Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:01, 13 December 2009

Archives

Misspelled music festivals * 2009

WikiProject

I kinda gave up on the idea of WikiProjects and switched to the more commercially successful technique of editing wikipeida articles &talkpages, but since I've been requested to collbarate, I can't say no. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Rhetorical questions

Ah, sorry I thought it was an honest mistake. While I didn't know if it was rhetorical or not (the concept sorta confuses me), I wasn't aware that it was ended with a full stop. Now that I know this I will stop adding question marks to things in case they are rhetorical. I think this is because my english education did not go far enough to teach me about these things, I just remember that if something started with a question word that a question mark should be at the end, or to not start with and, stuff like that. I did leave the ands alone though :) At the time I thought it would help point out what I was responding to, because I did respond thinking they were questions you wanted answered. Also the rhetorical question mark is pretty cool, I might start using that once I learn how to ask those questions. Tyciol (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Elen! Thanks for helping with the clarification regarding the ongoing ANI discussion. I get a bit confused when comments are interleaved and something about the editor in question singling me out made me wonder if he were a bit confused … so I thought my P.S. might help clear things up. Thanks again and I liked your comments. —  SpikeToronto  00:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Cookie

The Second Coming of The Cookie Monster has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Splitting articles discussion

Hi. In "Notability and fiction" discussion, you pointed out the problem of splitting long "list articles" simply on account of their large size. I introduced some pragmatic statistics supporting your point. (Lol your comment: "hey presto, an article on every one of the wretched things is back"). Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean about that discussion going in circles. I was trying to introduce a new element, which is that some articles are more worth creating -- because they have the same "editorial overhead", but significantly more readers. (And also more readers = more potential new editors!) Presumably everybody, or almost everybody, wins.

Unfortunately there are those who just like a good argument. Combine that sentiment in someone who would prefer Wiki be a free online fanzine, and discussion becomes intractable -- they simply unwilling to "lose the argument". I ran into an editor recently in discussion who finally admitted that they thought the Wiki policy discouraging foreign language references was wrong. They could have saved me 30 minutes by admitting that at the beginning. (Can I bill them?) Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Paranormal Activity (film)

I notice you are trying to deal with the plot-in/plot-out edit war on Paranormal Activity (film) that I was dealing with last night. The article was semi-protected for a bit to bring one edit war to an end. I added the following to the talk page of the particular editor with whom you are dealing the most:

Regarding Paranormal Activity (film), it is okay to include plot details that are spoilers, according to Misplaced Pages’s spoiler policy, which you can find at WP:SPOILER. However, the reason your edits keep getting reverted is that you are putting the plot details in the article’s introduction (sometimes called a lede). You should create a separate section section called Plot Synopsis, inserted between the Production Development section and the Critical reception section. When you create this separate section called Plot Synopsis, you may then provide a synopsis of the storyline, but not an analysis. And again, spoilers are okay if they form part of this plot synopsis. A spoiler alert is neither required, nor permitted. —  SpikeToronto  01:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

— from September 2009 at User talk:130.94.121.92

I hope this helps. Also, if you need the page semi-protected or any edit-warring editors blocked, it was done last night by Luk (talk). Thanks! —  SpikeToronto  01:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip off. Hopefully, one of the IPs might even do as you suggest. BTW, I noticed your concern on your talkpage about two people editing on one IP. My hubbie and I have done it for ages without problem. We've even edited the same article on a couple of occasions, but try to avoid it as we seldom agree (so no danger of tag teaming there). I have once by accident edited while logged in as him - doing that regularly would get you into trouble.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I notice a different admin has semid the article for tonight, and your IP has posted his piece on the talk page. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice re: two accounts on one IP. That is very good to know. We probably would not even be looking at the same articles. Plus, these days, I do less editing and more recent changes patrol. —  SpikeToronto  04:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As for that IP, s/he posted that to the talk page before I posted my little piece of guidance to his/her talk page. It was actually what nudged me to do it. I figured that s/he was deperate to get the plot tidbits somewhere connected to the film, so I thought if I explained to him/her how to do it, s/he might do it correctly. There was the same issue over on some of the Agatha Christie pages about spoilers, and those of us who edited there figured that, since WP:SPOILER allows spoilers but does not allow spoiler alerts, we would just make sure the the words plot and synopsis were clearly visible. If they don’t spell s-p-o-i-l-e-r, I don’t know what does! By the way, the semi-protect was only for a few hours, and expired at 02:28UTC. I don’t know why they cannot make it longer. Thanks! —  SpikeToronto  04:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Planet X

I'm a bit confused by this, I think I remember there being a planet by this day, but the reason I had done Saturn was I think due to Saturday. I could see maybe a 'Day of Moon' for Monday, or 'Day of Sun' for Sunday but as for Tues/Wed/Thurs (Thor)/Fri I don't think they had to do with astrology, or am I misinterpreting and the reason is unrelated to the 7 days? Tyciol (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration/Suggestions

I will give you're suggestions some processing time, and when I'm good and ready will attempt to execute them. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

FAR on Hungarian revolution of 1956

I want to make you aware that comments are being solicited on User:Fifelfoo's request to "delist" this article from FA status (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956/archive1).

I have read your comments recently in the discussion on ANI/I (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive567#Edits_of_User:Fifelfoo), regarding his use of personal criteria in editing.

I think your comments are quite relevant here also. Regards, Ryanjo (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was a truly bizarre experience. I didn't honestly think I could be of much help, as I know virtually nothing about the article's topic. And then xe serves up a direction for submitting data to the Australian government. I've been involved in performance measurement in government for 15 years - I can read those documents in my sleep. They are honestly all the same, and focus on outputs rather than outcomes (a complaint for 15 years is that they only ever count the beans. They never ask whether the sauce tastes good). If he had read round the site, he would have seen that in 2005 there were proposals to introduce a quality framework for research, but it focused on medicine and science, and that kind of hard stuff, that the government considered it was important to fund. I think Fifelfoo has somehow jumped a buffer here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think your comments in the FAR were spot on. I find his doublespeak to be incredibly dense at times. I declined Ryanjo’s suggestion of adding comments, especially given that yours were so apt. I especially liked where you pointed out that many of the refs/cites to which he was objecting were there when the article earned its FA status. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses. Ryanjo (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

2cb-fly

You recently reverted an edit of the 2C-B-FLY article, I do not know if what was written followed wikipedia guideline, but I can assure you that this is real. Samples are to be sent of to be analysed by two independant places, and the owner of the company selling the conatminated batch of this chemical has overdosed himself. I urgently request that you put something up in some form, even if you want to call the claims unverified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.203.57 (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you the author of the deleted comment? I'll post here as you might be back. Misplaced Pages is not a news agency or a drug awareness site, and the allegation that the purported owner of a supposed company allegedly selling a possibly contaminated batch of what might be this drug is believed by yourself to have died you think from ingesting his own wares does not belong in the Misplaced Pages article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This warning will almost certainly prevent unnecessary fatalities, you realize that by removing this you are by proxy murdering people, correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.164.234 (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You do realise that if you continue, the admins will block you from editing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not the only one messaging and editing, no. This is a very real event, people are dieing and I don't see any harm in a temporary warning aimed to prevent a bunch of deaths over this weekend. You're treating this like a joke, it's pretty insulting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.164.234 (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not treating it like a joke. I'm saying this is not an appropriate place to attempt to report it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There are wiki pages vandalized like crazy everywhere. It might not be totally appropriate but I think it's very valuable information which everyone should have access to and Wiki is an amazing resource. I personally will not try to further edit the page, but I urge you to reconsider. Save some lives mannnnnnnnnnn

Uh, no. It may seem that you are saving lives, in fact, the opposite is true. Misplaced Pages is not intended to be a reliable source for product warnings. Leaving occasional, incomplete, unreferenced statements in Misplaced Pages articles will lead some readers to believe that Wiki intends to be up-to-date with the best information. Someone believing that could easily come to a Wiki article that is not up-to-date (or has been vandalized) and get deadly information. Such warnings belong in the hands of pharmaceutical companies and health professionals. Not a community encyclopedia. You see? In big picture, it doesn't work. Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Please see. You have stated that there was no attempt at previous resolutions. I have added a few, and there are plenty of other attempts. This deals with previous attempts at solving disputes with Geogre that would have had different results (i.e. not failed) if knowledge of sock puppetry was known and an admin acting on enforcing the rules when they were broken and led to the dispute. Hipocrite and some others have made statements suggesting that they accept these. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I stated that you had shown no attempt at previous resolutions. It would appear that you have subsequent to the initial filing shown evidence of one attempt by yourself which may meet the criteria for RfC/U. Better late than never may apply if this is the case. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"Transit"

... indeed appears in the names of public transportation ("mass transit", "rapid transit") agencies, e.g. as listed in Mass transit in the United_States#Cities. Yes, perhaps to an astronomer "rapid transit" refers to Mercury's passage in front of the Sun as seen from Earth, but luckily very few people have tried to board that planet en route to Hoboken NJ as a result of being confused by the ambiguity. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

the lensman blasted
into space
his ship will surely
win the race
              — e e smith

Oberonfitch (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Heh, I have no idea as to what I am doing. Left message for you on my talk page though.

Curse you, Elen of the so-called Roads!!!!!

I just had an edit conflict at Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft and found that you had just added the same citation as I was adding! You're so fast, perhaps you should be Elen of the Motorways!   pablo_hablo. 11:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Vroom vroom!!--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks to you Ellen for giving me the fyi

thanks about the fyi on my sock investigation requisition; my English is not perfect, with regret, so I fear I may be unable to comprehend the correct methodology for filing and such and what not Secretoffatima (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please fix your error and be more careful in the future,

Seen here.— Dædαlus 23:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I'm just going to fix it myself with a diff to prove I wasn't forging a comment.— Dædαlus 23:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I can only presume I knocked out the comment in an edit conflict - sorry about that. Usually I restart the edit to avoid anything like that happening, but I do recall in this case that I didn't, I cut my comment out and pasted it back in. As you say, more care in future. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Legacy of Kain

It's not an obscure TV series, rather a popular video game series (5 in total for PS1+2) which also spawned a comic and stuff. Other names like Vorador are already redirects, so I don't see why we would not benefit from also doing so with the other names which are quite unique. Tyciol (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Misinformation

I have never put unsourced material anywhere perhaps you should read the history to see who put up the info. I am just puting back others work that is accurate. But honestly if you want a page with misleading info on it I guess I really dont care.

Cheers Mateyahoy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateyahoy (talk • contribs) 03:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

hello

no sir, i was purely joking and playing with that article. sorry but could you please fix it back? thanks so much, oh and my other edits are serious ones, (e.g. claiming Keio as Harvard of Japan (#1 in Japan) is unplausible) Nobrag1 (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

allright, sorry for that! thank you very much Nobrag1 (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

I mistakenly rolled back your edit at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts; Iimmediately reinstated the edit. -Jeremy 02:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Need for new guideline

I was thinking about taking this discussion to Misplaced Pages talk: Blocking policy or village pump, perhaps even moving the existing discussion to one of those places from WP:AN. Do you have any thoughts? Equazcion (talk) 04:50, 29 Oct 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my concern is not whether paedophiles *should* be allowed to edit Misplaced Pages - I have kids and I share the general concerns of others about dangers on the internet, and I am therefore ambivalent about the idea (I am also quite certain that if some guy targeted my kids, he'd be wearing his genitalia as neckware by the time I got through with him, but that's a mother talking). I would think that Arbcom did not want it to come out in the other debate that Misplaced Pages has editors who are known paedophiles about whom no action is taken (although in one case it is rather a technicality to do with living in a state that had an unusually high age of consent for girls than a predeliction for girls that are younger than what is normally thought acceptable).

Where I am coming from particularly is a concern for false positives. During 'the great LJ strikeout' a few years ago, a lone staffer wandered into Pornish Pixies, a community of exclusively female Harry Potter fen, who wrote Harry/Snape chan and created images to go with their fics. Some of what they produced was extreme - I would say I was uncomfortable reading and viewing it - but it was neither illegal under either the US or UK definition, nor were they advocates for grown men having sex with children in real life. The fan communities were well aware of the distinction, the staffer was not, and as I believe, LJ at the same time had issues with communities that were pro-paedophilia and were suspected of targeting and grooming.

So the staffer was all like "ZOMG!! PAEDOPHILES!!!", shut the community down and went after the members, found that they were members of other fan communities, started shutting them down, started shutting down individual journals and deleting the content from LJ servers.....and all hell broke loose. The bunny in the headlamps reaction of LJ when their defense of "they're paedophiles and they are breaking the law" was met with "not and not" was truly dreadful to see.

I can see this happening again, I really can, while the responsibility rests with individual admins, and blocks are issued without consultation with a wider team or discussion with the 'accused'. And in a situation where an individual admin can plaster 'you are a paedophile' all over someone's account, that makes the admin vulnerable if they are wrong, because basically they have just libelled someone to hell and back, and 'no legal threats' may not save them.

Also, if the review by Arbcom exposed targeting/grooming activities, the question of contacting the authorities arise, and in some circs it may be preferable not to tip the 'accused' off, so that an investigation by the Feds can take place. this also came out in the LJ debacle - the cops were monitoring a couple of communities that were inhabited by known paedophiles, and shutting them down without talking to law enforcement caused some friction.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the cloak and dagger stuff is truly ridiculous. Just put "Tyciol" in your browser and see what Google kicks out. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've done the google thing on him too, and I had the relevant info in a matter of seconds, so yeah I agree, it is pretty ridiculous the way this is being handled. I'm at least partially with you on the subject of whether or not to allow "pedophiles" to edit. This is a very complex issue. I'm with you completely, though, that if pedophiles are to be banned on sight, there ought to be a policy, and that's my main concern.

Food for thought, though, the definition of pedophile isn't someone who violated the age-of-consent laws in their given jurisdiction. That definition is somewhat colloquial. A pedophile is someone attracted to prepubescents. I wouldn't mention this if not for my seeing it as a problem that we lump someone who got into technical trouble with a 17 year-old, let's say, with someone who did something unsavory with a 10 year-old. In the case of the former, the label applies more damage than I think is deserved. But people with children tend to "err on the side of security", let's say. Not that I can really blame them or you. If I had kids, my perspective would probably be nudged over to that side too.

Anyway, the point of my bringing this here is to see what you thought of starting a discussion (or continuing the previous one) in some appropriate location for discussing policy revisions. The closer of the discussion at AN, User:Durova, gave me his consent to bring the discussion elsewhere (consent just being a formality to prevent accusations of forum-shopping). Let me know what you think. Equazcion (talk) 21:39, 29 Oct 2009 (UTC)

It would be worth doing I think. The issue that I believe is challenging Arbcom is this - what do they do if a sizeable proportion of editors takes Skomorokh's view that only editing on wiki should be taken into account. It simplifies things - but it also may reflect badly. And you're right, there are differences. A paedophiliac is attracted to the prepubescent, but may not necessarily have (or maybe desire I suppose, I don't know) a relationship involving penetrative sexual acts; a child molestor does what it says on the tin, in Canada the age of consent is apparently 14, in other places its 16,18 or 21, so clearly it's possible to be perceived as having sex with an underage partner in one country, where it is acceptable in another. Also, what do you call people who achieve sexual gratification (and they do) writing Harry Potter/Snape chan with graphic depictions of sex. That are women. That have no actual desire to either have sex with the underaged, or to witness it in real life.

I think the approach should be based around the fact that the hardware, servers etc are subject to the jurisdiction of wherever they are sited, so the risk is to the Wikimedia Foundation (the Feds could shut them down). Definitions can then be made in terms of one defined legal system (this is what SixApart did). The focus should be on procedure if an editor is suspected of illegal activities or a likelihood to commit such - ie having sex with partners underage in their own country or in the US state where the servers reside IF THAT IS LOWER. That gets round the age thing, you've produced an arbitrary definition. Nothing should be made public until an investigation has taken place - no slapping "paedophile" notices on anyone's talkpage, which was what really concerned me. Any decision must be collective, not individual, to protect individual admins in case of error. Evidence must be submitted to the arbs only, and released to no one but the suspect except on production of a court order. Ryan panicked, or was pissed off, thought his judgement was at fault, and started handing out evidence. Fortunately in this case, the evidence comes top of a google search, but this mustn't happen again. If there is evidence that the editor has carried out illegal activities (targeting and grooming are illegal I believe in the US), serious consideration should be given to providing evidence to law enforcement (rather than just banning the guy, which just moves him on); if the only evidence is that he has promoted illegal activities, care should be taken not to give the impression that he's done anything else. If the evidence isn't conclusive, the matter must be closed, the evidence binned, and none of it appear anywhere in public. Arbcom isn't the Feds, it isn't covered by laws allowing it to collect vapourware on people.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think your approach has merit. I'm not sure it would encompass Tyciol though, since from what I've seen he's just outspoken about his opinions on the issue from a theoretical standpoint. He didn't actually state any intention, as far as I'm aware. Or would being outspoken still count? Should people who say "I think it should be okay to do this, but I wouldn't since it's not presently allowed" be permitted to edit? How would you define "likelihood to commit"? So many questions, that the community should probably be answering rather than just you and I. I'm skittish about starting this discussion somewhere more public, what with Flonight's statement and the general taboo of the subject. I wonder if people would consider his statement binding, and my non-adherence worthy of a block, or something. Equazcion (talk) 01:24, 30 Oct 2009 (UTC)

I think FloNite thought I was asking about the case in hand, which she naturally didn't want to talk about. Durova did realise I was talking about generics. Hustling it out of the way and trying to pretend nothing has happened just makes one look like the Catholic Church (apologies if you are of that faith - I used to be once). Tyciol I think is a wannabe, an attention seeker. Checking his LJ profile, he's part of a gazillion groups, all of them special interest, only a few associated with child sex. The list reads more like a man who can't get a girlfriend and is, with increasing desperation, trying anything. Plushies seems to have been the latest. I'm not actually convinced he's ever had sex with anything. That's another one - what about men who have these life size dolls. Have you seen that? Creepy or what - but it's not illegal to have sex with a life size doll, even one dressed as Sailor Moon.

I think the focus has to be on promoting or advocating an illegal act, soliciting an illegal act, or carrying out an illegal act (targeting and grooming being illegal) - but acceptable evidence may be on or off wikipedia. If someone is targeting kids on Second Life, Misplaced Pages doesn't want 'em. Being creepy, kinky or generally icky isn't enough - which was what really alarmed me with what Ryan first put out. And that is a problem. He's been banned everywhere for being creepy - but he still has his LJ account, so he's never stepped over the mark with them (mind you, their servers are now in Russia, where I gather they don't bother so much about such things). If he'd been kicked off the communities for targeting, saying he'd had sex with a minor, or suggesting other did so, they could have got him cashed in under LJ's ToS, so I presume he's been just as careful there in terms of the line he draws. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your personal attacks. WP:NPA

Please stop your personal attacks. WP:NPAPennySeven (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I would if I was, but I'm not so I won't. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion would be appreciated

Hi there. You'll probably remember the discussion at AN/I about an IP blanking the SharedIP template from their talk page. If you recall, I revised the standing guideline to reflect what seemed to be a change in consensus, yet someone else has reverted me and initiated a discussion. I don't think this talk page is watched by many people so I would love to have input from others who may understand my frustration. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 07:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

AUSC elections

The SecureVote log indicates that there were software irregularities when User:Elen of the Roads voted at 21:06 on 1 November 2009. Just to be on the safe side, you could please return to the voting page and resubmit your vote. Many thanks,  Roger Davies 17:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm hopeless. I can't find the page again. Do you have a link, and I'll recast my vote as advised. Thanks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Special:SecurePoll/vote/60 :)  Roger Davies 09:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comment at the Ottavia Rima ArbReq

You omitted a rather telling point in the exchange over renaming the Lord Byron article: JackofOz joins in agreeing with OR (unless I completely misunderstand his statement), yet OR accuses him of "lying" & being "tenditious and incivil" simply because he used the form of the poet's name OR dislikes in his post. OR clearly needs to get a handle on her/his temper, regardless where the ArbCom take this case. -- llywrch (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava said so much in that short section - I did miss that one. Not sure if it's worth adding - anyone who reads the thread can see it immediately. I thought it was worth making a statement on because it is so utterly uncontroversial - it should have been a source based debate on a name - and it shows that OR is just as bad in that kind of setting. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. In any case, had I known about the discussion, I probably would have objected to moving the article to "Lord Byron" for the reason that ISTR there was a 19th-century British general named Lord Byron, & that is enough of a name collision to justify making "Lord Byron" a disambiguation page -- but writing that might have elicited a flame from OR for committing some incidental & accidental minor error in the history of Romantic poetry. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Bizarrely, I agreed with OR. The article should stay where it is, in the set of Barons Byron. I know I said as much, but only after SoV had blocked him. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Just another example of how a lack of civility & vicious invective can be more important in dissuading someone than numerous rational arguments. -- llywrch (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Jean_René_Baroux

Elen,

Thank you for the input. I'm struggling with finding my way through Wiki, being a novice with it, it's formating and its syntax. The French version of the page is being improved and edited and I will attempt to make it consistent with the English Wiki version. I am enlisting additional help from others on the content now that at least the pages are started which should make additional contribution easier.

The difficulty you refer to on the French version has more to do with my challenge with the French language, but I am working on getting that fixed and have communicated with the editor. In time the pages will stabilize toward more coherence and depth.

I look forward to suggestions. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James debar (talk • contribs) 00:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you find some sources, as the article is likely to be deleted otherwise.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

... First reference done. It's a beginning. Thank you. James —Preceding unsigned comment added by James debar (talk • contribs) 01:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• La Méditation Intime (The Intimate Meditation) by Jean Baroux (1982): National Library of Canada --James debar (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool, lets get it in the article and I'll strike my note. Honestly, no matter where I searched, it turned up nothing but WB Yeats. Go figure. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, ... done, and thank you. The exercise was very helpful.--James debar (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Altered Speedy Deletion rationale: Elite Cruises and Travel

Hello Elen of the Roads, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (Elite Cruises and Travel) under a criterion different from the one your provided, which was inappropriate or incorrect. CSD criteria are narrow and specific to protect the encyclopedia, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! NW (Talk) 01:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hokai! I think I tagged it as advertising and would probably stand by that, but it's gone anyway so not worth arguing about. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

List of governors of Nuristan

There are 34 Provinces and I am trying to create a list for every province - and at the moment I am all by myself. The worst part is that we don't have enough information available on Afghanistan related topics on the net (or on print). Therefor, it will take some time to complete the lists and in some cases it will be almost impossible to find all the necessary information. And Nuristan is a new province, so the list is very short. (Ketabtoon (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC))

Humorous

"Ottava's bad temper could equally be caused by an excess of yellow bile."

Monday night I had a lengthy conversation about black bile. But yeah, I am probably more of a melancholic individual. Now, if you've ever been sick and actually seen black bile, -that- is a scary thing, or, at least, very bothersome. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean the stuff you throw up when you've finished throwing up everything but your actual stomach? Yeah, yukky. I'm supposed to have a melancholic temperament, but I also have a genuinely vile temper at times, so who knows. Anyway I didn't think Moreschi's speculation on inner motivation was really that appropriate, and I hope my response did come over as intended ie humorous=funny as well as humorous=ancient medical system. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Mcjakeqcool

Hello Elen. I'm looking around for another admin editor who might still have an interest in this case, since I want to close the discussion. See User talk:KieferSkunk#User talk:Mcjakeqcool where I propose that it is time to close the unblock discussion for Mcj. I notice that KieferSkunk has not been online recently so I'm notifying you as well. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know

The disruptive IP in the RfC/U was confirmed as a sock - see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_4#Outside_view_by_YellowMonkey. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction

"FAC articles are supposed to contain a thorough review of the literature, this one doesn't have any sources after 1920)." 23:44, 13 April 2008 Awadewit posts.

20:15, 13 April 2008:

1. Coxe, William, Memoirs of the Life and Administration of Sir Robert Walpole, Earl of Orford. 1978
2. The Cambridge History of English and American Literature, Volume IX, VI. 19. "Pamphlets on Irish affairs: Drapier’s Letters."
3. Weedon, Margaret, "An Uncancelled Copy of the First Collected Edition of Swift's Poems," The Library, 5th ser., XXII (1967) p. 44–48
4. Goodwin, A. "Woods Halfpence", The English Historical Review, LI (1936)
5. Drapier's Letters ed. Herbert Davis, Oxford University Press, 1935
6. Ferguson, Oliver W. Jonathan Swift and Ireland. University of Illinois Press, 1962
7. Ehrenpreis, Irvin. Jonathan Swift: Volume III Harvard University Press, 1983
8. Letters of Jonathan Swift to Charles Ford ed. D. Nichol Smith, Oxford, 1935
9. Treadwell, J.M. "Swift, William Wood, and the Factual Basis of Satire." Journal of British Studies 1976
10. Cornu, Donald, "Swift, Motte, and the Copyright Struggle: Two Unnoticed Documents", MLN 54 (1939)
11. Swift, Jonathan. Correspondence, ed. Harold Williams Vol. IV. Oxford, 1965

- Ottava Rima (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the Sabine Baltes work that Awadewit was referring to was a monograph of a dissertation. I own it. Dissertations do not meet the thresh hold of "reliable source" for these pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Freemasonry and Catholicism

I'd take it as a personal favor if you'd strike the "unlikely to be a Freemason...his religion forbids it" comment. While technically correct, I was both a Freemason and member of the Knights of Columbus for a time, and the KofC were fully aware of it when they let me join. I quit the Knights recently when they started running petition drives at church against gay marriage (though I hadn't paid dues for a while due to financial troubles, that was the last straw for me).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No probs. It's left over from a longer sentence that I cut anyway. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

'Preciate it -- bit of a sore subject for me. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Romantic

- see . Geogre also points this out. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Elen of the Roads's Day!

User:Elen of the Roads has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Elen of the Roads's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Elen of the Roads! Peace, Rlevse 00:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian Revolution of 1956 Title

Dear Elen:

I recall your involvement in the above-captioned article and so thought that you might be able to answer a question for me: Why does the article, Hungarian Revolution of 1956, use the term, revolution, instead of uprising in its title?

Throughout the article is more frequently found the latter word, suggesting that once upon a time it might have been called the “Hungarian Uprising of 1956”, but was later changed. I could not find anything in the article’s talk page to explain the title choice, although I may not have searched the archives thoroughly enough.

It seems to me, and no offence is meant by this, that “revolutions” succeed (e.g., American, French, Russian, Chinese), while “uprisings” are put down (e.g., Warsaw, Lodz, Hungary). So, I couldn’t figure out the use of revolution in the title instead of uprising.

By way of clarification, this question is motivated by intellectual curiosity only and nothing more. I am not proposing a name change. I just want to be better informed. I’ve asked several history buff friends and none of us were even aware that in the world of academe the event had been renamed. Lastly, none of my, admittedly older, textbooks reflect such a renaming of the events of 1956. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 23:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed quite recently . If you want to comment on the review of the article as a featured article, another voice would be welcome. I think we've all run out of steam a bit. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Modern Talking

Hi Elen, I totally agree with your point of view about Thomas Anders and Dieter Bohlen are the members of the group. Don't delete the table contents, there are A LOT of references that point Systems in Blue members were the choir singers on the 9/10 albums of Modern Talking and all of Blue System. So I recommend you don't delete the info about these members, at least move it to another place in the article but never delete it, they were highly responsible about the Modern Talking chorus, and they have to be recognized. --MisterWiki talking! :-D - 19:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC) P.D. Please answer on my talkpage.

Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Shuttle–Mir Program/archive1.
Message added 23:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at Thejadefalcon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Elen of the Roads. You have new messages at MisterWiki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your recent editing history at Crucifixion in art shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.