User talk:ESkog/ArchiveB

Index of Talk Page archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D E F 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F May 19-December 22, 2010 - December 23, 2010 - November 10, 2011 - December 8, 2011 - October 8, 2012 - October 18, 2012 - May 27, 2013 - May 30, 2013 - March 26, 2014 - January 29, 2015 - March 15, 2017

VFD on PIHNN

ESkog, since some people spoke against my subpage, I created a VFD to see if the community at large wants to delete it. I have it so 10 net deletion votes (10 more deletion votes than keep votes) will convince me to agree to delete it (by adding the db-owner template of course.) Feel free to take a look, and vote on it if you'd like. You can tell other users to vote there too if you want. --Shultz IV 03:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Erroneous VandalProof warning

Thank you for experimenting with the page Hello Kitty on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Porqin 01:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The aforementioned warning by me was incorrectly added, that being said:

This is rather intriguing, when the page was loaded, I rolled back and warned the user who vandalized Hello Kitty. It then showed up as vandalized again, so I rolled back and warned again. This time it warned my self, and corrected to the right version of Hello Kitty. I must have clicked the first time at the same moment you reverted, because I clearly viewed the vandalistic edit on my page, and attempted to fix it.

So, I don't know if I was in error here, the program was in error, or bad timing (luck). Thanks for the comment.

-- Porqin 01:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

6-16-06

I was not vandalizing the California gubernatorial elections, 2006 article. I was just deleting polls for Arnold v. Westley, as Westley has been knocked out in the primany, making the poll unnecesary. 68.4.58.77

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Al Gore:

You recently protected[1] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. Be sure to use protection summaries when you protect pages. VoABot will list such protected pages only if there is a summary (part of the deleted pages filter). Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 03:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

DVD+R/W's RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which ended with the result of (74/0/0). If there is anything I can help with feel free to ask. Also, if there is anything I am doing wrong, please point that out as well. I look forward to working with you in the future. Highest regards, DVD+ R/W 01:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your time

Dear ESkog/ArchiveB,
Thank you very much for your contributions to my recent RfA. I am pleased to announce that it passed with a tally of 72/11/1, and I am now an administrator. Although you did not choose to support the request, I can assure you that I have taken your advice to heart and will be a better administrator for it. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the tools, but please let me know if there are any admin jobs I can do to help you, now or in the future. —Cuiviénen 02:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

Thanks for voting! Hello ESkog/ArchiveB, and thank you so much for voting in my recent RfA. I am pleased to inform you that it passed with a final tally of (119/1/3), into the WP:100, so I have now been cleared for adminship and will soon be soaring above the clouds. I was overjoyed, shocked, and humbled by the tally, and, most importantly, all the support. Thank you. If there is ever anything you need, you know where you can find me. Take care.

--Pilot|guy 22:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics

Thank you for your contributions in making this pretentious weblog, masquerading as an encyclopedia, even less useful than it currently is. Wahkeenah 23:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• What you're doing is leaving a bunch of useless song stub articles. I assume your next step will be to zap those, as they are liable to be reduced to a single sentence telling the reader what he already knows. Wahkeenah 23:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk page

I've seen worse. And with all the space you're freeing up by zapping lyrics, there should be plenty of extra room. Wahkeenah 23:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• OK, so how do I archive it? Wahkeenah 23:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think I did that once before, and it disappeared. Maybe I should just delete the entire talk page and let it start over. There's nothing of any value on it anyway. Wahkeenah 23:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism

Vandalism is one thing but to mention something factual, such as Italy getting velvet glove treatment from the refs, that is factual and not vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.175.244.233 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Linas

The true vandalism is what Linas does, not me. See discussion "The certainty principle" on his talk page. Now that he does not know what to answer to Rcq, he just ignores him. Lexitom 17:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Anon question

Whu did u put stuff back on my page? I stopped, so I don't nied it their. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.166.255.181 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I apolgised to him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.166.255.181 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

why do u guys take this place so sriously? Its just an website —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.166.255.181 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Why are is u warning me. all i say was goodbye. explain why is warning their —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.166.255.181 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

answer my questionm please

Thanks

Thanks for the speedy reply ESkog. Do you have any idea how I can fix this problem for good short of actually paying for a static IP Adress. It's just that after four times I'm quite sick of it and any solution or ideas would be great. If you have an answer just put it on my talk page. Once again, thanks for the speedy reply, it usually takes about an hour to get a response. --Tobes 07:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken

This is regarding your message to User:Telex. The fact is that there is a wanton vandal, known generally around WP as the "Rajput Troll," who is vandalising all my edits, apart from the Rajput page. There is an Arbcom decision against him. After that, he has begun infesting Wikipedia under a new sockpuppet every day, and a whole category-full of such sockpuppets have been banned so far. Telex is going out on a limb to help me in containig the vandalsim. Your rebuke to him is therefore seriously misplaced and will only serve to demoralize him. I hope you will retract the comment. Regards, ImpuMozhi 15:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your comment to 71.139.3.152

You wrongly commented that I had vandalized NeoChaosX's user page. You are mistaken. NeoChaosX has mounted a sustained campaign of vandalism against my contributions to Wikipedia, particularly to the California State University, San Jose State University, and California State Normal School pages. I believe he deleted the later.

Please advise me how I can go about securing the banning of user User:NeoChaosX, for wanton Wikipedia vandalism.

Thank You. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.3.152 (talk • contribs) 05:12, June 28, 2006 (UTC)

You haven't even edited any of those articles, how could he have vandalised your edits to them? Kevin_b_er 05:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Be bold compromise

Barnstar removed to main userpage

Hi ESkog, I was very impressed by your compromise on Be bold. It looks like it deflected the wheel war, and hopefully it will put an end to the arguments, but I just wanted to give you a barnstar in thanks and recognition of your compromise. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

spam?

cmon i edited this article about 4 months ago and it wasnt called spam, but now you call spam the same thing i did before? Cmon.  : ( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kanacr (talk • contribs) 15:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

UP revertreverts

Thanks! Talk about pay back in kind! EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 21:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again!

EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 21:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Award for vandal-magnet user page

EvocativeIntrigue hereby offers you the award for having an incredibly magnetic userpage for vandals! EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 21:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

IQ as a criterion

I use IQ (i.e. the value I estimated) as a criterion for assessing the user's ability to be an admin or his ability to produce a valid vote on RfA. It is a nonsense, but I find the criterions for most of the oppose votes equally laughable. And I didn't disrupt wikipedia to make a point, thus I didn't violate WP:POINT. I have the same rights as the other editors, and saying that "he didn't pass my IQ test" is not the same as if I was saying "he is stupid", thus this is no personal attack. Pure logic, if I say a didn't pass my test because it's not bigger than 10, it doesn't mean that a is lower than 5. Got that? I am removing your inflammatory comment from my talk page. ackoz 07:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

inflammatory comment

I wouldn't remove a warning. Like if I violated some policy, or vandalized something, that would be a warning. What you posted on my talk page is just an inflammatory comment with no actual reason. First prove to me that I violated a policy, then I will keep your comment. I'll remove that again, please chose some other way than just edit warring with me if you want it restored. ackoz 08:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

warnings

Please don't place warnings on users talk pages without real reason. If you feel that you don't agree with something/someone, engage in the discussion, but I kindly ask you not to use block threats as an argument. ackoz 09:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic System of Islam (book)

I was interested in your comment on closure "AFD is not a substitute for {{cleanup}}".

The rationale for nomination was nothing to do with {{cleanup}}. The articles did not need cleaning up in any degree. What they needed was content. My view when I nominated them was they were sub-stubs, effectively empty, and thus failed to meet the cut. The AfD process puts this type of article up for peer review. At the same time it prompts the creator and other editors to seek to save the articles by providing content that asserts notability within the article, removes the "placeholder" nature of the article and makes it "wiki-acceptable".

The outcome of an AfD of this nature is always win/win. Either trash gets removed, or trash becomes valuable. In either case wikipedia improves.

I'm perfectly content with the outcome as an outcome, though I disagree with the "keep" result that the discussion came to. But then it is my right to disagree and my duty to be bound by consensus. I simply do not understand your comment at the head of the closure, and hope you will expand upon it.

Fiddle Faddle 09:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I felt that most of the "delete" reasoning was that the article currently had very little content, not that the subject of the article wasn't worth an article. I think that AFD can, as you say, often have a good effect on an article which needs severe attention/cleanup/expansion, but that the correct move in the end is not to delete. If you'd like, I'll put my action up for review on the Administrators' Noticeboard and get another opinion on the matter. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, if I were to strictly count votes, I see 3 keep and 5 delete, which I would probably close as no consensus anyway. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning. The entire rationale for nominations was that the articles so nominated were as near empty as made no difference. Equally they were well referred to in the article on the entirely notable author, thus could and should have been expanded if the sub-stubs were to assert notability. Together with this the subject matter itself would not be lost because it existed in the "parent" article. An excellent example is the work Striver did on "his" to ensure they were substantive articles that were obvious "keep" candidates. All I was questioning was your "AFD is not a substitute for {{cleanup}}" comment. An issue here is that the topic can appear to be minority interest on the en wikipedia, and decisions in this area can be seen to be either pro or anti Islam sometimes. I think you walked a difficult tightrope. Probably wikipedia would be stronger if you referred this for a further pair of eyes, especially since this could be seen as a pro/anti Islamic issue. However please note that I support your decision even though I disagree with it. Fiddle Faddle 16:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That was typed before I saw your tally of opinions. The challenge with any articles about religion is they attract pro and con "votes" often removed from the article itself. This makes the admin's task substantially harder. Fiddle Faddle 16:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll put it up on the Administrators' Noticeboard for review. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I am absolutely not criticising your decision, and see your offer to have it reviewed as wholly in keeping with wikipedia's ethos. Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand. My actions are always up for review by the community. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support in my RfA!

Thanks for voting! Hello ESkog/ArchiveB, and thanks for your support in my recent RfA. I'm pleased to announce that it passed with a final tally of (96/0/0). I was overwhelmed by all of the nice comments and votes of confidence from everyone. Thanks again, and see you around! OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: copyvio on GOLDEN

You removed this speedy deletion with the edit summary "if it's 2 weeks old it's not a speedy candidate; let the copyvio process take place". However, it was tagged within minutes of its creation on June 14 (and so the 48-hour criterion at WP:CSD is not relevant), and it was listed on June 22 at WP:CP with the note "Requested user confirm permission - delete on 29 June 2006 if not forthcoming." That is, it has already been through the copyvio process, and deleting it is the result of that process. —Centrx→talk • 04:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks

for reverting edits made by that child on my page. I've tried to trace. It seems like he's one of these one-day vandals. again thanks and take care. Abdelkweli 15:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

HKHotels

Hi. I see you're responsible for closing the AFD debate on the Casablanca hotel. The nomination also included the HKHotels article which has not been deleted. I was wondering whether that's an omission on your part or whether you believe that there should be a separate debate for it. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 13:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Ok, thanks! Pascal.Tesson 15:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Quixtar

Thanks for reverting undercover. i was close if not already past 3 reverts. I have no idea how Barwick (talk · contribs) can justify such blatant POV. It must be obvious to everyone except him/herself. David D. (Talk) 21:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

User talk:149.135.47.197

Please stop editing User talk:149.135.47.197. This is vandalism and may result in a ban. Please feel free to use the sandbox.

User talk:149.135.47.197

Can you please leave my talk page alone! Stop posting crap on it and giving me useless warnings! It's my talk page and I'll do what I want to it! Thank you

Reliable Sources

A handful of articles at a time. I'm currently involved with 2 Usenet articles, a Furry one, a couple sims article and a livejournal one. I need to check my list, but I think more. Its very easy for these kind of fan/online community articles to turn into a joke based on improper sources. It would be easier to handle these situations if the admins got involved with editors who consistently tried to push unsourced information on to articles like Furry_fandom. Heck, one of the IPs has been on the personal attack noticeboard for like 10 or 12 hours as a result of that article, but no one has bothered to deal with it. Once these articles are stable, I'll move on to other articles that need sources, though any article I happen across that does need sources, I often make a comment and set it watch (sometimes its a while before I get back to it though depending). Getting people to cite sources is like pulling teeth because they often don't understand why, and then engage in a revert war when you remove the unsourced material. Admins can't police the actual content, but they should be able to show up and say "Look, you're trying to add 8 paragraphs of material with no usable sources, either cut it out or you'll be blocked from editing the article".--Crossmr 17:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing content

Please include appropriate citations per WP:V and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources. Repeatedly inserting unsourced content per these guidelines may be seen by some editors as vandalism.--Crossmr 18:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

and WP:3RR#Reverting_vandalism adding unsourced content to a disputed article is vandalism and not covered by 3RR. Don't try to use your admin friends to try and push PoV. --Crossmr 18:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You're not doing anyone any favours by trying to use your admin status to push PoV and add unsourced content to an article. You've already run out of good faith with me. All the unsourced content has been addressed on the talk page of the article. If you want to actually improve the article I suggest you address those specific citation issues. I already did. You've re-added it without citation, which violates a policy.--Crossmr 18:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Quincy Jones

Sorry, the article was cut off halfway through and I was trying to cut and repaste it to fix it. NawlinWiki 15:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for all the clean up work. It is the editing of articles that makes them all the better. You are very un/under-appreciated ;) LoveMonkey 13:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"It should be noted" in AWB.

I emphatically disagree that something like this should be automated. If you want to flag this change and automatically suggest it on a talk page, that's one thing, but there's just too many times where this serves a valuable purpose. There's no question that it usually adds little and can be taken out, but there are absolutely valid uses of the phrase! I'd estimate a 70% frivolous usage rate at most. "It should be noted" is useful for sentences that would be parenthetical, but are too long. It flags it with "this may seem random, but it's important, trust me."

In an article I watch, for instance...

Based on these interviews, King came to the conclusion that while the Middle East was "not ready" for independence, a colonial government would not serve the people well either. He recommended instead that the Americans move in to occupy the region, because only the United States could be trusted to guide the people to self-sufficiency and independence rather than become an imperialist occupier. It should be noted that King's overriding concern was the morally correct course of action, not necessarily tempered by politics or pragmatism. The Republicans had regained control of the United States Senate in 1918, and as isolationists, the probability of a huge military adventure and occupation overseas, even given British and French approval, was practically nil.

The "It should be noted" shows that the following two statements aren't directly connected to King's report, but are rather background information. Removing it makes it seem like King actually wrote down that "I think this is morally correct! I don't care about reality!" It stops one thought, and starts a new thought.

For another (contrived) example...

"It should be noted that Bob had an affair with Jill ten years ago, for this becomes important in Act III."

This becomes the awkward

"Bob had an affair with Jill ten years ago, for this becomes important in Act III."

What's the "for" for? It can still be rewritten, but "for" should be scrapped and a semicolon used. Even then, it still feels random.

This is simply a change that should not be done via a script; each case needs to be looked at by hand, since there are legitimate uses. I'll start looking through other cases for reversion, but ack. SnowFire 22:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Malformed AWB edit in quote

Your automatic edit of "It should be noted that..." was done in a literal quote, making it inaccurate. Furthermore, it mangled the text, leaving it starting with the non-word Iif. [2]] Dicklyon 05:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot policy

User:Micoolio101/Supporters in the death of OrphanBot was submitted to deletion review. FYI because you were involved in this deletion, 217.251.173.136 13:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)