User talk:Elen of the Roads

Four glasses puzzle

I see you've tagged this for AfD. Could you please open the discusssion with your rationale so that I can support it with my 'delete' argument. I originally PRODed it but the creator's only response was a PA, and to remove the tag. I did not want to play his WP:GAME and WP:BAIT, so I left it at that. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you check the log page. It should have transcluded and I cannot get it to show although the page exists Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Four_glasses_puzzle --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Last of the Mohicans

Great edits on Last of the Mohicans! I just started creating J.F. Cooper articles to fill in the red links for Template:JFCooper, the first of which is The Bravo! Do you want to help? Any other eyes looking at scholarship and articles would be great! Sadads (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Gosh! Thank you so much. The Fenimore Cooper Society have rafts of stuff, but I have to confess the only book I've ever read is Last of the Mohicans. Still, if this doesn't kill me, I might take a look. I'm about 2/3 through the plot, which I feel is essential to have for this novel, as otherwise all the points about criticism, the way the plot was changed for the films etc, becomes meaningless.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, focus on the books. I will be watching the edits on the Last of the Mohicans, so feel free to ask for help. It's been a couple years since I read it, but I am here. If you need some sources on real world stuff, check out journal databases, google books, google scholar, etc, and make sure that you can do more than just the plot, but yes plot is important. Sadads (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The next section I'd really like to add is how the book came to be written. The Society website has some stuff written by Cooper's daughter about him visiting Glen Falls and getting the inspiration for it. I'd also like to add some info about how Cooper uses history in the book, and (if I can find good sources) about what he was trying to do with the story, why he put in all the stuff about the Indians and how much of it was true. I'm also interested in how it's still going as a story, even though the book's pretty much unreadable these days, just for the length (my kids have a 3 minute attention span!), let alone Natty insisting that there's no cross of blood in his veins. A few days work, and it's just about bedtime here, so I'll see you tomorrow. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Great. Just for your information, we will probably need to trim down the plot section so it does not overweigh the real world material. Great work though, and Trimming is a process much easier then identifying the missing content. Sadads (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I find if it's all there, it's easier to compress. It needs enough detail to be able to show some of the criticisms hinted at in the current rather cryptic commentary, although some of the detail would appear in whatever review sources are used. Incidentally, I don't think it ever was B-class. Looking at the history, it was done with a semi-automated edit, which suggests it wasn't someone who had read the article in depth.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)If I may jump in here - I don't know where you are located in the world, but if you need help with some of this post a message on my talk page. I am not sure how much you want to use "recent" images but a trip to Lake George to take images that would relate is not too far off and the Fort has a section about the book and related movies. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Becky Quick (sigh)

You may no longer care a year later, but User:KeltieMartinFan is up to the same old tricks re: the Quick article. (There's a sock puppet, User:Fourviz that may do damage, too.)

76.114.197.43 (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this is a rhetorical question, but is it unusual at all to see someone -- months after "consensus" (or what I'd like to call fact, truth and/ or accuracy) -- refuse to concede the point and insist on editing, I.e. censoring, to his or her own whims? Wrapping it, of course, in the finest baroque pronouncements of Wiki canon?

The jousting can be sporting, but shortly becomes tedious and counterproductive. Especially when a fact itself is not in dispute. It's very puzzling, but I suppose a lot of worthwhile complexities result from chaos theory.  : ) -- 76.114.197.43 (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Victoria_Climbié.jpg

Just curious - where did you see that the image is from AP? All I could find was "Photo: PA" on the source page. If AP is distributing it than the file needs to be speedily deleted as a copyvio as images from AP aren't allowed, even under Fair Use. But I would need a link direct to AP, or a source that says it is from AP. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Did I put AP. Sorry, brainfart. The image is copyright Press Association - I checked their library here. It's a collect photo - PA bought it rather than it being taken by a press photographer. Still, as I advised the uploader, he needs to ensure that the article contains sourced commentary about the photo.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes you changed my "PA" to "AP". It's ok. That is a good find, but the problem is the photo in your link is a cropped version of the one that was uploaded and the more "full" version I linked to at the image page. However not all is lost - here is the full one. As it was your find I will let tag it for deletion because, as you said, unless the image itself is discussed images from press agency's such as PA and AP are not generally allowed. Thanks - again, good find! (PS - I updated the image page with the links to the agency and the photos there) Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

How does it fail the criteria? Is it because it needs commentary on the specific photo in question? That would be hard or impossible to dig up. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as I said on your talkpage, because copyright is held by one of the Press photo agencies, the picture can only be used if the picture itself is discussed in the article. The picture is in the infobox - it is being used for identification. Look for another picture, and check the Press Association library to make sure it doesn't hold the copyright.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 15:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for identifying the object as a date palm tree. I see it is under DR now at WikiCommons. I have no strong feelings here. I...just could not figure out what Byba meant. I guess it is a copyright violation of some kind and will vote delete sadly. But thank you for your kind help. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

More experienced users

Greetings. You did some work on the article Thomas Jefferson and slavery & there was a problem with sources in July 2009. The problem persists. But there's far worse, and I think you understand the copyright problems pretty well. I have posted just one example of copyright infringement in the talk page that's on the article; I believe the user is... well he does so many edits it's hard to be certain, and I don't want to be incorrect. Someone else involved on the page & with more experience should check. Any asssistance would be appreciated. Ebanony (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for checking it out. There is one problem: "George Washington and slavery" has the same problem, and I've just posted a similar example sheet on the talk page; maybe it's too close, but there seem to be some problems. I don't want to take any action until others have seen it. Many thanks for clarifying. Ebanony (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

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

I see how the discussion I had with Sadads might have caused some confusion, and I'm sorry about that; I didn't know you knew him, but this isn't about his edits (he didn't do them), and I appreciate his input too. I know who made some of the edits, but not all, and I warned him on his talk page several times to fix it, but he still hasn't. It's precisely because of npov problems, some questionable phrases (I was picky) that someone else familiar with copyright & was neutral I thought should check it. Wasn't my intention to cause any problem with you and Sadads. Ebanony (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Haha, silly how words and quick reading and writing can cause problems. Don't worry about it, life is good :) Actually, Ebanony we need a lot more picky people like you willing to Be bold and point out the problems with current content or just remove it or help other users paraphrase better! Keep it up, and I would stick my nose into this broader issue, but I am currently wrapped up in a few to many Wiki-things and Real life things,Sadads (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson and slavery

Can you resolve a dispute between Ebanony and myself who continues to make accusations of plagerism against myself? I made changes in the article, however, nothing seems to make a signifigant difference with Ebanony. The Thomas Jefferson and slavery article was an offshoot article I started from the Thomas Jefferson article. Ebanony continues to post on my talk page making various accusations. My attempts to correct the situation have not satisfied Ebanony. I can't work on the TJ and slavery article anymore since he continues to interrupt my talk page. Your opinion counts. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Women's rights in Iran

Alexander is deleting a section on stoning in Iran from this article alleging that it is a "human rights" issue and not a "women's rights" issue, with multiple reliable sources provided establishing it as a women's right issue as well as a human rights issue. Could you weigh in on the talk page please? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Razer photo clarification

Forgive me if I appear to be badgering you between here and WP:IMAGEHELP; I just appreciate that you know what you're talking about when it comes to image copyright. The article for Razer is now on the verge of being awarded GA status, and I'm keen to add the Flickr image I've mentioned before as it shows an angle which has otherwise been impossible to find in a free image. My question is: in order for the photographer to be able to publish a photo of Razer under CC-BY-SA, what form does permission from the robot's team need to take? Will I need a declaration form to send to OTRS as before when they supplied the image or, in this new circumstance, will an email saying "yeah Chris, that's OK by me" suffice?

Thank you again for all your time - apologies if I seem a little slow! CountdownCrispy 15:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I would *think* the email would be OK. Upload the image and note that you have confirmed with Razer that they are also OK with the image being used. You'll need to send the email to OTRS on a ticket as before, and you can quote the previous ticket to show that the Razer guys are keen on this open-source stuff. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiThanks

Thank you for clarifying that for me. You are a 'legend' as they say in the playground! I've emailed the roboteer and, if you're interested, am happy to keep you abreast of how it goes? Best wishes, CountdownCrispy 16:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No probs. Let me know how it goes. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

IP removing Nazi flags

I've blocked the IP for 48h. I thought I'd explained the situation clearly enough yesterday, maybe they'll take notice now. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

File:2007 Sports Day.jpg

If you look at the link in the explanation, it notes that images are available for Wikimedia under the GFDL or under a PD release. I don't understand why you use this link to support your belief that there's no permission. And no complaints about your actions; you're not using rollback on me or telling me that you'll be happy to improve my woefully-ignorant understanding of copyright. Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe I could have been softer in my second sentence; sorry if I were harsh. Nyttend (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No definitely my bad - I didn't read it thoroughly enough. I have amended the file page to confirm that the image is released under GFLD on the website - that should put an end to it, although I bet some other person comes along and tags it with orphan --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw your comments on the discussion and wanted to clarify something for you here. All of the uploaders later uploads were speedied via I3/F3, you may not have noticed that. This was done because the Websites terms of use was explicitly cited. In cases such as these it is normal to speedy images that are marked with variations of "For Wikipedia Use only" or "with permission Only", the Wikipedia policy is clear in these regards. In the case of the earlier uploads such as this image: they did not specifically mention the "Wikipedia use only" like license at the source website, but all use "fair use of internet" or "used by permission", or a slight variation of it. Even without the link to the website these still are conflicting terms - remember the "self" tags use generic wording and in many cases an uploader will simply use a "self" tag and than add their own licensing terms elsewhere. In order to meet Wikipedias Image use policy for free images they must *not* be listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives as those images are unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted on sight, unless they are used under fair use. As you pointed out the first part of the websites TOU/TOS is the general "everybody" license - You may not copy (other than a copy for personal use), modify, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, transfer, resell, or republish any of the Contents of this Website without the prior written consent... However the later part is what places these images into violations of Wikipedia policy - Content along with its images for re-use is permitted for WikiMedia under the GFDL or released into the public domain license. In other words these images are free "For Wikimedia use only" (And actually there is only explicit permission given for Wikimedia Commons - which would also be a violation of policy there as well). Wikipedia policy is based on, in part, the 2005 notice from Jimbo - Non-commercial only and By Permission Only Images to be deleted. I3/F3 expanded on that saying image (media) that are "for non-commercial use only" (including non-commercial Creative Commons licenses), "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only" or "used with permission" may be deleted.... Your tag was correct. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Soundvisions, I saw that. However, the webmaster released the content under GNFL and as PD. PD is one thing - it can't be PD for Wikipedia use only or anything like that. My interpretation was that the PD statement together with the GNFL release would override any other statement in the declaration.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. That is why it is a conflicted license. It appears that the uploader was simply choosing a "free" license so they could upload an image and than stated the image was fair use or used with permission depending on the image. In January text was questioned in an article and the updated TOU/TOS was added based on the talk page suggestion, and the later images were upped linking to that. And, as I said, all of those image were speedied because of it. So, in direct answer to your comment if an image is truly released into PD than all copyright is released on it. However clearly that is not the case with any of this users uploads. They used a PD tag on all of the image uploads, and than also sated the image was used with permission or used via Fair use. Two early responses on some images has this response: "Image was taken from the online edition of the news paper, its released to the public by the news paper company for fair use." One has to look at all the uploads made by the user - that is the only reason I uncovered all of these. It is a pattern, not a simple "Oops, I made a mistake with this one image." That unclear understanding of PD extends to the website as well - nowhere does it state that everyhting is available to everyone as PD or even GFDL - the exact wording states that only if you want to use if on Wikimedia than you can can, provided it is "under the GFDL or released into the public domain license" And those two license are not the same either. Look at the Photo Gallery and click on images - they all state "Copyright © 2000 Vidura College - Colombo. All rights reserved" Right now there are, in reality, several issues with these images. I guess the best "in a nutshell" way to look at it is that when an uploader used a "self" license for everything and than manually says some of the images are from newspapers, some are from websites, same are used with permission, some are used as fair use, the source website says "All rights reserved" and "For personal use only" than chances are the "I, the copyright holder..." generic wording in a license tag is not accurate at all. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll bow to your greater experience on that. After years in local government, I've found I'm good at reading copyright legislation and caselaw and applying it (I was with the revenue department in the days of the Poll Tax, the most complex piece of bloody legislation ever delivered), but I haven't got the background yet for how it is applied (mind, I'll bet Bradford v Anderson means nothing to you (very important poll tax case), so we're probably quits on that :) :). Anyway, I'd wait a week and tag it for deletion as orphaned. Hopefully Schuminweb will deal with it, he's quite keen to clear out orphan images.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, Elen of the Roads. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — e. ripley\^talk 20:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It's no problem. Honestly I don't see anything to be upset at you about but maybe I'm missing something. — e. ripley\^talk 21:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I second that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Request

• On a separate matter, as you are an editor who had participated here, could you please state/explain your level of "involvement" (if any)? I'd appreciate it if you could provide a response (or a copy of it) here. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work with Gavin

		The Guidance Barnstar
		He's a difficult case with great upside potential. Your mentoring is appreciated. Mike Cline (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Language questions

Since you offered to help, I will ask you a few questions, I hope you don't mind.

1. Here, do you think "is fitting out" is OK in the following sentence? Or should it be "is being fitted out"?

The latest nuclear submarine produced at the shipyard is the nuclear powered attack submarine Severodvinsk, which was launched in 2010 and is currently fitting out

2. Here, I'm looking for a better way to say "is seen as too expensive". I think it doesn't sound good because "see" is too concrete. "Has been identified as too expensive" is not good either, because "identified" is too specific. I cannot think of a good alternative.

3. Here, I'm looking for a better way to say stuff like "growth of production for military products". I'm not sure which of the following words is a good synonyme for "military products": weapons, arms, or armaments. For example, a transport helicopter is not really "a weapon", but still a military product. Would it be OK to use "arms" in place of the general expression "military products" or "defense industry products"?

4. I'm not entirely sure what the word "procurement" means, although I've read the wiktionary entry. I understand it as follow: a company produces weapons, but when the state buys new weapons, then it "procures" them. But what exactly does "Russian defense procurement" mean? Does it mean the total production of weapons in the country or just the government's weapons purchases?

Thanks a lot for your time. Offliner (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all, delighted to help.

1. The UK English expression would be 'is being fitted out', as we tend to prefer reflexive tenses.

2. 'is seen as too expensive' doesn't really mean the same as 'is identified as too expensive", so I agree with you there. 'Is perceived as too expensive' or 'is regarded as too expensive' would be much better.

3. 'Armaments' is the correct alternative, I would say. 'Growth in production of armaments' or 'growth in military production' would both do.

4. 'Procurement' means to obtain something. 'Procure' can be used in a domestic setting, especially if the object of the procurement is a bit odd - 'she went to the butcher to procure a pig's head' or if method is by some other means than retail purchase - 'he traded several dahlias with his neighbour in order to procure a horseradish root.'

In a business sense, 'procurement' refers to the whole process of obtaining goods and services. It may require a 'specification', describing the goods or services required, a 'tender' submitted by companies who wish to supply, a 'selection process' where a supplier is chosen, and a 'contract' with the supplying company, which will include such things as quantity, price, timescale, after-sales service, penalties for failure to supply, guarantees or warranties. (I procure goods for my company - the largest procurement I did was for £250,000).

So when your source talks of 'Russian defence procurement', it is referring to all the goods and services which have been bought/contracted for by the Russian government as part of its defence spending. This will include spending on military hardware (rockets, helicopters etc), military computer systems (eg fire control systems), but may also include spending on laptops, printer paper, toilet paper, uniforms, food, vodka (well, they are Russians), cleaning staff, the phone contract, the contract with their internet service provider etc etc. If it only means spending on military hardware, the source should make this clear.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! This is exactly what I needed. Offliner (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious about this: is correct to say "M. E. Sharpe are an academic publisher"? I've seen "are" used with football teams in England, but not with companies. I think other WP articles about companies (even about British companies) always use "is" instead of "are", but football team articles like this use "are". Offliner (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, both can be used, it's a kind of custom and practice thing in the UK. So "F.Warne & Co" is a publishing firm or 'is a publisher' (singular). However, more colloquially F.Warne & Co can also be abbreviated to Warne's (as in Warne's firm of publishers I presume), giving 'Warne's are publishing my book'. Confusingly, 'Warne are publishing my book' can also legitimately be used. Whether the extra 's' is added seems to depend on whether the name of the firm is the name of the founder - Blackwell's always has it, Penguin never does, because the name was made up by someone in Pearson Longman (Longman though always used to be referred to as Longman's). So one should say 'Penguin Books Ltd is the UK division of Penguin Group'.

I suppose it's a kind of shibboleth - only the locals get it right. Football teams are always plural - conceptually, the team is the 11 players, not the business, so it is 'Manchester United are...' even when obviously talking about the business (...are raising capital to build a new stand) and not the guys on the pitch (Manchester United are playing terribly this season).

Firms of partners, such as lawyers, should properly be refered to in the plural, so 'George Allen & Unwin' are a publishing firm, or 'are publishers' (plural); 'Sue, Grabbit & Run are a firm of solicitors in Glasgow' ; 'Hobson and Holland are reliable roofing contractors'. Going back to M E Sharpe, I'd tend towards 'is', because there is only one name, so 'M E Sharpe is an academic publisher'; but it is likely that in colloquial English one would say 'Sharpe's are academic publishers'.

Clear as mud, I'm sure.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Convention is that companies/organizational entities are plural in British English and singular in American English, so one should follow the convention for the rest of the article, e.g. "George Allen & Unwin are planning to publish..." = British, "George Allen & Unwin is planning to publish..." = American. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I hear both versions used these days in British English, wasn't aware that the singular form is the norm in the US. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Gavin and Lists

ER - As you can see, List policy is one area where I believe Gavin is trying impose what he thinks policy ought to say and not what it really says or how current policy is practiced. There is pretty strong consensus against him in terms of the list policy he wants to impose but he refuses to see that. When we point out that the current 57K+ lists in WP have been created under current guidelines and policies and that his view of what policy ought to be would render 99% of those lists in violation of policy, he refuses to understand or care about the impact. It is this intractability that has caused so much turmoil. Please press him on the need to understand consensus on current policy and not to interpret that policy in the way he wants the WP list world to be. Again, thanks for your help with Gavin.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll do what I can. I have a little sympathy - some lists are just accumulations of cruft, usually because the nature of the list wasn't defined well enough to start with, and Milhist did have a problem with some joker wanting to include anything that was called "War on..." in a tabloid headline. Lists need to be clearly scoped, but that's not the same as what Gavin is saying.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there is a lot of poor lists created (just like poor articles) because editors do not understand or follow policy. But that is not a reason for decimating 57K+ good lists by advocating draconian policy or gross misapplication of existing policy. Bad lists should be deleted or improved according to the consensus of existing policy. That's what Gavin needs to learn. Thanks. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

AFD on Shakespeare doubters

The list has been transformed into an article about the Declaration. Can i suggest you take a look and see if you'd want to withdraw your AFD? A Radish for Boris (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Who made the change I wonder? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism accusations

Ebanony continues to make plagerism accusations. He currently is claiming Rjensen is making plagiarism links on George Washington. Ebanony has rarely made any contributions to articles and seems to just criticize rather then make the article better. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me take a look. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for getting involved in the Gavin issue

ER - Sorry for weighing in on the Gavin Behavioral issues. He's just got a disruptive way of sucking us into these useless debates. In no way do I think a statement saying that I or we disagree with his position is a personal attack, but I guess as long as he feels that way, we should lay off and let you and KWW do your magic. You were right to call a stop to the bickering. Good Luck. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I can understand why people do it, but it was turning into a cat fight, and Bus Stop turning up didn't help either. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Doodle Jump

I declined because I didn't understand the explanation of why they were copyvios, so they weren't blatant in my eyes. Since you've given a detailed explanation, I now understand, so I've deleted all three of them. Nyttend (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Your advice please

As regards People's Commissariat for Finance you placed the following message:

If he persists in copying the text of one article into another to create the second article, without proper accreditation, he will be blocked from editing. If he had different content for the two articles that showed that they were different entities - then there would not have been a problem. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This is my problem: In July 2008 I created a page entitled "Narkomfin" (See the creation page of Ministry of Finance (Soviet Union)). In December 2008 User:DonaldDuck moved the page to "People's Commissariat of Finance". Fair enough I thought. I made a number of other edits in 2009. Then in June 2010 User:Trust Is All You Need moved the page to "Ministry of Finance (Soviet Union)". I edited a completely different page, and because the Soviet Union did not exist at the time of the foundation of the "People's Commissariat of Finance" it is inappropriate to put amalgamate the two pages. I wish to return my edits to the correct page and would certainly like to see the proper edit history restored as well before User:Trust Is All You Need introduced all the confusion. At the moment the edit record makes me look stupid, if not downright deceitful. As things stand my contribution is being misrepresented and i wish to correct this. Presumably you would have no issue if I persist in moving my own edits back onto the correct page, as they will still be properly accredited. But I am not sure this adequately fixes the problem.Harrypotter (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue was copypasting without accreditation, which breaches the licence by which copy is released to Wikipedia. If you say in the paste article "copied from X article" that's sufficient. As to the rest, you have some good advice on your talkpage about getting consensus if you wish to undo TIAYN's moves of the articles, or split them into two. If there is consensus for a split, an admin will be able to help with the history problem. I recommend against edit warring to move "your" content (which is of course not yours, as you have released it for other editors to do what they like with) without gaining consensus, as this is unlikely to end well. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

They are the same freaking articles, If you really want to create an article for the People's Commissariat for Finance of the RSFSR than create an article for the People's Commissariat for the RSFSR.. okay? Is it that hard? You can't have two articles on two different topics, It is gonna confuse the reader. --TIAYN (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from bringing your content dispute onto my talkpage. I have no opinion as to whether there should be one, two or no articles on the subject. My advice is strictly on how to discuss and obtain consensus for any action.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

thank you for your advice.Harrypotter (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

RFA?

I been seeing you alot lately in AN/I, etc, and checking your contributions you do some adminstative work already, are you interested in a request for adminship. Thanks Secret ^account 22:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a very kind thought, but I'm not convinced anyone would !vote for me. I don't create loads of FAs (never created an article as far as I can recall), which would mean instant opposes from many of those who take an interest in such things. I actually think it takes a different skillset - particularly when it involves sorting out edit wars, non-communicative editors, pov pushers etc - but what do I know. I only ran the complaints department for a city for ten years :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

All the recent candidates who passed didn't have a load of FAs, and there were several with plenty of FAs who failed RFA, your name is known in AN/I and copyrights, and you did do some article work. You should pass. Secret ^account 23:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what, if you can find a seconder (I know technically it doesn't need one, but...), I'll be very surprised give it serious consideration. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what, if you are serious, I would be honored to be your second... I just came here because I just noticed that Secret had mentioned your name at WT:RFA... you are a person who I thought for sure was an admin. I would have zero problem nominating you because, in my opinion, the EotR that is not an admin would not be too different from the EotR that is an admin. E.g. you act like one and have people defer to you as if you already were... they seek your advice and input and when you comment on subjects you get the respect of a person who has seen the ropes and is able to act in an adminly manner. That's what ultimately matters (and would be the premise of a co-nom.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

^That. I need both hands to count the times I've been into your user rights log because (even though I vaguely remembered checking), I think I must be confused and that you're an admin. (Oh, and one time I was actually there to flip a switch, but who's counting?) I passed RFA this May with no more than a single FL to my credit. No ten FA's, not even one. (Not even once having sulled the carpet over at FAC). I mean, the stars are nice and all, but they're neither necessary or sufficient to pass RFA. Courcelles 06:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support: "I thought they were already an admin." Also per this and other past-interactions: editor is level-headed and has massive reserves of good-faith, helpfulness and clue. TFOWR 14:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hell, I'd vote for you. Haploidavey (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll admit, I did have a concern that no bugger would vote for me (oh G-d! Not that madwoman!). If you guys are serious, I suppose I could give it a shot. Tell you what, I'll do the answers to the questions on the template, you can tell me if they make any sense.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You'd get my vote - I like mad women :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok creating the RFA now. Secret ^account 17:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elen of the Roads Secret ^account 17:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Co-nom added.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I go out to get dinner, and look what happens :) :). Thanks guys. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll enthusiastically support you too! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Your answers are good so far. Secret ^account 17:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. They will need a bit of tightening up, but I find it easier if I get everything down then edit it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Added it, good luck Secret ^account 00:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Realised I hadn't filled in the bit where I accept the nom (wack wack oops!) but have dashed over and done it now. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't recommend notifying other people about your RFA though, as that is Canvassing. Thanks Secret ^account 01:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The only folks I've done it to are Cyn and Davey, who had already posted their comments here, but I know 'em both, and they'd get totally enmeshed in some Latin thing and miss it. I certainly wouldn't do it to anyone who hadn't already discussed the whole thing, but I have precedent that you are allowed to notify the folks you've chewed it over with when the thing actually posts. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(Drives off antique haze obscuring view with an impatient wave of hand.) I had already watchlisted the RfA because I'd been here when it was discussed, and was about to leave a link for Davey anyway. This is a perfect example of what I said elsewhere about WP being like a monastic order with its own arcane rules, and not like a Republic of Letters: in what universe does a candidate not get to campaign for votes? So unnatural. I shall now go sup in silence. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok I understand, but it may look like canvassing to some people. Secret ^account 01:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Not if it is only two people and in the open and with reason. It's when people contact numerous people that they get ancy. BTW, it's been a while since I've nominated somebody, but I generally don't add my support until the candidate has broken 100 votes or is on their last day of candidacy---heck, I've had 3 noms that I never got around to supporting! It doesn't mean that I don't support, it's just my way of saying, "I think this candidate is so strong, that I don't need to rush in and !vote."---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That was my take. Cyn and Davey aren't RfA regulars - they spend virtually all their time creating content. Interesting view on the adding support thing - I thought the nominators were counted anyway and didn't need to repeat themselves, so I wasn't surprised not to see you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems like it's on its way to WP:100 Secret ^account 03:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I think that was the quickest 50 I've seen! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There are candidates that I don't really know, that I'll need to study in some depth before !voting. Then there are candidates like Elen, where I'm going to support "as soon" as the RfA is transcluded. I did support as quickly as possible - and there were 47 supports ahead of me. "No bugger would vote for me"? Yeah right! TFOWR 09:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

ROFL! I'm still waiting for the 12 opposes on the grounds that I couldn't fix the parser function on the transcluded template :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Elen of the Roads, I've seen you around and I've just noticed your RfA. I commented. All the best with it.  :) Malke 2010 (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Your RFA is on pace to reach WP:200, not acheived in a year, and that was a borderline RFA of a former admin which got desysopped a few months later, before that three years. And 200 supports is impressive considering that we are losing editors more than we gaining them. Though WP:200 is cured only Newyorkbrad is still an active sysop. Secret ^account 22:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

He is the only one left, isn't he. that's quite remarkable. I'm not convinced this will reach 200 - I think probably everyone who would vote has voted by now, but whatever happens, I think you can take a great deal of credit for seeing more clearly than I that an RfA had a chance of success. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

dreary question

Amusingly (in light of the preceding section), I've come here, O font of procedural knowledge, to ask you a question. (Can I put a big campaign sign in my virtual yard? I'm sure that's against the rules.) Anyway.

I opened an SPI at 20:04, 17 October. The suspected user has responded, but there's been nothing from any outside party. Could you give me some sense of the timeframe for these things? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Officially no... you cannot "canvass" votes by putting virtual signs out. But it happens all the time by people going to other people's pages and posting messages "About your !vote/comment in the {blank} RfA/AFD/XFD/RFC/Village Pump." It's one of the reasons why people are cynical about the rules related to Canvassing. Canvass still happens, people just have figured out how to work the letters not the spirit of the guideline. as for the SPI question... I'll leave that to Elen.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The rules against canvassing always seem fishy to me. Rather like the "civility" rules. They seem to keep people from functioning in normally social or political ways, and encourage passive-aggressive behavior and all sorts of soul-destroying tactics, as you point out. (And surely the canvassing chart is meant to be a satire?) Both "rules" require me to accept restrictions on freedoms of speech and association that I would rebel against IRL. There's a difference between calling someone a name and saying "you can't possibly believe that load of rubbish." The former is ad hominem, the latter not. Not being allowed to post a message on the talk pages of editors I respect saying "Hey, here's an admin candidate whose wisdom I praise" shows what a bizarre "community" this is, much more akin to a monastic order than a Republic of Letters.Cynwolfe (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

) :) Re SPI - I have created userpages for User:Aldrasto, User:Aldrasto11 and User:Zanzan1. I have no idea why he couldn't do same, took me all of 30 seconds although he may not care for the results. If he would replace those templates with a message about legitimate socks, and stop editing logged out, this would solve one problem at a stroke. As it is, SPI cases do tend to hang about a bit. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'm aware that this may sound disingenuous, but I really didn't think there was an intention to deceive — just lack of awareness of proper procedure. That's why I tried to keep other issues separate, except to show why I thought they were all the same user (continuity of voice) and to point toward the potential for masking problems under multiple identities. As for mechanics, you may recall earlier issues with the talk page of the Glossary of ancient Roman religion — repeated entries, insistence that stuff had been deleted or reverted that wasn't, and so on. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I gathered your issue wasn't to do with deception, that's why I thought this might work as a remedy. At least if he is clear that they are all him, you can be sure who it is you might have the problem with. I do think he has a bit of a competence issue - he doesn't seem to get along well with the MediaWiki interface at all.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

He has a profound command of the subject matter, but doesn't seem able to see that concerns expressed about his material have to do with how it's presented. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Re canvassing - you can alert other users to the presence of an RfA/AfD or whatever TlA is on today. The idea is that once there, they will see your position on the discussion. It's kind of logical. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

SPI

Thank you for fixing the userpages. However I cannot acknowledge the accounts Aldrasto and Zanzan1 as I forgot the passsword and as you can see they are no longer active. I understand that I have to write on Zanzan32 page: this is a legitimate account of Aldrasto11, have not I?Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elen of the Roads

Sorry for the accusations. I've switched to support. I hope we can have a more friendly relationship in the future. J Milburn (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope so too. You have my utmost respect. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Amusingly, I had no idea this was going on until I saw an edit summary on Malleus' page. :-) Good luck! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Malleus supports me and you still voted for me? XDXDXD --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I thought your answer to Keeps (#6) was one of the best RfA answers I've ever seen.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it was fun. I wonder does Keeps ever get anyone tell him to bugger off though. SandyGeorgia's is the tricky one though, particularly as Wehwalt has somehow interpreted a personal remark I made to Malleus that I wouldn't block him (or indeed others) if he sounded off at me, because I'm used to filtering out that stuff, into a statement that I don't believe in civility. Me! Ah well. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, be careful with your responses to Weh, they are sounding a little... I dunno... defensive or aggressive? I suspect/hope that it is more a matter of you two communicating past each other, but...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think somehow we are. He needs to evaluate my response to Sandy (when I finally post it - it's turned into a 1000 word essay, so I need to cut it back), then we may be able to communicate further.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the Liverpool debacle! Should have linked it. I doubt if any civil servant would want that on their CV; "blind passion for cause kills it stone dead". Your essay (see above) bears witness to your insight; so does every response you've made at your RfA. Very heartening, and I'll be following developments. Any comments I make on the latter will (I hope) be less obscure. Well, maybe. Haploidavey (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that debacle. I was thinking you didn't seem the kind of chap to be referring to the footie. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a look?

After the AFD you raised at a related article, I was wondering if you could take a look at this - [[1]]? It seems to suffer from the same problems you raised here [[2]]. I particularly liked your cocktail party line, and after reading this list, thought the same thing. It seems most of this list is more like trivia. There have never been more than a handful of candidates that received serious attention from anyone. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look over the weekend. I need to read the sources. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to further ruin your weekend, Elen, but you might find some relevant stuff on this page also. I know it's long. :-( Perhaps this says it all in small compass. Bishonen | talk 14:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

Well, it's mixing apples and oranges. I suppose you should also note that Bishonen is an involved editor who has advocated deleting all authorship articles from Wikipedia completely. You might note my comment here as well [[3]]. Smatprt (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, do note those things! What a good idea! Bishonen | talk 15:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

As I said, I am aware of the background, and do not wish to say anything serious (as opposed to jokes about Darwinfish) until I have had a chance to review the lot. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at Special Cases's talk page.
Message added 08:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cookie

Special Cases has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Special Cases ^{Spit out your comments} 12:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

RfA

If I hadn't already supported I'd've put "support per Wehwalt". Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear.... :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

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

You'll want to read this one. And I believe everything I said. Sven Manguard _Talk 19:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You realize I am going to have to do everything I can think of to torpedo your RfA considering that with several days left you are only 5 votes shy of my total as per WP:100, right? Did you ever by any chance pose for some questionable photos I can plaster hither and yon? John Carter (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but unfortunately what's questionable is my taste in frocks (ew, mum! put it back on the rail! that wouldn't even look good on a couch!). Perhaps I should sing - yes, that's it. I can't hold a note in a pail, so if I sing all my edits from now on, that should do it nicely. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Civility

Hi Elen! I think that your answers to questions #9 and #10 in your RfA could form the basis of a rewrite of WP:CIVIL. I have thought as you have for sometime now. I also think that a lot of other Wikipedians feel the same. It would be nice to see a pragmatic civility policy take root here (#9), and to not see wheel-warring blocking and unblocking (#10). Thanks! — SpikeToronto 19:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I also liked your answer vis-à-vis forum shopping at AN/I. — SpikeToronto 19:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. At the very least, your answer to question 9 will make an excellent essay for the community to mull over.

When your RfA is over you might want to take your answer to questions 9 and 10, plus any other wisdom in your arsenal, and take it to RfC or somewhere similar. This might just be the best shot Wikipedia has had in months at making WP:CIVIL into something useful. It's a crumbling pillar, and has been for the longest time. I do recommend that you wait until after the RfA though, as taking this to RfC will demand careful shepherding and lots of time spent on making it work. Even clear and coherent concepts and well formulated ideas tend to be misunderstood and deliberately distorted occasionally. Sven Manguard _Talk 20:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Spike, Sven... Yeah, need to get this over, then see if something less rambling (and this is the cut down version) can be extracted and worked on by the community. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the talkback template; that wasn't really necessary as I am watching your RfA anyway. You asked me to clarify if I was supporting or neutral. I could only support if you further clarified your stance on civility; it isn't clear from this, for example, that you really understand the difference yet between incivility and profanity. I struck my oppose because I saw evidence in your answers that you were prepared to think about the problem of enforcement; I would need to see more to support. The arguments raised in Wehwalt's oppose still concern me, just not enough to oppose. Consider me a neutral for now; it looks like you will comfortably pass without my support anyway. Good luck. --John (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been doing the talkback thing as a courtesy for everyone. Your observation makes me smile: I have 25 years in customer service - I've seen pretty much every definition of 'incivility' going. My whole point is that there isn't a definition of it that everyone would agree with - sometimes people even define civility differently depending on whether it relates to how they treat others or how others treat them. The question was only a procedural one - you have struck !votes in two categories - did you intend to !vote in the third category or were you effectively withdrawing. Whichever - it is up to you. I hope if our paths cross in the future, we can continue to have civil exchanges whatever happens at this RfA. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right that there are a lot of different interpretations of civility and incivility on the project. I'd like you to think specifically of two questions. I haven't added these to your RfA for good reason. Q1; where does WP:CIVIL end and WP:NPA begin? Q2; where does a campaign to reform a rule become a WP:POINT violation? Best wishes, --John (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the problem in Q1 is that so very much of it is in the perception of the hearer. In some societies, failure to use the correct form of address (inferior to superior) is considered a huge insult, in others, insisting on the correct form of address is considered a put down. So Academician Foo will be quite accepting of a joshing "that's rubbish and you know it Foo" from a respected superior, but "please remember to use an edit summary" from an inferior is just completely out of it. And yet, it cannot be left wholly to the perception of the recipient, otherwise the speaker will never know where the line is. One must give the speaker some clear minimum line, so he is not hostage to the unknown sensibilities of the hearer; and yet at the same time provide that once he knows the sensibilities of the hearer, he does not play on them. And on the third hand (OK, I'm Durga), it is possible to deliver a wholly civil personal attack. Just watch any chick flick set in a school - you'll see experts at work.

To me - and this is not a list, it's some off the cuff musings - a personal attack might be insulting someone's intelligence - but that would include the 'this is a foolish statement' kind of phrasing, where it is likely to be read as 'this is the statement of a fool'. It might be insulting their motives - and here a defense of truth really is twisting the knife. "You are a nationalist bigot" "That's a personal attack" "No, it's a statement of the truth" (and I have heard a respected admin make that argument). Sustained sniping and cattiness (not you again? did anyone hear a noise? I think we can ignore X) are intended to undermine self esteem, and so constitute attacks even if they are not ad hominem tirades.

As to the other - in the real world, campaigns for what is perceived as justice or reform can form a view that it is legitimate to use disruption - or even violence - to achieve their ends. In a Wikipedia setting there should theoretically be no need for disruption, as the governance is intended to allow anyone to raise any issue at any time and ask the community to decide on it. Where, generally speaking, disruption arises is where the party raising the issue either feel they are being ignored, or where they do not care for the general consensus, so they take more extreme actions which others view as disruptive. Since I have no doubt that you are intending this question in respect of the civility issue however, I would say that it is quite clear that the great majority of editors do not want to try to work in a bearpit, and that editors do leave because people are rude and nasty. And let us be honest here, it is not abstract 'incivility', it is downright rudeness and nastiness - I was one of the people who made submissions to Ottava Rima's arbcom case. Huge contributor, very intelligent, but it was impossible to edit with the man - he bullied, browbeat, belitled and insulted everyone he came across. And yet, our civility policy did him a huge disservice, because right up to the end, he never thought he had crossed its lines, and he thought Arbcom would uphold him. Coming back to disruption, I would say that attempting to elevate the profile of the issue by being rude to people is singularly unproductive, but continuing to raise it in a more discursive manner is not disruptive, as the matter of what exactly the policy should say is still open to discussion.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, that's good enough for me to support. --John (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your confidence in me.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No, thank you for giving such brilliant and thoughtful answers, which more than reassured me. I think the key to the problem may be in your quote sometimes people even define civility differently depending on whether it relates to how they treat others or how others treat them; an old colleague once said to me "You should judge yourself by the outcomes of your actions, and judge others by their intentions. It's regrettable that most people do it the other way around" and that's become my expression of the insight that you have there. This is just conversation now btw; I'm definitely not going to change my !vote a 4th time over this former concern whatever you reply. --John (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard that saying as well, and I think it's a good one. Hopefully there can be more useful conversations on this subject in the future. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Not Spanish

WHUT the hell I have no idea how to speak fluent Spanish... I am fluent with english and chinese. --Jeffwang16 (Talk) (Contributions) (Email me!) 00:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear! I apologise. For some reason I thought you were spanish. I must be mixing you up with someone... Hell, yes I am. The guy who posted the barnstar on your talkpage is a Spanish speaker. Cheez, how to feel a fool. Just scrub the comment on your talkpage with the edit summary "mad woman thinks I'm spanish". --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

1.30 in the morning here. "Time for bed" said Zebedee. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Boing! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"Good Morning," said Florence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"Hellooo dears" said Ermintrude. Plutonium27 (talk)

"Far out, man," said Dylan. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Striking numbered votes properly

Thank you. I knew I could find out exactly how to do it if I trawled through the source code, as there were some crossed-out votes above, but I was too lazy. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. After numerous foul ups on my own RfA, I figured out how to do it properly. You need to indent using : after the #, and to strike from after the # not before, as the counter depends on seeing a # at the start of every paragraph in a numbered list. If it sees a different character, it treats it as the end of list. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll remember that for the future. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Travelling

I'll be travelling tomorrow, so I won't be able to comment when your RFA passes, so I wish to do so now. Congrats.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for everything :) I wouldn't have started without your help and support (and Secret, and Cyn and Davey). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Are we there? Are we there yet? Are we nearly there?? Haploidavey (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nearly there dear. :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Can user delete content?

Hi! Is this kind of user page content deletion allowed: [4]? Peltimikko (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, users may delete warnings from their talkpages. It is assumed that if they do, they have read them. In Md iet's case he does read them - he's been involved in fixing some of his copyvios, as it was a misunderstanding rather than bad faith. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing BLPs

Thanks for sourcing that tagged unsourced BLP. Don't worry, I'm not about to tag a huge load of them--yet. Please see the discussion I started a few minutes ago at WP:AN (permalink). --TS 13:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I figured we'd both gone to the list, picked the first one, and edit conflicted. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

yup

for calling me a "nice guy" yesterday :P. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Beat-the-crat congrats...

Here's your free T-shirt!

On your new adminship! Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 00:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Gah! There's still time for 150 opposes! Actually, I got 40 minutes extra because of the problems with the template parser. Looie just took the time when he hacked it, not the time Secret transcluded it, so it should really have expired at 00:00 UTC --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There's always one who jumps the gun... I'll be number two and wade in with a T shirt :-)  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Gee...er...thanks :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh ye of little faith! Congratulations! TFOWR 00:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and you too. I'd never have done it if you hadn't given me that massive kick up the backside :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse, I think we need to talk Mr Zman into writing an RFA closing script so you don't keep getting beat to the candidate's talk page by the riff raff :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!!!! --j⚛e decker^talk 00:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Congrats Secret ^account 00:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Congrats Elen of the Roads!!!! Well deserved!!! Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 03:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Congrats, Elen! Kafka Liz (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Congrats Elen! Good luck with the tools and don't delete the main page :) although I'm sure you won't! ;) Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:24pm • 06:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

RfA thankspam - cupcakes

Thank you to everyone who supported my RfA. I couldn't have done it without you guys. Help yourselves to a cupcake. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• OMNOMNOM - Yummy! Congratulations :) - Dwayne was here! ♫ 01:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well done - I'm glad my oppose #1 didn't turn out to look silly.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Congratulations, I'm sure you will make a fine admin. Your cabal leader will be by later to give you keys to the admins lounge and show you the secret handshake. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delicious. *burp* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Those are too pretty to eat. Congrats! PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 03:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Now, is the glass half empty or half full?

*Many congrats, and welcome to the cabal. --John (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Wow, 15th place in the WP:100 - nice :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Use it well! Still fell sorry for TTNSB though. Special Cases ^{LOOK, A TALK PAGE!!!!} 08:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he would have had a good use for the thing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Special Cases has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. KillerChihuahua?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Has this all been a terrible mistake?? Naughty, naughty admin... [5] Haploidavey (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL. And I was even offering to write an article for him... Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I seem to be late to the desert table, but heartfelt congratulations from me too! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

		Sunshine!
		Hello Elen of the Roads! ~NerdyScienceDude has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! ~NerdyScienceDude 20:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! ~NerdyScienceDude 20:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Congrats. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on your RfA! Perseus!Talk to me 18:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Ronz on AN/I

Elen, thank you for your early comments to this discussion. Do you mind revisiting it? User:Mathsci is lobbying for the closure and archiving of the discussion because no more admins are commenting. He appears to also not have realized that you provided some early admin input on this issue. See here - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Three_other_options. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Busy first day...

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Good Block The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It just happened I was the only one in the shop when Bugs started shouting, and I've kept my eye on it as I kind of had that feeling....... Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

So you have already blocked someone :) I am so proud of you. I am working on some lessons in page protection in case I fight some vandals after supper. Good luck! Thanks for the yummy cupcakes you left on your page. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, suddenly all these extra bells and whistles start sprouting on your page. The gadget toolbar is now offering me 20 more options, and I have no idea what most of 'em do. I'm terrified of blocking myself or deleting the mainpage or something :) And of course I couldn't just get the gobby ones you can tell to shut up - I helped write the child protection policy, so I know damn fine what it says. Glad you enjoyed the cupcakes :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Cake defacer

[The darwinbish looks incredulously at all the weenie congrats. ] WikiLove..? [Feels sick. Decides against even commenting. Takes one dainty bite out of each cupcake and slopes off, chewing. ] darwinbish ^BITE 21:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC).

Thanks

Good suggestion. I'll take it. There is too much teacher in me for my own good; I want people to understand why what they are saying is plausible or not. But you are right: that is not relevant to WP policies, and I think I should step away before things start getting to me. Awickert (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I've been involved in a few cases now where people have some new scientific theory, and in my experience arguing from first principles only encourages them to believe that this is the right process.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Me too. But for whatever reason, I still do. I think that this is it for that approach, though :) Awickert (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

tks

• Thanks for your kind words on my talk page. I was trying not to answer 'cause I didn't wanna start a lot of side-bar discussion, but then Malleus said something I had to answer. Thanks! • Ling.Nut (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

So, you're an admin now.

Excellent. This is all going according to plan. Now I can move my timetable for complete and utter world domination up by 27 minutes and 4 seconds (it's meticulously detailed, you see...)

In all seriousness though, congradulations. You deserve the mop. Sven Manguard _Talk 01:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Ask an Expert

Hi there. Could you weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kapi (Egyptian God)? I figured you, being an Egyptologist, might be able to clear it up for us. Sven Manguard _Talk 05:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Blurb on you

Hi, I really made some wild guesses. Could you please check and edit if necessary? link. Thanks and congrats. Tony (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Few things I'd like to correct - I'm English, and I'm a local government officer by trade, and have been the Complaints Officer for a city - hence my rather anal interest in policy. Egyptology is strictly an amateur interest although I'm fine with you reporting it, as it's probably vastly more interesting to most people :).--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I have corrected. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Pondering

Congratulations, by the way. :)

I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to post this on the RFC/U talk page, but I have wondered for some time now if there isn't some involvement of the Autism/Aspergers spectrum influencing the way he thinks and behaves. I don't mean that as any sort of personal attack on him, just an honest question, as it would explain a lot. BOZ (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to speculate as to cause, particularly given the modern theory that the Autism spectrum extends from normal behaviour (so at the extreme, you can label practically any male behaviour as autistic!!). There's nothing more unusual showing up than this very rigid approach, so I doubt there's anything more to it. It could be as much due to insecurity without rules, or a belief in sticking to one's guns, both of which are at least as much down to upbringing as to anything else. The issue is how to deal with it, particularly as there is a level on which he can see what we are saying, and another level on which he cannot work out how to modify his response. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I got you - I wouldn't really want to advance that as an opinion; like I say, just pondering. And in case it looks bad, I want to say I had nothing to do with the IP who did just post that to the talk page. :| BOZ (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

#

[6]I've actually never understood why it is called the pound sign. As far as I know it had never been used to represent either the currency or the or the unit of measurement. The only use this symbol has in American English other than being a key on a telephone keypad is as the symbol for the word "number." Strange thing this language of ours. Here's something else odd I just discovered: if you type it into the search bar instead of leading to the article on the symbol you get the main page. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Erm, I would like you to review my unblock on User talk:Special Cases because there appears to be no admin about doing unblocking at the moment, so I would like you to do it. (somehow...I've not been autoblocked...)92.24.112.162 (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Better late than never

Congratulations on your new t-shirt! Drmies (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Special Invite

You have been invited to comment in a special Request for Constructive Criticism page. I am looking for areas in which I can improve. I have identified you as both an experienced and trusted Wikipedian, and as someone that has had sufficient contact with me to able to recognize areas in which I can improve. Please feel free to visit and post any comments or criticism you have. At a certain point, I cannot improve if no one tells me what I need to work on. Thanks in advance, Sven Manguard Talk 00:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright

Hello. I'm sorry, but I didn't know where the templates for copyright violation are. Jayy008 (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Instructions Also explains what to do if someone keeps inserting copyright material. Ping me if he does it again and I haven't already blocked him for it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

He's done it again & thanks for the info. Jayy008 (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Again a couple more times as well.Ravenscroft32 (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd gone to bed, but I see Dabomb got him. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

He did, but thanks for the help any way. Jayy008 (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The mystery sentence

I'll search for the source of the sentence and when I catch the culprit I'll hand them over to you. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL :) Sometimes I think the two halves of my brain are edit-warring --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If it had continued I was going to report one half for 3RR. Don't know how that would have worked though. :) I could fill a book with the posts I've had to correct. Jack forbes (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Dear Elen: I'm so sorry for being so out of touch with how things are done these days. I do think we were more brazen once! There used to be a piece of Arbitration Committee precedent -- which incidentally I don't seem to be able to find anymore -- that used to say something to the effect of: "Users who exhaust the community's patience sufficiently to be blocked indefinitely, and no Wikipedia administrator sees fit to unblock them, are considered permanently banned from Wikipedia by community consensus." People used to quote it, but I note they don't any more and WP:BAN looks considerably different from what it did. Thanks so much for your help in explaining how it's evolved to me. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As I say, no worries. These changes happen, and it's hard to immediately catch up. I do remember it saying that when I started, so the change is probably around 18 months ago. I have the advantage that I've just recently run for admin, so I had to learn all this stuff. I do think the community was more given to just timing people out, but we seem to have seen more ex-users who won't stop popping up. We've also come up with WP:Standard offer, so that people who have 'exhausted the community's patience' get sent away to edit Wikinews or something for six months, and can then ask to be let back in.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

*laughs* It sounds a bit like the British Empire penchant for deporting people off to the colonies! But nevertheless, Wikinews or Commons might be a kind of therapy for their editing fixation, since the interaction space will be cooler in temperature on almost every other Wikimedia wiki (except some of the WP languages) than English Wikipedia. And, as for adminship, well done for making it. I should add that in my day, I got made an admin with only 600-odd edits and three months' experience. We did things differently then! --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm....Wikinews=Botany Bay. Anyway, it works sometimes. User:Diego Grez is a success story for that policy. And thanks on the admin thing - yeah, it's hard these days if you don't have 10 FAs to your name (which I don't!). It must have been interesting in the days when more people knew each other and the whole project was smaller. More of a sense of common purpose, but perhaps less of a definition of it. These days it seems to be much more afflicted with bureaucratonium - that well known trans-uranic heavy element.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

• News and notes: Foundation's finances, geodata milestone, interim counsel, museum conference

• In the news: Airplane construction with Wikipedia, lessons from the strategy project, logic over rhetoric

• WikiProject report: Scoring with WikiProject Ice Hockey

• Features and admins: Good-lookin' slugs and snails

• Arbitration report: Arb resignation during plagiarism discussion; election RfC closing in 2 days

• Technology report: Foundation office switches to closed source, secure browsing, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Little Green Footballs

Little Green Footballs could perhaps use your sagacity. If you are interested, the discussion starts here. It spreads over three talkpage headings:

1. "Alteration and Deletion of Posts";
2. Inclusion of material related to revisionist content editing; and
3. WP:BLP., WP:RS., and WP:V issues

You might want to first read where I was first engaged by one of the involved editors on my talk page here. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 16:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! — SpikeToronto 04:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

TerraCognita

As a frequent ANI visitor, I figured you would know. It looks like another incarnation of Schwyz or whatever it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As it was, I only had about 20 minutes spare, so didn't have time to go looking on ANI. Is this the same chap as Terra Novus...or whatever his name was? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. It was calling itself Tigre Tigre, or something like that; and then various versions of TT-something. After I posted the original comment above, the user in question was indef'd as an obvious sock, and the SPI on Schwyz was re-opened yet again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Tks for your kind words on my talk page. Cheers!• Ling.Nut (talk) 08:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Gavin

I can't decide if Gavin tells fibs, or if he just processes and stores information very differently to most people.

The latter. I looked into this a while ago and did not find any evidence that he was deliberately lying. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to think you are right. It feels more like the experiences I have had of people who do process information using different algorithms to the rest of us. One of my daughters is dyslexic, and while not at all suggesting that Gavin is the same, she processes info in a radically different way to "normal" people. Interestingly, it makes her very good at finding things - something noted of dyslexics generally. "Normals" look for lost items in places they expect to have put them - but if they had put them there, they would have found them in minutes. A dyslexic person has no hesitation in searching for your car keys in the fridge, because their answer to "why on earth would I have put them in there" is "why not?" --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think he has a lot to offer, but unless he can demonstrate it, perhaps by working on articles in his user space, I'm not sure what else we can do. His attack on Mike Cline mentions the idea of "mutual respect", but it isn't clear what Gavin means. Mike, who has impressed me on almost every level (as an admin and an editor) has shown great respect for Gavin throughout this process. I do wonder, and I am curious, is there anyone who can communicate with Gavin or who has in the past? He has had editors who have agreed with him on various discussions. I know, WP:NOTTHERAPY, but I tried and failed to work with him. Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Brian D

A7 not valid! Have you seen how many times that spam has been deleted? E. Fokker (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

In which case you need to tell me. Nevertheless, in the opinion of the admin (ie me) it does not qualify for A7. Take it to AfD, and you can G4 every further instance. I'll even salt it for you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yet you fail to explain why? E. Fokker (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The threshold for A7 is very low. Pearl the singer would get to pass A7. It really does have to be at the level of "My mate Norbert plays in a band at school" to fail A7. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find that is a view held by a small minority of admins. E. Fokker (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If your interpretation were applied universally then AfD would be swamped, thank goodness most admins have more common sense. E. Fokker (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find that I know what A7 says. Can I advise that you stop digging and we leave it as an agreement to differ. As you'll see from my comment at AfD, he certainly isn't a complete unknown. The guy does get about and clearly has some dedicated fans, even if he does turn out not pass WP:N. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The A7 bar seems to move up and down depending on the admin. You still have yet to say what in the article indicated importance or significance. E. Fokker (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe it does vary somewhat - also Orangemike has a low tolerance threshold for spam :) To my mind, saying he had cut a couple of records (hence Pearl the singer) that were turning up on numerous download sites, and was known on the Christian circuit (which he evidently is from the blog hits in Google) was enough to take it over the bar, as its very low. I don't just read the article, I do have a quick look to see if anyone else on teh interwebz has ever heard of the guy. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the last delete was a G7 - author requests deletion, not an A7. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The prospect of an AfD obviously didn't appeal to them. Brian Dekkers was its previous incarnation and I'm certain it'll turn up again in the not to distant future. Sorry for the snippy tone earlier. E. Fokker (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I'll keep an eye out to see if it appears again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

page deleted

(Manwith1plan (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)) Hello Elen, I wanted to ask why was the page that I created deleted Twisted Tribe ? I saw that there was a speedy deletion in process and I contested it, trying to explain why I made it. Then I didn't receive any feedback, I just saw this morning that the page is deleted, with no explanation to my contest. I would like to know what I did wrong, so next time it won't happen. Kind regards.

Hello. I deleted the page because the company is not yet notable in wikipedia definition (see WP:ORG for the requirements to appear in Wikipedia). The product and the developer both have more coverage and pass the requirements at WP:N, but Twisted Tribe itself isn't getting the kind of coverage required to pass the notability test. If you have sources of the kind required by WP:ORG then I can put the deleted material on your userpage for you to work with, but you said it was an "up and coming" company, so I suspect that kind of coverage isn't out there yet. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your answer, I appreciate it. It would be nice if you could put the deleted material on my userpage, so when more information will be available I will add it. And I will ask somebody if there is enough material to post it. Thanks again. (Manwith1plan (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC))

(talk page stalker) Manwith1plan, it would probably be best if Elen userfied the article for you rather than putting it on your userpage. The userpage policy doesn’t really permit articles on userpages. The preferred solution is userfication, perhaps with __NOINDEX__ and a {{Userspace draft}} template at the top. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 19:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Now at User:Manwith1plan/Twisted Tribe. Userpage was a typo for userspace. "Festina lente, as we say to each other litely at brake" (Molesworth) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! (Manwith1plan (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC))

Irrelevant thread at WT:AN

Just felt I should let you know I removed the thread at WT:AN dealing with a content dispute as it's irrelevant to the page, and didn't belong on AN or ANI either. Ordinarily I'd move it to a more suitable venue, but in this case I think the user probably needs to rephrase it and discuss it on the article's talk page. I thought I'd let you know as removing the thread also meant removing your reply; if you can think of a suitable venue for the thread I have no objection to it being restored elsewhere. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Back to the talkpage was the only place I could think of, and they don't want him back there anyway. Chap has a severe case of selective deafness. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a note

I laid out everything at the start. Beyond that "an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement." Period. Very simple and very clear. F9 is about copyright violations. At this stage if everyone really knew/understood the source policies the discussion would not be taking place at all. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No, as I've explained, while an invalid claim of fair use under US law would be a copyright infringement, a faulty FUR is not necessarily a copyright infringement as Wikipedia standards are a great deal higher than US law, and use of the image may well be perfectly acceptable in US law. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Than you are misreading/misunderstanding Wikiepdia Policy. I will ask you directly - what part of Unauthorized use of copyrighted material under an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement and is illegal. Media which are mistagged as fair use or are a flagrant copyright violation can be removed on sight. is not clear to you? (EDIT) Or the clarifier for material taken form commercial content providers "must only be used in a transformative nature"? They go hand in hand. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Soundvisions, Wikipedia policy does not trump US law. US law says

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

As you can see, it is a lot less specific that Wikipedia's NFCC. Failing to meet all the NFCC requirements may constitute a copyright infringement, but then again it may not. It's way less clear cut than claiming that I took that publicity shot of Britney.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Elen, I did not ask you to quote US Copyright law or summarize it. (<= Joking) Go back and read what I have said, and I am extremely well informed about the US copyright law and no where did I say that Wikipedia trumps the law. In fact it backs up what I said *and* backs up Wikipedia policy. For commercial content of *any kind* the key section that relates is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." How that translates to Wikipedia is NFCC 2 - "Respect for commercial opportunities." In the section of the discussion that you complained about that I removed I has a link to: U.S Copyright Office - Fair use. It contains some plain English wordings that are important such as: "When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation." Translate that to Image use policy - Fair use images and than further to Non-free content criteria. And that is overlooked at Wikipedia as it relates to the types of visual material being discussed. (As I did pointed out in my removed comments - text does not seems to have nearly the amount of fair use discussions) We are discussing a type of image that is "narrow in scope" and it already fairly well defined at Wikipedia - over and over again. On Wikipedia does use of an image from a commercial content provider meet all 10 of the criteria for fair use as defined by Wikipedia? Unless it is being used in a transformative nature than it does not. It fits into the copyright violation wording because of the policy that originally existed, which was based on copyright law. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I agree with what you say - and apologies again for being so crabby earlier. I've put a new suggestion at CSD talk for what to go in F7, feel free to refactor as you see fit. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I put up the suggestions in a new header/sub section. See what you think. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"Final Warning"??????

I supposed that means that there were supposed to be others?

And that you are asserting without cause that something violates this policy? Everything I've put in has been sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadKingChucky (talk • contribs) 22:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I am very far behind on many thanks, but much appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. I could not believe it when I saw that he had done it again. Even if he reverted himself, the question has to be why he even thought about doing it in the first place. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Elen on the Roads

Hiyas Elen,

I just blocked the above user on the basis of it being a suspected impersonation attempt. Still, i was wondering if the account might be made by you, for editing on insecure networks or something alike (The name could be read as a joke for that purpose). If the account was actually you, do feel free to unblock the account, and accept my apologies for the incorrect block. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 15:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Soon to be followed by User:Elen gets hit by a truck and is all over the Roads. Or is that too long? HalfShadow 20:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

ROFL! I feel that one needs an animated gif :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Good to see it is actually you - when the name popped up i couldn't help but smile at it, since the purpose of the account could be a funny pun on your regular name (And frankly, it would have been a waste if a troll would have come up with it). Still, i didn't want to risk it being a troll and figured that if it was you i could always unblock you later on. Good to see you already took care of that part, and i'm glad that you don't mind the block. Either way, happy editing, but mind the cars! :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries at all :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at SandySucks (talk · contribs)  !! Isn't Wiki fun :) Not to worry-- I realize many won't read evidence, pile on old grudges, grind axes ... typical DR on Wiki. But we have higher venues for admin abuse of tools in the event RFC/U isn't useful; I sure hope we don't have to end up there over such a silly thing. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Re. WP:AN comment

With the unblock request for Kalajan, you commented on my CU note. I don't particualirlly get what you were trying to say. On the posts he had made with his talkpage, yes, it would give an IP address, and a CU could check that to see if there are any accounts that directly match his IP/range and user agent. But that doesn't include other user agents/IP ranges that would be stale now. Especially if the user has moved. At original, I forgot about the UserTP, my bad. It is possible to find socks, just might not be hitting all the ranges (or proxies) and since such little socking was found originally, we could add a little AGF to the situation. -- DQ (t) (e) 18:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You got what I meant - if anyone was bothered, a CU could determine whether he was making any other edits from his current IP. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the sentiments you expressed on the administrators noticeboard about the on-going controversy surrounding plagiarism issues. I don't want to personalize the discussion, but I do feel this needs a thorough airing so that the community feels comfortable. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I do think it's a shame the person concerned left, but (on no evidence except that it otherwise seems a terrible overreaction) I guess there may have been other stuff going off at the same time. But it has been repeatedly said that he was prone to plagiarism, and plagiarism is an issue for the whole project. Some of the reactions on all sides have been just ridiculous. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree, and that's why I've tried to stay clear of the scrum, save one posting on the (since deleted) user page of the individual who left. At the same time, this discussion goes to the heart of this project, and the fact that such an important discussion has now become a political football is unfortunate. But just as in journalism, the moment the public begins to feel that plagiarism is common here, the minute wikipedia loses all credibility. There must be a zero-tolerance policy for it, as I can see you agree. Thanks again for your comments on the board, and if there's anything I can do to be of service, please don't hesitate to let me know. (I do tend to stay away from heated discussions involving personalities, but this issue is paramount.) MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and congratulations on your recent election. :-) MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I usually try to stay out of the scrums as well (I don't mind editors arguing over whether to include something in an article, but the political stuff.....) but as you say, this is important. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Me too, I generally steer clear of the political scrums. But the future of this enterprise depends on folks understanding sourcing and copyright issues. While new editors might need education along these lines, it's imperative that the top ranks of this place, including administrators and crats, have a firm grasp on these issues. That's what's so worrisome about this latest episode. I'm not calling for some sort of public execution, as some folks seem to be doing. But I would like a thorough airing of this episode in full public view, and with some measures put in place to prevent a reprise. The behind-the-scenes scrambling over the latest episode, worthy of some Watergate shenanigans, is an embarrassment to wikipedia. Surely we can, and must, do better. MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Question on Userspace Drafts

Hi Elen of/on the Roads who's hopefully keeping an eye out for passing trucks, ;-) I was wondering if you could take a look at this[7] for me. It was an article on a notable company (possibly starting on the missing IBM Printing Systems Division article) that was turned into an advert during/after Ricoh's completed buyout (dunno by who). It "failed" AfD and I had it userfied so I can fix it (Yay! Finally an area and article I've got some expertise on to write about!).

So, my question is, should/could I remove the advert tag? It will be a while before I can dig up all the relevant history and technological innovations, especially as (a) IBM has been purging a lot of stuff lately (and a lot of related news items seem to be dead links), (b) I'm having difficulty in a few areas such as finding the linkages between IBM and Xerox (a portion of the Xerox DocuPrint line are, or are based on the IBM/now Ricoh InfoPrint line - in areas that were industry firsts for IBM/InfoPrint/Ricoh). Thus, my fear is, with a lot of work ahead of me, that with the tag in place, it's going to be AfD'd or speedied before I get around to finishing it.

I have taken the initiative of tagging it {{Userspace draft}} and {{underconstruction}} (with comment), but wasn't sure if leaving the advert tag left it on some list someplace thus causing people added work of going to it and realizing it should be left for now. Your insight would be appreciated. Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 03:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Tags and cats should be removed in userspace, also any fair-use images. I've removed tags and cats could you check if the logo is PD or fair use and remove temporarily if fair use.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist with that. And no, the image is not PD - I actually uploaded it. So, if I am understanding correctly, I should remove it (and get it deleted as there is no "Fair Use" if there's no use at all), finish the article, and then re-upload when it's back in articlespace?

Thanks again! -Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 15:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Just ship it out of the article. If someone deletes it as an orphan then you'll have to reupload it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ooops... already Speedied it (Criteria: F5). I'm pretty picky on copyvio/fair use things, so I decided to err on the side of caution. Thanks, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 18:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

no worries. Its the right thing to do Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

• Fundraiser: November 15 launch, emphasis on banner optimization and community involvement

• News and notes: Second Wikipedian in Residence, {{citation needed}} for sanity

• In the news: WP prose praised, Public Policy update, education debate, WP documentary

• WikiProject report: WikiProject California

• Features and admins: No, not science fiction—real science

• Election report: The countdown begins

• Arbitration report: No cases this week; Date delinking sanctions reduced for one party; History ban extended

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at Triwbe's talk page.
Message added 21:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

PayLeap

Thank you! Pedro :  Chat  22:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both... great example set by you both. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 22:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"Needs to write a Featured Article"

Re this, there is not a single person anywhere in that discussion suggesting that he "needs to write a Featured Article", and the last time I'm aware of anyone ever suggesting it was a throwaway comment by Mailer Diablo. In 2007. Please don't feed the "people who are concerned about a lack of content contributions insist on a Featured Article" strawman, which the Hugglers have recently been trying to make up as "proof" of how unreasonable the opposers at RFA are, unless you can actually find any evidence of anyone having made that demand in the last three years. – iridescent 17:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

And we don't want them showing up at FAC in droves with ill-prepared nominations-- that's what we got back in the Mailer Diablo day, and it just increases the reviewer load. And some of the RFA candidates I've seen lately shouldn't be trying to write FAs anyway :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Iridescent, do you really want me to provide the diffs. Because I will, quite cheerfully. And I agree with Sandy, it really is foolish advice whenever someone gives it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Go for it; if you can find a credible "oppose, no Featured Articles". To get you started, here's every time the phrase "write a featured article" has ever appeared at RFA. – iridescent 18:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Where did I ever say I could source that exact phrase. And who was talking about credibility. I note that even you referred to the "must have 10 FAs" school in Thing's RfA. Are you going to go away and find sources to back up your statement :). Or would it be better to leave it as an armwave response to this kind of opinion [8] which was made at my RfA (perfectly valid opinion, not criticising it, but he does mention involvement with GA/FA), and concur with Sandy that actually we don't want to make people believe they have to contribute at that level if they can't do it, but we do want to encourage them to contribute to the content of the encyclopaedia as they feel comfortable - even if it's only finding proper online sources for 'popular culture' type topics. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That part of my cut-and-paste boilerplate about "the 10 FAs school" was written back when 1FA was still with us (and you're right, does need updating to reflect its deletion). I'm looking for one example of someone, more recently than 2007, saying "I won't support unless you've written a Featured Article", or any form of words to that effect. If you're alleging that someone is saying "needs to write a Featured Article", when there's no evidence I can see of anyone ever saying that, the onus is on you to demonstrate it. David Fuchs's "audited content" piece is expressly not about FAs, and says as much—he's talking about any process which involves other people looking over what you've written, be it DYK, peer review, GAN, FAC, even such esoterica as Featured Portals or Valued Pictures, and is looking expressly for evidence of collaboration and cooperation with other users. – iridescent 18:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, honestly pet. I made a throwaway remark , and you've somehow read it as me making some very specific allegation. All this 2007 stuff is added by you - it's all very well you saying it was 'cut and paste boilerplate', but you added it to someone's RfA two weeks ago, not two years ago. David's not necessarily meaning that admins need to write FAs, just that they need to be involved in the FA creation process, but people are reading it as 'must create GAs', 'must create FAs'. What this gives the poor young editors (they do seem to me to be young as well as new) applying for adminship is a feeling that you have to have 10FAs - exactly as you said. Look above - I said I wouldn't run for admin because people would say I hadn't written 10FAs. It's the sort of thing people feel that people are saying. Look at what happened with User:FlyingToaster - of course the silly girl shouldn't have created content by pasting in chunks of copyright material, but it was in response to her perception that she needed to have quality content.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

attack accusation

• yes im attacking those editors but they are also attacking me. especially literalka. why didnt he get a warning? [9][10][11] if you read [12] youll see he taunts others too. this is a lie [13] and he accuses me of lieing a lot [14][15][16] he wont admit he remove my text from page here [17] it all start because he vandal my page here [18] with no explanation until i ask SunHwaKwonh (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • more accusation [19] and also ask me to repeat sexual material that vandal post to my web page [20][21] SunHwaKwonh (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• michaeldsuarez was ask to stay away me and me stay away from him and i didnt mention him after this [22] but he follow me onto tnxman page and still follow my edits and talk about me [23] SunHwaKwonh (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• ill stay away but i think its unfair because im new and they experience and picking on me because i nominate redirect to their article for deletion. they even canvas. i think probably after threat i stay away from wikipedia totally SunHwaKwonh (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Because it is possible that this problem all arises from English not being your first language, I will say this one last time.

1. LiteralKa has not done anything that warrants a warning. He is entirely entitled to use the language that you object to - it is not directed at you.
2. Neither Michaeldsuarez nor LiteralKa posted that IP message on your talkpage. If you keep on saying that they did, you are the one that will get into trouble for making false allegations.
3. Nor are they stalking you or hounding you. You keep posting about them, that is why they are monitoring your posts, as they are entitled to do.

I recommend you go and edit in a different part of the encyclopaedia for a while. If you stop saying anything about them, they will not have any reason to keep watching your edits. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• sorry not directed at me? [24] but i dont want more threat and i cant stop it so yes i stop editing. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

sorry

i want to get outside people to delete discussion nonpartisan how do i do it thanks SunHwaKwonh (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of people involved in the discussion. It is not partisan. It just does not support your view that the redirect should be deleted. You will have to accept this - it is how consensus on Wikipedia works.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)