User talk:Elaragirl/Archive 5

Wikibreak

I'm on a two day wikibreak. Back Monday. Slay the evil! And go find a new user and make friends with them. Edit or create an article. Kill a kitten. Praise to the Deletionist Cabal! --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 19:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh? What's a cabal? Captaindansplashback 20:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Enjoy the break. Have a good weekend! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mail

I sent you an email, and I'm going on a twoday wikibreak with my daughter. wry grin You could have indef banned, me, you know. I'm glad you didn't. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 20:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and e-mail, Elaragirl. I did send a reply. I hope you have a great wikibreak. As for indefinite blocking... That would have been completely out of line. Besides, you have important work to do on the encyclopedia; you can't very well do that if you're permablocked. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 21:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I replaced my traditional knife with a DOUBLE-EDGED AXE this week

Double the kittens in half the time!

I also faithfully pledge that this weekend I will triple my XFD participation, so that our great Crusade will not slacken without our noble mistress. Long live the Deletionist Cabal!

Enjoy the wikibreak. Cheers, Moreschi 23:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey

I saw your offer to write an article on the art of deletionism. I was fishing earlier for your comments on the Gundam mass AfD I recently closed, but you remained curiously quiet on the matter. Since you mention it by name, I'd appreciate getting your take on it. Do you think this was an example of being too hasty? I can take it, so if you don't mind I'd like your unfettered, unfiltered opinion when you get back. Thanks, —Doug Bell ^talk 05:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Supporting Elaragirl is a blockable offense

Note that one of the commenters on the RfC, Moby Dick, who endorsed three of the summaries (Elaragirl's, Doug Bell's, and Swatjester's), and who also posted supportively to Elaragirl's talk page, has now been blocked by Cool Cat's loyal supporter Bastique (a leading Steward candidate) for those posts – and the remark "makes for interesting reading!" where his name had been mentioned. The charge is, get this, "harassment of Cool Cat". See here for details.

(I also posted this news on the RFC's talk page, but that RFC is due to be deleted as uncertified any minute now, so this is a backup.) – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 08:18, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Someone endorsed my summary? I missed that! ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 08:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Note also that Bastique has altered Moby's endorsement to delete evidentiary links Moby was offering to Elaragirl's summary list – in effect, Bastique destroyed evidence that the RfC participants might otherwise have seen. This suggests another motive for his blocking Moby: to keep Moby from restoring the links or drawing attention to the deletion. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 10:30, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Bastique's block of Moby has everything to do with the RfAr and nothing to do with Elaragirl; also, like I have stated (twice) on the RfC talkpage, I think slinging mud at people because of their actions on other project does amount to trolling. Commons works differently to Wikipedia, let's not forget that. riana_dzasta 12:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Bastique's block of Moby cites:

1. Moby remarking "makes for interesting reading!" below a link to his RfAr case (but note the consensus where this was discussed: Moby was legitimately responding to his own name being brought up); and
2. Moby's participation in RFC:Elaragirl – endorsing the summary of Elaragirl – Moby's "Well said, Elaragirl" remark, among 12 other endorsements... (Bastique does not cite Moby's no-comment endorsement of Doug Bell's summary, or Moby's "ya, rfc wo merit" endorsement of Swatjester's summary); and
3. Moby's supportive post to the user talk page of Elaragirl, who was being accused by Cool Cat.

I don't see where the ArbCom forbade Moby to respond where someone else brings up his name, or to endorse summaries on RfC's, or to write to other people Cool Cat has attacked. These cannot reasonably be termed "harassment of Cool Cat" – but Bastique has done so anyway; just as Cool Cat claimed "harassment" on Wikipedia over the complaint on Commons that CC had repeatedly blanked and even protected Moby's user page, where clearly the harassment was in the other direction.

No neutral admin chose to declare the above-cited posts "harassment" in open discussion, or to block Moby. Bastique declared them such elsewhere, in a post he wouldn't even sign his own name to. And Bastique is not a neutral admin. His alliance on Commons with Cool Cat shows that.

It is my impression that admins should recuse themselves from admin-powered intervention in disputes where they have personal loyalty to one disputant, not use those admin powers against the other disputant. That raises questions of fairness and impartiality, versus conflicts of interest. I hope you agree with that much.

If a block was appropriate, it should not have been enacted by one of Cool Cat's cronies. And it would have been nice to see some consensus-seeking that harassment was indeed occurring, especially since (as noted above) consensus on the first item was that it wasn't harassing Cool Cat... while the second and third items were being supportive of Elanagirl on the RfC and her talk page – and if that constitutes harassing Cool Cat (because CC opposes her), then how many other people are equally guilty of it? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 12:37, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).

I don't know the history here, but SAJordan has some points here that concern me. I really find it a stretch to classify Moby's actions as harassment. I'm also concerned that Bastique is not completely impartial regarding Cool Cat and it would be better to have the claim of harassment evaluated by another admin. I was tempted to reduce the block period as blocking for a week, the maximum allowed under the arbitration ruling, for those edits following five months of apprarently problems-free behavior amounts to a serious overreaction. I haven't commented yet because as I said, I'm unfamiliar with all the details of this case, but I do find Bastique's block concerning. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Moreschi 20:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Bravo

I ran across your userpage and your article on deletionism while voting for candidates in the ArbCom elections. My compliments on your writing; you make some good points and in a very clear, well-supported, and fun to read manner. I look forward to running across you in the future... although hopefully not in AfD, since I consider myself an inclusionist. ;) Have a great rest of your day! – Lantoka (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Your orange "a"

I just wanted to say how much I enjoy your orange "a". I think it's quite spectacular (i.e. hilarious), and you should be commended for having the balls to come up with a page like that. -- Kicking222 17:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And yes, as a female, you obviously don't have balls... but I'm sure you got the point. -- Kicking222 17:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well played. Mucho kudos on your humour. Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?)} 04:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Welcome back! Hope the magical ball of fire played nicely. riana_dzasta 17:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds awesome! I like the new deletion subpage, by the way. Gosh, I shouldn't watchlist everything I edit, it comes across as very creepy and stalkerish... I'm fighting with a 13 year old right now, apparently, so I'm off to take care of that. Never mind Cool Cat, hopefully he'll calm down sooner or later. Cheersy, riana_dzasta 17:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick question - do you reckon I did the right thing here? I removed half the text because of a pretty obvious copyvio, and I seem to be the current focus of the article creator's hatred. (You don't have to get involved... :) I'll understand.) riana_dzasta 17:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Good-o. He's just sent me 3 rather impolite e-mails, so I'll go respond to those :) Take it easy, riana_dzasta 17:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh! See my declined RfA and, er, something like 9 offers turned down. I really hate to disappoint (!), but I don't feel quite ready yet. And I'm worried about a variety of things that might pop up on an RfA (too social, likes fluffy bunnies too much, no feechred articles, doesn't do enough situps, etc). But thanks sooo much for the thought, I really, really do appreciate it! You're a darling. One of these days, maybe. Thanks a bunch, riana_dzasta 17:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hah. Elaragirl as an admin - the first thought to pop into my head was gendarmerie! :p I'm off to bed now, looking forward to an e-mail when I wake up :) Hugs, riana_dzasta 18:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Welcome back! Quick update - WP:CIVIL got nominated for deletion here, and the person who nominated it promptly got blocked for a week. I'll leave you the enjoyable pleasure of finding out who the nominator actually was.

The deletion stuff looks good, I like it! I'll make a few more specific comments later on that page's talk. Cheers, Moreschi 18:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Go slow

Just a suggestion, but you might want to hold back a bit in criticising other people and their motives on Mongo's talk page when Mongo is already engaged in the exchange. Now that he's back, I think it best to let Mongo set the tone. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't take Elaragirl's comment there as a criticism of my motives. Perhaps it was a criticism of my judgement, or of my understanding, but I'd much rather fail on those counts than in my motives. The day I start working here from motives other than the good of Wikipedia, I hope I'm banned, quickly. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

How a "pile" can have a "side"

Elaragirl, hi. You asked a question on MONGO's talk page, and I wasn't sure how to respond. The short answer is that understanding someone's motivations is always helpful in dealing with that person, and I can unpack that idea and apply it to this case, if you're interested. If you want to have this conversation, then please reply here, or at my talk page. Clearly MONGO doesn't want his talk page used for discussion of that kind. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page to your post there. I hope I'm not who you were talking about when you say "apologetics". -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: User talk:The Transhumanist#Concerns regarding deletion, and your virtual classroom as a tool. (eom)

You've got mail.

Oops. I meant that the above link was your mail. Sorry for the confusion. From now on I'll put "You've got a message." The Transhumanist 07:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"Load of Crap"

I assume that you've been around long enough to know what's going on. If not, I apologize. Let me know and I will gladly bring you up to date. Here's the bottom line - Cyde has a history of deleting just about any userbox in Template space that he doesn't like, usually citing T1. If you follow the appeals process by requesting a review on his talk page, he simply says "it's divisive." The problem is that T1 is the only real criteria for speedy delete of a Template. In reality, they should go through TfD because they are templates. T1 has given the deletionists a shortcut to enforce their POV on what belongs in Template and what does not, even though there is not (and probably won't ever be) consensus. TfD or MfD at least give an opportunity for there to be a discussion about the merits of a template being in template space. The end line of this discussion was that some felt that T1 was inappropriately applied, however, since there was another copy in User:, then it's no harm, no foul. Can you see why that approach to editorial process seems less that ideal? By the way, I would appreciate a more civil tone generally, although I am sure you meant well. --NThurston 15:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• I just said that T1 gives y'all a tool; that doesn't mean you have to use it. I presume you don't, but Cyde does. I am not sure how y'all come to the thought that the template in question (or the essay, for that matter) references the war in a way that would perpetuate/revive it. In reality, the essay is an uncanny description of the lay of the land. Similar to your essay on deletionists, it helps us all understand who we are and how we fit into Wiki-society. By recognizing that we are different, we have some chance at finding common ground. As you can appreciate, there are some Whackaloon userbox people on both sides of this. But in reality, most of the interested parties fall into a reasoned spectrum with opinions that are justifiable, even in the context of what Jimbo says. That's what the essay says. So however y'all came up with "divisive" is way beyond me.

For the record, UM isn't policy. It's just an attempt by some of the userbox people to force common ground. There are other ways of doing things. The power of particular individuals to enforce their POV on this issues (like "T1" and "per GUS") has certainly led to a calming of the Whackaloons on both sides, but it has come at a cost, for sure, and doesn't resolve all of the issues. We still need to press forward to look for common ground.

One interesting note is that Royalguard is absolutely right in pointing out the irony - the whole intent was to be inclusive of all opinions in the essay and the related template. But the end result (as predicted) was that the Leftist/Totalitarian types have taken actions to alienate and exclude the Rightist/Libertarian types. No Rightest wants to have to use a userbox in User: space (see the essay for why). At the end of the day, while it still bothers me that inappropriate use of T1 is tolerated because of the outcome, I accept that this is how things are going to be for a while. --NThurston 16:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Peace

Of course. Thanks for the exchange. --NThurston 16:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Template

Shakes head despairingly..oh dear...and laughs out loud. An incivil civility warning. Is that something we can give to each other if and when we go over the line? Nice to see you back to full form, anyway, Cheers, Moreschi 17:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your signature

Please read WP:SIG and consider shortening your signature. _JD^talk 19:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

considers, then shrugs --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 19:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Progress

The first part of your message here cracked me up. Progress, indeed. I may have to steal your notepad idea myself. (Yes, this message was pointless; I'm hitting "save page" anyway). Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 22:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

new user page

I'm Swatjester and I approve this user page. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 07:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. any interesting backstory behind the switch from lesbian to bisexual?

Yes, stupidity on my part not looking at the linkages I was copying. I had originally set aside a little LGBT box with pictures, but decided to get rid of that and just ended up making a few images. However, one of the things I copied I didn't check and it incorrectly had les instead of bi. My userboxes indicate the true , er, direction I go in. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 07:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh, I was about to say, usually people don't just suddenly change their sexual preferences because they changed their user page. Was wondering if there was a fun story behind it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 07:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The userboxes kinda hang awkwardly at the bottom now, but otherwise, it's groovy. Riana 08:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Gee, it's too bad somebody went and deleted the Esperanza user page award, or I'm sure you'd be a shoe-in to win your second award.  ;-P —Doug Bell ^talk 08:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wow! Nice remodeling of your page. Hopefully it didn’t set you back too much $$$! In reply to your earlier message - I should go back to a Wikibreak and that’s what I should have stayed on due to the stressful things lately. That lasted what, 16 hours? Ohh well. I’ll be ok. ;-) JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 18:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, truth be told I thought the other page was more functional. I'm not sure Elaragirl Inc. has grown to be such a massive Web site that it needs to devote the front page to a simple directory. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The other page was more compact, but all the wikidesk formatting made updating it insanely hard, and my drop down boxes were substs inside of substs consisting of nested tables...argh. I wanted a unified page design. Why I waste so much time on my userpages is still a mystery to me. But it's hard for me to find good sources at work, and vandal fighting and voting at AfD is something I'm slowing down on due to civility issues, at least for a few more days. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 20:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Loyalty and ArbCom recusal

Hi Elaragirl. Since you wonder whether I would recuse in a case in which I had a conflict of interest, I would like to reassure you that I most certainly would. Would you like to share with me why you have particular concerns in this regard? You mention loyalty to friends. Yes I have developed some very wonderful Wiki-friendships. (Who knows, perhaps one day with you ;-)) I am loyal to those to the extent that I am willing to go the extra mile, during rush hour traffic, detour, get lost, seek alternate routes", fix a flat, run out of gas, and hitch hike to wherever I'm needed. However none of this extends to my judgments about what is best for Wikipedia. In my view, the encyclopedia always comes first. Regards, Paul August ☎ 18:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC) (P.S. I will also post a modified version of the above on my talk page since others might be interested. Feel free to reply (or not) either here or there, or in email, or by carrier pigeon.) Paul August ☎ 18:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 21:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

*hands you a beer*

Because WineSteward's too mean to give you one :P Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?)} 19:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

points to Wikimood at -1. Other than that, I'm fine... I think... Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?)} 19:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Just testing something

Boo! Poo! Foo!! --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 20:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Personalised templates, whee

riana_dzasta has smiled at you! Smiling is customarily an expression of pleasure or amusement, but can also be an involuntary expression of anxiety, in which case it can be known as a grimace. Rest assured that this smile was, indeed, a smile! Hopefully this bit of silliness has made your day better. Spread the love by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to someone's talk page with something nice. Happy editing!

'allo!

Ayelie has smiled at you Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Ayelie likes to give smiles to brighten up people's days, and hopes you will do the same by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}}, or {{subst:smile3}} to talk pages. Have a good day, and happy editing! Thought I'd send you something nice and cheery... not upon suggestion, oh no! Anyways, while I'm here I might as well send you some hugs and all that too. *hugs* *all that* ... what the hey, *sends some love* --Editor at Large(speak)00:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, I tried to e-mail you twice but never got confirmation notices. Just wondering if they went through. ? — Editor at Large^(speak) 00:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

General comments

I've kept an eye on you, EG. I have a few things to say. First, I like your userpage(s) a lot, but I find that the "a" trick is a little in bad taste, a little vulgar. We all know how you feel, anyway - and it's not going to help you in your RfA come February or whatever. Next, votes like "No slay vandal, no win vote" are ok for neutral, if you wanna be known as our next only-vandal RfA crank (we already had a few 1FA cranks, a current image cranks, and a number of muslim no-jews-or-hindus-for-adminship cranks. It isn't a good grounds for an oppose, though, IMO, and will simply make the community respect your opinion less. Other than that, I like your style. Are you Chinese - or do you only know the language? Just curious. Thanks. - crz crztalk 01:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)`

Vive la France. I just took a test in Securities Regulation, where one of the questions read, if your French citizen client casually tells you that he just bought 6% of outstanding stock of company X on the N.Y. Stock Exchange, what would you tell him? I wrote, "Félicitations! C'est magnifique!" :) :) - crz crztalk 02:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

GNAA

It's finally deleted. WP:V can rest in peace. --Iamunknown 02:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

My userpage

Sorry, art nor web design are my strong points. Anything you could do would be better than the awful thing I have know. Thanks! FirefoxMan 16:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I think is that the wikistress looks too large. Can you split the WikiProjects table with it so there is not so much empty space? Thanks agin. FirefoxMan 19:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and also, can you add the Status back in somehow? FirefoxMan 19:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

oops

I may have outdone you on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/IDF barnstar?! discussion. Oh well, I am getting tired of Striver's rantings on Jewish pages and topics. Jeffpw 19:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you so much, honey! That's the bestest Barnstar I have ever received! It's proudly displayed on my userpage now...which you might want to check out for something funny you can put on your page, too! Jeffpw 20:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

PROD on User:Sean Canavi

Doug is probably assuming Sean Canavi is 87.127.74.230 (talk · contribs)

Let him log in. But even if true, since 87.127.74.230 has done nothing but make edits to that user page -- except one to Lex Luthor, which was wrong -- I don't see a dimes's worth of difference here. --Calton | Talk 00:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Calton's about as civil as I am and gets touchy when someone questions his posistion [sic] as Grand High Executioneer of God-Awfully Stupid User Pages.

Your facts are as questionable as your spelling. I'll note you've been the subject of an WP:AN thread for your behavior, and I haven't. --Calton | Talk 00:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll note you still remind me of a BOFH. And I'll note that you're you're probably the last person on Wikipedia -- probably in North America -- with the standing to make that comparison: that's a funny thing about living in glass houses, ennit? --Calton | Talk 01:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That's because I'm the only person more sharp and uncivil than you. To steal from Wolfgang Pauli, that's not right, that's not even wrong. But enjoy your peculiar little obsession while you can, since I suspect your act will get real old, real fast to the admins. --Calton | Talk 02:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

re: Daniel Brandt

Where are the sources saying so? I didn't see any. Your own interpretation of "uncivil" isn't good enough for Wikipedia, any more than my interpretation of him being a jerk who got screwed, which I of course didn't put in the article. Can you find a third party source? I'll also leave a note on the talk page... prolly gonna revert too :( Milto LOL pia 04:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• And next time, a non-robotic revert with a reason would be nice. Milto LOL pia 04:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, by the way, I wanted you to notice this edit - I don't have contempt for you. That was a rather unfortunate typo of mine, but I fixed it now :-P Milto LOL pia 22:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Irony

Quite. You weren't on IRC last night at about 21.00 Wikitime. It will, I imagine, make you laugh even more to know that our best friend was trying to find an administrator to get the AFD speedy closed, and accused me of having "no common sense" when I pointed out that this was not a little illogical. Cheers, Moreschi 08:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks very much for the barnstar. I really appreciate it. It makes a change from being bashed over the head by pseudo-intellectuals with hidden agendas. (Never mind, Arbcom put paid to that. Heh heh.) Cheers. --Folantin 10:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleting things

Your status says that you are deleting things. How is this possible! Also I like the new page you have, Would you mind if I nominate you for admin. :) Cheers! — Seadog 18:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:BEANS

Heh, how long do you reckon it'll be until you are blocked because of the button on your talk? :D Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?)} 19:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the button in {{Emergency-bot-shutoff}} better than the lock icon :) Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?)} 19:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My RfC - take two

As your outside view is still the most widely supported one, and as you call for a common ground and good faith, could you check the talk page and do at least a little bit mediation to help stabilize the situation? I feel that there are some good faithed posts there, but also some flaming, to say the laest. Who is doing what, you should be able to see for yourself, but I am afraid the situation may be headed downhill despite attempts by several people to calm things down - and the best thing that can happen is if truly neutral editors (who don't support either side) enforce more neutrality there.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

'Tis Ok

As long as we're getting rid of the vandals/vandalized versions. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

your comments on Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia AfD

Hi Elaragirl, I've read your comments on the AfD for Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia, and I've noticed that you are being very considerate and restrained in your comments. Even more restrained than myself, considering that I had voted to delete non-soured content and merge the rest. I enjoy Star Trek, but I'm not the type of person who remembers episode titles or who spends much time thinking about command structures in what is a well-known, but ultimately fictional universe. Was this the sort of process-related participation you were encouraging me to explore? I hope you're doing well. --Kyoko 04:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that you're OK. I've been fiddling a bit with my own userpage, because the current Wikipedia donations bar seems to interfere with the formatting. I understand how CoolCat and Husnock would feel hurt at the prospect of their work being deleted. I encountered something similar with the Kodachrome article some time back. I think I'll suggest that much of the article's content can be put on another, Star Trek-related wiki. --Kyoko 04:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Elaragirl/Archive 5, thank you for participating in my RfA which passed on 13th December 2006 with a tally of 49/10/5. Whilst I am delighted by the result and a little daunted; I appreciate the various comments re lack of experience in some aspects and I shall be cautious in my use of the new tools. I am well aware that becoming an Admin is not just about a successful nomination, but a continuing process of gaining further experience and I should welcome your feedback on any Admin tasks I become involved with. Again, many thanks for taking the time to consider my RfA and cast your views :-) David Ruben 02:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Busybody

He goes out of his way to be as rude as possible. Instead of simply pointing it out calmly, he has to cast it in the most cutting way possible.

If you want to practice your "fearless rebel" act, you ought to go do it elsewhere -- though I suppose you don't want to risk it in a place like Denton, Texas. Butt out.

I hadn't heard about that either

Quelle surprise, another policy you fail to understand.

...and of course it's stupid to prod a userpage since anyone can remove it with the slighest of valid reasons.

A fairly clueless statement. I leave it as an exercise to figure out why. Hint: always understand the meaning of the adjectives you use before using them. --Calton | Talk 13:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Newbie

I am starting to realize that my ramblings probably looked like a Newbie's spew, which of course is what they are. Whenever I think I am starting to understand Wikipedia a bit better, I find out that I do not really understand it. I think a useful thing might be a primer for newbies, or an Idiots' Guide to Wikipedia.--Filll 15:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

WW III

Your advice on this horrible situation would be more than welcome. I'm prepared to just walk away from it, but I simply don't think another admin should remove things from my user page and then block me when I had a problem with it. But, yes, I shouldn't have unblocked myself. -Husnock 06:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Zoe

Thanks for making the points I was trying to make as well as (or better than) I could have possibly made them. -- Kicking222 20:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Elara. I've been debating whether or not to write this message for a while; should I bring up bad blood again, or shove it to the side and ignore it. I can't just do that. I'm not going to apologize again, god knows I do enough of that, but what I want to say is that I need to know where we stand. I thought back alot about everything, and we have never really gotten along, not from the first moment we met, which is my fault entirely. You should know that I was entirely ignorant about a lot of policies and the events recently have taught me a lot, and can agree with you on many things. So basically what I'm saying, and I hope this doesn't come across wrong, is that I want to know if we've put everything behind us and if there are any hard feelings. You have every right to be thoroughly disgusted by me, and I can understand that, but I hope that I can have the chance to be able to work with you in the future with no issues. Thanks. DoomsDay349 23:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

RFA

I left a message on User talk:Jaranda explaining why I would prefer to wait for a little bit before going to RFA. I would love to have a co-nom from the Supreme Ruler of the Deletionist Cabal...principles over pragmatism...of course! Seriously, when the time comes co-nom away. Cheer, Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Padawan?Lol, but huh? I went wrong where? "Associated Student Bodies" gets 810. I'm sure of that! What search term did you use? Cheers, from a slightly puzzled Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on AfD

I am always hesitant to lay down a "personal set or rules" or the like on why I vote the way I do. I try to articulate the best I can case-by-case why an article does or does not meet wikipeida policy. It seems that if I lay out a personal mantra then it gives the impression I'm voting one way or the other all of the time because of personal feelings on the subject matter instead of the acceptability of the article for inclusion in wikipedia based on policy alone. I'm not saying trying to articulate that is a bad idea I just wouldn't try and add a personal flair to WP:SCISSORS. That type of thing, I think, is best left on a person's userspace. Most people that would want to know more about your personal feelings or establish the method to your mayhem are going to end on your userspace anyway.

I don't oppose the idea of collborative brainstorming on where the participants share common ground is though. That is, after all, one of the reasons why wikiprojects exist.NeoFreak 17:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Re

I tried to communicate with him in his talk page, but no respone. I checked the source, found nothing. Can you reverte it to the last reasonable version? Thanks. Emir Arven 19:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Christmas Came Early!!!

Christmas came early for me today :)! Best wishes Elaragirl, thanks for for the barnstar!!!¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Destroy all votes

<When|if> you sniff out an XfD closed by (spit) counting votes, don't hesitate to use my talk with your concerns. Having been one of the driving forces in re-writing "Votes for Undeletion" into "Deletion Review" so that baby-eating deletionist terror balance was brought into the system, I am always willing to wade in when someone gets it wrong.
brenneman 22:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)