Elmor

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Elmor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-visiting a proposal

Please give some thought to my arguments in support of your proposal to rename Eulsa Treaty -- see here. Do I need to explain any part of this using different words?

Do you have any questions or suggestions? --Tenmei (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Elmor -- You may not have noticed that I relisted the projected move of Eulsa Treaty at WP:Requested moves#Current discussions/August 31. It is only prudent for me to alert all contributors in our discussion about changing the name of this article.

Please consider Talk:Eulsa Treaty#Relisting at WP:Requested moves. On one hand, this can be construed as an unnecessary delay. On the other hand, this ensures the possibility of wider community input which may bring out any points-of-view which remain unstated or glossed over. --Tenmei (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you need my approvement - feel free to do as you find appropriate. Elmor (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

I sought assistance here — Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-04/Eulsa Treaty. I do not know what happens next. --Tenmei (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Summarizing the so-called discussion which began at Talk:Eulsa Treaty in early August here:

A. In an attempt to help us start discussion, options were proposed here and refined here.

1. Leave it at its current name?
2. To Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty?
3. To Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905?
4. To 1905 Protectorate Treaty?
5. Or what?; see the second paragraph of page Eulsa Treaty.

B. Valentim presented the results of a Lexis/Nexis search here. This supplements several Google searches.

In the many weeks of so-called discussion thread development, those opposing the move have either been unwilling or unable to present refutation or counterargument; and therefore, I propose we delay no longer.

In other words, I suggest that there is a consensus to act now on the basis of the Lexis-Nexis search outcome. The time has come for this article to be renamed Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905. --Tenmei (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Bending over backwards

At Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905, please consider reverting your most recent edit here.

Like you, I'm uncertain about what is best; but my guess is that this metonymy is appropriate and unremarkable in the infobox context. Even if the edit was intended as improper POV, I'm inclined to think that it is not. What do you think?

This is only an infobox line; and IMO, it is merely reflecting a significant aspect of the introduction section? If you like, I will try to explain again in different words? --Tenmei (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you, I can understand English :-). I think that as the name "Eulsa Treaty" already presents in the article preface and in the userbox (see the "Revised Romanization" row), there is no need to duplicate it. However, the line "English: Eulsa Treaty" may be suggesting that the proper name for the treaty is "Eulsa" and not "Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905". Therefore I conclude it to be a POV-pushing. Elmor (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It all depends on how one is to construe Aocduio's edits here. Pending any further comments from anyone else, I will defer to your good judgment. Thank you for helping clarify what I did not understand. --Tenmei (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem, glad to be of service. Elmor (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Capital punishment in Russia

Hi,

I saw you changed the status of Russia in the article Use of capital punishment by country from orange to blue. I changed it back to orange since this indicates a moratorium. I hope the 6th protocol is ratified soon and we can change it back to blue, but until then it's my view that orange should stay since it has been the practice in the past to wait for the completion of ratification before classifying a country as blue, this is to say for the coming into force of the 6th protocol 3 months after the deposition of instruments of ratification with the council of Europe (or legislative change in the case of non CoE members).

If I missed some information in this matter or if I'm just wrong, please leave me a note on my talk page. Thanks --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 16:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Elmor, I apologise; me changing Russia from blue to orange was due to a misunderstanding of context. Please forgive me. Frenzie23 (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Republic of China Army rank insignia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Captain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Praful Nargund moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Praful Nargund. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I came across this article while doing new page patrol, and had to move it into the draft space as the sources aren't enough to establish notability per WP:GNG, and the person does not satisfy WP:NPOL. If they win a seat at the forthcoming general election, then they will become eligible under NPOL. Until then, better sources are needed which don't merely cover their nomination as the Labour candidate or the subsequent campaigning. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)