I just mentioned you in a proposal I made regarding an editor blocked for sockpuppetry. After I did so, I realized I probably shouldn't go throwing your name around, even in a complimentary fashion, without alerting you. The discussion is [[User talk:Sir Gawain McGarson#Who Stole the Tarts?|here]] (collapsed in the drawer). It refers to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lucretius/Archive this now-archived SPI.] [[User:Cynwolfe|Cynwolfe]] ([[User talk:Cynwolfe|talk]]) 16:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I just mentioned you in a proposal I made regarding an editor blocked for sockpuppetry. After I did so, I realized I probably shouldn't go throwing your name around, even in a complimentary fashion, without alerting you. The discussion is [[User talk:Sir Gawain McGarson#Who Stole the Tarts?|here]] (collapsed in the drawer). It refers to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lucretius/Archive this now-archived SPI.] [[User:Cynwolfe|Cynwolfe]] ([[User talk:Cynwolfe|talk]]) 16:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
:I appreciate your kind thoughts, but I'm not convinced he's actually a net benefit. He's not just creating sequential accounts, or accounts for different parts of the wiki. Those account edits overlap, giving the impression he's multiple people. His editing is also extremely tendentious in places - I don't care how smart he is. And he doesn't agree he's done anything wrong - in fact he sets out to give the impression of friends in high places - ''Hopefully, wheels are already in motion on my behalf.'' Unless he submits an appeal that recognises the problems, I don't think he's likely to be unblocked. --[[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads#top|talk]]) 21:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Revision as of 21:22, 9 August 2012
If you are an admin and are here about a block I have made, feel free to lift or amend if the situation has changed, miscreant has repented, consensus is now against block etc. Please let me know you have done so. Thanks.
If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Elen of the Roads}} on your talk.
I hope I'm following wikipedia policy on this. You are a checkuser right?
My account is currently subject of a sockpuppet investigation. I was an immature idiot and my actions were stupid and rash. I apologise wholeheartedly for it.
I'm setting up a new account mainly because I just want to put this all behind me. The other reason is Im personally fed up with the conduct of a number of
editors including the editor who initiated the investigation, User:One Night In Hackney. He was right to initiate the investigation, I'm not criticising him/her for that. It's the editor's
general manner on this site which I have a problem with.
I'm making a clean start. I was a total idiot and I just want to move on from this.
Exiledone (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Technically Glic16 displays no similarities other than editing from the Irish Republic as the other socks do, but the quacking is loud and the technical evidence does not prevent him being a duck" - say what? I thought that addition to the case was pretty baseless but never got round to saying anything. All I saw was an editor with a very sparse contribution history editing mostly Ireland related topics, but nothing that screamed sock. As for the edit to Exildeone's userpage it was awarding a barnstar as they did to numerousotherIrisheditors around the same time. I'll admit I didn't look too carefully at their entire history since there was nothing obvious, so if I've missed something say so. But the OP didn't present much compelling evidence and you didn't mention any you'd uncovered, so I'm a bit baffled. 2 lines of K303 23:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They appear to be editing from a mobile phone, which makes it impossible to say technically if they are related. I thought there was similar editing, but I've left him for the other admins to decide his fate - I prefer it if several people separately come to the same conclusion when blocking under WP:DUCK. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where the appropriate venue is to propose this, but I'd like to suggest that we consider imposing a temporary injunction on the Falun Gong namespace pending the outcome of the current ArbCom case. Perhaps something to the effect that editors should exercise caution with major or potentially contentious changes, and seek to discuss them on talk pages first? This seems consistent with the editing policy. Any advice on how to proceed? Homunculus (duihua) 03:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. User:Turmerick, who you blocked in November, is asking for unblock. The first request, which I declined, was a bit of a rant against you, but the second one seems a bit calmer. Don't know if you might like to take a look and maybe comment? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You'll see from The ANI discusion that I condidered at the time that it might be intended in another way, but his posts were very aggressive. I asked him in the block notice to explain if I had misinterpreted - it appears instead he disappeared for months then came back with a massive rant at me. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether he understands the problem with his approach to editing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arb Case Workshop: Hatting part of "Fae's real name"
You are one of the bosses, so all I can do is ask what was "pointy, off-topic and/or non-evidenced" about my response to Prioryman's comments on Fae's real name that it was hatted. The first paragraph was dealing with Prioryman's speculating about another editor's motive, absent any evidence whatsoever, and the second was a summary of my view of what had happened, in contrast, I thought, to the much heavier weight to the events given by Prioryman, also absent evidence, though further commentary (but not evidence) is promised. As for Bali Ultimate's remarks, may I suggest that in such a setting as this case, points do need to be made, and sometimes underscored and that that is the point of much of the exercise? Bielle (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bielle. There wasn't any problem with your posts, as far as I have observed you have always used reasonable language and supported with evidence anything that needed supporting. You just got caught up when I hatted the thread. The issue was with the whole section which was starting to turn into allegations about other editors, their motives etc. Unfortunately it seems Bali carried on escalating elsewhere in the case and has ended up with a block. If you want to re-add any of your points that are still relevant to the discussion as it stands, there isn't a problem with it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The allegations about the motives of other editors were unsupported and, as such, ought to have all been excised. They weren't just off-topic, but in complete contravention of the rules against speculation and for evidence. My comments make little sense outside that context but I objected to them being characterized in the basket of bad behaviours when they weren't and when so very much else that is clearly behaviour forbidden by the "rules of engagement" is being ignored. Bielle (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will certainly apologise if I have given the impression that your comments were in any way problematic - that was not my intention, and I am happy to set the record straight. The set of comments were flagged to me as OUTING - which they weren't - but several comments seemed very pointed. It was late at night for me, and none of the clerks seemed to be around, so I hatted it to stop further comments from everyone else. I wouldn't disagree that some of the comments contravened the rules - I can look at it further and direct the Clerks to remove comments that breach the guidelines. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elen, I emailed you with questions about OS policy. I would have preferred to post them in public so that others could benefit from the answers, but the questions use specific and recent examples that I think are best not shared in public. If you can think of a way to answer the questions publicly while obscuring enough of the details to keep the specific incidents from being traceable, please do so. Thanks, Pine✉ 22:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had another thought. If you'll send those responses to me by email, I can sanitize the details and combine them with some other things that I've learned to make a FAQ at some point in the future. After checking with the functionaries through the functionary email list to make sure there's consensus on the answers, I can post the FAQ in public if there's consensus that doing so is a good thing. Pine✉ 22:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you've seen, many decisions are on a case by case basis, meaning FAQ's could only be in general terms - "what sort of things can be oversighted", "who can request oversight" etc. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. Also, DeltaQuad and I had a situation come up yesterday that's very similar to the last question that I attempted to clarify for AGK and Arbcom. DeltaQuad and I agreed it may be better for that specific issue to be discussed by the community. In regards to the other questions that I asked, I appreciate the responses from you and AGK. Again, thanks. Pine✉ 15:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read through the AfD and the deleted history and so on. And on the surface this just looks like someone trying to reduce their web presence (or at least being written about by others). But I dunno. And I don't know what else, if anything, we at Wikipedia can do for the person at this point (regardless of whether we wish to or not). And I'm also scratching my head wondering "why me"? I was contacted out of the blue and don't recall ever being part of any related discussions. Is there something I'm missing here? - jc37 00:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CBLANK allows pages to be deleted as a courtesy - one reason is AfDs where an individual is deemed not sufficiently notable to have a wikipedia article. I have blanked the page and informed the IP (who I assume is the article's subject). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was involved in the AFD as IP 99. The original article was a promotional vehicle. Perhaps you're well aware of the history, but for context I'm providing a link to to the sockpuppet investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Archivesharer/Archive. A series of accounts, identified as the same user, attempted to expunge all record of the article and ensuing discussion from numerous user talk pages as well--the nastiness of the discussion was largely self-inflicted. That likely explains why there was so little sympathy when the user initially complained of Google search results. Thanks, 99.156.68.118 (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said to others, the WP:BLP position is that if the user isn't notable enough for an article, they shouldn't have a whole bunch of comments about them on the pedia, and the kind of remarks in that afd would be a BLP violation whoever made them. If it is possible to create an article about him that passes notability, then whoever wants to do it is free to go for it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My disagreement--and I think as much was said by others, including one or more admins who weighed in during the AfD [1]--is that there were no defamatory or injurious comments made about the subject. I'm not clear as to where you've seen them. The bile, so to speak, came from the accounts arguing on behalf of the subject's notability, who accused other editors of character assassination, the aim of which, I'm certain, was to delete what they perceived would be an embarrassing outcome. I also think a question is raised as to whether 69.203.115.220 is another sockpuppet of the blocked accounts, and as such, whether their requests are 'more of the same.' If I'm reviewing this correctly, then the blanking is not warranted for BLP concerns. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is that if someone is not notable enough for the project, it's not reasonable to keep that kind of text in view when other sites are linking to it. If he's not notable, there's no reason for Wikipedia to mention him. And WP:BLP does not just refer to defamatory material, but to any contentious material. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail
Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Shearonink (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation for comment
As the subject seems to be of your interest, you are an experienced editor, and know very well how to deal with uncivil summaries/comments in talks, your opinion and presence would be very appreciated in this, as yet, non-consensual and criticaltalk. Thanks, Excalibursword (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the past you have been involved in a block/unblock procedure either on the sockmaster account of LouisPhilippeCharles or an account of one of the sockpuppets. Please see WP:ANI#LouisPhilippeCharles -- PBS (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
re-opening an ANI
I have read your comment at the bottom of the (opened?) (closed?) ANI. I have never seen this before. I have not seen where other editors have expressed a desire to re-open this particular ANI which, as you said, was the criteria for re-opening it. As I am sure you know, all of these editors know each other and are just seemingly making the rules up as they go along. I see the same editors as yesterday with one exception. One editor has just been given a new chance by the Arbitration Committee. You think they would feel lucky.
Of course I will abide, because I always abide by administrators instructions but I would like to continue with my comments there if other editors are also doing so. Is this allowed? Seems like Wiki is changing alot these days Elen. I do not know how you do it without going crazy but you do and I commend you for it. Mugginsx (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At ANI there isn't formal clerking or a formal close structure like there is at RfAR or AfD. Sometimes a discussion gets closed to try to stop it in it's tracks, rather than because it's reached a natural conclusion. And sometimes people disagree with a close on that basis and either revert the close or just keep going. It doesn't usually carry a penalty if several people do it, it's just an indication that the discussion hasn't finished yet. If one person edit wars to overturn a close, then that might warrant a block. I appreciate that it can be a bit disconcerting that there isn't an enforceable rule in this case - I find I have to keep watching what people are saying very closely, to gauage the mood of the participants. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now. Thank you for the explanation. Mugginsx (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Falun Gong 2
Hi Elen. I'm wondering if I might request some clarification on the operations of the workshop page for the FLG 2 ArbCom case. It seems to be growing rather unwieldy, and may benefit from some greater involvement by members of the arbitration committee to help keep things on track. Is that generally how these things work? Homunculus (duihua) 22:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I made a request for an injunction (or something) to help clarify appropriate conduct on the workshop page.[2]. Do you think that such a proposal is actionable at this stage? Homunculus (duihua) 17:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellen. Are you sure about this? cairogang.com is used regularly on Wikipedia as a reliable source. RashersTierney (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check talkpage - the creator of the cairogang page posted on rootsweb at the point where he was starting to create the page, and the Wikipedia article appears to predate that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure we can say for sure s/he was starting the page at that time. Antway, I tried 'wayback machine' to see if there were archived editions of the page in question previous to its appearance on Wikipedia, but no joy. If you're reasonably happy that all is in order, then fine by me. Thanks for taking the trouble and keep up the good work. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another little thing I've noticed is that in the "wooden leg" quote, the author of the Wikipedia article started out describing him as having a tin leg, and changed it to wooden leg, without changing any of the rest of the sentence, at the same time as he added sources. It seems unlikely (although of course not impossible) that he pirated the text on the 3rd of March, then went back to the other site on 27th March, noticed the change, and changed Wikipedia to match. It was a good call to list it as a potential though - that site is used as a RS for other things, and even in this case, it contains more information, particularly primary documents, than the Wikipedia article . --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please make AC aware of proposed urgent motion I have made on workshop page. SarekOfVulcan has moved the Perth article despite participating in the move review. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure at this point that any action by any admin would fall into the case, as there's been a whole set of discussion reviewing the RM and a neutral admin closed it with a conclusion that the review endorsed the original close. If Sarek is merely moving it based on the uninvolved closer's decision, there's not a problem with it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - as the previous blocking user - please comment thanks- Youreallycan 3:00 pm, Today (UTC−7
Note: I've moved the above from your userpage.--Jasper Deng(talk) 22:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Deng - Sorry about that missie - thanks for correcting - Youreallycan 22:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nomoskedasticity has removed the thread at the article talkpage, which I think is the correct action. I understand there may be a need to discuss whether there is socking, but that talkpage isn't the place to do it. Do you want to file an SPI as you seem reasonably certain who the sockmaster is. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a poor choice to post there- I thought as you are the previous blocking admin and have all the previous detail and checkuser authority I would just request you to revisit - no worries - I will see about creating a SPI later. - thanks - Youreallycan 16:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd have had even less sympathy than Future Perfect in this case. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
personal attacks and allegations
What personal attacks are you talking about?
What allegations are you talking about?
I don't see any!
I have requested declaration of COIs in accordance with WP:COI. --Nenpog (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You attacked me when you wrote "I suggest Guy, that you follow the WP:COI guideline, and declare your COIs, if any. Your attempt to undermine the issue, possibly in order to avoid a COI statement, certainly raises suspicion regarding your own COIs." I am a regular dispute resolution volunteer at WP:DRN. I didn't come to you, you came to me. It is statistically improbable that you would open a discussion about CT scans at WP:DRN only to find that the dispute resolution volunteer who tries to help turns out by an amazing coincidence to be someone with an undeclared COI about CT scans who has never posted a single word on any CT-scan-related page. It is far more likely that you are using accusations of COI as a tactic to get your way in a content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly so. Nenpog, your insistence that anybody who looks at that source differently has a COI - including demands that they discuss how much they are paid - is frankly ridiculous. Guy (and others) are commenting because they can read scientific articles, not because they are paid by companies who make CT scanners. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:COI instruct, that the first approach should be direct discussion of the COI issue with the editor, referring to the WP:COI guideline. And so I did.
Instead of declaring that he and his benefactors have or don't have financial interest in the subject; a statement that doesn't involve discussion of how much he is paid, (btw where did you come up with that? did you also came to that discussion by chance?); he chooses to attack me and accuse me of violation of WP:x and WP:y.
Guy's objection to something that is a WP:guideline and his attack certainly raises suspicion. I was simply letting him the opportunity of awareness of and of following of the WP:COI guideline. I think that I was doing him a favor. It will be unfortunate if he would fail to recognize that. --Nenpog (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI Does not say what you think it says. You are taking advice that was meant to be applied to situations where there is a reasonable suspicion of a COI and applying it to a situation where the only evidence of a COI is "he dared to disagree with Nenpog". You have zero evidence that I have a COI, and as I already explained, the odds of you choosing a noticeboard with a volunteer who just happens to have a COI concerning CT scans is comparable to the odds of you getting hit by lightning while winning the lottery.
Be honest with yourself here. Realistically, what are the chances that a dispute resolution volunteer with six and a half years of experience AND a very experienced administrator and arbcom member are BOTH wrong about what is in WP:COI and an inexperienced editor like yourself is right? Don't you think that it is more likely that it is you who are wrong? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been a perfunctory deed for you to have told me if my answer to your question was right or wrong. I'll simply add it to the heap of wasted prose I have appended into this god forsaken hell hole of a place My76Strat (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just finished reading the RfA, having not been available to log on prior to my comment to the chap above. I would have said that your answers were right in terms of policy but you did seem to rely a bit on templates to communicate with people, and perhaps a little overeager on the block button. Unfortunately, by the time I came back to it, it had turned into a car crash, you had written those two responses (to Edison and in the discussion section) that I can only describe as 'disintegrating'. These two are beyond any talk of writing styles or poetic bents - is this what happens when you are under significant stress? You don't have to answer me, none of my business, but if it is, then you really would struggle with being an admin, in the same way that a referee who burst into tears everytime a player swore at them would struggle to keep order during the match. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that. I'd love to tell you a story about the two guitars and the $5 difference in price. But someone, I think Elen in fact, had some remark about how I love talking about myself, which is also news to me, yet I am on guard to not include things about myself because it is just one more thing on the long list of things I can do and later be charged. My76Strat (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)::In many ways you are right. The only thing I can say is I posted a comment to Edison under his. If something above was see addressed to him let alone two, this is the first I have heard of it. I know the names who spawned my desire to comment, and for sure it wasn't Edison. That's what took me out. I meant everything to Edison as a compliment and every-time I refreshed the page someone else was pissed about what I said to Edison. I suppose I'll have a look to see if I can see what you and the others saw, that wasn't there. My76Strat (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strat, your two comments above - the ones that were made after mine - illustrate another problem. It's common to many people, but you don't always understand what people are saying to you either. First, I at no time said that you "love talking about yourself", or anything remotely similar to that. What I said was that you appeared to have more problems (I believe the phrase I used was 'get your ting in a twost') when you had to talk about yourself. Second, what I said above was that you made TWO responses and ONE of them was to Edison and THE OTHER was in the discussion section. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Opinion requested
Would you be willing to comment on this thread as a knowledgeable, neutral third party? The question is whether asking people commenting on an RFC explicitly to consider NPOV is appropriate or not. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. It's not obvious that you found the proposed RFC text. I've created a new section on the page that should make it crystal clear. If you could take another look, that'd be great (if you already found the proposed RFC statement, then probably nevermind). Thanks again. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you're not watching this page closely enough to have seen this, but here's an analogy that might be helpful in understanding why I think it's a POV issue. Imagine being asked what is NN for N=2 and being given the answer "2+2=4, so the answer is 4".
2+2=4 is a correct statement. It is actually related to what anyone would consider the correct answer in an intrinsic sort of way (it uses the unmentioned but "obvious" simplification that for N=2, N+N and N*N and NN are all identical). And, yes indeed, 4 is the correct (numeric) answer. But yet, as a matter of TRUTH or Truth, there's something not quite right about this answer.
Relating this to the MHP, the "simple" solutions presented by popular sources are saying (what at least some sources say is) the equivalent of 2+2=4. The "conditional" solutions presented by the vast majority of sources in the field of probability are saying the equivalent of (with no comment about "simple" solutions) NN is N*N*N... (N times), which for N=2 is N*N, so the answer is 2*2=4. The (smaller) number of sources criticizing the "simple" solutions are saying "simple" solutions are "correct, but ... shaky", or "misleading", or "incomplete", or "[don't] address the problem posed" or are [bluntly] "false" - and these sources demonstrate the issue by showing "simple" solutions fail if you use them to solve (the equivalent of) NN for some other value of N.
Martin is saying he wants the main "solution" section of the article to present "simple" solutions (those saying the equivalent of "2+2=4 is the answer") "with no disclaimers that they do not solve the right problem or are incomplete", and to include both the (conditional) solution typically presented in the field (showing the equivalent of NN for N=2 is N*N = 2*2 = 4) AND the criticism of the "simple" solutions (which show the equivalent of 2+2=4) in a later section "for experts only".
I'm saying this creates a structural POV.
The only TRUTH I'm interested in here is the Truth about what the sources say. Martin continues to argue that the sources critical of "simple" solutions aren't saying what they clearly say (IMO, from a standpoint of TRUTH, explicitly denying Truth). -- Rick Block (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(pardon for intruding) Rick, you should face what I said in my edit in "Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem/Archive 4 11:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)":
»As known, this is a conflict between "different aspects", different points of view. And so it matters what reliable sources "really say". We should be careful to correctly interpret those statements of sources, and what they (antinomy) really say.
Up to now, obviously misinterpreting some source, sometimes just "the only one aspect" has been "read into" the statements of sources, although the source actually and effectively just confirms "the other aspect" as well. We need to deal very carefully with the sources, to avoid that the sense of source statements is not reproduced unilaterally, obviously misinterpreting the source.« – Please read again what the sources really say. Regards, Gerhardvalentin (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have an observation based upon closely watching this (sometimes participating sometimes lurking) since the arbcom case closed. I have never seen a case where Rick described what the conflict is and Martin agreed -- Martin always says that Rick is not describing the actual dispute. Likewise, I have never seen a case where Martin described what the conflict is and Rick agreed -- Rick always says that Martin is not describing the actual dispute. I have no reason to believe that the above is anything other than one more example of this. I have no idea how to solve this problem, but I know that agreeing with or disagreeing with a description that only one party accepts will never lead to a resolution. On the other hand, talking at each other forever isn't working all that well either. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A database like, https://libris.kb.se/, doesn’t publish non peer reviewed scientific material
Well, I got my answer [3]. In Wikipedia terms, having your thesis marked does not constitute peer review, and having it placed in a database like this does not constitute publication in a peer reviewed journal. So until your material is published in a peer reviewed journal, I would not think it was appropriate to use in the article. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: A database like, https://libris.kb.se/, doesn’t publish non peer reviewed scientific material.
KB in, https://libris.kb.se/, stand for the "Royal Library of Stockholm" for god sake
"LIBRIS is a national search service providing information on titles held by Swedish university and research libraries, as well as about twenty public libraries. Here you can find books, periodicals, articles, maps, posters, printed music, electronic resources, etc."[4]. It doesn't say anything about having only peer-reviewed material? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, would be you interested in delivering your impressions in DRV – E. being? They would be appreciated. Excalibursword (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at Darkness Shines's talk page. Message added 13:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
the anti-indian comments/edits show (IV) is indeed Nangparbat, can u have a look ? DBigXray 13:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done by Elockid --DBigXray 15:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is DriveByWire (you blocked me) here on my IP address. I echo the request above for Check User. My name is from these articles: Drive by wireFly-by-wire. It is not meant to be anagram of anything. Incorrect socking accusations are very damaging. Until that is resolved, my block prevents me even trying to make a fresh start. 84.209.89.214 is the address that my ISP puts on every IP packet that comes from me. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a Norwegian IP, which squares with something that was said on ANI about a troublesome Norwegian account. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ja, jeg er i Norge og jeg kan godt norsk også. Er dette et problem? Vi har et vakkert land hvor befolkningstallet ligger over fem millioner. Praktisk talt har hvert norsk hjem adgang til Internettet. Våre barn deler din sterk interesse for disse You don't need a translator to use the link. DriveByWire 84.209.89.214 (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked the IP. Feel free to dial it back if it's too harsh. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion
Dear Elen, may I ask for your opinion? Do the following sentences from Peter Tomsen, The Wars of Afghanistan, p. 565 (which can be checked here):
"Increasing numbers of Pashtun Taliban were secretly contacting him [anti-Taliban leader Abdul Haq] as Taliban popularity trended downward. In the late 1990s and 2000, Haq's home in Peshawar and the Karzai residence in Quetta became the main gathering sides for tribal elders, commanders ... dissatisfied with the Taliban."
verify the following line:
"Abdul Haq received increasing numbers of defecting Pashtun Taliban ..."
I would have said not - the quote does not specifically use the term 'defecting' or say that they were 'defecting' - they could for example have been trying the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' strategy, aiming to oust the existing Taliban leadership and replace it with themselves as a rebranded Taliban, which would not be 'defection' as the term is usually used. But really this is what WP:RS/N is for. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is known that they were by this action defecting to him. But if you say, you can't get that from this specific source, that's fine. Thank you very much for your fast input. JCAla (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have mail
Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi, I'm sorry to bother you with this question. I have the feeling that you may have pointed me in the right direction before but I failed to follow up on it. You evidently recall the case of the Hockey editor with an aversion to Czech surnames. There was something about a larger number of moves to "accent-less" titles, and creating and editing a large amount of redirects from diacritics, thereby preventing moves being reverted. Can you point me to the specific guideline about when it is not correct to edit a redirect from diacritics? Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget to mention Can Tho. Kauffner (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have mail
Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Not having jumped in on Noetica's desysopping straw poll one way or the other doesn't necessarily mean the "community" agrees with him.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recusal request
Hello Elen of the Roads.
I am submitting a request to the ArbCom.
I request you to refrain from intervening in this matter.
I think that the formal language for that is that I ask your recusal from this case.
I ask that because you have previously intervened in several stages which led to that request, and seemed to have already made up your mind about it, and you seem to have taken a side.
The knowledge you had while intervening was partial, because only now I present my view on the matter without reservations.
I think that your recusal would benefit the case, even if only to preserve the appearance of lack of prejudice, wherein by appearance of lack prejudice I mean the appearance that the case wasn't decided in advance with partial evidence, before all facts were presented. --Nenpog (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a quick overview for anyone reading this who might be wondering what Nenpog is talking about:
The request for arbitration has been declined (and Nenpog is currently blocked), so this has become moot. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Falung Gong 2 proposed decision
There is a vote to close the Falung Gong 2 case which is not yet passing. Your votes could be decisive as there are one proposed finding of fact and three proposed remedies which do not currently pass due to missing arbitrator votes. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you do not mind being contacted in this manner; the rules of engagement here are not clear, and I don't want to act in a manner that is viewed as violating some unspoken rules of propriety. But I wanted to quickly draw your attention to a couple threads on the FLG 2 case. It would be encouraging to know that this material has been read and considered, since these threads relate to the votes on which there has been some differences of opinion (similarly, it is heartening to know that evidence pages are read — I really just don't know who reads what).
I am bringing this to your attention since you recently blocked User:DriveByWire. I believe the User:Ochson is a sockpuppet of the same editor. User:Ochson recently created a thread at the ref desk forging my signature: [7] and erasing his own autosignature: [8]. This was after I reported him here [9] for editing another user's comments to change their meaning entirely. I have filed an ANI here: [10] but am hoping for your immediate help. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI, dont hesitate about rangblocking Vodafone mobile IP's if the need should arise. I used to work on their (line) service management dept. They have total internal logging of when, where, who (if contract) is assigned an IP and at what time. So any interruption in their service to their customers they are more than willing and able to cut off the offenders if they should cause any problems for their other customers. They (in the UK and AUS) used to have constant issues with getting their ranges banned from various high-traffic sites due to the throwaway nature of their PAYG dongles, so they take any interruptions quite seriously. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll bear that in mind if I do end up having to wallop that range. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good that someone finally did it - hopefully the person will give up on it. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 14:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did anybody get it?
I hope I'm not the only one who got the reference to Alice's Restaurant (i.e. circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back). And since I'm here, I'd like to take a moment to thank you for serving as an Arbitrator. I expect it's not a fun job and it's probably even worse than I can imagine. I'm thankful that you, and others, are willing to take on this task and serve the community in this way. It's much appreciated. Best regards. 64.40.57.60 (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly the only person who has commented on it - perhaps too obscure for others these days. I feel you ought to win something, so have some spaghetti and meatballs (straight from the Alice's restaurant cookbook). first prize Thank you for your kind thoughts - I do try to do my best for the community (even if one inevitably cannot please all of the people all of the time) and I do really appreciate your acknowledgement. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid there were other lurkers who got it, and apart from its pertinence it reminded me of the brilliant This song is my song (also by AG = Arlo Guthrie) at A Prairie Home Companion (searching for "AG:" finds the first part, and the last is at the end of the page; it is of course based on This Land Is Your Land). Johnuniq (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Elen, that's very kind of you. Thanks, I love spaghetti.
@John, glad to know I wasn't the only one that got it and I must admit I love both Arlo and Woody's work. A great musical family. Kind regards. 64.40.54.48 (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Rajesh Mehta and I am the producer of a film titled DRAPCHI which you will find here.
The poster of this film needs to change immediately and replaced by another one.
I have no idea about how one does this..A friend had uploaded the new version a few weeks ago but again an old one has cropped up.I need to get rid of this and replace it with another file.can you help me please?
The old upload claimed to be the cover of the dvd, and the fair use rationale related entirely to it being the dvd cover. Your friend can upload the poster as long as they change the rationale to say it is the film poster, and explain on the file page why this non-free image is the best one to use. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sand.
Can you please tell me why the Wikipedia page Sand is locked? I cannot imagine sand being a hot button issue and causing problems. I would like to correct something in the article because it is locked. When will it be unlocked? Thank you.--74.240.238.238 (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have been accidentally left like that since 2008 - the notes from the protecting admin say to remove the protection in a little while, so there must have been some kind of fuss at the time. It's unprotected now, please correct away - and if you can come up with any references, looks like that would be good too. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OUTING, WP:PRIVACY and legal threats (article talk)
Hello!
I would like to kindly ask You for help and to use the oversight feature...
One of the contributors keeps posting my personal information and legal threats in [[11]] (Life on earth External link section). The reason of this behavior is quite simple - I have deleted (in good faith) link to his page from External links in the article (to prevent people suffering from cancer from purchasing a device that is sold as "curing cancer and normalizing ones body aura"). More contributors agree with me and the user in question starts to use personal attacks and revert their edits too. Thanks for any help/response. Panszpik (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He has since created an account, but has not done any of these violations with the named account: just engaged in a long, vituperative and unconstructive argument about the alleged wonderfulness of his theories and about how we are all ignorants around here. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Panszpik, if there are edits that need suppressing, can you either Use this form if you have a Wikipedia account with Wikipedia email enabled (click here to enable account email); or use your normal email and write to oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org. Please supply diffs - I can't see where he is posting information about you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
mentioned you
I just mentioned you in a proposal I made regarding an editor blocked for sockpuppetry. After I did so, I realized I probably shouldn't go throwing your name around, even in a complimentary fashion, without alerting you. The discussion is here (collapsed in the drawer). It refers to this now-archived SPI.Cynwolfe (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your kind thoughts, but I'm not convinced he's actually a net benefit. He's not just creating sequential accounts, or accounts for different parts of the wiki. Those account edits overlap, giving the impression he's multiple people. His editing is also extremely tendentious in places - I don't care how smart he is. And he doesn't agree he's done anything wrong - in fact he sets out to give the impression of friends in high places - Hopefully, wheels are already in motion on my behalf. Unless he submits an appeal that recognises the problems, I don't think he's likely to be unblocked. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
wikipedia.org. Please supply diffs - I can't see where he is posting information about you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)