User talk:Elonka/Archive 13
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Congrats on RFA
Give 'em hell, Elonka. You're not doing your job if you don't have enemies, not in this community. Philwelch (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry that I'm late in saying this, but congratulations. You know that I would have supported you in this nomination as well, if I had known about it. talk) 06:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hehe. You beat me to moving the thanks. Not that I'm a perfectionist... Rt. 17:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Oh no, Elonka's an admin! [Screams in terror!]" Congratulations, and I'm sorry that I didn't get a chance to support you, but I'm glad to see that it was successful anyway! friendly) 18:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmmm...I just realized why you seem so familiar to me! If you have a few spare minutes sometime, I'd love it if you could hop onto the IM service of your choice so we could chat for a few. You can find all of my IM contact information at friendly) 19:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmmm...I just realized why you seem so familiar to me! If you have a few spare minutes sometime, I'd love it if you could hop onto the IM service of your choice so we could chat for a few. You can find all of my IM contact information at
- "Oh no, Elonka's an admin! [Screams in terror!]" Congratulations, and I'm sorry that I didn't get a chance to support you, but I'm glad to see that it was successful anyway!
- Hehe. You beat me to moving the thanks. Not that I'm a perfectionist... Rt. 17:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
RfA
Congratulations to successful RfA ! ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 23:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, holidays are a lazy season. Happy Christmas and happy New Year season, be strong administrator and don't go far for a block :-) ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 00:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Congrats from me as well. I must admit I did oppose your Rfa, but I am fully confident in your abilities, and am quite pleased your Rfa passed. Enjoy the new tools, don't let the vandals get to you, and if you ever need anything, I always have time for a fellow admin! Now... get back to 02:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Congratulations! I hope the toolset treats you well. Cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share? 07:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Congrats from me as well. I must admit I did oppose your Rfa, but I am fully confident in your abilities, and am quite pleased your Rfa passed. Enjoy the new tools, don't let the vandals get to you, and if you ever need anything, I always have time for a fellow admin! Now... get back to 02:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Requested hint
No characters in the original text were replaced or substituted for; all of the original characters are still present. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
Hi Elonka! I wish you a Merry Christmas and all the best in the new year. - Darwinek (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Franco-Mongol alliance
Becoming an Administrator did not change your intimidation methods apparently! The AfD was on "Mongol conquest of Jerusalem", which was indeed voted down. The new title is "Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300)", which is not at all POV. Many authors to describe Mongol raids on Jerusalem. The article as such is totally justified (subject, size, content), and is usefull to deflate the size of the Franco-Mongol alliance article.
- PHG, I think Elonka's point is that, as per friendly) 19:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, you are the one who actually proposed "Ameno-Mongol alliance"... and now you say you are against it and criticize me for starting the article? (
Hatchets
Elonka, I just wanted to reiterate that I am not holding a grudge here, and don't think there is a hatchet between us. I trust that you feel the same way, and believe you would tell me if it were otherwise. All the best, Kafka Liz (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
RfC closings?
Hi, Elonka! I saw your comment on an RfC and I wondered how/when they get closed? Specifically, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bluemarine was started in September - how does one know when to close it and come to resolution? I'm only interested because a user (who has not taken part in the RfC) complained about the user's "interesting take on consensus-building" and another user mentioned the RfC. Thanks for your help - I'm still wet behind the ears with this mop, so I'm not very confident in how to use it :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR
Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
---|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s, "B"s and "C" having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "D"s, "E"s and "F"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Really?
Is this true? To my knowledge, it is not. Whose copyright are you saying may be violated? The book manufacturer? But they didn't create the picture - they got it from someone else. I'll concede I'm not a copyvio expert though so I'm curious if I'm missing something. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Sounds like you might be on to something. Perhaps one or more of the images should be brought through the Commons deletion process. Also, if the issues with PHG are really bad here, it may be time for an ) 21:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I noticed this discussion while looking for something else, and my opinion is that this depends on whether it was a scan or a photograph, with cavets for how old manuscripts are "scanned". The Commons bit says:
The important bit is the last sentence: "Of course, a simple scan or photocopy of a PD illustration in an old book is OK, as purely mechanical copying cannot even in the UK create a new copyright." I may be wrong, but the "from a distance" bit to be seems to apply to photographs from a distance of a painting hanging on a wall, not to a camera held over a manuscript and used to take a photo. In any case, for old manuscripts, the image capture process invariably involves fixed camera set-ups to faithfully reproduce the pages of the book, which is essentially the same set-up regardless of who is doing the photograph (ie. minimal originality). For obvious reasons, brittle manuscripts are not stuck in a normal scanner (at least not without a great deal of preparation). The amount of work involved in faithfully reproducing an old manuscript might be a lot, but the amount of originality is minimal. Similar examples from the Rashid al-Din book are: Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg and Image:Muammad-as-youth-meeting-monk-bahira-compendium-persia-1315-edin-550.jpg. Carcharoth (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)"There have been no decided cases in the UK which directly bear on this issue, but most British academic writers agree that the UK courts probably would grant copyright to a carefully lit and exposed photograph, taken from a distance, which aims to be a faithful reproduction of a 2D work of art. The level of originality required by the UK courts is low, and there will very probably be sufficient originality in the photographer's selection of lighting arrangements, exposure, filters and so on for a new copyright to be generated. Of course, a simple scan or photocopy of a PD illustration in an old book is OK, as purely mechanical copying cannot even in the UK create a new copyright."
Actually, the book by Jackson was inded published in the UK, but you will notice however that the picture was taken in France (Bibliotheque Nationale) by a German company (AKG-Images), which makes it dependent on French copyright laws. France is listed as "Inconclusive" regarding PD-Art (it is not "generally considered to be protected by copyright" for faithfull reproductions of ancient paintings), thereby allowing the PD-Art usage per Wikipedia [1]. In any case "purely mechanical copying cannot even in the UK create a new copyright" as per the same page, and as per Carcharoth above, that definition should legitimately apply to un-creative photos of old manuscripts.
Jerusalem
I once read that Wikipedia is not about what is true or not, but about what published authoritative sources write or not about a given subject. Your comment that the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols in 1300 is not true doesn't make much sense in that context. The statement about the capture of Jerusalem is backed up by multiple reputable sources which I know of (starting with
Thanks
Hi Elonka, thanks for your message. I am sure you will do well as an admin, and I wish you lots of happiness for the new year. Crum375 (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Happy new year and congrats on your adminship (I'm late to respond here)--NAHID 22:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Lakota people
If you have time I would like a 3rd party opinion on the page:[2] the "Independence movement" section. The current version verses my last version (trying to achieve census of NPOV). You will also find a lively arguments on the talk page. Best,--Duchamps_comb MFA 06:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
ANI thread notification
Just a heads up: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment by User:Elonka. EVula // talk // ☯ // 10:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Move of Scottish kings
There is a proposed move of Scottish kings at
Happy New Year, Elonka
re: Tech help
Possibly with a bot, though I'd need to know the specifics to say for sure either way. Javascript I'm fairly profoundly ignorant of, though I have toyed with learning some for purposes of another project. Alai (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. That looks doable, but likely somewhat convoluted, given the rather disparate nature of the information being collated. Probably the WP API is the best way to handle it: I'd have to check up on that, though. I'll try to comment in detail soonish, but it'll likely be no sooner than Monday. If you need technical input on a speedy basis, it might be a plan to drop a note at the bot requests page. Alai (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
New essay
Could you look at Wikipedia:Griefing for me? As always, feel free to make any changes you like. Jehochman Talk 15:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Matt_Sanchez
I'm passing this case over to ArbCom. I know you had a go at trying to sort things with the Matt Sanchez article, so you might want to comment on whether they should accept or reject the case. WjBscribe 04:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Your RfA
Belated congratulations (I'm partially off-Wiki at the moment in the Land Beyond Broadband and editing here is a serious pain over a dialup link, so I'm not on as much as I'd like to be!) My only concern with your RfA was that you seem to be spreading yourself a bit thin with all your other commitments but hey - if you think you can find the time, go for it! Plus as they say, being an admin is not That Big Of A Deal - nothing says you have to get the broom out of the cupboard every time you log on ☺ Tonywalton Talk 10:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just found out post-your notification. Good luck with the tools! Anthøny11:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser
Thanks for the tip. Jack1956 (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Welcome
You are welcome for the support. I have seen you on TV and I was very intrigued by your expertise. That did not affect my vote, but I am so pleased that such a distinguished and interesting person is an editor on wikipedia. I also think you will be a good admin. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Belated congrats
I just found out you're an admin now. :) Third's the charm! Well, here are my belated congrats. If I'd known at the time I'd have supported you. Aw well. Congrats again and good luck with admin school! ;) Cheers Raystorm (¿Sí?) 15:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Same here (overdue congrats that is), and Happy New Year! Wishing you all the best for 2008, Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Overdue congrats. Good luck and looks like you are doing fine. Happy New Year :)--Sandahl 05:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Overdue congrats, what passions it created but at the end you received what was due Taprobanus (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Lum the Mad
Thank you for rewriting the article, thereby saving it from deletion. You did a good job. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Your FIRST Barnstar
Dear Elonka,
Congratulations on your Adminship! It is about time.
You may remember me, the one who gave you your very first Barnstar.
I also supported you in a number of controversies during which you were unfairly mistreated. I am very glad you have finally come out ahead.
I have never asked you for your help on anything, but I should like to now. There is a very good, new article: Liite Buddhism. I have relatives entrapped in this organization, so I take a special interest in it.
It needs Wikifying and he usual polishing new articles require. I myself have made a few minor changes.
Can you make sure that this article is not deleted, that it survives, and gets the normal Wikifying and proofreading? I am worried that Sethie will delete it as he says he will, despite the 26 references with verifiable links.
Thank you very much and once again I am delighted to congratulate you on the adminship you have so long deserved!
Castanea dentata (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Good; now you're in a position to make up for the large proportion of admins who slip through that silly RfA process and turn out to want to use their position for petty ends. Congrats. Tony (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I read your message
Surely you realize the editor is deliberately being obtuse? In any event, if you all feel the need to bend over backwards to an editor who has abused virtually the entire community, feel free. I just happened to have their page watchlisted, but have no desire to become embroiled in that particular nest of snakes. Jeffpw (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Request for comment on Category Redirect template
Because you are a member of WikiProject Categories, your input is invited on some proposed changes to the design of the {{Category redirect}} template. Please feel free to view the proposals and comment on the template talk page. --Russ (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Pearls and bacon
I don't often say that much in the way of witty, wise or pithy things, but when I do, i thought it helpful (for myself at least) to note them. I am always impressed by folk who can write extended essays on a subject. Maybe this will help me collate my thoughts enough that I can try my hand at them at some point. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Belated RFA congrats
The Resilient Barnstar | ||
For passing an RFA on your 3rd attempt, a rare feat. Mangojuicetalk 05:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC) |
Congrats on making it, despite my hesitations. If I can do anything to help you out, let me know. Mangojuicetalk 05:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Lord of the Flies
Wikipedia really is similar. :-(Ferrylodge (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry Ferrylodge, you can't talk now - you ain't got the conch :p --Alf melmac 17:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)