Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. Thank you.
Elinor, I'm sorry I haven't replied to your note; I probably won't give a longer reply—I've caught the wiki-blues—but I wanted to let you know that I appreciated your note and the Viennese biscuits and that someone else did too. :) Again, thanks, Iamunknown00:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ElinorD, thanks for reverting the vandalism to Riana's talk page. I was going to do that myself, but sometimes the javascript I use runs slowly. I wonder if semi-protecting her page might not be a bad idea. Thanks again. --Kyoko10:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message, Kyoko, and for warning the vandal before I got to the page. I would have semiprotected it if I had thought that the vandal was returning, but that didn't seem to be the case, and I think Riana came online herself fairly soon anyway. Cheers. ElinorD(talk)00:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering how that got removed from the history link and who removed it?
It also got removed from my contributions. I thought I was experiencing deja vu.
But I could of sworn I left that on there.
I am sorry but that was wrong.
Just hope she didn't see that.
Have a nice day:) KingLopezContribs09:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What?
You say I vandalized the christian page on April 8. How? A tag says I discriminated against christians. How? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Criticalbill21 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 9 July 2007.
Here are the edits you made:
"Christians have frequently suffered from persecutionas a result of their absurd beliefs. From its foundation at the feet of a fictional crucified leader . . . Adherence to Christianity was declared illegal, as it should be, within the Roman Empire. . . ."[1]
"A Christian is a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, referred to as the Christ. Christians believe Jesus to be the Son ofGod, who lived a life befitting that of the creator of the universe, free of sin and full of love(despite the laundry list of hateful acts in the bible), who at the end of his earthly life was crucified, and then on the third day, rose from the dead, and later ascended into heaven. Of course there is no evidence for this belief and it should be considered mythical in nature."[2]
I have no idea what you are referring to when you say that "a tag says [you] discriminated against" Christians. The standard warning I sent you did not mention discrimination; it mentioned vandalism. I believe most Wikipedians would regard your edits, quoted above, as vandalism, or as extremely clueless. I hope that answers your question. ElinorD(talk)15:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Proabivouac, for not replying sooner. I looked at the noticeboard a few times. I see it has now been archived. However, I missed (until a few minutes ago) the evidence on the checkuser talk page of the IP having edited an image uploaded by the registered user; that makes the case stronger, in my view. I don't think anyone regards that edit as "normal and acceptable". I think there's just a reluctance to block a registered user for something that an IP does, unless there's very strong evidence that it's the same person. I hope a checkuser will agree to investigate, but wouldn't be surprised if it's refused as an isolated incident. Sorry again for not responding sooner. I just wasn't sure what could be done, as I think probability is not really a strong enough justification for a block — unless a pattern emerges. Cheers. ElinorD(talk)15:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. This is almost certainly a registered user, but I doubt if a checkuser would be interested in trying to find out who it is, and it certainly doesn't prevent me from enjoying Wikipedia! ElinorD(talk)15:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your block of Nleobold
Thanks for the block of User:Nleobold. I've been trying to curb my impatience with his style and direct him to the policies and guidelines he needs to understand, but he appears to have no interest in doing so. The one-day block also failed to get his attention. Perhaps your block will convince him that he can't grind us down. JamesMLanetc02:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't block him a second time. I just left him a message urging him to read our policy pages. I hope he'll take it to heart. ElinorD(talk)15:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did respond, and followed the insturctions you gave me, when you said I could remove any un-sourced material. You didn't even care enough to check for my reply. You give Wikipedia a bad name. I have tried to contribute with quality material, and all of you are complete losers, liars, and trolls.
Nleobold08:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Nicolas Leobold[reply]
Thanks from this quarter for your good work on curbing this editor's uncivic discourse and actions. We have been patient with him and he is not engaging in a productive dialogue. Dogru14414:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting...I identify myself for the community, yet Dogru144 declines to. I guess he *IS* a vandal.
Nleobold20:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Nicolas Leobold, nleobold@msn.com[reply]
Nleobold, I did check for your reply, which was how I immediately realised that the subsequent article edits from the IP came from you. Please understand that a statement that positive unsourced material can be removed should not be seen as a blanket permission to remove any positive statements which common sense would see as sufficiently uncontroversial as not to need a source, simply because your unsourced negative statements have been removed. That can only be seen as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and may lead to another block. Thanks. ElinorD(talk)17:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
userboxes
I have no idea where to start or anything on making userboxes. I was hoping that maybe you could offer some help? Savie Kumara23:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
PS. By the way, could you reply on my user talk page? That way, it will tell me when I get the reply.[reply]
Glad you have, and I'm sorry for not answering sooner. It wasn't something that I knew so well that I could quickly answer without looking it up. Cheers. ElinorD(talk)17:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elinor, you are one of the most fair administrators on this project. Don't worry that you made a mistake. Nice to believe that we are all humans -- and not bots -- and that we all make mistakes. Miranda03:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, Miranda. I hope it all works out. I'll probably email you, but don't be surprised if you have to wait a day or two. I'm very behind with emails. Thanks for supporting my RfA, by the way. And congratulations on the wonderful banner you made for 'zilla. ElinorD(talk)15:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My sweet friend, all I can say is, thank you from my heart for your support, and your wise and kind words, in this moment of need. In your own words, I know you'll patiently wait for me to get back to you,s omething I'd love to right now; but even if days pass, and you know why - know that you'll be with me at all times, holding my hand and helping me with a fond smile. You're special, important beyond words. I just can't find the proper way to say it - but I know I don't need to. You've seen inside of me, and you know exactly what I mean, my friend. Love you, Phaedriel - 00:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's never any hurry to reply to a friend, as friends will always understand if they have to wait. :-) Think of your dear little girl, and forget about answering my messages! ElinorD(talk)15:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TREYWiki
Hi. I was curious why you reverted your blanking of User talk:TREYWiki. Given the user's stated intention to leave and all the circumstances, unless there is a serious reason not to I intend to delete both his userpage and talkpage, by request. The arbitrators are of course all administrators and would still have access to the deleted material. Please let me know if you see any serious problem with this. Thanks, Newyorkbrad00:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Brad. I'm actually in the middle of emailing you right now, but just refreshed my watchlist in a separate window while in the middle of typing. I'll send it in about three minutes. For the record, I am personally very supportive of someone's right to vanish, unless it's a very disruptive user with a history of sockpuppetry, so that there's a need to keep pages in the "sockpuppets of X" category. I don't believe in adding further distress to a blocked user, and I hope an arbitrator will undo what I did. Further details (though nothing very enlightening) will be in my email. Cheers. ElinorD(talk)00:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! I haven't talked to you much since your RfA. Just sending well-wishes and a smile. Vassyana07:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks for the smile, Vassyana. Good to see you around. I've been meaning to email you, but I have a whole list of people that I still have to email, so I hope you won't mind waiting. However, since we're talking to each other anyway, let me say again how much I appreciate the RfA nomination. I hope not to let you down. :-) ElinorD(talk)15:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A star for you
:)What happens when Springeragh bakes :PFor making such delicious bread on your userpage. I thought of an allegory with Wikipedia contributions, but I'll just give you the star. (I also thought about a technology barnstar since I'm fine at cooking but → usually happens when I try to bake—but I think just a plain star is best.) :) — $PЯINGrαgђ 20:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying, Lord Yaksha. I'm afraid there's nothing on that site which suggests that the images have been released under a free licence, so, although the image is nicer than what we currently have, we can't use it. ElinorD(talk)17:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nadler/Glick
What is your problem?
I followed your instructions.
So, you didn't even read my response to your message on my page.
So much for responsible administrators.
Wikipedia is a complete joke because of you and fellow losers you defend.
No doubt you are another Wikipedia Democrat. Haven't you realized yet that the Democrats are just as evil as the Republicans? (except for Ron Paul: www.RonPaul2008.com)
As mentioned above, I did read it. I am sure that you are perfectly well aware that I did not instruct you to remove whole chunks of uncontroversial material from articles. Except that it's more important for you to spend time familiarising yourself with WP:BLP, I'd suggest that you spend time reading WP:POINT. ElinorD(talk)17:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree, but being fond of Sharon doesn't justify preventing innocent people from editing just because they happen to be assigned an IP this Thursday which someone used last Saturday to abuse her from. You'll note that when a registered account posted the same abuse, I blocked indefinitely. ElinorD(talk)17:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock
Thanks for being so quick - he seems ok and I found his "facts" fascinating - once I had checked them! I always hate to see a new contributor jumped on as it could encourage them to say "whatever" and vandalise instead of contribute. I will keep an eye on him and get back asap if there are real problems. Sophia11:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A previous RfC on the Nick Baker article had accepted the text and sources that are at the core of this dispute that have resulted in Sparkzilla's block. Sparkzilla may have a close relationship with the source journal, but there are other editors (including me), that commented in the RfC and that have commented on that article's talk page recently that knew this but still felt that the information was credible and appropriate for the article. Also, Sparkzilla was allowed to participate in the discussion on the article's talk page in the past and now suddenly wasn't allowed to. Therefore, I'm not sure that there was a clear case for a block here. Cla6811:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Cla68. You'll notice that other administrators have commented in support of the block, and a previously uninvolved administrator (as far as I know) blocked the account indefinitely after his original, short block had expired. I imagine he'll be unblocked, as he seems on his talk page to be apologetic and cooperative. But as a general rule, I think if an administrator warns a user not to keep posting material as there are BLP issues, it's better to comply. Someone who feels very strongly that there are no BLP problems with the material could send it by private email to some uninvolved admins, asking for advice, if they doubt the judgment or neutrality of the original administrator. ElinorD(talk)17:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think you'll find I was merely bringing the image into the infobox's proper formatting. I am full aware of copyright policy, thanks. DBD22:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since Jack Sheadied because of that car accident, BLP no longer is in play. The source is a good one ... a news digest, linked from various local news organizations (did you visit the link?). Please revert your edit. Duke53 | Talk23:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The BLP concerns don't relate to someone who is dead, but could relate to poorly sourced claims about someone being responsible for his death. ElinorD(talk)00:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Defending MONGO
Why do you keep protecting him? And for the record, While you were archiving it, I was busy replying and removing some of my vandalism.Because of the Edit Conflict, I went in after and readded, only to edit conflict with Tom Harrison, and then add it again. I am however, disappointed that once again, MONGO got off free. ThuranX23:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this[4], and then compare timestamps with [5], where I redacted some of my statement, and explained myself more fully, a change i notified you of. I've also notified User:Tom harrison. I'll let you two handle this, but really. This is exactly the sort of Wait and Bait that MONGO keeps getting in trouble for. You asked me to de-escalate, and I was already in the process. I got past a double edit conflict, and made the changes. Four hours later, MONGO comes around to hassle me on my talk page? I sincerely doubt that he didn't notice the edits to the AN/I thread. This is how he winds up in those threads. He demanded to be left alone. He demanded redaction of the insults. He got both. Then he comes around looking for a fight. This is why he needs a blocking, and I will leave it to you and Tom Harrison to talk to him about this. ThuranX04:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you ever talk that way about me again on this website, I will file an Rfc on your commentary. It was some of the worst and most abusive language I have seen directed to me. I had not noticed you redacted the comments, but you did so only after being asked to. You expect me to be blocked and you get to make comments like that? Are you kidding? I still don't appreciate the use of the word jerk and other abusiveness. Your entire argument was destroyed by your ridiculous rantings.--MONGO05:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't notice your comment on ANI until just now; very kind of you to say. And, while I'm here, thanks for deleting the draft page last night. Still not sure what the best way to formulate such a thing is, but that wasn't it. --barneca (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your kind words, and the heads up, Eli! :) And don't worry about the "tone", silly - now go to bed, and with a little luck, something will be sitting at your mail when you wake up ;) Sweet dreams, dearie! Love you, Phaedriel - 00:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's at it again, on talk pages this time. See [6], which preceeded [7]. I thought it was BS who has usually used IP's to circumvent his block, but the talk page post had the bitterness of HE's posts. It would be best if someone were to block these socks and protect the talk page of Muhammad so this banned editor cannot attempt to influence the project. Arrow74007:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you recently deleted the bode diagram plot of a crystal oscillator gain (placed by Snlevasseur) from the "Crystal Oscillator" page.
For some reason, I can no longer see this plot when working back through the history (maybe I've missed dome of the tools - if so, I apologise). The plot looked essentially accurate to me, although I would have to check that it corresponded to its title. I would like to be able to check.
Assuming that it is accurate, I would regard it as clarification of the text (once the title is corrected), rather than adding new material. It should, incidentally, provide much the same information as John Vig's figure 4 (which is referenced), except that the information relates to oscillator loop gain rather than to crystal unit impedance. (Re copyright: I would imagine that the author generated the plot (either using Matlab or public-domain SPICE) rather than copying it from an unreferenced article. If the issue is that you do not know who owns the copyright, I would be happy to provide a "virgin" version.
I wonder if you would consider replacing it - albeit with a corrected caption if necessary. If not, I believe the section entitled "Bode magnitude diagram" should be deleted in its entirety.
Hi PhysicistQuery, I deleted Image:Bode Magnitude Diagram.png because no source information was given, and therefore the copyright could not be checked. It was in a category for speedy deletions. I removed it from the article just before deleting, but once it was deleted, looking at a previous version from the article history wouldn't help you to see it. If you're online, and leave me a message, I'd be happy to undelete it temporarily so that you can take a look. I'm afraid I haven't got any scientific knowledge that would help in this situation. The deletion log is here. Let me know what you want me to do. But images can't be kept around without being correctly tagged. Cheers. ElinorD(talk)20:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elinor, Thanks. Also for your courtesy in messaging my talk page. Would it be practical to post the plot to my talk page, because my availability is patchy? What I would propose to do is check it out, and if I can't establish its provenance I will create (easy) and try to post (I will need to learn about tagging and how to post graphics) an equivalent new one. That would be based on a real oscillator, so there could be no copyright issues. Regards Fyz PhysicistQuery21:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elinor, I've looked at the plot. Although it looks plausible, once you look at the numbers it becomes apparent that the "crystal" would need to be of a material not known to man, and that the circuit would be completely non-standard. I will create something a bit more realistic when I have time. Regards Fyz PhysicistQuery08:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there :)
Hey Elinor, Just a quick note that the IP who was editing User talk:Newspaper guy 999 was me as commented on the checkuser, however he was unblocked as lack of evidence of a Molag Bal sockpuppet but doesn't this prove that he is a Molag Bal sockpuppet, he was autoblocked because the IP address who was originally blocked (217.43.214.178) is a blocked Molag Bal sockpuppet so its obviously him, he then removed it obviously realising he had given himself away. I will email you within the next few mins with a more detailed explanation. Regards, — Rlest14:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Rlest, I've read your post above, and your email. While I completely disagree with the admin who unblocked (after the unblock request had been turned down twice) saying that the evidence did not seem enough to prove sockpuppetry, I can't see that your evidence proves it. The IP you mention was never blocked as a Molag Bal sockpuppet; on the contrary it has a clean block log. Granted, it made edits removing checkuser requests related to Molag Bal, but so did Newspaper guy 99, and an administrator still overturned the block.
I don't want to wheel war over this. If Newspaper guy resumes disruption, I'll certainly reblock. However, he hasn't edited since shortly after he was unblocked, so he's probably inactive now. ElinorD(talk)01:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you blocked Cheese Bacon and gave him an invite to try to plead his case with you. I speedied a few of his articles, and just wanted to give you some background. He isn't, so far as I can tell, a malicious vandal (except for those last couple edits, where he was pretty torqued). He's a kid that doesn't seem to understand the difference between Wikipedia and MySpace. He posts vanity articles about unpublished comic strips that he has created, and garage rock bands that he is in, and doesn't seem to grasp the meaning of "notability". Kww20:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you instruct Giovanni to stop changing the header of the message I posted. It is confusing because I posted the first message underneath - it looks as if I'm asking for arbitration and mediation at the same time. John Smith's23:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't fixed anything. If you want make a formal request to Deskana, start a new heading or a sub-heading and actually ask her to do something. John Smith's23:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. The heading is now neutral, about the closing of mediation. Below that heading we can discuss the issue, both sides of it. There is no confusion this way. No point to start a new heading when one will do.Giovanni3323:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giovanni, it's not your place to make someone else's heading or post neutral on a talk page. Please stop insisting on getting your own way the whole time. Administrators are beginning to find these constant petty battles quite tedious and irritating. I have a feeling you violated 3RR on Deskana's talk page as well. You seem to be heading for a long block unless you start trying to let go when something isn't important, and stop insisting on getting your own way the whole time. I notice you've been doing the same thing at AN/I. I really don't appreciate when I'm in the middle of working my way through a huge backlog of unsourced images to have to interrupt it over such a pointless and petty battle as this. I think you've broken 3RR at that page, too. ElinorD(talk)00:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amy Mihaljevic
I have updated the photo to include the URL and Fair Use argument. Since this case is still unsolved, it is EXTREMELY important we include this picture along with the article. Police, FBI, and family hope that it will either spark a memory for someone or compel the killer to come forward.
Hello,
The images as well as the content used by me in my contribution are absolutely mine, so no question arise about copyright violation. Further an image of Borracave has been taken by wikipedia.org itself, if there will be any problem, I'll also replace the same. However I'm the admin of the site www.cave-biology.org.
-Regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Biospeleologist (talk • contribs) 06:40, 24 July 2007.
If you want Wikipedia to be able to use them, you'll need to release them under a free licence, either by updating your website to reflect that, and linking each individual image here to the relevant page on your website where it says the images are available under a free licence, or by emailing permissions at wikimedia dot org, with evidence that you hold the copyright, and a statement that you release the images under a free licence. Otherwise, I'm afraid we can't use them. ElinorD(talk)01:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems I'm not the only one tagging :)
Much appreciated however if you could follow the compressed format I've adopted in future, I've already amended the existing entries
you made.
But you haven't told me which is "the page concerned", and a brief look through your contributions doesn't make me any wiser. :-) I'm sure I'd be happy to change the format, but I'm using User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js, and I just click on a special link at the left, which says "no source" or "no rationale", etc. The tool then does the rest, and leaves me no choice over the format. If it's something I can change without stopping using the tool (which is so efficient), I'd be happy to oblige. If not, maybe you should take it up with Howcheng. To be honest, I haven't a clue what you're talking about! ElinorD(talk)18:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
Please stop sending me threatening messages. If you continue I will be forced to stop reading your messages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.104.199.138 (talk • contribs)
I left a notice on the talk page asking that if they plan to put a photo on the article that it be done under wikipedia guidelines. Robert Moore 01:13 July 27, 2007 (UTC)
File:Altair8800.jpgThe Altair 8800 was among the first microcomputers to be affordable by an individual, although it initially lacked peripherals and memory.
It was a very appropriate picture for an article on the history of the home and personal computers.
Is this image from a museum with the permission of the museum's owner acceptable?
According to the deletion log] I deleted it under WP:CSD#I6, which means that it was a non-free image, but that no rationale had been written to show how its use was in accordance with our policies, that someone had tagged it to put it in a category of images missing a fair use rationale, and that it had remained in that category for at least seven days.
Couldn't that be a type of vandalism? The image had been in the article for 3 months and I didn't view the article in that 7 day period. There had been attempted vandalism by anonymous users to remove that image before. Alatari23:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if the image you link to is acceptable, as you'd have to show that it would be impossible (or nearly impossible) for a Wikipedian to be able to get a freely-licensed image, and that the article can't be well understood without an image. The best place to ask about this is at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Regards. ElinorD(talk)01:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of pictures taken by the owner of computers at the OldComputerMuseum. He has given me freedom to use any of those images. Using these images should clear up the matter. Why you say that is is nearly impossible to get your hands on a freely-licensed image is confusing to me. They seem readily available. Alatari23:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He'll have to release the images under a free licence, or into the public domain. Giving permission to use them isn't enough, as we're trying to build a free content encyclopaedia which can be freely copied, modified, reused, and sold by others. ElinorD(talk)23:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would be fine, unless you're taking a photo of someone else's painting of sculpture, for example. See Commons:Derivative works. If you've taken the photo yourself, tag the image with {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}} or another suitable tag which allows others to use the image for any purpose, and be sure to state explicitly on the image page that you took the photo yourself. ElinorD(talk)00:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do I verify that any image is free to use? How do I verfy this image? [Image:IBM PC 5150 Image.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A release photo of the original IBM PC (ca. 1981).] Alatari23:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on this; you'd be better off taking your questions to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, but generally if you find an image on a website, you should assume that it isn't free, unless it explicitly says it is. And it's not enough for it to be "free to use". We want images that can be reused, modified, and sold by others, like our GFDL text contributions. So we don't want images where the copyright still belongs to the owner, but he gives permission for us to use it on Wikipedia. We want public domain images, or images with a licence that allows anyone to use them for any purpose. However, you probably would be better off directing your questions to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, where you'll get more input. Cheers. ElinorD(talk)00:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ack! Editing this one article has taken 18 to 26 hours so far and now I have another layer of verification. *sighs* Thanks for your help. Alatari00:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd start it off by saying there is a difference between concerned editor and harassment.
What Ludwig Braeckeleer said is a very serious accusation that need to be looked into. Note that I am not siding with anyone, and have never met her (correct me if I am wrong) before. SYSS Mouse00:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I hope you are fine with your comments being removed. I was writing you an explanatory note as to why I thought your thread was inappropriate before realising Elinor had beaten me to it. I think athere are serious issues but by posting them on a public wikipedia page we just make the problem worse, SqueakBox00:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right to disappear
I was looking for the process on "right to disappear" but could not find it. I will leave this case be, and in your capable hands Elinor...thanks for noticing and stepping in. Oh...and could you send me the link for the process I mentioned. It is not readily found under policies, it seems. --Kukinihablame aqui13:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I believe I prefer Wikipedia:Template the regulars. Even a regulars can be edit warring. DreamGuy appears to have a serious problem with both assuming good faith and being civil. I don't believe his reaction would have been any different if I'd customized my message. In fact, I did attempt to discuss his removal of the example See also section from WP:LAYOUT. You will note that it was actually removed. His first response was to deny that he had removed it and to immediately accuse me of bad faith. After somebody responds like that, I use templates. I'm not going to waste my time talking to somebody who is always right, even when he's wrong, and whose second response to most people is to whip out his WP:DICK. If somebody treats my first good faith effort to communicate as an attack, they get templates. Personally, I think that DreamGuy needs an enforced Wikibreak to adjust his whole attitude. He snaps at other editor's first attempts to communicate with him, then wonders why thy would rather template him than talk to him. Sheesh. IPSOS (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really familiar with DreamGuy, but even if you're right about his behaviour, it's still unnecessarily inflammatory and patronising to slap on the talk page of an experienced user a template which says "Welcome to Wikipedia." ElinorD(talk)00:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of comment
Regarding this. Elinor, I had time to think and sleep on this issue. I understand your motivation. But please listen. You are going too far. You can justify the removal of a link to an attack site, you may be able to justify removal of gossip around a Wikipedia editor being attacked off site, but you can't justify removing discussion of people getting together to complain that their comments are being censored.
Please pause for a little and think. How far should one go to "protect" the feelings of an editor? Don't your actions remind you of good old censorship, where the government controls information to "protect" its citizens? I don't believe your actions bode well for the future of the encyclopedia.
I don't think you do understand my motivation, which is purely not to increase the distress of someone who is probably already distressed. If you did, you simply wouldn't be able to go around restarting discussion on a topic that encourages further speculation of the identity of a harassment victim, and gives delight to trolls and stalkers. ElinorD(talk)00:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Things have got a little heated here and I know I'm not being much help. If you have time could you take a peak as I know you are a calming influence! Thanks Sophia15:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
