![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Hello and thank you for your suggestion. However, I have concerns about creating a userpage as I am a woman and have been stalked via the internet before. Creating a Userpage proper would consist of giving out information which I consider to be personal and which I do not feel comfortable in sharing. So, I would prefer not to create a userpage with all sorts of information about my personal life. I have however, created a userpage which basically asks people to respect my privacy. I hope that this is not out of line.
As a matter of fact, if it were to become a requirement to have to give one's real life information here, I would probably stop participating here. I do hope that you understand my position. I do not want to have to go through that sort of thing again. Gretab 22:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments and suggestions, but I do need to think about this first. I will take it into account, however. Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me. Gretab 22:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind that people know my gender, but I really don't want to give out any personal information, especially my location. Other people who have stalked me in the past might find it. Greta is not my real name, but it has personal significance to me. As long as I don't have to give out any more information, I don't see any problems here. So many crazy people are out there.
I'm wondering why suddenly there is all of this concern? Did I do something wrong? Gretab 22:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
You asked me on my talk page if I have ever used another account. I haven't. As for you Question about my knowledge, I just discovered Wikipedia and am Still learning and exploring. --Christian Mortensen 01:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that the image wasn't decided on at the FAC, any decision has been postponed while a IfD is held on the other image. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
When can the Andrew van de Kamp image that I uploaded be used on this page Click Here ? DarthYotho 15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
You may have noticed, but this edit and this edit were two very nice things to see this morning. :) Give yourself a hearty slap on the back! I'll forgo putting the star on the page in the hope that you can get to that before anyone else :)--Alf melmac 05:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Elonka. You were a great help with the last issue. I was hoping you could help resolve this one. I'm having a bit of a dispute with User:68.174.149.255. We're trying to decide whether to call Fundamentally based indexes active management (and another definition) or passive management. The argument hasn't gotten very far, but I can tell you right now, it's not going anywhere. I don't want this to bias your views of his edits to Fundamentally based indexes, but I think he works for the Magellan Fund as you can see from the NPOV-breaking edits he made there. VivekVish 17:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you actually check out Magellan Fund for me? I think there are some NPOV issues there, and I'm not gaining traction there either. VivekVish 01:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Knights Templar is now officially at featured status, congratulations! I know that for the last part of the push, you haven't been able to help as much as you would have liked, but please rest assured that I have the utmost respect for your previous significant contributions to this article. You deserve to put the star on your userpage. :) --Elonka 15:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering if you have any opinions about publication of methods behind magic tricks. I've posted some thoughts on the project talk page but no one's leapt into the debate yet.
Also, I'm having a minor dispute with someone called DannyDunn over the Table of Death article. I'd welcome your advice on the line I've taken.
Circusandmagicfan 15:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
Hi! Thank you so much for helping update this entire site. As we study, and try to learn so many things at once, this site has been a true Godsend!! A group of us wanted to update the Magellan Fund since we had to write a paper about it at school. Almost every sentence in the original one was actually incorrect, so we thought it would be better to start over.
In a nutshell... we have two questions:
1. Can you please help us learn how to contribute? School's almost over and we owe Wikipedia!
2. We are all ladies (4 of us) and we can't believe how young you look!! What's your secret??
Here are the things we found wrong with the Magellan description:
The Magellan Fund (ticker symbol: FMAGX), a U.S. domiciled mutual fund from the Fidelity family of funds, is one of the largest in the United States.
Under Peter Lynch's management from 1977 to 1990, returns from the fund consistently beat stock market benchmarks such as the S&P 500, averaging 29% annualized.
Since Lynch's retirement, returns have been far more modest under what industry observers deemed to be conservative investment strategies as well as poor securities selection.
Despite underperforming the market, the fund continues to appear on the retirement plans, such as 401(k), offered by a large number of organizations.
As of the end of 2005, the fund manager is Harry Lange and it has $51 billion in assets.
It is closed to new investors.
Ah, I did not know that. Well, my interest in this case leans more towards making sure the anon stops taking swipes at editors... his edit summaries break WP:CIVIL so violently it's not even funny. Since some admins appear to be mellow elementary school teachers at heart (the admin herself got snubbed by the anon, though), I am waiting to see what happens. He will be under close scruntity after this block is over, and in case he insists on being agressive towards people, I will block him and open a request for community ban. Nevertheless, if you want to pursue the sockpuppet idea, I will support you. Just keep me posted. --Sn0wflake 21:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
You know, Elonka, it's clear you don;t even know what a sockpuppet is if you are chasing down IP addresses. I went in and removed your sockpuppet tags from IP pages for which they were wholly inappropriate and also the "cofnirmed sockpuppet" line from you "work" page here, as it's simply false. Sock puppets are when you have a separate identity to try to get around the rules of the site -- simply not bothering to sign in isn't using sockpuppets. In fact, several admins specifically requested I not sign in because of your continuing Wikistalking of me, thinking that you would be less likely to go around blind reverting edits and complaining if you didn;t see the name, but apparently doesn't help either. You also have a pretty odd idea of what "harassment" means... removing vanity links that you or your sockpuppets/meatpuppets/friends you exchange vanity edits with added about yourself in totally inappropriate locations is not "harassment", it's simply follow Wikipedia policy on such matters.
Also, per a long time back you were instructed to never post on my talk page, per your insistence upon adding warnings that were false in an attempt to bully me. Please consider that that rule still stands. DreamGuy 00:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I've done 3RR reports before. I'm the one being reverted. It shouldn't come from me. jbolden1517Talk 18:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Good morning! How are you today? Just a heads up that they do use the term FTL in the show its self :-). Nice and sunny over here today, hehe. Matthew 07:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Elonka, I'm truly sorry for taking so long to get back to you - but I really, really wanted to drop by and visit you, not only because your beautiful words moved me no end, but also for other reasons. I'd rather talk to you privately, so check your mail in a while, please? Once again, thank you, and I'll switch to "Email this user" right away. See you there! ;) Love, Phaedriel - 15:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you created this category a couple of days ago, but it seems to be empty now. What were its contents? If just his (single) IP number I would suggest that we can delete the category now because Jayjg has blocked it indefinitely for edit warring and incivility. --Tony Sidaway 18:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:CesarsWay.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BigrTex 19:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Read the comments and tell me that this guy isn't a Sock Puppet. Same tone, same issues raised. He claims to be a 'friend' of Sanchez, which is also suspicious and the account seems to have been created with the sole purpose of editing the Sanchez article. Also, user:bluemarine, Sanchez's account suddenly went dead right before the GSSchool account took an active interest in the Sanchez article. GSSchool also claims to be a fellow Marine with Sanchez. This is a known Matt Sanchez MO that he's used in various web forums. Aatombomb 01:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for making one of the more eloquent oppose votes in the whole page, IMO. I agree with the vast majority of what you say there, even though my conclusion as to Danny's candidacy differs. I personally feel that Danny was asked to handle a workload way greater than he should have (or took it on personally without being asked) and the stress of it caused errors that I believe would not happen as a regular admin. I could be wrong, though, most certainly. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
DreamGuy has become upset with me, and it seems like at one point he may have thought I was you (see diff). Is there any reason for that? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, I see you asked for reliable sources that Matt admitted to having been a hooker. The audio, which I transcribed has Alan Colmes asking him "You were a male prositute" and he responds "That as well". That *used* to be part of his article. It was cited to that show with the audio feed and was removed. Now do you not think that Alan (and Matt himself) is a reliable source and that we should include that bit? That the excellent-top.com website was registered at the same address when Matt Sanchez himself was registered was also cited and reported and removed. Those citations are to Alexa.com and the US Public Records Database at ancestry.com, both reliable sources. So now what do you think? You think someone's trying to game this? Wjhonson 04:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments at User:ALM scientist/Is wikipedia Anti-Islam. It is currently pathetic shape. I will rewrite it and double the number of references. I will appreciate your help and guidannce. I might file arbitration case after finishing it to resolve Muhammad picture dispute. --- A. L. M. 10:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Now that the problems are over on Gnostic Gospels... I was reading your user page and noticed the desire to be nominated. Not sure how much weight by nomination would carry but I'd be happy to nominate and describe what I saw. jbolden1517Talk 17:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I've had to protect this article from editing due to revert warring. I see from the talkpage that you have been involved in mediating this dispute previously. I am trying to start fresh discussions on the talkpage so that a version can be arrived at that meets WP:BLP and WP:NPOV that the parties can agree on. Any input would be appreciated. WjBscribe 04:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that an article that I'd created quite some time ago, Raleigh Muns, was recently speedied. To my knowledge, the subject clearly passes WP:BIO, and the article was well-referenced and stable. Was it perhaps the victim of some type of vandalism? In any case, I would appreciate if you could please undelete it, thanks. Elonka 07:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
What do you think of this New Yorker (Hasan K, Steve P. or whatever name it is)? If they are the same people, he seems to be on a crusade against you. 68.174.13.231, 66.108.46.97, Johnyajohn, 12.0.30.180, 68.175.78.96, 68.175.70.126, and possibly Global.wiki as well. He really dislikes tags. I am happy that I don't have an article that can be AFD'ed. DenizTC 03:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick thank you for your opinion and fixing of the Logan High School (Utah) article. I had previously been attempting to keep the teacher roster off, but an anonymous user kept reverting, and for some reason that got to me. WP:3RR came up, and even an admin got involved, so it was nice to finally get a voice that agreed. Thanks! Jmlk17 07:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Guess a "Hi neighbor" would be good way to start (I'm down in South Bay, Hawthorne). Outside of the fact that subjects should never have anything to do with their own pages or related items (because it can get very messy and tricky, see the stuff that goes on with the co-creators of this very enterprise for a lesson on that), I would have to say that simply being a native by birth is enough (I'm going to avoid the really touchy "notable" part because that section hasn't gotten unwieldy...yet). I think the only exception to the born or raised there rule would be if someone became noted for being a resident of a certin place, like Andy Warhol in New York.
Well, I've been online far too long on such a glorious day, so I need to say bye and get my tuchus planted on a bike seat going anywhere... RoyBatty42 23:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate it. And I appreciate that you kept an open mind during the adversarial process ;) Wjhonson 03:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Elonka, my soap opera couple article J.R. and Babe was nominated for deletion, but that was before I cleaned it up. However, it's still nominated. I was wondering if you could tell me if it meets WikiProject Soap Opera standards, and if not, what can I do to ensure that it does? Also, how can I join WikiProject Soap Opera? Just sign my name under the list of participants? I'm definitely willing to help clean up some soap articles. Flyer22 23:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Re [1]: No, there isn't. The way this is supposed to be handled is that while the article is in development in the sandbox, the images should be linked, not displayed. --Durin 16:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
As a commentor in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey debate, I thought you might want to know that the debate has been re-started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey (2nd nomination) because of significant changes in the article during the debate. Mangojuicetalk 17:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking that we should keep the title about Babe's fake death, but instead of titling it what it was when I created it, it just be Babe's Fake Death. Flyer22 22:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks like a little gap is left there though. Flyer22 22:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and replace Josh's name with Tad's name, since stating Josh would be a bit confusing to some viewers of the show.Flyer22 23:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you recently pointed out that the "Spike (Buffyverse)" article contained too much plot summary. I was wondering if the Buffy Summers page suffered from the same problem, since it seems just as long as Spike's page. Also, I recently edited the Dawn Summers and Rupert Giles to contain more detail, and am now worried I overdid it. Any advice/feedback on how to improve these pages? Thanks. Paul730 16:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
IMs...? Sorry, I only recently got the internet, so I'm pretty new to all this. Oh, and as you might have have noticed, I'm a hardcore Buffy geek, so I'm too happy about your comment that Dawn doesn't deserve her own page... How dare you! She's Dawnie for crying out loud! :) Paul730 21:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
After the part where it says..."McTavish began adding new dimensions to the show"...we should state something such as..."A little later"...Or "Some time after that, she created the character of Babe Carey, who first appeared in the fictional town of Pine Valley in 2003."
Or something along those lines. It'd probably be best to find another way to place that internal-link that links to the article about McTavish infuriating fans. I say that because she didn't infuriate fans to that extent until until around the year of 2003 and so up. Or maybe that link should stay where it is since it seems to start off from McTavish first changing the show to some significant degree. Flyer22 04:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you watch the show General Hospital? It seemed like you did/do. I don't necesarily watch that show, but I got the impression that you did/do.
Certainly not everyone who watches a soap opera knows what SID is though. My mother doesn't either. She knows of soap opera magazines called Soaps In Depth or Soap Opera Digest, but not their nicknames. Flyer22 05:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey Elonka. I've reduced the storyline section substantially, by about 6000 characters. When you get the change can you let us know what you think on the talk page. Regards. Gungadin 19:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
As you should be aware, under the current Wikipedia:Non-free content guidelines, non-free images of living people are not acceptable. There is no meaningful commentary of Image:Miranda Kerr.jpg. Several of your other uploads have the same issue, ie. they are being used simply to illustrate the appearance of a person (examples of unacceptable use 8). Also, if you receive permission to use an image that permission needs to be registered with the foundation, see Wikipedia:Example requests for permission and Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission, if permission doesn't allow the image to be freely used then the image cannot be on wikipedia. --Peta 07:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to ask your advice on something. I recently re-wrote Willow, Giles, and Dawn's pages quite drastically, and am now working on Xander's. However, I am not sure exactly how these articles are supposed to be written; the Buffy Summers page does not reference any episodes and as such reads more smoothly. But then, that same page has a "primarily in-universe style... clean-up yada yada" box on it suggesting that that shouldn't be how articles are supposed to be written. I'm trying to work from what has already been written on these pages, but each page is written in a slightly different style. Should character histories be written from the perspective that the charcter is real, without referencing individual episodes? Or should it be written from a "real world" perspective. For example, in the Willow page, it mentions that Will and Tara have one of the longest lesbian relationships in TV history. But the Buffy page has no references to the real world whatsoever. I want the Buffy pages to be consistant with each other, so what do you think? BTW, I also asked this question to Nalvage since he seems like an expert on the Buffy pages, but I wanted to get your opinion too since you were the one who put the box thingy there. Paul730 17:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiousity, have you noticed the guy on the talk page and his claims? Does it come under fair use for us to use it with it being released by the National Geographic or whatever...we could always use an image off the DVD sample...Englishrose 17:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've been working a lot recently on the Willow Rosenberg page, and was wondering if you could take a look at it and give some feedback for improvements. Also, quick question, when you're making links to other wiki pages, do you have to make a link every time a word is repeated? For expample, every time Buffy is mentioned on Willow's page, should I link to the Buffy Summers page? Cos that seems a little excessive. :) Paul730 15:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, advice and offer of more help. I don't have the spectacular curriculum vitae that you do, but I went and turned my link blue! Marieblasdell 00:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, I appreciate the olive branch. I have laid out some of the history behind the adverse event section to illustrate my position more clearly. I hope you understand why I have been so insistent. If you wish to discuss specific issues regarding the content in the AE section, please outline them on the talk page rather than deleting the section again. Rhode Island Red 06:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the wikipedia mechanisms here; I have just had a look at the WP:RfC (redirected to Checkuser, I think), which requires that the appropriate warnings be issued before using RfC as the "last resort". Have such official warning been issued? I'm sure we're past the "assume good faith" stage with 'Red'; has he contravened e.g. the "three revert rule" on the "Adverse effects" deletions?
If we are to request that the powers that be check his behaviour, then it needs to be clear that all procedures (whatever they are!) have been followed correctly. He seems to have plenty of time at his disposal, so if any such request is started it will be a long and wearisome process. Would a warning based on WP:OWN w.r.t. the Juice Plus article be appropriate? I will gladly support you to try to stop what I consider to be his abuse of WP here, but I bow to your greater experience with such things. Is there a checklist/process description to use? TraceyR 07:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
You said if I had any questions to ask you. How come if you put proof of something somewhere someone will still change it?DJ-Siren 03:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Elonka, thanks for all your help on the Pauline Fowler article. I would be interested to hear your comments on two other eastenders articles, Phil Mitchell and Grant Mitchell (EastEnders). They have possibly the longest real world context sections of any of our character articles, so I would like to get them promoted to GA level at some stage. I'm sure you wont like the storyline sections (Grant's storylines arent referenced yet and the Phil is long), but i'd still be interested to hear what improvements you think we can make. Gungadin 17:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you please point me in the right direction to where I can request a policy to be changed? I really don't think that articles about past characters and TV shows that have ended should be written in present tense, and I want to get the policy on that changed. Could you help me out? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 20:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello! You look like someone who might be interested in joining the EastEnders WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you help us :-)
![]() |
Links for Wikipedians interested in EastEnders content | |
Register: Participants of the EastEnders WikiProject - EastEnders WikiProject - EastEnders Portal |
-Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 23:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For helping out with Pauline Fowler, and for pointing me in the right direction and giving me valuable advice. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 23:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC) |
Here are some things you can do to help:
![]() |
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
|
-Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 23:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Hiya, thanks for creating the bot, but I had a question. It keeps putting flags on Image:David Perry.jpg, an image that I've moved over to Commons, and would like to get deleted from Wikipedia now. I've tried fixing the image file to address whatever the bot's concerns on, but it's still not happy. Can you please advise what I can add to the Commons page, to get the bot messages to stop? Thanks, Elonka 17:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, Fox News thinks he is at Irvine, [3]; I would not be surprised if he used the title after he had left the position. He has published no peer reviewed articles (at least since 1950). The basic bio I have some ideas for--more tomorrow. DGG 07:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, it's probably redundant to have both the TV and Soap projects listed on soap articles; however, TV Project is currently larger and more active, and I figured adding these articles directly would increase the visibility of the articles themselves as well as the Soap Opera Project, encouraging more editing and participation.
By the way, I'll try to work on a potential barnstart this week, we can discuss. TAnthony 07:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, it seems that one the one hand you are arguing that we should assume good faith on the part of other editors on the Juice Plus page, but on the other hand, you are making accusations of impropriety about me.[4] I took a break from editing for a few days because quite frankly I was getting burned out from all the pointless bickering on the talk page. You had even suggested that I take such a break. I have no relationship with the anon editor 85.71.60.166 and it seems very presumptuous and improper for you to suggest otherwise. Please stop making such inflammatory accusations. Rhode Island Red 16:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey there, before we're at each other's throats over the issue of tense (LOL), do you have any ideas about how to recruit more members to the Soaps project? Many soap articles are such a mess, all kinds of random users are constantly changing and twisting articles — there are so many guidelines and policies that are needed, but we can't really come up with and enforce these things with 13 people. I was thinking about just going through edit histories and inviting people manually, but ... TAnthony 20:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Check the comments I just left at User talk:Johnyajohn. Maybe you already knew about this. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, a few weeks ago you said that Spike's page contained excessive in-universe detail. I've tried to reduce the plot as much as I could, broke up the article slightly with some more sub-headings, and included some info about Spike's creation based on interviews with the creators. It's still not perfect, but I was wondering if you thought the bio section was still too long, and if there was anything else which needed major improvement. The powers & abilites section is a bit long-winded for my liking, so I might target that next. Paul730 06:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Elonka, a few articles within the scope of Wikipedia: WikiProject Soap Operas have been nominated for deletion. But this is before we've gotten around to truly improving these particular articles. At this rate, if these articles are more so targeted because they are soap opera couple articles, I find it very off, given that these articles are a work in progress. I was hoping that you could lend your voice on this matter in their deletion debates, as I will contact all participants of Wikipedia: WikiProject Soap Operas to weigh in on this matter as well. I do not believe that getting rid of these or any supercouple articles on Wikipedia is the answer, improving them is.
So far, I know of three true supercoupe articles nominated for deletion:
Please report irresponsible action of User:^demon here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges
Sorry, i don't have any pictures from Loveland in Jeju. -littlet889
Erm, I'm a bit confused by your revert at Juice Plus? I agree that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but we have a situation where every single editor on the talkpage is against the inclusion of that "Adverse Effects" section, and the only editor who wants it, is Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs), who has clear WP:OWN issues (just look at his contribs). I agree that Matthew's comments were out of line, but that doesn't change the fact of talkpage consensus. --Elonka 01:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
From what I see, I know you probably don't watch Days of our Lives, but I was wondering if you would like to work with me to make that article featured-quality. It's been my favorite story since I was little and I really want to make it the best it can be. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)