User talk:ElinorD/Archive02

This is an archive Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. Thank you. My archived talk Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Will you help me? I am a new Wikipedian, so I need alot of help. Will you be my mentor, or adopt me?Dachshundboy25 02:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Hi, sorry for the delay in replying. If you want to be adopted, it's best to go to the page about adoption and then look at the list of people who are willing to adopt users and select one who is currently accepting adoptees. Leave a note on his or her talk page. Alternatively, you can add {{Adoptme}} to your user page, and a potential adopter will probably come along and offer. I'm not on that list, but I'm very happy to answer questions — although I expect to be quite busy in the next few weeks, so I might have to ignore questions for a few days. One piece of advice I will give you is that you shouldn't put too much personal information on your user page. There are some very weird and nasty people out there, and you don't want to give anything that would help somebody to work out your identity and track you down in real life. I suggest you discuss this with your parents. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for reverting the vandalism on You Are What You Eat (UK TV show) and my talk page. I've been putting up with this guy for ages now and I'm glad for the help. :) Tartan 23:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC) You're welcome. There seems to be a lot of vandalism around here. I have that article on my watchlist, anyway. ElinorD (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Nicktropolis Do you know why the Nicktropolis page was deleted under strange circumstances. Please tell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dachshundboy25 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC). I'm afraid I know nothing about that article. I looked at the logs, though, and found that it was deleted following consensus. It seems to have been recreated a few times, so it was protected against creation. You can see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicktropolis, and you can see the deletion and protection logs here. That's all I can tell you. Hope it helps. ElinorD (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Sorry Hi I am sorry if I should not have posted the comment and link at Wiki page. I just did not know where best to post the comment. I am enraged at the comments made in the news letter which goes out to many thousands of people. I just thought that a few emails to the contributors would not go amis. I just wondered if anyone would like to contact the authors of the articles contained in Delia Venable News Letter I did! Kind regard Ron Barker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ron Barker (talk • contribs) 11:40, 16 March 2007. Hi, thanks for your message. I was actually going to leave a note on your page, after reverting you, but I got caught up with something else. We don't add personal commentary to articles. If there's something you want to say, you can use the talk page (click on the word "discussion" at the top left of any article). However, talk pages should generally be kept for discussing problems in the article and ways to improve it. It's generally not enforced terribly strictly, so I don't think there would be a problem if you wanted to bring something to the attention of people who edit the article, as long as your contributions don't show that you're adding the same comment to multiple pages (which would be regarded as spamming). By the way, please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes like this ~~~~; they will expand into your signature, linking to your user page, and the date. Also, new posts go at the bottom of a page, so I've moved yours. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Gillian McKeith Reason for reverting on Gillian McKeith? 198.96.134.61 12:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC) "Threats against critics" is not very neutral language, and we're dealing with a biography of a living person, so we have to be extra careful. However, I'd prefer to discuss articles on article talk pages. If you want to argue for your wording, you can make your case at Talk:Gillian McKeith, where you can get input from other people, not just from me. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC) OK. So you're saying that all changed have to be agreed in Talk first? Is that WP policy? Strange - you didn't seem to object to SlimV's changing the article without discussion. Bit of a double standard perhaps? 198.96.134.61 13:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC) No, I didn't say that. I said that edits and reverts to an article should be discussed on the talk page of the article, rather than on the talk page of one of the editors. I agree with SlimVirgin's edit, not because it was discussed or because it wasn't discussed, but because it was more in line with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. I don't think all changes have to be agreed in Talk first, unless they are major changes. If you want to argue this further, please go to Talk:Gillian McKeith. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Projects Have you considered joining any WikiProjects? Vassyana 16:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC) I hadn't actually thought about it, but it seems a good idea. Where can I find information about them? I'm interested in Christianity, as you may have guessed. I'm also interested in food preparation. ElinorD (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Sorry for trolling on your talk, but you can find wikiprojects here. Cheers! Real96 23:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC) That's very useful. Thanks for being a helpful troll. :) ElinorD (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC) You may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity, Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible, Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion, Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink. I see Real96 already gave you the main WikiProjects page. Be well!! Vassyana 00:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks, Vassyana. I have looked through them, and have added some to my watchlist, with a view to joining later. ElinorD (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Editor review Thank you for your feedback on my editor review. It is sincerely appreciated and I will take your suggestions to heart, particularly about the user templates and enabling e-mail. The critical feedback is exactly what I was hoping to hear, believe it or not. Thank you again. Vassyana 23:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC) You're welcome. Glad you have email enabled. I'll probably be sending you a message in the next few days. ElinorD (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Institute for Optimum Nutrition Hi, Elinor. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm a bit embarrassed that I made that mistake. After I got your message, I was hoping that the Institute, at the time that I created the article, was called the "Institute of Optimum Nutrition", and had only changed its name recently. But when I looked up one of my Patrick Holford books, which I owned at the time, it was quite clear that the Institute was called the Institute FOR Optimum Nutrition back then as well. Maybe it's because I work in an Institute OF something that I just filled in the preposition in my mind, without bothering to read it properly. Thanks for catching and fixing my mistake. The article has had the wrong title for over a year. (Groan) Musical Linguist 01:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC) I had read the article before Patrick Holford corrected the link, and I hadn't noticed it was wrong either, even though I've heard of the Institute FOR Optimum Nutrition. ElinorD (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC) My Talk page Thanks for reverting the abuse (though I quite liked being described as pure evil; no-one's thought of me as pure anything for years...). I've left a couple of NPA warnings at their Talk page, but can't block them, given that it's aimed at me (according to a recent discussion at WP:AN/I). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC) BLP Hi Elinor, no worries. The best rule of thumb for BLP is — if in doubt, remove. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Archimedes Plutonium page Hello Elinor D. I am Archimedes Plutonium. I have a gripe about the AP page because there is a reference to the Zantop murders by Tim Skirvin webpage. He is a incurable hatemonger of me. He has no business in editing my Wiki page. Elinor, can you please take a look at my Wiki page and see that reference of Zantop murders and the line that says " I am eccentric" does not belong what belongs on that page is OBJECTIVE data and OBJECTIVE references: Elinor, please remove the Zantop reference, and please consider this below as replacement: Archimedes Plutonium (born July 5 , 1950 as Ludwig Poehlmann ) is primarily noted for his original idea of the Atom Totality Theory which appears in the October 1992 Dartmouth Alumni Magazine with a picture of Mr. Plutonium; and the theory is further explained in Scientific American magazine April 1993. The first idea of a Universe being one single atom appears to have been Democritus, the founder of the Atomic theory, as referenced by the book "A Short History of Atomism", Joshua C. Gregory, 1931, A.&C. Black Ltd, page 4 "single Democritean atom might even be, so some said, as big as the world. The gigantic Democritean atom, if it ever existed, vanished from the atomic tradition." Then Carl Sagan hinted and brushed by an idea that the universe can be an elementary particle. As written in his book "Cosmos", 1980, Random House: pages 265-267 "so that an elementary particle, such as an electron, in our universe would, if penetrated, reveal itself to be an entire closed universe." Then in November 1990, Archimedes Plutonium announced a full theory of the Atom Totality theory, by saying what chemical element the Universe is specifically-- a big Plutonium Atom and that galaxies are dots of the electron-dot-cloud of this single big plutonium atom. AP says it must be plutonium to satisfy special numbers of physics and mathematics such as the fine-structure-constant. Interestingly, Archimedes Plutonium has the first Internet Book where he wrote the entire book andused the Internet to publish it. This first Internet published book is his Atom Totality theory: Book: "ATOM TOTALITY THEORY REPLACES THE BIG-BANG THEORY OF PHYSICS", Archimedes Plutonium Internet book published 1993-2007 (assimilated in Jan-Feb 2007 in sci.physics,sci.math) Curiously, the Dalai Lama published a book "Universe in a Single Atom" in 2006 by Time Warner. The Dalai Lama never referenced Archimedes Plutonium but then when does a spiritual leader ever reference and cite the way science cites? Thanks for you attention —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.16.55.28 (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC). Reply: I have already said here that I see no reference in the article to the Zantop murders. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I know nothing about Archimedes Plutonium, or Tim Skirvin, or the Zantop murders. The word "Zantop" does not appear in the article, and neither does the word "Skirvin". I don't really have time to research every reference to find out which one of them might be the one you object to, and since I told you at your own talk page that I couldn't find anything about the Zantop murders, I find it odd that you don't tell me exactly which sentence you object to. I don't think it would be a good idea for me to replace a whole article with a version written by somebody who has vandalised the Jimmy Wales article five times. Furthermore, the article doesn't say that Archimides Plutonium is eccentric; it says that he is noted for his eccentric contributions to Usenet. Anyway, I only got involved because I was reverting the vandalism you did. If you have a valid complaint, please make it at the article talk page or at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC) FWIW, there is a link on the AP talk page to this external link. If you skim that, it sounds like when the Zantop murders were being investigated, one false lead was AP (or LP) who is apparently also User:216.16.55.28. My hunch is that IP:216.16.55.28, Archimedes Plutonium and Ludwig Poehlmann (we are asked to believe they are all one and the same) are asking that a user other than themselves remove this connection (AP as a false suspect in a crime) from their biography (or their biography talk page). (I didn't look at all previous versions of the article; "Zantop" may be in an archived version of the main article.) The rules of BLP probably apply; this is a zone of WP I have not studied yet ... --Keesiewonder talk 11:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks for that, Keesiewonder. I've left a note at the talk page of the person who added that link to the article talk page, though of course the vandalism of Jimmy Wales started before that was added, and I can't find the link anywhere in the article, so I really don't know what the IP is complaining about. ElinorD (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Understood; I'm only speaking about the connection between the IP, the biography we have on Archimedes Plutonium, and the Zantop murders. I have not been following the IP's abuse of the Jimmy Wales page. Will look at that later. Keesiewonder talk 12:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC) As I suspected, the link I pointed out is apparently the problem and has, I believe, already been deleted here. Now we just need to watch to make sure it does not reappear. --Keesiewonder talk 12:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC) FYI, the AP article is now an AfD. I am really torn on how I feel I'd like to see this one go. Keesiewonder talk 00:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks for letting me know. I'll take a look. ElinorD (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC) "Attack pages" Greetings, Since you are not a party to the old User:Agapetos_angel dispute (that I know of), I believe I can count on your objective input. Can you explain to me what (1) constitutes an "attack page", (2) how the recent "sarfati" page you voted on constitutes such a page, and (3) what I can do to that page to remove its status as such. In Good Faith, --Otheus 22:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC) PS: The point may be moot, but my question is not. [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otheus (talk • contribs) 10:02, 19 March 2007. One last time: please respond to my query. A non-response might be considered as your having voted in bad faith. --Otheus 09:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Please be a little more patient. I don't always respond instantly to messages on my talk page, and there are in fact some that I'm responding to now that have been there for longer than yours. As the pages have been deleted, it would be hard for me to go into exact details, but generally, I think it's a bad idea to maintain a page on Wikipedia in which you document the real or imagined misbehaviour of other editors and/or your problems with them. It makes for bad feeling, as they inevitably discover it. If you need to keep a record of these things, I suggest you keep it on your own hard disk. That's all I really have to say. An editor should be free to "vote" (although we don't call it that) in an AfD or similar page without having to defend himself (or herself). ElinorD (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Thank you very much for your reply. I'm sorry I was so late in seeing it. Yes, you should be free to "vote" without defending yourself. As my question states, I was trying to understand why having such a page is a bad idea. I could not see anything in any guideline or policy per se that would constitute grounds for its removal. The person nominating the AfD did not really explicate such grounds. So, if you agree that it's a bad idea to maintain a page on Wikipedia to document real or imagined misbehavior of others, I accept that response, and indeed, have followed up with your suggestion of keeping it on my own disk space. Thank you again. --Otheus 16:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Trupti Patel Nice article, Elinor. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC) James Dobson Thank you for pointing out to me Wikipedia's guidelines I promise to be neutral more in the future. Kindly, Encyclone —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Encylone (talk • contribs) 00:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC). You're welcome ... and I replied here. --Keesiewonder talk 00:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Your note Good idea about the category. You might want to reconsider the name, however, as "mothers accused of killing their babies" will catch those who did it, and those who didn't, as well as those who did but who were given very harsh penalties (e.g. acts of infanticide attracting murder convictions). "Mothers falsely accused of killing their babies" might be better: if a court overturns a conviction, it means the accusation can be regarded by us as false, even though the court has not explicitly said so. Or "wrongfully accused" if that's better English (not sure whether it is). As for Donna Anthony, yes there's plenty of material about her that would make a good article. She's definitely notable enough. And as for that pediatrician, the word "controversial" could have been made for him. :-( SlimVirgin (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Shouldnt the 'Mothers...' category actually be a subcategory of the Category of disputed convictions? otherwise it is not a sub category of anything at the moment SatuSuro 10:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC) If you know how to do that, please go ahead. I'll watch! :) ElinorD (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Unless Slim or someone else beat me to it - I'll try for something within 24 hrs or so - problem is separating convicted maternal killing, from those acquitted - and within different jurisdictions... will try ... dont hold your breath! SatuSuro 11:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks. I'm not even sure that I chose the best possible title for the category. Although I don't have any doubt about the innocence of these women, and I know that Wikipedia talk pages aren't meant to be used for speculation ("did she really do it"?), I think that "falsely accused" is too strong, because there still are people who believe in their guilt. A lot of convictions are overturned not because there's proof of someone's innocence, but because it's decided that there wasn't enough evidence to justify a "guilty" verdict. I think of this category for cases where a child died, and a significant number of people did not accept the mother's explanation. It wouldn't include cases like Andrea Yates, which isn't controversial at all. Ideally, the category should be able to have people who are still in prison, provided there's a sufficient amount of public support for them. It wouldn't include cases where only the husband believes in his wife's innocence. Category:Controversial accusations of filicide would be a possibility, but sounds horrible. Anyway, if anyone wants to move it to something more appropriate, I won't object. I just feel there should be some category that includes people like Trupti Patel, who was never convicted, as well as people like Lindy Chamberlain and Donna Anthony, who spent years in prison. ElinorD (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC) The more I look at all the ..cides i think it belongs more in the larger murder category family - as that can carry across variant jurisdictions - and that controversial /disputed comes next. Very slow in my workings on this so far.SatuSuro 11:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my page. --Nlu (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC) No problem. :) ElinorD (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC) A little expert assistance? ;o) Would you mind reviewing the two food articles on the Good Article candidate list? WP:GAC could always use a little help and I thought your food interest might be helpful. You can check the two articles currently listed under the food category right here. Vassyana 15:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC) I hope to do that when I get a little more time. I've already had a quick look. Thanks for bringing them to my attention. ElinorD (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Your message Thanks for that — similar opinions had been expressed at WP:AN/I in the recent past, but I didn't have time to look for them. Bits of the discussion further down the page are depressingly familiar though, with at least one person doing a good job of talking nonsense in a calm, confident, and authoritative manner. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks... ...for reverting the vandalism at my user page. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC) You're welcome. ElinorD (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC) For you The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar Thanks for all your good work! It really does a lot to maintain the encyclopedia as a useful resource. Tom Harrison Talk 20:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Well, thanks, Tom. Nice of you to notice. ElinorD (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks Guettarda 23:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium (AfD discussion) Please revisit the discussion. Uncle G 10:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Talk:Main Page Thanks for your help on those pesky vandals at Talk:Main Page :) --Spebi 22:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Image help Thanks for the offer to help. The best thing to do would be to start at the top of the user's image contribs list, and start working your way down. I'm working from the bottom up. If there is a source, and the source has nothing about being freely licensed, use {{imagevio}}. If the there is no source, subst: {{nsd}}. If there is anything confusing (for instance, the image looks old, or he has claimed that the copyright belongs to him but it doesn't appear to be a personal photo), use {{PUI-disputed}}. Don't bother notify the user; I've already left more than a dozen messages and a note that every image is a problem. Thanks again! Jkelly 21:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC) I don't think it matters if {{imagevio}} is subst'ed or not. Jkelly 21:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC) I think we're done now. Jkelly 21:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the support Much appreciated. ;^) Crum375 21:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC) How to cite resources and other things?? I am very new to wikipedia, and i created an article named Urodela I need to cite the sources and some other stuff will you help me? Thank You, Love, Satrohraj. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.93.89.200 (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC). German Dear Elinor, here is the help you requested: "Problems with this link are being discussed at English Wikipedia and also at Meta." would literally translate to: "Probleme mit diesem Link were gerade in der englisch(sprachig)en Wikipedia und Meta-Wiki diskutiert." However, as an edit summary I would put something shorter, more concise and also more explanatory: "Entf(erne) problematischen Link - wird gerade auf der englischen WP und Meta-Wiki diskutiert." (R(e)m(ove) problematic link - currently discussed at English WP and Meta) Hope this helps. Let me tell you. Though I am German I feel clumsy when I edit the German WP because I am so used to the English terms. Str1977 (smile back) 06:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC) deathcamps.org You can see from archive.org that deathcamps.org is the original since 2002 and therefore not violating any copy rights. -- Simplicius 11:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC) See my response to your question at m:Talk:Spam blacklist. You raised a good question.--A. B. (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC) The minus-site has been shut down. Some minutes ago I asked for putting the original site from the blacklist. The weblinks/sources refering to this site should be restored. -- Simplicius 16:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC) Your feedback Your honest feedback would be welcome if you would take a look at a WikiProject proposal I have in my user subpages. It's designed for "reviwers" who participate in processes like editor reviews and request for feedback. Please let me know what you think. Vassyana 10:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC) RFCN I agree with all your examples, in fact (well, you'd expect me to really). My problem arises when people seem determined to find some way for a name to be offensive (look at the recent fiasco over "TortureIsWrong", with one argument being put forward that it might be offensive to a bondage-fetishist, or something of the sort, and "PrettyYoungThing" [I think it was] being accused of inciting sexual lust, or something of the sort; those are extreme examples, but they're at the extreme end of a disturbing spectrum of cases). A few people at WP:RFCN devote themselves to finding reasons for rejecting names, and that might push people like me a little too far the other way — though I try not to let it do so. It's often difficult to believe that they're serious (as when someone wrote of "Canister of Death": "it scares me"), but they're sometimes the first experience new users have of Wikipedia, and it's not a pretty sight. On another issue, HighInBC has closed discussions in line with his way of thinking, and insisted that he was right to do so because, though the numbers went against his decisions, the people on the other side were going against policy; well, that's not how Wikipedia works. The bullying tactics at the RFCN page are sometimes appalling, and as no-one outside the page is very concerned, I try to keep some sort of balance by expressing myself equally strongly and persistently. It's not ideal, but I don't know what else to do. I don't know if that goes any way towards bringing us closer to an understanding... --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC) I think that I'd heard but then forgotten the Enid Blyton story; thanks for reminding me. I think that we are largely in agreement on the main issues. There are times at RFCN when I can't help thinking of the mob of neighbours that attacked doctor specialising in children's heath, and (I think) forced her to move house and change job, because they couldn't distinguish between a pediatrician and a paedophile. The stated view of some of the regulars there is that if a name offends someone, or even if it might offend someone, then policy dictates that it be disallowed — and that those who say that they don't find it offensive and vote for allowing it are irrelevant and ignorant of policy. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC) I wonder what they'd make of SlimVirgin nowadays. Seems she slipped in under the radar. RespectableUsername (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Funny you should say that — I'd been thinking it myself. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC) I have to confess I was thinking the same thing! Although I'm not quite in agreement with Mel over where the border should be for what's acceptable and what isn't, I can accept SlimVirgin. But I do think it's kind of inviting harassment. If I were an anonymous troll who wanted to ask some impertinent questions, I know whose talk page I'd be heading for first! ElinorD (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Thank goodness the possibility of harassment, stalking, and being the focus of almost incessant personal attacks didn't materialize. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks for that revert ... ... well caught! :) - Alison☺ 17:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC) and again! Same vandal today, different IP. Thanks :) - Alison☺ 23:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC) RfA thanks Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers. - Michael Billington (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC) St Pixels Would you please let me know why you deleted my insertion of a page on St Pixels online church. Regards Kacey110 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kacey110 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 3 April 2007. Hi, Kacey. First of all, can you please sign your posts on talk pages (discussion pages) by typing four tildes like this ~~~~ . They will convert automatically into your username, with a link to your userpage, and will also include the date and time of the message. That helps other people to keep track of who said what. Secondly, I didn't delete your the article St Pixels. Only an administrator can delete pages. The deletion log shows who deleted it, with the reason. The administrator in question gave A7 and G11 as the reason. If you go to the page about speedy deletion, you'll see that G7 means that the page was considered to be promoting a group, a product, or a company. A7 means that the article is about a person or a group, but does not show how the person or group is significant or important enough to have an article. What I did was I removed the link in the Christianity article, because I didn't think it was sufficiently notable or relevant to the Christianity article. I don't mean to imply that it's not Christian. Sure, it is, but so is, for example, the Palmarian Catholic Church, and that's not linked to from the Christianity article. I hope that helps. ElinorD (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Hi Elinor, Thanks for your help. Best wishes. Kacey110 07:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Kacey Thanks Hey Elinor, thank you very much for reverting the vandalism on my talk page yesterday. I've been noticing you around a lot and I agree with Vassyana who suggested you consider an RfA. I understand wanting to wait until you have been here longer, but I think you would make an outstanding administrator and if you are ever looking for a nominator or co-nominator, I would be honoured to write a nomination for you. :) Cheers, Sarah 04:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC) The Working Woman's Barnstar Thanks Elinor, for your hard work cleaning up vandalism and for your outstanding contributions to discussions on the various noticeboards and talk pages. Sarah 04:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Ludicrous User name As you know, I probably do count as more tolerant than many concerning User names, but in this case I agree with you that Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć should be changed. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC) I wasn't actually looking for agreement, but I just couldn't resist pointing it out! ElinorD (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC) I know, but I just had to agree. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC) A more complete answer The full answer is simple. Personally, I oppose linking to those pages. I believe that should be policy, and I can be persuaded to help make it policy. In borderline cases, I prefer to err on the side of caution and support the personal safety of our users. On the other hand, a more comprehensive strategy, rather than the whim of a single admin, should be developed to deal with precisely these issues. Yes, if someone acted in any way that would endanger an admin, I would act immediately. In fact, I have in the past (one of the first controversial blocks I made was to someone who posted identifying information about Angela, long before she was a board member). Danny 11:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Copyright problem cleanup task You had expressed some interest before in volunteering to help clean up copyright problems. There's a mess at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Plagiarism_and_copyright_infringement_denied, if you're still interested. Jkelly 03:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks for asking me. I have taken a look. The disambiguation pages that I've seen seem okay, as there isn't much you can plagiarise when you write X can refer to a novel written in 1742 by X a film produced in 1989 by Y However, I did check everything that I struck through. I checked by taking the version created by Orbicle, and googling some phrases with quotation marks. If I took the current version, some editors might have changed "small" to "little", or "many" to "several", and it wouldn't show in an online search. Personally, I think text copyright violations are more self-solving, and therefore less of a problem, than image vios, because once the article has been created, people will make changes. The changes I've just mentioned wouldn't solve copyright problems, of course, but I've seen rewrites (e.g. by SlimVirgin) which absolutely transform, and greatly improve an article. If it's on a rather obscure subject, it's likely to remain as a copyvio for months, but if it's reasonable notable, I think (you can disagree, of course) that we'd have little to worry about by the time fifty editors had de-POVed, removed weasel words, added sections, put in fact tags, found sources, removed BLP violations, and done a fair bit of edit warring! I'll have another look later on, if I get a chance. We're actually on holiday at the moment, but there's internet access in the hotel room. However, I'm sure you wouldn't want me to say, "Sorry, darling, we can't go to the zoo yet, because I'm doing a job on Wikipedia!" :) Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Animal photos I think that commons:WikiProject Tree of Life has some people who help users identify animal photographs. They seem to currently be engaged in a long dispute over categories. Perhaps they would like an interruption. Jkelly 01:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC) John Billings Hi, I nominated the John Billings article for the DYK section, and it was approved. Thanks for your work in starting and writing most of the article. Recurring dreams 06:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks for that. If I had known, I would have put more work into it! ElinorD (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC) La muette de Portici I have made some commemts on your deletions (of the references to the Belgian Revolution and the print article in Grove) in the talk section of the article. Perhaps you would like to respond? The article is only a stub, but there are some important editing issues we need to discuss. Best regards. - Kleinzach 23:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks. Responded at the article talk page, and will keep it on my watchlist for the next few weeks, in case you want to reply to my reply. ElinorD (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks. I will also reply on the article talk page. - Kleinzach 07:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC) arbitration requested - you are named User:Mangoe has filed for arbitration about Wikipedia:Attack sites at this address. We are named parties. - Denny (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Mistake? I recently recieved a message from you about stopping vandalizing things 'n stuff. I just though I'd let you know that you sent it to the wrong person, as I, personally, have no interest it changing topics about... mushrooms? Anyway, I suppose you might want to send it to the right person or something. --68.211.148.18 00:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Apologies, but in fact that's something that happens fairly regularly to people who edit from IPs without registering an account. Depending on your internet provider, you could have a different IP address every time you switch on the computer, or, if you're on dial up, every time you connect to the internet. Or you could be using an always-on connection, but from a school or a library. That means that if someone leaves a message on your talk page after you've switched off, or after you've started browsing a different website, the message will display to the next person who goes to Wikipedia from the IP that you were using at the time. So, you simply got a message that was left for the person who was then using the IP address that you have now, and who did vandalism like this a few times. To avoid this happening again, you might like to register an account, by clicking the link at the top right of the page. If you do that, choosing a username (which doesn't have to identify you personally) all messages sent to your new talk page will be for you personally. ElinorD (talk) 06:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Ice cream The photo of your ice cream is OK I suppose — but it would have been much better if it had been coffee ice cream (or honey and ginger, or pistachio, or coconut...). Any chance of a picture of your hand holding a coffee ice cream? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC) The children don't like my coffee ice cream. In fact, the eldest said that it had a "lovely texture but disgusting flavour". And none of us likes the other flavours that you mention. However, I'll admit that if it weren't for the children's disapproval, coffee ice cream might be the one I'd make most often, as it is delicious, so it's quite likely that you will see a picture of it some time soon. And by the way, I have NEVER before had my strawberry ice cream described as "OK I suppose". I assure you that if you tasted it, you'd show a little more enthusiasm! ElinorD (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC) There's nothing to beat a real Italian pistachio gelato. Once you've tasted it, you're ruined for anything else. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC) I've never been keen on strawberry ice cream, but I'm willing to believe that yours would change my mind. If no coffee were available. My favourite coffee ice cream was in Athens; it was called koronaki [referring to the "crown" on a Turkish coffee"] — delicious. My favourite ice was a water ice in Lefkosia, Cyprus: lemon and rose flavours... --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC) I love drinking coffee and actually, my great uncle is very famous in Australia as a coffee importer and manufacturer, but I'm with your kids, Elinor. I live on coffee, especially when I'm on night duty, but I don't like it as a ice cream flavour. Yuck!! Strawberry ice cream, now you're talking! Sarah 23:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC) I used to eat spaghetti ice-cream a lot. It's gelato strained through a spaghetti machine, and usually twirled with strawberry sauce and sprinkled with grated white chocolate. Delicious. ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC) I've had garlic ice cream in the past, but spaghetti?? Ewwww!! - Alison☺ 23:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC) It's only shaped like spaghetti. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Disappointing Someone has broken out the 'rejected' tag. - Denny (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Superdeterminism et al. Seems like this issue was archived prematurely. Keesiewonder talk 19:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks for letting me know. Yes, I think a bot comes along and archives any threads that haven't been posted to in the previous 24 hours.[2] If you want to keep it open, I suppose you have to post a comment (with a new datestamp, not just a modification of your previous post) at 23 hours and 55 minutes! Anyway, the situation with that Archimedes Plutonium article is far too complicated considering how uninterested I am in it. (I had never heard of the man.) Jkelly recently said somewhere that if someone removes a BLP violation inelegantly, the proper response is to help them out, not revert them as vandals. But honestly, his eccentric behaviour (Superdeterminism's, not Jkelly's!) is a lot worse than "removing a BLP violation inelegantly" — when he inserts, "Please delete the Archimedes Plutonium article" into unrelated articles, or "I'm going to sue Wikipedia" into his own one! If there are any BLP violations, we should certainly remove them, and I'd be quite happy to see the any article deleted if it's about a marginally notable living person and its existence is causing distress to the subject. But I wish he'd state his objections clearly instead of vandalising. ElinorD (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Mushroom Dear Elinor D - thank you for constantly fixing vandalized pages like mushroom.Heliocybe 12:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks for noticing. You've been doing good work in that area yourself. ElinorD (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Re:Abortion Thanks for the note on my Talk page! I appreciate your kind words. Most editors don't really think twice about tasks like talk page archiving. Such tasks are kind of akin to oiling the machinery that makes Wikipedia run, and they become second nature after you've done them long enough. My one hope as a Wikipedian is that I've successfully managed to leave my POV at the doorstep. I remember KillerChihuahua commenting one time (I've seen you post on her User talk page) that she had been suspected of being both a liberal and a conservative, a pro-lifer and a pro-choicer, and that she took that as indication that she was doing doing her job right. That's for what I'd aim ideally. If you edit with someone for a long enough period of time, then you can sort of begin to discern the shape of a POV behind even the firmest committment to NPOV, but it's still good to keep 'em guessing, I say (or at least to try). On an unrelated note — and I know this is a long shot — is your username a reference to Elinor Dashwood? Because Jane Austen is on my watchlist and your name has popped up a couple of times. -Severa (!!!) 11:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC) I intend to start pulling my weight and doing more "chores" like page archiving. I think it's easy to take it for granted — the way children (and even husbands!) eat meals out of clean dishes, and put on clean, ironed clothes, without fully realising that the meals and clean dishes etc. didn't just appear by themselves! But I notice that your name appears on my watchlist quite regularly and shows you doing "chores", rather than the more attractive making the article say what you want it to say, so I thought I'd just let you know it has been noticed. KillerChihuahua has been very kind and patient, answering my dumb questions, so it doesn't at all surprise me to see someone speaking well of her. I haven't really noticed her edits that much, though. Elinor Dashwood? I didn't know there was an article on her. I read Sense and Sensibility about twenty years ago, and enjoyed it. But I don't think those who know me would feel I was very like her. I certainly don't have that kind of self discipline. Is my username a reference to her? Actually, having read about what happened to Musical Linguist, it might be quite tempting just to say yes. I think I'll just leave people guessing, though. However, I will tell you that I definitely did not marry a wimp like Edward! I don't remember editing Jane Austen. I think there have been some articles that I found by chance — perhaps even by following a vandal — and left on my watchlist, because my watchlist was so small at the time. Then I frequently found they were being vandalised, so reverted. I'm quite embarrassed now at seeing that diarrhea is among my most frequently edited articles, as it could give an altogether misleading impression of my interests! ElinorD (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC) I get the impression from your editcount statistics that you do a lot of RC-patrolling or vandalism reversion. It wouldn't be accurate to say that you aren't doing your bit around here; reverting vandalism is one of those "chores" that's integral to preserving Wikipedia's functionality. I see that, while you've only been editing since January, you've still managed to amass over 4000 edits! If you'd like to start archiving talk pages, my advice is to only to do so on pages which you read regularly, because then you'll know which discussions are ongoing and won't accidently archive an active thread. I guess I put a little too much thought into trying to "figure out" the meaning of people's usernames. I got asked about mine about a month ago (the guess was off mark, but the previously-unknown fact about Portuguese history was still interesting to learn, nonetheless). And I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on Edward Ferrars. :-) -Severa (!!!) 08:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Question of Conscience How can you say that what I wrote was vandalism? What was it about it that made it offensive? I was putting another point of view across, that which I share with millions of others, concisely and with no reference to anything childish or moronic, vis a vis, for example, The Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. I was just trying to bring some equality onto the page. Are you so childish that you cannot take into account other peoples' ideas, beliefs or thoughts? Yours, Matthew. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MatthewVet (talk • contribs) 18:01, 20 April 2007. Hi, please sign your posts by typing four tildes. I didn't say that what you wrote was vandalism. I said that the edits you made to God were "unconstructive" and are considered vandalism. If you sincerely believe that inserting this Having said that, this majority is wrong. The mere idea of an all powerful thing that sees and hears everything we do, that created everything, is complete and utter codswallop. They might as well believe in a giant flying spaghetti monster.[3] into the article about God is improving the encyclopaedia, I would like to gently suggest that you stay away from such articles until you've read a few of our policy pages, starting with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. WP:ATT is also a great page to read. Regards. ElinorD (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC) E-mail You have e-mail. --Iamunknown 22:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC) And have sent a reply. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)