User talk:Elen of the Roads/2009

Chance

Having slept on it I think I might have been a little hasty in removing the PROD. It probably had more to do with a "cute little animal" reflex and the fact it relates to where I live than any real notability. It probably shoud be deleted. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 07:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu

Thanks. I love you. Rodhullandemu 00:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

GANGS

Thank you for your thoughtful clarification. I have no stomach for doing anything with the wiki gang for now but will keep in mind the information. If and when such time arrives where i attempt to go thru such an ordeal again I will ask for your assistance. But...I doubt this will be anytime soon. Thanks again. Stevonmfl (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Stevonmfl (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand your reaction. I hope you do decide to come back sometime. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record:

From Stevonmfl

For the record and maybe more as it is important to keep insults credited correctly here as this seems to be a favored method of operating, the above discussion by Smatse is NOT CREDITED CORRECTLY. To wit: "...It was clear that Stevonmfl was in the wrong pretty quickly. Comments like "Maybe you're just not used to people who aren't bowled over by your "expertise", but I'm not some grad student or TA who is required to scrape and bow to you"[1] don't really help us to have civilised discussions." In fact, the above comment on being "bowled over" was actually uttered by Nightshift36 as an insult to me. Smartse assumed it was me and I was blocked like a child. Maybe you need to ask yourself why you made such an assumption. At any rate, I am too used to these kinds of "mistakes" and suffering the repercussions from same and wish you all well. Have a white day.Stevonmfl (talk) 11:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Stevonmfl (talk) 11:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Elen for being honest and above board. Stevonmfl (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning behind the multiple-posting-as-spamming guideline. In this case, my intent was to corporately respond to the several editors who ganged up on me without addressing each of them individually. But thank you for the advisory. Stevonmfl (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please know how little I value your input so save your painted nails.Stevonmfl (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the note about Talk:Fivefold ministry. I figured it was a typo. Regards.-- Chonak (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thought I reverted the curse words added to Alfred Nobel, didnt know I re-added them. Thanks for the heads up. Ono (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Annabeth (Percy Jackson)

Hello! Please note that in this case WP:BK doesn't solely apply, as the character will also be the lead female role in a film. Anyway, after doing a Google News search, I have started to incorporate some of these sources into the article, and respectfully ask that you reconsider so we can continue to revise the article based on the actually considerable reviews, previews, and interviews available. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited - the fact that the character is in a notable book does not make the character itself notable. The fact that the character (unsurprisingly) features in a film of the notable book still does not make the character notable. Perhaps an example would help - the female lead character in the book Twilight has come in for some considerable discussion, mainly on the question of whether she is an appropriate role model for teenage girls. Find something like that for Annabeth and you will convince me that the character has notability.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you be open to a merge of the referenced material to a character list as a compromise? I just did a search on Academic Search Complete and there's a number of reviews on there that aren't always picked up in the Google News search. Anyway, expect some more out of universe information added to the article momentarily. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If you merge everything it would swamp the other article, but completely rewriting it down to a paragraph or so, especially with references wouldn't. Whether that would then be edited subsequently is I suppose a risk it would have to take. I cant see anything of merit in the article as it stands, so I would have to leave any rewrite to someone more familiar with the workElen of the Roads (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

We could at least merge the references about who is playing her in the film to Percy_Jackson_film#Film_adaptation. If you notice in this article, the casting information is unreferenced, so we can at least carry that information over. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. Do that then. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping an open mind. One quick note though, per the GFDL, if I merge anything, then the article's edit history cannot be deleted, so we would have to redirect the article rather than outright delete it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually think that setting up a redirect would be a good idea in this case, although I don't think that the edit history will edify anyone :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a requirement when we merge. Anyway, though, I have been finding some stuff in interviews where the author discusses the characters or previews of the film that compare the character with Hermione Granger from Harry Potter. Perhaps if we trimmed the summary stuff to be more equal with the new material I added, we'd have a more balanced article. I don't know if there's a Percy Jackson wikiproject, but perhaps if there is seeing if anyone from there can help would be great. I am better at adding than condensing. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Outdenting before the indents get silly... I must admit I disagree with a some of the discussion re notability of fiction here, which argues that the author's opinion has lower value than a third party. I think if someone has bothered to ask the author a question about the character in an interview, then you are moving quite a long way towards notability. A controversy over whether A actress or B actress is better suited to play the character also helps. You might rescue this thing yet.

Thanks! I hope so. Incidentally, I've been working on a User:A_Nobody/Inclusion_guidelines#Table_of_notable_fictional_universes to try to determine which fictional universes go across multiple media and especially which ones have their own wikis, or better yet print encyclopedias devoted to them. If I left any out, you are welcome to add them.  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw it. I may add to it. I think it's a shame that no-one who was interested in the article before the AfD had a crack at rewriting it, but I think you've probably done enough to save it. Hopefully a useful effect of User:Ikiplisting the AfD on the talk pages of all the other spinouts will be to encourage the editors there to do a similar improvement.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, I wish more effort would go into improving articles prior to AfDs. Generally speaking, I would much rather improve articles prior to their coming to AfD, but as a member of Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, I always am in the process of trying to rescue some article under discussion that I rarely have time to focus on articles that are not under discussion aside from some of those for which I earned DYK credits that are mentioned somewhere in User:A_Nobody#Barnstars.2C_cookies.2C_smiles.2C_and_thanks (I probably need to split that off from my userpage!), but hey, in the future, if you ever wonder if an article has potential before nominating, do not hesitate to ask me if I can do anything with. If I can, I will gladly see what I can do and if I don't think I can rescue it, I'll gladly say as much as well as was the case with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laws of compression. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I will do. I'm not one for madly deleting everything, and I would not like to see something potentially useful or interesting go to the wall just because I can't find any sources for it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad to read that! Happy editing! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Annabeth AfD

This whole discussion is going nowhere. Seriously, stay cool. You are questioning the notability of the second most important character of Amazon's top selling book? Pmlinediter as 203.88.10.131 (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You are not getting it, are you. I am not saying *anything* about the merits or otherwise of the character. I've not read the books, I have no comment on whether the character is interesting/well written/challenging or whatever.

All I am asking is "Does the character have notability as defined by Wikipedia" - which is a strange abstract definition requiring sufficient secondary verification from reliable published sources to establish that a topic should be in the encyclopaedia. The original article was sloppy - the talk page shows that even you could see that, and it made no effort to cite any sources at all - even primary ones. The first two reviews I looked at didn't mention the character (I don't know why, but some of the ones you cite don't either), which didn't bode well for notability either.

Work has been done on it. You (and User:A Nobody and others) may have brought it up to scratch. I expect now that the consensus will be for keeping. But until there is a guideline that says "Leading characters in notable books are automatically notable" in the way that footballers become notable as soon as they play with a professional club, it is still necessary to demonstrate the notability of book characters the old fashioned way.

Interesting point you make here:"Leading characters in notable books are automatically notable". Well, that's how it should be. I don't really think that jumping to an AfD is really the correct step. You are also not following some of the AfD guidelines like staying cool and averting sarcasm. And AfD is not a place for deciding whether an article is notable or not. You don't start an AfD to delete an article without even a notice. Will post more later. 203.88.10.132 (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that is how it should be, but it's not how it is at the moment, and that is rather the crux of your problem, because that is exactly what the AfD is determining - whether the topic has sufficient merit to warrant inclusion in the encyclopaedia, given the hoops outlined above that any topic must jump through. Wikipedia notability is not connected to whether you or I believe something is notable - only to whether the editor can demonstrate with secondary and tertiary references that the topic has notability.

The AfD discussion has been extremely instructive - I can see why the policy as it stands is not necessarily the easiest to use where fiction is concerned. Learned journals often review new scientific theories in depth, teasing out all the components. There is no equivalent process by which an author's works are examined until they become exceedingly well known, become a set topic on a school syllabus, or one of the author's family writes it. It would be interesting to see if a consensus can be developed as to how much mention in reviews a character needs before it can be said to have acquired notability, although I suspect that the AfD will end up being closed no consensus. Out of interest, you noted in March 09 that it needed cleaning up before someone deleted it - never a truer word spoken, although it sadly did not prompt any action at the time. And please do point me at anything that I said that was aggressive (rather than something you perhaps did not want to hear) or sarcastic (rather than something you perhaps did not want to hear). I have throughout remained disinterested - the article as it stood was terrible fancruft and should have gone, but now that it has been cleaned up I will shed no tears if the consensus is that it stays. The most I will admit to is a little light irony - I am an Englishwoman, after all. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Away away

Anyone looking for me, I'm away until probably Wednesday evening on business and boring stuff.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Plumping NPOV

Hi Elen - Per your note, I edited the language on the "Plumping" article to keep a more neutral point of view. I'd love to get your thoughts on it so that we can make this work. Thanks. Notoplumping (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Notoplumping

I've taken the essay tag off - I do think you have imroved the article in that respect. However, it is still written only from the POV of someone who thinks plumping poultry is a bad thing. While I don't want my chook full of saltwater either, there is something of a history to the practice that isn't just the manufacturers being greedy bastards, that isn't being reflected here.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Elen - Brad was helping me with the article and I saw you reverted all of his changes. he made the following note to you and I just wanted to follow up on your thoughts:

Hi Elen. Could you be more specific about what exactly you would like added to the page in order to resolve the neutrality. Can it be a line that is added or do feel that the whole article needs to be rewritten? A couple other questions: - As for Labeling. Please see this dictionary link http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/labeling . It looks like you can spell labeling with one L or two. But it would appear the two LL spelling is more of a british usage. - I actually removed a "per serving" because it was redundant. Notoplumping(talk)

Responded to on talk page.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Elen,

We have revised the article to include reasons why manufactures inject chicken. I'm hoping that these changes will resolve the disputed neutrality of the article. We have also included language making the article specific to the the US. Please let me know if the flags can be removed or if you would like any other changes made.notoplumping (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation at WP:FICT

I'm suggesting we ask for mediation to help build teh guidance at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). What I propose is that a mediator be the only person to edit the project page itself and be the one to guide discussion and discern consensus. I've proposed it at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Mediation. As a past participant in the lengthy debates, I'd appreciate your input and hopefully your agreement. Hiding T 10:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Hiding, I think that's an excellent idea if all parties will agree to it. I have found the debate very informative - I started without a preconceived view, and have found myself informed by both sides in what has been a largely angst free discussion.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Henry Cheng article

Please ask me opinions first before placing "proposed deletion" tag in the article. Previously, several articles were deleted by other administrators who do not know the event background due to this reason. Ricky@36 (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please provide proper verification of notification for articles that you create. This will save you being PRODded.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Alex Delaware article

Hi! I found your name on the discussion page re: WAF. I'm bogged down reworking the Alex Delaware article that's in the copy-edit backlog from 2007. In my view it should be a complete rewrite vs. copy-edit because the article consisted entirely of in world plot summaries and over-familiarization. I've located sources and started to work them in, but would like a second opinion whether to keep or to scratch the plot summaries. At the moment I've haven't edited all of the summaries, thinking they might/should be deleted.

Is there a WAF policy re: writing about a fictional character who appears in a series? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:_Arverniking

I've quoted what Neslgrad09 was referring to in this case, so feel free to have another look. I still can't understand why Talk:New England School of Law is so blown out of proportion, and from whence these allegations of personal attacks on my part have arisen. I'm glad to have your fresh eyes, since I've tried twice (once with an admin, as you know, and once with WP:UNI to get some input and advice). --King of the Arverni (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for supplying the diff. I did read it through but missed that bit. I've posted on WQA also - I have to say I think it unwise to use what really can only be taken as a medical term unless it is meant as a medical term. Had you said loony or nutty, I wouldn't think twice, but bipolar disorder is quite a specific term, and one that someone is more likely to take offence at.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the criticism. I do have a habit of using terms in unorthodox ways. When I thought of "bipolar disorder" I just thought of bi + polar and dis + order rather than a real medical term. I don't know if that makes any sense, but having a way of looking at words etymologically and in parts, needless to say, creates plenty of real-world misunderstandings for me. Do you have any insight to offer on that earlier allegation of a personal attack? I've been trying to get more eyes to help me see what I'm not seeing, but no one seems to care. In the mean time, of course, the NESL article has experienced more drama. --King of the Arverni (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to say thank you for your imput and letting me blow off some steam. I still can't believe I lost my temper as it's normally out of character. If nothing else the process taught me to be extra careful when I make my edits and summaries lest I offend someone. In the end that may be a good thing. Thanks again Shinerunner (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no worries. I think what it has shown is that one person's throwaway remark is another person's insult, something we all need to remember (I'm sure I offend people all the time). And there is no harm in saying you feel insulted - it's better to say it I think.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

STOP

Elen. Please stop spamming me, you'll end up giving me a 100kb talk page. If you feel compelled to delete all of the notable hospitals in Costa Rica then please give me a list of names NOT relling off a full dleetion warning for everything! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding some details like this etc now. I tend to start articles in batches. These are the main hospitals in the country and will meet criteria if you merit me time to add something, Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(3rd time lucky) OK, in that case I'll stop. And I apologise for the 100lb talk page - it seems to be an artefact of Twinkle.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle toes! I've been adding good stubs for Costa Rica all day. These are all main hospitals so should have their own websites and can be expanded. Regards. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Too quick off the draw. For some reason I thought the 26th was yesterday. Meh! Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Given time they can be expanded from sites like this. I need people helping me not working against me LOL! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've detagged. If I spoke ?Spanish? I'm sure I'd be able to help.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Bradford City Hall

Hi Elen. Good to hear from you - yes any help would be appreciated. Please do edit the page all you want - I'm not a local, so it's more yours than mine to edit really. I'm just starting it off today, as I was astonished that there were (apparently?) not even any red links to this grade I listed building. I've never been near it - but have always admired the tower as a landmark when passing in the train. If you want to add stuff and I'm in the way, just let me know and I'll stop - that will save any accidental cross-editing, or whatever they call it. As for the interior shots - they would be invaluable - I've been searching for those. Cheers - I'll be looking out for your edits with interest.--Storye book (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Glad to hear you've got some interesting sources. It's all yours now - I'm all sourced out. I'm just adding one or two links to the page from other pages, then I run out of options, I guess. Comes of being a foreigner from the South. Cheers.--Storye book (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Help request for you

Hi, Elen of the Roads! I think there's a help request for you from Elcadobes (talk · contribs). Please see here. Chamal ^talk 01:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Black holes

Can you send me an email so that we can discuss this? The article is incorrect as it stands. Talking about the inside of a BH is not science. The article must be changed. I would be glad to work with you to change it.Aranoff (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Mohammad Yousuf

Thanks for your comment. The problem I perceived was that the section headed 'controversy' was just part of the story of MY's career and, as such, it duplicated the material in the earlier section. Also the earlier section, which you have reverted is not written as paragraphs, just disjointed snippets of information. I thought by moving the controversy section up, the piece became more coherent. I aplologise if I deleted any important information; if so I think it would be better to reinstate it into my structure rather the one I found. I do not think it necessary to discuss small items on this nature on the talk page.

--John Price (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's cool. When I looked again, it did occur to me that you might have been deleting info that was on twice--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson and slavery.

Your information about the direction of this page has been valuable. Others have made contributions and given advice. I have deleted anything that could show opinions or unpublished synthesis. The format for the page for the most part is chronological. The page has incorporated from the main Thomas Jefferson page valuable information. There have been two persons who want to keep the article. It really is looking good in my opinion. The Sally Hemings could be a bit more chronological, however, there are missing pieces of Historical information about Jefferson and Hemings. Also, there is need of work on the Posthumous section especially something on Jefferson's legacy in the antebellum South. {Cmguy777 (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)}

Twinkle

Re, your message, I am using Twinkle, it's just 3 am and I am tired, personal attacks and speedy deletion are right next to each other.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

They are, aren't they. I think you need to go to bed, and stop letting this guy get to you.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Frei Hans

Let's not make comments about the health (mental, physical, emotional, or what have you) of others, it's probably not a good approach. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 13:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(Refactored from User_talk:Lar per my policy) I'm serious. I'm not trying to accuse him of being a nutjob. I've encountered people with mental health problems who are going through bad episodes. He could be just a difficult individual, or he could be taking the piss, but if he has suffered from such problems before (and only he knows that - I'm not trying to say that he has), then he is definitely showing signs that these problems are recurringElen of the Roads (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC) ETA I've put a note on his talk page to same effect because I have genuine concerns for his health, and this is the only thing I can do to try to flag it up to him.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I was concerned about the more flippant remarks you sometimes see made, which can be rather insensitive. If you are being careful and keeping that in mind, good luck. However, this road is a perilous one... ++Lar: t/c 14:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate to sound like I want to "pile on" here, or lecture you, but I have to agree with Lar: not offering a diagnosis is the better course for all involved . My little essay User:SheffieldSteel/AGFAFAIR explains my thoughts on this rather better. That said, I think you've generally offered a voice of moderation and reason in this episode, and I appreciate that. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I've said it once - I wouldn't refer to it again. I'm not the guy's doctor - I'm just relaying my observations. Only he knows if he has a problem of this kind. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Choose curtains

Just FYI, Twinkle did not nominate the page correctly, so you might want to retry. I already removed the translusion from today's AfD page. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Choose Curtains

Hi Elen of the Roads,

Have you got any tips for improving the choose curtains entry rather than it getting deleted? Any help on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by AshWhitley (talk • contribs) 07:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If I could have seen a way to improve it, I would have done so myself. To avoid deletion, the article needs to meet the standard of notability for organisations - ie there must be sufficient reference in reliable secondary sources to show that it is a notable company. Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people, and material that is self-published, or published at the direction of the subject of the article, cannot be used to demonstrate notability.

Your account of making curtains for tv soaps also fails the requirement for verifiability as it does not have a source cited.

Sources do not necessarily have to be online - they can also be printed sources. I know there are no online sources other than the company website, but there may be more local, printed sources that I am not aware of. Has the company been given an award by the Chamber of Commerce, or voted best company in the area by readers of the local newspaper for example? That would go some way to meeting the notability criteria.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Elen, that has helped a lot and I have now began referencing my article. I'm new to this you see, hopefully my 2nd draft will be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AshWhitley (talk • contribs) 15:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Remember, you can contribute to the deletion debate by saying what you are doing to the article and why you think it should be kept.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability and fiction

Wikipedia:Notability and fiction (shortcut WP:NAF) has been drafted per the general consensus at the recent RFC to which you contributed. You are invited to review the essay and to edit it in an attempt to generate a consensus regarding the issue. Hiding T 10:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

ClydeNET

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from ClydeNET, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Cynical (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's settle this with a vote

I've established a vote scenario here. I hope we can get the problem sorted quickly and easily this way. DJ 18:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry. I promise I'll stop right away! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divod (talk • contribs) 21:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry. I promise I'll stop right away! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divod (talk • contribs) 21:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In future, I will do with proper references. Sorry for the inconveniences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saravanakumars (talk • contribs) 23:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick note

Just a quick note, but I wanted to thank you for your recent comments at the IllaZilla thread at WP:AN/I. Reasonable voices are precious assets, especially around those parts. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence - I would certainly return the complement and say the same of yourself. I try my best to keep a calm attitude, although I fear our young hothead has embarked on a course that will intersect badly with one of the more fire-breathing admins.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you think I am doing strange ?

This is the common format for the cinema related articles ? The author leaves a column for note to specify some notes about the film. Why I am specifying this is the standard format ? See examples of telugu movie directors and actors...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravi_Teja http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suraj_Venjaramood .....etc...

This is the format for cinema related articles. This provides value for article. If you still not understand what I am doing, please wait for some time. If I got any one in future complained about my activity, I will stop this one. I can not stop this as you are the only man against me. How much do you know about tamil cinema ? I have worked in some films too. So please stop your undo in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saravanakumars (talk • contribs) 11:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No, this is not the format for cinema related articles. All information on Wikipedia must be verified by reliable sources. What you are doing is adding your opinion. If the community considers X someone's best film to date, you need to add sources that confirm this. You cannot just give your opinion. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I support merge now

Yeah, so just go ahead do it. Suddenly, I am very busy... but, just go ahead, please. Before someone deletes it. You know. (and don't expect any cooperation from Zara-Arush, seriously... apparently politics are okay if they are ridiculously slanted towards Armenian biases, but if they aren't, its too political...). This has become rather exhausting for me, hasn't it for you too? So if you make it clear in the talk page that you still intend to merge it, I will back you, and with only the three of us (us two + Arush) currently active, we will have a majority. Perhaps Meowy or Zara will just delete it, for their various agendas, Meowy's being Turkish and Zara's being Armenian nationalism, whatever. I just want to see it merged suddenly, now... (is in a weird mood right now)

And, is it true you have swine flu? You have my sympathy. Feh.

--Yalens (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did have the swine flu - can't recommend it. As you say, exhausting, this process has been. I now have a handle on Meowy (s/he is in a bad odour with the admins, so is restricted in what s/he can actually do), but Zara has worn me out - 100k in comments (that I can't understand half of) every time I do or say anything..... Be nice to see it properly sorted though, the idea that the cat has become a political symbol is definitely worth seeing in the article, if it can be done without reams of text about the history and politics of the area (which would be fine in an article on the history and politics of the area if it were possible to come to an agreement on what those are ...) I will see what's to be done with the article tonight. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Otherwise there's ample reason to believe this person would have tried to pull it off behind my back. Thanks again. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Vans

May I also suggest that you read the archived talk page about this? Someone just blanked it, but I'm archiving it now. There has been discussion in the past about this, and the consensus (with Meowy dissenting and edit warring) was that they are not the same thing and that this is the page about the breed, not the wild cats of Turkey. pschemp | talk`

The archived peer review is especially telling. Meowy has spent a long time arguing, and the page has a history of nationalists will no references to back up their veiws. pschemp | talk 15:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I understand all of that, and very difficult it has been dealing with people who are pushing a nationalist POV, so I can understand how you don't want to do it. However, the outcome of the deletion debate for Van Cat Naming Controversy was to attempt to merge it into a restructured article that included everything you wanted to know about the Van Cat. This restarted the debate, and a new consensus of a very small number has been to try to make the merge work. I haven't moved on it though, and I think that perhaps RfC is now the way to go. The deletion debate suggested that the rest of Wikipedia may not think it appropriate to have multiple articles on what is essentially the same animal, viewing them as nationalist POV content forks. The danger is that an RfC gets swamped with more nationalists, the advantage is that it may attract users who can take a disinterested view. What's your opinion?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is based on the breed registries and genetics first. Breed registries recognize the Turkish Van (patterned) and the Van Kedi (or Vankedesi) as all white. The two cats are not allowed to interbreed in these registries. The patterned cat came from patterned stock found wild in Van, and the white cat came from white stock found wild in Van because there was a desire to start a breed that was more like what the Turks consider to be a Van cat. Thus, these are two different thing from a genetic standpoint. Possibly related, but the breeding stock is now separate. (As for having a third article, that's just silly, there are only two varieties of cat.)

Second, I find no good reason to disregard the earlier consensus just because its major dissenter has stuck around for years trying to push their particular POV and arguing. The VERY FEW additional voices added here are mostly people with nationalistic or religious agendas. The rfc before had quite a few neutral voices who expressed logical opinions and their is no reason to disregard them because this is, in essence, the exact same argument.

Third, I base my opinion on what can be referenced. Articles can not just be filled up with people's opinions about what should be what. The Turkish Van, as a recognized breed, (patterned), and its history can be referenced, and in the original article, before the POV pushers came along, everything was. The All White Van Kedesisi, while in preliminary status in the registries, is separate, and this can also be referenced. All the arguing about legends and what Turks and Kurds and Armenians think...none of that can be referenced properly.

Last, the fact is that what is a Turkish Van, is not what Turks consider a Van cat. In respect the their culture, this is pointed out in the article, but the article is only about the accepted breed. What runs wild on the streets of Van has little to do with the modern breed, and the article is about the modern (patterned) breed.

I cannot see where a merge that promotes more arguing and POV pushing is ever a good thing. pschemp | talk 15:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me just say this. I used to be a very active admin here on WP, for quite a few years. Its this kind of thing, where you write a neutral article, reference it, and then the nationalists and religious nuts and general POV pushers move in and start arguing about nonsense, that made me leave. Its even worse when you come back years later to find that people who the consensus was against, people who got blocked for edit warring, are still at it, stirring up the pot and continually degrading the quality of information, while adding no referenced facts whatsoever. But, because they stayed to argue the longest, people take them seriously. Its disappointing and I have better things to do in my life than get sucked into the drivel again. Bringing up the same issues, time and time again because argumentative people have stuck around and the nationalists can't stay away is a waste of the community's time. I had hope in my absence that WP had found a way to deal with this, but it still hasn't and this is why it will never be considered a reliable source. The whole thing makes me sad. pschemp | talk 17:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sir Hercules

You'll notice I haven't made any progressive defenses of the that one like I have of Elton Hercules. It's not something I'm particularly insistant about. I just thought it was notable that there was an actual KNIGHT named Hercules, and that people might want to know about him. Please do not accuse me of stalking. First off, policy is to call it hounding (which is where that redirects) to differentiate from the IRL crime. Secondly: I wasn't stalking you. I did a 'what links here' on Elton Hercules and saw it mentioned on that talk page so I went to check it out. People got some serious trouble assumin' good faith around here. You shouldn't be outraged if you're talking about someone and linking to disputed entries they've made and are monitoring, and linking to articles talking about them, and they happen to drop in: it happens. Tyciol (talk) 08:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's true, I could also call policies be previously used terms too I guess *shrug*. At least call it 'wikistalk' or something to differentiate from actually accusing me of a crime (whereas 'hound' is no crime so using it alone doesn't offend). I've read the link, it doesn't confirm the accusation, happening to notice your comment when you linked to a page I edit and responding to an attack on me is not stalking, hounding, or whatever one wishes to call it. I did check the history and you really haven't done anything other than that that I'm aware of so I have no intention at all of bothering you. That said: There is a knight named John, there is a knight named Elton, and there is a knight named Hercules, and they're all the same guy :) The thing is, John's a common name. Elton probably less so, but I'd bet a Hercules would be even rarer so that I think would be unique, because I'm looking for other medieval and modern knights who share the first two and expected them to become disambigs. Of course, the other Sirs got deleted (which is ridiculous, I'm sure you've heard Paul called 'Sir Paul') but they'll be back :) Anyway no, I don't think people would think Elton is a horse or whatever was said on the now archived discussion thread (updated a link to that btw). As for English naming conventions, are you referring to general names, or the naming of knights in particular? In either case, middle names may not always be used in 'proper' form but in terms of slang or easy reference, they come up, so that's why I add them and various mixes I think are reasonable. Tyciol (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Diff links

You might want to link to this page instead of this page in the future. Your links point to the oldid and not the difference in the edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - my bad on that one. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Save your strength

Seriously! The light bulb might go on some time on Day 597 -- but it very probably won't. And it's too easy to lose one's temper (I did). Looking through the talk archives, it isn't just about the redirects. Some of the edits... eek. Xanthoxyl (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You;re right. I need to stop - the urge to pick him up and shake him is becoming overwhelming! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Becky Quick

Thanks so much for weighing in!

162.6.97.3 (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No problems. It just seemed such a silly argument to be having. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I thank-you for informing me. It is most refreshing to see not all editors lack moral fibre, nor good manners.Starstylers (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at Until It Sleeps's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Until It Sleeps ^alternate 16:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirect taggings

Hi! I've removed your R3 speedy deletion tags from Day of Saturn and Erminitrude, because they were both created in 2006 and R3 only applies to "recently created" redirects. The redirects are therefore not speedily deletable and should go to RfD instead. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldnt bother CSD'ing any of Tyciol's redirects; I would recommend letting Black Kite and Ed Johnston handle them. Just write on the page like I did. I've been using R3 as shorthand for "just delete this thing" but technically speaking Jafeluv is right, they aren't recently created. (Nevertheless most of these are probably going to get deleted, old or not.) Note, apparently there is now an alphabetical list to work with (see here for more info... I personally preferred the time-sorted list but we should really choose one and stick with or else we'll need to do twice as much work. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize that there were a lot of those redirects, and that there was already a consensus to delete them. Sorry for interfering... A suggestion, though: When tagging the pages, you may want to link to the discussion where it was decided that they should be deleted (for example, in the edit summary). That way people who are looking at tagged pages see the whole story and not just a single page that has been tagged for a generic criterion. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion. Soap, how is it supposed to work now that ed/blackkite has reorganised the list.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• I recognized the similarity so that's why I'm asking about it. Basically, if I can't do it then I'd at least like to figure out where I can go to apply for policy changes so as to allow it. I am not sure how we determine what is likely vs. unlikely, since there's no means of measuring this. If we are judging by this standard then I think work needs to be on the guidelines to clarify in a more expanded way how people can determine the adequate level of likeliness needed for a redirect. Tyciol (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are you so set on making these weird redirects anyway? It's not a matter of changing the policy. It's a matter of plausibility - you may not create implausible redirects, and in the English Wikipedia, the implausibility for names is based on the way we use names. It's not written down anywhere because its based on social customs, I suppose. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which you mean are weird, many I make I don't think are weird and are reasonable references. Obviously I do not think they are the most common, but that's the point of disambig, since there are alternatives and stuff. The point of thinking up ways to disambiguate is to try and think of how people may think of something. Now, for something to be totally implausible it would have to have no relation whatsoever. Clearly since I 'plaused' these, they are somewhat plausible. So rather than 'implausible' I think it's more accurate to say that people are saying 'not plausible enough'. This is an example of where you guys should be changing the wikipedia policy description, because no standards of 'plause' are given at all, so basically I thought something made sense, others don't, and remove it on that basis. I did link to that web site (which is recognized on WP) which did use 'Elton Hercules' (this being the examplar) yet that was disregarded. How exactly is one to demonstrate beyond that level? Many redirects are simply left without being interrogated to that degree, so I am confused why all of a sudden it is so stringent and why vague rules are being quoted as if they were something more specific. Tyciol (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

IT DID NOT USE ELTON FUCKING HERCULES. Ahem. We now return you to your standard programming. Sorry, Debretts at no time referred to him as Elton Hercules. You can't see this because (I am assuming) your native naming convention is from elsewhere than Western Europe or the US, but honestly. It didn't. It really didn't. All it did was put his forenames in one column and his surname in the other column. Now sometimes we in the West (particularly in parts of the US) do refer to people by both forenames (eg Billy Bob Thornton, Tommy Lee Jones), but if we do that, we always do it that way. And we don't ever refer to people by their middle and last name, unless we never refer to them by their first name (like S Epatha Merkerson, or my mum, Helen Theresa Hannon, who was never in her life called Helen Hannon). Unless you can appreciate these subtleties, you risk falling down a hole. So why not leave making redirects for US/Western European names alone, and do something else instead?)

AND, while you're at it, stop refactoring people's comments. You'll do it to the wrong person and get blocked again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Usually moving conversation over isn't any kind of consistant refactoring, I've had it done to me lots and I didn't mind. It's possible negative feelings regarding WP:RTP could have influenced this, but the issue seems to be redirects, so if someone wants to uniquely try to block me based on refactoring my own page (when all I do is add, as opposed to subtract) or including a message to me in a reply given back on someone's page, that would be an interesting process. Tyciol (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

But you didn't just refactor your words on your talkpage. You took a message I left you on my page, and one I left you on your page, and ran them together as if they were one sentence, without indicating that they came from different places and didn't start out as one sentence. yYou removed the context in which the one on my page had been left. Then you came back to MY page, and altered my comments on it by adding the comments from your page as if they were all one post. THAT will get you blocked if someone complains about it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I just figured they were one message, there hadn't been any back and forth in between after all and were made pretty close one after another. I just figured it made for easier recordkeeping, sorry. As for Elton Hercules, because it columnized it, it listed them separately, separate sections, so isn't that enough? I think there is value in registration format as well as common reference. People are sometimes addressed first by their last name, a comma, then their first name, and then any middle names they might have succeeding that. People are also sometimes cut off, interupted or obscured during addressing someone as well so that's the value I see in segments and what I would like to argue could be reflected in policy. Tyciol (talk) 05:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, they were not one message. They were made in two different places, in response to two different things, and I object to you running them together in the way that you did.

Regarding the other thing, why are you being so persistent in the face of everyone. Just because Debretts uses one box for first names and one box for surname does not mean that people in the US and Western Europe are addressed by all their forenames. Nor is it true that people are ever addressed as "Smith, John Joseph". Names are sometimes shown this way in a list of names, but people are never addressed in that way. The only time Elton John will ever have been addressed as "Elton Hercules" is when he told Bernie Taupin that he proposed creating a stage name of Elton Hercules John, and Bernie spent ten minutes rolling on the floor gasping "Elton Hercules..." whenever he had breath from laughing.

Here (again) are some guidelines:-

• Official documents and formal correspondence: Full name (with or without title) eg Mrs Helen Theresa Hannon used on official documents. The form with title more likely to be used in formal correspondence (Mrs Helen Theresa Hannon requests the pleasure of your presence at the marriage of her daughter Miss Eliza Louise Hannon to Mr John Joseph Smith), without title on official records eg a marriage license or rap sheet.
• Formal and official settings: A person will be addressed by their full name only in certain formal settings, the two most common being in a court of law and when getting married. In other circumstances, a person may be asked to confirm their full name by an official (eg a policeman or nurse) to ensure that they are the right person, but they will thereafter be addressed using one of the shorter usages below.
• Everyday use: Forename and surname (with or without title) uses the combination of forename(s), initials and surname by which the person is customarily known eg Theresa Hannon, Mrs Eliza Smith, S. Epatha Merkerson, B.A.Robertson
• Formal short usages: Initials only, rather than forenames, are frequently used on correspondence eg Mrs H T Hannon. In formal conversation, title and surname are the order of the day for commoners (Mrs Hannon, Mr Robertson), title plus firstname and surname for gentry (Sir Roger de Coverley, Lady Victoria Hervey) (I'm leaving out the aristocracy - too confusing). Use of surname only for males was once a common form of address from superior to inferior in England, as in "Robertson, where's your homework?" "Dog ate it Mr Wilkins.", widely used in both the Civil Service and English boys schools. These days, surname only is the approved form for journalists when referring to males other than gentry - and sometimes for females too.
• Lists: since it is frequently useful to order a list alphabetically by surname, the form Hannon, Helen Theresa; Hannon, Eliza; Robertson, B.A. is often used. The only time people would be addressed in this way is by someone taking a roll call.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Fate

I don't think Black Dagger Brotherhood is an equivalent example. If you'll check out Type Moon you'll see that following 'Fate' with a slash is a consistantly done thing with all of those titles, yet not done with any of the other titles. It is completely plausible, you will see it written distinctly in the logos of all the titles. It's not simply a matter of series/book (if that were the case one might use brackets or a colon) but actually that the slash is part of all the titles. I'd list it at Fate if I could but obviously that refers to a variety of other things, so including the slash is the most specific reference to the entire series of Holy Grail wars in the TM universe. Please view these images, you can see the slash behind 'Fate', it's part of the title: Stay Night/Tiger/Unlimited Codes Tyciol (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments on proposed

There is also some various feedback in the history here for the ones you asked BK to delete. Ryulong reverted their addition so I guess view them in the history. Tyciol (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• I do understand red links are valid things though, I even created a bunch of them for various people mentioned on Wikipedia who do not have articles yet for a name disambig page. I think this may be a misunderstanding, I was mentioning how I didn't understand red links in the past and explaining why I moved them back, and how that meant I agreed with how they shouldn't have been created like that. Also I did see the potential wider/older meanings of some of the things you pointed out (it's probably that their use in comics may have been based on older phraseology) but that if we don't actually have anything written about the older meanings yet then for the moment, to direct to the notable usage of the term for the title of a group of superbeings in fiction could do for the moment. Like I said, I realize how 'God War' and the like could refer to other stuff, but we need to locate said other stuff to direct to it right? Or is this another case of someone typing in 'god war' and clicking go instead of search? Tyciol (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool thanks, yeah I wouldn't just start rewriting the rules without discussion. Heck even if there was consensus I wouldn't feel comfortable doing it myself, just making suggestion and leaving it to whoever's got experience that, WP rules are way too big a deal for a noob like me. Why shouldn't Dabs have cites? In that case, should we just remove the statement altogether? After all, if we can't list a company that doesn't have an article then we shouldn't list a proposed term for measuring tsunamis which doesn't have an article. It's not even mentioned on the tsunami article whereas RunUp is featured predominantly on 9Dragons. Tyciol (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Awesome job, so in trying to make a point it resulted in improvement to an article :) This definitely removes the argument against including it there since it's properly reference on the page it refers to. Of course, it still doesn't bump my other argument with BK: tsunami runoffs are just a mention on tsunami, they do not have their own article, yet it is considered appropriate to list them on a disambig. RunOff is a company without its own article, but is mentioned on 9Dragons, but oppositely I am told this means it is not appropriate to mention it. Tyciol (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject: Launch Titles

Well I thought I would try a different approach to my last wikiproject, I had the hope that this one would be more critically sucsessful then my previous wikiproject and also hoped that the different approach would be more popular with the critics that panned my last wikiproject. However I still maintain the aspect that my last wikiproject was a commercial sucsess, but I do hold high the phase 'better the devil you know' (referring to the new approach. hope that line don't confuse you!) and will also take some advice from fellow wikipedians like you're self. mcjakeqcool 16:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Crispin

Yes, refactoring is not editing or changing the meaning of someone else's writing so it's allowed. I am not sure why you are taking issue with my restoring that section: as you can see in the history for that talk page, a random IP came along and removed the section. I warned the IP about doing that. While User:Imma has not been active since 2006, I don't think it's right to assume they'd be okay with having their comments on the page deleted. It's pretty much standard that if someone comes along and vandalizes a talk page by deleting others' comments without explanation (especially when some IP does it to a name) that one should revert the deletion and restore their comment. Fixing punctuation is valid, it helps people understand what is written and reduces the delay it may take others (especially those not as versed in english) to figure out meaning through mistakes like that. Every time, I get pointed to where it's 'rude' to fix it, but not where it's not allowed. The only case where it would interfere with meaning is where someone was intentionally mispelling something to make a point and I didn't pick up on that here. I notice you also removed my addition of Detective Frank Harris to the disambig page: I am aware of being asked not to include links to redirects on disambig pages, however that request was not accompanied with any reference to disambiguation page policy so as to point out WHY that should be the case. Where does it say this is wrong on WP:D? Tyciol (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but even with immediate warnings to an IP, people are often done with it. In many ways it helps to serve record-keeping purposes and is just a standard part of the anti-vandalism practices I'm used to doing. There's no telling who might pick up an IP next and start editing with it, perhaps they even picked up an account and might see it the next time their cookie expires. As for the entry, there were convincing arguments on why it is better to link directly to the article the character is described in (just bolding his name) rather than linking to the redirect. This makes sense so I restored it in that format. Tyciol (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject

I kinda gave up on the idea of WikiProjects and switched to the more commercially successful technique of editing wikipeida articles &talkpages, but since I've been requested to collbarate, I can't say no. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Rhetorical questions

Ah, sorry I thought it was an honest mistake. While I didn't know if it was rhetorical or not (the concept sorta confuses me), I wasn't aware that it was ended with a full stop. Now that I know this I will stop adding question marks to things in case they are rhetorical. I think this is because my english education did not go far enough to teach me about these things, I just remember that if something started with a question word that a question mark should be at the end, or to not start with and, stuff like that. I did leave the ands alone though :) At the time I thought it would help point out what I was responding to, because I did respond thinking they were questions you wanted answered. Also the rhetorical question mark is pretty cool, I might start using that once I learn how to ask those questions. Tyciol (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Elen! Thanks for helping with the clarification regarding the ongoing ANI discussion. I get a bit confused when comments are interleaved and something about the editor in question singling me out made me wonder if he were a bit confused … so I thought my P.S. might help clear things up. Thanks again and I liked your comments. —  SpikeToronto  00:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Cookie

The Second Coming of The Cookie Monster has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Splitting articles discussion

Hi. In "Notability and fiction" discussion, you pointed out the problem of splitting long "list articles" simply on account of their large size. [2] I introduced some pragmatic statistics supporting your point. (Lol your comment: "hey presto, an article on every one of the wretched things is back"). Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean about that discussion going in circles. I was trying to introduce a new element, which is that some articles are more worth creating -- because they have the same "editorial overhead", but significantly more readers. (And also more readers = more potential new editors!) Presumably everybody, or almost everybody, wins.

Unfortunately there are those who just like a good argument. Combine that sentiment in someone who would prefer Wiki be a free online fanzine, and discussion becomes intractable -- they simply unwilling to "lose the argument". I ran into an editor recently in discussion who finally admitted that they thought the Wiki policy discouraging foreign language references was wrong. They could have saved me 30 minutes by admitting that at the beginning. (Can I bill them?) Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Paranormal Activity (film)

I notice you are trying to deal with the plot-in/plot-out edit war on Paranormal Activity (film) that I was dealing with last night. The article was semi-protected for a bit to bring one edit war to an end. I added the following to the talk page of the particular editor with whom you are dealing the most:

Regarding Paranormal Activity (film), it is okay to include plot details that are spoilers, according to Wikipedia’s spoiler policy, which you can find at WP:SPOILER. However, the reason your edits keep getting reverted is that you are putting the plot details in the article’s introduction (sometimes called a lede). You should create a separate section section called Plot Synopsis, inserted between the Production Development section and the Critical reception section. When you create this separate section called Plot Synopsis, you may then provide a synopsis of the storyline, but not an analysis. And again, spoilers are okay if they form part of this plot synopsis. A spoiler alert is neither required, nor permitted. —  SpikeToronto  01:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

— from September 2009 at User talk:130.94.121.92

I hope this helps. Also, if you need the page semi-protected or any edit-warring editors blocked, it was done last night by Luk (talk). Thanks! —  SpikeToronto  01:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip off. Hopefully, one of the IPs might even do as you suggest. BTW, I noticed your concern on your talkpage about two people editing on one IP. My hubbie and I have done it for ages without problem. We've even edited the same article on a couple of occasions, but try to avoid it as we seldom agree (so no danger of tag teaming there). I have once by accident edited while logged in as him - doing that regularly would get you into trouble.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I notice a different admin has semid the article for tonight, and your IP has posted his piece on the talk page. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice re: two accounts on one IP. That is very good to know. We probably would not even be looking at the same articles. Plus, these days, I do less editing and more recent changes patrol. —  SpikeToronto  04:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As for that IP, s/he posted that to the talk page before I posted my little piece of guidance to his/her talk page. It was actually what nudged me to do it. I figured that s/he was deperate to get the plot tidbits somewhere connected to the film, so I thought if I explained to him/her how to do it, s/he might do it correctly. There was the same issue over on some of the Agatha Christie pages about spoilers, and those of us who edited there figured that, since WP:SPOILER allows spoilers but does not allow spoiler alerts, we would just make sure the the words plot and synopsis were clearly visible. If they don’t spell s-p-o-i-l-e-r, I don’t know what does! By the way, the semi-protect was only for a few hours, and expired at 02:28UTC. I don’t know why they cannot make it longer. Thanks! —  SpikeToronto  04:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Planet X

I'm a bit confused by this, I think I remember there being a planet by this day, but the reason I had done Saturn was I think due to Saturday. I could see maybe a 'Day of Moon' for Monday, or 'Day of Sun' for Sunday but as for Tues/Wed/Thurs (Thor)/Fri I don't think they had to do with astrology, or am I misinterpreting and the reason is unrelated to the 7 days? Tyciol (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration/Suggestions

I will give you're suggestions some processing time, and when I'm good and ready will attempt to execute them. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

FAR on Hungarian revolution of 1956

I want to make you aware that comments are being solicited on User:Fifelfoo's request to "delist" this article from FA status (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956/archive1).

I have read your comments recently in the discussion on ANI/I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive567#Edits_of_User:Fifelfoo), regarding his use of personal criteria in editing.

I think your comments are quite relevant here also. Regards, Ryanjo (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was a truly bizarre experience. I didn't honestly think I could be of much help, as I know virtually nothing about the article's topic. And then xe serves up a direction for submitting data to the Australian government. I've been involved in performance measurement in government for 15 years - I can read those documents in my sleep. They are honestly all the same, and focus on outputs rather than outcomes (a complaint for 15 years is that they only ever count the beans. They never ask whether the sauce tastes good). If he had read round the site, he would have seen that in 2005 there were proposals to introduce a quality framework for research, but it focused on medicine and science, and that kind of hard stuff, that the government considered it was important to fund. I think Fifelfoo has somehow jumped a buffer here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think your comments in the FAR were spot on. I find his doublespeak to be incredibly dense at times. I declined Ryanjo’s suggestion of adding comments, especially given that yours were so apt. I especially liked where you pointed out that many of the refs/cites to which he was objecting were there when the article earned its FA status. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses. Ryanjo (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

2cb-fly

You recently reverted an edit of the 2C-B-FLY article, I do not know if what was written followed wikipedia guideline, but I can assure you that this is real. Samples are to be sent of to be analysed by two independant places, and the owner of the company selling the conatminated batch of this chemical has overdosed himself. I urgently request that you put something up in some form, even if you want to call the claims unverified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.203.57 (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you the author of the deleted comment? I'll post here as you might be back. Wikipedia is not a news agency or a drug awareness site, and the allegation that the purported owner of a supposed company allegedly selling a possibly contaminated batch of what might be this drug is believed by yourself to have died you think from ingesting his own wares does not belong in the Wikipedia article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This warning will almost certainly prevent unnecessary fatalities, you realize that by removing this you are by proxy murdering people, correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.164.234 (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You do realise that if you continue, the admins will block you from editing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not the only one messaging and editing, no. This is a very real event, people are dieing and I don't see any harm in a temporary warning aimed to prevent a bunch of deaths over this weekend. You're treating this like a joke, it's pretty insulting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.164.234 (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not treating it like a joke. I'm saying this is not an appropriate place to attempt to report it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There are wiki pages vandalized like crazy everywhere. It might not be totally appropriate but I think it's very valuable information which everyone should have access to and Wiki is an amazing resource. I personally will not try to further edit the page, but I urge you to reconsider. Save some lives mannnnnnnnnnn

Uh, no. It may seem that you are saving lives, in fact, the opposite is true. Wikipedia is not intended to be a reliable source for product warnings. Leaving occasional, incomplete, unreferenced statements in Wikipedia articles will lead some readers to believe that Wiki intends to be up-to-date with the best information. Someone believing that could easily come to a Wiki article that is not up-to-date (or has been vandalized) and get deadly information. Such warnings belong in the hands of pharmaceutical companies and health professionals. Not a community encyclopedia. You see? In big picture, it doesn't work. Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Please see. You have stated that there was no attempt at previous resolutions. I have added a few, and there are plenty of other attempts. This deals with previous attempts at solving disputes with Geogre that would have had different results (i.e. not failed) if knowledge of sock puppetry was known and an admin acting on enforcing the rules when they were broken and led to the dispute. Hipocrite and some others have made statements suggesting that they accept these. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I stated that you had shown no attempt at previous resolutions. It would appear that you have subsequent to the initial filing shown evidence of one attempt by yourself which may meet the criteria for RfC/U. Better late than never may apply if this is the case. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"Transit"

... indeed appears in the names of public transportation ("mass transit", "rapid transit") agencies, e.g. as listed in Mass transit in the United_States#Cities. Yes, perhaps to an astronomer "rapid transit" refers to Mercury's passage in front of the Sun as seen from Earth, but luckily very few people have tried to board that planet en route to Hoboken NJ as a result of being confused by the ambiguity. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

the lensman blasted
into space
his ship will surely
win the race
              — e e smith

Oberonfitch (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Heh, I have no idea as to what I am doing. Left message for you on my talk page though.

Curse you, Elen of the so-called Roads!!!!!

I just had an edit conflict at Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft and found that you had just added the same citation as I was adding! You're so fast, perhaps you should be Elen of the Motorways!   pablo_hablo. 11:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Vroom vroom!!--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks to you Ellen for giving me the fyi

thanks about the fyi on my sock investigation requisition; my English is not perfect, with regret, so I fear I may be unable to comprehend the correct methodology for filing and such and what not Secretoffatima (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please fix your error and be more careful in the future,

Seen here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I'm just going to fix it myself with a diff to prove I wasn't forging a comment.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I can only presume I knocked out the comment in an edit conflict - sorry about that. Usually I restart the edit to avoid anything like that happening, but I do recall in this case that I didn't, I cut my comment out and pasted it back in. As you say, more care in future. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Legacy of Kain

It's not an obscure TV series, rather a popular video game series (5 in total for PS1+2) which also spawned a comic and stuff. Other names like Vorador are already redirects, so I don't see why we would not benefit from also doing so with the other names which are quite unique. Tyciol (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Misinformation

I have never put unsourced material anywhere perhaps you should read the history to see who put up the info. I am just puting back others work that is accurate. But honestly if you want a page with misleading info on it I guess I really dont care.

Cheers Mateyahoy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateyahoy (talk • contribs) 03:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

hello

no sir, i was purely joking and playing with that article. sorry but could you please fix it back? thanks so much, oh and my other edits are serious ones, (e.g. claiming Keio as Harvard of Japan (#1 in Japan) is unplausible) Nobrag1 (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

allright, sorry for that! thank you very much Nobrag1 (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

I mistakenly rolled back your edit at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts; Iimmediately reinstated the edit. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 02:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Need for new guideline

I was thinking about taking this discussion to Wikipedia talk: Blocking policy or village pump, perhaps even moving the existing discussion to one of those places from WP:AN. Do you have any thoughts? Equazcion (talk) 04:50, 29 Oct 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my concern is not whether paedophiles *should* be allowed to edit Wikipedia - I have kids and I share the general concerns of others about dangers on the internet, and I am therefore ambivalent about the idea (I am also quite certain that if some guy targeted my kids, he'd be wearing his genitalia as neckware by the time I got through with him, but that's a mother talking). I would think that Arbcom did not want it to come out in the other debate that Wikipedia has editors who are known paedophiles about whom no action is taken (although in one case it is rather a technicality to do with living in a state that had an unusually high age of consent for girls than a predeliction for girls that are younger than what is normally thought acceptable).

Where I am coming from particularly is a concern for false positives. During 'the great LJ strikeout' a few years ago, a lone staffer wandered into Pornish Pixies, a community of exclusively female Harry Potter fen, who wrote Harry/Snape chan and created images to go with their fics. Some of what they produced was extreme - I would say I was uncomfortable reading and viewing it - but it was neither illegal under either the US or UK definition, nor were they advocates for grown men having sex with children in real life. The fan communities were well aware of the distinction, the staffer was not, and as I believe, LJ at the same time had issues with communities that were pro-paedophilia and were suspected of targeting and grooming.

So the staffer was all like "ZOMG!! PAEDOPHILES!!!", shut the community down and went after the members, found that they were members of other fan communities, started shutting them down, started shutting down individual journals and deleting the content from LJ servers.....and all hell broke loose. The bunny in the headlamps reaction of LJ when their defense of "they're paedophiles and they are breaking the law" was met with "not and not" was truly dreadful to see.

I can see this happening again, I really can, while the responsibility rests with individual admins, and blocks are issued without consultation with a wider team or discussion with the 'accused'. And in a situation where an individual admin can plaster 'you are a paedophile' all over someone's account, that makes the admin vulnerable if they are wrong, because basically they have just libelled someone to hell and back, and 'no legal threats' may not save them.

Also, if the review by Arbcom exposed targeting/grooming activities, the question of contacting the authorities arise, and in some circs it may be preferable not to tip the 'accused' off, so that an investigation by the Feds can take place. this also came out in the LJ debacle - the cops were monitoring a couple of communities that were inhabited by known paedophiles, and shutting them down without talking to law enforcement caused some friction.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the cloak and dagger stuff is truly ridiculous. Just put "Tyciol" in your browser and see what Google kicks out. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've done the google thing on him too, and I had the relevant info in a matter of seconds, so yeah I agree, it is pretty ridiculous the way this is being handled. I'm at least partially with you on the subject of whether or not to allow "pedophiles" to edit. This is a very complex issue. I'm with you completely, though, that if pedophiles are to be banned on sight, there ought to be a policy, and that's my main concern.

Food for thought, though, the definition of pedophile isn't someone who violated the age-of-consent laws in their given jurisdiction. That definition is somewhat colloquial. A pedophile is someone attracted to prepubescents. I wouldn't mention this if not for my seeing it as a problem that we lump someone who got into technical trouble with a 17 year-old, let's say, with someone who did something unsavory with a 10 year-old. In the case of the former, the label applies more damage than I think is deserved. But people with children tend to "err on the side of security", let's say. Not that I can really blame them or you. If I had kids, my perspective would probably be nudged over to that side too.

Anyway, the point of my bringing this here is to see what you thought of starting a discussion (or continuing the previous one) in some appropriate location for discussing policy revisions. The closer of the discussion at AN, User:Durova, gave me his consent to bring the discussion elsewhere (consent just being a formality to prevent accusations of forum-shopping). Let me know what you think. Equazcion (talk) 21:39, 29 Oct 2009 (UTC)

It would be worth doing I think. The issue that I believe is challenging Arbcom is this - what do they do if a sizeable proportion of editors takes Skomorokh's view that only editing on wiki should be taken into account. It simplifies things - but it also may reflect badly. And you're right, there are differences. A paedophiliac is attracted to the prepubescent, but may not necessarily have (or maybe desire I suppose, I don't know) a relationship involving penetrative sexual acts; a child molestor does what it says on the tin, in Canada the age of consent is apparently 14, in other places its 16,18 or 21, so clearly it's possible to be perceived as having sex with an underage partner in one country, where it is acceptable in another. Also, what do you call people who achieve sexual gratification (and they do) writing Harry Potter/Snape chan with graphic depictions of sex. That are women. That have no actual desire to either have sex with the underaged, or to witness it in real life.

I think the approach should be based around the fact that the hardware, servers etc are subject to the jurisdiction of wherever they are sited, so the risk is to the Wikimedia Foundation (the Feds could shut them down). Definitions can then be made in terms of one defined legal system (this is what SixApart did). The focus should be on procedure if an editor is suspected of illegal activities or a likelihood to commit such - ie having sex with partners underage in their own country or in the US state where the servers reside IF THAT IS LOWER. That gets round the age thing, you've produced an arbitrary definition. Nothing should be made public until an investigation has taken place - no slapping "paedophile" notices on anyone's talkpage, which was what really concerned me. Any decision must be collective, not individual, to protect individual admins in case of error. Evidence must be submitted to the arbs only, and released to no one but the suspect except on production of a court order. Ryan panicked, or was pissed off, thought his judgement was at fault, and started handing out evidence. Fortunately in this case, the evidence comes top of a google search, but this mustn't happen again. If there is evidence that the editor has carried out illegal activities (targeting and grooming are illegal I believe in the US), serious consideration should be given to providing evidence to law enforcement (rather than just banning the guy, which just moves him on); if the only evidence is that he has promoted illegal activities, care should be taken not to give the impression that he's done anything else. If the evidence isn't conclusive, the matter must be closed, the evidence binned, and none of it appear anywhere in public. Arbcom isn't the Feds, it isn't covered by laws allowing it to collect vapourware on people.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think your approach has merit. I'm not sure it would encompass Tyciol though, since from what I've seen he's just outspoken about his opinions on the issue from a theoretical standpoint. He didn't actually state any intention, as far as I'm aware. Or would being outspoken still count? Should people who say "I think it should be okay to do this, but I wouldn't since it's not presently allowed" be permitted to edit? How would you define "likelihood to commit"? So many questions, that the community should probably be answering rather than just you and I. I'm skittish about starting this discussion somewhere more public, what with Flonight's statement and the general taboo of the subject. I wonder if people would consider his statement binding, and my non-adherence worthy of a block, or something. Equazcion (talk) 01:24, 30 Oct 2009 (UTC)

I think FloNite thought I was asking about the case in hand, which she naturally didn't want to talk about. Durova did realise I was talking about generics. Hustling it out of the way and trying to pretend nothing has happened just makes one look like the Catholic Church (apologies if you are of that faith - I used to be once). Tyciol I think is a wannabe, an attention seeker. Checking his LJ profile, he's part of a gazillion groups, all of them special interest, only a few associated with child sex. The list reads more like a man who can't get a girlfriend and is, with increasing desperation, trying anything. Plushies seems to have been the latest. I'm not actually convinced he's ever had sex with anything. That's another one - what about men who have these life size dolls. Have you seen that? Creepy or what - but it's not illegal to have sex with a life size doll, even one dressed as Sailor Moon.

I think the focus has to be on promoting or advocating an illegal act, soliciting an illegal act, or carrying out an illegal act (targeting and grooming being illegal) - but acceptable evidence may be on or off wikipedia. If someone is targeting kids on Second Life, Wikipedia doesn't want 'em. Being creepy, kinky or generally icky isn't enough - which was what really alarmed me with what Ryan first put out. And that is a problem. He's been banned everywhere for being creepy - but he still has his LJ account, so he's never stepped over the mark with them (mind you, their servers are now in Russia, where I gather they don't bother so much about such things). If he'd been kicked off the communities for targeting, saying he'd had sex with a minor, or suggesting other did so, they could have got him cashed in under LJ's ToS, so I presume he's been just as careful there in terms of the line he draws. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your personal attacks. WP:NPA

Please stop your personal attacks. [3] WP:NPAPennySeven (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I would if I was, but I'm not so I won't. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion would be appreciated

Hi there. You'll probably remember the discussion at AN/I about an IP blanking the SharedIP template from their talk page. If you recall, I revised the standing guideline to reflect what seemed to be a change in consensus, yet someone else has reverted me and initiated a discussion. I don't think this talk page is watched by many people so I would love to have input from others who may understand my frustration. [4] <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 07:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

AUSC elections

The SecureVote log indicates that there were software irregularities when User:Elen of the Roads voted at 21:06 on 1 November 2009. Just to be on the safe side, you could please return to the voting page and resubmit your vote. Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 17:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm hopeless. I can't find the page again. Do you have a link, and I'll recast my vote as advised. Thanks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Special:SecurePoll/vote/60 :)  Roger Davies ^talk 09:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comment at the Ottavia Rima ArbReq

You omitted a rather telling point in the exchange over renaming the Lord Byron article: JackofOz joins in agreeing with OR (unless I completely misunderstand his statement), yet OR accuses him of "lying" & being "tenditious and incivil" simply because he used the form of the poet's name OR dislikes in his post. OR clearly needs to get a handle on her/his temper, regardless where the ArbCom take this case. -- llywrch (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava said so much in that short section - I did miss that one. Not sure if it's worth adding - anyone who reads the thread can see it immediately. I thought it was worth making a statement on because it is so utterly uncontroversial - it should have been a source based debate on a name - and it shows that OR is just as bad in that kind of setting. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. In any case, had I known about the discussion, I probably would have objected to moving the article to "Lord Byron" for the reason that ISTR there was a 19th-century British general named Lord Byron, & that is enough of a name collision to justify making "Lord Byron" a disambiguation page -- but writing that might have elicited a flame from OR for committing some incidental & accidental minor error in the history of Romantic poetry. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Bizarrely, I agreed with OR. The article should stay where it is, in the set of Barons Byron. I know I said as much, but only after SoV had blocked him. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Just another example of how a lack of civility & vicious invective can be more important in dissuading someone than numerous rational arguments. -- llywrch (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_René_Baroux

Elen,

Thank you for the input. I'm struggling with finding my way through Wiki, being a novice with it, it's formating and its syntax. The French version of the page is being improved and edited and I will attempt to make it consistent with the English Wiki version. I am enlisting additional help from others on the content now that at least the pages are started which should make additional contribution easier.

The difficulty you refer to on the French version has more to do with my challenge with the French language, but I am working on getting that fixed and have communicated with the editor. In time the pages will stabilize toward more coherence and depth.

I look forward to suggestions. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James debar (talk • contribs) 00:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you find some sources, as the article is likely to be deleted otherwise.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

... First reference done. It's a beginning. Thank you. James —Preceding unsigned comment added by James debar (talk • contribs) 01:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• La Méditation Intime (The Intimate Meditation) by Jean Baroux (1982): National Library of Canada [5]--James debar (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool, lets get it in the article and I'll strike my note. Honestly, no matter where I searched, it turned up nothing but WB Yeats. Go figure. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, ... done, and thank you. The exercise was very helpful.--James debar (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Altered Speedy Deletion rationale: Elite Cruises and Travel

Hello Elen of the Roads, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (Elite Cruises and Travel) under a criterion different from the one your provided, which was inappropriate or incorrect. CSD criteria are narrow and specific to protect the encyclopedia, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! NW (Talk) 01:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hokai! I think I tagged it as advertising and would probably stand by that, but it's gone anyway so not worth arguing about. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

List of governors of Nuristan

There are 34 Provinces and I am trying to create a list for every province - and at the moment I am all by myself. The worst part is that we don't have enough information available on Afghanistan related topics on the net (or on print). Therefor, it will take some time to complete the lists and in some cases it will be almost impossible to find all the necessary information. And Nuristan is a new province, so the list is very short. (Ketabtoon (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC))

Humorous

"Ottava's bad temper could equally be caused by an excess of yellow bile."

Monday night I had a lengthy conversation about black bile. But yeah, I am probably more of a melancholic individual. Now, if you've ever been sick and actually seen black bile, -that- is a scary thing, or, at least, very bothersome. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean the stuff you throw up when you've finished throwing up everything but your actual stomach? Yeah, yukky. I'm supposed to have a melancholic temperament, but I also have a genuinely vile temper at times, so who knows. Anyway I didn't think Moreschi's speculation on inner motivation was really that appropriate, and I hope my response did come over as intended ie humorous=funny as well as humorous=ancient medical system. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Mcjakeqcool

Hello Elen. I'm looking around for another admin editor who might still have an interest in this case, since I want to close the discussion. See User talk:KieferSkunk#User talk:Mcjakeqcool where I propose that it is time to close the unblock discussion for Mcj. I notice that KieferSkunk has not been online recently so I'm notifying you as well. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know

The disruptive IP in the RfC/U was confirmed as a sock - see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_4#Outside_view_by_YellowMonkey. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction

[6] "FAC articles are supposed to contain a thorough review of the literature, this one doesn't have any sources after 1920)." 23:44, 13 April 2008 Awadewit posts.

20:15, 13 April 2008:

1. Coxe, William, Memoirs of the Life and Administration of Sir Robert Walpole, Earl of Orford. 1978
2. The Cambridge History of English and American Literature, Volume IX, VI. 19. "Pamphlets on Irish affairs: Drapier’s Letters."
3. Weedon, Margaret, "An Uncancelled Copy of the First Collected Edition of Swift's Poems," The Library, 5th ser., XXII (1967) p. 44–48
4. Goodwin, A. "Woods Halfpence", The English Historical Review, LI (1936)
5. Drapier's Letters ed. Herbert Davis, Oxford University Press, 1935
6. Ferguson, Oliver W. Jonathan Swift and Ireland. University of Illinois Press, 1962
7. Ehrenpreis, Irvin. Jonathan Swift: Volume III Harvard University Press, 1983
8. Letters of Jonathan Swift to Charles Ford ed. D. Nichol Smith, Oxford, 1935
9. Treadwell, J.M. "Swift, William Wood, and the Factual Basis of Satire." Journal of British Studies 1976
10. Cornu, Donald, "Swift, Motte, and the Copyright Struggle: Two Unnoticed Documents", MLN 54 (1939)
11. Swift, Jonathan. Correspondence, ed. Harold Williams Vol. IV. Oxford, 1965

- Ottava Rima (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the Sabine Baltes work that Awadewit was referring to was a monograph of a dissertation. I own it. Dissertations do not meet the thresh hold of "reliable source" for these pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Freemasonry and Catholicism

I'd take it as a personal favor if you'd strike the "unlikely to be a Freemason...his religion forbids it" comment. While technically correct, I was both a Freemason and member of the Knights of Columbus for a time, and the KofC were fully aware of it when they let me join. I quit the Knights recently when they started running petition drives at church against gay marriage (though I hadn't paid dues for a while due to financial troubles, that was the last straw for me).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No probs. It's left over from a longer sentence that I cut anyway. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

'Preciate it -- bit of a sore subject for me. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Romantic

[7] - see [8]. Geogre also points this out. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Elen of the Roads's Day!

User:Elen of the Roads has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Elen of the Roads's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Elen of the Roads! Peace, Rlevse 00:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian Revolution of 1956 Title

Dear Elen:

I recall your involvement in the above-captioned article and so thought that you might be able to answer a question for me: Why does the article, Hungarian Revolution of 1956, use the term, revolution, instead of uprising in its title?

Throughout the article is more frequently found the latter word, suggesting that once upon a time it might have been called the “Hungarian Uprising of 1956”, but was later changed. I could not find anything in the article’s talk page to explain the title choice, although I may not have searched the archives thoroughly enough.

It seems to me, and no offence is meant by this, that “revolutions” succeed (e.g., American, French, Russian, Chinese), while “uprisings” are put down (e.g., Warsaw, Lodz, Hungary). So, I couldn’t figure out the use of revolution in the title instead of uprising.

By way of clarification, this question is motivated by intellectual curiosity only and nothing more. I am not proposing a name change. I just want to be better informed. I’ve asked several history buff friends and none of us were even aware that in the world of academe the event had been renamed. Lastly, none of my, admittedly older, textbooks reflect such a renaming of the events of 1956. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 23:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed quite recently [9]. If you want to comment on the review of the article as a featured article, another voice would be welcome. I think we've all run out of steam a bit. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Modern Talking

Hi Elen, I totally agree with your point of view about Thomas Anders and Dieter Bohlen are the members of the group. Don't delete the table contents, there are A LOT of references that point Systems in Blue members were the choir singers on the 9/10 albums of Modern Talking and all of Blue System. So I recommend you don't delete the info about these members, at least move it to another place in the article but never delete it, they were highly responsible about the Modern Talking chorus, and they have to be recognized. --MisterWiki talking! :-D - 19:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC) P.D. Please answer on my talkpage.

Still totally agree with you, but there are references on their albums, just an example, Let's Talk About Love

http://talkingforever.com/systemsinblue/rolfkohla.htm

http://coveralia.com/caratulas/Modern-Talking-Let-s-Talk-About-Love-Trasera.php

Hope it helps. --MisterWiki talking! :-D - 20:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

P.D. I'm NOT German.

Hi, about this, I have rollbacker privileges, that's why it was marked as a minor edit. --MisterWiki talking! :-D - 20:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Diego de Astorga y Céspedes

This article was created for the purpose of stuffing the Gibraltar page with obscure Spanish people. It might be appropriate in es.wikipedia.org but its of no significance here. --Gibnews (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

PROD was simply not a suitable way to attempt a deletion, as there is no way in ten hells it would not be controversial, and no way in Wikipedia you would not make yourself look as if you were doing it to prove a point. If you want to take the article to AfD, be my guest. I have no problem with that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I marked three articles with prod, maybe the above has merit, but the others are simply three liners created only for the sole purpose of starting an edit war on the Gibraltar main article to push a point of view that Gibraltar is Spanish and otherwise does not exist. --Gibnews (talk)

Newsflash! WP:PROD is only for non-contentious deletions. Using it for contentious deletions will only achieve the result you saw. Also, did you note Eye Serene's comments with respect to the first prod. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I flagged all the articles with WP:PROD as it seemed to me from reading the procedure that it was the correct thing to do. However, after the objection I've left them alone. If you tell me its a mistake, I'm listening and learning. However, some of the articles were created solely to cause a dispute and that is what my complaint in another place is about. The game is bullfighting and I know what happens to the bull. --Gibnews (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

PROD is for articles that fail to meet the notability standard, where the deletion would not attract an opposing opinion - usually this applies to articles by n00bs - or abandoned in some dusty corner - that don't quite fall into a speedy A7 category (fails to assert any significance at all), but which clearly fail on notability or verifiability once someone looks for a source. Since these deletions were all going to attract an opposing opinion, PROD was not suitable. Also, the reason "not suitable for the English wikipedia" is not a valid criterion for deletion anywhere in the list. The net effect is that you've just made yourself look very bad to non-involved editors, which I'm sure was the last thing you wanted. You've put yourself in a bit of a bind, in fact. If you still feel the articles should be deleted because the topics are not notable, you could take it to AfD, but that still has the potential to look pointy, and you would almost certainly lose, and the articles be kept. On the other hand, if you don't take them to AfD you look bad with non-involved editors because it looks like you don't want your view scrutinised by the community. And if you keep insisting that their creation is disruptive, without the evidence of deletions at AfD to back it up, you risk admin action against yourself. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok will see how it develops, one of the things I noted was that there were not pre-existing articles in the es. wikipedia, reinforcing the view that creation here was simply for the purpose of stuffing the Gib article.

I see you are amused by (non serious) suggestion of smallpox as a famous 'birth'- All samples in captivity are bred from the one taken from a nurse at the Naval Hospital here, and there was a debate on whether to destroy them making the virus extinct. I think reports of its development as a WMD in Russia mean those samples will be retained, although the thought of a new genetically engineered hardened variant getting out into the real world is very scary thought.--Gibnews (talk)

I can see why you thought what you did. The issue was entirely a process one, as in Wikipedia you cannot create a valid article disruptively, so you cannot delete a valid article for being disruptive. Adding them to the list on the main article is a different matter - possibly a solution is (as with Mumbai) not to have a list in the main article.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

On reflection its more to do with the little known policy of wp:abf due to a long history. 84.125.202.194.dyn.user.ono.com would seem to be someone in spain with a different agenda, well spotted on the Gib page, I've reverted his edits on Gonzalo Piña Ludueña‎ Don't know if we really need a category for 'spanish people from Gibraltar' because we are not racist, mostly being a diverse mixture. I doubt there are that many people of interest from prior to 1704 to make much difference. But we certainly have a nice one for 2009. --Gibnews (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't make out what he was trying to do or how to fix it, so I canned the lot. Bizarre edits on Gonzalo Pina Ludena. Weird ones on Danny Higginbotham also - player gives his nationality in all his club profiles as English - nothing to do with Gibraltar as far as I can see. Does he have sources for this? Nice going on Miss World though - congratulations all round there. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Those edits made no sense at all. Yes there was a honking of car horns, which can be heard on this video All afternoon in fact. Her return will be something. I'll donate a pic to the commons. --Gibnews (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hi. I noticed that you said at the talk page of SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) that you had might know things about "obscure sections of English local government". Would you be able to help out by reviewing Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Parliamentary constituencies in Hertfordshire/archive1 (perhaps not local, but similar topic)? It's a featured list candidate, similar to WP:FAC, and any input you might provide would be helpful. Thanks in advance, Dabomb87 (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'll take a look. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your suggestion on the ANI board. I will discuss in the discussion page before reverting.

Steel2009 (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks re Crucifixion

I just thought I should say thank you for your helpfulness with the issues I raised about Crucifixion. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. My hope was that it would baffle the incomers if we held a discussion around the trolling --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Who the hell do you think you are? Yzak Jule (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC).

Someone who has read WP:CIVIL? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

And thanks again! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I did that, and I hope it didn't bother you too much. You've really been doing wonderful editing since you came to the page, and I didn't mean to rub you the wrong way. Anyway, as you know, I self-reverted. (And you may want to look at what has developed at ANI.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, but I honestly do think the consensus has swung away from you. Anyway, I hope we won't fall out over it - there are enough people behaving badly on that page (and on this page - one of the IPs from the early debate vandalised it and got blocked by Materialscientist for its pains).

Agreed all around. I've got no problem with consensus, and had no problem self-reverting. But do please note that Farix has expressed strong opposition to the move (and my concerns, which I will explain better in time, go far beyond the trivial issue of Sailor Moon). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Farix opposed the move 'cos he doesn't think that section belongs anywhere on the 'pedia :). I've put a little bit of the old content into the new article. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I like what you did with the lead of the new one. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I do think that article can be made to work, but it will take a lot of people contributing a bit - or someone a lot more knowledgeable than me contributing a lot.

It doesn't need any bits of anime contribution, though, as that still isn't at all relevant, which was the entire issue in the first place.Yzak Jule (talk)

Disagree entirely. In an article about the image in popular art around the world, a note that it is used in Japanese anime to illustrate...whatever it's meaning is...would be fine. Particularly if it were a standardised meaning of the kind that manga uses to denote what's going on. That would be interesting and appropriate in an art article.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Elen, what Farix said at ANI about WP:Stalking is a valid point. I appreciate, really, the large amount of help you have been, but when you say things like "poor boy" and "panicked", that's extremely inappropriate. (Do you realize that I've been very recently getting multiple user-talk page posts telling me to kill myself?) Please reconsider that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I do apologise if you found the comment offensive. I was trying to be amusing - I think you've had a hugely trying time, and it has understandably coloured your view of many other editors, and who could blame you. I will remove it if you wish (and if I can find it). Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

See, no good deed goes unpunished, huh? I saw that you already removed it; I would have been more than satisfied with just a clarification. Anyway, thank you. Water under the bridge. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Shuttle–Mir Program/archive1.
Message added 23:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Colds7ream (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Masters & their Puppets

Hi, Elen. I saw your comment at AN/I, and regarding your question about which account is the sockmaster: how can one tell? The SPI case page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Valerius Tygart/Archive was listed under the name "Valerius Tygart" because that account has the most edits, and because most of the other little puppets went to the Tygart User Page to keep a running tally of articles to which that editor has contributed. The Tygart account isn't the oldest account listed, but appears to be the central one. Are there specific qualities that separate the master account from the puppets? (Figured I'd get the details here before responding on the AN/I thread...) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Normally the socks all get blocked for good, while the sockmaster may get a shorter block . I think they treated VT as the sockmaster (although 31hrs is bloody ridiculous! which is why I wondered) although, as you say, it's not clear, and if it's not clear, sometimes accounts don't get indefinite blocks when they should. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the closing of the SPI case, he has edited with User:Valerius Tygart and User:140.139.35.250 and User:96.231.137.242 that I am aware of, but there may be others. He claims to be using multiple accounts legitimately, for privacy and security reasons, but that conflicts with the fact that he doesn't have the required notice on one of his user pages showing the relationship of the accounts, and he frequently edits the same articles with his Tygart account that he previously edited with a sock account - negating the "privacy" aspect. I stopped assuming good faith when checkuser J.delanoy confirmed that User:Dogwood123 and User:140.139.35.250 and Tygart were the same person, yet Tygart still denied telling another editor, I am not "Dogwood123". on a talk page. So either J.delanoy or Tygart is lying - and I see no reason for J.delanoy to do so. I don't think anyone bothered to block the IP accounts, probably figuring they were dynamic; they appear to have been stable for some time, however. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Eyes seem to be in other places at the moment. I think you should repost the above in the ANI thread. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at Thejadefalcon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

re:Modern Talking "Wiki Project"

There is a name Foxyfan that just got added to WikiProject Council/Proposals/Modern Talking in support of the Modern Talking WikiPorject-proposal. This user seems to have just registered and made his/her first contribution at that page. MisterWiki's name is all over this user's page. I'm suspecting they are both the same person. Should we turn this to checkusers?--Harout72 (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. The edit summary for the welcome spam suggests MisterWiki knows who Foxyfan is IRL. One to keep an eye on - there's not enough there at the moment to say anything. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Harout72 and Elen of the Roads, nope, I'm not Foxyfan, but a member of the forum http://talkingforever.com/moderntalkingland . I've recommended them to register to actively work on the project. Foxyfan = MT SIB. --MisterWiki talk contribs 19:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Does Foxyfan intend to edit under both accounts. They need to be a bit careful, or they might end up being accused of socking. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I think she's gonna use just MT SIB (talk · contribs). I'm gonna ask her, but I will advice that she will have to be careful. :) --MisterWiki talk contribs 20:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

She (MT SIB; Foxyfan) said that had lost her password, that's why she is using Foxyfan (talk · contribs). --MisterWiki talk contribs 01:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It happens. If she set up an email address for MT SIB then she can use the "forgot my password" link to get a new one mailed to her. If not, she's stuck with Foxyfan - tell her to remember to set up an email address this time!! I can move MT SIB's user and talk pages so they redirect to Foxyfan, that will clear up the two accounts. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey you, what a funny talking about me, and don't notify me, yes I am MT SIB, I forgot my password so I had to make me a new account, what a bullshit you are talking?, it seems you have nothing good to do, only suspecting and talking bad about the users, don't be paranoic, razonable reasons can exist but you don't ask, you direct suspect and judge. BTW is not this Harout who were making vandalism to the page of MT for a time?... please!!, look inside yourself and then dare to suspect of the rest!!. The only reason I opened this account is because I lost my password, and I wanted to support the proyect of misterwiki, I respect and support his iniciative creating this proyect. Please don't come again with ridiculous alegations, since I forgot my password, I can't enter with my old account, don't say nosense things that i am using both accounts, because those are total lies with clearly bad intention. Thanks to Misterwiki for told me about this, otherwise I would never know what you were saying. --Foxyfan (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, she can always piss off if she prefers.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Put you in my situation Elen, somebody is saying nosenses things about you and accusing you of wrong things, would you allow that?--Foxyfan (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone may well be. Notice that it isn't me. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the way like someone easily can damage the image of a person and discredit a good proyect!!. Be also aware about that.--Foxyfan (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Notice that isn't me either. Perhaps a lesson in observation might be of benefit. Or less attitude. That's often good too. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

My answers don't go directly to you, but to this topic wich started here up with a: There is a name...--Foxyfan (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps you might consider shifting this diatribe to that user's talk page. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

How many time you are in wikipedia?, I guess you know how it works very well, like in a house every room, I am just here a guest, who only can talk from the door... sorry for bother you, I wanted to clarify the situation regarding this nosense topic opened in my name. --Foxyfan (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just mailed you Elen. Please answer. --MisterWiki talk contribs 01:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Seen it and replied Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied. --MisterWiki talk contribs 02:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, wait 3 years is not too much. --MisterWiki talk contribs 03:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Building consensus on copyright issue

You were involved in a discussion regarding the use of copyrighted architectural designs on Wikipedia pages and I'm trying to find community consensus on a gray area. If you can, please let me know at what point you feel these images should be replaced here. Thank you so much! DR04 (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Asking your advice

I'd like to know what your advice would be. Please take a look at User talk:Explicit#File:Sailor Mercury.jpg, and let me know what you think would be best to do next. Among the possibilities would be to take it to WP:Deletion review, or to use, instead, the images from FullMetal Alchemist#Manga. At this point, I'm asking you, Gary, and TJRC. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the first thing you need to do is to understand Wikipedia's fair use rationale, as I'm not sure you've grasped the reason that the image was deleted. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. Just asking. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a bit cryptic. Dashed off in a hurry. This non-free image cannot be used to illustrate a general point about crucifixion imagery in anime. To keep the image on Wikipedia, you need to show that this image is absolutely necessary to illustrate whatever it is intended to illustrate, that there are no free versions of this image, that you couldn't just explain it in writing, that you talk about this image in the article text, and this image alone and no other image will do. I think you need to wait until the article has settled down and it is agreed that a description of Sailor Moon being crucified is required- so it is certain that there is a topic to illustrate. You need to get the text to the point where it include a description of Sailor Moon being crucified that describes the image. Asking if images from Full Metal Alchemist should be used instead weakens your case, because you are suggesting that there are alternates to this image. There is no deadline. I suggest you leave the article for a while - or add to the other sections. Come back to it in a month, adjust the article text and upload the image again with a better fair use rationale. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding on that. You and Gary gave me similar advice, while the situation is different at User talk:TJRC, and I was pretty much coming to the same conclusion as what you said in your longer answer. Since you have a good understanding of the page's content issues, let me ask this by way of follow-up: how do you see the relative merits of the Sailor Mercury image (or something similar to it) versus the images from FullMetal Alchemist? If in fact the latter would serve the page well (I'm far from convinced that that's true), then maybe that would be a better solution to pursue (?) . --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: ANI, thank you! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at MisterWiki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

December 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Crucifixion in art. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Yzak Jule (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, very funny. Block expired has it?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Final stage

Hi Elen. I wouldn't bother continuing the arguments on the ArbCom Workshop page if I were you. The arbitrators are moving towards the final decision. There are a couple of things that are slightly dubious there but I'm not going to argue too much given we have the opportunity to have this business done and dusted before Christmas and enjoy a drama-free 2010. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 10:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Fairy snuff. I'll leave 'em to it. Drama free would be good :)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks spam

Hey, Elen of the Roads. Thanks for taking time to respond to my question at AN/I. I'm posting here because I didn't think the noticeboard was the venue for this message. As I suspected there is not much black and white to the issue. I've left the IP's contribs alone even though I find the "Glen X is a glen" formula less informative than what it replaced. It's just my POV and I don't believe my POV is any more important than the anon's. I did want to let all the responders know that I found their input helpful. Regards Tiderolls 13:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

List of Parliamentary constituencies in Hertfordshire

I agree, thanks for the note. The threads there seem to move fairly quickly, so hopefully this one will too. WFCforLife (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup. As I said before, if no-one agrees with me (even if no-one is only a couple of other people), then I'll shut up.

Greetings

Anna Lincoln is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

Anna Lincoln 15:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Can you stop wasting AN/I's and my time with these petty arguments? I don't see anything in WP:NPA that the template is violating, and no one would have seen it if you weren't stalking me/my talk page to begin with. :) Obviously neither your side of the crucifixion debate nor the anon editors have any desire to come to consensus on the page content, and I've personally moved on, so why don't you do the same so we can all get some work done? Cheers, Yzak Jule (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Commons deletion

Your opinion on a nomination for deletion at Commons would be appreciated here, thanks, DR04 (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

MisterWiki is wishing you Happy Holidays! MisterWiki talk contribs wishes you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year with all of your family, spread love during this times!

I (MisterWiki) created a video specially for you, wishing you the best for this christmas time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxOAvuNbt1o

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:MisterWiki/Happy Holidays}} to your friends' talk pages.

MisterWiki talk contribs 19:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Signing

You may want to sign your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rama. It looks like they are mine, right now, since you aren't signing them. Thanks... --Jayron32 21:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

My bad. Should be fixed now.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Your name

I always think of this [10] whenever I see your signature, although the version by Judy Collins is my favorite...Modernist (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Duff YouTube link? And I'm struggling now to think of a song Judy Collins does that might relate to my name..... Michael from Mountains? Bells of Rhymney? .... OK, I give up :) :)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, must have been a YouTube server fault. Lovely song - definitely a good choice :)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Response

Of all the ANI posts, I felt yours was the most deserving of a proper response. Unfortunately, some admins feel that my opinions aren't worth publishing, so I'll respond here:

Elen, I find your post to be the most interesting of the ones above. I am EXTREMELY appreciative of your effort to specifically counter my claims. This is EXACTLY the kind of response I am looking for. I read, with extremely great interest, the law article to which you provided a link. Again for the sake of clarity and completeness, I'll provide a point by point analysis so as not to omit any important details (you did post a link to a fifty page article, so I hope you'll indulge a bit).

It certainly is possible to copyright typefaces in the rest of the world, however, we are not in "the rest of the world". Wikipedia is hosted in the U.S. and operates under U.S. law and copyright protections, so, I consider that argument to be a red herring.

I also agree with you that, if the artistic element can be separated from the utilitarian, it is copyrightable, however, I do not see how this is the case here. What part of this can be separated? What is artistic that is not utilitarian. I certainly agree that there is stylistic design involved, but US courts have ruled that that style alone in a typeface isn't eligible for copyright. Even the article you cite uses significantly more complicated designs and explicitly states they are not copyrightable (see figure 2). It also quotes several laws/court rulings/etc (some of which I've stated above). Here are some additional excerpts:

The rejection of functional or utilitarian articles from protection as “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” is found in 17 U.S.C. § 101 (2006). That section states: “...the design of a useful article...shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.

A letter, no matter how elegantly designed, standing alone, is simply a building block for larger units, words, that convey information. In the same way, when we give copyright protection to the design of buildings, we do not protect individual bricks because they are fungible.

A typeface is technically “a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic characters, whose forms are related by repeating design elements consistently applied in a notational system and are intended to be embodied in articles whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters.”

[Note that it does not state that they must be complete alphabets, upper and lower case, etc.] A font, on the other hand, is “an article in which a typeface resides as the implement of printing technology, regardless of the medium or form.” In other words, a typeface is the artistic creation of a typeface designer, while a font is the result of an industrial process to enable the reproduction of typefaces in the printing process.}}

Although a typeface may be a work of applied art, copyright protection would only extend to artistic aspects of its form, not its utilitarian attributes. If the artistic attributes are de minimis or not severable from the functional aspects, they will not be copyrightable

etc. (these are not isolated quotes)

This image is in distinct contrast with the Washington State University logo or this in which letters are used as a medium to form other art.

I don't see how you can say "It is perfectly possible to copyright typefaces...provided the artistic element can be separated from the utilitarian, the design is copyrightable." The article you linked to goes to great lengths to state the exact opposite. If the utilitarian component of the object can be physically separated, the only component that enjoys copyright protection is the artistic portion. If a letter has some filigree or artistic touches (such as a decorative background), the background is copyrightable but not the letter.

if the shape of a utilitarian article incorporates features, such as artistic sculpture, carving, or pictorial representation, which can be identified separately and are capable of existing independently as a work of art, such features will be eligible for registration.

Given the separate components within the same image, however, I certainly would agree that it would be best for Wikipedia to treat such an image as something that contains a copyrighted image and be treated on a case-by-case basis (i.e. what is the subject of the photo? Examples: Is the subject of the photo the copyrighted statue or the person in front of the statue that is so far away it is nearly unrecognizable? Is the subject of the photo the Mickey Mouse doll or the picture of the child's room?).

Typefaces are not categorized as you have stated ("uncopyrightability applies to typefaces - ie a full set of numbers and letters intended for use in hot metal or digital type." ...if I've missed the source for this assertion, [www.google.com please direct me to your source] :-) ), but are defined as "a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic characters, whose forms are related by repeating design elements...and are intended to be embodied in articles whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in

composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters.". Accordingly, it doesn't matter if it is an entire alphabet + special characters or a single letter, they are still part of a typeface.

I don't get where you think "Letters which are drawn freehand to fit a space are not typefaces. Only where the logo is strictly letters in say Times Roman on a plain background, can it be argued that the logo is in the public domain." It isn't policy, guideline, law, or legal ruling. Near as I can tell it is your personal preference/idea. accordingly, I don't believe it should be acted upon.

Once again, thank you so much for your response. I look forward to your reply. — BQZip01 — ^talk 11:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I want to start this debate on my talk page if you don't mind. I notice you've been asked several times to start an RfC - I'd rather add my comments in that. All I'll say here is that I think your general interpretation is wrong and you seem to have misunderstood or misquoted several things.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, will User:BQZip01/Discussion suffice? I see no reason to get blindsided in an RfC if you can explain it to me before then. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I take your point here. Might not be today though - kind of got the family around here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Which is more important, your family or some anonymous stranger online...hmmm...point taken. Hope to talk to you soon. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hepworth sculpture

Elen, I noticed that you deleted the Barbara Hepworth sculpture image from Crucifixion. That's fine with me, as I also did not really feel it belonged there. But, amid all the back-and-forth that's gone on, I thought I should tell you that, in fact, the image is not currently at Crucifixion in art, which is what you said in your edit summary. If I remember right, it is at Hepworth's bio page. As I said, I'm not in favor of putting it back at Crucifixion. I'm kind of 50-50 about putting it at Crucifixion in art. It would go into the modern art section, where we currently have Dali and Burden. I would not want to delete either of those to make room for it. One option might be to make a three-across layout (Dali, Hepworth, Burden, from left to right), as in the Christian art section above it. Another option would be to do nothing. I would be about equally OK with either of those, depending on whether or not you feel the Hepworth needs to be there. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Didn't realise it had been removed. I think it would fit very well in Modern art - it would give us a painting, a sculpture and one of those things my art student daughter rants about not being art :) Another three across layout would be fine - there's no probs with using the image as it is free.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that shortly. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)