User talk:Elphion/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! The Ogre 01:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

King Lopez
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. At least one of your recent edits was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. King Lopez Contribs 07:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello take a look at your edit It looks like you blanked a large section of the page. Your edit is in yellow. Mine is in green. If you are improving the artical it is ok. King Lopez Contribs 07:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok I see now. Sorry for the confustion. King Lopez Contribs 08:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

White Witch
Well unsourced speculation is not a good thing on Wikipedia, I removed the Turkish example because it was unsourced speculation, but also because for some reason I assumed the pronunciation of the Turkish word was (which would be virtually nothing like the pronunciation of Janis and would sound more like sadu to speakers of English) but I see that Turkish alphabet says c represents the same sound as English j. However, it's still quite a stretch and I think there should be some sort of sourcing to include it. This is technically true for the French etymology as well. I suppose that means that I've got a double standard though like you I also think that the French explanation is the more likely one. As for the "supplementary" guide, I personally find it abhorrant when English ad-hoc pronunciations are given for foreign words. Such guides are largely equal with IPA in English words because there's no loss of information, but saying for example that Běijīng is pronounced like "bay jing" omits important phonetic information for Chinese. jar-duh for the Turkish word is especially bad; American readers will read that differently than British ones. I'll fix my goof in the article. I suggest that, to give readers the proper (English) pronunciation we should start the article with it. Something like

Jadis, the White Witch ( or zha-DEES) is the villain... I'd do it myself but I'm not sure what exactly the proper pronunciation is. I'm curious. How do we know that the Disney movie got it wrong? — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 18:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You repeat arguments against use of the IPA that people put forth every once in a while, the strength of which I believe caused the rule allowing respelling guides to be put with IPA. People come to Wikipedia to learn new information and if they come across IPA and don't know it they can do one of two things a) work hard to figure out how to pronounce a word or b) say "ah, it's not that important anyway."  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  19:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (copied from my response on User talk:aeusoes1) You write, "You repeat arguments against use of the IPA ... " — but there are no arguments there against using IPA; indeed, I wish it were used more universally. I'm simply saying that in some situations (and I think this is one of them), it would be helpful to supply in addition an approximate guide as well. The most elegant tropes are naught but air if the audience fail to hear them. Elphion (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the things you were saying (not many know IPA, font issues) are things people sometimes say against the IPA though I recognize that you're not anti-IPA. English respelling is fine for English words but for non-English words it is simply wrong.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  00:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Saruman
A couple of initial responses on the talk page. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

treebeard
Hi thanks for message. I'm using Tuckboriugh just now because I look at the primary referances later aince they take a while to look for in the book. This is just a start. Upon completion I'll use Tolkiens work more often. Hope you understand. LOTRrules (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not extaly trying to increase my edit count. I just spot mistakes or I want to upgrade the article or add more info in after I press the save button. That way the article improves and I get the edits as a bonus.  I'll get proper references later, you should see what I have done with Watcher in the Water after it was finally completed. LOTRrules (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Boromir image
Just curious why you felt the new image is a better image? Elphion (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would be better if we have a high resolution picture. it really brings a good look to the article as well as improves wikipedia's coverage! GLAD TO SEE YOU editing on middle earth's article. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 07:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, (1) the image you replaced is pictorially a much better image (the information lost is certainly not compensated by the higher resolution of the new image), and (2) high-resolution makes fair use of copyrighted images harder to establish. I would vote for restoring the previous image. Elphion (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * whether high reso or not; there is no such rule that whether fair use rationale should be lengthy or not. there is no such BIAS. fair use for movie screenshots are not dependent upon the resolution. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm no expert on free-use. I do see a lot of verbiage in free use justifications about keeping the image limited to a size "necessary to illustrate the article" -- which your image certainly exceeds.  If that truly is not relevant, I withdraw that objection.  I still think the other image is more "illustrative". Elphion (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * fine i will upload a new image with high resolution with more illustration. Sushant gupta (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

People keep getting things wrong
You've surely seen, but http://xkcd.com/386/ :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No I hadn't seen it -- I love it! And all too true.  It (or a link) may end up on my User page, when I get around to doing something about it.  I like yours, by the way:  clean, simple, to the point. Elphion (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Mithrandir
Good point. I do think the texts need to be separated, and my edits didn't really help with that. If the date information could remain in the Appendices section, and the story part go into the Silmarillion (with citations to the Silmarillion) - I think that would be the best approach, so each book is separate. What do you think? --Davémon (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Smith of Wootton Major
Hi, I noticed your edits to Smith of Wootton Major today. Thank you very much for adding references. And what good references they are! I'm happier than ever to see my favourite story get its article improved. :) --Kjoonlee 22:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Middle-earth canon
Hiya. The whole article is original research insomuch as it doesn't have any sources that directly address the subject. If you have sources that do, please add them. I've also added a note on the talk-page as you requested.--Davémon (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Elphion - Nice work on Middle-earth canon.Tttom1 (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Meaning?
What do you mean the Dol Guldur needs "*lots*" of work? See the talk page that I'v documented in the past few days. Expansion on history, etymology and culture are I'm sure at their peak. However the other sections do look a bit weak I'm sure. All I need are the refs from the Hobbit and unfinished tales, two books which I have not as of yet read. LOTRrules (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have seen the talk page. See my additions there.  I'm not trying to be unfriendly, and I appreciate the effort you've put into the article, but the organization and language need improvement.  I hope to interest you in providing that.  As the talk page indicates, I think you should address the structure first.  Elphion (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your Narnia Edits
Thank you for your excellent edits to the Narnia "Reception: influence of religious viewpoints" (including the retitling), a section that was created and mostly written by me, with a lot of critique and input from User:Ashmoo. I'm tempted to restore the footnote on Holbrook's school of thought only because another user edited the section to change "psychoanalytic" to "Freudian" and Holbrook really isn't a Freudian (which is why I put that note in there.) But I'm not in a hurry to do it. But you definitely tightened up the section very nicely. --WickerGuy (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

UUA
Please see Talk:Christianity and abortion. Spotfixer (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Balrog
Point taken over the language; "whence" still seems a bit ungainly to me, but there you go. Thanks for editing it! Darth Newdar (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I own the second edition of Unfinished Tales (black cover) in which the mistake is fixed. When I made the edit I thought that the it was a typing error. Darth Newdar   (talk)  08:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Saruman
I'm just fiddling really. 'Appears' > 'seems' was because there were two 'appears' close to each other ("appears to Aragorn ..." and "appears to be"), which is best avoided. 'Before' > 'earlier' was prompted by the thought 'before what?', but doesn't really solve that problem! Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why, thank you. ;-) I'm still jet-lagged, which may also explain the second one. 4u1e (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I say, it may have been the jet-lag. I've got no objections if you want to change it back. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point re the relative timing of Saruman's eastern travels and his leadership of the White Council. 4u1e (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the headsup on my Narnia edit. I was a bit exasperated by the incoherent remarks by the editor on the talk page. In principle, an edit can be both good faith non-vandalism and also BS, if someone isn't thinking clearly. The editor (based on his Narnia Talk page post) seems to be upset both that the films gutted some of Lewis' Christianity and that talking about Lewis borrowing from Christianity somehow implies that Christianity isn't true, this in turn combined with some other logic I can't follow. Aside from the fact that I cannot connect the dots between complaint A and complaint B, the WP article in question is not about the films, and well over half the books published on Narnia seem to be by Christians who darn tootin think it is true, but at WP we need to take a neutral stand on that, as we are neither conservopedia (mostly Christian- not sure if it is still online) nor freethoughtpedia (highly atheistic in tone). But our neutrality on these matters is certainly not a reason for NOT mentioning the Christian influence on Lewis. Weird.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Trilogy
I know, I know. I seem to remember that he wasn't keen on 'novel' either...so, if book = books I-VI and volume = FOTR, TTT and ROTK, what do you call the whole thing? Any thoughts? :) 4u1e (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters
Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Jesse Ventura, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  11:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Underland
Thanks a lot for working on my creation, Underland. I have seen that you have dedicated yourself a lot to Narnia on wikipedia! You might also be interested in my other creation, Lantern Waste. Thanks a lot! -- Sri niv  as  09:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

One Ring image
I think that it would be better to remove the image File:OneTrueRing.JPG from the One Ring's article altogether. Quite apart from it being a completely unofficial "replica" which never existed, it is a blurred picture, and, as you point out, it doesn't really show anything that you can't work out for yourself. As an editor of the One Ring article, I thought I'd ask for another editor's opinion, so what do you think? Thanks, Darth Newdar  (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Already discussed on Talk:One Ring. My advice:  Be Bold, Andrew. (But do leave an addition to the section on the talk page.) Elphion (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Now deleted. And well done on working out my name! Darth Newdar  (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please come and join the discussion at Christianity and abortion
There is currently a disagreement about what the Bible and early church teach. Thanks! LCP (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Background colors
[copied from the Village Pump]


 * The local stylesheets on en.wikipedia.org have been putting lightly colored backgrounds on non-main namespaces in Monobook for several years. They are pretty light, though, so you may have not noticed them before -- some LCD monitors for instance won't even show the difference between the light blue and white if you have the brightness and contrast set relatively high.


 * You'll see the specs for this at the top of MediaWiki:Monobook.css in the "light blue section". You can copy-and-paste those bits back to your personal monobook.css and override them back to white if you like. --brion (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Mourne Mountains
I added some stuff to the caption. Is it better now? Thanks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Labyrinth pics
Hi Elphion, I see you have actually been doing a lot of work on this page recently (contrary to my rude and rather curt remark when re-removing the Schönbusch garden pic) – but your re-inclusion of that pic undermines the essential difference between this article and Maze, which rests on the essential "unicursal labyrinth versus multicursal maze" definition now favoured by modern authorities on the subject. The hedge maze at Schönbusch has dead ends and multiple choices, so it is not a labyrinth, in the strict sense of the word. Please don't put it back! Thanks. Otherwise we might just as well merge Labyrinth and Maze. SiGarb | (Talk) 20:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, this is ironic: I've written at length about this on Talk:Labyrinth from the other side, supporting the inclusion of the distinction!  But it is wrong to be dogmatic about either usage, since some people use the words interchangeably and others don't.  Labyrinth as a synonym for unicursal maze is not "the strict sense of the word" (implying that not observing it is incorrect), it is a technical distinction -- useful in some situations, not in others.  "Favoured by modern authorities on the subject" distinctly overstates the case:  Many well-known authors (including Matthews, Doob, McCullough, and Saward among others) do not use labyrinth so narrowly, and many other authors do not make the distinction habitually.


 * Labyrinth is (and ought to be) primarily about the mythological idea and how it developed over time. That in itself is enough to distinguish it from Maze.  There is no point in excluding multi-cursal labyrinths, as historically there have been many (and many are mentioned in the article), and they continue to be built today.  The maze at Arkville is a good example:  multi-cursal, profoundly disorienting, but with its statues of Theseus and the Minotaur still unquestionably a "Labyrinth".


 * So, yes, let's tell the reader about the distinction often made between the terms, but let's not insist that there is a hard and fast rule about their use. There's too much evidence on the other side.  And: please try not to pull the trigger so fast.  Thanks.


 * Elphion (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Points (lots of them) taken. Although I see that Saward, in Magical Paths (2002), pp7–8, discusses the difference, agrees with the general division (although he says the distinction can become blurred), states that it is widely recognised, and adopts it for categorisation purposes in the captions and text of that book. I'm pretty sure that all the pictures of the unicursal type (at least the historic ones) in the book are described as labyrinths. In one caption (p27) he even uses the phrase "true labyrinths" to distinguish them from the maze design illustrated. This review of Doob points out that she is rather keen to expand the definition to include many things that other authorities would not recognise as either mazes or labyrinths. It also makes the interesting point that early illustrations of labyrinths, until the 16th or 17th century, are all unicursal, even when they accompany text describing a multicursal maze! Matthews, of course, was the first author to discuss the subject in great detail, and authors since then have realised that some greater distinction should be made between the unicursal and multicursal types. Naturally, any writer on the subject will have to acknowledge that the names are often been used interchangeably; the "turf mazes" of Britain are mostly labyrinths, by the modern "definition". But I still think that illustrating lots of mazes in the article will only confuse people further. Perhaps the gallery should have a title: Unicursal labyrinths? SiGarb | (Talk) 22:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right about Saward (in both books), who actually takes a refreshingly candid approach: he discusses the difference and then says which convention he will use in the books. I wish I had checked the books when looking for ammuniti. . . er, support for the labyrinth/maze distinction on my Talk:Labyrinth posts. Saward's website, which I did check, is more circumspect, talking about "the labyrinth in its many multicursal forms" -- making it hard to make the case that he draws a clear distinction!

One of the main points of Doob's book is that classical and medieval artists certainly would have understood the notion of a branching labyrinth; the unicursal depictions and the multicursal descriptions existed side by side; the one stood for the other. O'Donnell's review (the sort of snarky academic writing I really despise) doesn't disagree. (Although I seriously doubt that "The medieval authors and artists themselves were unconscious of the distinction themselves and could not have explained it if they were asked." Why do we treat the medieval mind as though it were something alien, inscrutable, and somehow incapable?  The conflation or the two notions of labyrinth goes back to classical times anyway.)

I took a good look at Maze. I don't think you need to worry about having to merge the two articles; "Maze" is much more about the graph-theoretic problems of solving branching mazes, while Labyrinth is more strictly focused on the mythological phenomenon and the older designs that were drawn into its orbit. I think the intro of "Maze" needs to be seriously toned down; but also needs to mention the labyrinth as a vehicle for the myth of Theseus. And "Labyrinth" perhaps should say more about the phenomenon of unicursal representations of an obviously multicursal concept -- probably the most interesting aspect of labyrinths.

So on reflection, I think not including Schönbusch at "Labyrinth" is correct -- not because it is multicursal, but because it doesn't illustrate the mythological connection. (And in any case it's already displayed at "Maze".) The gallery shouldn't be limited to unicursal labyrinths, though. In particular, I'd like to get an image of the Arkville Labyrinth in there.

Elphion (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Perhaps the gallery could be subdivided into unicursal and multicursal examples. I think there were also a few unicursal turf mazes where the normal classical labyrinth pattern has been slightly altered to become multicursal – probably caused by recutting an overgrown site without having a pattern to work from. SiGarb | (Talk) 18:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Second Flag of Bhutan
I've uploaded the correct version version to commons. Thanks for letting me know about this. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Thank you for your interest in my additions, and I agree that she of course does not represent the totality of views within the Druidic movement, although she is one of the most prominent Druids in the UK (I do not know about the US). As further sources become available to me from other Druids I will of course endeavour to show their point of views as well. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC))
 * The thing is, I am best acquainted with the British style of Druidry as purported by Orr, Carr-Gomm, Nichols etc... I know far less of, for instance, American Druidry as is purported by Bonewits. What viewpoints would you suggest that I research and incorporate? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Thank you!!! I'll start implementing some of your suggestions! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC))

Mediation at Minotaur
Hi! A user has filed a request for mediation in the dispute you are having with User:Notpietru about the wording used in the article Minotaur. I'm going to take a look at this case and try to help you come to an agreement that meets Wikipedia policies. The first step is making sure that everyone is on the same page. Please indicate that you are willing to participate by leaving a comment at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-20/Minotaur. Once I am in touch with both of you, I'll start a discussion to try to find common points of agreement between you, and we'll all work from there to agreement on the disputed wording. Thanks! —  æk Talk 10:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)