User talk:Elen of the Roads/2010 (1)

Vandalism Warning
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

--94.168.95.164 (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Very funny. Now please discuss this on the talk page instead of leaving me silly messages.  Thanks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

speedies
Reminders: 1. A description of a product,such as a publication, that is a straight description, is not eligible for G11, which reads "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion."

2. G4, Repost, applies only to articles deleted after XfD, not PROD. `   DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Censoring wiki debate on wiki fact that are in error is VANDALISM
What other acquistions? Again wiki's CanWest Restructuring and creditor protection lead line in error. '''False wiki fact: Canwest's various acquisitions took a significant financial toll. Intentional misinformation. Name any other major acquistion by CanWest.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.104.100 (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speakers corner is thataway --> --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello again
Hi, Elen, I hope you don't mind my coming here and you don't feel that it is canvassing, but I figure you have been interested in the past in Crucifixion in art, and I've always valued your insights. I'm not sure whether you are still watching it, but, perhaps, your eyes there might again be helpful. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Album Notability
Hi Elen,

I noticed a Notability Guidelines tag was marked on a few album pages I created. In this case, would "reliable, secondary sources" be just reviews of albums or are there other things that may account for this. Under "Notability Guidelines" for music it states:

"In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia"

and these compilations have many notable artists. But if more info is necessary, please let me know and I'll do what I can to fix it. Thanks!

- Mendle44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mendle44 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I will stop forthwith!
Appreciate the hear hear. Well said. :-) Cheers. Proofreader77 (interact) 20:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I didn't run to a sonnet - perhaps next time I'll try a haiku. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent. :) PS If you should ever wish [to] play with sonnetizing, monkey-bot makes it more fun (although I've been lazy about making sure monkey is working. :-) Note: Some high school honor students (using a somewhat less-provocative interface) used it to write end-of-course sonnetized essays (they could choose to write in prose or sonnets, and most chose sonnets). Also note: I noticed one of the students relatives used it to compose a story about their experience in the Vietnam War. (I must return to that idea one day. Rhetorical technology to aid everyone to structure their own stories/opinions.) -- Proofreader77 (interact) 22:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation Issue for Northern Webster Co. Mountain Byway And Backway
See "REfernces" Section

--Todd Schoolcraft 14:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchoolcraftT (talk • contribs)

Re:mountain park byway
Thanks a lot I greatly appreciate it.

Todd Schoolcraft 22:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchoolcraftT (talk • contribs)

Move Protection
I was wondering if you know how to block someone from editing an article?

--Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Mountain Parkway
Elen of the Roads

Your right about the fact that the Sings only have "Mountain Parkway" on them. I live near the Mountain Parkway and I see those signs all the time. Thats how I knew that the article title was inacurate.

Thanks for the catch

--Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Re Blancandrin
I noticed you added an edit on my original article onthe character of Blancandrin from La Chanson de Roland, with a comment that I should include the dozen or so works that have a section on him. However, as I do not know of any such works, I wondered if you might do it? The article I wrote was intended to fill a gap and to simply summarise what the character does, not to provide an analysis of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WJCB (talk • contribs) 15:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'll just merge him back into the Chanson. There's no need for an article that just describes where he appears in the poem, particularly one with no sources. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, I wouldn't have added the article on him but for the fact that almost all of the other secondary characters have similar articles with few sources, so I felt that it was a little inconsitant for Wikipedia to lack one on him.--WJCB (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tell you what, I'll leave him for a bit. Its not my area, but I do know there are definitely sources, and its hardly a BLP, so there's no hurry.  Someone who knows the subject better might come along and do some work. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help
You have earned this 1956 Hungarian Revolution Barnstar István (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Black Sharkminnow
Hello Elen of the Roads, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Black Sharkminnow - a page you tagged - because: '''A3 doesn't cover pages with an infobox with non-trivial information, and no other speedy deletion criterion seems to apply. Consider PROD or AfD.''' Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. decltype (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Fairy snuff", eh? I had to look that one up :) auto / decltype (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: DABs vs List articles
Hi there. Yes, I do believe that it's usually best to avoid red links on DAB pages. However, looking at this page, I believe it shows that not only are the roads notable, but also have the chance to be developed into actual articles in the future. Also, I chose to use a page over a link at the top in this case because I didn't want to say that a scrapped aircraft carrier is more important than a current road. I was also going to add all Valencian autovias to Requested articles, as things posted there tend to get addressed within a fair amount of time. At least that was my reasoning, let me know your thoughts! AP1787 (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it may be better to wait until the articles exist, then create the disambiguations. At the very least, it would be preferable to direct to the list article where there isn't a separate article on that road, as at least that way the user has some information to hand.  You might wish to go back and do that on the four that I tweaked, it would then at least create a justification for the dab. Also I wouldn't myself include UK postcodes in dabs, as in my view they would be an extremely unlikely search term.
 * Sounds like a plan, thanks! AP1787 (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Glitch
That was no glitch I had inevertently deleted that content. I was trying to put some conternt for an old edit to the article to makei it more informatrive, but you saw the results ZIts since been reverted. That was more of a WOOPS moment.

Sorry about that --Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification
This is a courtesy notification that your name has been brought up at Articles for deletion/JWASM. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Apology for any offence taken
elen, sorry to be slow, I had to look for your link as I have cleaned out all the trash on my own talk page. I have solved all problems related to both technical articles I have contributed to or created by abandoning both the MASM and JWASM pages and withrawing my support for Wikipedia in terms of modernising any of its technical content. While I make no apologies for speaking the Australian idiom and living in a real world where differences of opinion are stated both forcefully and objectively, I make it clear that no offence was intended and if any was taken because of your lack of familiarity with Australian idiom, you have my unreserved aplogies for any offence that you may have taken.

Regards,

Steve Hutchesson http://www.masm32.com

Hutch48 (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from further acts of Vandalism
The issue raised by editor Bfigura was resolved in discussion on his talk page in an amenable manner. He failed to read the content of another editor's page and assumed incorrectly that the direct quote taken from the other editor's page was a deliberate insult. The heading was made in error and should have been removed.

Hutch48 (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have referred the edit to the original editor in light of your repeated support for the erroneous assertion contained in the post.


 * Hutch48 (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

historic route
It may not be the gaza strip, but it inportant because it has a lot of links to the history of the US Like James McCray he was a member of the Union army and Issac Bender, who settle land just before 20/13 reenters WV 20, was a veterain of the war of 1812. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchoolcraftT (talk • contribs) 18:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * User:SchoolcraftT, it would be helpful if you kept this discussion to Talk:Mountain Parkway Byway. That having been said, you posted that CR 20/13 (or CR 20/1 as it is shown on current maps) was part of the Backway  when none of the sources that either you or I indicated it as being such.  The article is about the Mountain Parkway Byway and Mountain Parkway Backway, not historic roads in Webster County.  Furthermore, I don't think that random Civil War or War of 1812 veterans having lived along the road at some point makes the road noteworthy.  It just means it is old, like tends of thousands of other roads in the country.Brian Powell (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Todd. Didn't mean it wasn't important, just that it was a peaceful place - no-one is fighting a war over it.  Hi Brian.  As to the history thing - I'm English, and we spend a lot of time sticking little blue plaques on buildings to show that some historic dude or other lived there, so I think I'm with Todd on this one.  It's certainly worth the opportunity to link to famous people (who have wikipedia articles) who lived along the byway or backway.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Elen, I'm not opposed to discussing people who lived along the Byway if there's something that makes them noteworthy. I tried Googling the two names Todd provided and with the exception of McCray's Rocks mentioned elsewhere in the article and some genealogy indexes, I wasn't finding anything else on these people.  If we're going to include information on them, I'd at least like to see some context and information on them rather than just a simple "so and so lived here."  We'd still need to find an appropriate way to integrate them into the article. Brian Powell (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking on lines of including anyone who has a Wikipedia article (as with the blue plaques). If the individuals aren't noteworthy, then mentioning them is just padding.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool heads
Nice to see there's still some cool heads around on wikipedia. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) I do me best, and you're not doing too bad yourself. Although with this one, I'm beginning to think starting over might be the best way to go....... Gawdalone knows what the poor closing admin is going to make of that AfD --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I proposed closing, right? If we get consensus, we can do just that. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If we get consensus on a move we can move the article while the AfD goes on (I have done this before). We can't close the AfD before time - this will have to be left to an uninvolved admin. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Housekeeping Offer
I have no particular desire to clutter up your talk page with matters that probably should not have arisen. The author of the incorrect heading on my talk page was gracious enough to correct the error in good faith and the matter was resolved in good faith. I would like to make you an offer of mutual housekeeping where you remove your comments from my talk page I will do the same on yours.

Unrelated your comment "I'm beginning to think starting over might be the best way to go" in the above mentioned topic makes good sense, do it the right way the first time minus the invective and you may get a viable result that enhances the content of Wikipedia.

Regards,

Hutch48 (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Hutch. You are free to delete any comment (including warnings) from your talkpage, as it is taken as showing that you have read them.  The only things you can't remove are certain notices (declined unblocks where the user is still blocked, ArbCom notices - the sort of thing you'd expect not to be able to remove).  Archiving the page is considered better form, but if you wish to delete my comments, I shall raise no objections.  I would prefer it if you didn't delete your comments from here - just because I prefer to archive - but again if you wish to remove them I shall raise no objection. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I will leave them there at your request. I will delete the stuff on my talk page and put a note that it was done with your permission. Now RE your suggestion above, if you know how to put a restart in place, it would solve many problems, a correct search criteria can be put in place the first time, the known academic reference would be available from scratch and the editors who are still interested in this topic can make decisions on a much better information basis if the invective is missing. The advice of the review being tendered to Slashdot is probably worth taking, I know who the editor is, Keith Kanios and he has more than enough experience to write a review like this and he has the advantage of being detached from the JWASM project as I am. Note also that I am not on talking terms with the editor SpooK so there is no problem of collusion.

Regards,

Hutch48 (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop reverting
I know that your tring to do the right thing, but I had done that so I can Archive our discussions. Please stop unding what I undid. --Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Removel of all links to masm32.com
Hi Elen,

As it appears that you are wired into the movers and shakers of Wikipedia, as the webmaster of masm32.com I require all links to that site to be removed from Wikipedia as I have completely removed my support for Wikipedia in technical matter as a consequence of the discussion and deletion of the JWASM article. Rather than having to set up a referral block at the server to redirect any traffic to another page that will be even less flattering to the current policies of Wikipedia, it would serve both interests if these links were unconditionally removed. You may be able to garner the support of the nominator of the deletion of the JWASM page for such an action as the links are currently on the MASM page and it would appear from his more recent modifications of that article that he is going to alter its content as well if not able to simply delete its content. Hutch48 (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Elen, I got a similar message, and responded on my talk page. I actually came here to see what you thought of my reply (since I've seen you around long enough to have respect for your opinion, but I guess Hutch48 already asked you the same thing. Best, -- B figura  (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hutch, I'll reply here. Skomorokh has been very clever in his solution for this. While the article no longer appears in the form it was when you worked on it, by converting the page to a redirect the entire text has been kept, so as required it can be pulled forward into the merge article about JWASM and it's antecedents. The history of your work remains intact. It hasn't made those who were strident for a deletion particularly happy.

As for the link to the forum,on pages where it is currently visible,you can remove it, but if it is included in an article, you may find other editors putting it back, and the consensus may be that it should stay. You cannot remove it from archived discussion such as the AfD as that breaks the rules. It is physically impossible to remove it from the history without oversight, and I doubt an oversighter would accept what you say as a reason to remove it. Hope this helps. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that Hutch links to masm32 on his userpage. I'd think that would be where he'd want to start with the deletions, if he were serious.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, he's perfectly welcome to remove it from there. It does smack of 'taking one's bat home' though. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Elen, apart from chewing your ear for the first deletion tag I have generally seen your own actions as even handed and I would extend this comment to a few of the other editors, all who disagreed with my view but after seeing how Wikipedia works internally I confess to being little else than disgusted at the sheer stupidity involved and I point that criticism at the mechanics of the successful removal of the page stub for JWASM I bothered to write for Wikipedia. The same antagonist tried to trash the MASM page that I rewrote earlier and from his comments in its talk page it is only a matter of time until he does it again. An earlier editor tried to get some content into the MASM page by scouring the MASM32 web site and linking to web pages that I wrote for the masm32 user base and while I was willing to tolerate this and did a reasonable amount of work on the MASM page to try and get it up to date and relevant so it was no longer needed, in the face of endless obstruction I will simply resolve the problem from outside Wikipedia. You are correct in the idea of taking the bat home but it goes further, pulling the stumps and taking the ball and stumps as well then ploughing the field and leaving the mess for the antagonist to clean up. Regards and thanks for your efforts. Hutch48 (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Todd's images
I didn't get a chance to look into this yesterday, but as I mentioned on ANI, I'm very concerned that all of the images Todd has uploaded have no metadata even though he claims to have created them himself. And we're talking about a lot of images. Thought you could help me have a look. Blueboy96 22:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That discussion revealed another image that was far, far too old for him to have created it himself--and he had ample time to change the information after you and Brian explained copyright to him. This guy has a serious misunderstanding of copyright--one that is far too serious in my mind for him to be allowed to edit.  He's now blocked indefinitely. Blueboy96 23:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler
Hi, Elen of the Roads. Articles for deletion/JWASM, a discussion in which you participated, was closed as redirect to Open Watcom Assembler. Open Watcom Assembler has now been nominated for deletion due to notability concerns. If you would like to participate in the discussion, please comment at Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Participation
User: - Thanks for your participation in my recent successful RfA. Although you did not express confidence or trust in me, the community did and as you are an equal part of that community, deFacto your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

help
Hi. You helped in the past - when some guy wanted to deleted HS Olimpija Ljubljana. Well, there is a similar situation here, VK Bosna. Could you please help? (LAz17 (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)). Nevermind, sorry, you were actually the one who initiated that failed deletion. (LAz17 (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)).

Sig malfunction
Thanks for figuring it out. That sux, I can't edit without WikEd. Did you report it to the developer? - ukexpat (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. - ukexpat (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree it sucks. wikEd is a really useful tool. Can;t believe we're the only two people it's affected .--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed! – ukexpat (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Jayjg (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Haida chieftain thread at AN/I
As a courtesy, I wanted to advise you that I have started a thread at WP:ANI regarding the conduct of. Please feel free to weigh in their with your observations. —C.Fred (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Best "note to self" edit summary EVER!
"do not attempt technical edits after a couple of glasses of Barbera d'Asti" bravo!!! Nefariousski (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Deprod The Beautiful and the Damned (2010 film)
I have removed the prod tag from The Beautiful and the Damned (2010 film), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! Mitch Ames (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Okthen123
Hi,

I am very sorry for what the vandalism on some of the wikipedia articles. It appears that my account has been abused and hacked, as I did not write these things. Would it be possible for me to delete this account so that I could create a new one? Thanks.

Apologies for any distress caused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okthen123 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked an administrator to take a look.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * An admin has now indefinitely blocked the Othken123 account as a compromised account. You may create another account, but please use better security in future (register an email address, stronger password, don't leave the laptop at your g/f or b/f's house etc)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Marinza Bruineman
Jovanovic was not acquitted. His case was simply dismissed. His case was dismissed because the victim did not want to testify again. There is a big difference between being acquitted of a crime, or having the case dismissed. Jovanovic's innocence is not proven, and never will be.4Justice2 (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The Only Exception
Hi Elen, since you've started WP:Articles for deletion/The Only Exception, and were also central to the DRV, could I have your opinion on the current state of the article at The Only Exception? The song is ranked on two decent charts now, and there are a number of reliable sources out there with dedicated coverage of the song, among them two on MTV. I could not come to an agreement with Jayjg on his talk page, and planned to start a new DRV when I noticed that it had been unprotected following a request at RFPP earlier today. Being convinced that it would now pass AfD, but at the very least require a new AfD, I undeleted it to pre-empt a rewrite or a history merging. If you want to AfD it again, go right ahead; I personally have no affection towards the article, and don't even know the band, just followed some other editor to the article. :) Amalthea  00:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for getting in contact. From the article, I see that the single has actually been released now, and charted in the NZ top 20 (perhaps not the largest country in the world, but it's hardly insignificant).  The only reason I took it to AfD was because...overenthusiastic fans wouldn't leave the article as a redirect unless/until the single achieved sufficient notability ("of course it's notable, it's by The Scrotums" or whatever).--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I know the feeling :) And thanks, that's what I wanted to hear. Cheers, Amalthea  00:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Might I suggest you add that exact same quote to this article. Once again you've made me laugh (golf clap).  Nefariousski (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look, it's under CRYSTAL. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

YYYY in Italy articles
That's what I'm saying. Rather than deleting some very hard work, could people just redirect them to a page like 1300s in Italy, Years of the 14th century in Italy or Years of the 1300s in Italy, or something like that. That way, the short and now I agree, pointless pages are replaced into meaningful categories, and everyone's happy. Any suggestions? Reply--Theologiae (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The following suggestions may be helpful.


 * The other articles need to exist before your articles can be redirected to them. You can't redirect to a redlink.
 * Categories are not the same as lists (sorry if you already knew this). You can create a category - 1300s in Italy or some such (do check out what the actual format should be) then go around putting articles about events in Italy into your categories.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Brrmm brmm!
This is one of the funniest things I've read for ages! I've never thought about comparing notability to garages, but I might have to use that as an example in future! Ged UK  11:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, do feel free to do so :) Thank you! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Image Copyrights
Hi there, Just wanted to let you know that I've added some images. I also came across an image with a different rationale. I've posted details of this on the media copyright page. Please have a look. Thanks.

PS - I'm sending you this message as you probably wont look at that section anymore, since it is largely resolved. LogicDictates (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Have replied there. I think that uploader is mistaken, but as long as he has provided a non free content rationale, there isn't really a problem. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Lia Montelongo
I see no request on UserJzG's talk to remove the protection on this article. If you're serious about listing the article for AfD, I'll ask him to unprot. I have no vested interest in whether the article stays or goes. but I feel that BLP's need to have special attention. Just offering help if needed...you may know Guy, I don't. Regards   Tide  rolls  01:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind.  Tide  rolls  02:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stopping by with the advice anyway. I think I'd gone to bed by that point, but the sensible outcome (in this case) was achieved anyway. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. See the Jade Goody article now. I've gone over it. Renkaw Gib (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Congrats. You won I lost. That's Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renkaw Gib (talk • contribs) 19:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, no hard feelings! Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI
You might want to weigh in here. --causa sui (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Peter Skuce
Thanks for that, why he left it on your en.wp page and not my talk at commons is beyond me. I frankly wish someone else could just deal with him because that guy really gets on my nerves. The particular issue was that I didn't delete two of his images which he uploaded to commons and demanded to be deleted as he claimed to have replaced them, but instead of doing a deletion request just blanked the page and typed DELETE THIS I HAVE REPLACED IT BY SOMETHING BETTER. Gah. Anyway, sorry to unload. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No probs. I have no idea how he got to my page, especially given he was aiming for you on commons, so he isn't even on the right site.  Feel free to vent - as an experienced local government complaints officer, I can recommend giving advice but not doing anything yourself as an excellent method of getting rid of people who expect you to do everything for you.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV
Thanks for fighting the good fight! This page is always on my watchlist but usually I don't have time to follow it closely. I am glad that you have provided such clarity to the current discussion! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Its been an interesting discussion, and it's nice to think we can make some progress.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Roman religion
After your helpful comments on the article now titled (in keeping with similar articles) Glossary of ancient Roman religion, I was wondering whether you're watching the page, and had any thoughts about its current state of development. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
You kind of dropped out of discussions, but I valued your comments. I have made a proposal here and hope you will have time to comment. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ella Chi Page
I have replied on my Talk page... Claire Paxton-Rider (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help here, Elen. I don't know why I seem unable to communicate with Claire. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

McJakeqcool bot
Hi Elen. When I looked through the contributions of the alleged sockpuppet, I came across what appears to be a bot operated by that account,. Would it be appropriate to add it to the sock drawer? Favonian (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, definitely. I'll add it now. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Great! Incidentally, the reason why I checked Kenneth's actions was that he sent me a mail, requesting that I do a CU to prove his innocence, for which service he would nominate me for adminship.  a) I obviously can't do a CU, and b) a nomination from him would be rather like a kiss of death.  Favonian (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Bizzarro! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Mcjakeqcool
isnt comeing here Crimsonblazer Crimsonblazer (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Go away Jake --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I please get your opinion on this?
Hi, I am sorry to keep bothering you, but I wanted to know if you could look at what I wrote here: User:The Pebble Dare/Sandbox. Please let me know if this is good enough to publish, or if it needs fixing. I am waiting to get a photo to illustrate the infobox. Thank you! The Pebble Dare 20:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a good start. Certainly good enough to publish, I would have said.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. A minute ago, I got a photo to go with it, so I am going to try to publish it. I appreciate your help.  The Pebble Dare  21:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It is online: Day by Day (Godspell song). I am glad for your help. The Pebble Dare 21:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So much for good faith...
I don't know if you've seen this, but I was a little disappointed. Oh well! We both showed good faith, I don't think we need to beat ourselves up over it, but it is a shame...

Cheers, TFOWRis this too long? 11:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just seen. Shame.  Still, as you say, I'd rather risk being take for an occasional ride than bite the heads off every newbie until they prove they're not someone's footwear--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

question about procedure
Elen, don't exactly know why I'm bringing this question to you, except that you seem to understand such matters and I'm not immediately finding an answer.

Recently, a new template was created as the product of a long discussion and consensus at Talk:Trojan War. I'm thinking that it might be useful to copy the most directly relevant portions of the discussion to the template's talk page. Can I just copy this, and place a note at the top of the page, or is there a particular procedure for such a thing? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You should be fine just to copy it over. If you are only taking some of the discussion, use a permalink to point people back to the original discussion, in case anyone wants to read the whole thing from start to finish. Just be careful not to edit any of the comments if you are also copying over the signatures (so no-one can say you are changing what they said).  Let everyone know you have copied over their comments by adding a note at Talk:Trojan War. You could also just summarise the discussion, and copy over what was agreed, if that works better.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It was an epic discussion (as befits the topic, I guess), so I think I'll copy rather than attempt to summarize. Quite possibly one reason I thought of you was that the new template was prompted by a debate over using the standard "military conflict" infobox covering historical battles for a mythological war, complicated by whatever element of historicity the Trojan War may or may not have. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Beatrix Potter
Hi, I'm trying to add some inline citations to the Beatrix Potter article, but the way it is arranged at the moment makes it very difficult. If you'll give me a bit of time to do some rearrangement it will be a lot better when I've finished. The way it is structured at the moment is a mish-mash of styles with some "sources" mentioned without specific page numbers and some inline citations. It needs to be rearranged using "citation" templates so that I can add page numbers to my references. There is no way the article can progress without this being done as the old style of having a list of sources at the bottom is just not acceptable anymore. It's certainly not B class in its present state and there is no way it would get through a GA review Richerman (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

articles
I have a couple of pdf versions of scholarly articles about alt-text etc that I can send you if you are interested and send me an email. --Slp1 (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Emailed you --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)