User talk:Elizabeth Blandra

Hello! I see you've added a reference to some FOIA material to the Stalking article, giving links to Wikimedia Commons pages as the source cite. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing whether a document on Commons is actually authentic: could you please add cites to the original source of the material, in some way that can be publicly verified? -- The Anome (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * --Thanks, Dada davis -- what a nice gesture. I'm guessing that it's for the work on the stalking page?  Send me an e-mail, if you'd like to talk. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for you work on references in the Stalking article
Hi. I greatly appreciate your work on providing references for the article on stalking. However, I worry that Google Docs references may not be stable over the long run: have you considered tracking these resources down using the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine (see http://www.archive.org/web/web.php ), which is designed to provide stable URLs for long-term archiving?

For example, the resource you linked to recently from Google Docs appears to be archived by the Wayback Machine at http://web.archive.org/web/20110828151246/http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svs1_06.pdf

Also, you can use "named references" to reference the same resource more than once, instead of having to make a copy of the same reference each time. This also has the advantage that the references to the resource will be consolidated in the reference list at the end of the article, and if another editor needs to fix the citation to replace a dead link or otherwise improve it, all the references to it will be sorted at one go. If you take a look at my recent edits to the article, you can see some examples. -- The Anome (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Anome. I know that the Google Docs reference isn't the best..., but it's the only one that I could find. I'll keep looking, but I felt that, temporarily, it was better than a dead link?  When I use the Wayback Machine, I get the following message:  "You attempted to access:  http://liveweb.archive.org/http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svs1_06.pdf  This is a known malicious web site. It is recommended that you do NOT visit this site. The detailed report explains the security risks on this site."  I'm not sure what to do...  Also, I'll take a look at your edits regarding the "named references" issue, but I'll have to do it later today.  I appreciate the help and suggestions -- I'm still fumbling in the dark, at times.  (Is it best for me to respond to you here, or should I be using your talk page?) Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Anome, Now I understand that you made the changes.  Thanks.  Unfortunately, I'm still getting the error noted above -- "This is a known malicious web site." -- when I try to access the SVS (Supplemental Victimization Survey via the Wikipedia page.  Also, the link to the report itself is "dead" again.  The link which is current is:  http://www.ncvc.org/src/AGP.Net/Components/DocumentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=45862  (I'll try to fix it.) Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Stalking
Batvette has left a lengthy and thoughtful discussion concerning "gang stalking" and the use of that particular section and reference: please honor his request and use Talk:Stalking to discuss it rather than just reverting.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your conduct is being discussed at WP:ANI.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Be aware that any editing while your other account is blocked will be construed as block evasion and will likely be grounds for an indefinite block of this account. Nyttend (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: the "wasn't what it would seem" comment on your userage: what was it? How did PeaceFrog appear after a lengthy absence right after your edits were questioned? Where did the IP come from? You owe the explanation: SPIs aren't done to clear anyone's name, and there appears to have been coordinated editing to maintain the addition, which has been criticized by several editors, as well as straightforward edit-warring by the PeaceFrog account and the IP. Good-hand/bad-hand accounts are not permitted.   Acroterion   (talk)   20:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Questions about talk page policy violations
What are my options, short of entering into the dispute resolution process, for dealing with problematic comments by another editor on an article's talk page? In my opinion, the comments violate any number of Wikipedia policies and should be removed. I tried addressing the matter with the editor on his talk page, but his response wasn't productive, to say the least. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey! (admin here). So, bringing it to my/our attention is a good first start - what seems to be the matter, precisely? Where's this going on? Ironholds (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bagram torture and prisoner abuse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Somali (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) 11:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Gang Stalking
Please see a content dispute regarding Stalking here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Stalking.2C_Talk:Stalking — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs) 17:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

inappropriate comment
I just removed a comment that has long been a problem for you. I'm over it and wish you well. Batvette (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

 * Thanks (again) for the thanks for thanking you thanking me (lol)

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) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

May 2018
Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The Biox info IS sourced: "It was commercialized by Biox in 1981…" I'll get back to this, time-permitting, but sourced material should not be removed. The patent was filed in 1981. https://web.archive.org/web/20161220123501/http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F4407290  Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I keep pointing you at policy: WP:V. You keep ignoring it. You must provide an inline citation to a reliable source supporting the material you add, which has been challenged. This is not optional. Use of a patent primary source is undue, but that's another problem. Alexbrn (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Two inline sources have been added. From one source that's already been accepted for the page: "With the worldwide interest in pulse oximetry has come patent litigation initiated by Ohmeda, the owner of Biox, against Nellcor. The case was recently settled out of court, leaving the Biox patent intact." I'll locate another source and replace the second one. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)