User talk:Elen of the Roads

Happy Elen of the Roads's Day!

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

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

Hungarian Revolution of 1956 Title

Dear Elen:

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

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

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

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

This has been discussed quite recently [1]. If you want to comment on the review of the article as a featured article, another voice would be welcome. I think we've all run out of steam a bit. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Modern Talking

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

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

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

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

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

P.D. I'm NOT German.

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

Diego de Astorga y Céspedes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request

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

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

Thanks

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

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

Thanks re Crucifixion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talkback

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

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

Masters & their Puppets

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

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

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

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

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

re:Modern Talking "Wiki Project"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Building consensus on copyright issue

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

Asking your advice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 2009

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

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

Final stage

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

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

Thanks spam

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

List of Parliamentary constituencies in Hertfordshire

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

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

Greetings

File:Father Winter Solstice.jpg

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

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

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

Hey

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

Commons deletion

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

Happy Holidays!

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

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

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

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

Signing

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

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

Your name

I always think of this [2] whenever I see your signature, although the version by Judy Collins is my favorite...Modernist (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

etc. (these are not isolated quotes)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hepworth sculpture

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

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

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

Vandalism Warning

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Hootenanny (UK TV series), you will be blocked from editing.

--94.168.95.164 (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Very funny. Now please discuss this on the talk page instead of leaving me silly messages. Thanks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

speedies

Reminders:
1. A description of a product,such as a publication, that is a straight description, is not eligible for G11, which reads "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion."
2. G4, Repost, applies only to articles deleted after XfD, not PROD. ` DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Censoring wiki debate on wiki fact that are in error is VANDALISM

What other acquistions? Again wiki's CanWest Restructuring and creditor protection lead line in error. False wiki fact: Canwest's various acquisitions took a significant financial toll. Intentional misinformation. Name any other major acquistion by CanWest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.104.100 (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Speakers corner is thataway --> --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello again

Hi, Elen, I hope you don't mind my coming here and you don't feel that it is canvassing, but I figure you have been interested in the past in Crucifixion in art, and I've always valued your insights. I'm not sure whether you are still watching it, but, perhaps, your eyes there might again be helpful. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Album Notability

Hi Elen,

I noticed a Notability Guidelines tag was marked on a few album pages I created. In this case, would "reliable, secondary sources" be just reviews of albums or are there other things that may account for this. Under "Notability Guidelines" for music it states:

"In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia"

and these compilations have many notable artists. But if more info is necessary, please let me know and I'll do what I can to fix it. Thanks!

- Mendle44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mendle44 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I will stop forthwith!

Appreciate the hear hear. Well said. :-) Cheers. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 20:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I didn't run to a sonnet - perhaps next time I'll try a haiku. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. :)

PS If you should ever wish [to] play with sonnetizing, monkey-bot makes it more fun (although I've been lazy about making sure monkey is working. :-)

Note: Some high school honor students (using a somewhat less-provocative interface) used it to write end-of-course sonnetized essays (they could choose to write in prose or sonnets, and most chose sonnets).

Also note: I noticed one of the students relatives used it to compose a story about their experience in the Vietnam War. (I must return to that idea one day. Rhetorical technology to aid everyone to structure their own stories/opinions.) -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 22:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation Issue for Northern Webster Co. Mountain Byway And Backway

See "REfernces" Section

--Todd Schoolcraft 14:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchoolcraftT (talk • contribs)

Re:mountain park byway

Thanks a lot I greatly appreciate it.

Todd Schoolcraft 22:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchoolcraftT (talk • contribs)

Move Protection

I was wondering if you know how to block someone from editing an article?

--Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Mountain Parkway

Elen of the Roads

Your right about the fact that the Sings only have "Mountain Parkway" on them. I live near the Mountain Parkway and I see those signs all the time. Thats how I knew that the article title was inacurate.

Thanks for the catch

--Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Re Blancandrin

I noticed you added an edit on my original article onthe character of Blancandrin from La Chanson de Roland, with a comment that I should include the dozen or so works that have a section on him. However, as I do not know of any such works, I wondered if you might do it? The article I wrote was intended to fill a gap and to simply summarise what the character does, not to provide an analysis of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WJCB (talk • contribs) 15:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I'll just merge him back into the Chanson. There's no need for an article that just describes where he appears in the poem, particularly one with no sources. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I wouldn't have added the article on him but for the fact that almost all of the other secondary characters have similar articles with few sources, so I felt that it was a little inconsitant for Wikipedia to lack one on him.--WJCB (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what, I'll leave him for a bit. Its not my area, but I do know there are definitely sources, and its hardly a BLP, so there's no hurry. Someone who knows the subject better might come along and do some work. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

You have earned this 1956 Hungarian Revolution Barnstar István (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Black Sharkminnow

Hello Elen of the Roads, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Black Sharkminnow - a page you tagged - because: A3 doesn't cover pages with an infobox with non-trivial information, and no other speedy deletion criterion seems to apply. Consider PROD or AfD. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. decltype (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"Fairy snuff", eh? I had to look that one up :) auto / decltype (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: DABs vs List articles

Hi there. Yes, I do believe that it's usually best to avoid red links on DAB pages. However, looking at this page, I believe it shows that not only are the roads notable, but also have the chance to be developed into actual articles in the future. Also, I chose to use a page over a link at the top in this case because I didn't want to say that a scrapped aircraft carrier is more important than a current road. I was also going to add all Valencian autovias to Wikipedia:Requested articles, as things posted there tend to get addressed within a fair amount of time. At least that was my reasoning, let me know your thoughts! AP1787 (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it may be better to wait until the articles exist, then create the disambiguations. At the very least, it would be preferable to direct to the list article where there isn't a separate article on that road, as at least that way the user has some information to hand. You might wish to go back and do that on the four that I tweaked, it would then at least create a justification for the dab. Also I wouldn't myself include UK postcodes in dabs, as in my view they would be an extremely unlikely search term.

Sounds like a plan, thanks! AP1787 (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Glitch

That was no glitch I had inevertently deleted that content. I was trying to put some conternt for an old edit to the article to makei it more informatrive, but you saw the results ZIts since been reverted. That was more of a WOOPS moment.

Sorry about that --Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification

This is a courtesy notification that your name has been brought up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Apology for any offence taken

elen, sorry to be slow, I had to look for your link as I have cleaned out all the trash on my own talk page. I have solved all problems related to both technical articles I have contributed to or created by abandoning both the MASM and JWASM pages and withrawing my support for Wikipedia in terms of modernising any of its technical content. While I make no apologies for speaking the Australian idiom and living in a real world where differences of opinion are stated both forcefully and objectively, I make it clear that no offence was intended and if any was taken because of your lack of familiarity with Australian idiom, you have my unreserved aplogies for any offence that you may have taken.

Regards,

Steve Hutchesson http://www.masm32.com

Hutch48 (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback: SpikeToronto

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

Please refrain from further acts of Vandalism

The issue raised by editor Bfigura was resolved in discussion on his talk page in an amenable manner. He failed to read the content of another editor's page and assumed incorrectly that the direct quote taken from the other editor's page was a deliberate insult. The heading was made in error and should have been removed.
Hutch48 (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have referred the edit to the original editor in light of your repeated support for the erroneous assertion contained in the post.

Hutch48 (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

historic route

It may not be the gaza strip, but it inportant because it has a lot of links to the history of the US Like James McCray he was a member of the Union army and Issac Bender, who settle land just before 20/13 reenters WV 20, was a veterain of the war of 1812. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchoolcraftT (talk • contribs) 18:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

User:SchoolcraftT, it would be helpful if you kept this discussion to Talk:Mountain Parkway Byway. That having been said, you posted that CR 20/13 (or CR 20/1 as it is shown on current maps) was part of the Backway [3] when none of the sources that either you or I indicated it as being such. The article is about the Mountain Parkway Byway and Mountain Parkway Backway, not historic roads in Webster County. Furthermore, I don't think that random Civil War or War of 1812 veterans having lived along the road at some point makes the road noteworthy. It just means it is old, like tends of thousands of other roads in the country.Brian Powell (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Todd. Didn't mean it wasn't important, just that it was a peaceful place - no-one is fighting a war over it. Hi Brian. As to the history thing - I'm English, and we spend a lot of time sticking little blue plaques on buildings to show that some historic dude or other lived there, so I think I'm with Todd on this one. It's certainly worth the opportunity to link to famous people (who have wikipedia articles) who lived along the byway or backway.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Elen, I'm not opposed to discussing people who lived along the Byway if there's something that makes them noteworthy. I tried Googling the two names Todd provided and with the exception of McCray's Rocks mentioned elsewhere in the article and some genealogy indexes, I wasn't finding anything else on these people. If we're going to include information on them, I'd at least like to see some context and information on them rather than just a simple "so and so lived here." We'd still need to find an appropriate way to integrate them into the article. Brian Powell (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking on lines of including anyone who has a Wikipedia article (as with the blue plaques). If the individuals aren't noteworthy, then mentioning them is just padding.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool heads

Nice to see there's still some cool heads around on wikipedia. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :) I do me best, and you're not doing too bad yourself. Although with this one, I'm beginning to think starting over might be the best way to go....... Gawdalone knows what the poor closing admin is going to make of that AfD --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I proposed closing, right? If we get consensus, we can do just that. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If we get consensus on a move we can move the article while the AfD goes on (I have done this before). We can't close the AfD before time - this will have to be left to an uninvolved admin. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Housekeeping Offer

I have no particular desire to clutter up your talk page with matters that probably should not have arisen. The author of the incorrect heading on my talk page was gracious enough to correct the error in good faith and the matter was resolved in good faith. I would like to make you an offer of mutual housekeeping where you remove your comments from my talk page I will do the same on yours.
Unrelated your comment "I'm beginning to think starting over might be the best way to go" in the above mentioned topic makes good sense, do it the right way the first time minus the invective and you may get a viable result that enhances the content of Wikipedia.
Regards,
Hutch48 (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hutch. You are free to delete any comment (including warnings) from your talkpage, as it is taken as showing that you have read them. The only things you can't remove are certain notices (declined unblocks where the user is still blocked, ArbCom notices - the sort of thing you'd expect not to be able to remove). Archiving the page is considered better form, but if you wish to delete my comments, I shall raise no objections. I would prefer it if you didn't delete your comments from here - just because I prefer to archive - but again if you wish to remove them I shall raise no objection. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will leave them there at your request. I will delete the stuff on my talk page and put a note that it was done with your permission. Now RE your suggestion above, if you know how to put a restart in place, it would solve many problems, a correct search criteria can be put in place the first time, the known academic reference would be available from scratch and the editors who are still interested in this topic can make decisions on a much better information basis if the invective is missing. The advice of the review being tendered to Slashdot is probably worth taking, I know who the editor is, Keith Kanios and he has more than enough experience to write a review like this and he has the advantage of being detached from the JWASM project as I am. Note also that I am not on talking terms with the editor SpooK so there is no problem of collusion.

Regards,
Hutch48 (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop reverting

I know that your tring to do the right thing, but I had done that so I can Archive our discussions. Please stop unding what I undid. --Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Removel of all links to masm32.com

Hi Elen,

As it appears that you are wired into the movers and shakers of Wikipedia, as the webmaster of masm32.com I require all links to that site to be removed from Wikipedia as I have completely removed my support for Wikipedia in technical matter as a consequence of the discussion and deletion of the JWASM article. Rather than having to set up a referral block at the server to redirect any traffic to another page that will be even less flattering to the current policies of Wikipedia, it would serve both interests if these links were unconditionally removed. You may be able to garner the support of the nominator of the deletion of the JWASM page for such an action as the links are currently on the MASM page and it would appear from his more recent modifications of that article that he is going to alter its content as well if not able to simply delete its content. Hutch48 (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Elen, I got a similar message, and responded on my talk page. I actually came here to see what you thought of my reply (since I've seen you around long enough to have respect for your opinion, but I guess Hutch48 already asked you the same thing. Best, -- Bfigura ^(talk) 04:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hutch, I'll reply here. Skomorokh has been very clever in his solution for this. While the article no longer appears in the form it was when you worked on it, by converting the page to a redirect the entire text has been kept, so as required it can be pulled forward into the merge article about JWASM and it's antecedents. The history of your work remains intact. It hasn't made those who were strident for a deletion particularly happy.

As for the link to the forum,on pages where it is currently visible,you can remove it, but if it is included in an article, you may find other editors putting it back, and the consensus may be that it should stay. You cannot remove it from archived discussion such as the AfD as that breaks the rules. It is physically impossible to remove it from the history without oversight, and I doubt an oversighter would accept what you say as a reason to remove it. Hope this helps. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that Hutch links to masm32 on his userpage. I'd think that would be where he'd want to start with the deletions, if he were serious.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, he's perfectly welcome to remove it from there. It does smack of 'taking one's bat home' though. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Elen, apart from chewing your ear for the first deletion tag I have generally seen your own actions as even handed and I would extend this comment to a few of the other editors, all who disagreed with my view but after seeing how Wikipedia works internally I confess to being little else than disgusted at the sheer stupidity involved and I point that criticism at the mechanics of the successful removal of the page stub for JWASM I bothered to write for Wikipedia. The same antagonist tried to trash the MASM page that I rewrote earlier and from his comments in its talk page it is only a matter of time until he does it again. An earlier editor tried to get some content into the MASM page by scouring the MASM32 web site and linking to web pages that I wrote for the masm32 user base and while I was willing to tolerate this and did a reasonable amount of work on the MASM page to try and get it up to date and relevant so it was no longer needed, in the face of endless obstruction I will simply resolve the problem from outside Wikipedia. You are correct in the idea of taking the bat home but it goes further, pulling the stumps and taking the ball and stumps as well then ploughing the field and leaving the mess for the antagonist to clean up. Regards and thanks for your efforts. Hutch48 (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Todd's images

I didn't get a chance to look into this yesterday, but as I mentioned on ANI, I'm very concerned that all of the images Todd has uploaded have no metadata even though he claims to have created them himself. And we're talking about a lot of images. Thought you could help me have a look. Blueboy96 22:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That discussion revealed another image that was far, far too old for him to have created it himself--and he had ample time to change the information after you and Brian explained copyright to him. This guy has a serious misunderstanding of copyright--one that is far too serious in my mind for him to be allowed to edit. He's now blocked indefinitely. Blueboy96 23:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler

Hi, Elen of the Roads. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM, a discussion in which you participated, was closed as redirect to Open Watcom Assembler. Open Watcom Assembler has now been nominated for deletion due to notability concerns. If you would like to participate in the discussion, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop deleting

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

Reply

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

Thanks for your RfA Participation

Elen of the Roads - Thanks for your participation in my recent successful RfA. Although you did not express confidence or trust in me, the community did and as you are an equal part of that community, deFacto your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

help

Hi. You helped in the past - when some guy wanted to deleted HS Olimpija Ljubljana. Well, there is a similar situation here, VK Bosna. Could you please help? (LAz17 (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)). Nevermind, sorry, you were actually the one who initiated that failed deletion. (LAz17 (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)).

Sig malfunction

Thanks for figuring it out. That sux, I can't edit without WikEd. Did you report it to the developer? - ukexpat (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. - ukexpat (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree it sucks. wikEd is a really useful tool. Can;t believe we're the only two people it's affected .--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed! – ukexpat (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 06:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg ^(talk) 06:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Understanding Barnstar
		Dear Elen of the Roads, thank you very much for your kindness and your understanding! It really helped me to endure the block. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Haida chieftain thread at AN/I

As a courtesy, I wanted to advise you that I have started a thread at WP:ANI#Haida chieftain - what's the next step? regarding the conduct of Haida chieftain (talk · contribs). Please feel free to weigh in their with your observations. —C.Fred (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Best "note to self" edit summary EVER!

"do not attempt technical edits after a couple of glasses of Barbera d'Asti" bravo!!! Nefariousski (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Deprod The Beautiful and the Damned (2010 film)

Deprodding of The Beautiful and the Damned (2010 film)

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from The Beautiful and the Damned (2010 film), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Mitch Ames (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Okthen123

Hi,

I am very sorry for what the vandalism on some of the wikipedia articles. It appears that my account has been abused and hacked, as I did not write these things. Would it be possible for me to delete this account so that I could create a new one? Thanks.

Apologies for any distress caused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okthen123 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've asked an administrator to take a look.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

An admin has now indefinitely blocked the Othken123 account as a compromised account. You may create another account, but please use better security in future (register an email address, stronger password, don't leave the laptop at your g/f or b/f's house etc)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Marinza Bruineman

Jovanovic was not acquitted. His case was simply dismissed. His case was dismissed because the victim did not want to testify again. There is a big difference between being acquitted of a crime, or having the case dismissed. Jovanovic's innocence is not proven, and never will be.4Justice2 (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The Only Exception

Hi Elen,
since you've started WP:Articles for deletion/The Only Exception, and were also central to the DRV, could I have your opinion on the current state of the article at The Only Exception? The song is ranked on two decent charts now, and there are a number of reliable sources out there with dedicated coverage of the song, among them two on MTV. I could not come to an agreement with Jayjg on his talk page, and planned to start a new DRV when I noticed that it had been unprotected following a request at RFPP earlier today. Being convinced that it would now pass AfD, but at the very least require a new AfD, I undeleted it to pre-empt a rewrite or a history merging. If you want to AfD it again, go right ahead; I personally have no affection towards the article, and don't even know the band, just followed some other editor to the article. :)
Amalthea 00:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for getting in contact. From the article, I see that the single has actually been released now, and charted in the NZ top 20 (perhaps not the largest country in the world, but it's hardly insignificant). The only reason I took it to AfD was because...overenthusiastic fans wouldn't leave the article as a redirect unless/until the single achieved sufficient notability ("of course it's notable, it's by The Scrotums" or whatever).--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I know the feeling :)
And thanks, that's what I wanted to hear. Cheers, Amalthea 00:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest you add that exact same quote to this article. Once again you've made me laugh (golf clap). Nefariousski (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Take a look, it's under CRYSTAL. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

YYYY in Italy articles

That's what I'm saying. Rather than deleting some very hard work, could people just redirect them to a page like 1300s in Italy, Years of the 14th century in Italy or Years of the 1300s in Italy, or something like that. That way, the short and now I agree, pointless pages are replaced into meaningful categories, and everyone's happy. Any suggestions? Reply--Theologiae (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The following suggestions may be helpful.

• The other articles need to exist before your articles can be redirected to them. You can't redirect to a redlink.
• Categories are not the same as lists (sorry if you already knew this). You can create a category - 1300s in Italy or some such (do check out what the actual format should be) then go around putting articles about events in Italy into your categories.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Brrmm brmm!

This is one of the funniest things I've read for ages! I've never thought about comparing notability to garages, but I might have to use that as an example in future! GedUK  11:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, do feel free to do so :) Thank you! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For bringing sense and sanity to WP:ANI,and hitting the nail right right on the head. Dlohcierekim 20:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Image Copyrights

Hi there, Just wanted to let you know that I've added some images. I also came across an image with a different rationale. I've posted details of this on the media copyright page. Please have a look. Thanks.

PS - I'm sending you this message as you probably wont look at that section anymore, since it is largely resolved. LogicDictates (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Have replied there. I think that uploader is mistaken, but as long as he has provided a non free content rationale, there isn't really a problem. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Lia Montelongo

I see no request on UserJzG's talk to remove the protection on this article. If you're serious about listing the article for AfD, I'll ask him to unprot. I have no vested interest in whether the article stays or goes. but I feel that BLP's need to have special attention. Just offering help if needed...you may know Guy, I don't. Regards Tiderolls 01:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. Tiderolls 02:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by with the advice anyway. I think I'd gone to bed by that point, but the sensible outcome (in this case) was achieved anyway. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. See the Jade Goody article now. I've gone over it. Renkaw Gib (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Congrats. You won I lost. That's Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renkaw Gib (talk • contribs) 19:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, no hard feelings! Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

You might want to weigh in here. --causa sui (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Peter Skuce

Thanks for that, why he left it on your en.wp page and not my talk at commons is beyond me. I frankly wish someone else could just deal with him because that guy really gets on my nerves. The particular issue was that I didn't delete two of his images which he uploaded to commons and demanded to be deleted as he claimed to have replaced them, but instead of doing a deletion request just blanked the page and typed DELETE THIS I HAVE REPLACED IT BY SOMETHING BETTER. Gah. Anyway, sorry to unload. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No probs. I have no idea how he got to my page, especially given he was aiming for you on commons, so he isn't even on the right site. Feel free to vent - as an experienced local government complaints officer, I can recommend giving advice but not doing anything yourself as an excellent method of getting rid of people who expect you to do everything for you.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Thanks for fighting the good fight! This page is always on my watchlist but usually I don't have time to follow it closely. I am glad that you have provided such clarity to the current discussion! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Its been an interesting discussion, and it's nice to think we can make some progress.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Roman religion

After your helpful comments on the article now titled (in keeping with similar articles) Glossary of ancient Roman religion, I was wondering whether you're watching the page, and had any thoughts about its current state of development. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

You kind of dropped out of discussions, but I valued your comments. I have made a proposal here and hope you will have time to comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ella Chi Page

I have replied on my Talk page... Claire Paxton-Rider (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help here, Elen. I don't know why I seem unable to communicate with Claire. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

McJakeqcool bot

Hi Elen. When I looked through the contributions of the alleged sockpuppet Kenneth Walters (talk · contribs), I came across what appears to be a bot operated by that account, Project BlackStone (talk · contribs). Would it be appropriate to add it to the sock drawer? Favonian (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, definitely. I'll add it now. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Great! Incidentally, the reason why I checked Kenneth's actions was that he sent me a mail, requesting that I do a CU to prove his innocence, for which service he would nominate me for adminship. a) I obviously can't do a CU, and b) a nomination from him would be rather like a kiss of death. Favonian (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Bizzarro! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Mcjakeqcool

isnt comeing here Crimsonblazer Crimsonblazer (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Go away Jake --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I please get your opinion on this?

Hi, I am sorry to keep bothering you, but I wanted to know if you could look at what I wrote here: User:The Pebble Dare/Sandbox. Please let me know if this is good enough to publish, or if it needs fixing. I am waiting to get a photo to illustrate the infobox. Thank you! The Pebble Dare 20:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a good start. Certainly good enough to publish, I would have said.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. A minute ago, I got a photo to go with it, so I am going to try to publish it. I appreciate your help. The Pebble Dare 21:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It is online: Day by Day (Godspell song). I am glad for your help. The Pebble Dare 21:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So much for good faith...

I don't know if you've seen this, but I was a little disappointed. Oh well! We both showed good faith, I don't think we need to beat ourselves up over it, but it is a shame...

Cheers, TFOWR^{is this too long?} 11:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I just seen. Shame. Still, as you say, I'd rather risk being take for an occasional ride than bite the heads off every newbie until they prove they're not someone's footwear--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

question about procedure

Elen, don't exactly know why I'm bringing this question to you, except that you seem to understand such matters and I'm not immediately finding an answer.

Recently, a new template was created as the product of a long discussion and consensus at Talk:Trojan War. I'm thinking that it might be useful to copy the most directly relevant portions of the discussion to the template's talk page. Can I just copy this, and place a note at the top of the page, or is there a particular procedure for such a thing? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You should be fine just to copy it over. If you are only taking some of the discussion, use a permalink to point people back to the original discussion, in case anyone wants to read the whole thing from start to finish. Just be careful not to edit any of the comments if you are also copying over the signatures (so no-one can say you are changing what they said). Let everyone know you have copied over their comments by adding a note at Talk:Trojan War. You could also just summarise the discussion, and copy over what was agreed, if that works better.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It was an epic discussion (as befits the topic, I guess), so I think I'll copy rather than attempt to summarize. Quite possibly one reason I thought of you was that the new template was prompted by a debate over using the standard "military conflict" infobox covering historical battles for a mythological war, complicated by whatever element of historicity the Trojan War may or may not have. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Beatrix Potter

Hi, I'm trying to add some inline citations to the Beatrix Potter article, but the way it is arranged at the moment makes it very difficult. If you'll give me a bit of time to do some rearrangement it will be a lot better when I've finished. The way it is structured at the moment is a mish-mash of styles with some "sources" mentioned without specific page numbers and some inline citations. It needs to be rearranged using "citation" templates so that I can add page numbers to my references. There is no way the article can progress without this being done as the old style of having a list of sources at the bottom is just not acceptable anymore. It's certainly not B class in its present state and there is no way it would get through a GA review Richerman (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

articles

I have a couple of pdf versions of scholarly articles about alt-text etc that I can send you if you are interested and send me an email. --Slp1 (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Emailed you --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comments

I can't remember everyone who was for or against, by I thought you were against Damian generally? No? Just interested. 109.154.116.24 (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Peter Damian? I wish he could have turned his motormouth off, great contributor but can't resist stirring, but I can't think I've opposed him on anything or taken part in any of the periodic excoriations incidents at ANI. Do correct me if I'm wrong. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I must have confused you with someone else. I admit the inability to resist stirring. In defence, I was trained in philosophy, where you are taught to test ethical principles by means of special cases which demonstrate an exception. If you claim every A is B, I am programmed to find a case of an A which isn't B. Thus I am intrigued by the principle 'anyone can edit', and so like to make endless permutations of cases which disprove that rule. 86.164.209.246 (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Pedophilia

Do you blame me for getting angry? It's quite clear you've got sick of discussing saying the same things over and over and so have instead decided to attack me. Your insinuations are about as welcome as the death of my parents; who the fuck do you think you are? You have no right to say that sort of nonsense to me. If you can't stand the thought that some people don't worship you in your moral panic holiness, don't even pretend you have any intention to engage in reasoned discussion. You make me sick. J Milburn (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Elen, I've had nothing but respect for your editing prior to this (at least the things I have seen), but your replies to J are dangerously close to being blockable for the same reasoning as here. If I see these sort of comments from you again, I will not hesitate to block. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've brought up your name on ANI. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The ed17, you must of course do as you see fit. However, I think when the wider consensus gets up and edits, you may find yourself in a minority. Whichever. Could you possibly confirm that no-one has oversighted any of my posts, as I do not believe they have been. I regret that JMilburn thought I was accusing him of child abuse (this was never my intent), and, having myself identified that this exact chain of events was very likely, I do think I was unwise not to have left the field. Incidentally, I was not aware that Off2riorob had actually called JMilburn a paedophile previously. This would explain why he immediately thought I was doing the same. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that you have understood what it is I was saying (or trying to say) at ANI - if not, hopefully it makes sense now. :) I don't think it's an general issue about wisdom, but just an isolated judgement lapse (we are all human...expecting perfection is not very reasonable). On the other side, hopefully J Milburn will recover with time and also appreciate why he should consider leaving that field too (should he consider going back). All in all, I think it's something we can all draw a lesson from, whether or not certain other users agree/disagree. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I did understand, yes. In hindsight, it would have been much wiser to have stopped at a very early stage, as the discussion was never going to lead to an amicable outcome, and really, I knew that already. As it is, I am very sorry that JMilburn was so upset, and I quite understand why. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

RE: Relix The Underdog/ response to your inquiry

I just signed up in order to contribute an article, I didn't realize using the name of the person I think is a very talented individual should bar him from being on here. I'm sure you can understand. ThanksJaviarramirez (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob blocked

[4] If you haven't already seen, I thought you would want to know, in light of the discussion that led to this. -- Minor4th • talk 07:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Noted. I was not aware that he had actually called anyone a paedophile on Wikipedia. That was unwise. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Elen, just to clarify: Off2riorob was blocked - at least on my understanding of the rev-del-ed edit - for "asking" or "suggesting", not "stating". I can understand the editor thusly implicated being extremely concerned, however I don't regard Off2riorob's as being as serious as an accusation. TFOWR 10:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad he didn't go that far. The comment I saw, he had directly asked 'are you a paedophile', which I thought was unwise, but as there were several revdeletions, and some editors at ANI seemed to view it as the ultimate offence, I assumed he must have made a straight accusation somewhere.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It was virtually the same thing as calling him one. After initially asking J if he 'supported' pedophile editing, J responded with this reasoned post. Off2riorob came back/replied with two questions which were something like 'do you support pedophilia' and 'are you a pedophile'. In my view, those questions were asked maliciously and so therefore deserved an immediate block. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 14:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the assessment of 'malicious'. Bringing a wholly false accusation of this kind would of course be deeply nasty, but I think he said it because he believed it to be true. If you read the whole page, Rob was genuinely convinced that a number of those editing the page are paedophiles - which he, like me, believes is something that exists only in an active form. That's the peril of the debate - everyone who argues against zero tolerance can start to look like a paedophile to someone who takes a hard line. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

In either case, I would have blocked. A philosophical position taken in a debate (however heated) does not give someone a license to swoop in and ask questions that are meant as virtual accusations. By "maliciously", I meant 'with the intent of accusing'. Or something like that. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 15:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure he did it with the intent of accusing, but it would only be malicious if he did it without any belief that it was true. If he had emailed arbcom instead of confronting the guy directly, he would have been acting within the policy in the way that he chose to raise his concern. It's posting it on Milburn's talkpage that's the problem.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Cummins Uk

The article is written by its marketing manager. I think the company is probably notable. There's some copyvio at Cummins which I'm cleaning up. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Cummins UK Page - diffoculty in getting third party sources

Hi I am having dificulty in getting third party sources for my article and have requested help. Can you suggest anything please?

Regards,

Harvymoore (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For your invaluable contributions to evaluating and addressing copyright concerns in this CCI. Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

About a week late, I'm afraid. :) It closed on the 28th, but due to some very capable clerking at CCI, I didn't notice! Thank you for doing your bit with our sad backlog. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

<surprised> Thank you. I try to be of assistance at CCI (when I can), although it sometimes seems like a drop in the ocean of copyvios. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Those drops do more good than you may think. Not only do they cumulatively add up, but they are inspiring to those of who try to put more time into it. It can be discouraging when nobody else seems to notice. :) (Yes, though, the ocean is vast and deep. Sigh.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Level of involvement

As you have commented here, could you please state your level of involvement (if any) next to your support/oppose/comment in that discussion? Although all input would/should be considered, this will help clarify a community consensus from a local consensus among involved users. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC) P.S. Sorry - it seems I missed your comment which is why you were not asked earlier when the other users who commented were asked.

Hi Elen. Re: your medieval traveller, it looks to me as though the critical issue is not that he set off to see within these islands, but where he then went. If he had stayed within the territorial waters of the United Kingdom, for example, then that clearly was not British Isles. On the other hand, if he spent say a few hours across the line between Dublin and Holyhead - well, the implication is obvious. A precise, day-to-day navigational map, preferably with modern updated GPS co-ordinates, would be the least reference many could accept in final proof. I hope you agree and will not regard this incident as "trivial". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL! You mean you're not demanding photographic evidence? Polaroids (no chance of photoshopping) of him in front of the Blarney Stone? It's one of those where I wouldn't have changed it from "travelled in the British Isles" or whatever, because it was a throwaway sentence, and not a significant part of the article, but when someone wanted to change it, I wouldn't have argued about it either. It made me aware though that there was a campaign to remove the words 'British Isles', which seemed foolish to me, but then it is often thus with Wikipedia.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe some editors would accept a passport stamp from Ireland and only that. Others might let it through if you just said "he visited Lundy Island" or "he imagined himself visiting Rockall". OMG. Just wondering if Rockall is in the BI. Better check and fast. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Rockall is part of the British Isles, although there is a dispute as to whether it belongs to the UK or whether it is the independent republic of Waveland--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As you appear not to have undertaken a full review, straw poll, consensus building activity and ANI skirmishing prior to introducing unsourced material (to whit: "waveland"), consider yourself on editing supervision for 316 days. The only way you can escape this is by convincing an admin that you are stalking them. Hope this helps. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious

Hi Elen just curious what you mean here when you say your talk page fails every accessibility standard in the book (and I can't read anything on it... IMO this talk page is ok and it can be read and accessed with ease, maybe you could point me to the accessibility standards that you feel it fails thanks Mo ainm~Talk 17:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point me to one that it passes :) I wasn't accusing the chap of anything criminal, lots of people like to make userpages in wierd colours. However, if you want a list, the two international standards are:-

• WCAG 1.0 2.2 Ensure that foreground and background color combinations provide sufficient contrast when viewed by someone having color deficits or when viewed on a black and white screen. [Priority 2 for images, Priority 3 for text].
• WCAG 2.0 (AA standard) 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum): The visual presentation of text and images of text has a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1

In UK law (which doesn't apply to Wikipedia of course) websites providing goods or services have to be accessible or their operator risks prosecution under the Disability Discrimination act, and UK public sector websites have more specific requirements and are audited by several organisations including the RNIB to ensure that they meet these standards. I know all this because I run a public sector website

The colour contrast on the page does not meet any accessibility standard, and consequently for some people (like me) it will be impossible to read. There's no criticism of the chap - he's not required to meet these standards - but its why I didn't post on his page. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I don't think you should have replied at the users talk page but I was just wondering. And I didn't take it as a criticism of the user.Mo ainm~Talk 18:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Also maybe it should be a requirement as if an editor is unable to use a talk page then it defeats the purpose of having one. Mo ainm~Talk 18:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting thought. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

re: I may regret this

You probably will. ;)

But there's no harm in spending just a few minutes trying to help the poor lost soul, now that we've actually managed, thanks to you, to understand what his somewhat odd point is. I thank, and salute you. <Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Her631/Archive and a discussion on my talk page both somewhat pertain> Begoon^talk 15:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't think the English language is his only problem, but at least we did what we could.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the long run, if you do what you can, then

[a] you know you did, and feel better

[b] the other party knows it too, and despite what they, or others, may believe at the time, they live and learn like we do.

Not always at the same speed, but the point stands, nevertheless.  Begoon^talk 15:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you...

Thank you for this! – ukexpat (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

response.

I left a response to you at my talk page. Keserman (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

what link were you refferring to on my talk page? I'm not sure I found a like on the book, let alone checked one out, but I may be mistaken. Keserman (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

never mind, found it.Keserman (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Mediation

[5] Noloop (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning Many Jesus-related articles, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 22:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Trading Standards spam... revisited

Hi Elen, don't know if you've seen this post at AN. It seems to be a similar issue to one you commented on at ANI a few days ago (a user spamming consumerdirect.gov.uk links). You mentioned you might ping the relevant department? TFOWR 15:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are you trying to delete an article?

Why are you trying to delete the article Spiky Hair??? If you don't know what is the relevance of that term, don't take that as a fact. We, hairstylists do use that word and so do fashion designers. It's a common word and needs to be on wikipedia. If we take strict relevance and generalization, then thousands more wikipedia articles are needed to be deleted. Have you got that? previous comment was unsigned by user:Arjunr240576

Re: Talk:Stoning#RFC

Your comments at Talk:Stoning#RFC would be greatly appreciated. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this edit by Alexander at Stoning? I explained it on the talk page, it seems pretty trivial to me. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Basically he seems to be just talking nonsense. I wish I could turn up a full transcript of the Iranian statement, but I'm struggling to find it. I think it must have been a read statement, without the text being handed out or posted to the official website. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You need to watch for civility lady. It may sound like "nonsense" to you, because you have no clue about this topic to begin with. What makes you an expert on Iranian judicial matters? What are your expertise and credentials on this topic? AlexanderPar (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Reference Added

Reference Added to Spiky hairstyle. Remove AFD. Arjunr240576 (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Cited Article Spiky Hairstyle

A cite has been added to Spiky hairstyle. Note it and think of removing AFD. We love Spiky hairstyle!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.225.85.22 (talk) 05:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are you saying things like this?

[6] I've never said anything like that as you well know. What is this about? What is the purpose of this? Why can't we just have a civil and serious discussion on List of wars between democracies? Is that really to much to ask for? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. This is the sort of thing which impels me to consider not returning - on the other hand, we should not surrender to tactics like this. As for WWI, both Doyle and Mearsheimer treat it as a marginal case; but the reasons why Doyle does consider it difficult should certainly be included.

I'm not sure how much of Vanhanen's book is on the web, but he himself admits that his method of measuring democracy is approximate and subject to short term fluctuations, and quotes two different critics as calling it "unacceptable"; it is most tolerable for his chief purpose (calculating long term trends of democratization within individual countries, and then doing world-wide statistical analyses - the errors will disappear into the noise in both steps); perhaps least useful for the purpose this article needs: comparing the democracy of two countries, year by year.

It's a two-parameter method: subtract the percentage vote for the largest party from (a multiple of) the percentage of the population who vote, both as of the last election - applied strictly and without corrections; the list of democracies is generated by putting an arbitrary cutoff in the list. I'm sure you can see some oddities likely to result from this; and I doubt he's really independent of POLICY IV, since he seems to have chosen his relative weight and the cutoff to track them as closely as possible.

In particular, the US elections of 1994 can hardly rank much higher than the last Reichstag election before 1914, and the elections of 2006 must be lower still.

I neglected to say, Doyle is no fringe author - he brought democratic peace theory into general notice.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"Tactics"!?!? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested

… in this veiled threat. Clearly Professor Umbridge's intention is to eliminate opposing voices in order to claim consensus. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I think he (if it is indeed a he) sees all opposition as personal attacks - see the undignified blubbing above. Clearly never had to content with some of the professors I've encountered, who were quite happy to tell you exactly how little they thought of your latest idea. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As usual, every single thing you two say about me is incorrect. Including the claim that I have made some sort of threat. All I asked was that you two try to conduct the discussions in a civil manner. Is that really too much to ask? (Strange. Nobody ever seems willing to answer that question). --OpenFuture (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

OF, the problem is that we really are being civil. Read the section in WP:CIVIL on identifying incivility. "I do not agree with your views", "I think your interpretation is wrong", these things are not personal attacks. While they are directed at you, because it is your views and your interpretations that are being discussed, they are not personal attacks. Some of the things PMAnderson said were uncivil, and some were personal attacks, but you are doing yourself no service by accusing everyone who disagrees with you of ad hominem attacks.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Elen, I have pointed out exactly what in your comments are uncivil. I never claimed that I do not agree with your views" or "I think your interpretation is wrong" or anything like that is uncivil. That is yet another of your straw men. As is Cynwolfes ridiculous claims about "threats". If you really are worried that I somehow are going to use your uncivility to get you blocked, there is a simple solution: Stop discussing me, and start discussing the article. Very easy. And most important of all, stop coming with untruths about what I have said. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You know, I'm getting a good collection of straw men here. If I was discussing YOU, I might be speculating about your dress sense, or your mental health, or whether you still lived with your mother, or any number of unwarranted things that people do bring into arguments about content or policy. If you could show me where I've speculated about any such thing, show me and I will strike it at once. It is a sure sign that one is losing the argument when one starts premising one's opponents views on the state of his bank balance or love life.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Please do show me where I have said that you speculate about that. I have never said you speculate about anything. I have never mentioned my personal life or my clothes. That sure came out of the blue. Nice way to switch the topic. But I still think you should stay civil, you know, even if you can switch the topic like a professional politician. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, you need to look up the definition of "ad hominem" attack. You weaken your case by accusing everyone who crosses you of being incivil. If you believe I am being incivil, please refer the matter to WP:WQA, with diffs. On the other hand, if you only believe I am being incivil, but have no evidence that you think would be supported by others, then please accept my apologies for having inadvertantly offended you (perhaps through differences in culture or upbringing, we do seem to be having some odd disjuncts here), and be assured my interest is only in the discussion itself.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that while the conversation I started here is open for public viewing, it was not directed at OpenFuture. Very rude to butt in; I believe this is covered by WP:HOUND. He's obviously watching our pages so he can pick fights, as he has by commenting here in your space when I was talking to you, or maybe in the hope of using our conversations with others to threaten us with speech-suppression action. I find this really creepy. Also, Elen, you missed what I see as an example (as always, carefully veiled) of WP:BULLYING: If you really are worried that I somehow are going to use your uncivility to get you blocked, there is a simple solution: Stop discussing me, and start discussing the article. As you point out, we're not discussing him, we're discussing the ways in which he seeks to control the dialogue and the content of the article. We haven't speculated on his psychological motives, and we have both discussed the content of the article in buckets. Even if he parses it very carefully, this is bullying: "Be deferential to me," he's saying, "or I will use your incivility to get you blocked. Taken as a whole, I think this behavior falls under WP:HA ("The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target"), particularly the way he interfered in my conversation with you here. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Kind comments

Thanks for your kind comments. I did not see them on account of being blocked and not catching up until now. --Triton Rocker (talk) 07:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are you so disturbed???

Why are you insisting that the article Spiky (hairstyle) should be deleted??? Now, it's no more stub, there are references unlike ever before since creation of the article. You stated that you don't know the relevance of the article??? I can't understand how a human being able to know all the facts underneath the sun. I am a fashion magazine writer, and we all know the very relevance of the term and existence. Then you know, there are a lot of articles in English Wikipedia that should be deleted for it's only regarding an irrelevant person, most probably the creator of the article himself. No AFD is there, though it has no references. It has been more than a week now you have put AFD notice. There is no active debate. That's why I removed AFD notice. Be sensible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.97.43.183 (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)