User talk:ESkog/ArchiveF

Possible semi-protection?
Maybe the Lawrence, Kansas page should be semi-protected for a few days as it's a topic for discussion/potential target for vandalism on the ljworld.com forums? --Subwoofer 21:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert of my edit to EBaum's World
Why'd you revert me? 1ne 23:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert of my edit to Memorial of Rebirth
I see you have a hisory of reverting pages without offering reasons! Please, stop reverting the page on the Memorial of Rebirth. I live in Bucharest (check my IP!) and that monument truly is known as "a shit on a stick"! It wasn't vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.121.9.167 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers
Thanks for the revert of the blanking of my talk page. Much appreciated! Will (aka  Wimt  ) 23:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and my user page for that matter! Thanks again :-) Will (aka  Wimt  ) 23:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

...
I didn't wrote that bout MySpace i just put comment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.198.210.218 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh...
Looks like we traded reverts: Your user page... My user page. Heh... mahalo! --Ali&#39;i 15:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not related to "Heh...", but here anyway: diff you requested for a speedy. --Ali&#39;i 15:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Snowball and Template: Founders of Fudokan
Snowball means that things that are extremely unlikely (Ie, snowballs chance in hell) to have a certain result from a drawn out process can be subjected to a speedier process instead, no?

Ie, if a certain article does not satisfy CSD, but an AfD would almost certainly result in a deletion, it is ok to CSD it. RogueNinja 17:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the speedy response, and your explanation of the finer points of WP policy. After a conversation with Fang Ali, I am not going to prop delete the template, but will wait until the results of fudokan's afd.  RogueNinja 17:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears that in the time it took me to type that, Fudokan was deleted. The template is now listed under prop delete.

wiki dorks
man it sucks to spend time on an article only to have it deleted.i think the dorks that are in charge get off on it.maybe they got picked on too much in high school. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bob jonson (talk • contribs) 19:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Deletion of my article on Blade3D
Dear ESkog, It seems you have deleted my article on Blade3D in amongst many other bulk deletions and have stated the reason as the fact that the page is advertising. I would like to point out that it took a great deal of effort to write this article and although yes I am associated with the company the article was written in conjuntion with members of our user community in an attempt to provide an objective, informative and unbiased view of the product. Deleting the page is a bit strong handed, especially when you view it in the context of our competitors whose pages really are blatant advertising, esp. Visual3D.NET for instance.

Articles about products on Wikipedia are far from unprecedented and as long as the article is predominantly educational and is not blatant advertising it is fair use. In fact we tried very hard to make sure the foundation of this particular article was indeed technology related and not advertising. If you disagree with some of the content we would prefer to see edits and feedback rather than immediate deletion.

For the sake of those in our community who worked hard to create the content I would very much appreciate it if you can revert your deletion of the article and discuss with me possible edits that would allow the page to meet the standards.--Digini 06:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of lists
OK this is what I did on the Argentine lists but I didn't think the redirects were needed. THanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you"   "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" 14:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirects
Yes, thanks for cleaning up/redirecting the Australian lists. Deleting would create the problem that the edit history of the merged pages would dissapear. Now it has to be linked from the talk page, as I did in the previous decades which were also merged. Hoverfish Talk 14:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Casualties of the Beslan school hostage crisis
Could you please clarify your decision to delete article Casualties of the Beslan school hostage crisis? First, there was no consensus among editors: 7 "keep" and 7 "delete". Second, it has been deleted based on WP:NOT. But this policy say: "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.". Obviously, Beslan school hostage crisis is very notable event. Obviously, none of the wikipedians who worked on this article wanted to honor their departed friends or relatives. It is convenient for Wikipedia editors and readers to have all relevant data, such as this Table; and it is perfectly consistent with all policies, in my opinion. Thank you. Biophys 17:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge in Naat
Thank you for leaving the note. I have merged teh articles. Will later clean up the Naat. --Webkami 22:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

position abuse
you abuse you position and block people like me wo tell the truth. Shame. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.241.124.150 (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Vandalization
i am NOT vandalizing pages. I am trying to plead my case, but since you wield some ammount of "power" you can do whatever you want. Wow, tough guy 69.241.124.150 00:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hold on now. i have been keeping an eye on this, and IP69.241.124.150 it seems was angry and trying to plead his case and you simply blocked him? Maybe respond to his accusation/question before blocking? Thund3rl1p5 00:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response, but i have been watching this transpire for the past hour and your version is not entirely accurate. The IP DID vandalize a page, and was awrned for it, then asked about your actions, and was then blocked. It doesnt seem very fair, but as one with the power to block, i suppose you can do as you wish. Thund3rl1p5 00:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to report you to anybody. Youare an adult and can do as you wish. It just may be a good idea to think about talking to users (especially new IP's who may become great contributers) before blocking. You run the risk of souring people by being what could be percieved as a "Wikibully" Thund3rl1p5 00:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wondering if you are going to do anyhing about the mistake you have made here. Did you think about it? Thund3rl1p5 16:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This IP is definetely a vandal and ESKog acted perfectly correctly by blocking him. There is no 'mistake' to rectify. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 17:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

wrong. The IP has vandalized in the past, but he was innocent this time. Wikibullys make me roll my eyes Thund3rl1p5 18:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem with an administrative action by ESkog you should bring it up at the administrator's noticeboard rather than harassing him on his talk page and making personal attacks about it. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 18:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Kappa Phi Gamma Sorority, Inc.
I have restored the content of this article. The text has been released under the GFDL. You can confirm this with any member of the OTRS by referencing Ticket # 2007040710019181. If you still believe that the article fails CSD/A7, then feel free to re-delete it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits by User_talk:66.204.21.3
Busy vandal on the John Wooden page. I added the shared IP notice the user page, it belongs to Gravette High School. I recommend a temporary block. Group29 14:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A look at the edit history of this IP address since the beginning shows only one edit that could possible be interpreted as constructive. Group29 14:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

False?

What do you think is false that I have editied/changed? That is a VERY STRONG accusation.

Are you in the know as to who Wichita State is contacting or not?

not sure who you think you are
has Larry Brown been discussed as a coach at WSU? Yes.

When I have time, I will simply add that info back.

I am sure it is a violation of wikipedia policy to delete known facts too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wildbilldarby (talk • contribs) 20:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

The Cedar
Did you delete the article about the Cedar? If so, why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wildbilldarby (talk • contribs) 20:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

you, sir don't know what you are talking about
Are you standing by the "hoax" that Eddie Sutton is being discussed as a possible coach for WSU?

Who defines "non notable" corporations? Apparently you know nothing about the Cedar.

What an ass you are.

Do we need an arbritraor here, b/c you are simply wrong.

Please try not to be such an ass when you decide what is an isn't suitable for wikipedia.

If you really want me to keep pushing this, I will. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wildbilldarby (talk • contribs) 02:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

the Wichita Eagle and Eddie Sutton
How's this, Einstein? http://www.kansas.com/252/story/43398.html

Honestly, who the hell do you think you are? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wildbilldarby (talk • contribs) 12:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

follow up
You shouldn't be surprised about a personal attack when you take it upon yourself to be the truth police.

Since it was in print today, you must realize it has been a real subject for several days.

Please republish the piece on The Cedar. It is truly a landmark in Wichita. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wildbilldarby (talk • contribs) 21:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

From 67.173.110.68
I didn't do it. I share this computer with other people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.173.110.68 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to 4chan
Read the source I cite before you call me a vandal/prankster. Thanks Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 00:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion on contnet removal
Hi. I saw that you removed an unsourced image from the article on Mother Teresa. I have no trouble with removal of unsourced and unlicensed material. However, I suugest that in the edit summary you offer links to the image documentation so that other editors can learn why these images were deleted and how to properly document images. This will educate other editors, reduce tensions and prevent some of the angry posts you receive. Once again, thanks. Majoreditor 19:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:49222.jpg
Hi, I saw you removed the nsd tag from this image. Do you think this image is sufficiently sourced? No mention of who is the photographer, when it was published etc etc. Only the mention that is from the Field museum of Chicago. Garion96 (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)