User talk:ESkog/ArchiveC

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

Tom McMahon

Does that look pretty much wwhat the external link said? Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illogical Bans

I am a newuser. I have edited and added text to one page (apart from this one) and that was a page I created from scratch about The Cinderella Movement. I logged in today to place some information about a major nautical poet and find I am blocked by you because of something done by someone called 3 Lions. I am one person in one building using one machine. No one else has access to my machine or my id. Why am I banned? If I have done anything wrong (and as a new-boy I suppose that is possible) it was accidental and only affected work I had created. I hope I am a mature responsible person with a reasonable knowledge and a wish to share. So please explain why I cannot share on this sight and why i am insulted and labelled as a vandal for something I did not do. Codfangler 12:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)codfangler[reply]

Re: Illogical Bans

While I certainly do sympathize with your plight, you must understand that these wiki self-important overlord are nothing more than jackasses with too much time on there hands. This guy will never admit he has made a mistake. At best he will offer you the same invitation he has made to me and countless others -- submit your page again and take your chances. Good luck... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.80.194.19 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted ;)

Hi! I'm thankful you had the style and idea to remove that phrase from an article i've edited. The phrase just popped in my mind while editing, but I can in now way support it's use. I can agree that it's not good style. Oh, the article: contrast ratio Santtus 17:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you! I HATE that evil verbal tic that infests this encyclopedia, and have developed a severe allergy to it. I eliminate it whenever I can, but with a dial-up account at home there's only so much I can do. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't strictly need broadband, but loading many articles so as to make small changes can be relatively time-consuming on dial-up. You spend more time downloading than editing. I'll look into AWB though, if it will speed things up. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that I agree with you 100%. -- Dominus 17:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see I'm not the only one! I wonder if it'd be possible to make this a bot-assisted process; 99% of the time all that needs to be done is delete 'It should be noted that...' or 'Notably...' and capitalise the next letter, with just a manual approval for that edit. --Calair 01:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pre-sales

Thank you, by the way, for reverting Category:Pre-sales for me. I know I didn't say it at the time, but I appreciated the help. -Harmil 18:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CTMU

Hello—sorry to bother you. I notice you just closed a contentious 93 KB AfD as "delete" without providing an explanation. Would you mind taking a second look? The article was in a state of edit war for the whole course of the AfD. It was edited over 140 times during the discussion, with huge blocks of text being inserted, deleted, and reverted on less than a moment's notice. Depending on when users viewed it, they could have seen an article anywhere from 9 KB to 27 KB in size, with anywhere from 7 to 12 sections, 5 to 12 references, and 0 to 42 footnotes. The particular transitory version viewed makes a crucial difference to many of the justifications: a user dissatisfied with 5 references might have approved 12, a user calling the article unverifiable with 0 footnotes might have accepted 42; a user calling the 27 KB version gibberish might have found the 9 KB version to be more intelligible. In such a situation, consensus would have to be very solid to justify deletion, and that's not what I see in the debate. Thanks for your time. Tim Smith 02:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Thank you! Your Delete decision has restored any doubts I may have had about AFD editors' judgment. KarenAnn 12:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for the revert on my talkpage :) GeorgeMoney ^(talk) 09:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salvador's Ice Cream

The Salvador's Ice Cream article was being discussed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvador's Ice Cream. You deleted the discussion on 02:07, 20 July 2006. Was this accidental (deleted the afd rather than the article)? Yomangani 16:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arena Football external links

Looks like Aflnews.com is adding his links back in, albeit slowly. I have had a similar discussion with the webmaster of Arena Fan Online on my talkpage. Basically, he says that he used himself as a reference, therefore justifying the self-link. He has linked off of 100 pages [1]; a few have exclusive information, while the bulk are just vanity links. No doubt it has contributed to his high placement in Google [2]. I don't have the time to get into a revert war, but what (if anything) should be done? —Twigboy 18:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the links again as spam, and discuss with other admins about perhaps getting the site listed on the blacklist. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still looking for an explanation as to why the ArenaFan links consitute spam and not relevent external links. From the external links definition page under "What should be linked to

5. # Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.

So please explain why the ArenaFan links don't fit that category. Also, ArenaFan has been tops on google long before any of the links were put in Wikipedia. It seems to me that Wikipedia gets top listings on google by virtue of all the sites that link to it, so that as an excuse seems like a double-standard. Nolesrule 20:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that the comparison used is not comparing Apples to Apples. There is a difference between sites like "aflnews.com" and ArenaFan. aflnews.com is basically a "fan site" started by one person, while ArenaFan Online is a "Media" site: they have dozens of writers who go to games as members of the media, there is content found there that was researched by ArenaFan themselves, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dletter (talk • contribs) 20:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:External links: we should not be linking to [l]inks that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that that require payment to view the relevant content. See External link spamming. The page is covered with Flash ads and there were three distinct pop-under ads that broke through my popup blocker. I shudder to think what the page looks like in IE. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArenaFan does NOT primarily exist to sell a product or service. You can read the "About Us" page to know the dedicated people that run the website. ArenaFan certainly isn't the only website on the internet that is information based that also has advertising as its main (or only) method of making money to cover their server and other costs (however minor), so, that isn't a "reason". I am personally appalled by your connecting ArenaFan with a site that basically exists to just "show ads" or "google links", as ArenaFan is clearly not that. Your disinterest in the subject of Arena Football does not mean you shouldn't look into WHY the links were created in the first place... as I also copy below the text I posted to TMC1982's page, which should have been posted here. Please explain why you removed the link from THAT page, considering the facts below.

(Removed from TMC's page): TMC1982, I noticed you (A) Created the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_ArenaBowl_broadcasters&action=history page originally, and then (B) Removed the link to Arenafan on 13 June 2006 on the page. I have readded that link as a citation, as that page is where you got your information in the first place (as can be proven by Google searches and the intenet wayback machine search), and should have been cited as such in the first place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dletter (talk • contribs) 20:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I find that the page has "objectionable amounts of advertising" which is one of the criteria on that list. Of course, if it is cited as the source for an article, that's acceptable, but it shouldn't be pointed to from every article we have which tangentially references the subject. I also find it interesting that you decide I'm "disinterest[ed] in the subject" - quite the contrary. Not all AFL fans enjoy aggressive web advertising. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MLB - this is only three examples of other league pages that have dozens of "external links" at the end of the articles, many with as much (or more) "objectionable amounts of advertising". Seems that either those pages should be trimmed down to about 2-3 official links each, or you should explain why you have some sort of vindetta against ArenaFan. If you want to argue against some of the links I saw that were put up (i.e., on player "stub" pages), I won't argue against those being taken down. I don't see the difference though between "ArenaFan" on the Arena Football League page and "InsideHoops.com" being linked on the Wikipedia NBA page.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dletter (talk • contribs) 22:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. In fact, you are welcome to help keep those external links clean yourself, in case I don't get there in time. Incidentally, you can sign your own posts much easier by just inserting 4 tildes like this: ~~~~ (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that...

...I entirely support you crusade to get rid of this useless phrase. Keep up the good work! Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar removed to main userpage

‎Jeigan (archetype)

• In an AFD you closed recently here, I had also nominated another article (Jeigan (archetype)) in the same AFD. Could you please complete the deletion? Thanks! Wickethewok 05:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon edits on Naked Short Selling

Please take a look, when you get a chance. Note the sudden edit warring by four similar, new IPs. Note also the WP:NPA "vandalism" edit summary and also this bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.102.186.11&diff=65226030&oldid=65216831 from this same new IP.--Mantanmoreland 14:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your msg. Note the IP has escalated to fabricating comments on his/her user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.102.186.11&action=history

Note also that he has already reverted Naked Short Selling five times today under his various related IPs. --Mantanmoreland 18:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Individual Counter-Strike maps

Hi Eskog, I made a comment in the Counter-Strike maps AFD about the deletion of the articles, I'm copying and pasting it here:

• To Closing Administrator - If you think there consensus to delete, then could you redirect the articles to the main Counter-Strike maps article instead of deleting them outright. The information in their history will go toward improving the main article up to and above the standards at Multiplayer in Halo: Combat Evolved and List of Battlefield 2 maps - Hahnchen 17:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to undelete the content of the maps and then to redirect them as above? You could lock the redirects if possible. I don't think something like Multiplayer in Halo: Combat Evolved or List of Battlefield 2 maps is too cruftacular. Thanks. - Hahnchen 16:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think. Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you on these maps. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thanks again for nominating me. I've accepted the nom and answered the questions. Btw, despite my opinions on the subject matter of the Runescape articles on AFD, I do concur with your "no consesus", as opinions seem to be too varied for this particular grouping of articles. Good close and reasoning imo. Wickethewok 16:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted

I disagree. "It should be noted" means something like "even though", "nonetheless", "however", "by the way", "this doesn't change because of the fact that".

Example: The Earth is flat. Blah blah blah blah.

It should be noted that the exact meaning of the words "Earth" and "flat" is a subject of controversy. Blah blah blah (another paragraph).--194.145.161.227 20:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for answering. BTW, I do think that it is sort of too poor in meaning and too long as a phrase, so it is often a good idea to do without it. --194.145.161.227 21:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Livewire Image

Hello, I noticed that you were the admin who closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Livewire (game). There was also an image associated with the article --> Image:Livewire (game).gif . The image is no longer linked to anything. Should this image also be deleted? Is this something that I should be requesting via either WP:CSD or WP:IFD? Thanks --Brian G 14:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was easier that I thought! Thanks! --Brian G 17:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry!

But I had had the 1/2 main namespace thing for 4 or 5 days... then today I adopted the 7/24 Wikipedia rule today. Infact here is when I'm going to run for RFA:

• Total:6000
• Main:3000
• Wikipedia:1750
• Other:1250

And if you'll except my apology I'll go change that vote now (on good encounter overrides standards. :) ). GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 21:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

OOOPS

I thought you were on RFA. GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 21:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately

Of course, it is always POV, there is never a case when it's a good thing something didn't happen, like, I don't know, that someone was killed. Please stop forcing your own personal pet peeves on everybody on Wikipedia. If you don't like using certain quirks of language in your own writing and on the pages that you edit then that is fine, but this business of using AWB to make mass changes to every page on Wikipedia is stupid. Suoerh2 21:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That are blatantly obvious and uncontested in everyones view. Please stop patronizing me. Following your porous line of reasoning here is a little argument. The inclusion of any piece of text in the Wikipedia is implicit declaration that that piece of text is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Therefore the inclusion of that text is POV, as some people may think that it is not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Therefore every piece of text in Wikipedia should be removed. Suoerh2 22:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to take more care & less automation with your current crusade. The claim that "[fortunately] is always POV" is simply not true. Constructions of the form "fortunately X happened to Y" are very likely to be POV (unless there is universal acceptance that this was a good thing), but constructions of the form "fortunately for Y, X happened" are quite likely to be mere statements of fact. It doesn't matter if Z was disappointed by X; all we are saying is that Y was happy with it, Z's opinion is not being discussed (but will quite often be implied anyway) -- Securiger 07:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It should be noted

"It should be noted" is often used by inexperienced users to add some text that they feel should be noted. And usually it is not needed, but rather the contribution should be rewritten into one coherent line of text. But there are still some uses of "it should be noted" that aren't bad. I've heard the phrase used by well respected news agencies and others. This is why I feel that the best way to treat "it should be noted" is not used an automated tool like AWB but by hand on a case-by-case basis, so that rewritten can take place where needed, and deletion can take place where needed. Last time I checked bots weren't capable of rewriting two paragraphs coherently into one paragraph. Suoerh2 22:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: Buggin Malone

Dear ESkog, a few days ago you closed the AfD debate I linked above, pending to my promise of a deeper research on the subject's notability. After digging deeper into it, I have reached the conclusion that it fails to meet the criteria detailed at WP:MUSIC. To the many correct reasons expressed by several editors at the debate (little significance of the award he received, unavailability of his works at major stores, etc.), I must also add a complete lack of notability and knowledge among the vast majority of Native American communities in the U.S., as well as little or no importance in such musical scene. I went as far as to ask to a friend of mine who runs a space on Native American music at a major radio station [3] to look into it, but to no avail: nobody has heard of him, not to mention his complete absence in terms of airing. It is for these reasons that I recommend to keep this article deleted, unless further information that escapes my knowledge could be provided; or the subject's notability increases, of course! :) Have a great day, Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 23:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm practising necrophilic bestial masochism

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who New Series 3 (second nomination)

But sometimes floggin a dead horse just has to be done.

Leaving aside for the moment the consensus for outright deletion, the case for keeping based upon GFDL is weak. The total changes in the article when compared with the putative source are not unique enough to be protected under GFDL, which does not cover "facts" per se. We don't have to preserve everything.

Coming back to the clear consensus question... Forgive me for being frank for just a moment, but clearly this is "symbolic" in some way to the players involved. *cough* Not me, of course. *cough* Do we really want to reward this kind of wikilawyering?

brenneman ^{L} 06:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*grin* Ahh well, next time I'll just be less circumspect. Thanks for humouring my peccadillos enough to respond.
brenneman ^{L} 22:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Williams

Thanks for cleaning up the information regarding his decision to move from Kansas to UNC. I had added this information quite hastily to get the information up since I it relates to some issues I have been having with another editor in the Dean Smith article. I was planning on cleaning it up later, but you beat me to the punch. Remember 15:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earls of Dublin

You illogically deleted a page with lots of proper references and you have wasted a valuable opprtunity in doing so. I have alunched a page elsewhere. Lorddublin 22:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from Yogani

Thanks much for moving the AfD article to my user page. I'll get it cleaned up for that purpose. Best regards. Yogani 16:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hillman/Dig

Hi, recently we both participated in the deletion review on CTMU in which you mentioned the problems posed by socks. You might be interested in this MfD, which is a consequence of threats by User:DrL and User:Tim Smith to have me blocked for allegedly violating the privacy of DrL (talk · contribs) and Asmodeus (talk · contribs) by my documentation at User:Hillman/Dig/Langan. ---CH 23:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:1ne's stub template

A couple of things about this. Firstly, the template is essentially the same as Maoririder's in that it is an attempt to split geography stubs by landform type (specifically, by mountains). As far as Maoririder's stub templates being deleted because they were text only, this is not true. Several of them were adopted and fixed up. Restaurant-stub is one such stub. Mountain-stub, however, was deemed to be an inappropriate way to split geography stubs, and it was for that reason that it was deleted. As it says at WP:STUB, "For example, geography stubs are sorted by country so you wouldn't want to create mountain-stub or river-stub". In other words, the type created is specifically mentioned as one not to be created. As to listing it at TFD, the place to list it is at WP:SFD, where it was listed prior to the speedy deletion. Grutness...wha? 06:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wickethewok's RFA

Thanks for your kind nomination for my RFA. The final vote count was (61/9/3), so I am now an administrator. I'll be doing my best to do you and Wikipedia proud. Feel free to let me know how I'm doing at any point in time. Once again, thank you. Wickethewok 15:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Stadler

I think we need to put an end to this suffering and pain of the middle east bombings, by stick, since the carrot has become to chewed up and wasted. Thank you for reading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.136.83.33 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Britxbox entry...6 Aug 2006 20:32 GMT

Just noticed you deleted the Britxbox entry on Wikipedia...any chance you could drop me a mail to [e-mail] to explain why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BXBMike (talk • contribs) 19:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• I can't find any deleted article by that name. Are you sure you have the title correct? (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• URL for the entry was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britxbox - I had linked it from my blog and that's what I get when I click on the link from my blog. I can't find the entry with a search. I wondered why it had been deleted.

Louis Farrakhan

I was wondering if you had any thoughts on a repeated pattern of edits such as this by the same user? --Mantanmoreland 02:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. As you can see, you were reverted yet again. I and another editor were deleting this same OR but this one editor kept reverting, and is still doing so, even when it meant violating 3RR.--Mantanmoreland 13:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Fundamental Surprise

I was wondering why you deleted Fundamental Surprise. From my research i found that it was neither advertising nor original research. When searching for the term on Google Scholar i found many sources explaining Fundamental Surprise. How would i request for this page to be undeleted?--Ispivak22 08:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental Surprise on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Fundamental Surprise. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

--Ispivak22 08:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L.Farrakhan

Again the OR. [4] I'm not out of reverts but I am out of patience.--Mantanmoreland 21:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Smith article and edits by Duke53

I was wondering if you could help me deal with the issues associated with the Dean Smith article and the edits of Duke53. You seem to have a lot more experience on wikipedia and can probably handle the situation better than I. Remember 23:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did a great job. I really appreciate your contribution to making the article better all around. I would give you some type of star if I knew how. Remember 02:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quality, Please

Say, is it too much to ask that you follow the quidelines of wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and focus on Quality (http://www.p2pnet.net/story/9530) instead of simply editing the wiki because someone accidently stepped on some lame admin rule? Forrest for the trees... baby with the bathwater... Any of that ring a bell??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.80.194.19 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion June 9th.

Yeah, I'm not really sure what happened there. I'm changing my pw just in case, but that was likely a really bad accident. I'm not a vandal. Yikes! :D. Thanks for pointing that out, though.

[e-mail] 06:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Trolling

Dear eskog. For the record, I did not make the comments for which you seem to attribute to me. I do see that you have edited your page at this location to remove my actual comment about your lack of professionalism. How appropriate. In the future, when you respond to me, please be kind enough to respond re the actual comment I have made, and not the complaint of another user. (I have kept your response, below, and the comment you incorrectly attibuted to me, simply for your education -- I have no doubt that you'll edit this page again and remove my unfavorable comments. I must wonder how many other unfavorable comments from other users you have likewise removed...)

I admire your attempts to fight back against the power mad wikipedophiles which rule this website with an iron fist (however futile they may be). I personally saw nothing wrong with your edits. As always, when confronted with a mistake, a wikipedophile will always play the troll card. 68.69.194.125 01:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.80.194.19 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of the list of Hollywood Republican's

--RhodeIslandRob 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Why was this list deleted from the site? I went on today to check the list and noticed that it had been taken down along with several others. I understand it is hard to verify each and everyone's political affiliation but each member of that list was nearly right on with being affiliated with the Republican party. I hope that if verification was your reason for taking it down then so be it but more research is all that is needed to confirm if one is affiliated and that it was not taken down because someone has a gripe with a certain political party. I am requesting that this list be re-instated on this site.[reply]

Please look

at the comment I added to the Fair Use Policy page. --Blue Tie 03:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]