User talk:Elfguy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Elfguy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 15:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spheres of Chaos

Can you please not remove a cleanup notice unless it is agreed on the talk page? You've clearly over-looked several areas that are still NPOV, yet you seem to think the page is fine now? Kel-nage 19:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: Howard Stern vandalism

Those two anon vandals were really persistent... it got to a point where when one was reverted, we'd be adding back in the other's vandalism. Anyway, I'll be more careful about that. You (Talk) 23:50, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Montreal

It's the first time I hear that cities/towns articles are just "summary" articles. So according to you, these articles are more like a portal giving access to more specific articles. That's a strange concept to me... My understanding is that articles have to be as detailed as possible when dealing with a subject, and sub-articles should only be created when the article is extremely long (not the case for Montreal yet) or when the subject of the sub-article is only remotely or indirectly linked to the subject of the main article. Say we'd have some long material about family patterns and relationships in Montréal's Chinatown, I would totally understand that we create a specific article for that and only give a link to that article in the main Montréal article, because this subject is only secondarily linked to the city as a whole. But here the merger/demerger thing is central to Montréal, because it deals with the very extent/limits of the city itself, mind you! And it has been the number one issue in Montreal politics in the last 4 years. Hardouin 29 June 2005 20:16 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses

You voted "Merge" in this discussion. I've laid out a detailed merger plan. Please review it and state whether you prefer it or some other form of merger. Uncle G 2005-07-02 00:15:17 (UTC)

[edit] merge templates

Your change does not make them consistent with other templates, and is directly opposed to many comments on Template talk:Merge. The point is, that there is no agreement in either direction, so the recent controversial change whould be reverted to the longer-standing version. Your revertion to the box version only ensures more edit warring. and no talking. -- Netoholic @ July 2, 2005 17:32 (UTC)

Please examine the other cleanup tags. Almost all of them use colored boxes, and many also contain icons. —Lifeisunfair 2 July 2005 18:28 (UTC)
  • Please join the relevant discussions on the talk pages or the cleanup page mentioned above. From the discussion so far it seems that the majority does not support Netoholic's version. Yours, Radiant_>|< July 2, 2005 22:15 (UTC)

[edit] "Merge" template voting

I've set up two separate votes on the "merge" templates' discussion page. One pertains to the templates' wording, and the other pertains to the templates' visual design. Users may vote on neither, either or both of these issues.

Please note that I've posted this invitation on the talk pages of everyone who has expressed a preference for either wording and/or visual design. —Lifeisunfair 3 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)


[edit] Sorry

Thank you for striking my advertisement. I rephrased what I wrote in a way that did not seem like advertising.--Anti-Anonymex2 6 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

Where do you get off calling my article a euphinism for defacation? Please respond.--Anti-Anonymex2 7 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)

  • A what? I don't use sofisticated words like that. If I think it's inapropriate I usually just write "Delete that crap!" Elfguy 7 July 2005 23:37 (UTC)

[edit] response on help desk

Hi - I'm not sure this response at the Help Desk was responsive (I suspect you thought it was a followup to the previous question). As far as I can tell, the question you responded to was a separate question from a different user, so I added a header between the two questions. I don't exactly understand what the question is - any ideas? -- Rick Block (talk) July 8, 2005 03:50 (UTC)

[edit] Message

Elfguy, I would prefer it if you had nothing to do with me unless you stop being a rude, sarcastic user. I don't mean to insult you, but I need to get a message across. I know you may be an experienced user, but ever since I saw your name, except for one piece of advice, you've been rude to me.--Anti-Anonymex2 8 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)

[edit] Belarus and Byelorussia

There was no such place as Belarus during WW2. There was the Byelorussian SSR. Historical writing should use terms contemporary with the period under discussion. Adam 9 July 2005 01:06 (UTC)

[edit] verses

Hiya,

you recently voted to merge per Uncle G at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses

however, that VfD concerned only the verses from Matthew 1, wheras Uncle G's proposal covered a much larger group of verses.

would you be prepared to make a similar vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in Uncle G's suggestion?

~~~~ 9 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Steven Spielberg's films

As the result of a dispute over its previous TFD, the template showing Spielberg's films has been folded into a discussion of similar templates and renominated for deletion. I am contacting everyone who voted on the original TFD so that they will have another chance to make sure their opinion is heard.

The new vote is here.

Dragons flight 01:28, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General Transit and related

Re using "Speedy" deletion - this particular case was a no-brainer. Had there only been one page, and had it had some potential merit then I would have held back, but this was a boatload of shameless rubbish. Cheers Manning 13:28, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] category:mathematics

I don't want to start a revert war on this, but I realy, realy hate those border (and they should be #cccccc). If you want to fix portals, you might want to look at the other ones, 'cause they are f**ked up at the moment. --R.Koot 17:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Ohw great you're already doing that :D (but I still hate the borders). Cheers, --R.Koot 17:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll be done tonight we can compare border color then :) Elfguy 17:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your note on category talk:mathematics. And I have one request. Would you mind writing an edit summary? That is some effort for you, but it is very helpful for people who read your posts. Thanks! Oleg Alexandrov 19:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] category/portals

Hi, some problems/comments

  • Category:Society is not consistent.
  • The titlebars have different heights.
  • The edit buttons are not placed correctly everywhere (you should uses align:right, not float:right).
  • The browse buttons take up way too much space.
    • You can reach the main page with one click on Main Page on the sidebar, so 'Browse Wikipedia · Article overviews · Alphabetical index · Other schemes' is not necessary;
    • If you want to keep the links to the other main categories, the 'titlebar' would be a better place.
  • The borders look very ugly, are distracting and make the portal look too cluttered.
  • The 'other portals' box is not necessary.

Cheers, --R.Koot 20:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Google maps

Well, for one thing, we shouldn't link to a user page from an article. For another, what's the point? For whom is that list supposed to be interesting? If someone wants to look for a map on Google, they can just go to the page and do it themselves. Why do we need to make a supposedly interesting list for them? Adam Bishop 15:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Did you check the links? Many people find them interesting. It's things like the effel tower, the Egypt sphinx, etc. Sure there's tons of sites poping up with lists of interesting sights, but will any of them still exist in 5 years? Elfguy 15:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ian St. John (historian)

Hi there. You recently voted in the VfD for this article. You may have based your vote on mine showing that he was not the author of the book in question. User:Newmhost has done some research which indicates he had at least some involvement with the book. Please do revisit the VfD (and it's talk page) when you have time. -Splash 21:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Big boo-boo you have made!

I was stunned when you put {{copyvio}} in the article Hong Kong Observatory. The part you've deleted is fact adopted from http://www.info.gov.hk/hkfacts/hko.pdf, in which it said : Information contained in this publication may be freely used. No acknowledgement is necessary. Please make your decision more carefully next time, mind you. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 17:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You have made it into the Copyrights Problem page as well. I hope the mistakes canbe fixed asap. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 17:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The Hong Kong Government (The highest ruling authority in Hong Kong, even higher than HKO) has produced a series of free-use factsheets in its official website. Please check according to the links aobementioned. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 17:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
the website quoted says the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is the owner of all copyright works contained in this website. But at the same time the HKSAR government used part of the introductory data of HKO in its promotional factsheets allowing free use. Got it? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 17:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RoK

Elfguy, what do you mean? Realms of Kaos is abbreviated to RoK. Ok? Whenever you type in RoK on wikipedia, it redirects to The Ruins of Kunark. See, click on this link: RoK. Therefore, that comment: "RoK can also refer to the role playing game Realms of Kaos" should go on the Ruins of Kunark page and not the ROK page, as Realms of Kaos is not abbreviated to ROK, but to RoK.

Do you understand!?

[edit] PortalPage

I still think the links take up too much space, and people already know where they are, because that category is displayed in bold and not as a link. The way it is now, this current category is actually ayed twice. --R.Koot 19:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Lame" religious symbols?!

Can you please explain that remark? What is it, exactly, about such a symbol that makes it lame? Paul Klenk

  • The fact that it applies to a small group of people, yet so many of them feel that it should be shown everywhere, as the poster of that comment did? Those symbols should not be in our faces any more than we should have Mc'Donald's ads on every food related article, or astrology references on every person related article. It's a personal choice, not a universal symbol. Elfguy 18:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Since when is a dagger a religious symbol, jusT because iT coincidenTally resembles a cross? Do you feel The same way abouT The lower case leTTer T? Maybe your own bigoTry is causing you To be irraTional and oversensiTive. And you didn'T answer The quesTion: WhaT is iT ThaT makes iT lame, exacTly? Paul Klenk
    • Since you are being immature this is the last I will say about this. A cross is a cross, a dagger is something else. Any western font will show it as a cross, not a dagger. It's a poor, non valid excuse. People have decided, it's been thrown out. I will come strongly against any proposal to force symbolism, belief or advertisement to anything on people, either religious, commercial, or else. Elfguy 19:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help:Contents

Hi! Thanks for cleaning up the anonymous "here is mikes comment" entry on the Help:Contents page. I noticed you accidentally (?) deleted the new "Who can write or edit Wikipedia articles" link in the same edit but without comment in the Edit Summary. I have restored the link per my comment about the usefulness of this link on Help talk here. Detailed background for why this link was added is available here. Glad to discuss! -- Sitearm | Talk 19:26, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

I notice you deleted the same link again from Help:Contents, this time with no Edit Summary and labeling the change as "minor". This despite my taking the time to comment here and on Help talk stating reasons and supporting links why this is a valued link. I have restored the link in the new position you suggested on Help talk. If you disagree please discuss before deleting. -- Sitearm | Talk 23:16, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

[edit] How are you doing?

Just wanted to say hi, and I hope you didn't think that reverting the photo article was rude! It's so easy to come across as sounding brusk or be misinterpreted, See you around, Trollderella 20:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Elfguy, please review Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. A good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia is never vandalism; using vandal-warning tags in relation to a genuine dispute over factual accuracy is therefore never appropriate. Aquillion 01:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, now that I look at it, I should add that creating a new template entirely to use it in a dispute against a single user is probably also inapproprate, although I'm not so certain of the exact policies there. Aquillion 01:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Claiming Assume Good Faith to justify deleting an entire section just because you disagree with it is not very sustainable. As for the template I created it after discussion on IRC about it, since the other test templates did not fit. Elfguy 02:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Sections are subject to deletion just like everything else; if someone creates a section about a frivolous or irrelevent topic, then anyone else can in good faith remove it. Disputes over such things should, of course, be handled in talk as they arise; but you ignored a request from me to take it there. In any case, accusing another editor of vandalism over such a dispute is plainly inapproprate, especially when you've made no effort to take the matter to talk yourself. The first step in dispute resolution is to take things to talk, not to reach for a vandalism tag. Aquillion 03:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Additionally, I have listed the template in question for deletion on the grounds I mentioned above (the fact that content disputes are not vandalism, not the fact that you created it for one dispute--now that I think about it, creating a template as necessary would be fine if the template itself weren't problematic.) Aquillion 05:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Free Crossword Puzzle Softwar

Hi Elfguy: I see you are interested in free software. I found Arachnophilia a good free HTML editor. My son teaches English and is searching for a free crossword puzzle maker to querry his English students. Anay idea? Thanks Phil 18:16, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spielberg template

Hello. The template you are adding to the Spielberg articles is very similar to one created by myself a few months ago, and deleted by TFD even fewer months ago. As much as I like them, too many people involed in the amateur politics of the wiki don't. I created User:The JPS/Director templates -- but I've left it cause I'm obviously wasting my time. The JPS 07:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

  • The vote for deletion was invalid. It was voted on and the result was keep, and then less than 2 weeks later someone readded the template to another vote for deletion that involved a series of other templates, in an attempt to get it deleted under the rug. It shouldnt have been added to another vote, and it shouldnt have been voted on so close to the first vote. So the deletion was not valid following the current policy. Elfguy 16:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, but I think you're wasting your time. There's too many influential people against them; the decision will always go in their favour, whether or not a consensus is reached or the rules are followed. The JPS 08:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just a thought

This may not satisfy all of your needs, but if you don't show some support, we're not likely to get even this much. — Xiong熊talk* 10:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Hi. This is an encyclopedia, not a kids playground. Toby wins one of the most ridiculous idees in here. Elfguy 12:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For that very quick helpdesk response! AndyJones 17:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] wikipedia 1.0 idea

Hi - I saw you reference a previous suggestion on Wikipedia talk:Pushing to 1.0 where basically the last "good" version of an article would be noted, and users would select whether to view the most current or latest marked version. This seems like a very reasonable idea to me. Can you let me know where you originally proposed it? To make this at all practical I think most editors (far more than just admins) would need to be given the ability to designate "good" versions. In any event, I'm curious what the reaction was. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hydrino theory

Why did you add the disputed and or tags? What are you disputing and what parts of the article are unreferenced? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 06:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

  • This is not a proven theory, it's something one guy invented and got support from a handful of scientists. It goes against all modern science, and is as of yet unverified. It will most likely end up being disproven. A disputed tag is the least it can get. Elfguy 05:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not appreciated.

I don't appreciate edit summaries such as "that was one huge POV pile of ..." [1]. Also, why did you slap a {{disputed}} tag onto Studies related to Microsoft? If you have specific objections to the factual accuracy of the page, please list them on the talk page. I think you meant to add an {{npov}} tag. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

  • You don't start an article that says "studies about" and put in only studies commissioned by MS, that many people dispute, and which all reach the same result. Elfguy 21:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFA/Elfguy

Elfguy, I am not sure if you would appreciate a nomination for Mop+Bucket. Would that be onerous for you? I am well aware that public scrutiny is not pleasant for many of us, me included. Please do not worry if you are not ready to answer; I am taking this action at the request of others, namely Taxman. If you were to agree then I would simply be following the actions templated by BDAbramson. I would also be relying on their advice to ensure a reasonable chance at success for the outcome of RFA/you. If you want a higher probability of success, then we could probably work something out to increase the chances, but it would be a learning process. ---Ancheta Wis 21:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V. Kalyanasundaram

Please refer to the Afd page. It appears that this person is notable; perhaps after some research, you could reconsider your vote or explain why you still believe the page worthy of deletion? Thank you. -- Avi 18:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I did not vote based on nn, I voted based on vanity and POV as I explained on the page. Elfguy 18:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Is POV a criterion for deletion? I do not think so. Can you please point me to the relevant policy on this? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD on Philippine Cyberservices Corridor

Hey. I hope you could pls visit here again. I hope I could change your mind. --Noypi380 07:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afd vote

Hi Elfguy. Can you please reconsider your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V. Kalyanasundaram in light of recently available references establishing notability? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see that you've already been requested and you've responded. Sorry about that. Ignore the above message. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Land_forces1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Land_forces1.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 10:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canada Copyright

I reponding to your question at User talk:Carnildo/images. I have copied the discussion from the deleted template talk page to User:Martyman/Canadacopyright. Essentially the Canadian Crown Copyright is a non-commercial copyright. These are no longer allowed on wikipedia. I am pretty sure the template was marked as going to be deleted for several months to give people a chance to change the images over to fair use claims . It was then deleted to force the last images to add fair use claims. Please let me know if you have any questions. --Martyman-(talk) 21:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly non-commercial licenses are no longer acceptable on wikipedia, this is a wikipedia policy not an interpretation of Canadian copyright law. Lukily nothing has to be deleted, that is the good thing about orphanbot warning everyone about upcoming deletions. Please replace the "no license tag" with a fair use tag (a suitable tag for the image above would be {{fairusein|Canadian Forces Land Force Command}}) and revert the removal of the image from the article. Thanks. --Martyman-(talk) 21:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey wena!

Contributions are great at Botswana Defence Force but... removing local Botswana info when adding info about the US's involvement is really not cool. I mean, whose country is it? (mutter mutter) JackyR 17:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Uhm all I did was merge 2 articles, if some info got lost then feel free to readd it.. Elfguy 14:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September 11, 2001 attacks

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

[edit] Blocked

I blocked for 24 hours you due to the large number of reverts you did over the same information in the September 11, 2001 attacks article.--MONGO 03:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You're incorrect

Brought over from my talk page...Last month you banned me for 3 days for '3RR' from the 9/11 article when we both know (and anyone can check the history) that I made damn sure never to break the 3RR rule, simply because you disagreed with me. I understand that people like you take Wikipedia to be your personal playground, and you'll probably delete this, but I just wish you'd think for a bit about the harm you guys are doing to the project, which really had a good chance at first. Simply looking at the discussion archive of the 9/11 article you can see new editor after new editor coming in and being completely shut down and all their contributions reverted simply because some admins are intent to keep the article showing only one point of view. And it's not even a defensible position, when people try to say that such an article, with dozens of archives pages, doesn't even warrant a simple DISPUTED tag, which is all I wanted to add. Since I'm probably wasting my time here I won't write any more, but hopefully someday Wikipedia will get rid of the bad apples and be a great place for knowledge again, instead of the troll forum with elistic admins it is now. Elfguy 17:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You were blocked fro 3RR for 24HOURS...not three days...get your facts straight next time...[2]--MONGO 21:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Uhm that's nowhere near the point of this post, which is I didn't break the 3RR rule and we both know it. Elfguy 16:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Point

Please do not edit articles to make a point. Tom Harrison Talk 14:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September 11, 2001 attacks

I noticed your recent post to September 11, 2001 attacks. I am an activist in the 9/11 Truth Movement. This topic is always contentious, more so on wikipedia than almost any other venue. Don't be surprised that User:MONGO blocked you, he is not neutral and uses his admin position abusively. User:Tom_harrison seemingly makes a more honest effort to be neutral though I don't approve of his administrative actions either. Until there are more admins who agree with the 9-11 as inside job thesis, it will be difficult to make headway on wikipedia. If you're interested you might want to nominate User:Bov as an admin. Kaimiddleton 19:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/l/f/User_talk%7EElfguy_ff7e.html"