User talk:Elrith

I've found I prefer to have conversations on one page, so if I write on your talk page, I'll be happy to read your replies there; if you write on my talk page, I'll reply here.

---

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Elrith! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 12 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 938 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Pasi Häkkinen - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Tomek Valtonen - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Bill Hay - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
4. Curt Lindström - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
5. Tom Koivisto - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
6. Mika Strömberg - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
7. Markus Kankaanperä - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
8. Erkka Westerlund - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
9. Tim Stapleton - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
10. David Bararuk - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

More...
11. Kimmo Kuhta 12. Marko Tuulola

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Team names

If we have a list of team names with cities, then all names should be consistently listed. Since all leagues have unique nicknames, we don't put just Tigres, when we refer to the Tigres of Victoriaville, Quebec in the QMJHL. Yet there are no doubt Tigres in other leagues. No one says the team name is Jokerit Helsinki, it's a -convention-. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to list Jokerit (Helsinki) ? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I know it's a convention, but it's an unnecessary one in this case, and with several Finnish teams, it leads to stupid redundancy. Again, "HIFK Helsinki" is the equivalent of writing Toronto Toronto Maple Leafs. There are no two identically named teams in Finnish hockey, and the convention in Finnish hockey is to simply use the team name. If you write Jokerit Helsinki, you are referring to a team that does not exist. If you think a clarification is absolutely necessary, then brackets are the only choice, but I don't understand why you think they're necesary.

What bugs me the most about editing the hockey articles on Wikipedia is this manic idea that once someone does something a certain way, it becomes a hallowed "convention". That's rubbish. This should be the best online encyclopedia it can possibly be. If someone's done something a certain way once, it doesn't mean everyone needs to stick to it ever and after. Elrith (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A fairly unrelated comment: You changed "SonderjyskE" to "Sonderjyske" in the Denmark men's national ice hockey team article, but that is actually farther from the correct name - SønderjyskE. Sakkura (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, my bad. Elrith (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Anaheim Ducks

Please accept this invite to join the Ducks WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with the Anaheim Ducks. Simply click here to accept!

--CASportsFan (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Diacritics

FYI, the WikiProject for hockey articles states that diacritics are not to be used on North American hockey articles, such as those pertaining to the NHL. see here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey#Wikiproject_notice Echoedmyron (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The notice you quoted says: "All player pages should have diacritics applied (where required)." So your reverts of my edits to player pages are wrong, even by that standard. Further, you should know that there's an ongoing discussion over this, and a notice on a Wikiproject page isn't an authority I recognize. Elrith (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Just idly curious – you said over at the NC debate that "the "dot" over Ståhlberg isn't [a diacritic]". Is that true? Should we rewrite Ring (diacritic)? Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I guess you mean that it is thought of as a completely different letter? Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What I meant was what the Ring article says now: "However, in the languages in which it is used, the letter is seen as a distinct symbol, rather than an A with a diacritic." I'm not sure why that's phrased in such a weasel-word -like way; to my knowledge, all Scandinavian alphabets and the Finnish alphabet list å as a distinct letter. Elrith (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Got it – thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, one of my basic disagreements with the way "diacritics", meaning both diacritics and Scandinavian and Finnish letters (ä,ö,å) are handled is the way in which some Wikiproject: Ice Hockey editors are using "consensus" as a weapon. In practice, what a WP:HOCKEY consensus tends to mean is half a dozen or less editors coming up with an arbitrary rule and then enforcing it across the board and acting shocked that someone "doesn't respect the consensus". This is a totally fraudulent way to use the idea of "consensus", especially since there's a lively discussion on the topic going on at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) and the whole question is still very much unresolved. You can't just make up a rule with a couple of your similarly-minded buddies and call it "consensus". Elrith (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

And how. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Irony of the situation is most of the hockey project are completely at opposing views on the subject. Our compromise was a middle ground that took into account both sides of the argument. So that the argument doesn't have to keep happening over and over again. -DJSasso (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been going around taking dios out of the Non-North American players bios & Non-North American hockey articles. You shouldn't be adding dios into North American players bios & North American hockey articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

All player bios get them GoodDay so you shouldn't be removing them from any. -DJSasso (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

To my recollection, I haven't been. I usually hang around hockey team articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the "compromise" is a totally unsatisfactory middle ground, if only because it means that the same hockey player will have his name spelled two different ways, depending on which page his name occurs on. I mean, whichever way you feel about it, that's confusing and suboptimal, and will most likely continue to engender this very argument. Elrith (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me see if I can make this quite clear.

I have told you once already. I am telling you now, again, emphatically. Do not, under any circumstances, post anything further to my talk page. You have crossed the line into harassment, and I assure you there not only is nothing I need to hear from you, but after you have already been lying, very little you could say that would be credible.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  01:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That's actually funny. Disagreeing with you, and discussing a topic with you on your talk page, is "harassment"? And as far as I'm concerned, you're actually wrong, or in your words, "lying". There's a way to assume good faith: anyone who disagrees with me is harassing me and lying. I wouldn't make such a point out of it if you didn't assume the moral high ground so often in telling other people what bad Wikipedians they are. Elrith (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Kärpät players

Category:Kärpät players, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Raimo Kilpiö trophy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Raimo Kilpiö trophy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raimo Kilpiö trophy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheChampionMan1234 05:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Elrith. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (Finnish reconquest of the Karelian Isthmus (1941)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Finnish reconquest of the Karelian Isthmus (1941), Elrith!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Can you look this over and see if you can address the improvement tags? Thanks.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Felecia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Felecia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felecia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. gnu57 01:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)