Elisabeth Rogan

Shalom

Greetings and welcome to Wikipedia! 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. :) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

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!  :) --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

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. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that okay to do? I want to make sure that I correctly and sufficiently summarize my edits. Thanks! --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It is ok, but usually not necessary. For Article or Project pages (like Policies), 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 history 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 to people with lots of pages on their watchlist--they can look at the watchlist and know what the comment is likely to be about. Find what style suites you, of course. Protonk (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

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! --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Elisabeth Rogan! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Thank you for the nice welcome message! That is a lot of good stuff to read through! :) --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiki-adoption?

Have you considered wiki-adoption at all? It's like a "big brother/sister" program for Wikipedia where you can have a friendly person that helps you become more familiar with Wikipedia. -Malkinann (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent idea. Are there any adopters that you recommend? --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

Have you edited under any previous accounts here before? krimpet✽ 15:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I accidentally answered a reply logged out today, but I corrected it immediately. As you can see that is my only accidental logged out edit thus far. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:AN#Right to vanish and not vanished for why the above question was asked. - auburnpilot talk 18:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification; I have commented in that thread. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Using Google News

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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camberford Law, you claimed that the company has no Google News hits. In fact , it has 78 (link). 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. Black Kite 20:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Might I also suggest using quotes around phrases when doing searches? In the Beyond The Grave AfD, you noted that there were many entries on Google Books with the name[1], however if you put quotes on the phrase "Beyond the Grave" the number drops dramatically[2]. Google news and Google books are both very useful tools, but working on your "Google-fu" is important to find clear, relevant results. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

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. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusing multiple accounts, for more evidence please see this request for CheckUser. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 21:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

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 what some have posted in that thread at that noticeboard.

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 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?

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, User:Jaranda. 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.

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 for deletion when looking up Ulala. 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.

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 following:

Deor: seems to have issues of his own as seen at User_talk:Deor#User_Deor_uncivilly_transgresses_Wikipedia_courtesy_requirements, User_talk:Deor#Your_incorrect_grammer, [[3]], [[4]], etc.

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 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.

Kww: blocked for edit warring

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 bad intentions, does not seem to understand how admin boards work and venue shopped/escalated tensions during a dispute (see and User_talk:Protonk/Archive_1#Suggestion, User_talk:Protonk/Archive_1#Title_and_3RR, and User_talk:Protonk/Archive_1#RFCs), has been warned for vandalism, and has engaged in edit warring. Also, someone said my “jumping into AfDs” is not what a new user does, well, look at the earliest edits here. I would say that is immediately jumping into AfDs and were suspicions raised about that?

Seicer: I tried to look up information about the editor I am accused of being on the web and noticed the following comparative posts: this edit with “Somerandomadmin” at here. “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.

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 other users also make them the same users? Should we checkuser everyone?

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 someone’s name through the mud than respect his/her privacy. Apparently these editors are so bent on deleting things, that nothing else matters.

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 window.

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. 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. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)