User talk:Elaragirl/Archive 9

--Elaragirl^Talk|Count 17:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, welcome back.[edit]

I hope you're doing well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sceptre (talk • contribs) 17:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, and caught by the Hagerman bot! Oh the shame! Will ^{(Speak to Me/Breathe)}_{(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash)} 17:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. Good luck. Will ^{(Speak to Me/Breathe)}_{(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash)} 17:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting hard for intelligent people to stick around here[edit]

And I respect your decision, and won't leave a whiney message here. All the best. – riana_dzasta 17:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elara, I'm not going to make you feel guilty and beg you to stay, because I share your distress and disappointment about many things. As for whether or not I'll stay myself... it's still up in the air. I'll send you an e-mail. Thank you for your efforts on Wikipedia, and best wishes for the future. --Kyoko 22:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elara[edit]

Just saw this, and, while it will be unfortunate for Wikipedia to lose you (because we need a strong deletionist arm), I certainly understand your position. In particular, the Essjay-lying-about-his-credentials thing has gotten me down. I'm really disgusted and I cannot believe his talk page has been whitewashed to remove "negative" comments. Ugh!

Thank you for your work over the months. If you ever decide to come back, I'm pretty certain you'll have a fan club cheering you on. Count me as one of those in the crowd. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 19:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second all of that, to the letter. Agenda seems to have gotten in the way of judgment in virtually every aspect of the way in which this mess developed and was defended, but I suppose that's only to be expected. Good luck. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 21:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elara, I too share your distress. However, I think you need to look at the fact that the chorus of voices was louder in protest of Essjay's behavior than in defense of the indefensible. I don't think the last chapter on this episode has been written yet, but at least some accountability has occurred. Whatever you decide regarding your participation I respect. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waves[edit]

Hi, Elara. I haven't chatted with you in a bit, and if you have the time, I would like to (if the same is so for you). My computer access is a bit limited for the time being, and it would be good to catch you. I hope you're feeling all right. Cheers, Gracenotes ^T § 23:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. Good luck. Will ^{(Speak to Me/Breathe)}_{(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash)}

The Apprentice UK[edit]

Hello, Elaragirl/Archive 9. Are you a fan of The Apprentice UK? I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject The Apprentice UK, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of The Apprentice UK and related articles on Wikipedia.

If you would like to help out and participate, please come over and visit us here for more information. Thanks! Dalejenkins 18:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N[edit]

I realise you're busy in RL and/or no longer active on Wikipedia, so feel free to ignore this message if you prefer. However, I thought you should be aware of the situation over at WT:N. Due to several inclusionists' opposition to this policy, it's one step away from being scrapped, and may soon be replaced with Badlydrawnjeff's alternative proposal at Wikipedia:Article inclusion, which seems to me to be purposefully vague. At this point when they're most needed, all the strong deletionist voices seem to have vanished from this debate. I feel strongly that WP:N is essential, to stop Wikipedia being flooded with articles on patently non-notable subjects; but there are users over there who are arguing that notability simply isn't an issue. The "multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources" criterion is an extremely useful test to apply at AfD to articles of marginal notability; if it's scrapped, IMHO, Wikipedia will be poorer. I do realise that you're not currently active, and that this issue may seem comparatively trivial at this time, so ignore this message if necessary. But as it was you who first explained to me the need for notability guidelines on articles, I would greatly appreciate your comments. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 13:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]