User talk:Elinoria

Please read before posting

I do not engage in debates with misogynistic editors, bullies, or any old-timers who use that fact as justification of attempts to ruin an article’s neutrality. However, if this applies to you, feel free to tag me on an article’s talk page, where your comments are visible to all. This ensures transparency and a fair platform for constructive discussion. You’ll behave decently when you know others are reading.

Everyone else is welcome, though. I like constructive criticism, offers of assistance, and mint ice-cream.

Janey Godley

Hi @Elinoria:, I've reverted most of your edits to Janey Godley as they were not constructive and much of it violated WP:RS – I suggest reading up on this page before you continue editing Wikipedia. Thanks Jkaharper (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jkaharper Please list which of my edits were not constructive, and explain your reasoning.

In reverting my edits, you have returned the article to it’s non-constructive, sweeping edits which were made upon Godley’s death. If you had looked at the page history from 2nd November, when Godley died, you would have seen this.

Please reinstate my edits. Elinoria (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all of it. Why don't you read WP:MS and find out for yourself? This is the type of article you should read anyway before coming on here and extensively editing pages. --Jkaharper (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link should read "RS", not "MS", right? Robby.is.on (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Robby.is.on:, I actually meant to quote Wikipedia:Manual of Style. The foils of leaving a comment from an iPhone whilst you're away with work! Thanks for picking this up. --Jkaharper (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you have already read (twice), I asked you what about my edits you thought was non-constructive. They are factual, constructive, relevant. Please answer my question without directing me elsewhere. You have mass-deleted a lot of information and I ask that you explain why. Elinoria (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of my edits on the Janey Godley page have now been re-instated. Elinoria (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sock muppet

CodeTalker is merely another sockmuppet of Jkaharper. Just report him and get him closed down before he comes back again. 213.55.237.128 (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll see what I can do, thanks. Elinoria (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Elinoria,

First, be careful taking advice from an IP account. Secondly, Jkaharper has been editing Wikipedia for 18 years, they are not a sockpuppet. I'm sorry you are involved in a content dispute but they are very common here. It's best to move a discussion to the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, 213.55.237.128 is blocked from editing Janey Godley because of their disruptive editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an IP is blocked from editing a page for disruptive editing, doesn't mean that the editing was actually disruptive!

It's very easy for an account to make accusations and get an IP blocked just so that their preferred version stays live.

And just because someone has been editing for 18 years doesn't mean that he doesn't run other sockmuppet accounts alongside. He just uses different IPs so not to get caught. It's very simple. 213.55.184.219 (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I’m stepping away from the Janey Godley and Ashley Storrie pages now.

It’s so sad that for whatever reason, the articles about this mother and daughter have been targeted in the week of the former’s death, but it’s not my battle.

I completely agree about your IP versus username comments, and that the age of an account does not mean that person should have any more sway that anyone else. I’m frustrated too, if it helps, take care. Elinoria (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Thank you for suggesting that I move this discussion to the article’s talk page, but had you looked, it is being discussed across two articles.

I trust the IP account far more than the 18 year account of the person who has been mass deleting the edits on Janey Godley’s page, whilst he is simultaneously questioning the notability of her daughter’s page - all in the week of the former’s death.

I am aware that the user using an IP address instead of a username has been partially blocked but that is because they are trying to reinstate the edits that the other deleted on Godley’s page. All of this during the week that thousands of people have been accessing their page.

I am aware that disputes are common here.

I have withdrawn myself from all of the “discussions” and will not be commenting further, it is not my battle. Elinoria (talk) 12:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Tiggerjay

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Storrie. I know you have been involved in editing this article, along with the Godley article. While I can appreciate your frustration and disagree with how some of the edit warring has been handled, I believe your involvement in the AfD discussion would be very helpful for you. It will provide the opportunity to (1) voice your perspective on the merrits, but more importantly; (2) see how independent editors contribute to the conversation so you can better understand the nuances and complexities of Wikipedia. Ultimately we don't want enthusiastic contributors to be discouraged (like you appear to have been) from editing articles that you honestly want to improve. It seems like someone might have violated the principle of not biting the newcomers, and for that I'm sorry. At the same time, to help you become an effective contributor, you need to understand that "accurate information" is not the only criterion for inclusion within an article. I am happy to answer questions you may have. You're welcome to reply here, or on my talk page. TiggerJay (talk) 05:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawwo

Hawwo CandleClove (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Madchester

added links pointing to New Order and The Fall

The Rescuers (book)

added links pointing to Norwegian and Artefacts

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]