I am a new Wikipedian, so I need alot of help. Will you be my mentor, or adopt me? Dachshundboy25 02:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on You Are What You Eat (UK TV show) and my talk page. I've been putting up with this guy for ages now and I'm glad for the help. :) Tartan 23:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you know why the Nicktropolis page was deleted under strange circumstances. Please tell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dachshundboy25 ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
Hi I am sorry if I should not have posted the comment and link at Wiki page. I just did not know where best to post the comment. I am enraged at the comments made in the news letter which goes out to many thousands of people. I just thought that a few emails to the contributors would not go amis. I just wondered if anyone would like to contact the authors of the articles contained in Delia Venable News Letter I did! Kind regard Ron Barker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ron Barker ( talk • contribs) 11:40, 16 March 2007.
Reason for reverting on Gillian McKeith? 198.96.134.61 12:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Have you considered joining any WikiProjects? Vassyana 16:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity, Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible, Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion, Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink. I see Real96 already gave you the main WikiProjects page. Be well!! Vassyana 00:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback on my editor review. It is sincerely appreciated and I will take your suggestions to heart, particularly about the user templates and enabling e-mail. The critical feedback is exactly what I was hoping to hear, believe it or not. Thank you again. Vassyana 23:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Elinor. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm a bit embarrassed that I made that mistake. After I got your message, I was hoping that the Institute, at the time that I created the article, was called the "Institute of Optimum Nutrition", and had only changed its name recently. But when I looked up one of my Patrick Holford books, which I owned at the time, it was quite clear that the Institute was called the Institute FOR Optimum Nutrition back then as well. Maybe it's because I work in an Institute OF something that I just filled in the preposition in my mind, without bothering to read it properly. Thanks for catching and fixing my mistake. The article has had the wrong title for over a year. (Groan) Musical L inguist 01:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the abuse (though I quite liked being described as pure evil; no-one's thought of me as pure anything for years...). I've left a couple of NPA warnings at their Talk page, but can't block them, given that it's aimed at me (according to a recent discussion at WP:AN/I). -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 14:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Hi Elinor, no worries. The best rule of thumb for BLP is — if in doubt, remove. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Hello Elinor D. I am Archimedes Plutonium. I have a gripe about the AP page because there is a reference to the Zantop murders by Tim Skirvin webpage. He is a incurable hatemonger of me. He has no business in editing my Wiki page. Elinor, can you please take a look at my Wiki page and see that reference of Zantop murders and the line that says " I am eccentric" does not belong what belongs on that page is OBJECTIVE data and OBJECTIVE references: Elinor, please remove the Zantop reference, and please consider this below as replacement:
Thanks for you attention —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.16.55.28 ( talk) 03:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
Greetings, Since you are not a party to the old User:Agapetos_angel dispute (that I know of), I believe I can count on your objective input. Can you explain to me what (1) constitutes an "attack page", (2) how the recent "sarfati" page you voted on constitutes such a page, and (3) what I can do to that page to remove its status as such. In Good Faith, -- Otheus 22:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC) PS: The point may be moot, but my question is not. [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otheus ( talk • contribs) 10:02, 19 March 2007. One last time: please respond to my query. A non-response might be considered as your having voted in bad faith. -- Otheus 09:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice article, Elinor. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Thank you for pointing out to me Wikipedia's guidelines I promise to be neutral more in the future. Kindly, Encyclone —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Encylone ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC). ... and I replied here. -- Keesiewonder talk 00:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Good idea about the category. You might want to reconsider the name, however, as "mothers accused of killing their babies" will catch those who did it, and those who didn't, as well as those who did but who were given very harsh penalties (e.g. acts of infanticide attracting murder convictions). "Mothers falsely accused of killing their babies" might be better: if a court overturns a conviction, it means the accusation can be regarded by us as false, even though the court has not explicitly said so. Or "wrongfully accused" if that's better English (not sure whether it is). As for Donna Anthony, yes there's plenty of material about her that would make a good article. She's definitely notable enough. And as for that pediatrician, the word "controversial" could have been made for him. :-( SlimVirgin (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my page. -- Nlu ( talk) 04:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind reviewing the two food articles on the Good Article candidate list? WP:GAC could always use a little help and I thought your food interest might be helpful. You can check the two articles currently listed under the food category right here. Vassyana 15:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that — similar opinions had been expressed at WP:AN/I in the recent past, but I didn't have time to look for them. Bits of the discussion further down the page are depressingly familiar though, with at least one person doing a good job of talking nonsense in a calm, confident, and authoritative manner. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 21:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC) ...for reverting the vandalism at my user page. — Wknight94 ( talk) 14:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Guettarda 23:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Please revisit the discussion. Uncle G 10:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks for your help on those pesky vandals at Talk:Main Page :) -- Spe bi 22:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the offer to help. The best thing to do would be to start at the top of the user's image contribs list, and start working your way down. I'm working from the bottom up. If there is a source, and the source has nothing about being freely licensed, use {{ imagevio}}. If the there is no source, subst: {{ nsd}}. If there is anything confusing (for instance, the image looks old, or he has claimed that the copyright belongs to him but it doesn't appear to be a personal photo), use {{ PUI-disputed}}. Don't bother notify the user; I've already left more than a dozen messages and a note that every image is a problem. Thanks again! Jkelly 21:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Much appreciated. ;^) Crum375 21:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC) I am very new to wikipedia, and i created an article named Urodela I need to cite the sources and some other stuff will you help me? Thank You, Love, Satrohraj. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.93.89.200 ( talk) 09:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC). Dear Elinor, here is the help you requested: "Problems with this link are being discussed at English Wikipedia and also at Meta." would literally translate to: "Probleme mit diesem Link were gerade in der englisch(sprachig)en Wikipedia und Meta-Wiki diskutiert." However, as an edit summary I would put something shorter, more concise and also more explanatory: "Entf(erne) problematischen Link - wird gerade auf der englischen WP und Meta-Wiki diskutiert." (R(e)m(ove) problematic link - currently discussed at English WP and Meta) Hope this helps. Let me tell you. Though I am German I feel clumsy when I edit the German WP because I am so used to the English terms. Str1977 (smile back) 06:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC) You can see from archive.org that deathcamps.org is the original since 2002 and therefore not violating any copy rights. -- Simplicius 11:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Your honest feedback would be welcome if you would take a look at a WikiProject proposal I have in my user subpages. It's designed for "reviwers" who participate in processes like editor reviews and request for feedback. Please let me know what you think. Vassyana 10:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC) I agree with all your examples, in fact (well, you'd expect me to really). My problem arises when people seem determined to find some way for a name to be offensive (look at the recent fiasco over "TortureIsWrong", with one argument being put forward that it might be offensive to a bondage-fetishist, or something of the sort, and "PrettyYoungThing" [I think it was] being accused of inciting sexual lust, or something of the sort; those are extreme examples, but they're at the extreme end of a disturbing spectrum of cases). A few people at WP:RFCN devote themselves to finding reasons for rejecting names, and that might push people like me a little too far the other way — though I try not to let it do so. It's often difficult to believe that they're serious (as when someone wrote of "Canister of Death": "it scares me"), but they're sometimes the first experience new users have of Wikipedia, and it's not a pretty sight. On another issue, HighInBC has closed discussions in line with his way of thinking, and insisted that he was right to do so because, though the numbers went against his decisions, the people on the other side were going against policy; well, that's not how Wikipedia works. The bullying tactics at the RFCN page are sometimes appalling, and as no-one outside the page is very concerned, I try to keep some sort of balance by expressing myself equally strongly and persistently. It's not ideal, but I don't know what else to do. I don't know if that goes any way towards bringing us closer to an understanding... -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 12:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Funny you should say that — I'd been thinking it myself. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 20:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
... well caught! :) - Alison ☺ 17:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Would you please let me know why you deleted my insertion of a page on St Pixels online church. Regards Kacey110 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kacey110 ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 3 April 2007.
Hi Elinor, Thanks for your help. Best wishes. Kacey110 07:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Kacey Hey Elinor, thank you very much for reverting the vandalism on my talk page yesterday. I've been noticing you around a lot and I agree with Vassyana who suggested you consider an RfA. I understand wanting to wait until you have been here longer, but I think you would make an outstanding administrator and if you are ever looking for a nominator or co-nominator, I would be honoured to write a nomination for you. :) Cheers, Sarah 04:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
As you know, I probably do count as more tolerant than many concerning User names, but in this case I agree with you that Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć should be changed. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 11:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The full answer is simple. Personally, I oppose linking to those pages. I believe that should be policy, and I can be persuaded to help make it policy. In borderline cases, I prefer to err on the side of caution and support the personal safety of our users. On the other hand, a more comprehensive strategy, rather than the whim of a single admin, should be developed to deal with precisely these issues. Yes, if someone acted in any way that would endanger an admin, I would act immediately. In fact, I have in the past (one of the first controversial blocks I made was to someone who posted identifying information about Angela, long before she was a board member). Danny 11:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC) You had expressed some interest before in volunteering to help clean up copyright problems. There's a mess at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Plagiarism_and_copyright_infringement_denied, if you're still interested. Jkelly 03:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that commons:WikiProject Tree of Life has some people who help users identify animal photographs. They seem to currently be engaged in a long dispute over categories. Perhaps they would like an interruption. Jkelly 01:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Hi, I nominated the John Billings article for the DYK section, and it was approved. Thanks for your work in starting and writing most of the article. Recurring dreams 06:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I have made some commemts on your deletions (of the references to the Belgian Revolution and the print article in Grove) in the talk section of the article. Perhaps you would like to respond? The article is only a stub, but there are some important editing issues we need to discuss. Best regards. - Kleinzach 23:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Mangoe has filed for arbitration about Wikipedia:Attack sites at this address. We are named parties. - Denny ( talk) 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC) I recently recieved a message from you about stopping vandalizing things 'n stuff. I just though I'd let you know that you sent it to the wrong person, as I, personally, have no interest it changing topics about... mushrooms? Anyway, I suppose you might want to send it to the right person or something. -- 68.211.148.18 00:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The photo of your ice cream is OK I suppose — but it would have been much better if it had been coffee ice cream (or honey and ginger, or pistachio, or coconut...). Any chance of a picture of your hand holding a coffee ice cream? -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 11:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I've never been keen on strawberry ice cream, but I'm willing to believe that yours would change my mind. If no coffee were available. My favourite coffee ice cream was in Athens; it was called koronaki [referring to the "crown" on a Turkish coffee"] — delicious. My favourite ice was a water ice in Lefkosia, Cyprus: lemon and rose flavours... -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 21:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC) I love drinking coffee and actually, my great uncle is very famous in Australia as a coffee importer and manufacturer, but I'm with your kids, Elinor. I live on coffee, especially when I'm on night duty, but I don't like it as a ice cream flavour. Yuck!! Strawberry ice cream, now you're talking! Sarah 23:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone has broken out the 'rejected' tag. - Denny ( talk) 20:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Seems like this issue was archived prematurely. Keesiewonder talk 19:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Elinor D - thank you for constantly fixing vandalized pages like mushroom. Heliocybe 12:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note on my Talk page! I appreciate your kind words. Most editors don't really think twice about tasks like talk page archiving. Such tasks are kind of akin to oiling the machinery that makes Wikipedia run, and they become second nature after you've done them long enough. My one hope as a Wikipedian is that I've successfully managed to leave my POV at the doorstep. I remember KillerChihuahua commenting one time (I've seen you post on her User talk page) that she had been suspected of being both a liberal and a conservative, a pro-lifer and a pro-choicer, and that she took that as indication that she was doing doing her job right. That's for what I'd aim ideally. If you edit with someone for a long enough period of time, then you can sort of begin to discern the shape of a POV behind even the firmest committment to NPOV, but it's still good to keep 'em guessing, I say (or at least to try). On an unrelated note — and I know this is a long shot — is your username a reference to Elinor Dashwood? Because Jane Austen is on my watchlist and your name has popped up a couple of times. - Severa ( !!!) 11:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
How can you say that what I wrote was vandalism? What was it about it that made it offensive? I was putting another point of view across, that which I share with millions of others, concisely and with no reference to anything childish or moronic, vis a vis, for example, The Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. I was just trying to bring some equality onto the page. Are you so childish that you cannot take into account other peoples' ideas, beliefs or thoughts? Yours, Matthew. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MatthewVet ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 20 April 2007.
You have e-mail. -- Iamunknown 22:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
|
I am a new Wikipedian, so I need alot of help. Will you be my mentor, or adopt me? Dachshundboy25 02:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on You Are What You Eat (UK TV show) and my talk page. I've been putting up with this guy for ages now and I'm glad for the help. :) Tartan 23:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you know why the Nicktropolis page was deleted under strange circumstances. Please tell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dachshundboy25 ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
Hi I am sorry if I should not have posted the comment and link at Wiki page. I just did not know where best to post the comment. I am enraged at the comments made in the news letter which goes out to many thousands of people. I just thought that a few emails to the contributors would not go amis. I just wondered if anyone would like to contact the authors of the articles contained in Delia Venable News Letter I did! Kind regard Ron Barker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ron Barker ( talk • contribs) 11:40, 16 March 2007.
Reason for reverting on Gillian McKeith? 198.96.134.61 12:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Have you considered joining any WikiProjects? Vassyana 16:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity, Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible, Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion, Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink. I see Real96 already gave you the main WikiProjects page. Be well!! Vassyana 00:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback on my editor review. It is sincerely appreciated and I will take your suggestions to heart, particularly about the user templates and enabling e-mail. The critical feedback is exactly what I was hoping to hear, believe it or not. Thank you again. Vassyana 23:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Elinor. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm a bit embarrassed that I made that mistake. After I got your message, I was hoping that the Institute, at the time that I created the article, was called the "Institute of Optimum Nutrition", and had only changed its name recently. But when I looked up one of my Patrick Holford books, which I owned at the time, it was quite clear that the Institute was called the Institute FOR Optimum Nutrition back then as well. Maybe it's because I work in an Institute OF something that I just filled in the preposition in my mind, without bothering to read it properly. Thanks for catching and fixing my mistake. The article has had the wrong title for over a year. (Groan) Musical L inguist 01:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the abuse (though I quite liked being described as pure evil; no-one's thought of me as pure anything for years...). I've left a couple of NPA warnings at their Talk page, but can't block them, given that it's aimed at me (according to a recent discussion at WP:AN/I). -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 14:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Hi Elinor, no worries. The best rule of thumb for BLP is — if in doubt, remove. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Hello Elinor D. I am Archimedes Plutonium. I have a gripe about the AP page because there is a reference to the Zantop murders by Tim Skirvin webpage. He is a incurable hatemonger of me. He has no business in editing my Wiki page. Elinor, can you please take a look at my Wiki page and see that reference of Zantop murders and the line that says " I am eccentric" does not belong what belongs on that page is OBJECTIVE data and OBJECTIVE references: Elinor, please remove the Zantop reference, and please consider this below as replacement:
Thanks for you attention —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.16.55.28 ( talk) 03:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
Greetings, Since you are not a party to the old User:Agapetos_angel dispute (that I know of), I believe I can count on your objective input. Can you explain to me what (1) constitutes an "attack page", (2) how the recent "sarfati" page you voted on constitutes such a page, and (3) what I can do to that page to remove its status as such. In Good Faith, -- Otheus 22:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC) PS: The point may be moot, but my question is not. [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otheus ( talk • contribs) 10:02, 19 March 2007. One last time: please respond to my query. A non-response might be considered as your having voted in bad faith. -- Otheus 09:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice article, Elinor. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Thank you for pointing out to me Wikipedia's guidelines I promise to be neutral more in the future. Kindly, Encyclone —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Encylone ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC). ... and I replied here. -- Keesiewonder talk 00:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Good idea about the category. You might want to reconsider the name, however, as "mothers accused of killing their babies" will catch those who did it, and those who didn't, as well as those who did but who were given very harsh penalties (e.g. acts of infanticide attracting murder convictions). "Mothers falsely accused of killing their babies" might be better: if a court overturns a conviction, it means the accusation can be regarded by us as false, even though the court has not explicitly said so. Or "wrongfully accused" if that's better English (not sure whether it is). As for Donna Anthony, yes there's plenty of material about her that would make a good article. She's definitely notable enough. And as for that pediatrician, the word "controversial" could have been made for him. :-( SlimVirgin (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my page. -- Nlu ( talk) 04:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind reviewing the two food articles on the Good Article candidate list? WP:GAC could always use a little help and I thought your food interest might be helpful. You can check the two articles currently listed under the food category right here. Vassyana 15:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that — similar opinions had been expressed at WP:AN/I in the recent past, but I didn't have time to look for them. Bits of the discussion further down the page are depressingly familiar though, with at least one person doing a good job of talking nonsense in a calm, confident, and authoritative manner. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 21:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC) ...for reverting the vandalism at my user page. — Wknight94 ( talk) 14:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Guettarda 23:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Please revisit the discussion. Uncle G 10:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks for your help on those pesky vandals at Talk:Main Page :) -- Spe bi 22:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the offer to help. The best thing to do would be to start at the top of the user's image contribs list, and start working your way down. I'm working from the bottom up. If there is a source, and the source has nothing about being freely licensed, use {{ imagevio}}. If the there is no source, subst: {{ nsd}}. If there is anything confusing (for instance, the image looks old, or he has claimed that the copyright belongs to him but it doesn't appear to be a personal photo), use {{ PUI-disputed}}. Don't bother notify the user; I've already left more than a dozen messages and a note that every image is a problem. Thanks again! Jkelly 21:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Much appreciated. ;^) Crum375 21:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC) I am very new to wikipedia, and i created an article named Urodela I need to cite the sources and some other stuff will you help me? Thank You, Love, Satrohraj. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.93.89.200 ( talk) 09:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC). Dear Elinor, here is the help you requested: "Problems with this link are being discussed at English Wikipedia and also at Meta." would literally translate to: "Probleme mit diesem Link were gerade in der englisch(sprachig)en Wikipedia und Meta-Wiki diskutiert." However, as an edit summary I would put something shorter, more concise and also more explanatory: "Entf(erne) problematischen Link - wird gerade auf der englischen WP und Meta-Wiki diskutiert." (R(e)m(ove) problematic link - currently discussed at English WP and Meta) Hope this helps. Let me tell you. Though I am German I feel clumsy when I edit the German WP because I am so used to the English terms. Str1977 (smile back) 06:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC) You can see from archive.org that deathcamps.org is the original since 2002 and therefore not violating any copy rights. -- Simplicius 11:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Your honest feedback would be welcome if you would take a look at a WikiProject proposal I have in my user subpages. It's designed for "reviwers" who participate in processes like editor reviews and request for feedback. Please let me know what you think. Vassyana 10:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC) I agree with all your examples, in fact (well, you'd expect me to really). My problem arises when people seem determined to find some way for a name to be offensive (look at the recent fiasco over "TortureIsWrong", with one argument being put forward that it might be offensive to a bondage-fetishist, or something of the sort, and "PrettyYoungThing" [I think it was] being accused of inciting sexual lust, or something of the sort; those are extreme examples, but they're at the extreme end of a disturbing spectrum of cases). A few people at WP:RFCN devote themselves to finding reasons for rejecting names, and that might push people like me a little too far the other way — though I try not to let it do so. It's often difficult to believe that they're serious (as when someone wrote of "Canister of Death": "it scares me"), but they're sometimes the first experience new users have of Wikipedia, and it's not a pretty sight. On another issue, HighInBC has closed discussions in line with his way of thinking, and insisted that he was right to do so because, though the numbers went against his decisions, the people on the other side were going against policy; well, that's not how Wikipedia works. The bullying tactics at the RFCN page are sometimes appalling, and as no-one outside the page is very concerned, I try to keep some sort of balance by expressing myself equally strongly and persistently. It's not ideal, but I don't know what else to do. I don't know if that goes any way towards bringing us closer to an understanding... -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 12:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Funny you should say that — I'd been thinking it myself. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 20:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
... well caught! :) - Alison ☺ 17:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Would you please let me know why you deleted my insertion of a page on St Pixels online church. Regards Kacey110 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kacey110 ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 3 April 2007.
Hi Elinor, Thanks for your help. Best wishes. Kacey110 07:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Kacey Hey Elinor, thank you very much for reverting the vandalism on my talk page yesterday. I've been noticing you around a lot and I agree with Vassyana who suggested you consider an RfA. I understand wanting to wait until you have been here longer, but I think you would make an outstanding administrator and if you are ever looking for a nominator or co-nominator, I would be honoured to write a nomination for you. :) Cheers, Sarah 04:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
As you know, I probably do count as more tolerant than many concerning User names, but in this case I agree with you that Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć should be changed. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 11:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The full answer is simple. Personally, I oppose linking to those pages. I believe that should be policy, and I can be persuaded to help make it policy. In borderline cases, I prefer to err on the side of caution and support the personal safety of our users. On the other hand, a more comprehensive strategy, rather than the whim of a single admin, should be developed to deal with precisely these issues. Yes, if someone acted in any way that would endanger an admin, I would act immediately. In fact, I have in the past (one of the first controversial blocks I made was to someone who posted identifying information about Angela, long before she was a board member). Danny 11:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC) You had expressed some interest before in volunteering to help clean up copyright problems. There's a mess at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Plagiarism_and_copyright_infringement_denied, if you're still interested. Jkelly 03:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that commons:WikiProject Tree of Life has some people who help users identify animal photographs. They seem to currently be engaged in a long dispute over categories. Perhaps they would like an interruption. Jkelly 01:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Hi, I nominated the John Billings article for the DYK section, and it was approved. Thanks for your work in starting and writing most of the article. Recurring dreams 06:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I have made some commemts on your deletions (of the references to the Belgian Revolution and the print article in Grove) in the talk section of the article. Perhaps you would like to respond? The article is only a stub, but there are some important editing issues we need to discuss. Best regards. - Kleinzach 23:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Mangoe has filed for arbitration about Wikipedia:Attack sites at this address. We are named parties. - Denny ( talk) 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC) I recently recieved a message from you about stopping vandalizing things 'n stuff. I just though I'd let you know that you sent it to the wrong person, as I, personally, have no interest it changing topics about... mushrooms? Anyway, I suppose you might want to send it to the right person or something. -- 68.211.148.18 00:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The photo of your ice cream is OK I suppose — but it would have been much better if it had been coffee ice cream (or honey and ginger, or pistachio, or coconut...). Any chance of a picture of your hand holding a coffee ice cream? -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 11:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I've never been keen on strawberry ice cream, but I'm willing to believe that yours would change my mind. If no coffee were available. My favourite coffee ice cream was in Athens; it was called koronaki [referring to the "crown" on a Turkish coffee"] — delicious. My favourite ice was a water ice in Lefkosia, Cyprus: lemon and rose flavours... -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 21:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC) I love drinking coffee and actually, my great uncle is very famous in Australia as a coffee importer and manufacturer, but I'm with your kids, Elinor. I live on coffee, especially when I'm on night duty, but I don't like it as a ice cream flavour. Yuck!! Strawberry ice cream, now you're talking! Sarah 23:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone has broken out the 'rejected' tag. - Denny ( talk) 20:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Seems like this issue was archived prematurely. Keesiewonder talk 19:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Elinor D - thank you for constantly fixing vandalized pages like mushroom. Heliocybe 12:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note on my Talk page! I appreciate your kind words. Most editors don't really think twice about tasks like talk page archiving. Such tasks are kind of akin to oiling the machinery that makes Wikipedia run, and they become second nature after you've done them long enough. My one hope as a Wikipedian is that I've successfully managed to leave my POV at the doorstep. I remember KillerChihuahua commenting one time (I've seen you post on her User talk page) that she had been suspected of being both a liberal and a conservative, a pro-lifer and a pro-choicer, and that she took that as indication that she was doing doing her job right. That's for what I'd aim ideally. If you edit with someone for a long enough period of time, then you can sort of begin to discern the shape of a POV behind even the firmest committment to NPOV, but it's still good to keep 'em guessing, I say (or at least to try). On an unrelated note — and I know this is a long shot — is your username a reference to Elinor Dashwood? Because Jane Austen is on my watchlist and your name has popped up a couple of times. - Severa ( !!!) 11:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
How can you say that what I wrote was vandalism? What was it about it that made it offensive? I was putting another point of view across, that which I share with millions of others, concisely and with no reference to anything childish or moronic, vis a vis, for example, The Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. I was just trying to bring some equality onto the page. Are you so childish that you cannot take into account other peoples' ideas, beliefs or thoughts? Yours, Matthew. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MatthewVet ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 20 April 2007.
You have e-mail. -- Iamunknown 22:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
|