User talk:Ellesmelle
Welcome!
[edit]
|
File copyright problem with File:Civil_demand_letter.jpg
[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:Civil_demand_letter.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Possibly unfree File:Civil demand letter.jpg
[edit]A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Civil demand letter.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 19:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Ecodissident
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Ecodissident requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. reddogsix (talk) 09:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Dear fellow Fashion Project editor, I am working on a major rework of the artice about Damiani (jewelry company) at my sandbox User:Geraldshields11/sandbox/Dalminia. Please would you add comments or suggest edits on that sandbox page. Thank you in advance. My best regards, Gerald Shields Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Peoplesopen.net
[edit]If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Peoplesopen.net requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. BetterSmile:D (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
A page you started (Golden Rule (ship)) has been reviewed!
[edit]Thanks for creating Golden Rule (ship), Ellesmelle!
Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
This has been tagged as uncategorised.
To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Boleyn (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
ANI report
[edit]Why have you failed to try to resolve the dispute with the user on talk pages before filing an Incidents report? (A last resort, not first.) Why did you fail to inform the user about the report you filed concerning them, despite the bold red font at the top of the ANI page instructing you to do so? Sorry, this does not look good. El_C 18:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
After almost ten years, I would expect you to know the difference between a user page and a user talk page. Anyway, I fixed that for you. El_C 18:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Dear El_C, Thank you for fixing the notification. l have never complained about a user before. l don't edit much, quite frankly, l find Wikipedia to be not very usable. This is not a first resort, there was extensive talk on the talk page of the article. It's been about 3 months of discussion at this point. My concerns about the user in question is clearly discussed on the Administrator attention page. l didn't see anyone stepping in when the user was making edits that l was participating in the discussion of without discussing it on the Talk page, gaming the guidelines, displaying clear bias, and presenting himself as some sort of moderator. l do notice myself getting admonished for doing something that doesn't misinform the public. l find that the problems people often cite about the reliability of information on Wikipedia are completely avoidable. --Ellesmelle (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough. But what you need to realize is that ANI is for incidents that are: a. require immediate attention; b. involves disputes which are intractable; c. relates to behavioural rather than content disputes; and finally, d. usually requires evidence in the form of diffs. This is why your report is problematic, because it failed on pretty much every single one of these fronts. You do, however, have dispute resolution resources at your disposal (a more suitable noticeboard than ANI, the Dispute resolution noticeboard might be a good fit), so my suggestion to you would be to take advantage of these. Because I just don't see your ANI report going anywhere beneficial. Oh, and the user in question is a she, FYI. Hope this helps. El_C 21:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- @El_C Thanks for the information.
- l did not know anything about this user (including her sex/ gender) beyond behavior that l observed, l did not read the profile. On the complaint, l used 's/he' because yeah, l don't know if this is a man, woman or otherwise. l still do not know, when s/he tells me l will use the preferred pronouns. l do not see how it is relevant to this issue otherwise.
- This is a behavioural issue, not a content dispute. So regarding failure on all fronts, l disagree. Over the past 3 months, the user misrepresented herself as a sort of moderator of this article to me and another user involved in the discussion-- not that l ever believed it, but others might. S/he also gamed the guidelines, for examples, s/he applyied poor source as a reason to prevent edits unevenly. In that process, s/he clearly injected a consistent, observable bias into the article. S/he also proceeded to make edits of content being discussed without discussing it on the Talk page. As for the actual content, l did make edits and am continuing to do so, (every time l make an edit l discuss it.) So no, this is not a content dispute, this is a consistent, empirically observable behavioral issue.
- l am sure the above would be supported by diffs beyond talk and edit history, if that is required.
- l looked at the article's log page and noticed that, in the past, you took administrative actions; l assume you have interest in maintaining the article just like this user. l do not doubt that. Taking ownership is important, but degradation into control erodes the already compromised integrity of this site. Editors have responsiblity toward the public. The user's biases in opinion and application of guidelines are clear. She continues to do so. l need to see that s/he understands what is wrong and would stop. l do not see that happening without intervetion. --Ellesmelle (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- I did not remember having taken administrative action on that page. I have protected thousands of pages, I can't immediately recall the context for each of these. Yes, if you claim there's been behavioural violations, I would have to insist on evidence in the form of diffs. I corrected you because you had said "presenting himself". El_C 23:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |