User talk:ESkog/ArchiveE

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

Tag for vandilism

I'm a relatively new user and I just been trying to eradicate some vandilim (think we double teamed Jacki Chang!) and I was wondering if there is a tag you can use in the edit summary so it automatically says whos edit your changing and which version its chaning to? My way of typing it out manually takes ages! Would really appreciate your help! Ryanpostlethwaite 18:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned public domain images

The following images were uploaded by you, but are currently not in use. They have been tagged as public domain (PD), either as PD-self or other PD claim, or equivilant. These unused PD images may be subject to deletion as orphans. You may wish to add them to an article, tag them for copying to WP commons {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} or if they are no longer needed, they can be nominated for deletion by following the easy three step process at Images and media for deletion. If you have any questions, please leave me a note on my talk page. --Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 20:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ImageSurvey.xls

Puzzled by AfD

Hi ESkog, I came across this AfD that had strong consensus for delete, and in which you determined that userfy was best. But the article, Yogani is still there. It looks to me like 'userfy' means 'move to userspace and delete', but I may be wrong on that. If so, then ignore this message.... ॐ Priyanath 22:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ॐ Priyanath 23:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Un)fortunately for

Surely any instance of the word "(un)fortunately" clarified by a subsequent "for" is acceptable, since it denotes a point of view...

Also, I think that "It should be noted that" has use as an appending statement drawing particular attention to a statement, often clarifying a previous quote/statistic/statement with relevant circumstantial information which might otherwise be overlooked. Yes, everything in Wikipedia should be noted, but some things are more noteworthy than others, and sometimes it is important to emphasise certain contextual evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.167.108 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:ImageSurvey.xls listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:ImageSurvey.xls, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Sure, I won't do that anymore. eskimospy ^(talk) 02:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yogani Article Deletion

Hello ESkog. I noticed that you had recently deleted an article that I had created: Yogani. After reading through your comments here, I noticed that someone had pointed out to you that the article had been up for deletion at some point, but was still there. What had happened (and if you look back through the history you can see this as well) was that the article had been originally deleted due to Yogani writing the article himself, without realizing that it was against the rules. Following the deletion of that article, I took it upon myself to create a new article on the subject which lasted until a few weeks ago, when you deleted it based on the comments of the original article. What I'm getting at here is that I believe there has been a mix up leading to the deletion of the recent article, which I was the author of. If for some reason the article was deleted for "notability" reasons, I can offer the following on the subject.

Yogani is the author of the Advanced Yoga Practices (AYP) websites and corresponding books. The free instructional websites of Advanced Yoga Practices have received over 100K visitors over the past three years (verifiable). Yogani was interviewed on national radio in November (archived recording can be found at http://www.aypsite.com/audio) and is scheduled for additional national radio appearances in January and beyond. The six books he has written so far are selling consistently (and often significantly) below the 100K rank level on Amazon in the USA, Canada and Europe (http://www.aypsite.com/books), and are in the process of being published in India as well.

I hope we can get this sorted out, as this article should certainly have a home on Wikipedia. I figured the best bet would be to speak to you before attempting to recreate the article, as I hope that we can reach an agreement in this matter. Thank you for your consideration and have a great day. Mdyogi 18:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Yogani Article Deletion

Hi ESkog. Thank you for taking the time to reply, it is greatly appreciated. :)

I guess I'm having a bit of trouble understanding where the line is drawn between notable and not notable. Is there a set of guidelines that I can read which may explain this to me further, or is it more in the eye of the beholder? I would think that a subject who is currently redefining the way that spiritual practices are taught and utilized is extremely notable, if only for this reason alone. If you were to go back and read the deleted article (if possible), you will understand that this was the main focus of the article, as it is what makes the subject stand apart from the many others in this field.

On the topic of advertisement, there was only one link to the website (in the links section), which would be certainly relevant to the article as it is the location of the subject's main body of work. Also, the website is 100% free, so there really isn't much to be gained from any kind of advertisement.

Regardless, I understand that you may not be in a position to give the green light on this, so maybe my best bet would be to bring it into the deleted article discussion. I will wait to hear back from you before doing so.

Thank you for your time and help in this matter. Have a great day. Mdyogi 20:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info, ESkog. I understand your position on the matter and greatly appreciate the help you have offered. Per your recommendation, I will bring up the topic in the Deletion Review discussion and see what can be accomplished there. Thanks again and have a great day. :) Mdyogi 20:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Input

Long time no see since things have quieted down on Hipcrime. You and I have dealt with those who would exhaust us in the past and I was wondering if I couldn't get some input over at Talk:James_Kim#Facts_that_could_call_into_question_the_actions_of_Kim. It has been going on back and forth for quite some time now (looking now I realize its only been about 36 hours, but it feels much longer). This IP (who's changed once during the conversation) just doesn't seem to understand the whole concept of NPOV, original research, verifiability, that proving one fact doesn't prove a second fact, etc. I've tried to make it clear, but its obviously not taking. A couple other editors have made small attempts as well, but made no ground. Perhaps another experienced voice might take this to a conclusion.--Crossmr 03:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I'm finding it hard to keep assuming good faith over at the article. Its seems like at least one IP and a brand new single purpose account, I'll stop short of the accusation for now, have some sort of agenda. It seems to be of the nature to cast Kim in some negative point of view though I'm not particularly sure what the motive is. I'm wondering where a good place to perhaps list this article for some additional input from experienced editors might be? Would the village pump be appropriate? I always get leery when I see several IPs and single purpose accounts inserting false facts and trying very hard to push a certain POV in an article.--Crossmr 04:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

especially when met with this [1].--Crossmr 05:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a situation where this person isn't getting there way and is now going to grow increasingly uncivil. As a follow up to that last comment, we see this [2].--Crossmr 05:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do we go about enforcing consensus? We have 8 or 9 editors who do not think the timeline is appropriate to the article, and only 2 (one of which is an IP) who do. I would say consensus is very clear, yet one of the editors in favour of it is continually re-adding the material.--Crossmr 02:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already listed the article on RfC biographies due to the amount of debates that were going on on the talk page between the same people. I thought some more outside perspective might clear things up here, however so far not much traffic from it. I asked about consensus due to his persistance that he'd continually revert and there was no way the timeline was ever leaving the article. I sometimes feel that given certain debates with users I might occasionally make things worse by giving out warnings.--Crossmr 14:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it reflects poorly my constant requests, but can you look at this [3]. it comes across as uncivil to me, especially the comment directed at me. Again I'm going to defer to your judgment.--Crossmr 02:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a complete loss. I have no idea what to even say to this [4]. Only people who have posted their comments in bold have valid opinions.--Crossmr 21:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandalism by Shared IP 64.251.49.227

Dear ESkog. I was wondering how Wikipedia and the administrators deal with a specific case of vandalism, as in the case of the IP I mention, 64.251.49.227. This is an IP shared by a network at the University of Conneticut. The vandalism and persistant warnings against this IP seem to be building quite successively with only one block being issues out of something like 15 warnings. As I am hoping to apply to become an administrator sometime within the next 6 to 12 months, I would appreciate your thoughts on this, and ask for your consideration on my request that maybe, just maybe, the next time they vandalize, a significant block, say 90 days, should be enforced, considering the previous warnings and measures taken up to now seem to be having little or no effect. Thank you for your time. I don't mind you responding here or on my talk, its ok either way. Thor Malmjursson 13:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Talk to Thor[reply]

Re: Cat "owner" edit war and your listing it in the "LAME" page

Listing that discussion as a "comical edit war" is insulting to at least some who participated in it. (Apart from the fact that it was not an edit war, it was just a long discussion.) It is thus a clear violation of NPOV and Wikiquette.

Actually, the whole LAME page itself is in violation of NPOV and Wikiquette. On its discussion page it says that that page is, somehow, off bounds for the general Wikipedia guidelines. Well, that makes it off-bounds for the 3 revert rule too, doesn't it?

David Olivier 22:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olathe North High School

Thanks for letting me know. I was rather suprised to see it tagged with that template, I only deleted because it had very little content. I appreciate the notification, I find it irritating when your admin actions are overturned without notification/correspondance., so I appreciate that you di. Viridae ^Talk 13:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Thank you, that guy's getting to be a real pain. Also, can you get User:83.66.73.6 for me? It's the same guy, targeting a different editor. Don't forget to add the range to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of SummerThunder if you didn't already. --tjstrf talk 04:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB.com Not a Reliable Source

FYI--IMDB.com is not a reliable source for original research as it contains user-generated content that is frequently incorrect. --Sixtrojans 04:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From User:Couchmalcolm

Dont change factual information people post. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Couchmalcolm (talk • contribs) 23:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User-Page Blanking

Regarding your reaction to User:Adroit Nubian's userpage. Please remember that civility is one of the key principles of Wikipedia. Also, not biting the newbies applies even to people who you personally dislike. These principles are important because Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Please tone down your attitude. Adroit Nubian 19:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Heads Up

Thanks for the correction ESkog. I'll admit, I didn't check out the policies right off the bat, but now I've seen where I went wrong.

Sorry for the mistake!

Hyde244 19:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Question

I just noticed that a CoasterForce link has been deleted on the Pepsi Max Big One's reference page.

Though I did edit this link's title from coasterforce.com to CoasterForce, this link should rightfully return to its original dictation, before I edited it.

What are the necessary steps to return the link back to its previous state?

Thanks for the Help!

Hyde244 20:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Help

Thanks for the clarification on the link issue. It really has been an eventful first day as a member on Wikipedia!

I'll be sure to refer to you if any more problems arise in the future. Thanks for helping me out with all of this!

Hyde244 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources - Response

If you still online it would be greatly appreciated if you could respond to the sources given in the Newgrounds Talk page under the topic, "Clock Crew" AngryStudent 00:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SMSD article semi-protection

I've noticed that you help a lot in countering the vandalism that happens on the Shawnee Mission School District article, so I figure you'd like to know that I have successfully requested semi-protection for the article. Hopefully this will help us keep the article clean.

Also, might I ask what high school you teach math at? Stack 03:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rv - out of respect for privacy, we don't usually include this kind of personal information unless the other parties are also independently notable) What do you mean by other parties are independently notable??

Why are you editing my contribution?

Ku slang meaning sexual sickness. It is a common slang word. Why the interest in deleting it?

RE Ku

The slang word Ku is derived from the words Kunton Germanic and Kunta Old Norse in reference to female genetalia. Ku is a root to these words and it is used to say a person is sexually sick. It is comparable the modern use of Kike to describe new immigrants with low morals. The word Ku also has roots in Greek in which Ku=Bad. If you google Ku=sick you will find many examples of people using the word with this definition.

If you have any more concerns let me know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Juan Guevara 2007 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 23 February 2007  (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 21:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}[reply]