Thank you very much for working with me in 2010 to make the encyclopedia a better place. Regardless of any disagreements we may have had, I want to wish you all the very best for 2011. I look forward to working with you, and I hope for health and happiness to you and your family in the year to come. I therefore send you this glass of the cratur, so you can celebrate, whether it is Hogmanay or New Year's Day where you are. Warmest regards, --John (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A little advice on a possible hoax?
Hi.
As a relative noob, I'm not quite sure of the best way to handle this, so I thought I'd ask advice from someone more experienced. Browsing randomly through 'recent changes' I came across this: User:Smith20111/Break Into Music. Now normally, I'd not be overly interested in what goes on in random User space, but I took a peek. Over the last couple of weeks, Smith20111 has created what looks like a competent enough article about a musical talent show, which he/she describes as "the biggest viewing reality tv show in the United States with over 20 million views in every week". Now as a Brit (and someone not overly interested in 'realty TV') it's possible I was unaware of this, but it somehow didn't ring true. Having checked the links, they either seem to go nowhere, or actually link to Wikipedia itself. Google doesn't seem to show much either, other than this [1], which seems to be an unrelated online video competition.
I suppose there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation for this - perhaps the editor is practising his/her editing skills, or perhaps I'm merely being paranoid, stupid, or both, but it looks to me like a hoax in the making. I was wondering if you could take an informal look, and then perhaps advise on the best course of action? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Check this user's userspace. There is an entire walled garden of hoaxes in there, including hoax images. Keep watching for the next five minutes or so. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(TPS comment)... It could be this person. I deleted a boatload of hoaxes he created a couple weeks ago and blocked some sockpuppets. These new ones are better-developed and better stylistically but he may be improving his hoaxing style; at any rate, the subject matter is closely related. Antandrus (talk)02:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm either not paranoid, or I am, but just not this time. ;-) I'd not seen the 'All pages with prefix' tool: useful. Regarding what to do about it, there is actually something to be said for waiting until any of this gets moved out of user space before pouncing: the more work they've put in, the more it will hurt - especially if we tell them that they've been watched for some time... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. They've spent two weeks, all over christmas on this lot. And I believe it definitely is Jake Picasso, based on a fairly rudimentary application of the Checkuser tool. Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given your rapid disentanglement of the imaginary singer Heather Vasey (etc, etc,...) hoax yesterday, I hope you don't mind me asking you to take a quick look at this Encyclopedia_of_World_Problems_and_Human_Potential, and this: Anthony_Judge, its author. Been around for some time, but rather lacking in links to the outside world (other than Wikipedia mirrors), I suspect. Once again, a second opinion might be wise before I commit myself to anything drastic. Actually, I'd suspect delusions of grandeur rather than hoax this time...
Interestingly, though the Encyclopedia article seems almost certainly written by an involved party, it doesn't entirely shy away from self-awareness:
There has been several reviews of the Encyclopedia. One of the harshest criticisms came from the American Library Association in 1987: "The board considers the Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential a problematic monument to idiosyncrasy, confusion, and obfuscation that certainly is not worth purchasing at any price."
I don’t see how the quotation from the wikiarticle provided is indicative of self-awareness or writing by an involved party. Moreover, it is a direct quote with citation given.
Not all such articles are written by involved persons, persons with conflicts of interest. Often a wikiarticle is created, or later expanded, by a Wikipedian who has an interest in a particular topic, or who comes across the wikiarticle, finds it interesting, and goes to work bettering it. In this particular instance, a review of the article’s revision history shows that the article was created in April 2005 as a stub and expanded bit-by-bit to a larger stub up to November 2008. Then, beginning in November 2010 and up to the present, the article has been expanded to a full wikiarticle, no longer a stub. Yes, most if not all of that work since November has been performed by one Wikipedian. But, again, that does not mean an involved party. One should expect that if an editor is drawn to a topic for personal reasons, and those reasons are positive in nature, then the resultant work is also going to be positive in nature. This is especially the case when an editor feels a personal (albeit disinterested) connection to the subject matter.
When one follows the links on the userpage of the editor who has, in good faith, expanded the article, one discovers the source of his interest in the subject matter:
In September 1977, I find the Encyclopedia of Word Problems and Human Potential, a monumental work of the Union of International Associations. At last, here is a large-scale inventory of what goes wrong and of what can be done. This is the first significant reinforcement that I find for my ideas and projects. Thanks to heaven, I am not alone. However, after two years of surveys, it is clear to me that the specific idea of a global approach concerning suffering has never been realized yet.
Is it any wonder that a person for whom the subject holds so much personal importance would, again in good faith, write an article that, prima facie, might seem to have been written by someone connected to the subject?
If another editor, later coming across the article, thinks that it is too positive and not sufficiently balanced, then it is up to that other editor to roll up his sleeves, dust off his keyboard, perform a literature search, and get writing, providing the balance to the article that he finds lacking. Thanks! — SpikeToronto03:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Elen of the Road,
I am the Information officer of IMEKO, a notable non-profit organization of metrologists. The article "IMEKO" I have written does not contain any advertisement, but only information about the aims and objectives of IMEKO, it's structure, history and activities. So I would like to ask you to undelete and recover this article. If there are objections regarding the contents, please tell me and I will try to improve the article. Thanks! (Information officer (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
You are being notified because I happened to notice your name in a previous discussion, and because I think you're patient. Anyone's welcome, especially if they have that rare talent of turning apparent mountains back into molehills. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should have been able to figure this out without asking for help? What were some of the steps I might have taken? --Tenmei (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem appears to be with the template logo.fur - the big red 1s indicate the template is expecting something that isn't there. Templates aren't something I'm particularly good at editing, so I'm likely to screw it up worse. Can I suggest that you post at WP:HELPDESK, as a number of the editors there are very good with templates, and should be able to offer assistance. It's a good place to go if you make an edit using a template, and the outcome isn't what you expected. It also turns round answers quickly. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind if I just mention a factual inaccuracy on your user page? Sarn Helen is the name of a road, not the name of the saint :-) Deb (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's both. Sarn Elen is or has been the name of several roads in Wales[1], particularly the Roman road between Aberconwy and Carmaethen. However, the roads are supposed in popular folklore to have been built by Saint Elen who is sometimes confused with St Helen, the mother of Constantine and finder of the true cross.[2] A more modern interpretation is that Elen, like Rhiannon was a Welsh goddess, a patron of roads and tracks. [3] In the Mabinogion, she is referred to as Elen Lluyddog or Elen of the Hosts, but in the more modern neo-pagan tradition she is more often referred to as Elen of the Ways or Elen of the Roads. [4] This is a deliberate conflation of Elen Lluyddog - who seems to be a semi-historical person - with a supposed reindeer goddess Elen who gave her name to various roads and tracks in Wales.[5] --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not revert sourced material because you dislike it. You're comment that my addition is, "not a suitable addition at that point in the article" is completely biased. Considering that you left the material that gives the Judaic and Muslim perspective on Jesus, you obviously believe that is the right place in the article to mention other group's perspectives on Jesus. You are being prejudiced and biased by removing only the non-religious view. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. Message added 16:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I updated my statement regarding the gravity of the situation and why I believe is not premature. You may wish to review it. Thanks Codrin.B (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The information originally posted on wikipedia that you state are a copy right violation are really not.
I am the author of the foundation's website material and was simply posting my own work and writing on wikipedia. Clearly wikipedia has no mechanism to deal with this situation that is inaccurate.
Also, I have no idea as to why the criticism section was removed since they are not posted on the foundations website or anywhere else publicly and anyone that has first hand knowledge as an instructor (that were the source for the criticisms) would agree with them.
Furthermore the addition of the criticism section was made solely to address another wikipedia admin person's complaint that the original post had the tone of self promotion. The criticism section was drafted to balance the presentation.
Clearly your removal of the criticisms are in error under the title of copyright violation and should be re-introduced as they are not published anywhere else and you have no evidence the statements are false. I can give a few email addresses of volunteers and staff that support them.
The Art for All program dictates that all activities are to be conducted under the "Creative Cooperation of Five" or "5 Makes One Genius" model which is limiting in the following ways:
1. Staffing or volunteer needs are higher with one needed per group of 4 individuals with unique disabilities when compared to a class of 12-20 hearing impaired students to one instructor. With its staff to participant ratio being so low it would not be viable either privately or commercially without its large volunteer base.
2. There can be decreased rapport between members of dissimilar disadvantaged groups that participants may find isolating. There is a greater rapport potential between members of similarly disadvantaged groups. In other words, a visually impaired person is more likely to relate easily with another visually impaired member due to their commonality.
3. The range and quality of artistic activities are more limited when the Art for All program's ideal of a balanced role for each disadvantaged participant is expected. In other words, it is much more difficult to create artistic activities where blind, deaf, physically and mentally challenged members can all participate equally.
4. The most potentially rewarding, beneficial and best-fit type of activities are either not fully utilized or they tend to marginalizes one or more of the disadvantaged groups. In other words, It is difficult for a blind person to enjoy and benefit from a painting activity or a deaf person from a musical activity. OR a physically challenged person may have difficulty with the dexterity needed for a clay modeling project that would be well suited for both the visual, auditory and mentally challenged. This problem remains even though many creative solutions have been attempted. i.e the painting technique with a stiff glue that has sand immediately applied so that the visually impaired can feel and enjoy the created shape by its raised texture.
5. The Art for All concept ignores the functional reality of optimizing ones capabilities. The visually impaired has the strength of tactile and auditory senses whereas the hearing impaired, has dexterity and vision. The mentally and physically challenged have their own combination of strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps the activity time and the returns of creativity would be more rewarding if the focus was on enhancing the participants areas of strength instead of trying to force fit the 4 categories of disability into a single size solution.
6. The Art for All program could be improved by a combination of activities that are well suited for all; such as the glue-texture painting described above in conjunction with specialized programs optimized for each impairment group. A clay sculpture session for the blind that enabled their unique needs and a dance class for the deaf for a portion of the program's duration would better serve the Art for All's objective of fostering professional artist.
7. The reliance on volunteer staff means that some well-intentioned instructors may not be aware of the need for or successful in creating artistic activities where all 4 categories of the disabled can participate equally. This results in participants feeling left out or not a creative contributor which is contrary to the main objective of the Art for All program.
8. Artwork created by the participants are retained by the organization for group displays etc. which prevents the sharing of individual work with ones parents and caregivers at home after the program ends.
If you wish to release the content on the website, you have two options
1. You could put a notice on the website releasing the content under a cc-by-sa license
2. You can follow the steps at WP:CONSENT and send a notification through our OTRS system.
Hey there -- I just wanted to leave a comment about Neptunekh2's block. You said when you blocked her that she could get unblocked if she promised never to plagiarise again. She didn't exactly say that, but she did acknowledge she was wrong. I think that maybe if you ask her again to explicitly say she won't plagiarise again as a condition of being unblocked, she would do that. I'm a new user and I was recently blocked myself, so I know it can feel pretty bad. I don't want to ruffle any feathers here, just thought I'd mention it to you in case you didn't see that her block appeal was revoked. I think she probably feels pretty bad about what happened and wouldn't do it again. Thanks! Peacewashlove (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen the film. What I would do if I were you is read three or four plot summaries New York TimesRotten TomatoesAllmovieAmazon review then go into another room and imagine you are explaining the movie to your mum/partner/cat. Write down that explanation without going back and looking at any of the reviews and it is unlikely to be a copy of anything you have read.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thanks for reminding OSX, sorry if my warning may have come upon as a little rude, but I get frustrated when people are rude to new editors, especially on the Help Desk. Tofutwitch11(TALK)02:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think he was trying for flippancy, but it obviously failed as both you and Jayron thought he was rude. I don't think your warning was rude, and it certainly didn't warrant defining as vandalism. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
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.
Please don't post to me onwiki again. You are a blocked user and are evading your block. If your hope is to return to editing at some point, further socking will only make matters worse. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Could you do me a favor? Would you mind cleaning up an article about an English-author? Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyn_Godfrey Also I wonder if the Category:American_Christians should go in the Ann_Dunham article because it says she was Christian.
I found all the references for Martyn Godfrey when I reviewed a deletion request, then forgot to finish the article, so thanks for reminding me! As to Ann Dunham, have you read [2]. The article fairly clearly says that she wasn't a Christian, and you will find that adding the category gets you into a lot of trouble, as there is a political aspect to this. Obama says his mum was a Christian, which plainly isn't true - even his sister says this isn't true. This is because to satisfy the demands of the US public, Obama has to at least make a show of being a Christian, because the other side of the family were Muslims. So you tagging her as a Christian will be seen as you making some kind of political statement, so I'd leave it be if I were you! (Oh the joy of politics!!!!) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Made a fool of myself
I'm sorry for the misunderstanding here; I didn't properly distinguish between what you said and what another editor said below. I think we're completely in agreement. No hard feelings I hope. MalleusFatuorum00:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am an editor who frequents the heavily disputed pages Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute. At the moment, I feel there are some compelling reasons for the two pages to be locked. Since our local friendly administrator User:Magog the Ogre is too busy to deal with a matter of this complexity (i.e. this will be a moderately long read), I would like to know if you are willing to assist on the issue.
Here's a short summary of the matter in my point of view:
Background: Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands are hotly disputed territories between China and Japan. Both Chinese and Japanese nationals are convinced of their respective sovereignty claims to it. Conflicts over this issue spoiled over to the Wikipedia page.
Editors: The current compositions of regular editors are:
Problem: Opinions between editors are basically divided along the cultural lines. All Japanese editors except for User:Qwyrxian have a history of skewing facts, adding false information, and preventing inaccurate details from being removed. Since they vastly outnumbered us and are very good at using Wikipedia policies to obstruct editorial processes they don't like, neither User:STSC nor myself had much luck to push any changes. And to be fair to ourselves, neither of us were fanatic Chinese nationals. All we really wanted was to keep the pages neutral and accurate.
Proposed Action: Lock the pages for a period of 6 months and permit changes to come through only with the approval of an admin.
Justification: Dispute resolutions have been attempted over the ages. We already know anything dealing with consensus will not work due to strong partisanships. Even after 6 months of participation, some of the most basic changes/corrections I requested are still not committed due to relentless filibustering by User:Oda Mari, User:Phoenix7777, and User:John Smith's. An example (in the summary linked below, search for Remin Ribao) would be some fraudulent claims based on mis-translations of a Chinese article where the errors were explicitly verified. Even now, two of the aforementioned editors still persisted in preserving the associated misinformation and inaccurate references and one of them even slapped me with a warning!
Among other things, some of the aforementioned editors also sporadically re-write sentences or paragraphs to remove information that contradict Japanese claims, delete references to Chinese names, and add misleading impressions that appear to strengthen a Japanese sovereignty.
Personally, I am getting very tired having to police these two pages. My contributions are definitely not getting through and I don't see any degree of constructive editing going on. Once even my interests fade, this page is basically left to the fantasies of these POV-pushers.
I know it is my word against their words and they can basically come in and claim the reverse. What'd help you decide is the more detailed summary I left in User:Magog the Ogre's talk page or here - and even that is a very concise summary of all the things happened. Since others tend to stalk my contributions, I am sure one or more of them will come and present their own versions of facts. This will also help you get a sense of what type of people I am dealing with in those pages.
Note: At this point in time, I don't feel obliged to notify others of this conversation, since I am not sure if you'd agree to help.
Sorry, been a bit busy over the weekend. I'm looking - I'll let you know if there's an approach I think might work. Qwyrxian I've got on OK with before, Tenmei I find terribly difficult to converse with in English (he seems to me to have learned his English from someone who used it only for logical or philosophical constructs) but we have communicated successfully. The others I don't know. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it is in Stikine Country yes. If not, no. I don't know if it is or it isn't
If you can find a reliable source in which Alyson Hannigan says that she is Jewish then yes. If not, no. This rule applies for all nationalities and religions, and all biographies of living people
If it meets the requirements of WP:BOOK yes. If not, no. If it is his most famous book but there is very little material, add it instead to the article (which I still haven't updated, sorry - been busy) and create a redirect for the name pointing to his article.
It’s hard for me to figure out how to use the WP Reference Desk website. If it’s not okay for me to ask you questions about an incident in a film, then why? (JohnnyCage5000 (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Message
It’s hard for me to figure out how to use the WP Reference Desk website. If it’s not okay for me to ask you questions about an incident in a film, then why? (JohnnyCage5000 (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
There's no point asking me personally, because I've never even heard of this film, let alone seen it. That's the first thing. The second thing is that the helpme template is for users who need help in editing Wikipedia, not for asking questions about the articles. The place to ask this kind of question is here Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment Just click the 'ask a question' button, and remember to keep checking back to see if someone has answered. It is no more difficult than editing an talkpage, and you have successfully managed to do that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I'd say is that it's from 1993 - 17 years ago - so you could only use it to source a statement like "at one time, Powers was a devotee of .....(whatever the book was)". The chances are that since then she's been through half a dozen changes of philosophy and is now a macrobiotic existentialist or something. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Girls
Elen, have you been following the New York Times on WP gender imbalance? There was the story the other day, and now there's a Room for Debate. Does it make you feel like some kind of anomaly in nature? It's starting to make me feel that way. I've never felt unwelcome in the WP community, or certainly not because of my gender. I'm finding this all rather perplexing. I mean, it isn't that I don't see biases arising from gender-determined interests. But I'm not getting why women feel they can't contribute. I mean, either you can support your contributions with good-quality, verifiable sources, or you can't. To me, the problems of interactions on talk pages and so on aren't about gender, but about different personality types. Not asking you for some kind of statement. I guess I'm just exclaiming out loud. There, I feel better now. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, there's currently a lot of discussion of this over on Jimbo's talk page, although some of it got a bit silly, some of it got a bit bad-tempered, and it may not cover the particular angle you're asking about. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would not be OK at all. If you look at the credit for the first image, it says "Getty images". This means it is a commercial photo, and those must never be used (look out also for "Associated Press", and "Press Association". You can't use those either). With the second image, the problem is that you don't know who took it. To upload something to Wikipedia, you need to be able to say "this is in the public domain" or "I took this picture and you are free to use it". You can't say either of those with that photo, because you don't know who took it.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question re:ArbCom on SAQ
Hi. I have some info for the arbitrators, but have no idea which section to put it in. The threads have become so long and convoluted that I just don't know the right place for this statement. It has do with the insertion of the "Standards of Evidence"[3] section in the SAQ article, which I believe, from a behavior point of view, was a deliberate act to prejudice the entire article and violate npov. The section states that only mainstream researchers use " title page attributions, government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office, and contemporary testimony from poets, historians, and those players and playwrights who worked with him, as well as modern stylometric studies." This is simply not the case. Anti-strats use each and every one of these in building their various cases. I can easily provide refs, but antiStrat researchers such as Diana Price, Ogburn, Anderson have all used title pages, gov't records and contemporary testimony. And I know of several stylometric studies that anti-strats have used to bolster their cases. How do I raise this issue at ArbCom and where? Thanks. I will probably copy this question to another arbitrator or two in hopes of finding some clarity. Smatprt (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult isn't it. The evidence page has turned into a mess, the workshop page has turned into a mess, half the content wants pulling out into the talkpages so its possible to see what's going on. Let me ask the question, as I do think you are raising an evidentiary point. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective, the link you are referring to is a classic example of a CONTENT dispute that we will not be ruling on. I strongly urge you to get your evidence into your own section on the evidence page as soon as possible. The case has been open for several weeks now and we do not anticipate delays. Under no circumstances should you submit this as "private" evidence via email; it must be visible to other participants, both parties and other interested observers. Hope this is helpful. Risker (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen has stated that she will ask the question so I am content to let her do that. Actually, my question had to with where to respond on the workshop page, as related to aspects of NPOV and behavioral issues which have already been raised there. I suppose these would be related to ownership and RS issues, but the workshop page has become incredibly difficult to follow, thus my question in the first place. In any case, rest assured I would never make this, or any other statements, via email in an attempt to keep these things "private". I believe that a fair an open hearing before the entire community is crucial at this point. Thanks for the response and the advice. I do appreciate all comments and offers of help. Smatprt (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked the question. it needs to go on the evidence page, not in the workshop - although if you feel it warrants a proposal in the workshop you could do that as well. Newyorkbrad says if you could do that before Wednesday and also include any evidence to do with your topic ban appeal, that would be great, as drafting will begin after that.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What a magnificent split that would have been. Revel in error! It would almost have made up for Spaeth's delightful translation of Imporcitor as "Maker of pigs" being, um... probably very, very wrong. Sometimes the truth is just a little bit dull. Haploidavey (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, nevermind, I see it's scheduled maintenance. A temporary apocalypse. I wish they'd post a notice at the top of one's watchlist, just so we knew. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elen, please pass this note on to others involved if you may
'Evening, Elen, I came by to say thank you for taking time out of your day to gallop in on a horse of reason (along with many others, I presume) to help clear things up. That sounds slightly odd in text form, but I mean it wholeheartedly.
I originally arrived at the doorstep of Chzz' user talk page with a warm pot of tea brewing; yet he kindly noted that "credit for fixing the problem lies elsewhere". Since naturally I am unaware of who all else helped to clear up this confusion, my hope is that you can let them know that I appreciate their time spent on this
I want to emphasize my continued commitment to being here for all the right reasons, and I say thanks for backing this up when assessing my past editing history. I find it of utmost importance (for both my own morals and the integrity of the Wikipedia project as a whole) to never allow any outside interests to supersede my priorities of advancing the aims of Wikipedia. If at any point now or in the future there is any way that I can be of assistance, please do let me know.
Hi Jeff, thanks for the thanks. Sorry it took a while to sort out, but I had to check a whole load of edits from different accounts. I'll pass your thanks back to the rest of the Arbitration committee. Glad it hasn't put you off, and look forward to your continuing contributions. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. She also posted the same questions at Helpdesk. I think helpdesk is possibly the most useful place for a lot of these queries, as I'm seldom able to answer them (I can answer #2 and #3 but not the others in this batch)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
what's the correct procedure?
Elen, an article I once had deleted under a similar name has reappeared as Arrow without a Head. This thing does not exist; it is a mistranslation of hasta pura ("arrow" is sagitta, hasta is spear) and seems to come, as do so many misconceptions about Rome, from Robert Graves, blast his vivid and mischievous imagination. (What Graves seems to have done is to translate hasta pura conceptually as equivalent to some Britishism,[4], in the way that he "translated" the Germanic framea as the Zulu assegai, long live the Empire.) To compound matters, Arrow without a Head duplicates word-for-word the article Hasta pura (military decoration). Now, if there were such a thing as Arrow without a Head, I would simply replace the contents with a redirect. But I want this damned thing exorcized, though evidently it's a case for the Winchester brothers. What to do? I'm not sure I have patience to prove once again that the moon is not made of green cheese. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that should have nailed its nuts to the floor. I have canned Arrow without a Head as a duplicate (he can recreate it as a redirect) and rewritten Hasta pura (military decoration) with some decent sources. I've added at the bottom that Graves refers to it in the Claudius novels, and calls it an arrow without a head. Since every single other source agrees that it's a spear, a spear it shall remain. I've also taken out the picture of Odin's lance - don't know what that was doing in there. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, Elen of the Roads. I just returned from a short vacation, and noticed that you read my unblock request and unblocked me - thank you! I appreciate your help. Just have one minor question I am hoping you can answer. On my talk page at User_talk:Nanorlb#Blocked you've accepted my unblock request, but on my userpage at User:Nanorlb it still shows that I am blocked. My best guess is that this is merely an inconsistency, or that it is outdated or somehow was missed. Would it be possible for you to restore my userpage to its former state, or is this something that I should/can do myself?
I checked it out when I saw it. This is old content that apparently wasn't picked up on the last run round. Her new additions are more limited, and she'd been way more careful about checking out what its OK to add. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail
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.
Gold Hat 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}}!
Hi Elen,
If you don't mind a long read, I would like some advice from you on this editor review. What I aim to get is some perspective on the relevant matter.
Hi - Per [5] you clearly meant to delete the same content from workshop page. I would simply do it myself, but given the circumstances I'd prefer someone else do it. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if it would be appropriate for you to drop a line to Malleus, indicating whether he is "allowed" (for lack of a better word, considering discretion in response has been requested) to weigh in on an RFC in the general matter?
No, I can't take credit for fixing it; there were obviously enough eyes on the discussion to get to it before I could! --Stephen03:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if this is a WP:COI. I've made a Wikiquette review of someone today, which I considered to be fair Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Screwball23. The filer User:Collect of the WQA didn't seem to like the fact that I applied scrutiny of both side and he kind of exploded. Then he stalked my contrib history and proceeded to go to User:Tenmei's RFC/U to make comments that obviously criticized my behaviour.
While he has the freedom of having whatever opinion he wants, there are obvious signs that he is just doing this for vendetta. Any suggestions?
Collapsed, because I failed to read some very relevant material before posting
padding
Elen, I'm aware of the maxim, attributed to Einstein:
For every problem there is a solution which is simple, obvious, and wrong.
I'm not going to let that deter me. If you had the lack of judgment to voluntarily become an arbitrator, I can exercise the lack of judgment to over-simplify a complex mess.
The use of Level II procedures, identified as temporary measures, but used in a way that appear to be de facto permanent.
An Arbcom decision based in no small part, on non public evidence.
With respect to the first concern, why not simply declare that the removal is for time certain (three or six months) and at the expiration, the bit will be returned.
At that time, either Rod will act appropriately, and we can all move on, or Rod will engage in activities that are inconsistent with admin status, and we can invoke a case at that time. (I'm well aware that I'm missing a third possibility, that the non-public material would persuade me that the option is untenable, but by definition, I am not privy to it.)
With respect to the second concern (which may be inextricably interwoven with the first) I have a suggestion, a bit process-heavy but one which may be useful in similar situations in the future. You are well-aware of the generic concern about star-chamber treatment. As someone who took the Arbcom elections seriously, and found a high correlation between my !votes, and the ultimate makeup of the committee, I'm not concerned specifically, but I am concerned generically, if that makes any sense.
I suggest that ArbCom identify a small number of editors (3–5), who will be entrusted to review the evidence, and promise not to distribute it, and collectively or individually answer two questions:
Is the material sufficient to support the ArbCom decision?
Is ArbCom correct that it would be best for the material to remain private?
If the answer to both questions is yes, then the ArbCom position stands. If the answer to either is "no" that doesn't mean the material becomes public, as the committee may not have the authority to make it public without Rod's consent, it means the decision is vacated.
Selection of the reviewers requires a bit of process, but I suggest that those who object to the private aspect could nominate people they trust (excluding themselves) and it would be relatively easy to identify trusted, non-ArbCom members who could ensure that the decision wasn't reached inappropriately. (If I remember right, you have toyed with an idea where some of the committee would hear a case, and the rest could be the appeals committee. I'm riffing on that idea, but assuming that this would be one-off group for this instance only, and outside ArbCom deliberately to avoid the obvious concerns.)--SPhilbrickT21:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had enough of this malarkey. There is no confidential material. There are no emails other than one from Roger Davies telling Rod that Arbcom are thinking of desysopping him and two from Rod explaining inf fairly forthright (but typical for him) language how pissed off he is. There is no submission from third parties. The only evidence is the onwiki evidence I've posted. The only reason for not making anything public was the absolute conviction of several members of Arbcom that this would be hugely detrimental to Rod. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm chagrined to note that I missed the present case. I read quite a fair amount of material, but thought Rod had been informed he could ask for a case, but had either declined affirmatively, or failed to accept. When I make reference to reading the onwiki material, I saw a link to the Ralegh affair. I had not seen the evidence page. I see that the case page existed before my post, so I have no excuse. My bad, sorry. With your permission, I'll collapse my comments, so they are less likely to mislead others. Revert my collapse if you so choose.
I realize that this is only your opinion, but this statement was really one of the big things I was hoping that the discussion would lead to. As far as whether Rod still deserves to retain administrator access...that's a separate issue. But I am glad he is at least being given the chance to defend himself. Hopefully the other Arbitrators come around to your point of view in time. Best, NW(Talk)18:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Hi Elen. Thank you for finding the time in your busy schedule to assist in the case of Xenos-Kokoletsis. Your help is appreciated. Take care. Dr.K.λogosπraxis21:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tiptoety, I'll do whatever the final discussion resolves (or you guys can do it, I have no issue with that). However, I don't believe you're going to be able to refactor Rod's evidence, or get him to do so, and it might indeed be better not to try.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have challenged your commentary at the above. Not withstanding the patronising tone your pitiful level of research is truly disturbing. As an arbitrator I would have expected more - as usual I am disapointed. If you cannot even be bothered to look at a candidates user page before commenting on their RFA you need to consider whether you are fit to work on ARBCOM. Pedro : Chat 21:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest Pedro, you would do better to mind your own business, as I don't think you're doing Strat any favours by badgering opposes. I am old enough that anyone under 40 can seem young - it says on my userpage that I am a 1500 year old Welsh saint. I presume you read that. Strat comes over as a young man, full of enthusiasm and making the mistakes of enthusiastic youth. If he's over 40, he should take that as a complement. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"you would do better to mind your own business........" so that's how arbitrators think is it? Fascinating. You are an utter disgrace. Pedro : Chat 22:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clueless as usual then. So far I haven't hounded any opposes - I've commented on one part of yours. Other than that I've supported, responded to a challenge to my support and indented an IP !vote. You still haven't answered my direct question as to why you didn't read the candidates nomination or their talk page. Let's play a scenario;
I suspect from reading your recent edits that English is not your first language as you seem to display an inability to converse in it. Would you perhaps consider putting your efforts into a wiki which is in your main language? No? What, English is you first language? Oh - sorry - yes it says so clearly on your user page. My mistake.
Look Elen, if I'd come to your talk with that you'd be rightly and properly offended. YOU have made the above type of error. I'd suggest you own up to it and stop digging the hole. Your talk page is highly visible and the more you try to defend the indefensible the more silly you look to be honest. Calm down, admit your mistake and consider your position on ARBCOM going forward. Pedro : Chat 22:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you post all of that? Crumbs, your formatting is even worse than mine. Erm, I didn't go to your talkpage and rant. In case you hadn't noticed, you came to mine, then you went to Rodhullandemu's and ranted there. Perhaps come back in the morning, when you're feeling fresher and try again? Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Elen - This response-edit conflicted with Pedro's goodnight meltdown and I decided not to post it on the RfA page because its best brought to an end over there. It's here because this is where he has decided to carry it a bit and I did want to bring up the point about the "facts". Sorry for hijacking your page like this - I'm not going into it any more but I did want to make the point below:
Pedro, those "easy to find facts" were easy enough even for me to find. There are facts on WP - referenced and cited as per policy - and there are claims. Userpage assertions only require proving in certain cases of academia. So the only "evidently" are the candidate's actions, decisions and communications. This does not mean to say he's lying (though plenty here have). What it does mean is that ultimately I have only conduct and demeanour to go on. How that measures up to personal claims when a candidate manifests behaviour than doesn't gel with them is an issue. But your bratty rant in response to Elen suggests I'd have no business bringing it up and that is unacceptable.
To Pedro if you're still here: I hope you manage a clue about what I'm taking about on this one. But as its this old lady's bedtime too and I like to settle down quietly with my library book, hot-water bottle, cat and cocoa (and have an 08.50 appt at the quacks with my arthritis - srsly), I'm not going to argue any further with you. Especially not when you are in this mood. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably better posted here - particularly as the candidate says Pedro's nothing to do with him. Goodness knows what brought that on - is he sensitive about his own age? I assumed the candidate was in his 20's - he doesn't come over as a bratty teenager, but he does come through as someone with the energy to rush through a load of things. Anyway, I think I'll join you in the book, cocoa and cat (I have a hubby who goes to bed before I do, so no need of hot water bottle) as it's 11.30 pm here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On balance, and after your suggestion of returning tomorrow, I've decied it's best this is dropped. Regretfully your flagrant misrepresentation of my commentary and unfounded accusations and assumptions remains ("your chum Pedro", etc). Luckily so does your flat refusal to answer a question and your disgusting outlook in telling me to "mind my own business" in a community driven conversation. I do not have your pages watchlisted, and hope to never have the misfortune to interact with you again. I can only imagine you find my attitude as odious as I find yours. Pedro : Chat 19:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A bit late, but better late then never, Just having read the RFA after the candidate was brought up somewhere, I have to agree that the attitude of "am I talking to you?" in RFA is disgusting and well worthy of being spat on especially when coming from an arbitrator. Not to mention the condescending manner that such crap was delivered in and the patronising ageist remarks that were as blatant as the smell of vomit. On a side note, did you know that in the judiciary, judges have a maximum age that they can serve to and that judging by your comments regarding age if you were in such a position you'd seem to be coming up to if not well past your 'expiry date'? In any case saving that diff for the next Arbcom election for sure should you contest it. "Y'all have a nice day now." *insert witch cackle here* «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk)15:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am humbled by seeing these conversations. Just seeing that time, energy, and thought are vested to serve an end which involves my interest. Because it involves moving forward, I would like to include some perspective here as well. Most importantly, I think Pedro took offense that you would be willing to add weight to an important discussion, without demonstrating any requisite preparation; Let alone any indication of diligence which would be even better. The focus was drawn to maturity, when the comment was intended to rebuke the notion of delivering such a staunch declaration upon no basis of clue.
Sure, it is easy to enter the discussion, have a look at emerging consensus, pick up the gist of other observations, and pass them off as your own. The deeper meaning was to say: Even if you use the toss of a coin to decide, you should do so with sufficient indication that your opinion is based on your ability to glean. Certainly had you stated "Strat, I don't know a thing about you, but I did flip a coin which landed me here", The level of appropriateness would be easier to determine. To my subsequent observations, I have seen where some apparently must append support under a similar criteria. I think it reflects an image contrary to reasonable expectations regardless of which header it falls under. At minimum, a level of diligence should be reflected in your comment, and the reflection should indicate you arrived at your opinion upon some diligence. And I was moved that a person would defend this cause on my behalf.
Because the issue did give cause for introspect. You should further consider that when you posted this comment to my talk page: "I've seen several RfA's sunk by the candidate's supporters harassing every oppose, and your chum Pedro isn't doing you any favours at the moment (if indeed he's doing it on your behalf, and not just on his own)", I immediately believed you were insinuating I was involved with spurring the discussion through meatpupptry, sockpupptery, or whatever other concern motivated you to state this. Of certainty I had no involvement other than being part of the quasi topic at hand. To issue the qualifier insinuates you approached the matter with reduced assumptions. There should be no example available for reference where integrity is so ambiguous that such a qualification was necessary.
And just for the value of the aside, You misrepresented my intentions by showing the definition for ejaculation, when the discussion was whether or not it would violate username policy. By instead drawing attention to maturity, you avoided an answer I never did acquire. And lastly that I did mention I was writing an important comment at the time, and asked if you would remember to have a look when I was done. I truly believe you did not have the look you indicated you would. This would further devalue a candidate as being not worth much consideration. There are better ways to conduct forward. Everyone should see there own opportunities to improve when circumstances present them for inspection. The better thing occurs when defensive tendencies are replaced with an openness to criticism. A receptive attitude maintains a civil discussion and achieves better things. Defensive tendencies serve to fortify barriers, and lead to much less positive outcomes. So I did want to say these things, and I have respect for everyone who participated, I have more respect for ones who have demonstrated their own capacity in the important areas where they were so kind as to criticize me (or any other). My76Strat (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please pardon that I was moved to include the above comment opposed to keeping the sentiments to myself. They could easily appear rather arrogant, and that is not what I intended. Kindly excuse my misguided zeal. My76Strat (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. Is the article I've created about little know actress Alexandra_Powers a stub anymore?
2. Is is OK to write a summary about a short novel called More Than Weird by little known author Martyn_Godfrey?
3. Could someone edit the Martyn_Godfrey article?
4. I think Star Trek actor Max_Grodénchik might be of Russian-Jewish descent. Should I add that in his article?
5. I have a clue about Sailor_moon character's Sailor_Pluto and Chibiusa age in the manga. Sailor_Pluto drink wine in the manga
hers's proof: http://www.minimanga.com/~eminblack/sailormoonsnipits/images/pluto/setsu.jpg and the drinking age in Japan is 20. So Setsuna in the manga is at least 20. Chibiusa goes through several different designs in the manga as she grows up, but she's almost always wearing some school uniform or another. She's also unusually short for her age, a point that you notice when she hangs around with anyone from her class. When Chibiusa first shows up she's in fourth grade at Juuban Elementary. During the Death Buster's arc she's elected class president of the fifth grade, and at the beginning of the Galaxia arc she and Hotaru are both in sixth grade (classes 1 and 3, respectively). I got that info from this webpage: http://www.chibimoon.net/mangaforms.html Is it a good idea to add that info on Chibiusa and Sailor_Pluto page? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2011 (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.
I am learning the standards and procedures at Wikipedia, and many editors and admins have been very helpful. But two have been very destructive, and have undone my work without showing any respect at all. They did not bother to post an advance note to me, or to ask me what I was doing. Now they are acting in a manner that is pure malice and out of control. SchuminWeb is now attacking everything that I do, and without cause.
For example, I created a new Wiki for Camp ASCCA, which was modeled after the other summer camp articles that I have created or upgraded, like Belvoir Terrace Summer Camp, Camp Lohikan, Maine Teen Camp, Camp Farwell 4 Girls. I follow a standard format that you will see in all of my future articles, and that obviously meet the Wiki fuzzy guidelines. SchuminWeb vandalized my article for Camp ASCCA, and this has to stop. If Wikipedia as an organization does not like my standard article format, then I would expect the admins to eliminate all similar articles that do not meet their standard.
The articles that I create are actually stubs, and I will be pushing the summer camps very hard to improve their articles with more history and off-season use. So all that I am asking is for some patience, tolerance and respect from SchuminWeb. If you are unable to stop SchuminWeb please let me know immediately. I have thousands of Wikis to write, and I will not have my work vandalized. I love constructive criticism, and I thank each person for helping me. Please advise. Summer Vacation (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The work you are doing to improve and expand these articles is beneficial, and Wikipedia needs enthusiastic editors, but I can see no evidence of vandalism, and I would point out that accusing a non-vandal editor of vandalism may be considered a personal attack. I recommend that you read WP:VANDAL. Articles (not "wikis" - a wiki is the entire project, not one article) may not contain external links which breach our external links guidelines, articles - as I see from your userpage you are aware - may not read like adverts, and your articles on summer camps seem to be somewhat borderline for this. Also, none of them seem to contain references - verifiability is one of the pillars of Wikipedia - and I am not convinced that all of your camps are notable (something your userpage suggests you are also aware of. I recommend reading about the pillars of Wikipedia, and opening a discussion on the article talkpage, rather than flinging accusations of vandalism around.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt at all that Summer Vacation is acting in good faith. I am, however, starting to see a few WP:OWN issues cropping up with Summer Vacation, and I find that troubling as this is a collaborative project, along with some civility issues, as you have noted. Summer Vacation is learning the ropes, slowly but surely, but it has not been an easy process. See earlier discussions at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Waterparks. and at User talk:Summer Vacation (look in the history for the latter). I think that once Summer Vacation figures out what he or she is doing and how the site functions, we'll have a really good editor on our team. But between then and now is going to be hell, I'm afraid... SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Communication and compromise are the way to go I feel. It's nice to have the enthusiasm, but there's a need to recognise this is a collaborative project. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MHP Article Ownership And Glkanter'sTendentious Editing
I hope the Arbitration Committee will give appropriate consideration to the proposed 'ownership' finding of fact when considering the proposed remedies against me. The RfC filed against me, every edit warring complaint filed against , and this arbitration filed against me, where I am accused of:
"Although more than one of the involved editors have exhibited problematic behaviors, one editor in particular exhibits nearly all the classic signs of disruptive editing and has essentially singlehandedly prevented any progress from being made. This user is a self-admitted SPA [2], subject of a previous RFC, with a history of:"
...all were filed by the editor whom the ownership violation has been proposed against. It would seem, at a minimum, a good faith violation should accompany that, and that my failure to assume good faith was, in fact, prompted by the offending editor. It would seem unbalanced if my proposed tendentious editing received a greater remedy that the editor who made it necessary receives. It would seem that editor must also have been tendentious editing, in addition to the ownership (and good faith) violations.
Yes, that has been a consistent refrain, that I either don't understand someone else, or I don't make myself clear. I'll try a little harder:
Without the ownership violation, Glkanter and the other editors would have made good faith edits to the article without reverts
Glkanter would not have had any motivation to edit tendentiously, etc.
Without Glkanter's refusal to back down to Rick Block, the MHP ownership violation would never have come before the arb committee
Rick Block accused me of '...singlehandedly...' when filing the arb request, when it was he who was obviously responsible all along
That's a lack of good faith, it's harassment, really
Rick Block is an admin. He should conduct himself, and be held to a higher standard than an editor. He obviously has not done so.
Therefore, it would be perverse if my remedy for doing nothing wrong (by choice), really, exceed Rick Block's remedy, when he was intentionally violating ownership, and good faith, for *years*. Even when these were called to his attention repeatedly by many editors.
It has probably been hard to edit around Rick's caretaking habits, but in my personal opinion (which is why it is in the proposed remedy), it is impossible to conduct any form of dialogue with you. Taking the example above, you persist in referring to yourself in the third person, you refuse to use diffs, you write reams of disconnected stuff, you repeat yourself all the time, and it's impossible to pick out which bit is the actual point. You mean well, I'm sure you do, but your communication style is impossible for people to deal with. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops
Hi Elen! I just noticed that that the "missing" pasted link ("hmmm, that's funny. I thought I pasted the link already ...") ended up in your text. Thanks for correcting my error. My apologies, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 00:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I now agree that Phil's text seems to move in the wrong direction.
I give an example on my talk page, where following the source closely requires a lot of exposition of distracting concepts (which are used in the abstract and elegant approach of Ekeland, which takes one line), when a standard simplification lets the article get to the point quickly. (I could cite a source for "sequential convergence" but a fanatic could accuse me of OR by synthesis.) I confess that I know of no secondary source for explaining Ekeland's proof, but what I have written is obvious to anybody knowledgeable in the area.
I put a notice about the decision on the WikiProject Mathematics talk page, right below an even more biased notice about another aspect of the arbitration. I believe that administrators and much more experienced article-editors like Geometry Guy (the cavalry just arrived!), David Eppstein, or Charles Matthews are better equipped to suggest suitable language, if they believe a problem exists. (My early warning system goes off prematurely, at times.)
Further confessions: My editing error was especially stupid since I consciously violated the ban on civilian editing of that page. I thought, what could be the harm in linking to Phil's page? Thanks again for your kind response.
My gut feeling is that if its a standard simplification it ought to be in a textbook somewhere, and if it isn't, it's OR. There's only so far that glossing is acceptable without a source. If the chap has written something so fiercely elegant that no-one has yet written a gloss for it, then it will have to stand as is until they do. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Navy decline and Star Route Postal Contracts
Hello Elen of the Roads.
Another editor and myself are discussing Star Route postal contracts and naval decline in the President Hayes article talk page. The above is a link to this discussion. If you have time, can you please give input into the discussion. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That you would submit my 'Conventional Wisdom' section that I posted 4 times over 2 years as proof of "tendentious editing" is the height of irony. I posted it the first time, back in February, 2009, precisely because I knew I would end up having to ruffle feathers in order to challenge Rick Block's ownership of the MHP article. I was a newby at Wikipedia, I didn't,and still don't know all the protocols. And I'm not a recognized expert in any field. So I had the foresight to make up my own 'business card', so that when I encountered a new, perhaps interested and sympathetic editor (usually on a new talk page), I could concisely explain why I make the accusations I make, demonstrate that I am a thoughtful and concerned editor, and that I wasn't just responding to some perceived slight.
Sanctioning me more than Rick Block, whose ownership of the article is what really has *singlehandedly prevented progress* is illogical, depressingly ironic, and sends an awful message. After all, Rick filed the request for arbitration of me, simply for standing up to him and his ownership violations. No other reasons.
A sanction of 1 revert per day, is, on most days, no sanction at all. And even then, it likely relies on the actions of an opposing, 'warring' editor. Essentially, no editing restrictions or behaviour modification has been included in the remedy for the admin/editor whom you believe has improperly taken ownership of the article. That's irony, too.
I rarely edited the article. In fact, that was a "charge" Rick Block made against me in the RfC he filed on me at the end of 2009. Then, in the summer of 2010, when I did finally edit the article (the diffs you included), I always got reverted by the article's owners. For you to include my good faith edits that were reverted by the article owners, to indicate my lack of discipline, or good faith, or whatever, is great irony.
On the talk pages, I rarely interrupted, or got very involved in, the discussions of other editors. For various good reasons. Instead, I would start new sections. To say that I somehow prevented other editors from expressing themselves fully on the talk pages is unsupportable. Nor was I charged with that by Rick Block.
Posted by Glkanter (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, all along, I was editing in opposition to an admin/editor who claimed ownership of the article, and another editor who you charge with tendentious editing. But no finding of an absence of good faith editing from either of them? Really, Rick Block can improperly claim ownership of an article, edit tendentiously, and revert reasonable edits to the article in support of his ownership, and still be editing in good faith? And Nijdam can dismiss as *unworthy to engage in discussions with* whichever other editors he chooses to, as he described in this arbitration, ignore entirely the reliable sources, and substitute his own OR when making edits or reverting others, and there's no finding of an absence of good faith editing?
And while recognizing the risk of being perceived as editing tendentiously this morning, I feel the need to point out that "article ownership" and "good faith editing to build a consensus among editors" are mutually exclusive. And that is the exact situation I, and a host of other good faith editors, very frustratingly faced every single day when attempting to discuss the MHP with Rick Block (and Nijdam) for over 5 undisciplined years. Glkanter (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glkanter, the problem is precisely "On the talk pages, I rarely interrupted, or got very involved in, the discussions of other editors. .... Instead, I would start new sections" and "make up my own 'business card', so that when I encountered a new, perhaps interested and sympathetic editor (usually on a new talk page), I could concisely explain why I make the accusations I make". You post walls of monologue, instead of engaging in a discussion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, even though I wasn't disruptive, I was perhaps, "too long winded"? And a one year topic ban is the remedy for this non-existent offense? You should have tried walking a mile in my shoes. Have a discussion with 2 editors not exhibiting good faith? I didn't prevent anyone else from posting, as you charge. What about all my other points about Rick Block's violations and remedies relative to my own?
This arb committee seems very interested in some point about math OR. Funny, Rick Block charged me with that exact violation, as Glkanter cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability (the 2nd large check mark), and I respond here, in my evidence section. That image was improperly reverted many times for being OR (or lacking "consensus" from the article's illegitimate owners), as per the ownership violators.
Nor do you all seem to care much about Nijdam's actual practices of relying exclusively on OR, when making edits or reverting other editor's edits to the MHP article. Glkanter (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you were tendentious and disruptive, posting lengthy monologues that rendered talkpages useless, and making frequent personal attacks. The point you are seeking to make about maths passes me by entirely. Where is there a version of that diagram in one of the sources. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are unwilling to give my concerns and defense a fair shake, or to even consider that I have acted in good faith to the best of my ability in a difficult situation caused by ownership violations, absence of good faith, etc. I will not disrupt your talk page further. Glkanter (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you say that you are acting in good faith, then I will agree good faith, but the sentiments within WP:COMPETENCE are still relevant. It is entirely possible to act in what one perceives as good faith, and be disruptive at the same time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, WP:COMPETENCE starts out with "assume good faith". Which I did, for a long time. It didn't exist, did it? So you call me "Disruptive" when I was confronted with, and trying to work around, ownership, absence of good faith, gamesmanship, Wikilawyering, harassment, etc? And trying to draw attention to this problem? Seriously, that doesn't make any sense. Nor do your proposed remedies. How can you find "ownership", and *not* find a "good faith" violation? And then sanction me for my response to that lack of good faith?
If there's still a problem it can be reprotected - I'll do it myself if you like - but two other independent observers concluded that the merge should not have happened.
Personal attacks
Any chance you might do something about this [7]? I noticed you deleted essentially the same kind of thing from the decision talk page (thanks for that). BTW - the decision says nothing about the personal attacks (still) on his talk page. I'd be willing to bet an arbitrarily large amount of money (at 2-1 odds!) that this will continue unless he's forcibly stopped. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Rick Block, my postings that were deleted from the arbitration decision talk page referred only to the current maths question vis a vis OR. That has *nothing* to do with the diff you referenced from my own talk page, which regards the 'thanks' I get for *finally* succeeding in bringing your MHP article & talk page WP:OWNERSHIP, and obviously other, violations to light. Glkanter (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if I can get one of the clerks to block him for 24hrs. I'm not sure what the form is for the drafting Arb to start handing out blocks. I'll also look at whether something else is needed in the remedy. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There have been quite a number of discussions about moves against consensus, at which the community opinion was generally that they should be reverted as soon as possible. That is the only reason I released it. Your view may vary, and in any case, your action in move protecting the page was undoubtedly the right one at the time. At your suggestion I have reprotected now they have done the move, as I share your concerns that it will just start up again otherwise. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That action has little effect. They're debating whether to keep the article at its current location or change it to a redirect, which doesn't require the move function to carry out. With the article in the accidents location, edit-protecting the article would be crippling an article where information is constantly changing. Hence, why I didn't do it. But edit-protecting the redirect, as I did, halts the redirect-war. So, I see two acceptable options at this juncture: fully-protecting the article at the redirect or blocking editors who continue to restore a redirect. But, move-protecting the article -- while I agree with it to prevent move vandalism and move-warring -- won't do anything for the redirect-war. -- tariqabjotu18:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Elen of the Roads, was glad to discover the method of asking others to leave Talkback notices on one's own and their own pages, and have just copied the code for your notice from the top of your Discussion page to my own.
Now, a query asking for your help on using 'holdon' is a general question, please, and not really related to any previous post of yours, so I'm not trying out the new Talkback notice here.
I've read that holdon in curly brackets is used when an article is considered for deletion, and I believe I've seen it in the copy of some (content) articles, but I may be unsure of some of its nuances in practice. Wonder if you could help me as I'm wondering
(1) If there's no actual consideration of deletion or notice to that effect in the body of an article, what happens if the holdon is put in the top of the article?
(2) Should holdon never be put in if there's no active motion to consider deletion?
(3) What are other ways of indicating that an article is still in its initial phase of expansion after original initiation, and one or more editors expect to add more material in some sort of short timeframe? What in your opnion are 'best practices' in this regard? If on the article's Discussion page, are there templated notices we can use?
(4) Should holdon only be used in cases of consideration of an article for 'speedy deletion' and not other kinds of deletion? Are there corresponding templated notices for uses in the case of other kinds of deletion?
Elen, it's not exactly true that " Putting hangon tags on an article without the speedy tag has no consequence." Adding such a notice lists the page on CAT:AFD, & I've known them to actually end up deleted--either by calling it to notice, or by inadvertence. It's deliberate, so that if a user removes the speedy tag when they add the hangon, a very common error, it doesn't prevent the speedy DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you found the code helpful. I'm sure I probably borrowed it from someone when I first started - it's the accepted way :) As to {{hangon}} - that's only used on speedy deletion. The creator (first editor) of an article can't remove a speedy delete tag (any other editor can if they disagree with it), but they can ask the admins to hang on for a few hours. Putting hangon tags on an article without the speedy tag has no consequence.
Wikipedia has two other methods by which articles may be proposed for deletion. WP:PROD is for uncontroversial deletions - usually abandoned, half finished articles that were never notable anyway. A PROD tag should say what is wrong with the article, and the article will stay on a list for 7 days. Anyone can remove a PROD tag if they have fixed the article up. If no-one removes the tag, and the reviewing admin agrees with it, the article will be deleted after the seven days. WP:AFD you've obviously met - an article is listed here so a deletion discussion can take place. No-one but the admin closing the discussion should remove the AFD template.
With regard to showing that an article is being edited, there is an {{underconstruction}} tag which can be used, which may be helpful - helps to avoid edit conflicts too. With an article though, you have to hit the ground running, and immediately establish that this is a topic likely to generate sufficient references to be worthy of an article. Rather than writing straight into article space, many editors prefer either to use the Article Wizard, which gives you a template and publishes your text all at once, rather than edit by edit. If that doesn't suit, it is possible to create a subpage in your userspace, often referred to as a sandbox, in which to create an article. When the text is sufficiently developed not to suffer a speedy delete tag, you move the article out into mainspace, tidy it up, add categories etc, and Bob's your uncle.
I've also learned something else new by seeing part of how you inserted the code for {{underconstruction}} into your message just now; I imagine that using double curly brackets sometimes triggers other things than a text mention of a code piece.
I've already created one general sandbox for myself.
Subpages of subpages, probably separated by slashes, including subpages of sandboxes can also be created for work too, right? Vulnerable only to anyone who actually finds that page and ends up changing what you've left on it, so backup of its content is important?
Your overview here is great, and flows me nicely through the options. Do the official Wikipedia guides to this topic have as nice prose, or might you perhaps contribute what you've just written to them? Pandelver: Chat
I am not yet sure my new signature, learned by combining the styles coded by several people I also found on your page -- you are quite bountiful for me today -- includes timestamp, or I don't know how to do that, so I'm adding the standard
Sorry Elen, one more bother from using {{Usertalkback}}. It's fine when I put that code on the top of my talk page just like you do on yours. But if I use it in the middle of posting a message to someone else's talk page to request they let me know if they answer me on theirs, whenever they do, later, the "Please click here to leave me a new message." in it points to THEIR talk page, not mine. Is there a templated code insertion so I can ask others, on their talk pages, to post a notice on mine when they answer me on theirs? Pandelver: Discussion Pandelver (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIG contains all you need to know about signatures. If you add your custom signature code into the appropriate section on your Preferences page, and then sign using the usual four tildes ~~~~, the mediawiki software automatically adds a timestamp.
Adding tl| in front of the name of a template turns it into a link to the template page. If you miss that out, it transcludes the template onto your page. Not so helpful. With subpages, you can add sub-subpages if you like - it's the same format as folder addresses. Adding {{NOINDEX}} to the page will stop it being included by search engines, but there's no need for backups - the history tab (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AElen_of_the_Roads&action=history ) shows every change made to the page. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Usertalkback is only intended to be used at the top of your userpage - it uses the {{BASEPAGENAME}} function to pick up the address of whatever page it's placed on. To produce a different effect, you would have to create a template of your own. More simply, you could add something into your signature like
If I leave you a message, please respond here and let me know on my talk page using {{Talkback}}.
Can't see any evidence this account is compromised. It was compromised in 2008 (guy probably let his roommate edit), but was unblocked when he evidenced himself. His first two edits this time were to take out the ref to his old Deviant Art account, which doesn't appear to be live any more. As to creating the hoax, according to his userpage he's a 19 year old student, so I'm not seeing this as wildly unlikely. (hey, you know I used to edit Wikipedia articles about footie teams. Wonder how long it'd take them to notice a hoax....)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the only concern I have here is that the trolling comments on the AfD seem to be uncharacteristic and the account has been dormant a long time. Since he's previously had issues securing his password, it might not be a great stretch to imagine the issue repeating itself. And I'm still at a loss as to why jmorrison is reverting this guys edits to his own user page as vandalism.--Crossmr (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible - worth keeping an eye on at any rate. As I said at ANI, I'll cheerfully block on next disruptive edit. I have reverted jmorrison - no idea what he thinks he is doing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That in itself is weird. He's edited, but refuses to answer the question apparently. It's never appealing when someone makes a questionable edit and then won't answer questions about it.--Crossmr (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
edit protected request
Hi Elen , would you have a look at this request of mine - as it is just a simple (but quite important) update I don't think there is much reason to wait for an extended time to see if there is consensus. As a note, I am not asking you especially , just on viewing my edit watchlist you were active recently. Off2riorob (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question/Alvez3
Was your post here directed at me or Mindbunny? (If it was me, I'm a bit surprised - I was directly answering a post he made at my Talk page). Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He raised a concern elsewhere, which was what led to the thread on ANI about whether the chap who started all this was in fact a sock. The 'reddit brigade' have an issue with Koch industries I gather, and the original chappie was editing that article. Let me know if anything drifts by that needs admin attention. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the previous edits, I'm concerned about a) this (which I reverted), and b) that the info I removed on NMS which I'd removed [11] has been re-added by another IP [12].
Hey, Elen of the Roads. Can you please clarify on the current situation regarding this editor? I can't really make out what's going on in turns of sanctions. Gold Hat's recently been disruptively editing, then they come around in their Jack Merridew account and declare that they're going to scuttle the Gold Hat account. I was totally unaware of the situation surrounding this so I thought you could fill me in. I don't know whether you're following the user or not. SwarmX11:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The situation is not completely clear. He was going to abandon the Jack Merridew account on all projects, which was why a recent request to have the multiple account restriction lifted was stopped without reaching a conclusion. Really, that needs to restart regardless of what he says he's going to do. In the meantime, there is an unsatisfactory (to all including him) tacit consent for the Gold Hat account, provided he is not editing disruptively (and I mean really disruptively, not just someone doesn't like his signature or his quips). If you have recent evidence that he is actually being disruptive, particularly if he is using two accounts to be disruptive with, then could you let me know. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was pointy disruption, they were either trolling or just pissed off at me and edit warring on talk pages. Nothing major in need of action, as they've stopped. I just thought it strange that they're openly socking like that. SwarmX12:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you attention. On another note, it appears I'm mistaken: the pointy editing hasn't stopped. I did ask them to change their sig, but apparently they followed my edits to User talk:My76Strat. Users are petitioning Strat to return to Wikipedia, and they left some totally off topic comments there. Multiple users have removed the comments, but they're edit warring over the removals (it's all visible on Strat's talk history). It's not wiki-shattering disruption, but it's not ending. I honestly can't tell if they're trying to get a point across or if they're flat out trolling. I'll take this to ANI if you prefer, but I figured I'd let you know what's going on. SwarmX12:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Just to clarify, no action on your part is requested or necessary. It's being handled in the appropriate forums. Regards, SwarmX13:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, I have very very strong doubts that this block was necessary or productive or in any way a constructive way forward, at this point in time. This all was quite stable. However, if you think that it wasn't, I strongly suggest that you are fair about this. User:Chzz has made 12345 reverts on that page. User:Swarm has made 1234. It takes more than one to edit war. You blocked for edit warring, thus you must believe that it's still ongoing and a block was necessary to prevent further disruption, or that the bright-line offense should be punished. Either way, you should block all participants of this. Amalthea13:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. That works. I just meant you didn't have to bother with it because it was reported to ANEW. However, thank you for doing so anyway. SwarmX13:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've unblocked on the basis of Amalthea saying he had knocked it off, otherwise, she is quite right Chzz and Swarm - you guys were edit warring too, and I would have to block the lot of you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - you're one of a couple of folks I think I always get it wrong with. Try and persuade the guy to pick his battles better if you can - I have considerable sympathy with his undlerlying issue, but these lame fights really don't help. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? The surrounding circumstances don't make a difference? Not even a little bit? The Wikistalking, the trolling, the fact that me and Chzz both admitted that we went over the top? The fact we stopped reverting despite Gold's continued trolling? There is no reason I should have any association with Gold Hat. It's a shame that 3RR is a brightline for common sense, as well. I'm sure it was just a coincidence that, despite me never seeing Gold Hat in my life, they were inserting totally unrelated comments on the page I happened to be active on. No bad faith there at all. Good luck playing nice, Amalthea. I hope and expect never to associate with Gold or Jack again. I fully trust you two to deal with them from here. I'll be leaving indefinitely (for reasons unrelated to this), so best regards to you both. SwarmX14:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking close at how all of this started I agree that Gold Hat was clearly being provocative. If I had noticed that earlier I may not have lobbied for an unblock, even though I'm convinced that a block to prevent edit warring was no longer necessary. Please do notify me immediately if that doesn't stop. Amalthea14:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've also replied on my talkpage, but just in case you're watching this, I appreciate this and totally understand. I'll certainly let you know if need be. Regards, SwarmX15:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to this whole lame issue at User talk:Gold Hat. I appreciate the sensitive way you've handled this, Elen, but both Swarm and Chzz are a long way from being blameless for the mess. Swarm is going to have to recognise that throwing about accusations of trolling when that is very disputable, is not the behaviour expected from a mature, experienced editor. Their behaviour is understandable, even forgiveable, as they are trying to protect their efforts to console My76Strat. That is indeed commendable – but both need to accept that Jack is understandably pretty upset at present as well. His shot at Jimbo on My76Strat's talk page was ill-advised in the context, but both sides should have let go sooner. It really is unbecoming to repeatedly harangue the blocking admin in the way that Swarm has here, when only 50% of the story is being presented. Best regards, Elen, and thanks for all your efforts on Jack's behalf. It is actually part of improving the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS is quite right; I made mistakes, and I do apologize.
I would say that Gold Hat made some trollish/tendentious edits, such as [13][14][15], very odd edits on my own talk [16], and this 'sock' confusion - saying "I'm the sock" [17] and ""I should scuttle this account too" [18].
Of the 5 reverts I did - noted above - 3 were re the "Arb is borked", and 2 were re the socking. At the time, due to a misunderstanding, I considered the 'socking' ones to be vandalism (hence not 3RR). However, I realised later that was wrong. I fully accept that I violated 3RR, which is why I wanted to apologise here.
Yes, I was stressed because of the nature of the page (ie a friend, and good editor, retiring after a heated RfA). I was also stressed due to off-wiki real-life concerns (friends in Sendai, Japan, who I can't contact). But those, whilst being mitigating circumstances, are not valid excuses. I misjudged, and I apologize; I should have stepped back sooner than I did. Sorry. Chzz ► 05:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ Elen: In this diff, Gold Hat objects to the term "stalker" being applied to himself. He made a similar remark on my talk page, when I called him a "friendly talk page stalker". @Chzz, so far I do not see an apology on Gold Hat's talk page. Perhaps you could do this? Thanks. --Diannaa(Talk)15:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for those kind words, Chzz. I understand and empathise with your perspective completely. I have always though of you as one of the most helpful and caring editors on wikipedia, and you haven't disappointed me. Respect. --RexxS (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have some sympathy with him over Neutralhomer, who can come across a little obsessive, but Mbz1 is right and he is wrong about reverts. Looks like Gwen Gale has put him straight, so I expect he's on her watchlist as well.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Finding his IP blocked, he just logged in and started re-adding the spam with his account[19]. Perhaps it's time for an indef on the account since he's clearly not getting it and 6 months on the IP to really drive the point home. Also a secondary address perhaps a home or work (opposite whatever he uses) was also used to spam up his article.[20].--Crossmr (talk) 12:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten these articles semi-pp for about 3 months, hopefully that will be the end of it unless he starts creating more accounts.-Crossmr (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good - sorry I blocked the last IP you reported, but didn't get to semi-ing the articles. Give me a shout if he tries creating another account. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aron Tobey deletion page
In the past ten minutes, while trying to reply to a response to my comment by Pandelver, I encountered four edit conflicts caused by four consecutive Pandelver edits (I think). I believe that user's use of my signatures in the body of his/her comments are misleading. Moreover, I cannot actually make any sense of the text Pandelver put there, forcing me to conclude that it may be gibberish, perhaps autogenerated with a few keywords in a web app that does that sort of thing.
I am concerned that this might be deliberate vandalism. Can you assist by taking a look and offering an opinion, please.
Peterstrempel, is this a live comment now while I'm also on Wikipedia for a moment? Sorry, not autogenerated gibberish or vandalism, we may have different dictions. I usually speak directly to people by name as a courtesy, verbally as well. So much respect, sir.
(edit conflict × with Pandelver) :I think he's just got a strange way of speaking - there's a few editors recently who all speak in a way that looks really weird to mainstream westerners: we seem to be going through a phase of it. I have told him to remove all the copypasta's of your sig and not to do that again, and not to refactor other people's posts. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at Pandelver's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I count, among other things, as a Westerner, and partly mainstream, but not only so. ;) Human lingo is converging, and also multifurcating in our century! Depending on what you read, you may find whole fields in which lingo similar to some I use in some places (not pretending we're all one speech nor even persona as has been increasingly pointed out about online posts in different venues) is regularly used. But yes, that's just currently, not necessarily the variations read and conveyed even 3 years from now. - Pandelver (talk) 12:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I think it's that you formulate sentences a bit like another user I know who is Japanese. You're a great deal less argumentative than him though. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, can something like "leave me a message here" notices be formatted to automatically include a talkback { }
for the convenience of the message-leaver, so when s/he posts you a notice on your Discussion page that they have left you a message on her/his Disucssion page, the curly bracket-talkback-their name gets automatically insert, or the cursor is at the point for them typing in their user name?
would be like the "Please click here to leave me a new message" but would probably be titled something like "Please click here to let me know you've left me a message on your Discussion page."
Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at Pandelver's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Time to be off for perhaps a few days, other projects call. Hope you had a chance to see, wherever you live, tonight's "supermoon," the "biggest and most beautifull" as NASA is calling it, in 20 years, and TIME recommends you catch too. Whenever it is you rest and enjoy life outside Wikipedia, have a wonderful week, Elen! - Pandelver (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've run off the edge of my technical ability, try WP:HELPDESK or WP:VP/technical, for that first question.
The last time I nominated an article for deletion (Kapi), you showed up and cited some of the same books I have, and someone else mentioned that you are an Egyptologist. Now I have nominated another article, Family tree of the Egyptian gods, for deletion, based on my well-informed amateur understanding of Egyptian religion. Clearly you're more qualified than I am to judge the subject, so I would like to see whether you agree with my conclusion or think that the article can be salvaged. A. Parrot (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to have retracted, or at least clarified the lack of, a legal threat. Which for me leaves the threat of harassment as the outstanding issue. I've told Tony that I'd personally be willing to unblock if he retracts those harassment threats & tries to settle the matter with Sven. How do you feel about that? --Errant(chat!)11:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you think best really. I would think it preferable if he settled it offwiki, and stayed out of the FS project while it was settled, so if you can arrange something along those lines. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth waiting for John Vandenberg to finish his mediation attempt, and the offwiki business to conclude before unblocking, but as you think best. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you are totally right. If John is willing to take that step he is much better placed than me to judge what to do :) --Errant(chat!)12:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The mediation wont be happening onwiki and will probably take a few days. Tony has removed the relevant sections from his talk page, and I am sure that Tony wont be seeking to escalate anything onwiki.
Yes, as long as he removes the relevant sections everywhere (there's stuff of User talk:Sven_Manguard that is about the 'breach of confidentiality', and that I suspect both of them need to remove) and as long as he agrees to stay out of FSC until this is resolved, as FSC seem very unhappy happy about it and have asked him to stay clear. I think when he has finished with you, he is going to have to do some serious bridge building with them. If he agrees, then no problems if you or Errant or whoever unblocks him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will be better if the text on Sven's talk page is left until I can talk to Sven.
I've chatted with Adam and, with the commitment to keep the offwiki aspects offwiki, he is happy for Tony to be unblocked, so I've done that. Issues with anyones participation at FSC, or FSC in general, should be discussed onwiki in the usual fashion, and without bringing the offwiki aspects back to the fore in public, especially while they are still in the process of being resolved. I'll be around for at least the next hour before I shuffle off to bed. I've also watchlisted all of the FSC pages and I encourage other people concerned about FSC to do the same. I haven't been able to talk with Sven yet. John Vandenberg(chat)16:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Task force
Pursuing the task force idea ... would you be interested in participating, and if so, would it be possible for you to round up some people who share your views and keep in touch with them as the task force makes recommendations? - Dank (push to talk) 20:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
just wondering
Dear Ellen of the Roads, I see that wp:no legal threats says "Rather than blocking immediately, administrators should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved." I wonder whether you could explain that in relation to your action? Tony(talk)01:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't selectively quote a sentence out of context. The rest of the clause which is applicable: "For example, a user might assert another editor's comments are "defamatory" because they are unaware of certain policies (such as harassment, personal attacks, incivility, etc.) and require assistance in dealing with such comments. While such comments may not be per se legal threats, they may fall under the scope of the aforementioned policies and repeated or disruptive usage can result in the user being blocked." [emphasis added]
Given that this was the relevant clause of wp:no legal threats, we now come to a very basic question: Tony, are you so inexperienced that you are unaware of the policy that Wikipedia is not a battleground? That is, "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts...Do not use Wikipedia to make legal or other threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or the Wikimedia Foundation: other means already exist to communicate legal problems." The nature of the allegations you were making on-wiki was not going to be tolerated. Of course, you always have the option to elaborate, but doing so will be contrary to the indications John has provided (both above and in the discussion, and may not be in the interests of the chapter or yourself). Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tony. It appeared from your posts (and a small amount of generic background from John Vandenberg, which did not breach any confidentiality) that this matter involved some kind of commercial contract in which you were involved. A general principal is that legal conflicts should not be brought onto Wikipedia. I don't see a difference between business legal disputes and suits over defamation in that respect. Also, if several other people have asked an editor to withdraw or clarify, and the response has been unsatisfactory, I don't feel I personally need to make the same request again. After all, I have no higher standing or authority than other editors out in the 'pedia, so I can't see why it should need me to make a separate enquiry if a proper one has previously been made. I would add that I am glad that the situation is now resolving itself, and hope that things can go forward more collegially. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ellen, I'm very surprised to read that you think there's the remotest commercial element. WM chapters encourage the production and uploading of free cultural content: not a penny in that, and nothing but the gift of a large amount of my time over many months, now turned into an ongoing nightmare. The fact that there was such a chasm between your understanding and the reality suggests why the policy is so explicit about ensuring "that a mere misunderstanding is not involved" before acting. Tony(talk)11:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia works by communal effort - the notion that an editor could claim IP rights over an idea for something to benefit the project is, I think it is safe to say, abhorrent to those holding the consensus view of the founding principles of the project. Given that, and given that intellectual property rights only have any serious significance in the context of base commerce, your continued assertion that your IP rights had somehow been stolen gave everyone the impression that there was some kind of commercial contract in their somewhere, whether actual folding money changed hands or not. Why else make such a terrible fuss over it. Your choice would appear to be that either it is at heart a piece of work springing from the project, in which case your idea of having IP rights that could be 'stolen' is at odds with the way the project works, or it is an off-wiki piece of work in which case local or international law applies, and some kind of claim in respect of stolen IP rights may be possible. Your choice. If it is the latter, it has no place onwiki. If it is the former, then you should not be making quasi-legal comments about stolen IP rights and sabotaging contracts. BTW, aren't you not supposed to be discussing the piece of work onwiki? Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking Tony
Blocking Tony indefinitely? Seriously, Elen.. I don't think it was such a hot idea to quote the header of the ANI thread, as penned by an angry opponent, in the block reason, either. You realise that'll sit forever in the log, which is a document people often like to pore over, and quote when they need a bludgeon? An idea: you might want to first rephrase a header like that to something more neutral. I've seen that done many times on ANI. Then it would go a lot better in the log. Bishonen | talk01:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Concur with second point (it was intended to appear as a hyperlink, not a wikilink, but I made a total hash of it). Disagree with first point, see response to Tony above. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much that you made a hash (=a redlink), I think. As far as I've seen, displaying the intended link in full (and not linking it) is something the block interface simply does. Example here. Not, presumably, a bug, since it's been like that for eons, but certainly an annoying habit. Bishonen | talk12:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I'll remember that. I certainly agree that the ANI header bears no relation to the block reason. Chastisement duly accepted on that, and I apologise to Tony. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
The E=mc² Barnstar
With appreciation to your thoughtful and sensitive navigation of the ship in the Monty Hall case. Mathematicians (of which I used to be one) aren't easy to communicate with, and mathematicians going mathematical and losing everyone else (as well as each other) was one of the key problems here. I think the pushback on some of your original proposals was sound, but regardless I deeply appreciated the combination of pragmatism, challenging questions where you perceived a real issue, and adaptability in the discussion on the proposed decision page, to get around the sticky points in #11 and reach a solution that works for (nearly) everyone. Martinp (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reminded Passionless that it annoyed him a great deal when Neutralhomer accused him of hounding, so he shouldn't accuse others, also that given that you have a longstanding interest in Israel related items, it's not surprising that you had an interest here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. BTW I could explain how I got to the page in question. I was going to nominate the discussed article for DYK. A few days ago I commented on a DYK nomination for an article of a similar subject. One of the reasons user:gatoclass used in his "maybe" vote was that the article was nominated for ITN. So before making DYK nomination for this new article I decided to make sure this article is not nominated for ITN, and it was how I got to ITN page.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I posted this comment in response to those 2 comments #1 and #2. My comment was removed, and I got a "final warning" from the same, involved administrator. I am trying really hard to understand what was wrong with my comment. I would not have asked such question, if two other comments I linked to above were reverted too. Elen, please trust me it is not a battleground behavior. I'm simply trying and failing to understand how my comment is "not helping", and this comment is? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, you are both WP:SOAPBOXING. An argument over whether this item is newsworthy has spilled over into polemic about which side kills more babies. Chaser has administered an even handed warning to both of you. I've recommended on Passionless's talkpage that you two learn how to disagree. I'll recommend it here to you also. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, I was not even responding to passionless I was responding to this comment made by a different user, the user I most of the time agree with, as it is clearly seen from my edit summary.
In any case here's a direct question: do you believe that removing only my comment leaving the other two to stay was the right thing to do, and that a "final warning" was warranted in that case. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. I will confess, I didn't realise he had 'form'. Thanks for pointing this out - I was answering emails in between planting lettuces and spring onions: that'll teach me to try multitasking. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Really?! This is 100% a competency issue: I don't think he even understands that he is to remove the links from his talk page and thinks you're referring only to his user page. Note how he once reacted (through a sock) to being told what vandalism was not.[26] Un-freaking-believable. Have fun explaining it again! ;> Doctalk15:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I'm sure it was an accident on his part, but the NOINDEX tags were inadvertently removed when he added the userboxes. It's amazing how quickly a page gets back on the Google search without them. Cheers... Doctalk23:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen (cool user name, by the way): Regarding arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander, the clerk said that there was a deadline for submitting evidence, approximately 6 April. I asked the clerk here if that could be extended a few days, and they suggested I contact you. The reason for my request is that I am the subject of the arbitration, and my evidence will consist of responses to the evidence of others. Yet I'm on vacation April 4 to 10. The scenario I'm concerned about is: I submit an initial response on April 4, then more evidence arrives April 6 (while I'm gone), then discussion/questions ensue; I am out of town and appear to be ignoring or disrespecting everyone; then I return April 11, and am am unable to add more response information to the evidence section because the deadline has passed. That scenario would be confusing for everyone. If the deadline for evidence could be extended to April 11 or 12, that would resolve all those problems. Is that possible? --Noleander (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see your concerns. If you can get an initial statement in before you go on vacation, we will extend the deadline so you have a chance to respond to anything that has come in while you were away. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should The_No._1_Ladies'_Detective_Agency_(TV_series) go under the category Botswana LGBT-related_television_programs since one the main characters is gay and IMDB lists as Botswana as one of countries of origin. Please tell me your opinion. Neptunekh2 (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NO. That category is for programs that are about LGBT subjects. If they did an episode in which him being gay was the main part of the story, then yes, but they never did. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of explanation in that diff? There was already members of the community that were concerned about Arbcom's lack of transparency in this case and this, without any explanation, seems like yet another attempt to stifle dissent. How are any of us supposed to know that the reasons for this are legitimate? SilverserenC23:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, this has reached the point where this is beginning to look like you just want to satisfy your own curiosity. I think most everyone else has taken the hint. The initial cause of the block is contained within diffs that were oversighted according to policy. Lets just say things haven't got any better since then. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Considering everyone i've spoken with doesn't know what happened, I really don't think it's just my own curiosity. From your response, however, i'm to assume that Rod said bad things? Though I suppose they wouldn't be bad words, because that sort of thing isn't oversighted. The only thing I can think of is sensitive information, but he should have any of that, other than the emails between him and Arbcom, which are certainly not sensitive, since he was using them in the case. I would think that, if he was blocked for a reason related to oversighted information, that Arbcom could be a bit more explanatory and actually say that specifically. SilverserenC23:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The line of reasoning put forward here by Silver seren ("concerned about Arbcom's lack of transparency", "without any explanation", "yet another attempt to stifle dissent", etc is just wrong, wrong, wrong. Please stop this. Legitimate reasons are as plain as the nose on some of our faces.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the reasons are plain, then that means that I just missed this incident when it occurred on-wiki? Were you there when it happened and, thus, saw exactly what happened? SilverserenC23:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I saw what Rod put up before it was oversighted. He made threats of... a regrettable nature. I'm happy that he's still physically around to continue off-wiki discussions with the arbitrators and that he was merely bluffing. Doctalk23:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I wanted to know, thank you. I still believe that it would be better if the case page specifically said this instead of it being so ambiguous. SilverserenC23:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you had said something onwiki that people oversighted to protect you, would you then want the same people blabbering it about all over the place later? Just a thought. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Elen, Silver: The same reason we cannot talk about WHY an item was oversighted is why it was oversighted in the first place. It's a real catch-22 (a no-win situation). I did some of the needed actions here on this case, and I was working with one of our primary oversighters, User:Alison to make sure we were firmly within the rules for items to be suppressed, and that we got it all. If you have any doubts about the validity of the action, you could ask Alison (of course, she is limited by the requisite policies as we are)... SirFozzie (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom continues to work in Rod's best interests-- intermeddlers continue to extend the drama. Silver seren, please do stop this line of questioning that includes unfair allegations about ArbCom. Even if Rod, or a handful of editors still don't get it, some most editors do value discretion in sensitive personal matters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okaaay. So IMO, SandyGeorgia has it right, and Doc is spot-on with his analysis. Elen clearly understands the situation and Foz is more than clued in. The suppression was done well within policy, and was done solely to protect Rod - I checked over it all myself and I was consulted on it at the time. There is truly nothing of your concern here. From an outside perpective, I would have thought it was pretty damn clear as to what's going on here & it boggles my mind a bit right now as to why you don't pause, go "Ah!", and slink away slowly. Seriously - just drop it already! - Alison❤00:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was already done with the discussion once Doc explained the reason, it's you three that keep going on about it. I have already "dropped it", but it is always enjoyable to see the usual bullying tactics and rudeness. Have a nice day! *winks* SilverserenC00:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
