User talk:Elen of the Roads

From Elcadobes re Equitable Life

[[talkback | Elcadobes (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)]]

Chance

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

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

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

GANGS

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

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

For the record:

From Stevonmfl

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

Thanks

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

Regarding Annabeth (Percy Jackson)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Annabeth AfD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Away away

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

Plumping NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Elen,

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

Mediation at WP:FICT

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

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

Henry Cheng article

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

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

Alex Delaware article

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

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

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:_Arverniking

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

STOP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bradford City Hall

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

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

Help request for you

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

Black holes

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

Mohammad Yousuf

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

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

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

Thomas Jefferson and slavery.

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

Twinkle

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

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

User:Frei Hans

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

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

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

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

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

Choose curtains

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

Choose Curtains

Hi Elen of the Roads,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Notability and fiction

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

ClydeNET

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

Let's settle this with a vote

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

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

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

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

Quick note

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

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

Do you think I am doing strange ?

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

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

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

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

I support merge now

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

Vans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sir Hercules

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

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

Diff links

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

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

Save your strength

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

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

Becky Quick

Thanks so much for weighing in!

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

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

Wikiquette alerts Vs User:Sinneed

Hello Sir/Madam,

This is what I have typed in Wikiquette alerts.

• Respected User: Sinneed was previously warned by an editor over here and a formal complaint was also filed against his vandalism at an Admin’s talk page
• Respected User:Sinneed vandalized article Labh Singh, kept on destroying hard work of other respected Wikipedia editors until article Labh Singh was locked by an administrator. Revision history of Labh Singh shows User:Sinneed had edited this article continuously for 17 times until it was noticed by an admin who decided to lock it immediately. He was the only editor who was continuously deleting the legitimate information/references without any discussion.
• Proofs of respected User:Sinneed's edits/Lies and vandalism -

• In vandalism 1, User:Sinneed deleted two very important references and the related text without any discussion while mis-leading Wikipedia community with his lies. In an effort to delete the sentences which he might not have liked wp:pov, he lied in his edit summary Source is already a named source in the article, and it doesn't mention the bank robbery. Warning...if I can figure out which of the IP herd made that change easily" . Kindly note that the third paragraph in the 1st deleted reference clearly says "Police said Sukhdev Singh, himself a former police constable, was responsible for a string of murders and a Major Bank Robbery and the2nd deleted reference clearly says Labh Singh masterminded a bank robbery of Rs. 6 crore from a branch of Punjab National Bank in Ludhiana. This is reputed to be the largest ever bank robbery.
• In edit 2, User: Sinneed added useless "CN" (along with a threatening edit summary Brief CN for the association with Bhindranwale. I'll drop it today without a source" for Labh Singh's association with Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale), even though the reference was already there at the end of the sentence. Reference 1 clearly states "early 80s, he came under the influence of Bhindranwale and resigned from the police force, reference 2 clearly notedLabh Singh, a close confederate of (Sant) Bhindranwale's", and in the same reference, Labh Singh said I can't show my back to Sant Ji, I will fight with him and face martyrdom in this place.
• vandalism 2 User:Sinneed simply changed the section "Association with Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale" to "Joining Sikh militants" to further his POV, eventhough above mentioned references clearly prove subject's association with Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale.
• In vandalism 3 User: Sinneed again mislead (lied to) Wikipedia community through his edit summary "source is about that person but doesn't tie to the murder of the publisher" even though the the deleted reference clearly mentioned "In Punjab his name figured in the 38 cases of violence taking place between 1983 and 86, including the one in which the editor of the Hind Samachar group of newspaper Ramesh Chander was gunned down in Jalandhar".

• Isn’t Sinneed harassing other respected Wikipedia editors (who might have done hours and hours of research work to find and add these valuable references) by deleting their hard work/valuable references? How can we guide respected User:Sinneed to READ the references before he destroy/vandalize wikipedia articles ?
• Considering all these documented proofs of respected User:Sinneed’s lies/misleading/in-accurate edit summaries and destruction of Wikipedia articles, if (in an effort to save an article) I have objected to his lies/mis-leading statements and destruction of Wikipedia articles then what is my fault ? I was honest, my intention was not bad, I wanted to save wikipedia article from his ruthless vandalism only..--98.207.210.210 (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)