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.
Regarding to the message you've left on my discussion page, your user page in Persian Wikipedia is: http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%B1:ElinorD. If you want, you can write down what you want to tell people in Persian in English in that page, and I can translate it for you into Persian, so People in Persian Wikipedia would get to know you better.
The administrators have also deleted the pages that you wanted me to ask them to delete. So no worries. As I said again I don't mind it at all helping you setting up your Persian page in the Persian Wiki. Best Regards --Kaaveh17:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. But I would strongly suggest that at least in your Persian userpage add a sentence and let them know you only speak english and you are active in English wiki primarly. By the way, if you need any help with Persian Wikipedia, you have a friend to count on.
...but I notice you are not an admin, and I really think we should curse you with it. Let me know if you are interested.--Docg18:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks, Doc, that's very kind. (Is it really a curse?) As a matter of fact, I've already had six offers of nomination, and just in the last day, I emailed the first person who offered, and accepted, so, assuming that he hasn't changed his mind, you should see this link turn blue quite soon. Thanks again. ElinorD(talk)00:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you removed all of the images from the Madness article. I'm quite new to wikipedia and would like to know what needs to be done in order to allow these images to be used. I thought I'd done enough in adding the fair use rationale, but obviously not! Let me know, thanks. Sam Orchard14:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been caught up with other things. You might like to have a look at Wikipedia:Non-free content (especially the bit marked "policy") and Resolution:Licensing policy. It's complicated, and difficult to understand. The people who understand it best seem to be those who have a passion for the subject. The basic principle is that Wikipedia is a "free" encyclopaedia. That means that our content can be freely used, modified, and even sold by others, though there are certain conditions. That applies to anything that the editors release to Wikipedia, such as their creative writing or their photography. Under certain strict (and getting stricter) conditions, we can use something to which someone else holds the copyright, and call it "fair use". That would be something like an image that adds significantly to the the understanding of the subject of the article, and that isn't just decorative. (In such cases, the image would have to be one for which we could not reasonably find a free replacement.) Every time we use unfree content, we're weakening what Wikipedia stands for. A whole gallery full of images of album covers don't add to our understanding of the band Madness; they just make the article look "prettier". I hope that helps. ElinorD(talk)23:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see, so basically, unless the album cover is a talking point of the article, it shouldn't be included? Surely this applies for the hundreds of articles regarding different band's discographies, etc? No worries about the late reply, I can see you've been busy with more important matters. Sam Orchard23:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Vassyana to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ElinorD. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
I notice that you transcluded your RfA before answering the questions. You may wish to undo that, answer the questions, then re-add it. You'll probably get opposes otherwise. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip. It's an interesting point, and I hadn't thought of it. I think, though, that I'd rather not mess around reverting myself if it's only going to be for a few minutes, and since it's not against policy to leave the questions blank. I'll try to be as quick as possible with the questions. They are optional, after all, and I recall that a successful candidate recently refused to answer them, based on the fact that they are supposed to be optional, and that (if I remember rightly), he thought it should simply be about whether or not he was trusted. I don't intend to follow his example, but I think now that it has started, it's better to hurry with the answers rather than suspend the whole thing. Thanks again. ElinorD(talk)23:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem as long as you answer them in a timely manner. Editors that do not know the nom (you) benefit from them. Users that already know you can go ahead and give their opinion. FloNight23:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never got to thank you for being awesome and empathetic with the whole Orbicle thing (and I recalled that when I was examining your contributions). Thanks! As an expression of my thanks (and hopefully to brighten your day!), have one of my favorite Commons roses :-) --Iamunknown04:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Iamunknown. What a beautiful rose! Yes, I was sorry about Orbicle because, although the copyright policy is extremely important, I think people can sincerely believe that the wording used in a list of facts "out there on the internet" is free, while they'd never dream of plagiarising an essay full of opinions and arguments. So I was very glad to see him unblocked, especially as he had apologised and promised to be more careful in future. He doesn't seem to be around now. Thanks for your support in my RfA, and for the good work you do around here. I often see you helping with image copyright issues. ElinorD(talk)20:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Iam, that's a really beautiful photograph.
Elinor, I was thrilled to see you've accepted one of the many offers you've had to nominate you for adminship. And I wanted to wish you all the best with the RfA. I'm sure that you will breeze through it as you really are an excellent candidate. (touch wood) I look forward to welcoming you to the admin team next week. :) Just enjoy your last week of editing as a non-admin because life will never be the same.;) lol. Take care, Sarah07:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sarah. And I'm grateful for your support too. It's especially nice to enjoy the good opinion of someone that regard as extremely fair, as that's more flattering to me. I well remember your efforts to ensure that Gordon was treated fairly. He has now been indefinitely blocked, and I'm sorry, because I don't think he was acting in bad faith, but I really can't blame people for deciding that enough was enough. I hope he'll find something else to do that will give him more satisfaction. ElinorD(talk)20:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't mind. It makes me think of pirate ships. Thanks for watch-listing Cougar (it's TFA in three days). Marskell14:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Your message here crossed with my apology at your talk page. I'm still trying to figure out how that Y slipped in. I'm glad you haven't switched to "oppose" because of it! :) ElinorD(talk)14:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Elinor. I've posted an additional (totally optional) question to the RfA, just in case you didn't notice. Please feel free to ignore it, it won't change my opinion anyway. I'm just curious and so I've posted it to several ongoing RfAs, because I wanted to give candidates an opportunity to speak freely about some things that caught their interest on Wikipedia. —AldeBaer 18:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, AldeBaer. I did see it, and will get round to answering it. I'm afraid I was a bit slow answering Question 4, too, as it was rather a complicated question. But it's going round in my mind, and I'll probably respond tomorrow. Thanks for your support. ElinorD(talk)20:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost forgot: Thank you for answering my question. Needless to say your answer was good like all answers you gave. —AldeBaer 21:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi ElinorD, congrats on your well-deserved promotion, and I'm looking forward to see you helping us make this project succeed. Crum37500:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second the motion - I've found you to be a top-notch editor and have no doubt you'll make a very good admin. Risker01:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, an edit with the summary "ElinorD is an admin" just popped up on my watchlist. I didn't even know you were up for it! Congratulations, and I hope we'll see you on the IRC channel. --Tony Sidaway01:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations to the ice-cream lady! :) Welcome to the team, Elinor. I am certain you will make an outstanding administrator. If you ever need any help, please don't hesitate to drop by my talk page. Just be careful with those new buttons. I know of one new admin who promptly indefinitely blocked himself on receiving his tools. :) Best wishes, Sarah07:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hurray! I'm glad to see you can help out now where you previously could not. :) (And here's a cute 10-week-old golden retriever to cheer you up if you are still dreading the biscuit in the pantry!;)) Cheers, Iamunknown07:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
I appreciate all the messages of congratulations, and, indeed, the support I was given at my RfA. I have decided not to post boilerplate thank you messages to everyone who voted, as I've seen occasionally that it irritates people, though I suspect that those who have been kind enough to post here probably would not be among that category. However, I am very grateful to each and every one of you, and look forward to helping out as an administrator. ElinorD(talk)22:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, my dear Eli, please don't mention it - you're a wonderful addition to the ranks, and long overdue if you ask me! ;) Second, indeed, it was a beautiful pleasure, and seeing your name there was a most pleasant surprise. I've been contributing to Wikisource sporadically, poetry mostly. Knowing you're an English teacher, I know you can be a fantastic asset to the 'sourcers ranks as well ;) Third, indeed - Zilla's the greatest contributor ever - and that's not just a matter of size! And fourth... you've got mail! :) Love, Phaedriel - 17:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words, Algabal. I feel there's still a lot of work to be done on it, as it consists mainly of a plot summary, and I'd like, when I get time, to add something about the historical period in which it was set, about Benson's own life, and about criticism of the novel. It has inspired me to create a few small articles about some of the characters in it, though. I started Richard Simpson (martyr) two days ago, and have already started typing content for Robert Ludlam, though I haven't yet pressed "save". :) ElinorD(talk)22:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...if the Arbitration Committee states that linking to sites which engage in the practice of publishing private information about Wikipedians is not permitted...
If footnote 2 at the current version of Wikipedia:No personal attacks is to be believed, that judgement did not necessarily set as strong a precedent as the proponents of BADSITES would like to believe.
Administrators will still block editors who wilfully place other editors in danger of having their identities exposed.
A link to a site that exposes editors does not place editors in danger of having their identities exposed. The site did that all by itself; removing one or two links to it does not magically make the leaked information private again. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to enter into a debate here, because WT:NPA is on my watchlist, and I have been participating regularly, and I see no sense in fragmenting the discussion. But for the benefit of those who may watch my talk page and may not participate in the other discussion, I'll respond this time. Please direct future comments to WT:NPA.
I am familiar with footnote 2, and do not believe that it in any way weakens the MONGO ruling. For one thing, the case to which you refer reaffirmed here that ED may not be linked to, that links may be removed, and that linking may be grounds for blocking. Why do you think they reaffirmed that? Because ED makes a practice of "outing" editors. The footnote to which you refer says that the committee subsequently "rejected this principle as too broad." Not so. First of all three member supported it, and four opposed. That means that it didn't pass, not that "the committee" thought it was too broad. Secondly, the ruling that didn't pass was not the same as the MONGO ruling. It would have prohibited the "addition of links to or material derived from sites that engage in attacks and harassment against Wikipedia users" (emphasis mine). The wording that didn't pass had the rather vague and broad wording "attacks", but, unlike the MONGO ruling, did not clarify that the real problem is that of publishing personal information. Also, unlike the MONGO ruling, it would have prohibited the addition of any material derived from these sites. It's hardly a blockable offence to post on a Wikipedia talk page that Blu Aardvark has said on some website that he thinks that KillerChihuahua is a sockpuppet of MONGO (imagining that he did say that), though repeating silly gossip wouldn't exactly help to build the encyclopaedia either. However, adding a link could mean that you are directing people to a paragraph that might be just above a paragraph where someone else is boasting that he has got hold of an IP address for Giano, and has worked out that Giano is really Archibald Blenkinsop and that he lectures in geology at the University of Florida.
Concerning your second point, if an editor is trying to remain anonymous, it is worse to direct Wikipedians to a site that exposes their identity than just to have the site existing without quite so many people knowing about it. I have yet to see any victim of harassment disagreeing with that point. ElinorD(talk)21:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Lladro.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan0011:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Bob. You can go to WP:RPP and make a request there. Frankly, however, I don't think it's likely that an admin will agree to protect Parmo, if that's the page you're thinking of, as there simply hasn't been enough vandalism to warrant it. Except where a page is really under attack, reverting is preferred to vandalism. ElinorD(talk)11:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'm not quite sure what was going on, but it seemed to be an IP wikistalking you and deleting all your posts. He (she?) is blocked now. ElinorD(talk)01:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't think you were trying to be coy! I might have a look at the link later, though I think writing articles is probably more worthwhile. ElinorD(talk)09:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry..I tried to fix parse but got beaten by the time and when I changed it, I saw that you already fixed it..Thanks..--Cometstyles13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. A photo that you take yourself, as long as it's not a photo of a something that already has a copyright (see Derivative works) should be okay. Let me know if you have any more questions. And don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages with the four tildes, like this ~~~~. They'll convert automatically into your signature, making it easy for people to keep track of who said what in threaded sections. Cheers. ElinorD(talk)19:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elinor, might you look into Str1977's actions before saying no warning was necessary? Or do you support striking votes from an AFD page and altering comments? •Jim62sch•17:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to agree here. Str1977's actions across several articles have been uncivil and borderline vandalism. His striking of other people's comments is not acceptable. I'm concerned that it appears you involved yourself in a situation without at least some of the key facts and have enabled Str1977's behavior. Orangemarlin17:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, I assure you I looked into it fully before I said anything. If you read comments I made elsewhere, you'll see that I did not think that striking a vote was a good idea. However, I'm concerned that this has been blown up out of all proportion, and was presented as vandalism and as an attempt to sway the result of an AfD. As I said in the comment with which you take issue (which clearly showed that I had looked into the actions, by the way), there was obviously no intention on Str1977's part to pretend that it was Guettarda who had struck the comment, as he clearly stated underneath that it was he who had done it, and that he would go to Guettarda's page to ask him to clarify — which he immediately did. A simple statement that it would have been better to have asked for clarification but to have left Guettarda's comments alone in the meantime would have been more than sufficient. If you look at the apology that Str1977 subsequently left on Guettarda's page, you'll see that he had seen people striking comments before, and thought it was okay on a temporary basis, while asking Guettarda to go back an clarify his position. The fact that he did ask Guettarda to go back and clarify shows clearly that he didn't intend to alter the outcome. In my view, it would have been better if he hadn't struck Guettarda's comment, it would have been better if Guettarda hadn't reacted angrily to Str1977's faux pas, it would have been better if Str1977 hadn't reacted angrily to Guettarda, it would have been better if FeloniousMonk had considered a gentle chat rather than a "warning", and it would have been better if you hadn't reopened something that was beginning to die down. Oh, and it would probably have been better if I hadn't commented, since I may now have offended three people that I like and respect.
Do I support striking votes and altering comments? No. I support not making bad situations worse. I support assuming good faith in the case of what may have been an honest error. I support apologising if you realise you've done something inappropriate, as Str1977 did. I support accepting apologies when they're offered. I support trying to reason with people rather than chastising them. And I support moving on, rather than keeping an unpleasant situation open.
Orangemarlin, I have not seen anything from any of the editors concerned that even remotely resembles vandalism, and I'm sorry that the word was even used. I have had Str1977's page and the God article on my watchlist for some time, though I haven't been watching either very closely, and in recent weeks, I have seen posts to him and from him which were not models of civility. I haven't been following the articles he edits, except for a brief look at God, but from what I've seen, he was less uncivil than some of his opponents. In any case, I'm more interested in writing articles than in acting as the manners police. And I'm baffled as to how my belief that trying to sort something out gently without upsetting people further is a better way of handling things can be interpreted as supporting striking votes or enabling Str1977's behaviour. For heaven's sake! It was a faux pas, for which he apologised, and for which he might have apologised sooner if it had been handled more tactfully! ElinorD(talk)18:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'll find the same for all messages in the MediaWiki namespace. As they can only be edited by administrators, protecting them would have no additional effect. While I wouldn't expect to see one deleted, this is possible, and would return it to its default text.
Can you please discuss/explain your changes on the Talk page before making changes to the article? The current version is not perfect, but reverting back to the "supreme reality" version undoes weeks of collaborative work. Let's fix the current version by evolving it, not reverting back to an even more problematic version, okay? --Serge18:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did post on the talk page, and so did others, including Jayjg and SlimVirgin. Be assured it's on my watchlist, and I'll see and (if necessary or appropriate) respond to any posts made there. Cheers. ElinorD(talk)18:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elinor, you reverted something on my watchlist using rollback, and I looked at your talk page (it's actually on my watchlist, but I've been busy lately) and saw that you had become an administrator. Congratulations. My editing has been down a bit recently, and I have several papers to work on over the summer. Could I ask you, as a favour, to keep an eye on the situation with User:Ferrylodge. KillerChihuahua asked me to look at the situation months ago, and I did, but didn't have much time to get involved. I did see that he was (in my view) acting unwisely, failing to collaborate properly with others, getting taunted by one person, and showing an inability to let go. Finally, after continuing to post on KillerChihuahua's page, despite warnings, he was blocked by Bishonen for harassment. Bishonen, incidentally, is extremely sensitive to the effect a block can have on a user — see Opposition vote no. 21 in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3 for one of the most impressive and insightful comments I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I can't disagree with the block, but I somehow wish she hadn't made it. There was then an RfC, and, as could have been predicted, support came flooding in for Bishonen. I couldn't bring myself to join in, even though it was obvious that Bishonen hadn't abused her powers, because it was turning into an RfC against a user who was already feeling shocked and offended by the block. I'm hoping that Ferrylodge will be able to move on, and that the people who opposed him will be generous and help him, but I did mention your name to him as someone who might be able to help him if he feels that he's being unfairly treated on talk pages. I hope you don't mind. I mentioned Phaedriel as well, but urged him not to go near her unless he's sure that her little girl is better. And I mentioned GTBacchus, whom I see you've encountered, and who (although I disagree with him on a lot) has an outstanding record of treating troubled users with dignity. You can read my post on User talk:Ferrylodge if you want more information. Cheers. Musical Linguist19:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You recently banned user:Chuffer for being a vandal. He/she didn't vandalize, even it he did, it was only once! I think the ban was a horrible error and has to be fixed. RuneWiki77721:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) You might want to check the long-term edit history of that article. I did, after you posted that comment on Chris' page. Two points here; maybe you should have asked ElinorD directly about her block instead of going straight to another admin to complain and secondly, shouting "not fair!!!" on the talk page of the blocked editor was somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction and will not help matters - Alison☺21:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Wikidan and Alison. This might also be of interest. One egregious piece of vandalism from a brand new account is enough to justify blocking as an account created for vandalism. One less harmful piece of vandalism would not be enough for an immediate block, unless it's recognised as being the same vandalism to the same article as that carried out by previous IPs and vandalism-only accounts. By the way, a block and a ban are two different things. Cheers. ElinorD(talk)21:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeahhhhhh. My bad. Sorry for wrongly accusing you for doing stuff. I didn't know that guy was a sock. You should have banned him for being a sock instead (My opinion). Anyway...... sorry. I'm really sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. RuneWiki77722:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC) I feel pretty stupid for typing in ban instead of block.[reply]
That's no problem. I wasn't offended. Maybe I should have put sockpuppet in the log. But I think of sockpuppet more as an account created for double voting or reverting. This is just a vandal regularly creating a new account. By the way, you've just said "ban" again :) I don't have the power to ban people. (Just think of what Wikipedia would be like if I did!) ElinorD(talk)22:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I seem to have earned it! By the way, I hope you're better. I've been meaning to drop a note on your page, and will get round to it. ElinorD(talk)22:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for removing my addition to Cherie Blairs ever growing list of contorversies. It is a fair entry, and well doccumented at the time and I backed it up with its source. The consensus on her talk page has not been desicive as to whether any more of her controversies should be added. In all, i find your editing over zealous. 82.14.89.11821:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have not taken the time to comment on your hasty deletion, while have managed to comment on further topics added since. This can only be seen as an admission that you are fundamentally wrong in removing my addition to Cherie Blairs page. Again I refer you the her talk page, where there has been no consensus as to the listing of her contraversies.82.14.89.11817:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a comment to the Cherie Blair talk page here. I do not always reply to messages on my talk page the same day, even if I am editing. Other Wikipedia matters might be more pressing. The Cherie Blair talk page showed no mention of (let alone consensus for) adding a very unencyclopaedic incident about the Prime Minister's wife boarding a train without buying a ticket in advance, and then paying extra to the ticket collector. I did that myself once. It's not uncommon in the UK, when you're in a hurry, or have no change, or when the ticket machine doesn't work. It's not considered a big deal, as long as you go straight to the ticket collector, without waiting to be caught. I also notice that you haven't contributed to the talk page discussion at all. ElinorD(talk)00:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your eventual reply. I see you alone have decided that Fare Evasion is a minor incident. The rest of the controversies section has numerous entries about incidents where she has been involved in, yet in this case this is one where she actually received a penalty. Unlike signing Hutton reports, which although distasteful, did not result in a penalty. You are the one who has not taken a neutral point of view, as you have said yourself has been similarly fined for such an incident. Unless you can justify the reason for its non-inclusion, I shall return it to the section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.14.89.118 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 26 June 2007.
A few corrections. There is nobody on the talk page who has expressed support for including that utterly insignificant incident, which violates our biograpies of living persons policy. I do not believe that fare evasion is a minor incident. I do, however, believe that if someone is in a hurry and has no change for the ticket machine, it is a minor incident to get on the train with the full intention of paying of going straight to the ticket collector and paying the fare plus the very small fine at the other end. For the record, I was not fined; I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was. The ticket collector simply asked me to pay the normal fare; they are able to check if the ticket desk was closed or if machines are broken at the station where the person says they boarded. The fine that Mrs Blair paid for not having a valid ticket was £10; the fine for "fare evasion" would have been several hundred pounds. If you reinsert that incident, you'll find plenty of people reverting you, particularly if you reinsert "she claimed to have tried a ticket machine". Now please keep discussion of articles on article talk pages. ElinorD(talk)23:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ElinorD, you just deleted some of my page history, and said that you could furnish me with the deleted material by email, I would very much appreciate that if its not too much trouble.
I think that in the process of clarifying the language to your very good compromise proposal, some versions have it substantially weakened.--Mantanmoreland16:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit summary referring to a "link to an anoymous user's blog, staff profile, personal website, etc." has a very good point... it's the intent, purpose, context, and effect of a link that are significant, rather than what site the link is to. A link to a perfectly good academic site, one that is used as a reliable source uncontroversially elsewhere on Wikipedia, can be an "attack" if it's done to try to "out" somebody. This point gets missed when the focus goes instead to the concept of "linking to attack sites", as it often does, and leads to a desire to robotically suppress links simply on the basis of what domain name they go to. *Dan T.*17:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen anything "robotically" suppressed. I've seen a few idiots robotically swallowing the kool aid they read on attack sites. --Mantanmoreland19:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all that you have done! How much love resides therein! All one's gifts are never gone: Not seen, perhaps, but stored within. Kindness is an inner sun.
Your unspent heart a message sends Of grace and sacrifice hard-won Upon which happiness depends!
My dear Eli, once again, thank you so much for your warm thoughts and your heartfelt prayers for my little girl. There's much I need to tell you, but I'll save those words for email! ;) You are a wonderful friend, and sometimes I find it hard to believe that we've met such a short time ago. Love you, Eli - you truly are a beautiful, shiny person :) Hugs, Phaedriel - 05:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ElinorD, I'm leaving you a note because I reverted you on the Essjay article, I re-added the link, while their status in wikipedia or user space is up for debate, and probably should be removed in most cases, I do not feel that the same should be done on articles. Still it seems to be pretty weak sourcing and as far as I recalled forums were generally frowned on for this kind of thing. --MichaelLinnear05:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it further I removed the WR link and the sentence sourced from it and replaced it with a sentence referenced by a news article. This seems more in line with our Reliable Sources policy. --MichaelLinnear05:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that you recently became an admin. Belated Congratulations. I always see you at the top of my watchlist, daily, persistently reverting vandalism. You are always on point when it comes to that, and expeditious! Just wanted to say "Hi", and to let you know that you work does not go unappreciated. Thank you for being a great wikipedian!-Andrew c03:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ElinorD, It still amazes me that otherwise "anonymous" editors take the time to place !votes and comments on RfAs. Whilst I would have normally thanked you at the time of you leaving your message, the importance of my not appearing to be canvassing prevented me from so doing. Now that everything has progressed successfully I can finally thank you. I intend to uphold a style of good adminship and will welcome your further comments at any time in the future, even if they are in the form of admonishment. I will be happy to help as an admin wherever and whenever I can --VStalk00:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huge improvement! I have felt that a userpage that seemed to be confrontational for the sake of it made you less effective in the excellent work you were doing, as an your image removals etc. might go more smoothly if you're seen as not unnecessarily annoying people. (Unfortunately, image cleanup is going to annoy some people, regardless of your intentions.)
My one concern would be with your new photo. You seem to have suddenly, umm, aged a lot! Did all those grey/white hairs come from the stress of trying to uphold image policy? That would be bad news for me, as I've been intending to get more involved in that area. ElinorD(talk)22:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ElinorD, I have a problem with which I thought you might be able to assist me. The title of this page, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi contains a superfluous honorific, contra the Manual of Style. Apparently someone believed this to be his first name.[1] Having removed the honorifics from the article, I attempted to move it, but there is already Abul Ala Maududi with a redirect, meaning I wouldn't be able to do a proper move (with history) unless Abul Ala Maududi is first deleted.Proabivouac00:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abul Ala Maududi has been deleted. It's ready for the move. Of course, I know nothing about the situation, so I'm presuming this is just a standard move of a wrongly-named article. If it turns out that there's an outcry, I can undelete anyway, so it won't matter. Cheers. ElinorD(talk)17:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been post protection editing. An excuse is that there is no protect tag. As the protecting admin could you please include the tag? Thanks. LessHeard vanU21:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, just an update to let you know the good news that all the editors involved in the dispute have now engaged with each other on the talk page and are working towards a consensus wording. Tim Vickers01:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. It seems that a consensus wording might have been produced (Text of proposal and Call for comments). I wonder if you could, as a neutral party, contact the editors who were involved in the edit war and ask if any of them have objections to this compromise wording? Tim Vickers16:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ElinorD. Thank you for your support and kind words in my RfA, which passed with 95 support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral !votes. It means a lot to me to have your individual support and the collective support of so many others. I truly will strive to carry myself at a level representing the trust bestowed in me as I use the mop to address the never-ending drips of discontent in need of caretaker assistance.
Is it helpful when I re-form the 3RR diff's when they are not properly presented, to something clearer? Or is it more of a nuisance? Peace.Lsijohn23:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
.. regarding that last block (Nleobold).. he had been warned, but the 3RR referral came after the report, when I realized he might not really understand the 3RR rule. (I updated the AN3RR with that comment, prior to your block). Sorry for not being more clear on that comment. Peace.Lsijohn 23:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
.. I just want to make sure he isn't punished for information he didn't have prior to his reverts. Thanks! Peace.Lsijohn23:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your first question, personally, I find it helpful. People sometimes submit very sloppy reports, giving page versions where there should be diffs, or presenting the diffs as [1], [2], etc., instead of as [First revert 17:23 14 June 2007] etc.
I notice also that you're careful to make clear that you're not an administrator. To avoid stepping on anyone's toes, it's best if you add diffs (or clarify diffs) as part of your own commentary rather than editing someone else's words, especially if you're pointing out that a particular report is invalid. (That's just a general reflection, with nothing to do with how you have or haven't been doing it.)
Finally, I agree that the user I blocked very likely did not really understand the 3RR rule. But before he made his fourth revert, two editors had approached him and had warned him and linked to the WP:3RR page. It was up to him to familiarise himself with the rule. Instead, he chose to accuse those who had been reverting him of vandalism. Not understanding the rule is only a valid reason for being spared a block if you weren't given a chance of understanding the rule. Otherwise, he could just keep reverting and reverting and reverting. Anyway, thanks for your comments, and feel free to help at the noticeboard. ElinorD(talk)23:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that- it felt like it got added somewhere else, but the edit conflict scared and confused me D: --ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ01:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elinor advises that, while old and injured Tigers are most dangerous, you should also avoid young and healthy ones.
The general POV regarding predators in popular sources is an interesting subject. On the one hand, danger is still the "hook" to get people to sit and watch a half-hour nature program, but frequently the "misunderstood" predator is a main theme. (You are told you are more likely to get hit by lightning than killed by a wolf and so on—a bad use of statistics, to be sure.) Given that we are ourselves the most succesful super-predator on the planet, we're rapidly extirpating that category. If portraying Tigers sympathetically helps in preserving the species it's not entirely a bad thing. But then on Wiki we don't need to be sympathetic: let the facts speak for themselves. Thus, if I were to construct a section on the subject I'd like good statistics, properly presented, as on Cougar. Better not to have a section than to have a generic one. I will go back and look if I can find anything for Jaguar, though stats on primarly South American animals seem hard to come by. And to be honest, I'm avoiding Lion and Tiger for the timebeing; it's going to be a huge amount of work to do to those what I've done to other felines. One thing I have read numerous times: juveniles without an established range and old, injured animals are always the most dangerous.
You may well read that we have no natural predators because even the large ones have evolved to avoid this large-brained biped with opposable thumbs; that Tigers are more likely to keep their distance from you than penguins is a fascinating fact of nature! But I don't entirely buy it. The large cats and the Brown and Polar Bear will prey upon us, even if the behaviour varies amongst individual animals. Most importantly, if you're looking in the eyes of a predator and convincing yourself that "maybe it feels a little sympathy, just a tiny ounce of non-predator in its heart" or, conversely, "it knows I'm a large-brained biped with opposable thumbs and that I'm the frickin' boss" then you are making a terrible anthropomorphic mistake. Case-in-point on the former error: Grizzly Man. See it if you haven't. Marskell08:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
_-_Not_Too_Much_To_Carry_(1895).jpg)
