1009:
The venom spewed by some on that thread is such that nothing is worth being in the targets of outright psychopaths and I do not blame the vanished user, the
Jaranada guy, or anyone else for wanting to distance themselves from this site if some are just going to fixate on certain users as this Deor, for example, seems to have done. God help any other new users who dare to argue to keep articles in the same discussions as some of these accounts; God help anyone else who happens to use AOL and adds references to fictional character articles. I do not make this rant against, you Tiptoey, but what I have seen as priorities here for some users is downright appalling and cannot bode well for this project. What point is there for me or anyone to edit if it cannot be done without the fanatics and zealots trying to make whatever links they can? And if nothing else I feel most bad for the vanished user for having his privacy violated and for any others who have the same experiences. When I did my search for information and saw some of what is out there on Wikipedians on other sites and now that I have even seen how some actual editors act, I am just about as disillusioned as can be. So, good luck to all of you who actually do come here to improve this place and who has been fair, reasonable, and helpful to me! I wish you all the best. --
905:. As far as these so-called similarities, I would reckon that I am not the only editor to add material to articles on fictional characters, certainly not the only one to argue to keep such articles, and certainly not the only editor with the same internet service provider out of are millions of editors. There must be scores of editors who have worked on those kinds of articles, argued to keep them, and use AOL. I looked at those links to these editors being linked me to and 1) they have masculine names, mine is feminine; 2) they cite shortcut internal links in their deletion arguments whereas I have not; 3) they do not have full sentence edit summaries like me; 4) they seemed to argue almost always to keep, I have a much higher percentage of deletion arguments, 5) and as far as I am aware, I have NOT participated in any of the same discussions as this other account and the checkuser should have shown that I am NOT using any other account as a sock puppet, etc.
983:. “Somerandomadmin” writes, “One of the problems is that you have some rabid inclusionists (Le Grand Roi de whatever springs to mind) whose arguments at AFD and DRV are so frankly ludicrous (see this for an example) that they actually attract people who vote delete purely to try and oppose their stupidity. Personally, when I see such inane crap at AfD, it spurs me to close those AFDs as delete regardless,” which is almost identical wording to “When I review AfD cases, I typically discount or ignore garbage comments that include, "Keep because of 5 pillars" or generic and patently false rationales. Like most of Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles and the ones cited in this thread. If they want to keep an article, fine. Give a decent rationale and don't go spewing the exact same tirade in every AfD” from Seicer here.
886:
say a slim chance, but at least possible that I am indeed a new user? If so and I am not making disruptive edits, why not err on the side of that possibility? You should notice at that noticeboard that I actually asked for one of these check users be done, because I thought it would outright clear me (who in their right mind would make such a request if they had any other expectations?) and am now just baffled, but again, “likely” is not the same as “beyond any doubt.” And in any event, I have made no actual edits that suggest anyone should even care who I am and am not. I have not vandalized anything, insulted anyone, and so on. Should the fact that this
Elisabeth account that is not beyond any doubt the same vanished editor has in fact made constructive edits matter much more than anything else?
86:), full and accurate edit summaries are really helpful. For talk pages it is common to see users who normally offer a full edit summary each time put nothing more than a "r" or "+" in the box. This is mostly because most actions on discussion pages are self evident and non-controversial. The other reason is that most discussion pages simply get longer, rather than overwrite past text. For articles, when you make a change it may eliminate some work that someone else has done. This is (of course) run of the mill. Talk pages, on the other hand, will continue down the page. That way, the "history" of a talk page is generally just read from top to bottom whereas the
832:
996:
If someone vanished for whatever reason, I imagine it must have been significant and important and instead of respecting that, as seems to have been okay with other users such as the administrator
Jaranda cited above, hypocritical users more concerned about stifling their opponents would rather drag
990:
But hey, compare some of the style and type of arguments by these and other “similar” users and they too are almost identical by the standards applied here, and again do not all the differences between me and the vanished user count for anything? Does the similar style of arguments by the above and
900:
What is important or what should actually matter to people is whether or not my edits are worthwhile and they are. I made constructive article edits. I did not insult other editors. I made honest arguments in the deletion discussions I participated in, and I explained how I came upon the articles
885:
The one guy says this other account (who should actually not be mentioned by name due to that Right to vanish business) is “likely” me, well, “likely” is not the same as “yes, it is without any doubt the same person.” It is not “confirmed”. Does it mean it is at least possible, even if you want to
90:
for articles must be read from a separate page. Some people like to leave edit summaries for themselves. For examples, some people leave "delete" or "keep" in the edit summary for AfD "votes". Others like to summarize their point in edit summaries when making a longer comment. This can be a courtesy
1008:
So, as usually happens in our world, those who come off as holier than though do so hypocritically. Are we here to write an encyclopedia, or devote our time to making accusations against each other? If what this site wants to do is chase off new users by bogus accusations, fine, then, good bye.
879:
I do not know what to think. Is it worth contesting or what? What I find most disgusting here is that I (Elisabeth) only made constructive and productive edits. I came here enthusiastic to edit, but justifiably cautious as my initial concerns about fanatics, zealots, etc. have been confirmed by
933:
Doctorfluffy: somehow seems to be allowed to edit despite from what I can gather being confirmed as
AndalusianNaugahyde (18:27, 8 November 2006), Pilotbob (19:14, 25 December 2006), Doctorfluffy (17:09, 16 May 2007), Doctorfluffytemp (22:54, 9 November 2007), Doctorfluffytemp2 (00:42, 10 November
751:
First of all, whilst using Google News is a good tool to ascertain certain types of notability, some things with no profile there may still be notable (especially historical items). However, if you're going to use Google News, can I suggest you use it properly? In
109:
I think there is something thorough about writing a full explanation in the summary and as I am in no hurry or anything with my edits, I believe that these sentence replies should prove helpful for readers, but we shall see over time. Thank you for the feedback!
934:
2007), Doctorfluffytemp3 (01:18, 10 November 2007), Doctorfluffytemp4 (03:24, 10 November 2007), Doctorfluffytemp5 (21:17, 10 November 2007), etc. Yet, this editor is allowed to edit and not even all of these confirmed sock accounts have been blocked.
760:). You need to click the "All Dates" link on the left-hand menu, because Google News defaults to just hits from the last month. Also bear in mind that Google News results tend to be skewed towards the USA, especially in local news items.
757:
851:
910:
Just to see how unfairly I am being treated, I have spent the last several minutes going through the account history’s of users who have participated on the opposite side of me in AfDs and have noticed the
895:. Has that user been indefinitely blocked? He apparently has started over on multiple accounts, including deletion of past account's userspace, for personal reasons and yet is still an administrator even.
1002:
If everyone is really so focused on the fine points of the Right to vanish page, how about the bit about “people not refer to the account by its former username,” which seems to have been tossed out the
27:! You don't have to sign your own userpage -- it's your place to write what you want, so everything has your stamp of approval just by being there. If you have any questions, please drop me a line. :)
891:
As far as what is alleged against this other user, apparently even administrators have started over with all new (not just renamed) accounts after deleting their old ones. See, for example,
944:
Protonk: I really hate to say anything negative about this particular user as he has been a voice of reason in most of this thread and helpful elsewhere, but in any event, he came here with
147:
773:
753:
280:
612:
at all? It's like a "big brother/sister" program for
Knowledge (XXG) where you can have a friendly person that helps you become more familiar with Knowledge (XXG). -
324:
997:
someone’s name through the mud than respect his/her privacy. Apparently these editors are so bent on deleting things, that nothing else matters.
808:
Thank you for the suggestions; in particular, I did not realize that about the dates on Google News and apologize for getting that one wrong. --
782:. Google news and Google books are both very useful tools, but working on your "Google-fu" is important to find clear, relevant results. :) --
151:
569:
184:
or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the
320:
503:
55:
Yeah -- it's easy to spot you because you type full sentences into the edit summary...haha! I'm sure you'll change after a day or two.
975:
Seicer: I tried to look up information about the editor I am accused of being on the web and noticed the following comparative posts:
795:
201:
547:
298:
446:
375:
302:
41:
Oh, okay, thanks! I am sure it will take me a while to get a real hang of this place and I definitely appreciate any help! Â :) --
181:
481:
476:
425:
407:
244:
860:
561:
412:
336:
543:
437:
429:
353:
349:
311:
95:--they can look at the watchlist and know what the comment is likely to be about. Find what style suites you, of course.
842:
525:
485:
371:
332:
961:
957:
953:
949:
498:
494:
358:
315:
948:, does not seem to understand how admin boards work and venue shopped/escalated tensions during a dispute (see and
454:
340:
307:
780:
450:
441:
238:
234:
556:
552:
507:
789:
777:
195:
159:
980:
968:. Also, someone said my “jumping into AfDs” is not what a new user does, well, look at the earliest edits
379:
345:
175:
68:
Is that okay to do? I want to make sure that I correctly and sufficiently summarize my edits. Thanks! --
533:
529:
420:
403:
366:
275:
709:
783:
416:
230:
189:
1010:
809:
761:
728:
679:
628:
589:
111:
69:
42:
539:
472:
868:
617:
892:
248:
609:
565:
675:
965:
654:
185:
100:
92:
87:
855:
847:
490:
362:
270:
701:
972:. I would say that is immediately jumping into AfDs and were suspicions raised about that?
266:
83:
779:, however if you put quotes on the phrase "Beyond the Grave" the number drops dramatically
588:
Thank you for the nice welcome message! That is a lot of good stuff to read through! :) --
167:
57:
29:
697:
923:
919:
613:
188:
field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! --
649:
627:
That sounds like an excellent idea. Are there any adopters that you recommend? --
96:
24:
1018:
920:
User_talk:Deor#User_Deor_uncivilly_transgresses_Wikipedia_courtesy_requirements
873:
817:
799:
766:
736:
714:
687:
660:
636:
621:
597:
205:
119:
104:
77:
63:
50:
35:
756:, you claimed that the company has no Google News hits. In fact , it has 78 (
772:
Might I also suggest using quotes around phrases when doing searches? In the
831:
991:
other users also make them the same users? Should we checkuser everyone?
82:
It is ok, but usually not necessary. For
Article or Project pages (like
180:
776:, you noted that there were many entries on Google Books with the name
17:
727:
Thank you for the notification; I have commented in that thread. --
902:
174:
on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to
390:
217:
141:
830:
880:
what some have posted in that thread at that noticeboard.
647:
Have you edited under any previous accounts here before?
154:
to this đź’•. If you decide that you need help, check out
976:
969:
945:
938:
671:
667:
859:. If you believe this block is unjustified you may
754:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Camberford Law
918:Deor: seems to have issues of his own as seen at
8:
674:it immediately. As you can see that is my
954:User_talk:Protonk/Archive_1#Title_and_3RR
700:for why the above question was asked. -
678:accidental logged out edit thus far. --
276:Where to ask questions or make comments
950:User_talk:Protonk/Archive_1#Suggestion
698:WP:AN#Right to vanish and not vanished
91:to people with lots of pages on their
924:User_talk:Deor#Your_incorrect_grammer
7:
964:for vandalism, and has engaged in
150:to Knowledge (XXG)! Thank you for
14:
843:Knowledge (XXG)'s blocking policy
958:User_talk:Protonk/Archive_1#RFCs
841:from editing in accordance with
179:
137:
979:edit with “Somerandomadmin” at
850:, for more evidence please see
281:Request administrator attention
1019:03:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
874:21:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
818:03:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
800:20:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
767:20:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
737:18:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
715:18:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
688:17:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
661:15:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
637:17:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
622:07:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
598:07:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
206:07:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
120:17:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
105:07:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
78:07:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
64:06:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
51:06:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
36:06:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
1:
901:for deletion when looking up
863:by adding the text {{unblock|
325:Biographies of living persons
213:
350:Policy for non-free content
321:What Knowledge (XXG) is not
1035:
267:Frequently asked questions
178:on talk pages by clicking
848:abusing multiple accounts
23:Greetings and welcome to
1014:
813:
732:
683:
670:logged out today, but I
632:
593:
146:Hello, Elisabeth Rogan!
115:
73:
46:
504:Pages needing attention
290:Policies and guidelines
835:
834:
299:Neutral point of view
249:upload and use images
839:blocked indefinitely
774:Beyond The Grave AfD
608:Have you considered
376:Conflict of interest
303:No original research
482:The perfect article
426:No personal attacks
861:contest this block
836:
553:Join a WikiProject
477:Develop an article
473:Be bold in editing
152:your contributions
747:Using Google News
712:
585:
584:
581:
580:
577:
576:
413:Assume good faith
387:
386:
337:Three-revert rule
212:
211:
158:below, ask me on
1026:
941:for edit warring
871:
865:your reason here
786:
710:
707:
704:
668:answered a reply
657:
652:
562:Useful templates
464:Writing articles
438:Community Portal
430:No legal threats
408:Resolve disputes
391:
354:Image use policy
312:Reliable sources
239:Getting mentored
235:Our five pillars
218:
214:
192:
183:
172:
166:
142:
138:
60:
32:
1034:
1033:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1011:Elisabeth Rogan
876:
869:
828:
810:Elisabeth Rogan
784:
749:
729:Elisabeth Rogan
705:
702:
680:Elisabeth Rogan
666:I accidentally
655:
650:
645:
629:Elisabeth Rogan
606:
590:Elisabeth Rogan
518:
486:Manual of style
465:
404:Build consensus
396:
372:Deletion policy
333:Manual of Style
291:
259:
223:
222:Getting started
208:
190:
170:
164:
136:
112:Elisabeth Rogan
70:Elisabeth Rogan
58:
43:Elisabeth Rogan
30:
25:Knowledge (XXG)
21:
12:
11:
5:
1032:
1030:
1022:
1021:
1005:
1004:
999:
998:
993:
992:
987:
986:
985:
984:
973:
946:bad intentions
942:
935:
931:
913:
912:
907:
906:
897:
896:
888:
887:
882:
881:
837:You have been
829:
827:
826:September 2008
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
803:
802:
748:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
720:
719:
718:
717:
691:
690:
644:
641:
640:
639:
605:
604:Wiki-adoption?
602:
601:
600:
583:
582:
579:
578:
575:
574:
573:
572:
559:
550:
536:
520:
519:
516:
513:
512:
511:
510:
501:
499:Disambiguation
488:
479:
467:
466:
463:
460:
459:
458:
457:
444:
434:
433:
432:
423:
410:
398:
397:
394:
388:
385:
384:
383:
382:
369:
359:External links
356:
343:
329:
328:
327:
318:
316:Citing sources
305:
293:
292:
289:
286:
285:
284:
283:
278:
273:
261:
260:
257:
254:
253:
252:
251:
241:
225:
224:
221:
210:
209:
176:sign your name
145:
135:
132:
131:
130:
129:
128:
127:
126:
125:
124:
123:
122:
20:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1031:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1007:
1006:
1001:
1000:
995:
994:
989:
988:
982:
978:
974:
971:
967:
963:
959:
955:
951:
947:
943:
940:
936:
932:
929:
927:
925:
921:
917:
916:
915:
914:
909:
908:
904:
899:
898:
894:
890:
889:
884:
883:
878:
877:
875:
872:
866:
862:
858:
857:
853:
849:
844:
840:
833:
825:
819:
815:
811:
807:
806:
805:
804:
801:
797:
794:
791:
787:
781:
778:
775:
771:
770:
769:
768:
765:
764:
759:
755:
746:
738:
734:
730:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
716:
713:
708:
699:
695:
694:
693:
692:
689:
685:
681:
677:
673:
669:
665:
664:
663:
662:
659:
658:
653:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
625:
624:
623:
619:
615:
611:
610:wiki-adoption
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
586:
571:
567:
563:
560:
558:
554:
551:
549:
545:
541:
537:
535:
531:
527:
524:
523:
522:
521:
517:Miscellaneous
515:
514:
509:
505:
502:
500:
496:
492:
489:
487:
483:
480:
478:
474:
471:
470:
469:
468:
462:
461:
456:
455:Mailing lists
452:
448:
445:
443:
439:
436:
435:
431:
427:
424:
422:
418:
414:
411:
409:
405:
402:
401:
400:
399:
395:The community
393:
392:
389:
381:
377:
373:
370:
368:
364:
360:
357:
355:
351:
347:
344:
342:
341:Sock puppetry
338:
334:
331:
330:
326:
322:
319:
317:
313:
309:
308:Verifiability
306:
304:
300:
297:
296:
295:
294:
288:
287:
282:
279:
277:
274:
272:
268:
265:
264:
263:
262:
256:
255:
250:
246:
242:
240:
236:
232:
229:
228:
227:
226:
220:
219:
216:
215:
207:
203:
200:
197:
193:
187:
182:
177:
173:
169:
161:
157:
153:
149:
144:
143:
140:
139:
133:
121:
117:
113:
108:
107:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
80:
79:
75:
71:
67:
66:
65:
62:
61:
54:
53:
52:
48:
44:
40:
39:
38:
37:
34:
33:
26:
19:
16:
966:edit warring
960:), has been
893:User:Jaranda
864:
854:request for
846:
838:
792:
785:Collectonian
762:
750:
648:
646:
607:
570:User scripts
451:IRC channels
442:Village pump
258:Getting help
198:
191:Collectonian
186:edit summary
163:
160:my talk page
156:Getting Help
155:
56:
28:
22:
557:Translation
508:Peer review
245:edit a page
162:, or place
911:following:
867:}} below.
763:Black Kite
538:Clean up:
534:Talk pages
530:User pages
495:Categories
380:Notability
346:Copyrights
231:A tutorial
59:DRosenbach
31:DRosenbach
856:CheckUser
672:corrected
614:Malkinann
548:Vandalism
526:User name
421:Etiquette
367:Vandalism
93:watchlist
870:Tiptoety
796:contribs
643:Question
447:Signpost
417:Civility
243:How to:
202:contribs
134:Welcome!
84:Policies
1003:window.
939:blocked
930:], etc.
651:krimpet
540:General
148:Welcome
97:Protonk
88:history
962:warned
956:, and
703:auburn
168:helpme
18:Shalom
937:Kww:
903:Ulala
706:pilot
566:Tools
491:Stubs
1015:talk
981:here
977:this
970:here
852:this
845:for
814:talk
790:talk
758:link
733:talk
711:talk
696:See
684:talk
676:only
633:talk
618:talk
594:talk
544:Spam
363:Spam
271:Tips
196:talk
116:talk
101:talk
74:talk
47:talk
928:],
1017:)
952:,
926:,
922:,
816:)
798:)
735:)
686:)
635:)
620:)
596:)
568:•
564:•
555:•
546:•
542:•
532:•
528:•
506:•
497:•
493:•
484:•
475:•
453:•
449:•
440:•
428:•
419:•
415:•
406:•
378:•
374:•
365:•
361:•
352:•
348:•
339:•
335:•
323:•
314:•
310:•
301:•
269:•
247:•
237:•
233:•
204:)
171:}}
165:{{
118:)
110:--
103:)
76:)
49:)
1013:(
812:(
793:·
788:(
731:(
682:(
656:âś˝
631:(
616:(
592:(
199:·
194:(
114:(
99:(
72:(
45:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
