User talk:Elaragirl/Archive 7

You are back

• hugs* I am so glad to see that you are feeling better. Cheers! — Arjun 03:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just heard that you were feeling well and now you're better. Glad you're feeling better. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 03:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Elaragirl is back! Time for the welcome back fiesta.....I will need some cake, ham, chicken, Hors d'œuvres, Chocolate fountain, a bowl of punch, and some fruits. =) Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm glad to see that you're back. Someone has to keep the inclusionists in check :) I'm glad you're feeling better, as well. Cheers, PTO 03:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(hugs everyone) I'll be okay, I guess. Make sure you all pray for Kyoko. :) --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 03:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back. I'll try to saymore later, but I just feel very drained right now. Thank you. --Kyoko 04:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Elaragirl! I'm glad to see that you've come back. I hope that your wikibreak enabled you to get some perspective both on Wikipedia and in real life. I'm not sure if I can do much else than send a standard packet of good will your way, but if there is, tell me :). I will try to pray for you and others. If I may quote from Walden,

Every morning was a cheerful invitation to make my life of equal simplicity, and I may say innocence, with Nature herself. I have been as sincere a worshipper of Aurora as the Greeks. I got up early and bathed in the pond; that was a religious exercise, and one of the best things which I did. They say that characters were engraven on the bathing tub of King Tchingthang to this effect: "Renew thyself completely each day; do it again, and again, and forever again."

Mmmmmm, sounds good to me. Find the means for refreshing yourself, Elara (if you don't have one already), and do it! :) Gracenotes^T § 04:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yay, she's back! Me jumps up and down with excitement. Hope RL is a bit better. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 08:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I, too, am deeply joyed that you have returned. I hope your life has turned around for the better. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I could say some lame thing about being so happy that you're back, but I won't. I'll just say that I know those pains don't go away quickly, and that I'm here if you need someone to lean on. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Replying to your query

I haven't gone anywhere as of yet. However, until this situation is resolved, I will be restricting my editing to the Rfc and Arbcom. Once it is settled I will make a decision about remaining. And it was wonderful to see your name on my talk page. I hope things are improving for you now--you were in my thoughts. Jeffpw 11:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Tutorial

I've seen your deletion tutorial, it's very nice. Can I interest you in helping with rewriting/clearing up our actual policy and guideline pages? Several them are in dire need of a touchup. >Radiant< 12:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Teacup

Have you met Guy? I think you two might get on well together - you seem to have the same views on civility as applied to trolls, etc. David Mestel^(Talk) 09:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Can we stop the pokes at JzG, already? He got kicked around enough on ANI. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Wasn't meant to be a poke - just a light-hearted comment, and it certainly wasn't meant to be critical of his stance - just an observation that their views seem similar. I have the greatest respect for JzG. David Mestel^(Talk) 10:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Elara, I TOTALLY need to apply this policy to my user page. I am going through some drama of my own. Bearly541 00:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Back!

Welcome back, Elara. Good to see you around. God knows we need your wit here. DoomsDay349 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elara

I'll email you:). Nina Odell 02:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

You are getting this barnstar because you have been through a lot of really annoying stuff.--CJ King 03:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you , CJ. :) --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 03:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you're back.

So instead of fighting the hordes out there, you're deciding to engage them here? Good luck. (Personally I think the ones here are crazier. We're all loonies here.) ColourBurst 07:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Deletion

Hi. I have enlisted in your project.

Where can I read pages pertaining to deletion policy; specifically, the criteria for inclusion and deletion? Rintrah 09:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Your note

You're welcome. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Your final and only warning

WP:Civil & WP:Assume good faith. Also, wikistalking just because you disagree with my AFD votes is not cool.Yzak Jule 10:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear - :(

Sorry to hear you're not having a good time of it. Hope things perk up for you soon & you'll be back to your happy optimistic self. If you want to talk about anything, my user page is always open... :) Spawn Man 03:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope everything is settling down for you, on the exterior at least. My kindest sympathies. --lovelaughterlife♥^talk? 05:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Elaragirl, Sorry to hear things have not been so great. I offer up my heart felt wishes for things to look up for you. MY hope is that you have the love and friendships close to you who will give you strength and comfort. he last thing anyone at this place in his or her lives wants to hear is "I know how you feel" or "it'll get better over time"... Fact is no one knows, and it will never really go away or get better. I lost my 17-year-old daughter. Nothing is worse than losing a loved one and no words can offer up any solace. My heart breaks for you, your family and your friends. At times like this many people lean on the hope of a life after this one where we can someday be reunited again with our loved ones. A place free of pain and hurt. I believe in this kind of place. So I offer up my prayers for you. Mystar 02:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Direct-buried cable

Hi. Reference 2 in the article Direct-buried cable, which you created, seems to be wrong. Did you enter the wrong URL by mistake? This URL does not appear to support either of the referenced points.--Srleffler 05:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons why it's a good idea to use the {{cite web}} and {{cite paper}} templates for references to documents found online. By filling in the template fields, you document what the webpage or pdf document was, and when you viewed it. That way if the content changes or goes offline, Wikipedia still has a valid reference, albeit to a source that is no longer available. Readers with an interest may be able to track down that reference elsewhere. (There is also {{cite book}} for books, and several other related templates.)--Srleffler 23:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Martial art question

Do you mind if I ask what martial art style you participate in? If you'd rather I ask by email let me know or, if you don't respond I'll take it that you'd rather not say. No problem either way. Cla68 06:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage template

I just read your template that reads "This is a Wikipedia user page. It's not an article. Don't cry." That really gave me a good laugh. Thanks for making my day so wonderful!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 22:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Be honest....

How long did it take you to get your userpage/talkpage to look so nice? It took me hours upon hours to get mine to look how it is, and it's just simple tables. :( .V. (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

re: that little pigsty of controversy at WP:DGAF

You rock. And what do I find, but you have very cool user pages, including your "i love me wall" (mine is still a box, including that nat-def-svc-spam-ribbon which I also have; I had to buy a new ribbon rack for that shit, do you believe it?) and your own very funny and candid "Elara:NOT" page. Which rocks more. You inspire me, shipmate. I must plagiariaze your creativity for my own pages, but not before applauding you and offering to do your dishes anytime you please. Just ask. Alpha Mike Foxtrot. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see your back in full force

It's good to see you're back to your old ways. Put them in their place good, eh?. Hope you're feeling better, and all that. DoomsDay349 03:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I, too, am pleased to see things go back normal. I do hope you that you have gotten over everything and are feeling better now. Have a great day, Elara. ← ANAS ^Talk? 13:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

MySpace blogs of notable people

Despite WP:RS guideline being against blogs, that same guideline allows self-published sources to be included. Some notable people use their MySpace blogs as a way to announce important points in their career. As such, could a blog posting I described still be used as a reference? --w^{L<speak·check·chill>} 06:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If I may also add a voice here, there are many times where MySpace blogs seems quite acceptable under WP:RS, both as Leon above states, and under the Primary source section. See Lillix (diff) for an example where MySpace blogs were used to convey information about the state of the band. In these cases, this was the only credible place where such information existed. I fail to see how an official resource of a band, such as their MySpace page, should be counted any differently than a website owned by them, or a press release issued by them. None of the information on any of these can be added to or changed by anyone except individuals involved with the band. I certainly agree with removing references and links to blogs from any random MySpace profile (and any random message board, etc), but an exception certainly should be made for bands, movies, politicians, etc...all of which are increasingly using MySpace rather than traditional websites to reach fans or a targeted audience. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 09:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

My problem with the blog links I removed is that they were consistantly not used to state things that were encyclopedic. Wikipedia isn't a place, for example, to list who's going to be at a concert. Nor is it the place to state why one member of the band thinks another member of the band left. WP:RS is pretty clear that self-published sources are acceptible only when they are "relevant to the self-publisher's notability" and aren't used as secondary sources. I only did a 100 article run yesterday. About a fourth of the blog.myspace.com links I saw were properly used. A handful were questionable, but I left those. I removed things about album releases for one simple reason: if an album's release can't be documented by the record label, it's not verifiable. The record label releases it, not the band. And if the record isn't released with a record label, it's not notable. *shrugs* If there is a better source than a blog, you should use it and find it. For example, the band website lists all the same information (even if it is horrible to look at). So does this band website (which is even more eye turning, but hey). --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 18:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I do see your point, however, in the article in question, only one (I believe) of those blog links were pertaining to release data. That can easily be referenced elsewhere, and I'll do so. However, the other links were data that cannot be obtained elsewhere (you'll notice the main website hasn't been updated in quite some time, not uncommon for a band that has broke up), so the blog is the best (and only) source. Also, I should note that the lillixuk.com website is, I believe, a fan site; however, I'm not in the best position to explore it at the moment (currently sitting in lecture, where this has taken 15 minutes to write :). In any case, I'm not sure how best to proceed, since the entire domain of MySpace blogs have been blacklisted, unless you are a meta admin and can whitelist these, or can point me to someone else who might do the job. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 20:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources should only be used in rare occasions, as they undermine the integrity of wikipedia's sourcing. As such, including them usually does more harm than good. That is why blog.myspace.com was blacklisted. It was a primary source of the worst kind. Unverifiable, unreliable, and rife with bias. It should not be on Wikipedia, and higher up people than this lowly editor apparently think so too. Jimbo himself requested the blacklisting and as such, I do NOT see it being overturned. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

On a scale from one to awesome...

On a scale from one to awesome, you're pretty cool. In other non-sequitors, how do you smoke and run marathons? I mean, if there's some secret I should know, please do share. Not the quiet type 07:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion tables vs archiving

You may find this comment interesting; you did comment that inclusionism is an integral part of MediaWiki software. Have a nice day :) Gracenotes^T § 14:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Peloponnesian War as this week's WP:AID winner

AzaBot 12:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Me and my CSD-ing

I'd like to think so. Not only that, I actually have Firefox bookmarks available to watch every speedy deletion category - particularly those which I am most used to dealing with. So I can see every single article on CSD in a certain category at the touch of a button.

Thanks for the compliment. Bobo. 02:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Problems with potential nationalist

Hi Elara. Remember me? Well, there is a user who removed huge part of Bosnian War article which was totally sourced by international courte judgements etc. I think it was classical provocation. The user is Ivan Kricancic and here is his contribution [1], Your advice? What should I do next? Regards. Emir Arven 02:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was the one who reverted vandalism, whereas Emir Arven reverted back to a version which was unsourced/vandalized. And apart from that, it's quite ironic that Emir would call anyone a "nationalist", when it is quite clear from his/her contributions that Emir is a nationalist who blindly reverts other editors solely because they are a Serb or a Croat, and calls any edit that conflicts with his/her POV "vandalism. —KingIvan 02:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Bull shit. Anyone can see what happened. Emir Arven 03:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's right; anyone can see what happened. And they'll agree with what I said above. —KingIvan 03:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No they will not. Because I always provide the sources, unlike yourself who is provoking and insulting. You didn't read the article. So stop insulting my intelligence. If you have a problem with ethnic frustration this is not the right place for you. Emir Arven 03:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that you are the person provoking and insulting - coming to some ransom talk page and writing shit about me. Get a life. "Ethnic frustration" is caused by editors like yourself, who blindly revert on the basis of ethnicity, and who provoke other editors by suggesting they are involved in genocide[2].

P.S. How can I insult something that does not exist? —KingIvan 03:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but this is not a hospital, I can't help you. And I came here to ask for an advice, not to discuss with you. This is the end of the discussion. Emir Arven 03:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Spread your shit on bs.wikipedia - on the en, we don't take crap! —KingIvan 03:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Elara is not a gangbang. Furthermore, Elara is not dispute resolution. It exists. Take your petty name-calling there. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 03:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What Peter said. Did you two adctually bother to read EL:TEACUP? Everything is explained there. And dispute resolution is just down the corridor, to the right. Though the way you two are acting is won't be long before dispute resolution becomes irrelevant for both of you. Moreschi ^Deletion! 09:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

A smile for you

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

After that nastiness above, I thought a smile would be nice :) Keep up your good work Elara, you're a star, and always remember, if they're shooting at you, you must be doing something right :P Thε Halo ^Θ 13:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

what gets deleted

I just put a note on GR Berry's talk page & on ProjectDeletion that you might be interested in.DGG 04:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I replied to your comment about deletionism at The Transhumanist's Virtual Classroom page. It can be found here. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Tidying-up

Elara, thanks for the tidying-up at Sr/M. I don't know if you realised that you changed the alphabetical order of the languages with your last change. Was there a particular reason or was it accidental? Hope you don't mind me following this up. --Opbeith 13:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Virtual classroom

I've replied to your posting at User talk:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Elaragirl, about deletion and deletionism. Walton monarchist89 13:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Council of Magickal Arts

Thank you for your vote change. I am sorry if I did not do a very good job of establishing what I needed to up front. This is really my first article to carry from birth through the fire. I am glad it will get the chance to grow up. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 03:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

World's Smallest Political Quiz userbox

You may be interested in User:Audacity/Userboxes/WSPQ, which is a replacement for the old Political Chart userbox. The new userbox takes the two variables (economic and personal freedom), calculates which political alignment they place you into (Statist, Libertarian, Liberal, Centrist, or Conservative), and links your userpage to the appropriate category.

Please reply to User talk:Audacity, as I will not be watching your talk page. Λυδαcιτγ 07:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Adminship - interested in your perspective

I read User:Elaragirl/AdminCriteria today, as I'm interested in becoming an admin at some time in the future (although I don't yet have enough edits) and am interested in what other users expect of a prospective admin. I have a couple of questions (you don't have to answer if you're too busy; I appreciate that working on articles is more important).

• Am I doing enough in terms of XfDs? (You emphasise these as an important quality in a would-be admin, and I'd like to know if I'm going about them the right way.)
• Would my previous postings on policy-discussion pages, which could be viewed as pro-inclusionist, disqualify me from ever getting your vote? (Bear in mind that although I often disagree with Wiki policy, I nonetheless do my best to uphold it and to follow the guidelines. I know we had a mild disagreement at the Virtual classroom, but on reflection I'm starting to come round to your point of view where deletion is concerned. And if I was given adminship, I would certainly never use admin tools to pursue my own alternative agenda. So I hope you would consider me trustworthy.)
• You state that you won't ever vote for a self-nomination with less than 4,000 edits. Is this a hard-and-fast rule, or would you be prepared to make an exception where the candidate has demonstrated a strong familiarity with policy and system tasks? (4,000 edits seems a very high goal for me; I'm nowhere near that at the moment, despite spending all my free time on Wikipedia, and was thinking of self-nominating once I get to 2,000 edits.)
• Thank you in advance for your help. Walton monarchist89 20:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My suggestions would be thus - first of all - learn the bigger picture of Wikipedia. EN is only one piece in a bigger puzzle. Several rules apply to the encyclopedia that are not even defined on the site. Examples include m:Foundation issues, m:Privacy policy, and m:Checkuser policy. Secondly - the value of diplomacy cannot be understate in adminship. No one is going to like everything you do, and you had better expect at least a small handful to be completely and utterly opposed to everything you stand for. How you handle this will determine whether you crash and burn or whether you rise above. Everything else, like edit counts, XfD participation, whatever, it's just fancy window dressing that people like to cite when they're opposing someone they don't like and want to look good. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

EL:TEACUP

Hi, Elaragirl. I seen your edits on userpages before and admire User:Elaragirl/Teacup. I am a little new here, I have been editing for about two weeks and am seemingly familiar with wikilinking, placing of templates, warning messages, et. al. I was wondering if it is illegal to adopt your policies to my userpage? I can modify them from there. Thanks. Real96 00:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That link goes to some other language Wikipedia. What page are you referring to?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 00:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

He means the policy linked at the top of Elara's user page. He had incorrectly linked it as an interwiki link. I have fixed this. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Elara, I truly apologize if I'm considered disruptive due to this edit. Feel free to revert my change if needed.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point of it. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 05:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you can see, Real96 was very confused with linking to your subpage, since EL:TEACUP actually links to another language Wikipedia.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 14:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously, this false Wikipedia using my first two initials must be shut down, Ed. I'll leave the details to you. :p --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 17:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) I made a personal policy page at User:Real96/96:FEW. Can you tell me how can I update/enhance the content? Thanks. Real96 02:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Admin criteria

Thanks for your comments. I get the impression that you're not one of these users who thinks the editcount is the only thing that matters, which is good. However, I'm not sure why you're so suspicious of self-noms; I want to be an admin, not to use the power as a "swagger stick", but because I feel it would genuinely allow me to contribute more to Wikipedia. (I do a lot of newpage patrolling, for instance, and the ability to carry out speedy-deletes would be good.) As to inclusionism, I took a look at the userpage of the editor you mentioned, and noticed the following statement that s/he made: The deletionists are taking it away from every human being on the planet who needs help getting it, to whom wikipedia is obliged to help provide "the sum total of human knowledge". While this is roughly what I used to think a few weeks ago (hence my earlier posting at the Virtual classroom), after reading your comments (and Pascal.Tesson's) I am now much more sympathetic to the deletionist point of view; I'm beginning to think that you're absolutely right in feeling that pages of random information reduce the overall standard and reputation of Wikipedia, and that deletion is sometimes necessary. However, my question still stands; would you be prepared to relax your rule about self-noms with less than 4,000 edits, in cases where you were satisfied that the candidate was (a) familiar with policy, (b) not a passionate inclusionist, and (c) had genuine and positive motives for wanting to become an admin? If you still feel that at least 4,000 edits are needed, then I won't nominate myself until I reach that level (which may be quite a long time, as I only have about 1,200 after nearly a year of editing). But I think I now meet all your other yardsticks: I'm no longer an inclusionist (you kind of converted me), I have experience of the XfD process, and I am not a supporter of interfering with people's userpages (on the topic of userboxes, I have quite a large collection myself). Walton monarchist89 13:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

May I comment? The big thing with RFA is, quite simply, trust. Edit count is irrelevant: someone recently got through with only about 1700. If you know policy and everyone else thinks you are trustworthy in your temperament and knowledge of policy, then you should be fine at RFA.

But hey, if you really want Elara's vote and want to run right now I'll write up a nomination for you :) Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Don't know why you haven't been on IRC, I've seen you around - but, find me there, or email me please. I need to talk. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 15:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 22:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Apostrophe abuse?

1 - Abuse? I merely maligned it, that's all. :) Thanks for catching that. And I'm still staying out of trouble, see? --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 05:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Elara!

Hee! One of my pet peeves on Wikipedia is the abuse (or mere maligning) of the apostrophe, one of the most misunderstood types of punctuation in the English language. I spend a great deal of my time on Wikipedia removing incorrect apostrophes. The one I fixed there was only one of a series of fixes; no need to thank me, as it's all semi-automated (I conduct robotic searches on phrases likely to contain apostrophe abuse, and then zap them as needed). Capital Account Convertibility is a bit beyond my meagre understanding of economics, for the record. ;) BTW, I was shocked to discover my name on User:Elaragirl/AdminCriteria the other day. I appreciate the very nice compliments, but now I'm going to have to watch myself carefully. :/ I'm glad things with you are... well, "better" is too glib, considering all the terrible stuff you and your loved ones have been going through... I'm glad no new problems have developed, and hope the pain you've suffered has at least grown bearable. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 07:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain this edit, please?

Can you explain this edit please, and explain the basis for a) your trolling accusation; b) your dismissive attitude toward anons; c) your personal attacks? Is this a response to this edit alone, or is this there some prior history that I don't know about? If there isn't- please strongly consider apologising. Badgerpatrol 11:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• I love how that whenever people say something that others don't like, they consider it some huge slight. Let me put it simply - if people want to be treated with respect, they should treat others with respect. Even Jimbo doesn't extend respect to those that don't - he just ignores them. If Elara's to be stomped on for sticking up for someone when they're down, then we need to re-examine our values. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't be a hypocrite. Your response is to erect a blatant strawman argument. I'm not concerned with the nature of the comment, I'm concerned with the fact that (AGFing that there is no history between Zoe and this particular anon, and I have no reason to suspect that there is) Elaragirl's attack on him was completely out of keeping with the good faith nature of his comment. Have we reached a stage where even constructive criticism (as this seemed to be) is unwelcome and subject to retaliatory personal attacks? Pull your head out of the sand and apply some rational thought, please. The issue is not "were the anon's comments correct" the issue is "did he have a right to make them" without being subjected to a vicarious personal attack by way of a response. Whatever the answer to Q1, the answer to Q2 is unambiguously "YES". If you are so sensitive to criticism that you perceive comments like this to be "kicking someone when they're down", then I do not understand how you can possibly live a normal life in the world. Badgerpatrol 00:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• "I do not understand how you can possibly live a normal life in the world." Life loves it's irony. And here, YOU are complaining about personal attacks. That tickles my funny bone. How about you get a clue? Really, really. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  Yeah, I like that one. Badgerpatrol's obviously a upright guy who never uses a double standard. I like you. Hell, I'll let you buy me dinner. sarcastic snort. Why do I even bother.... --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 00:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the two of you are either a) not willing; or b) not capable; of responding to the substantive issues as presented with any rational counterargument. With the "debate" at this level, it's time to stop. All the best, Badgerpatrol 01:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to back up Badgerpatrol on this one. Elaragirl, your actions seem to be violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. If you have any counterarguements, please direct it towards the current situation, not at another involved editor (ad hominem).--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I already said that I could care less what Badgerpatrol thinks. I'm certainly not going to revert my statements simply because someone who thinks Zoe is in the wrong (and who states he saw nothing at all wrong with Jimbo's statement and things Zoe is totally in the wrong on this) is upset. As far as I'm concerned, the issue is over. I'm archiving this mess, since I could really care less and it's cluttering up my talk page. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 05:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh I already tried that. Badgerpatrol apparently hasn't heard that edit warring is a Bad Thing^TM. This is really just childish ness and stirring a pot of shit for the purpose of stirring a pot of shit. And people wonder why the hell I'm leaving Wikipedia once Ilena's ArbCom case is over. This textbook case of hypocriscy from the civility brigade, that's why. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh, from one who fights for the under dog, through the neutrality project, how does any of the above make sense? David D. (Talk) 05:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• That statement of yours doesn't make any sense. Zoe was censured by Jimbo. She is very much the underdog, and the Encyclopedia is probably losing a DAMN GOOD admin because of a situation that was not handled well at all. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Zoe was like a bull in a china shop. As normal she was head strong which can sometimes make her a good admin. But it can also cause a lot of friction and strife with good users too. Zoe was no underdog, in my opinion. She hounded the guy and was trying to get him disciplined by his superiors. This was so over the top it needed to be stopped. Who likes vandals, not me for sure, but you know very well she could have been a lot more constructive. I have no idea what she was thinking, as many have already mentioned. To then lash out at those who are critical of her behaviour makes the situation worse. And just out of interest, if Zoe is sending letters to peoples employers why would anyone feel comfortable communicating with her except as an anon? Seems like she has made her own bed here. David D. (Talk) 05:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I;m not entertaining this issue further. Jimbo was out of line. Period. He knows it. He's acknowledged it. Why the rest of Wikipedia cannot acknowledge it is a case study in the indellibility of first impressions, and a massive failutre to assume good faith. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I am not defending what Wales posted on ANI, but that error does not make Zoe's conduct defensible. David D. (Talk) 06:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)