User talk:ESkog/Archive6

Apologies
i apologize, this IP address is a school network address and everyone is subject to use it, so i have no idea who did this. 168.16.190.72 01:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page and banning the anon. Unfortunatly, this anon has a vendetta against me and has a history of vandalizing my userpage. He's been banned a couple of times already.--KrossTalk 01:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson
Hi User:151.213.167.25 is continually removing a sentance from the Michael Jackson article that consensus has agreed should stay. I have already reverted twice today. Could you revert back? I have also reported him on WP:AIV as he has had numerous warnings CheersFunky Monkey 02:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for watching over my user page. I appreciate it! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 04:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry, he edited one of my remarks on a talk page, and no one seemed to take issue from it, so I assumed it was standard procedure. It won't happen again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.147.115.42 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This IP is apparently AKA Imav whose uncivil comment I refactored at Talk:Lost, as per the Remove personal attacks guideline. Thanks for reverting his vandalism of my page. -- LeflymanTalk 02:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Adminship?
Would you be interested in a nomination for adminship? You seem like you've been fighting vandals for about 3 months, which is most people's minimum, and built up enough edits as well as balance of edits that I think you'd have a good chance of success. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for considering me. I've been thinking about it, and I think I'd like to hold off on an RfA for a few weeks or so. I'll be sure to let you know when I feel I'm ready for a nomination. Thanks again!&#160;—  The KMan  talk  03:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandal report
Regarding your edit here. It's not 3RR. I'm reporting him based on this (specifically "Improper use of dispute tags"). He has done other improper acts, but he has clearly violated this. AucamanTalk 03:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Aucaman is himself in violation of wikipedia rules and regulations. I have even warned him, and he removed my warnings from his Talk. He is in a minority on Persians. The majority of users on Talk:Persian_people (ManiF, Kash, Tajik, Zmmz, Amir85, Gol, Aytakin, 194.170.175.5) have fully addressed his concerns and voiced their opinion in favour of the version which he continues to revert to his preferred version without a consensus. That's called Sneaky vandalism. He also keeps placing a dispute tag on the page to bully his POV despite the fact that his concerns have already been addressed on Talk:Persian_people by different users citing different sources, which again is a clear violation of policies and regulations of wikipedia. Furthermore, Aucaman has broeken the The Three-revert rule (or 3RR) on more than one occasion. --ManiF 03:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As you can see he even follows me wherever I go! I'm not sure what to do with him. I've already told him to stop, but he continues to post messages on my talk page, constantly threatening me. It is interfering with my ability to edit articles efficiently. If he's not stopped from following me and undoing every edit I made, I'll have to leave Wikipedia for a while. AucamanTalk 04:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to bother you again. I'd like to mention that despite the fact that you turned down Aucaman's request against me, he keeps posting the same thing on different administrators' talk page which shows his determination to have his own way. That attitude is exactly the problem here, which creates conflicts for him and he's been in many conflicts with many users because of it. --ManiF 04:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Question
Sorry to bother you again, but I think it would be fair if you at least give me an explanation of what just happened. I seldom report vandalism and I've never seen anything like this. Isn't removing dispute tags when there are ongoing disputes in the talk page considered vandalism? Isn't what User:ManiF has done exactly that? (I put up the dispute tag less than 2-3 days ago and explained my reasoning. As of right now none of my concerns have been addressed and my edits constantly get reverted.) I'm sorry, but what you did is giving some people the idea that removing dispute tags is perfectly fine. AucamanTalk 06:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Aucaman's concerns have been addressed by the majority of the users on Talk:Persian_people who have provided countless authoritative sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Iranica and Columbia Encyclopedia to counter his argument. Aucaman, however, is not interested in a discussion and is simply abusing the dispute system, and pushing his point of view, despite the majority's disapproval of his actions. There has been a majority consensus in place for some time now, but Aucaman is acting very stubborn, refuses to accept the majority's will supported by authoritative sources, and insists on getting his own way. This is in clear violation of wikipedia rules:

''Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus.''

Regards --ManiF 10:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

== 64.107.220.178 (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log]) ==

I noticed your block, and I looked at the contributions of this IP, and I'm not entirely sure. The catapult bot is feeding off the list given at WP:SQUID and I can't vouch for the accuracy of what's already included there. However IMO it's better to err on the side of caution in the case of squidward, and block anybody who even pretends to be squidward until further notice. On the other hand it's possible that this IP performed squidward vandalism on an article which has since been deleted (since squidward selects at random), and thus the pattern vandalism doesn't show up in the contribs, who knows? — Mar. 1, '06 [03:44] 

Your help appreciated
Would you be able to lock/protect the page Persians as Aucaman and a few other politically motivated individuals persist on vandalizing it despite a clear majority consensus on Talk:Persian_people? --ManiF 03:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Anon Or Test?
Hi, you have asked User:203.32.121.131 to stop vandalising using template. I thought this template was reserved for registered users and that the template was intended for unregistered users. Am I wrong? Maikel 11:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR Question
I never got a clear answer from you. Isn't removing dispute tags when there's ongoing talk on the talk page considered vandalism? Well, all I have done is reverting vandalism. Did I have any other choice but to put the tags back in when there is a dispute? AucamanTalk 16:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I did believe I was reverting vandalism. I was acting in accordance with this. Perhaps it should be changed to reflect what you're saying? It's clearly not saying that it only applies to nondisputes. It also says: "As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period." Well my tags were removed by the same person at least 7 times within 24 hrs and nothing happened. I just never engage in removing dispute tags unless the dispute is clearly over, and I thought that was a general rule. It makes sense to me. But thanks for the warning. In the future I'll find other ways of dealing with this, although I still believe if someone removes a dispute tag without cause another person should be able to put it back in without having to fear action under 3RR. Thanks, AucamanTalk 17:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi ESkog. I`m grateful you protected the Persian people article. However, if I may say so, it isn`t really fair since User:Aucaman in fact was repeatedly warned and he even erased one of the warnings given to him. This user has broken many rules and repeatedlyuses his POV, and had even used racist language numerous of time. I hope you can investigate this a bit further. Thanks.Zmmz 02:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: New pages and criteria for deletion
===>Gotcha Thanks. -Justin (koavf), talk 03:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of my RfA
Thank you for your support of my successful request for adminship. I am honoured that the nomination was supported unanimously and that the community expressed confidence that I would use the tools wisely. If you have any concerns please let me know on my talk page. Regards A Y  Arktos 20:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

User Diyako
Hi, I would like to draw your attention to this page regarding user Talk. This is a clear, and unfair personal attack: "In fact I am discussing with a racist Qashqai turk pasdar terrorist pro ahmadinejad who even do not recognize UN emblem and think it is PDK's" Diyako, 03:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC). I think this going too far, and I wish one the admins comes and clean-up some of these discussion pages. Thanks Zmmz 00:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Also in the same link he calls me khaene pastfetrat which is in Farsi (persian) a very bad word. He had several times more attacked me. They all call me with political words like separatist, nationalist, seccionist... everyday. My POV is they are afraid of Kurdish wikipedians and want to mispresent and block us. but they can't because they have done much worse.  D iyako Talk + 01:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I`m not sure if user Diyako is referring to me, but if he or she is, I have never said such a thing, nor ever attacked this or any other user. Rest assured of that ESkog. ThanksZmmz 01:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No I'm not refering to zamzam. Zerehsk. But i know Zereshk since long ago. I have no problem with zamzam. Sorry.  D iyako Talk + 04:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Jewish views of Jesus
I'm in the process of reorganizing the Talk page for the sake of coherence. I'm careful not to remove any information. Please assume good faith. And please, I feel like I'm being harassed by you. --Haldrik 18:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: Jewish Views of Jesus. Actually, I was in the process of pasting the missing bytes, which included the text called "Tests of a true or false prophet", when the revert interrupted the editing. --Haldrik 19:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sermon on the Mount, et al.
Well, it's my bedtime, but I hope whenever you come back, you notice all the furor that the guy you blocked for edit warring at Sermon on the Mount and Last Supper has been causing again with the exact same stuff at those same articles as well as at 3RR, now that his block's expired... He has even gone to the 5th or 6th revert within an hour on at least one of them, but apparently thinks he's justified ... Seems like I'm the only one watching any of those pages at the moment, where are all the admins when ya need 'em, I tell ya! ANyway, thanks for all your help... Regards, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

feel free to read up on this. Dispite all my attempts at discussion, Codex mearly reverts and then whines that no one will discuss the changes.... Take a loke at the notice board for a look at what is going on, since that is THE ONLY place that I have managed to get an open dialog with codex going.134.161.241.176 02:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to what you wrote on my talk page: Note, before the 24 hrs are up, he's come back now with another terminal (slightly different IP) and begun the edit warring again on Sermon on the Mount, in addition to leaving a totally ridiculous and confused report about my "vandalism" at Vandalism in progress -- where among other things, he says I "insist on debating", but I simultaneously "refuse to discuss" (which is it, I wonder?) --ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Fresh off his second block, he's just broken 3RR edit warring ad infinitum on the same articles, yet again, as well as had a semi-personal on attack reverted (see his talk page) I really don't know what he hopes to accomplish ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * again, since Codex refuses to discuss the changes, he is proforming simple vandalism, which I am correcting. I have left open discussions in plenty of places and references to the talk pages for the categories, particularily Abrahamic mythology, which he refuses to comment on. 134.161.241.176 19:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you...
Thank you for reverting my userpage when the anon vandalized it for a second time. I really appreciate it. ^_^ --Viridian {Talk} 02:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

MonkeyCMonkeyDo

 * MonkeyCMonkeyDo (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log])
 * 70.161.224.44 (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log])

Vandalized again, blocked. Also created hoax articles Takomanu and Hadi Tacosolavni. -- Curps 05:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this who I think it is?
Eric? It's Tristan.

Tristan 07:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr Hands
I have not submitted nonsense about Mr Hands. This is a well known video in the internet community and I felt I should inform people about it. Please feel free to view the video, and you will see that my entry is true. I merely wish to inform people so that they do not actually suffer the same fate of being linked to a seemly innocent video and can use wikipedia to find information about it instead.

I have just read the wikipedia rules for deletion and speedy deletion criterion and believe that this article does not break any rules. Please review the article. JaJake 22:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

vandal
could you block 203.87.98.23? they keep vandalizing on monsoon.--B.U. Football For Life|Talk 01:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop tormenting me
I am obese.... do you even know what its like to be 536 lbs and unable to stand up because you're so fat? I'm so heavy... I am miserable... I'm like a giant blob of adipose tissue. Please stop tormenting me. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.81.148.16 (talk &bull; contribs) 01:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did you use a picture of me for your article on obesity? My family sold that picture without my permission... I am so ashamed... I've grown even fatter since that picture was taken. I am a giant mass of garbage. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.81.148.16 (talk &bull; contribs) 01:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I am so heavy... so heavy... please help me.... please deliver me from my fat.... &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.81.148.16 (talk &bull; contribs) 01:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

?
Are the two Father Damien photos the same? 132.241.245.49 01:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for reverting my user page after it was vandalized. I think this may have been the payback after I removed a lot of linkspam. Zora 01:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Block me, please....
ESkog, block me. Please. I have nothing positive to contribute to this wiki, because I am a just a corpulent mass of crap. I am morbidly obese, and I come on this site simply to make comments about my fat in the hopes that some kind soul will deliver me from my obesity. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.81.148.16 (talk &bull; contribs) 01:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

re: reverting List of generic and genericized trademarks
I was making constructive edits on that page. Why were they reverted? (Yes, I did cut off a bunch, but I was about to fix it when I noticed you reverted.) PrometheusX303 03:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (from my talk page)I just noticed you cut off a bunch, and reverted. Sorry for the collateral damage. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's ok then. BTW, I've done it twice today.  I think I should have edited a section at a tiume instead of the whole page.  Is that why it cut off? PrometheusX303 04:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This may be it. PrometheusX303 04:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page (and blocking the IP)! :) Hbackman 04:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's Be Friends....
ESkog, I weigh 536 lbs. I do not have any friends, because I cannot get off of my sofa and go outside. I have not left my sofa in over six months. I eat, sleep, live, work, and go to the bathroom here. Will you be my online buddy? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.81.150.78 (talk &bull; contribs) 04:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is growing tiresome. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

User:SteveInPrague
He is already evading your block as User:166.102.104.55. - Chadbryant 05:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

rofl, thanks -- Image talk:Class 171-cab.jpg
I edit conflicted you to fix those tags. :P --ZsinjTalk 16:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Partisanship on Governors' Profiles
Hi,

My name is Chris Swope, and I'm a reporter with Governing Magazine, working on a piece on governors' Wikipedia profiles. I'd love to talk with you about the little skirmish you weighed in on over Gov. Sebelius' gun views. You seemed to have the middle-of-the-road view on it. If you'd like to talk, please email me at cswope@governing.com.

Chris Swope

Know any Chapman people from KU?
I graduated from Chapman High in 2003, and a lot of my friends went to KU the next school year. (I go to K-State if you're wondering. ) So, do you know any KU-er (or however they're called) from Chapman?

PS: Does KU have Korean Language classes? K-State doesn't, and if KU does, I might feel like defecting over there... --Shultz III 22:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, what's the usual rent range to live in any 1-bedroom apartment in Lawrence? Either I must move there, or get K-State to add Korean classes next year. --Shultz III 23:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Big12
Sorry but there is already another fansite link there so delete that one or else I will keep adding mine &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.143.44.160 (talk &bull; contribs) 23:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahah! Thanks. Problem fixed.
Thanks for your help and patience: I am no longer autoblocked. Cheers! CowmanTalk 01:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks on the Bonnie and Clyde Page
Hey there! I emailed Kate back and forth on this today. Pig is banned, and I was told I can revert personal attacks on me, and not to answer them. That is what I am doing. None of the personal stuff does anything, including that by me, to help the article. But I did "talk" with an editor about this specifically. My responses were deleted, and so were his attacks, and no more of either will be posted. Take care!old windy bear 03:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What Oldwindybear doesn't want you to know is that the Plagiarism section he removed was not, under Wikipedia policy, a personal attack. It was not made in bad faith, nor was it irrelevant to the serious problems at Bonnie and Clyde. The page has been converted into a POV-fest by a single editor. That editor has been so intent on inserting his original research that he took material he didn't write, added his POV and original research around the stolen material, got it published at a supposedly rigorous historical site under his real name (without even mentioning Wikipedia), and then attempted to use that plagiarized article as a source for another Wikipedia article re Bonnie and Clyde (Texas Ranger Division). That is highly relevant to the problems at the Bonnie and Clyde article, for if Oldwindybear cannot face what he did (he denies, against insurmountable proof, plagiarizing even one sentence) and how the contextual intent and execution violate Wikipedia policy, the true import of core policies (WP:NPOV,WP:NOR) won't make it through. It's the article and user harmony that suffer. Since last fall, Oldwindybear has hijacked Bonnie and Clyde for his long-held POV. That is highly relevant, and discussing this real, irrefutable problem cannot in any way be properly construed as a "personal attack" &mdash; though that mantra certainly makes headway with some of the less fluent Wikipedia editors (and many admins), who believe wrongly that any criticism of an editor's actions is recognized as a personal attack under Wikipedia policy.


 * Further, until he has recognized and recanted his taking of a Wikipedia article as his own work (when he'd contributed literally not a single character of the stolen material in evidence here), it is not necessarily out of line for other editors to be on notice that evidence indicates the same editor arguing tooth and nail over POV might at any time consign their efforts to an article at some other site under only his name. That is not a personal attack. That is simply letting people know exactly what they're dealing with.


 * A single edit puts the controversy in perspective. When challenged for a valid source for his POV, Oldwindybear wrote, "the trouble is that there is NO BOOK that says this". All of the noise at Bonnie and Clyde has been an attempt to get around that insurmountable fact, and allow him to insert original research to support his POV.


 * BTW, when speaking with Oldwindybear, "editor" = "admin". No idea what he calls editors. 216.8.14.6 10:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Albedo
You had deleted my change in List of antagonists in Xenosaga, as I had done it anonymously by accident. However, the deletion of that information was intentional, and discussed by myself and two others in the "Discussion" tab of that article. Sorry for the confusion. Cyfin 04:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Naked shorting
Would appreciate a second (third? fourth?) set of eyes on this page, when you get a chance.

A persistent user is seeking to add original research and unsourced claims.

Not only should that material not be added, but -- as indicated by a third party commenter the other day -- the page as it is contains far too much original research on both sides.

I'm a little worn out by the hostility and the attempt to commence a flame war on the talk page. I wonder whether this page belongs in Wikipedia at all, given the sourcing problem and the constant persistent effort to turn this page into a campaign flyer by anti-naked shorting advocates.

Anyway, would appreciate your thoughts on the above.--Tomstoner 17:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)(revised a day or so later)


 * templates substituted by a bot as per Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)