Please 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. Thank you.
Thanks for dropping a line. I am back with a happier computer (happy happy). A joyful if belated Easter to you as well. :) Take care! Vassyana 22:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see you back. :) ElinorD(talk) 23:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yeah. i didnt. idk what your talking about, ive been on the chiodos page looking at their stuff, and then i see this. so idk whats up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.122.85.230 (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
If you are editing from a dynamic IP, you may be receiving messages that were intended for another person. A possible way to avoid that is to create an account. My message on your talk page relates to the first four of these edits. If you did not make them, please accept my apologies. ElinorD(talk) 17:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Elinor, we have never talked before, but I'd like to sit here with you and talk for a while... can I? I've just returned after a long, long wikibreak, and although most of the time I am apalled at the sore lack of kindness that seems to reign this days over our dear project, sometimes I see somebody who manages to light a spark of hope and happiness back in me - like you. I just wanted to tell you that your great work is much appreciated, and I don't mean only your wonderful editing, but also the way in which you treat both newcomers and experienced users, with unfailing kindness and a smile. For that, I praise you wholeheartedly, and you have my deepest thanks. From this day on, know that you have a friend in me, should you want to accept it. I hope our ways cross soon, and often. Therefore, I'll bribe you with something I thought you'd like ;) Cheers! Phaedriel - 00:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How nice of you to send me a message! Indeed, I've already seen some of your messages on a few user talk pages that are on my watchlist. You weren't around at the time that I arrived here, but from what I've read, your return seems to have delighted many people, so I'll add my own "welcome back", and hope indeed that we run into each other. And yes, I do love ice cream, so thanks for thinking of that. ElinorD(talk) 15:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw your answer on Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Why_no_logos_on_userpages.3F. You are very good at explaining things in a kind way I think. I see you are a teacher so that may have something to do with it! :) Anyway, if you are ever bored stop by Wikipedia:Media copyright questions if you'd like. :) Most of the questions are very simple, it's mostly new users. Most people find it from the user talk templates that get added by bots when they make some sort of mistake. Anyway, I'm not sure what your interests are on enwiki, and I won't be sad if this isn't your thing at all, but I thought I would ask :) - cohesion 00:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words and for the suggestion. Wikipedia:Media copyright questions is now on my watchlist. And I am very interested in helping to make Wikipedia as free an encyclopaedia as possible, so I'll be happy to help with some of the simpler questions. For the more difficult questions, I find I still need to go to the experts myself! ElinorD(talk) 19:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yay, another editor watching MCQ! :-) --Iamunknown 19:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elinor. All of the names that I restored (and two that I didn't) are supported by references - per Tom Harrison's "redefinition" of BLP, I only re-added the people whose articles specifically include the references to dominionism (although, as I said, there are references on the talk page of the template for the rest of the people). Tom's threats to block me are unfounded - he is simply trying to use his status as an admin to win a content dispute. In addition, you reverted material which is not covered by BLP. Please be more careful in future. Thanks. 72.198.121.115 11:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My experience of Tom harrison does not lead me to believe that he would "use his status as an admin to win a content dispute". I may indeed have taken out some material that was not covered by BLP, but your earlier insistence of adding material that was problematic, according to that policy, made things temporarily confusing. I have no further problems with that template. ElinorD(talk) 20:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for all your persistent efforts in getting me unblocked. They are really appreciated. I'm sure we'll have occasion to speak quite a lot in future. Huge thanks.
Orbicle 15:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks also to Elinor from us at the Opera Project. --Kleinzach 22:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome. I'm glad it's sorted out now. ElinorD(talk) 23:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm not going to get in an edit war. I'd appreciate your joining the discussion in talk.—ACADEMY LEADERFOCUS! 20:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's excatly what I was doing while you were writing that message, but it does take a little while to type a post! :) ElinorD(talk) 20:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm working on a guideline for user security practices and I wondered what you thought of it. My text so far is here: User:Academy Leader/UserSecurity. Everything past "Interacting with others" is copied straight from the Wikimedia Privacy policy, except for the information under "See also" and "References," which are links gathered from anywhere. This is not intended as a means of revisiting or in any way affecting the "attack sites" debates, I am simply curious as to what you may think of this. Best,—ACADEMY LEADERFOCUS! 04:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - didn't realize I'd messed that up! Sophia 15:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. This business of typing five tildes by mistake seems to be quite common. I like to make it clear in the edit summary that I'm adding the signature for someone else, in case others think I'm that person's sockpuppet! ElinorD(talk) 10:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing the silliness from my Talk page. Mind you, I've always thought that the illiterate ones are the easiest to deal with — they're too dim to give any seriosu problems. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I probably wouldn't have if I had realised that the user was already blocked (which I only discovered when getting ready to report at WP:AIV) and that you were online at the time, so could have removed it yourself. However, Musical Linguist's page is on my watchlist, and I saw a message from you to her the night before, indicating that you're happy to have such messages removed. I know some editors prefer to leave such messages there. Incidentally, you seem to be getting a lot of trolling. Is that something about you or does it come with being an admin? :) ElinorD(talk) 11:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of both? I'm unusually active (for an admin) on the more adolescent, not to say pre-pubescent, parts of Wikipedia. Not, I hasten to add, because the subjects (mainly music, using the term rather loosely) appeals to me, but because it's a mess that needs to be cleaned up. Responses tend, therefore to be more childish and un-self-controlled than many admins suffer. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Well, let me know if ever I can do anything to help that doesn't require admin tools. I'm quite good at dealing with abuse from angry adolescents. ElinorD(talk) 08:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, ElinorD, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course.
Thank you once more,
· AndonicOTalk
It was actually an accident on my part, my fault. Another user caught it and reverted just that post. I thank him/her. I am not about to tell Calton that, cause he wouldn't believe me and it would be a whole 'nother mess for me to have to deal with, with him. But, it wasn't intentional, it wasn't in "spite" (no matter what he says), it was a pure accident on my part, my fault and I do apologize. - SVRTVDude(VT) 11:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no doubt that it was an accident. ElinorD(talk) 11:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to make sure that you knew that. Hope you have a good day....SVRTVDude(VT) 11:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hey just asking i am starting up my user page and want to know how do i put graphics on it like i see on other peoples user pages?Mstare88 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mstare88 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 1 May 2007.
I'm afraid I'm not an expert in that at all. I just have simple photos on my user page — nothing moving or blinking or flashing. If you just want images, you can click "edit" on my page, to see the coding. For a single image with caption, you'd type something like:
[[Image:nameofimage.jpg|thumb|200 px|right|Text of image caption.]]
If you want a gallery, you'd type something like this on the page:
<gallery>
Image:Gelatiera.jpg|My ice cream maker
Image:Popcornmaker.jpg|My popcorn maker
</gallery>
One word of caution: please be very careful if choosing images for your user page that you don't use any images that are not either in the public domain or issued under a free licence. If you click on any image that you find here on Wikipedia, there should be a little box lower down, telling you what kind of licence it has. If it says that it's copyrighted, and fair use, then it's only permitted in articles (under very restricted conditions), and never in user space. Hope that helps. ElinorD(talk) 22:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the infoMstare88 22:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, ElinorD, for your support on my recent RfA, which recently passed 54/1/1. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations. I will certainly take the constructive criticism I recieved to heart.
Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page.
Thank you again·
--SelketTalk 18:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this color theme serves you well, dear Eli ;) You know it's quite a coincidence, since another friend recently borrowed my layout too, and chose this very color - so I borrowed it back for you! ;) And please, sweetie, don't mention it - it is a great compliment that you liked it so much to use it yourself. Please, enjoy it! And thank you so much for your trademark ice cream, Eli - you actually made me crave for one... I'll have an ice cream right away ;) Take care, and hugs, Phaedriel - 02:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beautiful. Thank you so much. ElinorD(talk) 11:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, I would LOVE to, but right now User:Calton is engaged in a sorta edit war and it has to do with the logos on the Stoopid Monkey page.
The Stoop!d Monkey page was subject of an AfD and the result was "Keep". The admin who closed the AfD said that "I just said the article was to be kept, I don't know about the logos". There wasn't a decision given on the logos and in the AfD only 3 users said the logos should go, only 1 said keep the article, lose the logos.
I am not sure how to handle this, but since the admin who closed the AfD made no decision and the AfD wasn't about the logos in the first place (and the majority said to keep the logos if you want to be picky about it).
This has been an ongoing problem and wasn't an issue at all from April 16th to May 3rd when User:Calton realized that I was blocked for 48hours and I couldn't revert his changes. User:Calton had no interest and made no changes on the page itself or the talk page during that time. So, to me, his initial revert was done because of my block.
I have asked two admins (in case one is offline) to revert his changes and put a block on the page until this can be worked out.
Again, I would LOVE to stay as far away from User:Calton as possible, but he makes is VERY hard at times. Take Care....SVRTVDude(VT) 01:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After working with an admin, who suggested that I ask the users who contributed to the AfD, another user revert the Stoopid Monkey page. Of course, Calton immediately reverted it back and insulted me (if you want to call it an insult) by calling me "Mr. Low Impulse Control Stalker". I had a good laugh at that one, cause how can you be a stalker and have low impulse control? Anywho, the page is now locked, so it isn't going anywhere and I am working with others on incorporating the Stoopid Monkey lines/links into the Robot Chicken episode list. Take Care...SVRTVDude(VT) 22:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why can people not just walk away? :( ElinorD(talk) 22:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I have....I am working on another way so that the explanation lines/links can be including with the episode list, I am working with others, and I am as FAR away from Calton as possible. So, he can argue with himself for all I care at this point. - SVRTVDude(VT) 23:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i didn't vandalize...i'm not really sure what this is. i was looking at the irving langmuir page for a project and then it popped up. - unsigned post from User:69.249.71.205 23:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you received a message that was intended for someone else. That sometimes happens when people edit from an IP that someone else has used for vandalism. To avoid that, you might consider creating an account. The edit to which I was referring in the message I left for you was this one. ElinorD(talk) 19:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In recognition of your tireless contributions[edit]
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Having amassed over 4,000 edits in around only 4 months is a very special achievement. Well done. This is also in recognition of your tireless contributions to the Come Rack! Come Rope! article. Lradrama 18:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for that, Lradrama. I'm hoping to make Come Rack! Come Rope! into something good. It's one of my favourite novels. Cheers. ElinorD(talk) 19:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you the very best of luck with it. Happy editing! Lradrama 19:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you seem to be revert vandalism on popcorn about once a day. But apparently you wouldn't want to request semi-protection (I proposed this on the talk page). Any special reason? Han-Kwang 19:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall that I was against (or for) semi-protection. But you'd have to ask an admin, or to go to WP:RFPP. I'll take a look at the talk page of the article. ElinorD(talk) 19:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed several, recent reverts that you made on Yoghurt in order to keep the article vandalism-free. Thank you very much for your quick actions on this and, to be sure, many other articles.
Dtrebbien 23:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing, and for taking the trouble to post about it. :) ElinorD(talk) 00:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you had reverted the NPA policy page while noting that the existence of an ArbCom ruling negates the need for consensus. The MONGO case has created quite a bit of heated debate over the project- and projecttalk-spaces for a coupe of months now. I have been attempting informal mediation at NPA to quell the edit wars, page protection requests and disputed-section tags.
I am not reverting your change at this time; I have no desire to give the appearance of contributing to the very edit war I hope to stop. However, I would like to note that ArbCom member Matt Brown, over the mailing list, confirmed that ArbCom does not intend to have its rulings represent policy per se.[1] He also stated that "six Arbitrators considered not linking to attack sites as already covered by de facto policy". The version of NPA I had recently put in place differs in only minor ways from the policy that was in place at that time, and has been received as acceptable by most of the principles in the active debate, on both sides.
Is this decision one that you are willing to give further consideration to? Serpent's Choice 06:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughtful post. Forgive me for being brief, but I'm logging off now, and I think I've made my position very clear on the talk page. Regards. ElinorD(talk) 09:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most appreciated. After your feedback and some from others, I've made a couple more adjustments to the 17 April version. In particular, your "Can't be penalised for off-wiki attacks" concerns have been directly addressed and the offending material stricken. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have other insights; Wiki works because many pairs of eyes catch problems better than one. Serpent's Choice 09:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hi Elinor,
is there a way to keep the screenshots of List of Gilmore Girls episodes? Is it sufficient to change the fair use like it is specified on List of Battlestar Galactica (re-imagined series) episodes? Those images don't seem to get deleted.
Thanx for an answer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidicted (talk • contribs) 19:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hi, I'm afraid I'm not a very good person to ask. I'm more supportive of our policy on fair use than knowledgeable about the details. All I can say is that using non-free images for decorative purposes interferes with out goal of building a free encylopaedia with reusable content, and could get us into unpleasant legal situations. Regarding the List of Battlestar Galactica (re-imagined series) episodes, it looks as if the administrator Jkelly dealt with problems there a few minutes after you posted on my page. All I can do is point you to Wikipedia:Non-free content, and Resolution:Licensing policy. See also here, where I tried to answer a question on this issue. Sorry I can't be more helpful. ElinorD(talk) 00:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikisource allows "annotated" versions of texts, where things like your correction can be noted, but they have rules about providing both a complete original version and an annotated version. I'm not sure that they'd want someone to duplicate the entire Catholic Encyclopedia in order to start fixing mistakes in it. The main person behind the Catholic Encyclopedia project doesn't seem to be active anymore, but wikisource:User:Danny is a good person to ask about Wikisource policy and procedure. Jkelly 22:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ElinorD, you are ridiculously active, and most of your edits look to me pretty solid. This might be premature, but have you considered a request for adminship?/would you accept a nomination?Proabivouac 09:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words, Proabivouac. I've actually had several offers of nomination, some by private email, and have, so far, felt it would be better to wait. I'll probably try before the end of this month. It's hard to know what to do when several people offer to nominate you! (I'm not that keen on co-nominations, as they look slightly like attempts at showing how popular one is, though I'm sure they're not intended that way.) I saw someone self-nominating a while back, because he had had so many offers, and didn't want to choose one over another; but I was brought up on the story of Melisande, so can see obvious dangers with that approach! I think that when I feel ready, I'll just accept the kind nomination of the person who offered first, if he hasn't changed his mind. However, I will very gratefully accept your support. ElinorD(talk) 15:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Elinor. Thanks for your note. I loved Come Rack! Come Rope! as a teenager, though I was disgusted years later to find that my version was an abridged one. I've never read the full version. I'm under some pressure (time-consuming rather than distressing) in real life at the moment, so will just comment briefly.
I don't know of any article that is specifically about the persecution of Catholics under Elizabeth, but there probably should be one. Perhaps you could start one?
I know there is a page that tells what is required for a high-quality article about a novel (for example, that it shouldn't be just plot summary), but I can't remember where to find it.
I'd highly recommend looking at some featured articles about books. In fact, you seem to be on good terms with SlimVirgin and Jkelly, and they both created and did major work on book articles that were featured — Night (book) and Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches. They're both extremely nice people, as well as being excellent editors, so I'm sure they'd be happy to point you in the direction of what guidelines you need to read.
Mel Etitis and Bishonen are also excellent, very helpful, editors, though I'm less familiar with their work. I'm sure they'd also know things about how long a lead section should be, what other information is required, etc.
Scanning briefly through the article, I think you need a section about the background to the story, i.e. the persecution of Catholics in England at that time, perhaps mentioning Regnans in Excelsis. Also, a section on the background to writing it — that Benson was an Anglican who had become a Catholic. Perhaps something about the characters, wiki-linked to the articles about historical people like Campion, Babington, etc. You could mention critical reviews of Benson's work, the influence it has had since, etc., if you can find that information. I'll look at it again later, if I have time.
In my continued efforts to resolve the conflicts at WP:NPA, I have discussed another potential compromise version with the editors active on the policy's talk page. That version, located at Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Proposal has been tentatively accepted by those editors currently involved in the discussion. However, I would value your input as to whether this proposed policy satisfies your concerns.
Obviously, it is impossible for the policy page to be perfect. As has been noted in the talk page discussion, there is no way to write a policy that will prevent editors — on either side of the debate — from taking extreme positions in regard to actual content or its removal. But as one of the principle editors rejecting the previous attempt to promote a compromise version, I would like to hear from you before I consider contacting the protecting administrator regarding promotion of the proposed version.
I'm sure you grow weary of the NPA discussion, but I'm hopeful this situation is drawing to a close; the talk page has been largely stable for some time now, at least. If you have some time, would you mind examining the most recent effort to craft a revised policy? You can find the debate on it at WT:NPA#Simplification or jump directly to the proposal itself, currently in my userspace at User:Serpent's Choice/NPA/Proposal. Many thanks in advance, I've appreciated your input. Serpent's Choice 12:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look later. I'm a bit busy right now. I do appreciate your efforts to find a compromise, to avoid an edit war, and to deal courteously with those who disagree. I hope to comment on it later today. ElinorD(talk) 12:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No rush. I'm going offline myself for a bit, and it isn't as though this issue won't wait even a few more days, given what's already transpired. Whenever you get the chance. Serpent's Choice 13:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should also place a similar template at the top of the Johnson article. I wonder in fact if "The Rambler" should be a disambiguation page, and the Johnson magazine moved to The Rambler (periodical) or The Rambler (Samuel Johnson)?
Your other question seems to have been answered satisfactorily at the Talk page. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elinor, thank you for your kind support of my RfA, which closed successfully yesterday. Please feel free to drop me a note any time if there is anything that I might be able to do for you. Pastordavid 16:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. It was most definitely my brother, as I make it a practice not to edit wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.148.209.83 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 15 May 2007.
Well, this is the first time I am posting a message to Wikipedia, that is why it took a while to understand the technical issues and compose the message. Plus, as I have not been an aware of all this vandalism problems, and I was suprised that my edits were changed back almost instantly.I just tried to understand the underlying technics, and without knowingly I became a vandal...
I have a few questions:
Could you explain me why my editings seems to be vansalism? Who decides that? Someone called Exter? Or you? I don't now how you get this authority, but the info in the yogurt article is simply WRONG! I have tried to change it... If Wikipedia is not interested in unbiased info, that is fine with me... Please read a bit the history of yoghurt -from dependable sources... I know what I am writing; I also know how some people try to steal some cultural names from other nations... Could you please explain me where do you get the right to redo what somebody adds, or changes?
Are you an expert on 'yogurt'? How do you know that the changes I have made are vandalism? I thought wikipedia were a place where one could find dependable info, but I doubt very much about that now... Regards Torosa 16:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all, the edit summary for my first revert simply said that I was reverting unexplained blanking.[2] It's not inconceivable that a new user could see that something was inaccurate, and could remove it, but, being a new user, he or she might not be aware of how to fill in an edit summary. Users who delete whole sections, with no explanation, are likely to have their edits reverted. If there is a valid reason for removing that section, you should go to the yoghurt talk page and explain your edits.
The second edit that I reverted[3] could not be described as a good edit which was mistakenly reverted by someone who knew nothing about the subject and who just thoughtlessly reverted because the edit came from a new user. You must be aware that deleting a whole section from an article in an encylopaedia and replacing it with:
WHO IS THIS DerHexer? WHo has given him right to change back? He is just a young kid, but it seems that he thinks he is an expert on yogurt!
could not in any way be seen as a good-faith attempt to improve Wikipedia.
Please work out what your problems are with the article, and then report and explain them at the Yoghurt talk page. Thanks. ElinorD(talk) 17:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation... But I still cannot find the answers to my questions! How does it happen that somebody has right to change back an edit, commenting that that was 'vandalism' without reading what was all about?
I agree with you that 'could not in any way be seen as a good-faith attempt to improve Wikipedia.' Well, what I am talking about is not my attempt, but this young guys behaviour... It seems that Wikipedia needs many improvements... It is just not kind to change and edit without explaining anything, and moreover accusing as 'vandalism'... (Actually I thinking how I should point out the mistakes, but after I was threwn away from Wikipedia I lost all my enthusiasm never to gain again...)
I am asking once more time, and I hope I will get clear answers from you: 1. Who has given right to reedit something? 2. Are you and/or this Dexter expert on yogurt? 3. How can you be sure that the info that is presented on that page is true, and not written by some biased persons? It seems that you believe that the info there is just right, and all editing attempts are just vandalism...
Whether I get some answers or not I don't think I will use Wikipedia again... I can see that it is full of mistakes and if one wishes to put something right, than s/he will be accused of vandalism... What a strange way to spread knowledge! It is a pity :-( Torosa 18:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer your questions in order:
Every Wikipedian editor in good standing has the right to make good-faith edits to any page that has not been protected from editing by an administrator.
I am not an expert on yogurt. I do know a little bit about it, as I make yogurt at home regularly. I know nothing about Dexter. I presume you are referring to User:DerHexer. I know nothing about his other than what he says on his user page. He is an administrator at German Wikipedia, so presumably he is a responsible, trusted editor. I don't know how much expertise he has on yogurt.
Normally the way we can be sure that something in an article is true is to insist on a source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It can sometimes happen that unsourced information slips through, especially in an article that doesn't attract a great deal of notice. If you believe that to be the case, you should go to the discussion page of the article, and explain what you think is wrong. If you are removing something from an article, you should state that clearly in your edit summary.
Also, you should take special care, when removing something, not to leave the article in a state where it lessens Wikipedia's credibility. If someone, completely unfamiliar with Wikipedia, googled for Yoghurt and found our article, and suddenly found himself reading your comments about DerHexer,[4] it would hardly increase his respect for our encyclopaedia. ElinorD(talk) 18:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the problem in the Wikisource article. Since we are trying to preserve the original texts there, I corrected it by adding a footnote--"Usually given as Richard Simpson.". I hope this addresses your concerns. It is great to have these kind of notes which point to errors in the original text. Thanks. Danny 16:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that, Danny, and also for replying here — since I don't often log on to my Wikisource account. Cheers. ElinorD(talk) 13:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue removing Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Phantom Renegate 15:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, this user has been blocked. Feel free to remove this so-called "warning" if you would like. --BigDT 15:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, BigDT, and thanks for reverting the troll who vandalised my page shortly after. ElinorD(talk) 15:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what's going on with unfree content over at fr:. There was a big vote to be much more conservative about unfree content (I'm pretty sure that they haven't gotten rid of it altogether -- they had a list of exceptions). I'm not sure if there is an active cleanup of old uploads, however, and the "not in userspace" thing was an en: rule that made it into the m:Licensing policy; I wouldn't bet that fr: had it before now or has begun to implement it. I'd be tempted to let fr: sort itself out on its own time; there's lots of cleanup to be done here. That said, if you left a note at fr:Wikipédia:Le_Bistro some fr: admin will probably do something about it. Jkelly 23:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to thank you for that barnstar! Very kind of you...how much longer will Wikipedia have to wait before you decide to become an admin...that is, if you're interested in dealing with the inevitable trolls, etc.? Judging by the demeanor you have shown throughout your edits here, I think you're one of the best candidates for admin I can think of.--MONGO 08:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had a "captive audience" for my camera for the Burrowing Owl...he was only 5 feet or less away and in a walk through aviary...so he's used to having his/her picture taken and was very patient with me especially!--MONGO 08:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Regarding a possible RfA, I'll probably try it soon enough. See my reply to Proabivouac here.
I sent you some more...check your email when you feels so inclined...thanks again!--MONGO 09:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I got them, thanks. Beautiful, though I still like the burrowing owl best. ElinorD(talk) 21:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry to pop in) Yay! Elinor, you are so kind and I think that you would make a great administrator! :-) --Iamunknown 21:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you posted to my page regarding my community action.
The way I see it is: If my opponants could have their "day in court" against me (when they kept beating a dead horse and could not obtain concensus), then so can I.
Everybody has a right to have their day in court.
I ALMOST did not even respond; I ALMOST was about to tell you to "tak your comments to the proper page," namely the community discussion page, but, since I know you, I responded, but I shall not make any more replies (hopefully) to any comments on my page.
I do want to remind you of one thing, Elinor: The last time, you (in good faith, I am sure) told me to just let the process run and not give input. The result of that was that an admin slandered my name because I did not nip it in the bud -when he falsely proclaimed a concensus (WAKE UP CALL: Less than 50% is NEVER a concensus).
I tried your method: Been there; Tried that; Did not work. Now, these with false accusations had their day in court. At least let the innocent have thier day in court too? OK? That too much to ask? Or, rather, do you support a dictatorship with NO right to seek redress or your day in court.
Gordon, I can't remember exactly what I said last time, but you certainly did not try "my method". My method would have meant that you'd stop telling people that you were right. That you'd stop posting thousands of words of rebuttal of what people said — even people who were trying to help you.
For the record, I think you have been treated too harshly, and I think that administrators should have done something to stop others from baiting you. (I also think that you should have made more effort not to rise to the baiting.) But trying to get an administrator banned for using a bad word is just plain silly.
I predict that by the time I wake up tomorrow morning, an administrator will have blocked you indefinitely. I'll be sorry to see that happen, but shall not be able to help you. The only person who can help you is you — by deciding to shut up. I'm sorry to be so blunt. I remember some months back, an administrator, in what I believe was an effort at fairness, compared you to a friend at the cinema who talks all the way through the film, and said that it's possible to be disruptive without maliciously intending disruption.
I don't think you have a future here at Wikipedia, Gordon, because I think you're not able to stop the behaviour that's going to get you blocked. I believe you are of a completely different class from the trolls who come here and use foul language and post people's personal details, and am therefore very sorry to see what at this stage seems inevitable. I wish you well in your life. I think you'll find more happiness if you learn to let go, even when you think you're right. Best wishes. ElinorD(talk) 20:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ElinorD has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Elinor's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Elinor!
Shy, dear Eli? Why? You deserve your day, and much, much more :) You are a sweet and talented woman. There's no shame in that! So be happy today, enjoy your special day, and shine on, Eli! Love, Phaedriel - 00:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion going on about this issue. DO NOT revert the article back until the discussion is over! MusiMax 23:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Are you saying that we should ignore foundation policy on unfree content until we've finished "voting" on it at the talk page? I'm afraid Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Why not keep the article in conformity with policy until the discussion is over? Wouldn't that be the safer course? ElinorD(talk) 23:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other person is an IP in Washington who continually changes their IP. They have trolled me on the pages Afro, Miss Understood, Laughter, my talk pages, and others. Their most recent incarnation is User:71.112.115.55, but they have also trolled and vandalized under User:71.112.142.5, User:71.112.7.212 and User: 71.112.6.35. Their most egregious behavior which had them blocked about four times was under User:71.112.7.212, which is where there vendetta against me was born since I listed about ten reasons why they should be blocked. In those reasons you'll also see an admin review of their behavior mentioned. It's clearly a Wikipedia editor who goes anonymous since from day one they had a handy knowledge of tags, AfDs, RfCs, block reviews, etc., not to mention the Wiki style. --David Shankbone 20:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen some of your work, and very much appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. It seems fairly obvious that you're being obsessively wiki-stalked, both here and at Commons, and I'm happy to do anything I can to help. I get the impression that several admins are aware of the problem as well, so I hope that they'll be able to put an end to your problems. ElinorD(talk) 23:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the nomination page:
(self-nomination)This article is simply excellent. Excellent writing, interesting subject matter, improved during its Good Article trial, and eye-witnesses have left notes on the Talk page that talk about the article being so accurate, it's like they were living it all over again. Written in a NPOV and heavily cited with the highest of sources, it includes GFDL media, is wikified to the fullest, a fantastic "See Also" section, and looks at the story from every angle. --David Shankbone 18:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a brief look, and will look in more detail later. ElinorD(talk) 23:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elinor (I don't think we've met before), I recently saw in the page history that you reverted some vandalism on my userpage. I wanted to thank you for the act of kindness—I'll keep your page on my watchlist in case I can repay the favor someday. Cheers, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ikiroid, that's nice of you. ElinorD(talk) 20:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sent an e-mail to the oversight team, and it seems to have been oversighted now. (Admins can still read deleted edits, and I was able to for a few minutes after I deleted, but I can't now!) Thanks for your quick and discreet response to the troll's activities. Feel free to e-mail me in addition to WP:RFO if you ever need anything deleted. It never does any harm to have the inappropriate material removed while waiting for oversighting, though my experience is that they're very quick to respond. Contrary to what one might think from my recent number of edits, I'm at the computer quite a lot, and would certainly log on to Wikipedia to help out in a case like that. Musical Linguist 15:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I was glad to see that it was deleted so quickly. ElinorD(talk) 01:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ElinorD, unlike Musical Linguist, I'm not an administrator and cannot delete or oversight anything...but there is little that upsets me more than stalking and trolling, and I'm always happy to do whatever I can to assist you.Proabivouac 19:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That kind of behaviour is something that I can't even begin to understand. ElinorD(talk) 01:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, btw. I don't understand the immediate response of two editors to "warn" the stalker, though. To me, when personal threats are involved, as opposed to just name-calling, it would make sense to block immediately. I haven't seen the oversighted information, so I don't know if we are talking about the same thing, but if the activities of this poster to your talk page are the subject of this thread, I would have blocked immediately and possibly have done the whole traceroute thing to determine any information of interest to local authorities. Best,—ALFOCUS! 19:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Academy Leader. I suppose you're talking about this threat. Actually, the subject of this section is something far, far more serious — an editor who posted the real name (supposedly, though I don't actually know) of an administrator. I reverted it, and Musical Linguist deleted the page very soon after that. It was then oversighted. Regarding the anon who threatened to "slit [my] throat and gut [me] like a fish", I can't say I felt very upset! It's just an obnoxious troll, and I'm sure that kind of thing happens all the time. I can't blame the two users who just "warned" the troll. Neither is an admin, so they didn't have the power to block. MONGO reported it immediately at WP:AIV anyway. I don't think there would be any need to inform the authorities, and I'm sure they'd get irritated if they were contacted every time someone received a "death threat" on Wikipedia. I'm far more revolted by this, but I doubt if tracing that IP would bring the police one step closer to finding out what happened to that poor child. ElinorD(talk) 01:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reverting the vandal. I think this related to the Merkey/SCOX situation.Proabivouac 20:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was conscious we were reverting the same vandal there; well done for your quick and accurate work. I've blocked them indefinitely. Best wishes, --Guinnog 17:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick work. ElinorD(talk) 23:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that was just some whitespace removal that I did at the same time I was trying to revert him. It doesn't make any difference to the page. --tjstrftalk 23:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks. I reverted you thinking that what you did was caused by a software glitch. Shows I should stay out of things I don't understand. :) I've self-reverted. ElinorD(talk) 23:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 04:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. I've taken a brief look and will look in greater detail later. ElinorD(talk) 20:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Wsiegmund has used his software to edit the Burrowing Owl shot I took...if you care to take another peek.[5]--MONGO 05:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know, MONGO. I've changed my support to Version 2. I hope it passes. Brilliant work! ElinorD(talk) 15:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the beautiful words at my talk page, the Puppy's and of course, at your wonderful email, dear Eli! You've just gifted me one of the brightest weekends I've had in a long, long time. We have much to talk about, don't you think? ;) Love you, friend! Phaedriel - 18:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Phaedriel. The Puppy has been a very kind puppy since I joined, and although you were on wiki-break at the time that she was explaining where to find the pipe-link symbol on my keyboard, and how to add pages to categories, I saw a lot of the general delight at your return, and couldn't help sharing it. ElinorD(talk) 20:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
