This user may have left Wikipedia. ElinorD has not edited Wikipedia since 9 December 2008. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Welcome to my Talk Page!
I will normally respond here, but if you'd like me to reply on your talk page, please let me know.
If I post on your page, I will notice any reply you leave for me there, but if you prefer to respond here, that's fine.
If you disagree with an edit I have just made to an article, it's quite likely that I'm in the process of typing a post on the article talk page, so please wait before complaining here!
I normally archive my talk page when it has about fifty threads.
The design of this talk page (and of my user page) was a gift from Phaedriel.
Hello, I couldn't find a statement anywhere that it had been provided for public usage so removed the tagging. I had believed the uploader of the image just did not know how to tag the image so I tried to help. Sorry about the confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shehzadashiq (talk • contribs) 13:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please hlep me understand why a photo I took and uploaded was removed? The filename was Brianba20.JPG. It was linked to the Model military vehicle article. I haven't been able to find any history of the file being questioned nor any inquiry on my talk page asking about the status of the file. If I forgot to note the ownership of the file, OK, I can do that as I did with all my other images - but there was no warning given that I can find.
I've seen you edit some of the copyright tag articles. Do you know what the tag for a public-domain UK/GB image is? This one is labelled US PD, but is inappropriate (both the author and jurisdiction would be UK). Please reply on my talk page. Thanks, John Smith's20:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I know that User:Mattisse was found to have used some sock puppets years ago. However I feel something should happen to acknowledge the fact that Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mattisse was invalid as the two people who supposedly had tried to resolve a dispute were in fact one user, and the whole RfC was set up by the notorious User:Ekajati. Also Mattisse doesn't seem to have used any sockpuppets for about a year. There is another RfC about her so it's not like she would be whitewashed, but "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. " In this case they were the same user and proven to be so. I know that she feels that this RfC hangs over her head. So is there anything an admin could do? Such as delete/delist/permanently archive this rather invalid RfC?Merkinsmum19:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion of "Image:Portrait of a Killer cover.jpg"
Hey, the deletion log for this file says you deleted this file. Can you please make an effort to not just delete things willy nilly, here, as there was no valid reason to remove this file. It was the cover of a book, used in an article about that book, for clear Fair Use reasons. If it wasn't tagged as such (probably because it had been uploaded before such tags existed), the description should have been there or the rationale should have been completely obvious. If you weren't going to take the time to examine whether it should stay or not, you could have at least made the effort to contact people involved with the page or who uploaded the file. Not doing so is a complete waste of time for everyone involved. If the image can be undeleted, please do so, and please revert your removal of the image from the article. If that is not possible, maybe you'd like to go back to Amazon, find the full size image, download it, and reupload it with the correct tag and put it back in the article. It only seems fair that you take your time to undo what you did improperly. DreamGuy19:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE: 07:39, 23 October 2007 ElinorD (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Vonbraun-portrait.jpg" (Speedy deleted per (CSD I4), was an image lacking sources or licensing information for more than seven days. using TW)
Like you, I'm busy in Real Life, too. ;-)
Image of Dr. von Braun is (was) an official NASA photograph. NASA, the National Aeronautics & Space Administration is an agency of the Federal Government, and as such holds no copyright over the image (as are all NASA images)
WSpaceport02:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found this warning quite rude. However, let me assume some good faith that you did not give me, and explain why I did what I did. I know for a fact that the anonymous editor who posted this is a sock of another editor. I don't usually comment to someone as reprehensible as Ferrylodge, but given the sock, and the false accusation of another highly respected admin as a sock, it deserved a comment. You should have given me more good faith on this point, and quite possibly asked me what was my reasoning at a minimum. Threatening me with a block was just not right. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions00:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most damaging aspects of a disruptive editor — second only to how they burn out constructive editors — is that they often succeed in turning editors who would otherwise work very well together against each other. As the saying goes, "United we stand, divided we fall."
While I don't condone discourteous remarks to Ferrylodge, Ferrylodge has been anything but civil in the the past 11 months, something which the topic ban ArbCom currently seems to be leaning toward won't address in the least (nor will it address the POINT-ish edits, really, because they haven't been limited to just abortion- and pregnancy-related articles: Talk:Terri Schiavo and Talk:African American). The point is that, given the current situation, Ferrylodge should be treading a lot more carefully, but he's still coming on just as strong as ever. He doesn't know when to let things go, pushing Andrew c to the point of retreat yet again just yesterday,[1] and last week accusing me of "soapbox[ing] and propagandiz[ing]" for an unintentional error in formatting I made in January,[2] instead of just owning up to his own pattern of ideologically-motivated editing and trying to move past it. I think Andrew c was correct in his observation that Ferrylodge responds to criticism by pointing the finger right back at the critic.[3] If Ferrylodge won't even admit, let alone work to address, all the issues surrounding his conduct on Wikipedia, I don't see the ArbCom case as achieving much.
I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herbytalk thyme10:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My earlier accusations against you and calls for desysopping
I know it's a bit late as of now, but I never actually apologized to you about my accusations regarding your actions in deleting the File:Apo-crest.jpg, and my calls for desysopping. In retrospect, I went a bit too far here (like, WAY too far), and I was wrong, and I apologize about that. I see now that you do quite good work on Wikipedia, and hope you continue that work in the future.
As I look back on the situation, I think that what happened was that the user's talk page that was notified about the copyright problems was an inactive user, and posting a message to the article's talk page in addition to that user's talk page would have prevented the whole situation. But alas, that's just my observation. I trust your judgment in dealing with these issues. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elinor, I did a short article on Leeds International School back in October and checked it just now to find you (I think) had removed the picture that goes with it. It's no big deal, but I was just wondering why you did it? Is it a standard policy to remove pictures from rarely visited pages? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixgrey88 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 9 January 2008
Hi, I've looked into it. You uploaded the image on 27 September, but didn't add a copyright tag. We need the correct templates to show that an image is in the public domain, or released under a free licence, or that a good case can be made for invoking "fair use" for it. A bot came and marked it with {{untagged}} an hour later. The bot also left a note on your talk page, telling you where to look for information about appropriate copyright tags, and where to ask for help if you were stuck, but you seem not to have been on Wikipedia since then, so you missed the message until it was too late. Images that have the {{untagged}} on them go into a queue for automatic deletion, after an appropriate amount of time has passed to allow the uploader or another interested party to supply the missing information and remove the template. If that doesn't happen, and administrator, working through the backlog, will delete it, along with dozens, or even hundreds, of others. I deleted it on 5 October, when I was working my way through images waiting to be deleted. I'm rather busy at the moment, so I can't help you much, but if you want to upload it again, or if you'd like me to undelete it, just say so. But in that case, you'll need to put the correct tag (probably {{Non-free logo}} on it, and to explain why you feel that the use of it in that article is fair use. The information the bot left on your talk page should help you in finding where to find out more and where to ask questions. Cheers. ElinorD(talk)01:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heya Elinor! Just stumbled upon your page and saw that you have a penchant for making fresh bread. Nomnomnom.... I've been in a bit of a baking mood as of late and was wondering if you had any recipes to share? So far I'm up to banana bread in fanciness level ;) All the best, ~Eliz81(C)04:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello little Elinor! 'Zilla finally admin! [6] Bishapod go splat, little 'shonen locked in cellar, but STILL happiest day of Zilla life! (see Zilla page for details, don't tell gullible stewards!) Already done block! Considering standing for bureaucrat, little El support (HINT HINT)? bishzillaROARR!!22:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Elections are now taking place for coordinators of the project for the next six months. Any editors interested in seeking a coordinator position, or who want a say in who is selected, should indicate as much here.
Member news
The project has currently 381 members, 69 joined & 0 leavers since the start of March 2008.
Other news
The project's long-time lead coordinator, Kevinalewis, has announced he is not standing as a candidate for another term in that capacity. We would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to him for the extraordinary work he has done for this project.
Welcome to the Twenty Third issue of the Novels WikiProject's newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do.
We would encourage all members to get more involved and if you are wondering what with, please ask.
Last month's challenge (South Wind) was completed by member User:Blathnaid with a nice starting stub.
The first person to start the article is mentioned in the next newsletter. This month's article is Kate Christensen's 2008 PEN/Faulkner award winner The Great Man.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
Last summer you were involved in blocking User:Nleobold -- I forget whether it was only for a day or if there was a permanent ban involved. Some discussion is at User talk:ElinorD/Archive05#Your block of Nleobold. Anyway, this user is back, as an anon, making the same completely improper edits to the same target articles, Jerrold Nadler (edit) and Deborah Glick (edit). I've rolled him back, but I'm not an admin and can't do any more than patrol the articles. I'll also alert User:Dogru144, who helped fend off Nleobold's last attack. If you could join in keeping an eye on these articles, and be ready with any warnings or blocks that may be appropriate, that would be great. Thanks for any help you can give! JamesMLanetc07:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXIV - May 2008
The May 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. SteveCrossinBot (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently deleted this image, which was the lead image for the article Fairey Gannet - I notice that no warning was left on the page - with the first warning people who were watching the page got of any problems was the photo actually being deleted. Please consider giving the editors of articles a chance to fix problems in future rather than just drive by deletion.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The person who uploaded the image was warned a week ago.[7] If you think you can tag the image appropriately, either to show that it's public domain (or otherwise has a free licence) or to claim a valid fair use for it, I'll be happy to undelete. ElinorD(talk)22:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Little El suddenly all over zilla watchlist, hooray! ['Zilla affectionately stuff little Elinor in pocket of Spiderman suit, leap nimbly from ledge to ledge up Reichstag] Hold on tight! bishzillaROARR!!21:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Hi Elinor, I see you have replaced some more of SlimVirgin's talk page. Unfortunately I see one edit is missing, which was here, where I pointed out the pages to which SV had recently followed me. Was there a reason for omitting this one, or have I missed it? I believe it was February 2007. Thanks and regards, Mackan79 (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hi Elinor,
Susham bedi is an author, she has a wikipedia page. The picture of her on that page was provided by the author (susham bedi) herself to be used freely by anyone. That is the image I uploaded to her wikipedia page. That picture has been deleted numerous times and I dont know why. I'm not a wikipedia expert. I've navigated the labyrinth of licensing tag information on wikipedia and inasmuch as it made any sense to me I've tried to choose the right tags that reflect this situation (where the subject herself has taken a picture of herself and provided that for free for anyone to use). I dont know if I got the tags right, but that is the situation. If I didnt get the tags right, please help me get the tags right, rather than removing the pic altogether via 'speedy deletion'. I have to say its a bit frustrating to have to continuously fix this page for the picture or to navigate the labyrinth of legal mumbo jumbo just to put a free picture up on a free page... ;) Anyhow if the situation is wrong now, please help me get get it right. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jak68 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXV - June 2008
The June 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. SteveBot(owner)00:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem very up on this. I wonder what the deal is with images on Wp. It's so frustrating. For the sake an ideological stance on fair use, literally of masses of stuff has not photo. This is absurd. It seems Jimbo's idea, that we need to change the game and get images on free use, has totally crushed value of the end-user experience.
WikiProject Novels is currently holding a roll call, which we hope to have annually. Your username is listed on the members list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active within the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:Novels editor, please add your name back to the Active Members list. Also feel free to join any of our task forces and take a look at the project's Job Centre to get involved!
The members list is currently under review so we have moved all past active member's name to a Incumbent List and are doing a Project Roll Call. If you still consider yourself an active WP:NOVELS editor, please add your name back to the Active Members List. You may also wish to add your name to any of our many Project Task Forces.
Devil May Care, written by Sebastian Faulks ("writing as Ian Fleming"), has become Penguin Books fastest selling hardcover fiction title. It is the latest installment in the book series about British secret agent James Bond and was released to coincide with the 100th anniversary of late Bond creator Ian Fleming's birthday on May 28, 1908.
Me Cheeta: the Autobiography, written by a ghostwriter, is the autobiography of Cheeta the Chimp who is listed in the Guinness World Records as the oldest recorded non-human primate at the age of 76. He has appeared in various movie roles which included twelve Tarzan movies and even battled addiction to alcohol and cigars. The book is not published until October 1, but judges for the 2008 Guardian First Book Award were sent a early version and were so impressed that they have included it on the 10-strong longlist.
Stephenie Meyer, who is listed by Time magazine as one of its 100 most influential people of 2008, has decided not to continue with writing her draft for Midnight Sun after 12 chapters of the unfinished manuscript were leaked on the internet.
Current debates
Categories for Discussion has a series of discussions about whether to categorize certain specific types of fictional characters: double agents, dictators, characters with eidetic memory, etc. Advice from any Novels project members would be valuable in assisting them.
WikiProject Media franchises aims to help editors with the coordination of articles within the thousands of media franchises which exist and has requested input from our members. They are currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in our Novel project, they would like to get opinions before implimenting any changes.
With the Newsletter being almost three months overdue, I have decided to take on the position of Editor to make sure it reaches you regularly on time each month. The Newsletter is meant to inspire and encourage our team of Editors and so my goal shall be to make it informative and interesting each issue.
We now have many positions vacant in our Project Team, so we are looking for members who have the time and interest to take on the various roles, details of which can be found at the Job Centre. Shortly a Coordinator nominations notice shall also be sent out to all members, which will commence the annual Coordinator selection process.
Next month's Newsletter will include a message from our Coordinator Maria, who will introduce herself and speak on our forthcoming elections for extra Coordinators.
This month's Collaboration has been selected by popular vote and is Look Homeward, Angel. The next collaboration is due for selection on 14 September, 2008 so cast your vote.
Newsletter challenge
Our last newsletter's challenge The Pure Land was completed by our member Maclean25, who also provided us with tipline news for this newsletter.
The first person to start the article is mentioned in the next newsletter. This month's article is Leslie Ann Moore's first book in her fantasy 'Griffin's Daughter' trilogy, which was named by the Independent Book Publishers Association as the 2008 Ben Franklin Award winner for Best First Fiction, Griffin's Daughter. Note: This article was previously deleted due to lack of notability, but that now can be established since winning this award.
To unsubscribe from further issues of this newsletter please remove your name from here.
Thank you for uploading Image:Lladro.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
Thank you for uploading Image:Fontaninifigurines.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
Thank you for uploading Image:Fontaninicrib.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
You deleted Image:Timewarp.jpeg because it lacked a fair use rationale.
Could you please restore Image:Timewarp.jpeg and add to it the following rationale:
== Fair use image data ==
{{Non-free image data
|Description = Cover of [[The Time Warp of Dr. Brain]]
|Source = http://www.sierra.com/
|Portion = Game cover only.
|Low_resolution = Sufficient resolution for illustration, but considerably lower resolution than original.
|other_information = Intellectual property owned by {{#if: Sierra Entertainment | Sierra Entertainment | http://www.sierra.com/ }}.
}}
== Fair use rationale ==
{{Non-free image rationale
|Article = The Time Warp of Dr. Brain
|Purpose = Used for purposes of illustration in an educational article about the entity represented by the image.<br>The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of this article topic.
|Replaceability = Image is protected by copyright, therefore a free use alternative won't exist.
}}
== Licensing: ==
{{Non-free game cover}}
Thank you, Giano. There are times when the price of living with oneself after keeping silent seems higher than the price of speaking out, regardless of the consequences. ElinorD(talk)18:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct. I see they closed the page immediatly after you posted, and are now prepearing to excute the sentence. How bizarre it all is; I have a very grave feeling about it. I hope they know what they are doing. I rather suspect they do not. Giano (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to disagree with you there, and say the exact opposite. I hope they do not fully realise what they are doing, but I rather suspect they do - most of them anyway. :-( ElinorD(talk)18:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually missed your post, until Giano linked it to me. I'd like to respond to what you said here. Yes, some people were making a fuss about FT2 not knowing whether or not he should recuse. For the record, I agree with such a fuss. I would have given him an earful if he hadn't recused. But some people really were just jumping on the bangwagon and going "OMG FT2!!!", evidently without really being sure why they were doing that. But I appreciate your concerns. I hope this makes you feel a bit better about what I said. --Deskana(talk)05:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm pretty sure it isnt originally from Kipling[9], but it would be nice to see when he used it; it is so often attributed to him. A quick look around shows it is oft attributed to Lincoln[10], but the earliest verified printing of it is 1888, in a book by Abraham R. Howbert. It would be nice to trace this quote back through time; it's such an important concept. No doubt it will have roots into another language, like Latin. John Vandenberg(chat)00:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that interesting info. I remember searching unsuccessfully for that quotation in Kipling. I came across it in an Agatha Christie book, where one of the characters attributes it to Kipling. ElinorD(talk)00:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(It would be very interesting to trace "It's not over till the fat lady sings" back through time, too.) Your rapidly archived input on the RFAR page was brilliant, Elinor. I have posted a minor thought on FloNight's page, below MONGO. Bishonen | talk00:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I found "Nothing is ever settled ..." in a North American Review from 1884, [11] used to describe a view of Gladstone, though without saying that he had actually used those words. It's in History of the Oberlin-Wellington Rescue, 1859. The Making and the Unmaking of the Preacher by William Jewett Tucker (1898) attributes it to Charles Sumner, who died in 1874. SlimVirgintalk|edits05:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These issues are rather thick and sensitive, but recently you've been asking people to discuss them. So before forming an opinion may I raise a few questions and concerns? Posting here so as not to divert any other thread. Foremost, your very difficult position has my utmost respect.
Regarding the SlimVirgin-Lar case and SlimVirgin's conduct there, your statement says the Committee found her quick to make unwarranted accusations, and yet again reminded to use proper process. I ran a search for that phrase and couldn't find it anywhere on the page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar. The search failed at the word unwarranted. Nor does there appear to be any synonymous phrase. The findings that mention her specify shortcomings in her manner of raising the complaint, but remain silent on the merits (or lack thereof) of the complaint itself. You are in a far better position than I am to understand how much merit was there. Yet the way she raised the matter really doesn't appear to have furthered her best interests or yours: the public mailing list she chose was unequipped to resolve those sensitive issues and when another venue opened she was unprepared to back up the assertions. Or at least, much more tardy than customary. That is what, to my eye, the decision appears to be saying. Have I misread? DurovaCharge!05:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Durova, it's hard to explain what happened, in part because there are certain things we're apparently not allowed to say (and if we try to, the posts are deleted), and in part because the experience was somewhat Alice in Wonderland-esque and therefore not easy to describe.
In brief, Elinor and I complained to various people about a checkuser that we felt was a misuse of the tool. We were told other checkusers weren't interested in pursuing it; that the Ombudsmen weren't allowed to pursue it because they're only allowed to examine privacy policy violations; and that, although we could technically go to ArbCom, they were the same people who were saying, wearing their other hats, that they didn't care about it, so there was little point. When someone else did take it to ArbCom, they decided not only to hear the case in private, but not to allow any of the parties to see the evidence either. I declined to provide evidence in an atmosphere of such extreme secrecy. The ArbCom responded that they had to hear it in secret to protect the people who were checkusered — at which point those people publicly waived their right to privacy, but of course it made no difference.
Later, when the ArbCom ruled that I had behaved inappropriately by mentioning it on the mailing list without first going trying other avenues, and when I argued that I had indeed tried other avenues — which included asking Anthere to look at allowing the Ombudsmen to examine alleged checkuser misuse, and several e-mails to and from Jimbo — I was told (by FT2) that we had only approached the Ombudsmen informally, not formally, and that therefore it didn't count. That the informal approaches resulted in the Ombudsmen saying there could not be a formal approach apparently mattered not. The upshot was that my failure to trigger dispute resolution also meant that I hadn't tried to. I was therefore told off in the ArbCom's final decision. When I tried to post a defence of myself, it was deleted and the page was protected.
Of course there is an alternate view of these events, generally that despite lacking support for their suspicions and an inability to obtain such support, SV nevertheless went public with inflammatory accusations as if they did, including numerous highly inaccurate claims. I have just posted a list of some of these on FT2's talk page.[12] SV then continued to say that she was not given enough information to make a case, despite the accusations she continued to make. She then complained that she was not given enough time to present a case, but was given such time, and still did not provide evidence until a decision was proposed. Since then SV and ElinorD have sought to have the case in effect retried, while appealing to some principles of justice but ignoring others.
In all of this I think it may be pointed out that many of us have beliefs that perhaps we do not have enough evidence to publicly announce. Should everyone go ahead? I believe the consensus is no. If they went ahead without even acknowledging what was known and what was conjecture, then surely that is a bigger problem. I believe this is largely what the SV-Lar case was about. Mackan79 (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you write is not correct. Given that the correspondence was private, and that you had no access to it, how do you purport to know who was given enough time or not, who was given enough information or not, which claims were accurate and which not? SlimVirgintalk|edits08:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen your responses, in which I recall you saying that they eventually gave you more time, and at that point when prepared you again asked to see Lar's evidence so that you could write a response. I recall you saying that you were denied this request, and accordingly that you gave up on the case. I could look it up, but that is the basis for my comments above. As far as the claims that you made, I know some are false because they are about me, others because I was involved, or based on information that has now been shared. I wouldn't criticize you for that alone, but I can criticize you for making accusations even as you clearly knew that you did not have enough evidence to support them. I believe this is a point that Sam Blacketer also made.[13]Mackan79 (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't argue about this here, but I can assure you that I do have evidence for everything I've said, and that's why we all waived our privacy so that we could explain it all in public. But to no avail. Please don't criticize the parties who wanted transparency; if you have to criticize anyone, direct it to the ones who insisted you all be kept in the dark. SlimVirgintalk|edits09:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If so, I'm forced to rely on the arbitration committee to evaluate it. However, some of the claims were incorrect, particularly about me, but also that Lar had no basis whatsoever for checking Wikitumnus. I posted my basis for inquiring on the mailing list, which showed in the absence of something quite bizarre that Wikitumnus had removed a sock notice from Crum375's page while attempting to make it look like routine vandalism patrol, but in a way that could only have done by an involved user; this was one of a few issues with the account. Disregarding anything else, Crum375 had also just been blocked for behavior in an arbitration case quite peculiar for an administrator. A number of controversies have existed around this which could have justified a CU in looking into it. I'm personally reluctant to discuss all of it because I don't think anyone knows where a full public discussion would go, but as I said I do know that if you considered that you needed Lar's evidence in order to present your own, then that suggests the evidence in your possession did not in your view support an arbitration case. And I believe that supports, and indeed calls for ArbCom's findings insofar as they were offered. Mackan79 (talk) 10:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me; this thread seeks to cover specific pertinent questions that have not been addressed directly in other venues. The general narrative is not in need of reiteration. I would like an answer to the query I actually posted. Mackan79 and SV, if neither of you wish to answer it could you move your dialog elsewhere? DurovaCharge!16:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Durova, sorry for ignoring you. I've been busy today, and will probably be offline for at least a day. I endorse Slim's version. Yes, we both tried. We did raise the matter privately. The RfAr case may not have the word "unwarranted", but it repeatedly named Slim, using active voice, Slim made accusations, Slim didn't substantiate them, Slim was quick to make allegations but tardy in follow up. Slim's choice of forum was unhelpful. This was followed by a passive voice mention of the privacy policy, which didn't name the agent - a breach may have occurred. I think it was FT2, who, in filing the new motion against Slim, used the word "unwarranted", paraphrasing the earlier rulings.
Regarding the forum she chose, Slim went through the proper channels, but despite her best efforts, no progress was made. Then, in a moment of frustration, when Lar turned up to endorse a block against Tony Sidaway, who had been defending her (though not in a manner full of politeness towards WR people!), Slim made what I'll call a snide remark on the noticeboard. No time to look for diffs now. She basically told him to back off, and said she had had enough of his illicit use of checkuser and his wild spinning when caught. There was no reference whatsoever to me. Even so, I don't think I'd have made that remark, but I've been trolled much less than Slim, so I may have higher endurance levels before I tell someone to get stuffed! :-) What she said could easily have been just ignored, but another CU, privy to the discussion on the list, turned up to scold her, and then another, and more little bits slipped out, though not from Slim. Then David Katz NOT SLIMVIRGIN brought it up on the enwiki mailing list, saying that someone must have leaked logs to Slim and suggesting that she be indefinitely blocked until she said how she got the information. (She got it from me.) Slim replied on the list, defending herself. People attacked her and sneered at her. Jayjg said that Lar had told his wife. (Again, he had got that from me - no leaking of confidential discussion on his part.) Lar turned up and told a whole pile of tall stories about his wife's role in offering me "advice and counsel" (despite the fact that we've never encountered each other or sent each other message), and about her "prior involvement" in the case, based on statements I had supposedly previously made to both of them. I saw it and gasped, but stayed out of it. Maybe I should have come forward then. But I didn't, and Slim got more abuse, and finally the RfAr was filed.
So she didn't "choose" the public mailing list. She was criticized and attacked there after someone else brought it to that forum, and she defended herself with more truthfulness than sweetness. As for being unprepared to back up the assertions - she had already made it clear what the issues were - among them that Lar checkusered my sock on very flimsy evidence, that he checked Crum on the pretext of being Wikitumnus when he knew for a fact that he wasn't, that he passed on my identity to his wife, and that he invented a completely non-existent "counselling" relationship between his wife and me to justify his violation of the privacy policy. I do agree that it's unfortunate that Slim didn't submit evidence until just before the case closed, though I can understand her reasons. But consider that she knew ArbCom had the diff that showed the "evidence" that I was Crum" (my revert of vandalism/trolling from his page!!), that ArbCom had the logs showing that Lar checked Crum 38 minutes after finding out that I was Wikitumnus, why should she be criticized for not submitting that? Consider also that her statements that Lar was making up the counselling relationship and prior involvement were based on what I had told her. She could of course have submitted emails from me to her as evidence, where I told her that I had never had never addressed or sent messages to Lar's wife (nor she to me), but she knew that I had made those statements to ArbCom myself, and that I had submitted to ArbCom the relevant emails between Lar and me. So what would be the point? It would have come across as petty and sarcastic if she had submitted to ArbCom copies of what they had received from me, as evidence that I don't know Lar's wife. They knew she knew I had myself said that to them.
That is what I've heard happens- people submit evidence but then they're asked 'where is the evidence'? so they assume people don't think they evidence they are giving is enough, and stuff like that. Anyway Elinor I think you're flogging a dead horse- people aren't adressing the counselling bit which is either true or untrue, isn't it, it can't be a misunderstanding if E hadn't had anything to do with Lar's wife at all. So it's another instance where people seem to be turning a blind eye to something. StickyParkin01:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for that reply, Elinor. It does make more sense in the context of someone else raising the issue on the mailing list first. That mailing list rarely merits serious attention. When drama threads were running fast and thick about me over there a year ago I simply left the list and went back to editing. It's a remarkably effective response. Twice since then people have given the heads up about new nonsense and it was easy to nip in the bud. To toss a salad of metaphors: just call a spade a spade and don't return a foul ball.
Regarding trolling levels, that's an area where you could say I'm not unfamiliar. I was one of the reasons Poetlister got banned from en:wiki in spring 2007 and afterward he went on pretty much the same vendetta against me that he did against SV. There have been other unrelated harassments including one serious enough that the FBI opened an investigation. So yes, I've walked a few miles in moccasins from the same cobbler.
Now here's an odd thing: if any one member of the Arbitration Committee is most equipped to see through Poetlister's shenanigans and their effect, that would be FT2. Ousting Poetlister & Co. this year was in large measure his doing. I'm no apologist for him or the Committee. You can see at the Matthew Hoffman clarification request how sharply FT2 and I disagree sometimes. You can check the top thread of my user talk for a chat with another arbitrator which is--well--not warm and fuzzy. I'm the editor who took the RFC on ArbCom live.
Yet to read over the events of the last few days I keep getting stuck at one point. Suppose for the sake of discussion that her unblock was exactly correct. And suppose everything she posted at the clarification request was correct reasoning and true. What's left is this: when she unblocked she gave a rationale that was syntactically impossible to parse. Was she objecting to the IRC arbitration case and its discretionary sanctions, or did she believe the November blocks were tainted by administrative contact on the IRC channel? That went unanswered for nearly 22 hours before she posted again.
It's not always enough to be correct on the merits. Communication also counts. Communication is especially important for Wikipedians who take decisive action in tough situations. Very few of the editors who do are spot-on about communication every time. I haven't always been and neither has FT2. I walked away from the tools when I erred; it's not a big deal. SlimVirgin will get hers back soon enough and my best wishes go out to her for success. Here's what's worrisome, though. When this thread got started it was as if SV reformulated my question into something I hadn't asked--something perhaps more comfortable to address--and went on at length without supplying any of the requested information. That's the behavior pattern of people who prioritize justification over reflection and improvement. And such people, no matter how intelligent and sincere and usually right they are, also usually encounter a lot of frustration. If I've missed something please set me straight. And thank you again for your long and thoughtful answer. DurovaCharge!03:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if this is not the point raised by Durova, but I would like to clarify that to say Lar invented a relationship between you (ElinorD) and his wife is just not correct, if you acknowledge that you and he had indeed discussed her views about your situation. You've also continued to make hay of this without explaining why the point is relevant. The only point I see is this: if you knew that Lar had previously discussed your situation with his wife and you had not objected to it ("Your wife is right...") then this would explain the background for why Lar would have said something to his wife. The most important point I can see coming from this is a lack of any bad faith on his part. Whether or not you were close friends, on the other hand, is as far as I am aware simply not relevant, and may even have been an aggravating factor if true. Honestly I can see how you would have been offended if you thought that he mischaracterized something, but it continues to baffle me that you make so much of this as if it would be any basis for an arbitration case or anything similar.
I would also compare: the other day you said that in the Mantanmoreland case I tried to get SlimVirgin sanctioned. This is categorically untrue, and cannot be drawn from anything I said in the case; it is however a direct copy of a claim made by SV. In your above statement you say Tony Sidaway was less than polite, when he said that people who admit posting on WR should be treated like the pieces of shit they are. You then say that SV commented with more truthfulness than sweetness, when she made disparaging and unsupported comments about editor after editor that you are not possibly in a position to evaluate. Setting aside SV's actions, I must wonder how you feel justified in making these kinds of comments, and if you have considered whether you should take more care as you so sharply criticize others. Mackan79 (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Lar passed on his wife's views on the situation to Elnor that is not the same as saying his wife 'counselled' her, as Elinor had no direct conversation with her. If she did not do so, to say Mrs.Lar 'counselled' her was to give an impression whch could be misleading (intentionally or not) IMHO. Anyway it doesn't explain why Lar's wife should be privy to CU results, which should be confidential i.e. not shared with anyone who's not specifically mentioned as allowed to know in policy. Arbcom discussed this on the findings or proposed decision page, that the policy had been breached, I don't think any of them denied it had at least been 'technically' breached but didn't mention it directly in the final writeup, as someone said they'd come up with a different wording they could consider, but they didn't get around to it or vote much on it. StickyParkin18:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, yes, although I could speculate on similar wordings that could have been slightly more reasonable. Nevertheless, I think it is a misunderstanding, primarily because I think it is only reasonable to believe that the previous communication through Lar, or passing of words or whatever one calls it, probably did affect the way he approached the situation, and I can see why he would have said as much. I don't know what he should have said, or whether it violated the privacy policy (I recall some questions on the point), but basically I trust the committee to evaluate that because 1.) if there was a breach it was without any conceivable illegitimate intent, and 2.) I don't see any other reason why it should have been a central issue of the case. Mackan79 (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw a message that said that my IP address was flagged as the source of unhelpful comments/vandalism on the Stanford Prison Experiment page - for what it's worth, it wasn't me (I understand that there might not be any way to verify this from your perspective).
Sorry to hear about that though - folks that can't contribute anything useful should pipe down and try to learn something.
i have recieved a message apparently from you saying that i (or my IP address) have innappropriately edited the article 'Custard'. Can you please note that i have never edited this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.131.61 (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that you will not longer be able to request restoration of the tools because of your prior inactivity. You have until December 30, 2012 to request restoration or else the policy will prevent you from doing so in the future; you would need to seek a new WP:RFA. Until December 30, you can file a request at WP:BN for review by the crats. Thank you. MBisanztalk04:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
![19:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ElinorD#c-DreamGuy-2007-11-01T19:17:00.000Z-Speedy_deletion_of_"Image:Portrait_of_a_Killer_cover.jpg"){kind=link}
![02:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ElinorD#c-WSpaceport-2007-11-02T02:03:00.000Z-deleted_"Image:Vonbraun-portrait.jpg"){kind=link}
