User talk:Elvey

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.

Upfront Rewards

Zanimum deleted this page I created, claiming it was complete slander. The censorship disgusts me and his claim is factually challenged, and appears to be dishonest. The article included several references (I don't have the exact number... Zanimum DELETED THEM) What was libelous, Zanimum? Every statement I put in there was VERIFIABLE. By Zanimum's logic, calling Hitler a Nazi is libelous too. (Hello, Godwin!) -Elvey 07:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC) in response to:[reply]

Note: Wikipedia admins seem to regularly delete pages when there's a strongly worded or legal complaint about them and they're disparaging, for example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OITC_fraud (I grabbed and kept a copy from google's archive, and it's a well-documented article replete with lots of references, and I checked a couple, and they were legit.) It's a pity. Also, note that this page has been the subject of policy violations; content from it was deleted along with partial history. I'm pissed off and disappointed in Wikipedia adminship. I won't be contributing as much as a result. :(

Thanks for letting me know about this. Actually, I think the deletion decision was correct (the one following the deletion review, anyway); the article did have major problems, as did the original OITC fraud article. The issue isn't the referencing, it's the tone of the article, which was extremely non-neutral: e.g. "scandal-ridden", "this scam", "the bank is an ethics-free zone, and scandalous" etc etc. The article was a very long way from meeting the neutral point of view standard - it's clearly polemical rather than neutral. Describing it as libelous is accurate, in my view, as the whole tone is very accusatory.

Having said that, the way to deal with it is the same way I rescued the OITC article. Make it a dispassionate review of what the sources say, use neutral language, ensure that you use reliable sources and reference every potentially contentious point. It's not necessarily a very easy thing to do if you feel strongly about it (since I'd never heard of the OITC before I rewrote that article, I had the advantage of being genuinely neutral about it). Feel free to use the OITC article as a template: start with a description of the subject, explain where, when and how it operates, then document the controversy. -- ChrisO 07:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Added] I'm not sure that the UR scheme is really notable enough for its own article. Why not start an article on Universal Savings Bank and add the UR stuff as a subsection? -- ChrisO 07:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did, it got [nuked] too - the initial article got nuked for being too critical, then a follow-up version was nuked for being to positive - "advert"-like. Collected references for a replacement: http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/30709 - "...70,000 consumers who have been fleeced by deceptive advertising..." --Elvey 07:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BlueHippo Funding

I NPOV'ified the article, mostly. Where are you getting the $2148 figure though? According to the article linked, the price is more like $1970. It would be great if you could provide a source to back up the $2148 calculation, as well as the contents of the commercials - we need sources to verify several things in the article. Jumbo Snails 00:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look in the chart now in the article; the 2148 is fully documented. You deleted a section that's there to, as my edit summary says: Alternatives: conform to google metadata. Are you a posse? Don't use 'we' unless you are a royal, or wewill:) Gret the point? It's not the case that the content of the ads is being disputed or is in question at all, AFAICT.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Zombie computer; History of spamming; The Canadian Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email; Mail transfer agent; List of mail servers; Basic Books; Lightweight Directory Access Protocol; Mozilla Mail & Newsgroups; Sping; Nslookup; Apache James; Keyword stuffing; Phone fraud; ETRN; Dottorato di ricerca; .mail; Nutch; Flyposting; Mithras

Cleanup: The Da Vinci Code (film); Robert Soloway; E-mail client
Merge: Lake Wobegon; Zebibyte; Calcium hydroxide
Add Sources: Transport Layer Security; Morphine; AIM Mail
Wikify: Papal infallibility; William Cullen; Pesticide toxicity to bees
Expand: Pulp (tooth); Verizon Wireless; BitDefender

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny

We were probably both reading § at the same time. Personally, I think the symbol is better when referring to legal code, so I'm with you.--Kubigula (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GIF -> JPEG (Berlioz)

Sorry, I'm still kind of dumb with some aspects of WP :D Glad it could be sorted out. Le the 15:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Image

I'm not going to put it in userspace (that would violate our policy on fairuse). The deletion was fair because it had no source at the time. I'll go ahead and restore it, just be sure to but all of the licensing info and the rational in and make sure the image is used somewhere. -- John Reaves 19:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's restored now. -- John Reaves 04:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Libelous claim by Coolcaesar

<False accusation that I claimed I defended a position I never claimed to have defended.> --Coolcaesar 05:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because of a failure to look closely enough at the archive page or what I actually wrote, you made a false accusation. It WAS defended there, not by me. Here, etc. --Elvey 17:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HEY

How did you design your page???????? I kinda need some help if that's ok with you Also how can you have someone click you name and go straight to your page AKA mine? Rianon Burnet

--Rianon 20:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You probably want to look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Elvey&action=edit

Blocked

I've blocked you for the reasons stated in your block log. John Reaves 21:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sender Policy Framework

Hi, in March 2007 you posted a bunch of questions in Talk:Sender_Policy_Framework, I tried to answer that now. --217.184.142.58 (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I think you are incorrect; you assume spammers won't set up +all SPF records. If they do, you can't assume that it's safe to bounce email sent that gets a PASS due to such a record. --Elvey (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Sorry. There's no such thing as a valid excuse for violating NPA. Maybe I can get unblocked now; it's been a year I've been blocked. --Elvey (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Anyone? --Elvey (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Sorry. There's no such thing as a valid excuse for violating NPA. (In case it wasn't clear, that's me recognizing I violated NPA, and asking for forgiveness.) I was blocked over a year ago.}}--Elvey (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why now? Fritzpoll (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A year after the fact, I'm inclined to assume good faith and give things another go, unless there's some pressing reason we shouldn't. Either way, I've contacted the blocking admin requesting comment. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was just suspicious given the peculiar length of time and the fact that at the very same time, another block from a year or so ago also requested an unblock. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'm a bit curious, but must have missed that one. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably coincidence, but take a look at User talk:JohnSriley Fritzpoll (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly unrelated, Elvey first started asking for an unblock (without template) on Oct 30. Unblocked per my philosophy on these types of things... –xeno (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Happy editing. Do take it easy in the future.

Request handled by: –xeno (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.