charles Johnson, who went from being a McCain/Palin supporter to a strong critic of the right-wing. I detailed some areas where he's changed over time, but didn't know how to source that exactly, since it's more of a gradual change thingy. I provided links to firm statements by him where I could.
Looking for someone to answer questions about how to do references in a power manner (slick and fast). Move pages. Other technical things that come up. Can you point me to someone good and willing? TCO (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your block log, it would seem that what you actually need a mentor for is how to behave in a reasonable way around other editors. If you want advice on how to format references, see the conversation between myself and User:Jack Merridew further up the page. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that explains some of the column formatted references in an article I'm working on with Nuujinn - he must use that tool. I use Wikipedia:RefToolbar 2.0, but was having difficulty with an article that required Harvard referencing in the conversation above. TCO, both of these tools enable you to create references more easily. I think RefToolbar doesn't work if you use Internet Xploda (half the tools on wikipedia don't work if you use GatesGoo), but the one SunCreator suggests runs on the toolserver and will work. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats
Hi, Elen, congratulations on achieving an "Oppose" in Elonka's voter guide. That'll surely help people make an informed choice. And you couldn't wish for a more enlightening edit summary than this, could you? Bishonen | talk00:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Hi 'zilla. Not the one I was thinking of, but very good one. A vested contributor in the meatball definition is someone who actually holds an unpaid office or recognized position (fundraising organiser, sunday school superintendent, club secretary etc) in a voluntary organisation, and believes that having held this office for z years means that the rules don't quite apply to them. The tireless contributors to volorgs, who make endless rounds of tea and cakes, stuff envelopes, distribute flyers, man tombola stalls etc almost never fall into the category of rule abusing vested contributors. They do occasionally fly off the handle when the churchwarden complains at them for some pettifogging incident to do with teacups.
The diff I was thinking of was a ludicrous discussion that I have banished from my mind other than this diff, where someone genuinely said that wikipedia editors should only edit articles that they knew nothing about. Probably if you searched by edit summaries for something like "most bloody ludicrous thing I've ever heard" you'd find it, as I seem to recall that was my response. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Time for ice cream!
Ice Cream!
Hello Elen of the Roads! Dianna has given you this lovely ice cream dessert to brighten your day! Ice cream promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. A seriously yummy dessert will help you fortify yourself for the elections. Cheers! --Diannaa(Talk)20:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I'll let the checkusers get her then. Sources are slim to vanishing point - this is a subject where you really only want scholarly sources, as there's so much New age crap out there on the web. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, I have an article I think should be discussed for deletion. The process baffles me; I think I've only had an article deleted once, an unsourced stub for which I could find no sources (within an area I'm familiar with) and which seemed not to exist. It nevertheless took forever. The article in question seems to me to be OR and an unwarranted content fork. Usually I'm on the side of keeping content that is criticized mainly on these grounds, as you may know. I haven't tagged it, and I've asked for views from the Greece & Rome Project. I don't want to put its author through some hideous process if I'm mistaken. I hope it isn't some violation to ask whether you might also have a look-see, since you've participated in more deletion discussions than I. The article is Vegoia and Egeria. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to discuss an article for deletion WP:AFD is the process to follow. I agree it is a content fork and seems to be mostly OR, so I will tag it for you, as I have twinkle and it makes it slightly easier. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vegoia and Egeria. You might want to notify the relevant project. I think this is some guy's undergrad thesis and Jannot is his lecturer - alternatively its Jannot who has written it. The article cites nothing published by Jannot, everything is primary sources or secondary sources on only one of the two subjects - classic OR. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Signing posts
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. AccessDenied03:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a template {{uw-unsourced1}} that uw-unsourced redirects to: it's on the Twinkle tool. I've noted further problems with Lorynot - have provided her with a good mathematics source for the calculus article - the witch of agnessi is certainly notable - we even have an article on it, and I would think it was of general interest that a woman mathematician of the 18th century discovered it. Lorynote has to stop inserting stuff sourced to nothing, new age crap or the catholic encyclopaedia though! I would have blocked her again, and will if she puts the reverted edit back. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This excelent source you provided mentions Agnesi´s comprehensive book as one of the first; for me it´s ok (don´t need to be THE first to have her as major player in the history of maths and calculus (although there are to sustain that); so we could change THE first for one of the and the source also says that it become a major reference for students: "Maria's great contribution to mathematics with this book was that it brought the works of various mathematicians together in a very systematic way with her own interpretations. The book became a model of clarity, it was widely translated and used as a textbook". Cover page. Lorynote (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lory, belili is a truly dreadful source - unless you are writing about a history of the New Age belief that there was once a universal matriarchal society filled with goddess worshipping feminist devotees of the Universal Mother who lived in peace with gentle nature loving men (oh except for the Amazons - they didn't get on with men so good) etc etc. Basically, any source that involves an author who is published by Llewellyn Worldwide - even if the reference you want to used is not published by Llewellyn - is useless for any subject where there is also a serious academic debate going on.
I was a student of archaeology when Marija Gimbutas was the expert on the Old European neolithic and bronze age, and Bronze Age cultures in Central and Eastern Europe was required reading (I've probably still got a copy of it up in the attic somewhere). But Fleming's The Myth of the Mother Goddess which came out in 1969 was only the first of a raft of criticism. Gimbutas went down the same route as Margaret Murray - although she didn't actually found a religion unlike Murray (Wicca has its roots in Murray's later work) she was taken up by Starhawk and others, and this has damaged her reputation somewhat.
If you want to edit articles on historical subjects in this area, you must use academic resources. You must show that modern mainstream academics believe that x society was matriarchal or whatever. The modern view is that Goddess worship and a matriarchal priesthood does not provide any support for a matriarchal society - ie who made the laws, who ran the country, what rights did women have in law,in marriage, in society etc. For example - Rome had a matriarchal priesthood in the Vestal Virgins, but Roman women were restricted from full participation in society, and were excluded from political office. The primary deity of Athens was the goddess Athena, but the Athenian regime towards women was similar to the Taliban - only permitted outdoors wearing the burka and accompanied by a male relative, no access to the law, no say in marriage etc. Sparta on the other hand considered itself descended from Hercules, but women and girls could not only go about as they pleased, but girls were formally educated and encouraged to sporting prowess, and women largely ran the country.
I believe you have an honest interest in the subject, and a desire to improve articles, but you need to think hard when introducing information like this. "Is it missing from the article", "do I have sources that are as good as the other sources", "am I putting the right information in the right place in the article" are the sort of things you need to think about. It's not easy - as I said to someone else here, there are a lot of chaps out there whose opposition to females is quite irrational (I was involved in the Movement for the Ordination of Women in the late 1970s, and some of the really crude things that opposition clerics came out with stunned their compatriots). You do need to be spot on with sourcing, and persuade those of a neutral frame of mind that this is an academic issue, not go charging in with the aim of upholding 'wymyms rites' or you'll just end up blocked for edit warring again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elen of the Roads -- Please retract the descriptive phrase "totally bogus" at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 December 4. The phrase implies fraud or deception or some kind of trickster behaviour -- none of which are applicable in this image from a non-controversial article about a non-controversial subject. Based solely on the information available for me to read, the sentences in the "fair use rationale" were reasonable, conventional, appropriate -- wrong, as it turns out, but surely straightforward.
In a collaborative editing context, you need to recall that not everyone has had your specific range of experience. If I had known better, I would not have re-written the description in a different way. How else am I to learn if not by asking questions when a problem is pointed out? If Future Perfect had responded to my repeated requests for an explanation, this would have developed differently; but it did not.
My uploading of this file and my effort to comply with all rules and procedures does not deserve derision nor contempt. It does deserve an investment of time in explaining so that I can do better in the future -- especially when, as here, I ask in a reasonable manner for that explanation.
Who's kidding who? Think about it.
This is not an instance in which anyone needs to assume good faith -- rather, my good faith is demonstrated, specific, noteworthy.
On the other hand, this sentence was welcome and helpful.
"It's a public parade - I can see people in the crowd taking pictures."
This comment about a single sentence tells me that looking for people with cameras in a crowd is a factor to be considered. I will bear this question in mind in future. Do you see the difference? Maybe this particular sentence was intended as sarcasm or something else, but I only have the words to read. I construed the sentence in terms of what I can guess about what I don't know. Thank you for the helpful sentence. --Tenmei (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is totally bogus - in terms of wikipedia policy, the idea that we would use a non-free image because it has the tv company logo has no value, ie it is bogus. It does not imply either fraud or deception. It does imply that you, who write in very good English, do not appear to have taken time to read any of our policies on non-free images, as you have zero comprehension of them, and are giving reasons that have no value, ie are bogus. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your follow-up is clear.
I reiterate my thanks for the comments which help improve my appreciation for how things work in this Wikipedia venue.
I can not thank you for sentences which are merely critical without a constructive aspect. A forward-looking purpose is missing.
No probs. If you make an updated version of the file - if the structure changes as these things do- you should just note on the file documentation that it's an updated version of the one on commons. That'll deal with any accreditation issues. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, today the article about Turkish Van received the nomination of good article in Russian Wikipedia.
We had discussed the corresponding article in English Wikipedia, and I would like to know your opinion, if the article may be improved and offered for the nomination in English Wikipedia. Thanks in advance for your reply, Zara-arush (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My congratulations, Elen! I just read the following post. Great, we had a good experience together, so, if I may be helpful, please, contact without hesitations, though I am not a native speaker, I'll do my best to suport any reasonable project ;) Zara-arush (talk) 12:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Elen, thank you for your comments. I did not manage to complete the planned works in Russian Wiki articles, the discussion is still going on. When one of them will be completed, I will enter the canges that I will be able in TUV article here. Thanks again, --Zara-arush (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations
What? What do you mean you didn't know about the robes? I thought the only reason anyone ever ran for such a thankless job was so that they could get a nice set of plush golden robes. "In it for the community" you say? Bah! The bling is where it's at. Even the Supreme Court can't top this swag. You could pawn this for a house! Why the heck else did you think that the foundation needed 20 million dollars?
So you're really serious about the whole "helping the community" and "for the good of the project" business? Aww, shucks. Go ahead and keep the robe anyways then. Do us proud.
[Surprised but not wholly displeased ] Mop'n bucket? Is this an offer to nominate me for adminship? I accept! It's time for another bish! Remember when Bishzilla was admin?[38] [Darwinbish has a certain respect for her great large ancestress Bishzilla. ] Good times! OK, start it up, little Elen of the Rooftops! darwinbishBITE10:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
In hindsight, I can see that my UAA report wasn't particularly clear; I should have mentioned that User:Cheadleh had made a (now deleted) article on that school's radio station. I've only had two UAA reports that I can think of get shot down, but I don't take comments such as yours as anything but constructive criticism. I don't get offended by people telling me I've made a mistake (IRL, I have a very caustic sense of humor); in this case, I can see what the confusion was. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that explains it. I saw he had a deleted article on Cheadle radio, but didn't realise it was the school radio, so still couldn't see the link to the school. Even so, I probably wouldn't have blocked. It's not the username that's the problem really, and the possibility that its a sixth former who might turn into a wikipedia editor is always there. I hope I didn't come over grumpy - apologies if I did. I do think we need to make a distinction between someone who misguidedly makes an article on 'my school radio', 'my mates who are going to be a famous band one day'- who might be persuaded to become good editors, and User:AcmeminingPR writing the article on the Acme Mining Corp. After all, the reason I started editing Wikipedia in earnest was a new editor asked me how to create an article (Bingley Music Live) because I'd said I'd been to the festival. So that was a COI of sorts.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't sound grumpy at all, at least to me. Reasonable people can have different viewpoints, and I see where you're coming from. After doing NPP for a while, everyone looks like a spammer ;). In all seriousness, though, I've come across a lot of spammers (I remember one guy literally posted his resume on nine different pages), and I probably looked a little too far into the username. Duly noted for the future, thanks. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC) By the way, if you didn't know already, I'm the one who had the pleasure of tagging How to Eat a Scorpion While it is Mating the first time. That is still the funniest thing I've come across doing NPP.[reply]
Blurb on you
Hi Elen, I wonder whether you'd mind reviewing the short blurb on you at The Signpost's "Election report", which is due for publication in not much more than 24 hours. I cobbled together the information from your RfA, your userpage, and wherever else I could, hoping it's not a plain repetition of the information about you that was part of the election process. Some of it might be a little out-of-date, and please check for balance, inclusion, tone, etc. We are happy if you edit it yourself, if necessary. Thanks. Tony(talk)17:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You recently blocked User:Rungkan; can we dispense with the formalities and just delete all his pages? Nothing was of any value, and none of the pages have interest to anyone except this editor. (I am watching this page, so please reply here.)
The book stub seems ok (all one sentence of it). The author of the book has an article which even names the book as one of his better known works, which doesn't appear to have been edited by Rungkan --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that DC needs sanctioning, but I don't think this is quite the right sanction. If he appeals, I'll put more comment in. And I think you need to be a bit careful in posting requests like this on admin talkpages. You are in danger of making it look as if you are soliciting support, and this could be a potential problem if someone with more credibility than DC has a go at you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the ANI thread has been hatted, I'll reply here. I am left to wonder how many admins Cirt wrote to. (Disclosure: I mailed Jimbo about this.) First, I don't "have it in" for Cirt. Cirt is a net positive, including the Scientology topic area, does a good job catching Shutterbug socks, and has learned to write neutrally about Scientology topics, although it is still sometimes hard work getting Cirt to backtrack when she's gotten carried away. But I and other editors at times perceive a very tangible WP:OWN problem with Cirt, and a mode of dispute resolution focused on reporting opposing editors that are otherwise in good standing at admin boards. Njsustain(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), who nominated the Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant puff piece for deletion, ended up at ANI, so did the person who nominated the Kenneth Dickson puff piece IIRC; so did THF(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) who opposed Cirt at Talk:Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System. Going back a bit, Mattisse (talk·contribs) was accused of "hounding" Cirt and ended up at arbitration when she disagreed with Cirt at a GAR review of one of Cirt's articles, Pieter Kuiper(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) ended up topic-banned at AE, PelleSmith(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) was harassed into retirement, and now it's Delicious Carbuncle's turn. Admins are now saying editors are forbidden from criticising Cirt's editing. This would be fine if Cirt didn't at times do things like this, or insist on listing celebrities like Gloria Gaynor and Chaka Khan as Scientologists because they'd taken a Scientology course at one point in their lives, or write pieces like Kenneth Dickson in support of off-site political agendas. The Wikipedia system is consensus and collaboration, not giving any one editor carte blanche. I am always happy to work with Cirt, whom I respect tremendously as an editor, who has many admirable qualities, and has taught me a lot; but I am consistently appalled by her prickliness and heavy-handed approach on articles she has an investment in. That's all. --JN46623:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know virtually nothing about the Scientology kerfuffle, outside the fact that there were some problems with CoS trying to control the show. My advice above is meant in good faith - asking people to take a look in this way has the potential to blow up in Cirt's face. And I'm not convinced the DC sanction was the right one, but I'll wait for an appeal on that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at Barts1a's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at Glaucus's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi Elen. How did I miss this? I believe you took a brilliant call. On the negative side, Timneu22 has had a background of biting newcomers and speedy'ing articles on lack of notability claim despite the claims being very evident. Karl Ley and Trilegal have been instances where I've evidenced Timneu's biting attitude on new editors and faulty CSD and AfD nominations. He did call me an idiot while replying once to my message when I informed him that I was declining his speedy; I noticed he had also used terms like fuck it, Fuck prod, andProd sucks while replying to other administrators and editors when he was notified about not re-adding prod templates that are removed. Some weeks ago, I had to give him a single-block warning for calling Sarah Palinan idiot. On the positive side, Timneu22 does relentlessly tag new pages and I hope that with experience, Timneu gains clue about which articles not to tag and why new editors should never be bitten. Overall, I singularly have had quite a handful of net negative experiences from him. I do hope other editors don't have such experiences; and so really appreciate your pointing out his mistake. Sorry for this elongated message, but as I voted for you, I believed it was important for you to know. Wifione ....... Leave a message06:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the vote of confidence :) I have encountered this chap before - on the one hand, I do want to encourage the NPPers, on the other he is way too aggressive. The world will not end - really, it won't, if Wikipedia has a few badly written articles for a few days. If he pulls a stunt like this again, I will have to do something, but hopefully he has learned his lesson, albeit with a bad grace. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Muhammad (the pedophile)
why you guys are so much interested to show that Muhammad was a great man. Don't you have any idea what happens to the women in Islamic countries? Read either the Shariah laws or watch the news.
Because of sufficient reliable evidence that Muhammad did bad to women, I think *he was bad to women* should me mentioned in his main page ;)
--Fancy.kira (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah Kira. But Mohammed lived 1400 years ago. The article is about him. It's not about modern day Islam. See my note on the talkpage of the article, and take it from there. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.
Apparently because of this edit, you broke access by the HBC AIV helperbots to the UAA/BOT page. The way to do it is by changing {{adminbacklog}} to {{noadminbacklog}}. That's what the bots do.
Matthew (tfm) was traveling today and did post that message on his talk page from the airplane. Kindly revert your deletion of kablammo's message, which was not disruptive in any way.--166.205.143.86 (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EotR, coming here to say same ... many uninformed folks have been spreading many uninformed stories about TFM and the nature of his participation on the Wiki (and many of us folks who do work on content are less willing to do so considering how one of our own has been treated by the admin corp ... just sayin' :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TFM has been blocked and had the ability to edit his talk page removed. If one accepts that the anon posting to TFM’s page from the air — and to this page and others once on the ground — was indeed TFM, then to edit from an IP address not caught up in the block is to evade that block. Posting his greeting was block evasion and was appropriately removed. — SpikeToronto06:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"are less willing to do so considering how one of our own has been treated by the admin corp" Huh? Unless there is suddenly a grand union and league of content creators that somehow has absolutely no intersection whatever with "the admin corps", then this implied threat of downing tools unless the rules are bent for "one of our own", is pretty ridiculous. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Diannaa(Talk) has given you a Christmas tree! Christmas trees promote WikiLove and are a great way to spread holiday cheer. Merry Christmas!
Spread the WikiLove by adding {{subst:User:The Utahraptor/Christmas tree}} to any editor's talk page with a friendly message.
Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at Mrwho00tm's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Well, we seem to give a lot of chances to incivil trolls, it annoyed me that people weren't prepared to find a way with an editor that contributed so much and where the problems were connected to something close to the heart. Glad to see you back. I hope things work out well from now on - I hope these restrictions just allow you to get on with the project, but if you feel anyone is starting trying to game it, do contact me or another admin, rather than risk more trouble. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully he doesn't say anything quite so...unhelpful...again. I've said before that I can't normally see the point in blocking where two people have got stuck into each other on a talkpage, and it's now hours later - but admins on noticeboards where a civility block is being discussed ought to behave better, and there needs to be consequences for bad behaviour.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
#c-Soundvisions1-2010-09-10T22:42:00.000Z-File:Victoria_Climbié.jpg){kind=link}
#c-Nyttend-2010-09-30T13:49:00.000Z-File:2007_Sports_Day.jpg){kind=link}
