User talk:ElinorD/Archive01

This is an archive

Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. Thank you.

My archived talk
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5	Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10	Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Welcome

Hello, ElinorD, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Your message

I have replied on my talk page (yes, discussion page!) KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Popcornmaker.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Popcornmaker.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose there's not much point in replying to a bot, but just in case any human is reading my page:

Sorry about the no tag. I won't pretend that I didn't see that field. I found the tags confusing, so ignored them. I took the photo this morning, with the intention of giving the copyright to Wikipedia. I don't want to keep it for myself. I have looked at the links in the message above, and am puzzled by the difference between "free licence" and "public domain". Obviously, I should have selected one of those, but which one? Anyway, I have asked the question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, as suggested by the bot, so I'm sure that somebody will help me soon. ElinorD 23:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Images

Hi. I left you a welcome message at commons:User talk:ElinorD with links that should help you find your way around there. You may also want to read commons:Commons:Derivative works if you will be taking pictures of figurines. I'm afraid that I cannot be of much help with your login difficulties -- I cannot explain why you're having the difficulties you've described. There's no need to be concerned about "uploading too much"; serving image files can be expensive, but storing them isn't. Use the exact same "wikicode" to add an image to an article regardless of whether it is hosted at Commons or locally. Finally, remember to be bold in updating pages. If your image edit doesn't improve an article, someone else will just remove it. You can browse through Wikipedia:Featured articles to get a sense of what some community norms are for the number of images in an article. Jkelly 22:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about "trouble". Copyright and licensing are tricky. I'm afraid that I don't know much about figurines. I have edited Image:Hummel_Christmas_Tree_Ornament.JPG so that it now has appropriate licensing information. That image shouldn't go on Commons, because there are licensing complications involved that we don't want there. You can upload your photographs of figurines here at en: and use the {{statue}} template. All of that said, when did Fontanini die? If he or she died more than seventy years ago, we don't need to worry. Or is it the name of a company? Incidentally, our "article" at Fontanini is... something of a embarassment. Since you seem to be interested in figurines, perhaps you could fix it? Jkelly 23:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther reverts

Thanks for your help with this. User has been blocked for 3 hours; I wish it was more. Keesiewonder ^talk 23:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's useful to know of that page. I'll add it to my watchlist so that I can find it easily in future. I've done a fair amount of reverting vandalism, but haven't reported it. ElinorD 23:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've only known about that page for about a week myself. It is time consuming to post warnings on user's pages, but, it is required, I think, before they can be blocked. What tools do you use to monitor vandalism? I've tried some available off of WP, but have not been impressed by them. Keesiewonder ^talk 23:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use any tools. There's an "undo" option when I look at the vandal's last edit. If there are several versions that need to be undone, I open the last good edit in the history, and save that one. I have warned users once or twice, or rather, asked them to stop vandalising. I see that the page you linked to links to another page that gives various templates for warning people. I must take a closer look at them. ElinorD 23:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pesky vandals

Thanks. To answer the question that the vandals were interrupting, you might want to read de minimis. We tend to err on the conservative side of the derivative work question. You can find people willing to opine at either Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or at commons:Commons talk:Derivative works. User:Lupo is a good resource, as well. Jkelly 01:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the one here. That's a lot of deletion requests to do at Commons, so I'll tackle that later. Jkelly 03:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Night

Hi Elinor, thank you for your kind comments about Night. I'll take a look at the Shlomo/Chlomo thing. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The invisible notes are indeed useful, especially for barking out orders to future editors. :-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, but thinx..

Thank you 4 the logical analysis of how Calton acted out in public.

However, I want to point out that while Cal is not always wrong, it is not right that you believe him at face value about his claim that the Gazette link is bad. IS it bad? WHY? Where's the proof? How is THIs link any different or any worse than other links? you need to think critically. He MIGHT BE right, but we need to make sure: Many 'blogs' are used as both sources for news items ANd as opinions and advocacy links. (I don't think the Gazette is a blog, but even if it were, I say this is no big cause for concern.)

Also, don't get scared and run off; I don't much have time to edit in this wiki, so we need all types of people to step up to the plate and swing the bat -you included!

Lastly, while I am not the last word on the Schiavo matter, I not only have first-hand knowledge, I also came closer than any other person to saving her; i narrowly lost my bid before our state's high court to save Terri, incredible when you consider I am both poor, not connected, and not a lawyer or immediate family member of Terri. This is a matter of record in the courts and elsewhere. Thus, I have some insight on the matter.

Thx, but plz 'THINX' before taking the word of another, such as Cal, without proof. --GordonWatts 03:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gordon. I certainly didn't intend my posts to be seen as an "analysis of how Calton acted out in public". I simply pointed out that his accusation that you were lying and trying to "sneak in" something seemed unfair. (I was actually more interested in discussing the issue of whether or not we should report Nurse Iyer's claims.) It would probably be wiser to drop it now, as I don't think you'll convince him. But, since he has objected to you calling him "Cal",[1] I'm sure it would help if you made the effort to use his full name. I wouldn't like people calling me Ellie, and none of my friends do.

As regards taking his word for it, I know nothing about the paper you want to link to, and I take Wikipedia policy and guidelines seriously, so I'd be quite cautious about linking to sites that other editors disagree with. If lots of people think the source is reliable, and one editor disagrees, then you'd be on stronger ground. Anyway, as I've said on the talk page, I'm not sure how much I want to be involved in that article. I'll keep it on my watchlist for the moment, though. ElinorD 13:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, it's not a question of believing that the Gazette is bad. I think that "reliable" on Wikipedia means something more than a private individual saying "Can I believe this source?" The question is, is it acceptable according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources? If it isn't, then even if what it says is true, I don't think we can use it. I'm still reading and rereading a lot of the policy pages at the moment. ElinorD 14:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review; I am not an expert on what makes a reliable source, but my gut feeling says to trust most or all of what that papers publishes, even if it is not on par with the New York Times; however, there are "times" when the NY Times or the LA Times might either publish a falsehood (rare but occasionally happens), or, more likely, publish nothing on a given subject (very common), so alternate news sources are very necessary -and that a "big" newspaper does not do a story is no certain proof a news item is “un-newsworthy” of Wikipedia, but that is what would happen if we are convinced to not use a source by fellow-editors. (In other words, if we are forced to not use certain sources, then we would be unable to list certain news items -since we must cite our sources.) Now, I'm not saying to use small sources every chance we get -only when such as the NY Times miss the news item -and then only if the smaller news source seems generally reliable -not real complicated, but it can be very divisive. We need to "cite our source," not run from the matter.--GordonWatts 11:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for reverting vandalism to my user page! —Wknight94 (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

You're welcome, and yes, without phrases like "scatalogically challenged," it does seem a little duller. :-) I don't disagree with you about the PhD thing, by the way; I'd just like to see better sources used than the Sun. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

input sought

In a message to several recent editors of Schiavo-related pages, I write that: Input is sought here: Talk:Government_involvement_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case#Edit_War_between_me_and_User:Calton.

--GordonWatts 15:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since many points were raised in the schiavo-link dispute, it might be hard for you to see the gem, so I wanted to highlight that point in advance of you looking for a needle in a haystack:

If the arguments for verifiablilty and reliability are used as you suggest, then why don't we remove ALL those Terri's Fight and Terri's Blog links and any link to something that is not, say, the NY Times? We see LOTS of links to blogs and smaller web-papers on wikipedia, and we don't remove all them. (Or, should we?)

Can you see where I'm going? If you want to critique the links to my paper, then you should critique those links even more, and you can see there are lots of them; Also, as I stated, I am not a "Jonny 1 Note" paper, publishing on just the Schiavo matter, so my paper is indeed credible as a news source. I feel that I am more credible than those blogs being used (and they're not bad links; Both pro-life AND pro-euthanasia blogs are routinely used as opinion links, and rightly so, I think.)

My main beef with "the process," as you call it is this: The only reason MY newspaper is under the microscope is because I'm an editor here at wikipedia, and people don't want to take the time to look at other links. But if you are really fair, you will see that my paper, while not as "credible" as, say, thr NY Times, stands on equal -or higher -ground than many other links used as sources, and thus lesser treatment is merely a convolution and perversion of wilipedia policy, whichis to say "unfair, or bitter" editing by those who edit to attack. Now, if you can't find any other links that are as "small" as my paper, then you have a good case to reject "my" paper as too small, too unreliable, not credible, etc. See, I could be wrong.--GordonWatts 22:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Including text of Creed in Christianity article

Hi, regading the vote on Christianity, I thought your possition was that you could live with the removal with the box? If so, you should also add a vote like the other editor did under that category too, saying, "Could live with it"--unless you've changed your mind. Thanks.Giovanni33 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But when I say I "can live with it", it doesn't mean I want it. If the choice is between X and Y, and I hope that the result will be X and that it will not be Y, why on earth would I vote for Y as well, and increase the number of votes it gets? It's not as if there are ten options, and I'm voting for the two I like best. "I can live with it" means that I won't commit suicide, I won't become ill, I won't lose my temper, I won't edit war, and I won't leave Wikipedia if I don't get my own way. I presume that if the text is kept, you won't commit suicide, etc. But I wouldn't expect you to vote for keeping it as well. ElinorD 02:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that means you can live with it. That is what it means. You are willing to accept that as a solution instead of a silly edit war over it. I noticed you did not edit war over it. So, to get a better picture of the spectrum of opinion, I'd say your vote should be as it is (yes to keep), but then under No with box, add your name with the "could live with." Consensus doesn't mean agreement, its reallly means agree not to edit war over it. This doesnt make any less clear where you stand, but allows one to see where everyone stands (strongly oppose/accept, or can live with it but oppose, etc).Giovanni33 03:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it is that Nigel's double vote means that although he hopes the result will be option 1 rather than option 2, option 2 now has eight "votes" instead of seven. If you add your name to option 1 with "could live with", there will be five votes for option 1. Would you be prepared to do that? I think my behaviour shows that I'm not going to edit war over it. I see no need to vote for the result that I'm hoping we will not get, just to show that I can live with it. ElinorD 03:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Hi Elinor, thanks for your note, and you're welcome regarding Gillian McKeith. As for your signature, the way to get it without color is to go to your preferences, and enter [[User:ElinorD|ElinorD]] [[User talk:ElinorD|(talk)]] into the box for the signature, then check the box for "raw signature". If you want the word "talk" to be in a different color (in the following example, purple) or superscripted, you would enter [[User:ElinorD|ElinorD]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:ElinorD|(talk)]]</font></sup>

I hope this helps. I also hope it works. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've tried it out, and it seems to work very nicely. Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (McKeith)

Thank you for your kind words! Unfortunately, it will only make my wikipedia addiction harder to cure! :D I used to just edit articles, and lately I've been dealing with people, which is even more fun! But the funniest thing though, and I can't get over it, is that there are only skeptics on that page, and the more moderate skeptics have been labeled all sorts of things. Seriously, I have never been so accused of POV pushing before, and I'm an atheist who edits God. Unbelievable! :) --Merzul 01:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My spatially infamous ref tags

Hi Elinor, you're right that most editors write their ref tags directly after the punctuation with no space. I don't like doing that, because it's not what publishers do (so far as I can tell), so I don't know why we should. It doesn't look too bad when it comes after a punctuation mark, like this,^[1] because the comma provides a space between the last word and the tag, but when a ref tag is placed directly after a word, as with the example^[2] here, it looks very crushed, in my view. The problem seems to lie with the square brackets; without them, there would be more space. Of course, it's possible that my browser is making me see things differently (Firefox for Mac) from editors who use Windows.

Anyway, that's why I do it and that's why I made that edit, because my memory is that there was no agreement when the tags were introduced that there should or shouldn't be a space; feel free to revert me if you disagree. My tags-with-a-space are forever being reverted, so I don't fight over it; I just continue on my lonely, but correct, way. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity (Nicene Creed)

I noticed you took part in the straw poll. Please visit the talk page to engage in the discussion, so we may build consensus. Vassyana 00:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo 04:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Hi, just wanted to let you know that your edits to the diarrhea article violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Thanks and feel free to leave a message on my talk page. 24.175.111.135 21:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are in error. Please feel free to discuss your vanishingly small viewpoint on Talk:Diarrhea to attempt to gain consensus. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Just wanted to say how nice it is to have your input on the Christianity page. What we need is calm balanced voices of all points of view when dealing with these emotive subjects, so it's good to have you around. Just as a heads up - there is quite a bit of history of antagonism between Giovanni33 and some others so don't be suprised if people seem to over react sometimes. The details are quite boring and all done with now - but in the history of his talk page if you are at all interested. Sophia 16:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words, Sophia. I've appreciated your posts on the Christianity talk page as well, although it does seem that our POVs may be very far apart! For the moment, I don't think I'll look in any histories, though I might later, if I get curious. Things got a bit heated at the Terri Schiavo talk page, and someone advised me to read the archives. They didn't make pleasant reading! Anyway, it's nice to see that things have calmed down at Christianity. ElinorD (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My gender and my userpage

Hi, Elinor. Thanks for your note. No problem about the gender. My signature actually used to look like this: AnnH ♫, but I changed it recently. I had read some complaints (not directed at me) about people whose signatures were different from their username, as it can be confusing if you're looking at a printout of a page, and then try to search for that user at Wikipedia. You'll still see other users referring to me as Ann. Regarding my userpage, thanks for telling me. Most of the computers I use only have Internet Explorer, and it certainly looks fine in that. However, I do have access to a computer with Firefox, and will take a look next time I'm on that computer. By the way, my friend Str1977 copied his userpage from mine, with some modifications. Does his look wrong as well? Thanks for your comments at the Christianity talk page. Don't let the recent unpleasantness there scare you off. We all usually get on reasonably well together. I see you've been active at Gillian McKeith. I have it on my watchlist because it was being vandalized quite a lot a few months ago. You might also be interested in Patrick Holford. Cheers. Musical L inguist 12:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Howdy...I see you're a newer editor, and I wanted to be the first to give you a barnstar for your contributions. I'm sure you'll get many others. Keep up the good work! MONGO 17:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MJ

Hi, I left a note at WP:AN/I, but just in case you don't see it, HarveyCarter has created another account. See Special:Contributions/ElvisIsTheOnlyKing. It's almost certainly HarveyCarter himself. Compare these two posts. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already dealt w/. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Our edits crossed (yours to AN/I, mine to your talk page). ElinorD (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah :) Cheers. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing

That notice applies to my contributions of text. There was a time when people were placing all sorts of different notices on their userpages about how they license their writing, although this seems to have died down now. Such alternative licensing of text is somewhat problematic, as it could, if such licensing statements were valid (I'm not sure that they are), result in someone claiming that their derivative of a GFDL article was somehow under a different license than the GFDL (and therefore potentially infringing), or that their derivative of a public domain text was under the GFDL (not infringement, but disputable). That's complicated. I dual-license any original photography or design under both the GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses. I'm actually not very happy with either license when it comes to images, for quite different reasons, but I want viral licensing (so someone cannot make an unfree derivative of my work) and do not know of any better options. Jkelly 18:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy ^talk 03:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action

Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action.

Even though I am not seeking the action against you, nonethheless, you are a party, and rules require that I notify you. Observe:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#GordonWatts

--GordonWatts 07:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Decline" vs. "reject"

Hi. I just wanted to make sure you saw my post on this topic at WP:RfAr, since we had an edit conflict. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had seen it, but it's very thoughtful of you to let me know. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Thanks for your response. I was just trying to make the case easier to follow for those of us not not privy to private information. Open disclosure of such information should be in the interests of the community. I will be resubmitting my evidence by email as you suggested. Catchpole 12:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading pictures and fair use

you have eliminated me my photos of the Pope, I am the author and I am I that I have the licence for my photos, I insert to them gladly in the situated Wikipedia, and clearly that I cannot yield the rights of these photos to others, but for web the Wikipedia I can give the licence to use them, is a sin that you eliminate me the photos, for the we wikipwdia, can be interesting to have these photos, that they will be modernized every day, with all the events of the Pope, which I follow like photographer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roccobilly (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 February 2007.

I second Elinor's position on this, but point out there is a process in place that allows one to upload pictures and verify that they are suitable for Wikipedia. What you have done (assert you give permission to use your own photos on someone's talk page) is not how it's done. Please look at the links Elinor has pointed out, as well as others on your talk page from other editors which also describe how to allow for uploaded images.

A mild caution. Feel free to go the the appropriate process for as many of your pictures as you like, but be aware you will need to go through this process for every one you upload; if you choose to update photes everyday, it may demand a lot of work on your part. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Baccyak. To Roccobilly, I would recommend that you raise any questions you might have at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, where the people would be more equipped to answer than I would be. Also, I recently discovered Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kat Walsh's statement, which looks very helpful. I haven't read it all myself yet, but intend to. ElinorD (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say to me as I can collaborate if it eliminates to me all the one which I insert? The photos I cannot insert to them….the web of the photos of the Pope it has been connected personal mine web, but it is an important service for the customers of Wikipedia, are all the photographed events of the Pope and dawns to you, creed is interesting, me it seems scorretto to eliminate without to reason and to think the usefullness of the web situated .....

you can say your personal email, in order to speak with you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stefano Spaziani (talk • contribs) 19:11, 28 February 2007.

I am Roccobilly, or put the my name Stefano Spaziani, they are a serious person who does not hide, you you do not have com nik your true name, like many others, who authorizes to you to eliminate my rows, this is a damage that fairies to all the community of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stefano Spaziani (talk • contribs) 19:47, 28 February 2007.

I'm afraid I'm not in authority here. I reverted your edit because it violated a rule, but I didn't make the rule, so there's no point in discussing it with me. Wikipedia:Media copyright questions would be a much better place. I agree your photos are nice. But we don't use photos of living people unless they have a free licence, and permission to use on Wikipedia is not a free licence. We need a licence where people are free to copy and modify and reuse the photos. If you own the copyright of these photos, you could release one under a free licence, and then go to the Pope Benedict XVI talk page and suggest that this photo should be used. Other than that, I don't really have anything to suggest. There are others who know a lot more about the image policy than I do. Sorry. ElinorD (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ask myself if it is not a good for all the customers of Wikipedia, to see images of the present time of one important person like the Pope? it is difficult that a photographer you lose time in order to insert and to modernize the photos on a situated one that is not its, is not sufficient the licence for Wikipedia? I must give my photos to all? Or I must be died? perhaps but you must be inquired well on the uatore rights, of a photography, I have inasmuch as you are not well informs to you. I do not speak well English and I cannot explain the problem, but I have inasmuch as you have elimimato also mine web where the photos and the news modernized of the activities of the Pope are all, nothing of trades them, only a service for the catholics. I try to iserire the link of the web, for the last time if it comes eliminated, cancellero in order always the nik in Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Stefano Spaziani (talk • contribs) 17:43, 1 March 2007.

I'm sorry, because I do think your photos are nice, but as I say, I don't make the policy here. By the way, please use four tildes like this ~~~~ to sign your name, because otherwise it doesn't come out right. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary, mother of Jesus

Please refer http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_%28mother_of_Jesus%29&action=history

I made lengthy edits to this article citing most recent, acclaimed academic researches as references at 21:51. In exactly four minutes, you nixed my version with a comment "fringe scholarship."

You could not have read my article, and reviewed the reference book and article cited in just four minutes. Most importantly, the reference I have cited is the celebrated biblical scholar and Dead Sea Scrolls authority, Professor James Tabor's most recent book. Eminent biblical experts like Professors Bart Ehrman, Arthur Droge, and Eugene Gallagher, among many others, have praised Tabor's research.

And you dismiss it under four minutes calling it fringe scholarship? Is Wikipedia being hijacked by Christian fundamentalists who want to nix critical academic scholarship? You have indulged in brazen whitewashing of facts. Your behavior is non-different from how the church blocked Galileo's research. I demand that you restore my version, and I challenge you to find any factual mistakes in it.

I hope I do not have to escalate this further.

Regards, KV —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kalavai Venkat (talk • contribs) 00:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I understand that you are referring to my revert of this edit. I stand over my statement that it is fringe scholarship. Even more importantly, it failed to adhere to our neutral point of view and no original research policies. For one thing, your edit states that recent research "has shown" that Mary was married twice. That suggests that the case is closed. It certainly is not; many scholars dispute it. Your edit also states that Professor Tabor offers the "logical" solution, and "convincingly" answers questions. But it's not for Wikipedia to decide that Tabor's answer is "logical" or "convincing". I can only state that there are many people who would find it neither logical nor convincing. As for the statement that if Mary's sister had been present at the Crucifixion, Mark's Gospel would have reported it, that's pure speculation, and since you don't attribute it to Professor Tabor, it looks as if it's yours. Sorry if it frustrates you to have your edit reverted, but with a major change like yours, it would have been better to have proposed your revision at the discussion page first, to get feedback. ElinorD (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New heading

I'm not sure why the statement "Information critical of Wikipedia is often removed within seconds" was removed from the policies and guidelines section of the Wikipedia entry. It's a truthful statement. I took screen shots proving this to be the case if you're interested in seeing them. How can a site boasting about its reliability be considered trustable if it systematically deletes anything negative (however true) about itself and/or its policies? What a bullshit source for information. Shame on you, Wikipedia. I hoped that I would find some integrity here, but this site is clearly biased in favor of itself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabio Longhorn (talk • contribs)

revert as much as you please

It's forever in the page history, and your partisan reversion as well. The level of your credibility with it. (Bjorn Tipling 16:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"Good riddance"

"Good riddance" means "I am glad to see you go". How is "I am glad to see you go" a personal attack? You are equating simply unpleasant wording with the concept of a personal attack. They are certainly not synonymous. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you have a quick look?

I have been editing on Eliot Tokar and we have reached a complete empasse. Whenever I try and summarise and NPOV the overly-long article, my changes are undone. I suspect the page may be a candidate for deletion. Anyway I'm trying to get some fresh opinions as we are stuck. I thought of you due to your ability to stand up to bullies on Gillian McKeith:).Merkinsmum 18:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the page to my watchlist, and will certainly take a look, though it may take me a day or two to familiarise myself with the background. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Essjay reverts

Hi there. I just wanted to chime in here and let you know that other people believe you are quite out of line for taking it upon yourself to revert other peoples edits as personal attacks. Me telling you that I do not like you, and your edits, is not a personal attack. If I added a bunch of ugly words and called a relative of yours something bad, it is a personal attack.

Regardless of how you may feel about Essjay, it is self righteous to be the opinion police, deciding what should stay or go on a retired users talk page simply because you disagree with their statements. I would certainly never think of doing it to yours. mceder (u t c) 19:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much personal attacks, as kicking when down. Regardless, I fail to see how a "Good riddance" can be "just a critical comment".[2] It also has nothing to do with "disagree[ing] with their statements". I endorsed many statements on the RfC that were very critical of Essjay. It's more to do with disagreeing with the appropriateness of cold-bloodedly posting something to him that will make him feel worse when he has already resigned his powers in disgrace. ElinorD (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In point I agree with you, but blanking and reverting does not help WP in the end on controversial wikisocial/wikilove issues. WP is loosing credability in the non-wiki world because of the internal wikilove/wikihate issues, and more importantly the issue where information gets deleted - it is seen by outsiders as censorship, as us wanting to hush down anything bad about WP, that makes our work become a waste. Anyways, sorry I jumped in here - I have never really gotten involved in types of debates, reverts or discussions because I want to stay away from anything not related to articles, and not quite sure why I got involved this time, perhaps time for some coffee.. mceder (u t c) 21:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had some coffee, with chocolate, subsequent to the reverts that I made, and I feel the better for it! However, although I'm happy to stop, especially having been requested to by an administrator whom I respect a lot, I can't feel terribly contrite for having reacted against what I feel was a very unkind post. I'm not a friend of Essjay's, and do not at all admire what he did; but I'd be more prepared to criticise his conduct on my talk page, or yours, or the RfC page, than on his page after his ignominious departure. I agree that the criticism shouldn't be deleted, in the sense of deleting it from the history, but out of kindness and sensitivity, I think it's appropriate to have it blanked. However, I take Jkelly's point that I should leave that to people who are in a position to make such judgments. By the way, if I'm ever exposed in some gross deception, and leave Wikipedia in humiliation, you have my full permission to remove "Good riddance" comments from my talk page ;-). ElinorD (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Wiki-politics can get people worked up.. I hope Essjay's can put forth the effort he did here into something else out there with a good cause. Lord knows there are few left. Chocolate. Good idea. mceder (u t c) 22:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm sure that you're just trying to help, but really, there are an awful lot of people watching that particular page, many of whom know the user well, and many of whom have been identified by the community as people to make judgements about controversial policies such as Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. There's a whole history here; it is probably for the best to let the people actually involved work it out themselves. Jkelly 21:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, and fully accepted (though with slight surprise), as it comes from an experienced user who has not shown any desire to add to someone's humiliation. I wasn't going to revert again, anyway, and I'm quite happy to leave it to people who understand the situation better. The current solution[3] seems to have been reached by administrators. ElinorD (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay's dodgy pic

Ya got me :) Gwen Gale 22:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gwen. I'm sure at this stage, everyone thinks I'm one of his fans, and I'm really not. But gosh, the poor guy has lost his job, and has his name in all the local papers. It's even on television news. At this stage, I feel anything that's going to make things worse for him should be avoided. ElinorD (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name

That is almost certainly true. It is rather easy to verify. (→Netscott) 01:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian McKeith

But you have to admit she deserved it...

I'll be good in future.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.223.81.88 (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia Community AfD

You may want to look at the current version of the article and consider revising your opinion since the current version has multiple reliable sources including a note about a notable award the community has recieved. Also note that nothing in WP:SELF prohibits an article on a Wikipedia related topic that is well sourced with verifiable content. That's how we can have Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales among other articles. Thanks. JoshuaZ 02:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

I liked the ice-cream picture. :) LaSaltarella 14:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It tastes even better than it looks. ElinorD (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The true stuff

You say that i cant state my opinion are the truth on the site. Wikepedia is made by differnt people. It might not always be true what they say. And i was just adding some truth to the site. Due to the fact that it is the one true religon because it says that the only way to be saved is to accept Jesus Christ as your savior. I would like to know do you have a religon? and if so what is it? Have a nice day —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mstare88 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 8 March 2007.

Yes, i do have a religon, that is Christianity. i belive that Jesus died and rose again to save everyone from thier sins and that includes all forms of human life. the second that the sperm hits the egg new life is formed. and, that new life should have the chance to live a life that you or i live.

--Redrover14 23:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion

i only did that because of wikipedia's amazing bias towards left-wing liberals. if you just go to http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia you will see just how "unbiased" wikipedia is.

--Redrover14 23:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tireless Contributor

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		You have amassed a large number of edits in a short period of time. You continually work on a wide variety of articles with a great attitude and detailed understanding of Wikipedia. You deserve recognition for your tireless contributions and hard work. Vassyana 09:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vassyana; that is very kind. And thank you also for your part in keeping the discussion calm at Talk:Christianity. ElinorD (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure entirely! It's wonderful to have such a dedicated and pleasant editor as yourself on Wikipedia. Thank you for your compliment for my part on Talk:Christianity, but without editors like yourself, SOPHIA and Musical Linguist those efforts would have just fallen on deaf ears. Vassyana 22:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness me

Thank you for your patience. I just got back from reviewing the edit history of Abortion and I was exhausted just reading it.

Wikipedia is a better place for your presence. SheffieldSteel 16:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks. I'm not sure what I did to deserve your praise, other than just reverting two POV edits. Severa probably deserves much more praise than I do. But it's always nice to get a compliment — even an undeserved one! ElinorD (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add links

Please add www.888poker.com links to the obesity, honey and sugar articles, thanks. --Falconfalcon10 17:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a bad idea. Jkelly 18:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fr: images to Commons

There's not much difference between doing this on en: and doing this on fr:. Upload the file under whatever filename you think is best. Edit the description to fix any errors. Tag the fr: image with fr:Modèle:Désormais sur Commons. Upload the entire original image, however. Make your image edits. If they are unquestionably an improvement, upload the new version of the file on top of the other one. If there is any chance at all that someone would question the editing, upload your edits as a different file, linking to the original as the source. Note that you are constrained to license your modifications under CC-BY-SA in this case. You don't need to contact the photographer for any of this. Jkelly 18:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Just to let you know that, when a date is given in full, the year has to be linked too (no comma needed between date/month and year):

[[11 March]] [[2007]] = 11 March 2007
[[2007]] [[11 March]] = 2007 11 March
[[March 11]] [[2007]] = March 11 2007

It's just isolated years (and months) that are left unlinked, unless there's some special relevance to the article. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've added the Manual of Style link to my user page so that I can find it easily. I don't think I added any commas; if I did, it was unintentional. I was just acting quickly to change the hyphens to ndashes, because I saw a squabble breaking out, and I hoped to stop it! Incidentally, the editor who put in the hyphens has done really excellent work at a page I'm slightly active at. It seems a fairly normal mistake. I think I used hyphens too when I joined, and only discovered the dashes later, by seeing other people using them. I must read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes), too, when I get a chance. :) ElinorD (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

If I were to nominate you to be an admin, would you accept? I truly believe you are exactly the kind of contributor we need to get the tools. Please let me know. Vassyana 11:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Vassyana. That's very kind of you, and I appreciate your trust. I certainly won't decline, but I think it would be wiser to postpone acceptance. I've looked at, and voted in, some RfAs, and I think a lot of people would automatically oppose someone who's here less than two months, with an encouraging "might support next time" remark. While it wouldn't upset me to be unsuccessful at this stage, I'd rather wait until I'm here three months. I'd also like to read up on how to do some of the stuff admins do. For example, there are a lot of different templates they seem to use when doing things like closing an AfD discussion, and I'd like to familiarise myself with these things. Perhaps in another month from now, if you still think I'd be suitable, you might nominate me then? In the meantime, many thanks again for your trust. ElinorD (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Let me know when you feel comfortable with it and I will nominate you without hesitation. That is, unless you have a traumatic brain injury than turns you from ideal editor to troll. ;o) Be well!!! Vassyana 01:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phillips

You're welcome. Thanks for drawing my attention to these BLP issues. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read ...

Thanks, Elinor, for your thoughtful post on my talk page. You seem like a nice person and you are always welcome to post on my talk page.

The problem I had is, I think, not related to any English-German interference, but the shortness of the post made it look rather sharp in my eyes (a longer wording, like you have posted it, wouldn't have had the same effect). You well know that the atmosphere on this page had become very heated (global warming anyone? ;-)) in the last few days. (Also, maybe I have spent too much time on Islam-related articles.) I will try to follow your advice in the future.

And thanks for the flowers (i.e. your flattering words about me being experienced etc.). I can only compliment you for your kind attitude. This will get you very far in the long run, but you will see what it will get you in a short while. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ x
^ Y

[1] x

[2] Y

[1]

[2]