This page 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. |
I'm on a two day wikibreak. Back Monday. Slay the evil! And go find a new user and make friends with them. Edit or create an article. Kill a kitten. Praise to the Deletionist Cabal! --ElaragirlTalk|Count 19:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Uh? What's a cabal? Captaindansplashback 20:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Enjoy the break. Have a good weekend! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I sent you an email, and I'm going on a twoday wikibreak with my daughter. wry grin You could have indef banned, me, you know. I'm glad you didn't. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 20:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Double the kittens in half the time!
I also faithfully pledge that this weekend I will triple my XFD participation, so that our great Crusade will not slacken without our noble mistress. Long live the Deletionist Cabal!
Enjoy the wikibreak. Cheers, Moreschi 23:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I saw your offer to write an article on the art of deletionism. I was fishing earlier for your comments on the Gundam mass AfD I recently closed, but you remained curiously quiet on the matter. Since you mention it by name, I'd appreciate getting your take on it. Do you think this was an example of being too hasty? I can take it, so if you don't mind I'd like your unfettered, unfiltered opinion when you get back. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 05:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Note that one of the commenters on the RfC, Moby Dick, who endorsed three of the summaries (Elaragirl's, Doug Bell's, and Swatjester's), and who also posted supportively to Elaragirl's talk page, has now been blocked by Cool Cat's loyal supporter Bastique (a leading Steward candidate) for those posts – and the remark "makes for interesting reading!" where his name had been mentioned. The charge is, get this, "harassment of Cool Cat". See here for details.
(I also posted this news on the RFC's talk page, but that RFC is due to be deleted as uncertified any minute now, so this is a backup.) – SAJordan talkcontribs 08:18, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).
Someone endorsed my summary? I missed that! ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 08:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Note also that Bastique has altered Moby's endorsement to delete evidentiary links Moby was offering to Elaragirl's summary list – in effect, Bastique destroyed evidence that the RfC participants might otherwise have seen. This suggests another motive for his blocking Moby: to keep Moby from restoring the links or drawing attention to the deletion. – SAJordan talkcontribs 10:30, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).
Bastique's block of Moby has everything to do with the RfAr and nothing to do with Elaragirl; also, like I have stated (twice) on the RfC talkpage, I think slinging mud at people because of their actions on other project does amount to trolling. Commons works differently to Wikipedia, let's not forget that. riana_dzasta 12:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I ran across your userpage and your article on deletionism while voting for candidates in the ArbCom elections. My compliments on your writing; you make some good points and in a very clear, well-supported, and fun to read manner. I look forward to running across you in the future... although hopefully not in AfD, since I consider myself an inclusionist. ;) Have a great rest of your day! – Lantoka (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to say how much I enjoy your orange "a". I think it's quite spectacular (i.e. hilarious), and you should be commended for having the balls to come up with a page like that. -- Kicking222 17:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back! Hope the magical ball of fire played nicely. riana_dzasta 17:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Welcome back! Quick update - WP:CIVIL got nominated for deletion here, and the person who nominated it promptly got blocked for a week. I'll leave you the enjoyable pleasure of finding out who the nominator actually was.
The deletion stuff looks good, I like it! I'll make a few more specific comments later on that page's talk. Cheers, Moreschi 18:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Just a suggestion, but you might want to hold back a bit in criticising other people and their motives on Mongo's talk page when Mongo is already engaged in the exchange. Now that he's back, I think it best to let Mongo set the tone. —Doug Bell talk 21:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Elaragirl, hi. You asked a question on MONGO's talk page, and I wasn't sure how to respond. The short answer is that understanding someone's motivations is always helpful in dealing with that person, and I can unpack that idea and apply it to this case, if you're interested. If you want to have this conversation, then please reply here, or at my talk page. Clearly MONGO doesn't want his talk page used for discussion of that kind. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Oops. I meant that the above link was your mail. Sorry for the confusion. From now on I'll put "You've got a message." The Transhumanist 07:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I assume that you've been around long enough to know what's going on. If not, I apologize. Let me know and I will gladly bring you up to date. Here's the bottom line - Cyde has a history of deleting just about any userbox in Template space that he doesn't like, usually citing T1. If you follow the appeals process by requesting a review on his talk page, he simply says "it's divisive." The problem is that T1 is the only real criteria for speedy delete of a Template. In reality, they should go through TfD because they are templates. T1 has given the deletionists a shortcut to enforce their POV on what belongs in Template and what does not, even though there is not (and probably won't ever be) consensus. TfD or MfD at least give an opportunity for there to be a discussion about the merits of a template being in template space. The end line of this discussion was that some felt that T1 was inappropriately applied, however, since there was another copy in User:, then it's no harm, no foul. Can you see why that approach to editorial process seems less that ideal? By the way, I would appreciate a more civil tone generally, although I am sure you meant well. --NThurston 15:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course. Thanks for the exchange. --NThurston 16:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Shakes head despairingly..oh dear...and laughs out loud. An incivil civility warning. Is that something we can give to each other if and when we go over the line? Nice to see you back to full form, anyway, Cheers, Moreschi 17:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Please read WP:SIG and consider shortening your signature. JDtalk 19:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The first part of your message here cracked me up. Progress, indeed. I may have to steal your notepad idea myself. (Yes, this message was pointless; I'm hitting "save page" anyway). Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 22:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm Swatjester and I approve this user page. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 07:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. any interesting backstory behind the switch from lesbian to bisexual?
Huh, I was about to say, usually people don't just suddenly change their sexual preferences because they changed their user page. Was wondering if there was a fun story behind it. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 07:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The userboxes kinda hang awkwardly at the bottom now, but otherwise, it's groovy. Riana 08:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, truth be told I thought the other page was more functional. I'm not sure Elaragirl Inc. has grown to be such a massive Web site that it needs to devote the front page to a simple directory. —Doug Bell talk 19:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Elaragirl. Since you wonder whether I would recuse in a case in which I had a conflict of interest, I would like to reassure you that I most certainly would. Would you like to share with me why you have particular concerns in this regard? You mention loyalty to friends. Yes I have developed some very wonderful Wiki-friendships. (Who knows, perhaps one day with you ;-)) I am loyal to those to the extent that I am willing to go the extra mile, during rush hour traffic, detour, get lost, seek alternate routes", fix a flat, run out of gas, and hitch hike to wherever I'm needed. However none of this extends to my judgments about what is best for Wikipedia. In my view, the encyclopedia always comes first. Regards, Paul August ☎ 18:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC) (P.S. I will also post a modified version of the above on my talk page since others might be interested. Feel free to reply (or not) either here or there, or in email, or by carrier pigeon.) Paul August ☎ 18:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I've replied on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 21:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Because WineSteward's too mean to give you one :P Will (Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?) 19:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Boo! Poo! Foo!! --ElaragirlTalk|Count 20:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
riana_dzasta has smiled at you! Smiling is customarily an expression of pleasure or amusement, but can also be an involuntary expression of anxiety, in which case it can be known as a grimace. Rest assured that this smile was, indeed, a smile! Hopefully this bit of silliness has made your day better. Spread the love by adding ((subst:smile)), ((subst:smile2)) or ((subst:smile3)) to someone's talk page with something nice. Happy editing!
|
And by the way, I tried to e-mail you twice but never got confirmation notices. Just wondering if they went through. ? — Editor at Large(speak) 00:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I've kept an eye on you, EG. I have a few things to say. First, I like your userpage(s) a lot, but I find that the "a" trick is a little in bad taste, a little vulgar. We all know how you feel, anyway - and it's not going to help you in your RfA come February or whatever. Next, votes like "No slay vandal, no win vote" are ok for neutral, if you wanna be known as our next only-vandal RfA crank (we already had a few 1FA cranks, a current image cranks, and a number of muslim no-jews-or-hindus-for-adminship cranks. It isn't a good grounds for an oppose, though, IMO, and will simply make the community respect your opinion less. Other than that, I like your style. Are you Chinese - or do you only know the language? Just curious. Thanks. - crz crztalk 01:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)`
It's finally deleted. WP:V can rest in peace. --Iamunknown 02:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, art nor web design are my strong points. Anything you could do would be better than the awful thing I have know. Thanks! FirefoxMan 16:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I may have outdone you on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/IDF barnstar?! discussion. Oh well, I am getting tired of Striver's rantings on Jewish pages and topics. Jeffpw 19:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Doug is probably assuming Sean Canavi is 87.127.74.230 (talk · contribs)
Let him log in. But even if true, since 87.127.74.230 has done nothing but make edits to that user page -- except one to Lex Luthor, which was wrong -- I don't see a dimes's worth of difference here. --Calton | Talk 00:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Calton's about as civil as I am and gets touchy when someone questions his posistion [sic] as Grand High Executioneer of God-Awfully Stupid User Pages.
Your facts are as questionable as your spelling. I'll note you've been the subject of an WP:AN thread for your behavior, and I haven't. --Calton | Talk 00:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll note you still remind me of a BOFH. And I'll note that you're you're probably the last person on Wikipedia -- probably in North America -- with the standing to make that comparison: that's a funny thing about living in glass houses, ennit? --Calton | Talk 01:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
That's because I'm the only person more sharp and uncivil than you. To steal from Wolfgang Pauli, that's not right, that's not even wrong. But enjoy your peculiar little obsession while you can, since I suspect your act will get real old, real fast to the admins. --Calton | Talk 02:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Where are the sources saying so? I didn't see any. Your own interpretation of "uncivil" isn't good enough for Wikipedia, any more than my interpretation of him being a jerk who got screwed, which I of course didn't put in the article. Can you find a third party source? I'll also leave a note on the talk page... prolly gonna revert too :( Milto LOL pia 04:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Quite. You weren't on IRC last night at about 21.00 Wikitime. It will, I imagine, make you laugh even more to know that our best friend was trying to find an administrator to get the AFD speedy closed, and accused me of having "no common sense" when I pointed out that this was not a little illogical. Cheers, Moreschi 08:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the barnstar. I really appreciate it. It makes a change from being bashed over the head by pseudo-intellectuals with hidden agendas. (Never mind, Arbcom put paid to that. Heh heh.) Cheers. --Folantin 10:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Your status says that you are deleting things. How is this possible! Also I like the new page you have, Would you mind if I nominate you for admin. :) Cheers! — Seadog 18:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Heh, how long do you reckon it'll be until you are blocked because of the button on your talk? :D Will (Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?) 19:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
As your outside view is still the most widely supported one, and as you call for a common ground and good faith, could you check the talk page and do at least a little bit mediation to help stabilize the situation? I feel that there are some good faithed posts there, but also some flaming, to say the laest. Who is doing what, you should be able to see for yourself, but I am afraid the situation may be headed downhill despite attempts by several people to calm things down - and the best thing that can happen is if truly neutral editors (who don't support either side) enforce more neutrality there.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 23:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
As long as we're getting rid of the vandals/vandalized versions. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Elaragirl, I've read your comments on the AfD for Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia, and I've noticed that you are being very considerate and restrained in your comments. Even more restrained than myself, considering that I had voted to delete non-soured content and merge the rest. I enjoy Star Trek, but I'm not the type of person who remembers episode titles or who spends much time thinking about command structures in what is a well-known, but ultimately fictional universe. Was this the sort of process-related participation you were encouraging me to explore? I hope you're doing well. --Kyoko 04:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Elaragirl/Archive 5, thank you for participating in my RfA which passed on 13th December 2006 with a tally of 49/10/5. Whilst I am delighted by the result and a little daunted; I appreciate the various comments re lack of experience in some aspects and I shall be cautious in my use of the new tools. I am well aware that becoming an Admin is not just about a successful nomination, but a continuing process of gaining further experience and I should welcome your feedback on any Admin tasks I become involved with. Again, many thanks for taking the time to consider my RfA and cast your views :-) David Ruben 02:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC) |
He goes out of his way to be as rude as possible. Instead of simply pointing it out calmly, he has to cast it in the most cutting way possible.
I hadn't heard about that either
...and of course it's stupid to prod a userpage since anyone can remove it with the slighest of valid reasons.
I am starting to realize that my ramblings probably looked like a Newbie's spew, which of course is what they are. Whenever I think I am starting to understand Wikipedia a bit better, I find out that I do not really understand it. I think a useful thing might be a primer for newbies, or an Idiots' Guide to Wikipedia.--Filll 15:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Your advice on this horrible situation would be more than welcome. I'm prepared to just walk away from it, but I simply don't think another admin should remove things from my user page and then block me when I had a problem with it. But, yes, I shouldn't have unblocked myself. -Husnock 06:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for making the points I was trying to make as well as (or better than) I could have possibly made them. -- Kicking222 20:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello Elara. I've been debating whether or not to write this message for a while; should I bring up bad blood again, or shove it to the side and ignore it. I can't just do that. I'm not going to apologize again, god knows I do enough of that, but what I want to say is that I need to know where we stand. I thought back alot about everything, and we have never really gotten along, not from the first moment we met, which is my fault entirely. You should know that I was entirely ignorant about a lot of policies and the events recently have taught me a lot, and can agree with you on many things. So basically what I'm saying, and I hope this doesn't come across wrong, is that I want to know if we've put everything behind us and if there are any hard feelings. You have every right to be thoroughly disgusted by me, and I can understand that, but I hope that I can have the chance to be able to work with you in the future with no issues. Thanks. DoomsDay349 23:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I left a message on User talk:Jaranda explaining why I would prefer to wait for a little bit before going to RFA. I would love to have a co-nom from the Supreme Ruler of the Deletionist Cabal...principles over pragmatism...of course! Seriously, when the time comes co-nom away. Cheer, Moreschi Deletion! 10:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Padawan?Lol, but huh? I went wrong where? "Associated Student Bodies" gets 810. I'm sure of that! What search term did you use? Cheers, from a slightly puzzled Moreschi Deletion! 14:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I am always hesitant to lay down a "personal set or rules" or the like on why I vote the way I do. I try to articulate the best I can case-by-case why an article does or does not meet wikipeida policy. It seems that if I lay out a personal mantra then it gives the impression I'm voting one way or the other all of the time because of personal feelings on the subject matter instead of the acceptability of the article for inclusion in wikipedia based on policy alone. I'm not saying trying to articulate that is a bad idea I just wouldn't try and add a personal flair to WP:SCISSORS. That type of thing, I think, is best left on a person's userspace. Most people that would want to know more about your personal feelings or establish the method to your mayhem are going to end on your userspace anyway.
I don't oppose the idea of collborative brainstorming on where the participants share common ground is though. That is, after all, one of the reasons why wikiprojects exist.NeoFreak 17:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I tried to communicate with him in his talk page, but no respone. I checked the source, found nothing. Can you reverte it to the last reasonable version? Thanks. Emir Arven 19:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Christmas came early for me today :)! Best wishes Elaragirl, thanks for for the barnstar!!!¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
<When|if> you sniff out an XfD closed by (spit) counting votes, don't hesitate to use my talk with your concerns. Having been one of the driving forces in re-writing "Votes for Undeletion" into "Deletion Review" so that baby-eating deletionist terror balance was brought into the system, I am always willing to wade in when someone gets it wrong.
brenneman 22:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)