User talk:Eep²/2007

Shemale art

Since you contributed to it, I thought you'd like to know that Shemale art has been proposed for deletion. NickelShoe (Talk) 03:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Link

I've removed the link to "pyramid scheme" from "stock market", because apart from the one in russia that was (vaguely) linked to the ignorance of the victims concerning the stock market, there isn't much of a link between the two. Cheers. yandman 10:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Paul Shockley

A tag has been placed on Paul Shockley, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NigelJ ^talk 23:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul Shockley

Why did you delete Paul Shockley? I only JUST got word of its notability dispute on my talk page and had no chance to contest the deletion (or add notability to it). Where is the original article so that I may add notability to it? Sheesh... -Eep² 06:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It is now at User:Eep²/Paul Shockley. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you caught my response but it is here, (I reply to messages where they are created because otherwise it disrupts the flow of conversation --NigelJ ^{talk SIMPLE} 22:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"The Unexplained"

Hello - Just to help you out following your accidental creation of "The Unexplained" rather than The Unexplained. I don't know if you know about the move tab at the top of every article page, you can use this to rename a page, and a redirect will be placed on the original page. Thanks for putting 'please delete' on the page. However if you blank a page that you have created in error in the future, using the {{db-blanked}} will ensure it receives the attention of an admin sooner. I have added that template to "The Unexplained". Happy editting! Suncloud 18:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I did move it originally (as the article history shows) but the quoted article name just doesn't need to be there anyway. I was going to add the db-blanked template but didn't know the right syntax. -Eep² 02:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of commercial sites on Michael Tsarion

Sorry, it is not permitted under Wikipedia policy to link to commercial sites for any reason. It is not the correct way to "prove something exists". The correct way is to cite it with its ISBN or to cite a non-commercial source which discusses or otherwise confirms its existence. To save you some time, personal sites on myspace, geocities, angelfire or other free hosting services also cannot be used. Neither can forums or other online discusion groups. Jefferson Anderson 19:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Then linking to any TV network website shouldn't be permitted since they tend to have stores that sell the series on DVD. Wikipedia policy logic is fallacious. -Eep² 02:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not fallacious. Links to amaazon and other sites which sell or promote books are strictly not allowed. Please stop adding them. If a book or other publication has an ISBN, cite it by name and give the ISBN. If it does not have an ISBN, it is considered self-published and can't be mentioned in the article unless there is a serious third party review of it to cite. Jefferson Anderson 18:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

More vagueness. What site that talks about a book isn't promoting it?? You seem to just want criticism of something as a "serious reliable 3rd-party source"--even of something's existence! Care to invent any more terms to use as an excuse? Ridiculous. -Eep² 03:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If the article is about a TV network, then of course you can link to the TV network's homepage, if it's about a book, your allowed to link to the main webpage for the book, if you want to reference a book that doesn't have an article on wikipedia then you link it's ISBN number or an independent review (i.e., a site that does NOT get paid for reviewing a book), although, that site must have existing community credibility. Check out WP:CITE etc for extra info. --NigelJ ^{talk SIMPLE} 11:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Nigel, the commercial sites Jefferson claims "is not permitted under Wikipedia policy to link to ... for any reason" is simply a site that proves Tsarion even created the Origins and Oracles DVD series that Arthur Rubin claimed wasn't "a source for the claim he has had a book or DVD published" [1]. Jefferson went on with his uncited sources tirade from there. Yes, the site sold the DVD but so what? The source was used JUST to prove the DVD series existed, which Authur appeared to be questioning with his edits. Second, Jefferson claims (in his edits) that "links to amazon and other commercial sites are STRICTLY PROHIBITED" and blogs ("remove links to blogs per Wikipedia policy") but I checked the GUIDELINE pages (which he misconstrues as POLICY) and there is NO mention of either Amazon.com or blog linking as being prohibited. Jefferson appears to be making a big deal about this article--why, I don't know but it's damn annoying and I tire of it. -Eep² 05:36, April 18, 2007

No personal attacks

In references to your comment here, Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Jefferson Anderson 17:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Tsarion

Just thought you'd like to know this page has been nominated for deletion. Since you added to it, you might want to put your vote in at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Tsarion. Thanks. -Eep² 09:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I only did a minor edit the first time but I see no real reason why this should be deleted. I did a minor cleanup and rewrite on it, if it is unhelpful feel free to revert or (of course) copyedit. El hombre de haha 21:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Second warning

In regard to this comment, Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Jefferson Anderson 15:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you're not an admin; get over your low self-esteem already. -Eep² 04:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability of The Granada Forum

A tag has been placed on The Granada Forum, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you feel that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 68.239.79.97 20:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No shit, Sherlock. However, you never gave a reason as to WHY the article should be deleted. Get over yourself, egotistical anonymous user. -Eep² 20:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia." —68.239.79.97 (talk · contribs) 20:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, are you that dense you can't figure out why it belongs on Wikipedia? It is a page about a discussion forum which many people already in Wikipedia have been a guest on. How is that not notable? Get a clue, anonymous user... -Eep² 20:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you are in complete violation of civility. I see you were rude above to someone for warning you without being "an admin." Well, I am an admin, and consider yourself warned. This kind of communication with another editor is unacceptable. In regards to the the comment you left User_talk:68.239.79.97#speedy_deletes_vandalism, you are completely wrong in warning the IP. There is no requirement to leave evidence on the talk page. None at all. You should read WP:CSD to learn more. Shape up or ship out, your tact is unacceptable. Teke 01:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving articles

Two things:

1. Copying and pasting content is not how to move articles. You do that by using the move tab up top. Should you find such an action is impossible for you to perform thanks to redirect edit histories or other such nonsense, you turn to WP:RM.
2. As for your idea itself, disambiguation pages are only required when three or more articles exist under the same title. As your entry had only one red-link page and the original, creating a disambiguation page is quite pointless.

— Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to move it that way since it would've created an auto-redirect (which I would've had to've removed anyway). <shrug> -Eep² 05:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, there's only one correct way to move pages. Rather than improperly replace the page, you could have simply edited over the redirect. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Eep², I was just swinging by to see if you had followed up on my comment above (which isn't needed, I was just checking) and saw this so I'm chiming in to clarify just why it is important to perform a move properly As you know when you make an edit to any page you are releasing your contribution under the GNU Free Documentation License which means that you may reuse the text for free, and modify it if you'd like, as long as you document the original author. When you copy and paste the text of a page to a new page, you are listed as the sole author of the text that you have copied. Legally, you don't have the right to claim ownership of the text since you did not write it and using the move tab maintains the proper paper trail of contribution documentation. I hope this helps. Teke 02:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

PhD

You generally add their experience, education, etc. in a section on their education. Their title (Dr., PhD, etc.) shouldn't be used as if it were part of their name. As for the edit stalking thing, I edited one article I don't normally and another in a series of articles I have on my watchlist. This is not edit stalking by any definition. Were I to be annoyingly critical of each and every edit you make, that would be edit stalking. Also, don't create redirects from one namespace to another, as you did with edit stalking. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 17:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Disambig section titles

I noticed you "cleaned up" the section titles on Underworld (disambiguation), I'm not going to press the issue because it's not a big deal, but I just thought I'd point out that the way it was setup is actually the policy per WP:MOSDAB#Longer lists. Also just so you know there's an easier way to bold an entire line than flanking it in ''', you can just start a line with ;

example

Vicarious 23:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't bold it for me, using the "simple" skin in Wikipedia preferences... As for "In <subject>:", it's too cluttered; just the "<subject>" in bold is sufficient (no colon necessary either). -Eep² 03:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Brockwood park

I am afraid not; it consisted almost solely of an essay written by Jiddu Krishnamurti which is still protected by copyright, and it didn't actually say what "Brockwood Park" is. (By the way, shouldn't the article be located at Brockwood Park instead?) I recommend creating a new article from the scratch. - Mike Rosoft 14:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Blue lady

Thank you. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Francis E. Dec

Thanks very much for your recent cleanup and additions to the article on Francis E. Dec! It is nice to see more people take an active interest in this man and his strange life as well as trying to, in a positive and constructive fashion, add to the existing knowledge on him instead of being what you term "Wikinazis". Your contributions are very highly appreciated, as is your independent method of thinking. Keep up the good work! Korv McHund 08:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment; I just want to bring exposure to all sides of an issue and let people make up their own mind. Censorship sucks! -Eep² 11:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Bob Dobbs

Since you're interested in getting to the truth of the matter about Bob Dean, a.k.a. "Bob Dobbs," I've put together a little screed that you may find helpful: http://community.livejournal.com/highweirdness/18851.html I hope it doesn't seem too slanted or biased. --Modemac 17:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

York, Pennsylvania and your user page

Hi Eep²,

I restored the {{fact}} tag on York, Pennsylvania, in the Media section. Please note that adding a wikilink does not constitute a valid external source as a reference (and the article you linked to barely mentions this topic (Susquehanna Broadcasting)).

I also note your User Page contains text deleted from an article. Please see Wikipedia:User_page#Copies_of_other_pages for what is not allowed and remove this material, or else I will bring this up in the appropriate venue for removal.

Thanks, Ruhrfisch 17:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the ref to the York, Pennsylvania article. Since you have not done anything to fix your userpage, I have nominated it for deletion here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alleged UFO-related government personnel

Please cast your vote again without icon spam. --Pjacobi 20:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop changing other editors' comment or I'll block you. --Pjacobi 21:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop being a wiktator or I'll report you. -Eep² 22:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Your recent behavior on MFD

Stop trolling and being incivil on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Eep². Failure to heed this warning may result in you being blocked from Wikipedia. --Coredesat 21:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiktator

I have placed a {{db-attack}} tag on this redirect page; I believe it was created as a term of disparagement. — BillC ^talk 22:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, it was created as a redirect page. Duh. -Eep² 23:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you create divisive and inflammatory pages such as Template:Userbox-wiktators-suck, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Coredesat 06:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, why? Are you inferring you're a wiktator? If not, why take offense? <blink> Gee, what about the other despise userboxes? Don't be a hypocrite, Core... -Eep² 07:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There are no such other userboxes, and a personal attack is a personal attack. I have requested attention from other admins at ANI. --Coredesat 08:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, there are other userboxes that despise things, specifically baseball teams. Why are they allowed? Double standard... I'm not the one trolling, disrupting, and personally attacking--you overzealous admins are in attacking my contributions. Leave me alone. I've contributed PLENTY to Wikipedia; you just want to destroy my work. -Eep² 09:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

GFDL

Eep², your creation of backup copies of to-be-deleted articles is an egregious violation of GFDL and copyright. It is simply not acceptable. There are plenty of admins who will honour good-faith requests for undeletion and userfying of deleted content for purposes of rework, or you can just apply WP:FORGET, but copying and pasting articles as you do is not allowed. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I made backup copies of them to be reworked should they be deleted. I am not claiming their work as my own. I've already encounted an admin who wouldn't restore an article (Bob Dobbs, specifically) in order for me to work on but he wouldn't so I went through the deletion review process (because the original AfD was NOT consensus, despite what the admin said), but that failed. Obviously Bob Dean/Dobbs HAS notability simply by reading this interview with Ivan Stang and all the evidence I presented at the deletion review. I tire of you admins acting like wiktators. -Eep² 02:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Eep²)

Hello, Eep². Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eep², where you may want to participate.

-- Guy (Help!) 10:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miguel Condé. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Calling an editor a "wiktator" is a persoanl attack. Please don't repeat it. -Will Beback · † · 03:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's define attack, shall we? Is it an attack when someone, like MER-C, removes my vote/comments? Is it an attack when someone like Radiant removes my vote symbol icons and votes/comments? Yes, it is. Stop perpetuating a double standard. -Eep² 05:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miguel Condé, you will be blocked for disruption. MER-C 06:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop yourself, oppressor: Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Removal_of_text. -Eep² 06:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Vote symbols

Templates with vote symbols have repeatedly been deleted by strong consensus on TFD. The way you insist on using those symbols anyway is an end-run around this process and around established consensus. The way you're making personal attacks and vague threats to other users is highly inappropriate. If you don't cease your disruption you will be blocked from Wikipedia. >Radiant< 07:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• You have been blocked for 24 hours, per the warnings given to you by Will Beback, Mer-C and myself. >Radiant< 09:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, it wasn't a template. They were just images (as I have on my user page). You did NOT explain WHY you repeatedly deleted them from vote pages and, instead, just did it over and over again. 3RR, eh? Oh, I guess it doesn't apply to oppressors--er, wiktators--er, admins, eh? Hypocracy! -Eep² 09:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I did just explain that, please read the top of this section. Alluding to 3RR is a red herring as I don't see anything remotely resembling a violation here. Also, you've been repeatedly warned against personal attacks, so I suggest you cut that out. >Radiant< 09:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

UNBLOCK

• No, you were blocked for repeatedly going against consensus, and making personal attacks, and persisting despite being warned. I also note you broke the 3RR here. >Radiant< 09:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll leave this particular request up, to be sure we get a third opinion, but as my first thought, at this point, I am inclined to decline this request. In particular, all of us are, in theory, here to build and maintain an encyclopedia. If you want to root out wiktatorship(?) or whatever, uh, that's cool, but you should probably do it somewhere else. When a large gaggle of admins and prominent members in the community are politely asking, trying to negotiate, and finally telling you to turn back, I should hope it's become obvious that your behavior is disruptive. That you're not even acknowledging that gives me serious doubts about unblocking you. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Eep² (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was trying to show examples of Radiant's abusive behavior but was blocked before my post could be finished on [2]:

More of Radiant's antics: again, again. again, wikistalking, obvious evidence of him and MER-C working together, and not wanting to face the reality of his actions when called out by me and Epeefleche. Radiant continues to revert my vote symbol images and again by him also reverting my edit of moving a legitmate mention of Cathy O'Brien out of "deletion nomination" to "case closed". Where is the justice, oh great oppressors--er, admins? HYPOCRACY! And, of course, now I'm blocked--great checks-and-balances, Wiktatoredia!

He gave NO inclination as to WHY he was doing these obviously abusive reversions--see above.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, and you'll probably see this as just another example of so-called 'wiktatorship', but I'm disinclined to unblock you at this time. Your unblock request gives me no indication that you are apologetic for your disruptive actions, or intend to work companionably, or even towards a grudging compromise. The users involved have been more than polite, and open to negotiation, but you have shown yourself unwilling to work together. Wikipedia, contrary to your beliefs, is not a dictatorship - it is a community which works on the principles of assuming good faith and consensus. You have shown yourself unwilling to assist in reaching a compromise, to acknowlege consensus, and to assume good faith on the part of your fellow contributors. Please use your remaining time off Wikipedia to read other deletion debates, how these are generally conducted, and I hope you return with a more positive view of how we operate around here. Regards, – Riana_ऋ 11:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your RFC

When your block expires, you need to post a response in the "response" section of the RFC against you. Attacking other users' statements doesn't help your case. --Coredesat 22:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting edits about admin abuse doesn't help your case either. -Eep² 11:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just an observation - MER-C is not an admin. Ruhrfisch 12:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Another observation: Radiant also reverted my edits as described above. Let's not be selective in our history, shall we? -Eep² 13:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the case, that page is not active. If you have concerns, that's not the right way to bring them up. --Coredesat 17:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki links

Please be careful when adding links to articles, such as Oba Chandler that you do not link to disambiguation pages or to unrelated pages. Just because a link is blue does not mean it links to the article you think it does, such as Scene of the Crime that links to a comic book series not the TV series. Thanks, Rich257 12:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, please

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 9#Category:Court TV shows. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors; instead, assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. See this edit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but, when it comes to User:Radiant, I no longer assume good faith. However, I DO assume wikistalking. -Eep² 13:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

case in point -Eep² 13:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Attacking new users

This is not an appropriate way to welcome new users [3]. Cut out the incivility.--Dcooper 15:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Re.:Andromedans,Re.: Battle:

Links are:

• burlingtonnews.net/secretsufo.html - see Andromedan entry.
• geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/et009.html - Andromedans order ALL other aliens OFF of and AWAY from Earth. Also do a Google search on these aliens, "Andromedans tell other aliens to leave Earth or get thrown out". 205.240.146.147 04:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically, these aliens have told the other aliens, incl. the Greys and "lizards(reptoids)" to get the hell OFF and AWAY from Earth or they'll get forcibly thrown out, which will result in battle, since the Greys and the lizards are'nt leaving. 205.240.146.147 04:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Userpage

I have deleted you userpage per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Eep². You are welcome to recreate it in an appropriate manner, but please abide by the spirit of that discussion.--Doc^g 16:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted your user page again and restored the version you created after the MFD ended. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and even this version is borderline. Continued restoration of the deleted material will result in you being blocked. --Coredesat 21:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

More hypocracy. The 7th AfD nomination of Eep (you look it up since you deleted all the work I did) stated the info about the WildEep! sound would be added to the Mac System 7 article. However, that info was promptly removed soon after it was added, and expanded upon. This is ridiculous hypocracy. Other people have info about their name/interests on their user page so why not me? Sheesh! You had no right to just mindlessly delete my user page without stating a dispute with it first. -Eep² 02:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that's nonsense, but meh, I'll restore it without your "consensorship" section (which does violate WP:NOT), and without your userbox, which is a copy of one you created and that I deleted as an attack page - it is not to be recreated, or it will be removed again. --Coredesat 03:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm not restoring it. You stated explicitly that you had the material there to spite the users who removed it. Revert the edits to Eep instead. If you still want it back (which I know you will), go to DRV. --Coredesat 03:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Restore the FULL version so I may move the commentary off of Wikipedia. So much for free speech, eh? I'm sure you'll refer me to some oppressive Wikipedian policy that states there is no such thing as free speech on Wikipedia, eh? Feh! -Eep² 03:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There's not, really. Users on Wikipedia do not have an express right to free speech; this is the English Wikipedia, but that does not mean it is the American Wikipedia. However, if you really want it that badly, I will email you the deleted material. --Coredesat 03:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

And yet there are many user pages that have infoboxes about all of their likes/dislikes (including despising some baseball teams). How is that not hypocritical? Your page includes personal info and a number of infoboxes that border on being commentary... If I can't have an infobox that shows my dislike for wiktators, you can't have an infobox that claims you're "cool" (without a relibale source to back it up). Wee... -Eep² 04:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Undo

Please do not use the undo feature to revert non-vandalism contributions. Revert-warring is not acceptable, the way to handle disputes is to work additively towards a consensus position, not to revert using tools provided for the reversion of vandalism. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Be sure to also tell that to the person who undid MY non-vandalism contributions, JzG... -Eep² 03:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Photon belt article

Spent a few minutes making the "why it's a crackpot theory" section more explicit. I wouldn't mind having the article restored - the damnfoolthing is out there, and in such wide circulation that it's probably Wikiworthy, but I'd favor having the article be as explicit as possible about just how largely the "pseudo" in "pseudoscience" is written in this particular context. --Alvestrand 06:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, but you're going to have to provide sources for things you state, as I am for things I find...you can't just use such biased wording as you are...remember WP:NPOV. -Eep² 06:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I need to provide sources here for things like a Photon being massless; the photon article is already well sourced, I believe. Similarly, the Milky Way article provides details on where the Galactic Center is, and that article in turn gives its distance. The only piece that needs a citation is the headshaking - that's why I put on it. But it's still true. --Alvestrand 06:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to remain neutral in your wording, however. Calling it "ludicrous", "lunatic fringe", etc doesn't go well on Wikipedia. Plus, you need to be careful where you add information and how it's referenced. For example, in this edit, you added "; the Earth orbits the Sun, and the Sun orbits the galactic center, some 26.000 light-years away" but did you actually verify that the source used to reference the previous general statement of "this is not the case" actually said what you added? Also, you may be misunderstanding the term "photon belt" when you claim "[photons] do not enter orbits". What is a star but a LOT of photons in orbit around still other stars (binary stars, galactic cores, etc)? Granted, I'm still doing research myself, but you also need to do research in order to not come off as being unbiased and non-neutral. I appreciate your additions but you need to keep WP:NPOV in mind, please. -Eep² 07:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to get at least a basic understanding of physics, or at least do some wikipedia reading. A star consists mostly of ionized hydrogen and helium, which consists of protons and electrons. Stars EMIT photons, which are created by hydrogen atoms' nuclei merging in a fusion reaction to produce helium. They do not CONSIST of it. --Alvestrand 13:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Semantics. The point is, stars and photons relate and star orbits can be thought of as "photonic orbits". Regardless, you need to research the photon belt more before casually dismissing it. Read the Noel Huntley article. Try to look past the spiritual/"metafruitical" (metaphysical) mumbo jumbo... -Eep² 19:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there's nothing there BUT mumbo-jumbo. Check out this randomly clipped sentence: "The photon cloud has a high density of electrons and positrons (positive, anti-electrons). When an electron and a positron collide they are annihilated and the mass is converted into radiation--photons. The presence of these positrons, however, has been predicted to interfere with electricity, of which the latter is due to the flow of electrons. ". Then check out Antimatter (of which positrons are one example. The presence of antimatter doesn't "interfere" with electricity - it causes things to go SERIOUSLY "boom". If there's matter present, and it doesn't go "boom", there's no antimatter present - as simple as that. And the idea that the solar system orbits the Pleiades is simply false - again. Stating it once more doesn't make it truer. --Alvestrand 19:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Things going "boom" sounds like "interference" to me. Regardless of whether or not our solar system orbits Alcyone (star) (the Pleiades) or not (see http://www.astrodynamics.net/Articles/Pluto-and-the-Galactic-Center.htm), what about the relationship between relativistic jets and their effects? Also, check out http://www.spiritdove.com/1_photonbelt.htm. Be sure to read through it (and the Huntley article) FULLY before replying... -Eep² 20:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Only if you agree with the stockbroker bumper sticker "Nuclear war would seriously damage my career". And you still haven't explained why you think relativistic jets are related to a "belt" that "orbits". But I gave up on the "spiritdove" nonsense after the claim that there are seven stars in the Pleiades cluster, *including the Sun*. Take some binoculars and LOOK at the Pleiades on a clear night; you'll see some of the 500 other stars there.

But I don't see any sign that you're willing to even try to think clearly and logically on the real, physical, observable things that happen in Real Life. Good luck with documenting the fiction. Goodbye. --Alvestrand 07:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would I explain why I think relativistic jets orbit? That would be original research. I'm simply stating what is already known by science. You dismiss information too quickly. Whatever, closed-minded person. -Eep² 07:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Re.:Andromedans,Re.: Battle:

Links are:

• http://burlingtonnews.net/secretsufo.html - see Andromedan entry.
• http://geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/et009.html - Andromedans order ALL other aliens OFF of and AWAY from Earth. Also do a Google search on these aliens, "Andromedans tell other aliens to leave Earth or get thrown out". 205.240.146.147 04:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically, these aliens have told the other aliens, incl. the Greys and "lizards(reptoids)" to get the hell OFF and AWAY from Earth or they'll get forcibly thrown out, which will result in battle, since the Greys and the lizards are'nt leaving. 205.240.146.147 04:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Replying on Talk:Andromedans_(extraterrestrial) is sufficient; copying discussion to there--please reply there. -Eep² 07:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Change color of links

Cool template Eep. I have this from another user:

The code for that would be:

Display Text

Change the "Text" to the title of the article, and "Display Text" to whatever text you want to display. You must enter both the title of the page you are linking to and the display text, even if they are the same. This is equivalent to the code:

study of paranormal phenomena Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal#paranormal user template; please respond only there. Thanks. -Eep² 07:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Geez dude, I thought I was doing you a favor. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it helps to have context, at least, but I prefer to keep the conversation where it originally started. It would be nice if Wikipedia could send a "new message" notice when someone replies to a topic--basically, MediaWiki needs an integrated forum (message board) without having to edit silly talk pages all the time--it's ridiculous. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 03:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

sound recording stuff

Hi Eep, Thanks for adding info about transcription discs to the pyral page and making the aluminum disc page. This old sound recording technolgy is strange and fascinating. -- Austin Murphy 15:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No prob, but why did you remove the date links? It's a history article so dates are kinda important... -Eep² (Talk) 16:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Dates are important, but linking them usually doesn't add value to an article. It mostly adds clutter. -- Austin Murphy 19:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Countdown to doomsday

I'm unhappy for this to be differentiated from Countdown to Doomsday by capitalisation alone. Don't you think it would work better with the disambig at Countdown to Doomsday (disambiguation) or something? Algebraist 16:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was gonna move the current capitalized version to Countdown to Doomsday (computer game) but decided to go with lowercase instead. Doesn't really matter either way though, I guess; I just prefer not to create "(disambiguation)"-titled articles if I can help it--I like to use the root word/phrase/name. -Eep² _(Talk) 16:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"Clean-up" does not mean removal of consensus contributions

Your "clean-up" of the Ascended_master article involved removing what has taken 6 months of working with other editors to reach the consensus of the version that was there before you changed things - without discussion with other editors. I agree with the smaller font for the notes. The capitalization reflects what the religious belief system uses. The Theosophy link to the Wikipedia article was actually intended to refer to The Theosophical Society, so there should be capitalization of the name of the organization being referred to. Aburesz 17:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia standards, the previous capitalizations on the Ascended_master article need to be maintained. These are references to proper nouns (such as The Theosophical Society) and references to the Divine (such as "Spirit" as compared to the "spirit of a crowd at a sporting event"). According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, references to '"Transcendent ideas in the Platonic sense also begin with a capital letter: Good and Truth."' Refer to the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters). Aburesz 19:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; I didn't realize consensus came to those conclusions. However, I think there should be a notice at the top of the article indicating that non-standard capitalization is used; otherwise it's going to be be prone to future editing, most likely. -Eep² _(Talk) 02:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

May 2007

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Mega Movers. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites ({{{url}}} in this case) or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Mega Movers with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Mega Movers with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:Mega Movers saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.

It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CIreland 05:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisted links

Hey there. I removed those links because when I tried to prod Conspiracy Con the first time, I got a notice saying that those links were spam and I couldn't edit the page until they were removed, so I removed them. I'm unsure as to why it told me that they were spam but you were able to add them back. Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What the hell? Why did you nominate it for deletion? Sheesh! -Eερ² ^(T|C) 21:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mega Movers

I placed the text in User:Eep²/Mega Movers as requested. I modified this so that the categories and such do not show up in the main name space. Vegaswikian 21:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard C. Hoagland

I'm one of the principal editors of this article (and paradoxically one of the chief advocates for its deletion). Give me a better clue what you mean by the citation style tag and I'll see if I can acommodate you. Cheers. El Ingles 14:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I just mean having inline references like "[1]" vs. the <ref></ref> style--that's the inconsistency. I just flagged the article as a friendly suggestion. -Єερ² ^(τ|c) 20:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Account

Would you mind registering User:Eep2 and then redirecting that userpage to your userpage? Then people could actually reach it directly. —METS501 (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "directly"? I just copy-paste the "²" (since typing "alt+01"--the beginning of the extended ASCII control code alt+0178 to make the squared symbol--tends to cause Firefox to create a blank page, oddly). [[User:Eep%C2%B2]] works too (unfortunately, [[Eep²]] does not). You can also find the ² in the symbols list under MediaWiki edit boxes. -Єερ² ^(τ|c) 14:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I recommend registering it either way to avoid someone else doing so down the line to try to confuse people. DreamGuy 05:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to say thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia and I hope you keep up the good work. I know it can be challenging or frustrating dealing with some of the people who try to hold you back from sharing things on Wikipedia. In my opinion there is a lot of biased sensorship that goes on here, as it is such with society and Wikipedia is run as a democracy, where any member of society can not only contribute but impose their beleifs.

The article on the Flower of Life was an uninformative stub when I came upon it and if you visit it now, you will see the large amount of work I did on it. I had to spend a lot of time fighting to not have my work deleted, as there was particularly one individual who wished to sensor everything I'd written. I have had plenty of similar experiences with other articles and have had many deleted. I mention all of this, so that you know where I'm coming from.

So for the record I am being sincere and I really am just trying to thank you and encourage you to keep writing. I am especially interested in the Photon Belt article and would like to see more done on that. I would like to know of any evidence to back up the theory, whether scientific, parascientific, historical, spirutual or whatever else. There should probably be a section in the article dedicated just to that.

Anyway, thanks again. See you 'round. sloth_monkey 03:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Sloth, thanks for the nice comments. You're the "Jota" guy. :P I'm interested in trying to get that article restored, but it will need secondary sources besides Maxwell's in order to have a chance getting past consensorship. A preliminary Google search didn't turn up much about it though, but it does seem to have meaning in Croatian, Spanish, and Finnish. Anyway, you might be interested in WikiProject Paranormal and Wikipedia:WikiProject Occult if you're interested in things like what Jordan Maxwell says. It seems to be an uphill battle getting these kinds of topics into Wikipedia (especially with all the existing crap here now about obscure sports and so many math formulas it's ridiculous but I think so long as things can be sourced sufficiently, and shown overall relevance to things, such topics will make it on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it seems to take a lot more research in order to make connections between seemingly unrelated things--but it's possible. Good job on the Flower of Life article; the photon belt took a couple weeks to research well enough before I thought it had a chance of being restored, but I'm still working on tracing its origins before Hesse--it may go back to Native American Indian myth, but I haven't been able to confirm that. Anyway, hang in there and try and find more people interested in things you are, then have them join one of the projects so we can band together and support each other when the going gets tough. :) ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 06:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Template thanks

Thanks for the cleanup on the fictionlist and fictioncruft templates. DreamGuy 05:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No prob. :) ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 06:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A note in your support

Hello Eep. I've written in support of you at your review. In my comment I pointed out that, although you and I completely disagree about everything, I feel Wikipedia needs lively characters like yourself and hoped that no action would be taken against you. I admire your energy and commitment and I'm sure you'll learn in time, as we all do, that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Good luck with it. I look forward to crossing swords with you on many future occasions! Nick mallory 08:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh; thanks. I may be a bit rough on the outside but underneath I aspire to be seamless. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 10:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

templates overview

hey there, I see you're changing the uw- overview page, for what reason. your edit summary says about background colours, but only the blocks have built in background colours. cheers ^Khukri 11:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The templates have built-in background colors but custom stylesheets can't override (as far as I know) embedded styles (such as background colors), so I removed them so a user's default background colors are not overidden. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 11:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Righto, so how do you see them then? When we did them we assumed that it would take on the background of the skin you chose, for me it's the bog standard light blue. Cheers ^Khukri 11:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, as my edit comments specified, I saw/see them as almost bright white. I use the "simple" skin so maybe that screws up something with the style codes--I don't know. But, to inherit the background you would use "style=background:inherit;" and not specify a specific color, in this case it was almost bright white. Annoying--especially on a darker default background like I use. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 11:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

{{Conspiracy-stub}}

Hi - I see you have recently created a new stub type. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Discoveries/Log/2007/May#.7B.7BConspiracy-stub.7D.7D_.2F_Cat:Conspiracy_stubs, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 02:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I replied there. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 03:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Mysteries

Without being rude, I would like to point out that the major guideline about DAB's is, that they are not linked to and are only accessible to a user that stumbles upon them. Apart from the proposed move of the DAB page, the links thereto should be relinked or removed. Let this be an invitation to continue this discussion on Talk:Mystery. -Catneven 20:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Inclusionist Wikipedians Cat link fix

Thanks much, I hadn't noticed. --Milton 03:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No prob. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 03:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

United States Bullion Depository merge

The proposal was to remove the content from the Fort Knox article and point to the Conspiracy theories section in the USBD article where the same content was duplicated. That's what the consensus was and that's what I did. Look again. --rogerd 13:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

See discussion on Talk:United States Bullion Depository#Conspiracy theory merge; please reply there. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 20:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Background colors

Hi. I see you've been experimenting with the CSS background property at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy Con. (Actually, we're not supposed to make any changes to closed discussions. I suggest you set up a personal 'sandbox' page — at User:Eep²/Sandbox, for example — and use it instead.)

Let me share with you some of my hard-won knowledge of background. (One of the MediaWiki developers has called background "sneaky", and he's right.)

• It's a "shorthand" property: it sets a whole bunch of individual properties at once (background-color, background-image, background-repeat, background-attachment, and background-position).
• Saying (for example) “background: none” sets the background-image property, since “none” cannot be used for any of the other background properties.
• However, when you use a shorthand property, CSS sets all the individual properties to their initial values then sets the values you specify. So “background: none” is short for:

background-image: none; background-color: transparent; background-repeat: repeat; background-attachment: scroll; background-position: 0% 0%

• The initial value of background-color, “transparent”, means “use the underlying background color”.
• “inherit” is an exception: “background: inherit” is equivalent to

background-image: inherit; background-color: inherit; background-repeat: inherit; background-attachment: inherit; background-position:inherit

• As if that's not complicated enough, not all browsers support CSS properly. In particular, version 6 of Internet Explorer does not support “background-color: inherit”. (I think current versions of IE do, but not everyone has upgraded.) So it's best to never use “background: inherit”.
• So “background: none” gets you the underlying background, while “background: white” forces a white background.
• At Wikipedia, you can use “class: same-bg” to get the underlying background. This CSS class is defined in MediaWiki:Common.css as “{ background: none; }”. (See MediaWiki talk:Common.css/Archive 2#Proposal: class same-bg for discussion of this class.)

I hope this helps. Feel free to ask me more question's here (I'll watch this page for a week or so) or at my talk page. Cheers, CWC 09:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info but I wasn't experimenting, per se; I just don't like having forced white/bright backgrounds thrust onto me. I override most of them via a custom stylesheet at User:Eep²/simple.css but I haven't figured out how to override in-line CSS properties such as those used on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy Con. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 11:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry about the info-dump.

I suggest adding “!important” to the settings, as in
 {background:none !important;}
See here for the gory details. Cheers, CWC 15:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Links to "mystery"

Re: your edits to Discover Magazine (TV series).

Calling WP:DAB "only a guideline" is one thing; when you revert 3 editors to get your preferred version, and it also conflicts with the guideline, it's a sign the guideline has support in that particular case. It is generally recognized that overlinking (linking more than 10% of the words in an article) and linking more general terms from more specific articles are not good things to do. Here's another link you may want to look at: WP:CONTEXT#What generally should not be linked. In addition, linking to Duh in the edit summaries of your reversions is not WP:CIVIL and leaving such comments is unlikely to bring anyone around to your point of view.

"Mystery" is not the only word in these articles that has been linked without reason: there is unlikely to ever be an article on the Lost in Time episode of Discover, but the blue link there leads readers to a page where they can select from completely unrelated articles. Speed isn't a disambiguation page, but still sends readers a place they won't want to go. Please consider these things when making links. If someone removes links from these articles, it may be with good reason. Dekimasuよ! 11:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I know what I was doing when linking--one look at the edit history can reveal that, Dek--sheesh. I don't agree with the opposal to DAB page-linking; it's more of a pain in the ass having to wikitionary basic terms/phrases than to simply just link to them on Wikipedia and let the term/phrase's article have a link to Wikitionary. Regardless, Lost in Time has multiple applications of that phrase, not just a TV show. As for civility, it is as it does--it's a 2-way street (think relatively)--you want civility from me? Show civility to me, dig? Otherwise you're just another hypocrite. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 14:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to follow through on your disagreement with the guideline, you can start a discussion about the guideline. To revert multiple editors (four now) to keep an article page the way you want shows a disregard for consensus. It should not be necessary to link basic terms, either on Wikipedia or on Wiktionary. If a user doesn't know what "fear" means, a link to the article from the name of a Discover Magazine epsiode is not going to help. Taking a bottom-up approach to changing standard linking procedure is going to cause everyone who comes across the irregular versions to change them in the same way we've been doing... and I don't see any evidence that anyone has been less than civil to you in the process. Changing someone's text in the mainspace and insulting people in edit summaries are different things. Dekimasuよ! 00:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

See set index article. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 10:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course I support having set index articles. I have just been discussing creating that type of page for Editor, which is currently a dab, and I have created others in the past. Having set index articles in Wikipedia and linking to them out of context are different things (and Mystery, the main page that has caused the little conflict here, isn't an index article). Dekimasuよ! 11:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, how isn't mystery an index article? It has a list of links to articles relating to "mystery" that include other names in the article/link name. That is a set index article! ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 11:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A disambiguation page is not an article, and links users to pages related by similarity in title. A set index article is an article, and links users to pages related by similarity in both title and content. Dekimasuよ! 12:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This is just a small note to let you know that I've nominated set index article for deletion because it is a cross-namespace redirect. Dekimasuよ! 13:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Dashes (as in Zecharia Sitchin)

I have nothing against m-dashes, but you may wish to look at the house style guide. Spaced n-dashes as a perfectly acceptable alternative. See also here. garik 12:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Be sure to see my reply to it there too. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 14:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Be sure to see mine! The issue of whether to use a spaced en dash or an em dash (spaced or otherwise) is really a matter of taste or house style. garik 15:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Overlinking

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to Discover Magazine (TV series), you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. -- JHunterJ 18:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The links I made are relevant to the context. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 08:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for edit-warring against consensus at Discover Magazine (TV series) for a period of twenty-four hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 12:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Eep² (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

hypocracy--see Talk:Discover Magazine (TV series)#links, Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#disagreement_about_linking_to_dictionary_DABs, and Talk:Mystery (which started all of this nonsense)--the admin jumped-the-gun, despite me being ganged up on yet again...

Decline reason:

Appears to be a violation of WP:3RR. Additionally, as noted below, this is not the only one. — Yamla 14:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The reverts were with different people and never occured 3 times with the same person. Whatever, tyrants. Oh and I fixed the links you convienently forgot to leave in tact. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 15:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Upon further review, there appears to be a separate 3RR violation at Mystery today. Dekimasuよ! 12:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you enjoy being a little gopher for your wiktator overlords? ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 15:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks on other editors, as above and elsewhere today.[4] You've been warned repeatedly about this behavior, it's been the subject of an RfC, and you've been blocked for it previously. If there's a repetition you will be blocked indefinitely. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Civility

I don't appreciate your response to my comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. I tried to point out my opinion in a respectful, non-attacking way; and your response starts with "The actions of recent reversions to my edits shows the hypocracy of what you wrote above." Do you know what "hypocrisy" means? It does not mean expressing an opinion that is inconsistent with someone else's actions. I have not reverted any of your edits, so your accusation is incorrect on its face. When you throw around accusatory terms so loosely, it is not surprising that other editors have called you disruptive and incivil. --Russ (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If you didn't act hypocritical, why take offense to what I said? My comment was not specifically directed to you but to anyone who acted like a hypocrite, of which I could name names, but I felt, in the interest of "civility" (whatever), I'd leave it up to the reader to figure it out. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 13:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

EEP, I really don't want for you to be blocked. You make so many positive contributions to the project. Yet civility is one of our core values. If you're nasty to other editors and scare them off then that won't do. Please be nice. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 11:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Civility is as civility does, Will. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 13:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, don't mind him. As a fellow Active Worlds citizen, Eep² is just being Eep² as has been for years. He is just being, shall I say, "brutally" blunt. We might just as well consider him one of those, err, drill sergeants barking like those in boot camp at Wikipedia. Might as well consider that in diversity among people of differing characters and with their differing views of how things ought to be handled. Anyway, that's my perspective of Eep² drawing on my experiences as a fellow Active Worlds citizens since I became one of them in May 1999. Oh, by the way, Eep², you may or may not remember me as Legion (#299274). Enjoy your stay at Wikipedia. ;D --Legion 05:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh--hey, Legion; nice to see you here. Thanks for the support--I think. :o ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 05:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. I am unhappy that you have accused me of "wikistalking" for having nominated the Set index article redirect for deletion. I wouldn't have noticed that Set index article was a new and inappropriate redirect if you hadn't linked it in the course of insulting me in one of your comments; no stalking was necessary. Likewise, your violations of the 3RR wouldn't have come to my attention if you hadn't reverted/insulted several other users to the extent that they asked for my assistance. I have attempted to retain a professional tone with you while being called a "gopher", "tyrant", "wiktator", and "dense"; that I am "copping out", "clueless", and need links to duh to help me understand disambiguation. Frankly, your editing in these areas over the past few days has shown a sheer disregard for current guidelines and policy, and it hasn't been accompanied by any attempt to reach a new consensus or accept input from the rest of the community. If civility is as civility does, you are not doing civility. I fear that I erred when I entered this discussion in an editorial capacity rather than an administrative one. Dekimasuよ! 14:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

List of titles with "Darker" in them

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article List of titles with "Darker" in them, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Pan Dan 13:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)