User talk:Eaolson

I'm sorry, but I'm not at my talk page right now. Please leave a message at the tone. Beep. eaolson 03:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Generic headline

[Moved from user page]

Please explain why you think I entered copyrighted text. I have not done so ever. I have read things and learned things and wrote my own information about what was in in them. (Gurps npc 21:57, 12 January 2006)

The Varak article you created was word-for-word identical to the varak article on this site, which bears this copyright mark:

Copyright (c) 1995 by Barron's Educational Series, from The New Food Lover's Companion, Second Edition, by Sharon Tyler Herbst

Are you saying that the varak article is entirely your own writing? If it is, then this is not a copyright violation and I apologize. eaolson 15:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Brokeback Mountain Edit

Re: Your Andrew Sullivan edit to Brokeback Mountain [1]. I think Practicing could be an important distinction (implying that he goes to church and is at least somewhat active in chuch life) as opposed to "Lapsed Catholics" (such as myself) who were raised Catholic and have never been excommunicated, but who do nothing to practice the faith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chesaguy (talk • contribs) 18:35, March 7, 2006.

Had he been a lapsed Catholic, should we give his opinion less weight? Mainly, I don't think the difference is relevant to the Brokeback article. If his analysis is valid, then it doesn't matter if he's a good Catholic or a Buddhist. If readers are interested in Sullivan's background, they can go to the article on him. eaolson 02:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop editing my discussion page

I realize you have a stick up your ass, but could you not leave threatening comments on my talk page? Quite frankly, I'm scarred. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James Roberts (talk • contribs) 13:26, March 10, 2006.

This was in response to my adding one of the standard vandalism warnings to his talk page, after he vandalized [2] the Brokeback Mountain article. eaolson 20:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

MG&G image

OK, I guess you're right. I'll just let it get deleted. Akrabbim 18:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

microscope

Please discuss first before editing something. Moreover WP: not a crystal ball is out of context. Citation needed would be required. Wikipedia is about contribution not meaningless deletion and censoring. The former requires research to be done via extensive searching. I assume you didn't do that otherwise you could have corroborated and contributed with respective links.Thanks.Slicky 13:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require discussion before editing. That's the whole point of the "be bold" policy. My edit was not meaningless, nor was it censorship. Your edit made significant, speculative predictions about the future. Once these improvements to microscopes are invented, then they will be appropriate for inclusion into Wikipedia. Until then, they are hypotheical. eaolson 15:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Is Brokeback Mountain cinematic analysis an appropriate article?

I have responded to your question on Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Is Brokeback Mountain cinematic analysis an appropriate article?. -- Centrx 03:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Checking for previous prod or afd

Yes, checking the page history is the only way to do it. A page can only be proposed for deletion once, so a second prod is not permitted, nor can an article be prodded a second time if it has gone through an AfD discussion. (However, prod after a speedy attempt is allowed.) Since prod is just a tag on the page, the edit history is the only way to check. There used to be a server to track that stuff, but it has been down for a while, alas.

However, by putting up the prod, that at least caught my attention to put the article up for AfD, so thank you for helping out! —C.Fred (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Microscopy article...

you can take it out, i find no time right now and am stuyding pretty hard right now and will have to for the next months. Sorry for the burden.regards,loSlicky 09:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Zinc

The source you asked for : Zinc-Indian Contribution-Bharatveer 03:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

axe handle hound image

the image was created by a friend of mine who wishes to remain anonymous i meant to select the "creator gave me permission to post it ect.." and i cant figure out how to change it, thanks for pointing this out i wouldnt have noticed it otherwise--!paradigm! 17:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)!paradigm!

Golden squirrel Article

I think it's great that you chose to delete that article due to the fact that it was "unNotable" that sir, is a matter of opinion...and furthermore you assumption that it is unverifiable is totally false? by what standards, becuase it isn't in another encylopedia? isn't that the point of wilipedia? isn't it the point of wikipedia that knowledge belongs to the world? and just because you don't care for it doesn't mean it's story doesn't deserve to be told...good day to you sir!

-angered fan of the CEXC Golden Squirrel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.19.180.127 (talk • contribs) 18:56, July 27, 2006.

anti-Iranian propaganda

anti-Iranian propaganda? You do not know? you must have been born yesterday then! or you must be a Zionist! Kiumars 02:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks. The question isn't whether anti-Iranian propaganda exists, it's whether or not the article you created was a valid article. You made an article that consisted of only an attack against WP for being anti-Iranian. It wasn't even a description of anything. It's since been deleted so it's a moot point. eaolson 02:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I made a new one but just to see what people think about this Zionist site! I can do that, right? Kiumars 02:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You made a new what? I'm not sure what you mean by "Zionist site". WP isn't a discussion forum (except in Talk pages, like this). If you wish to make an article on some aspect of Iran or whatever, just make sure it is verifiable and backed up by reliable sources. WP is not a forum for you to express your own personal opinion. eaolson 02:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: If you wish to make an article on some aspect of Iran or whatever, just make sure it is verifiable and backed up by reliable sources. WP is not a forum for you to express your own personal opinion.

Aha! And can you tell me what I have been expressing so far? Read the Persian Gulf naming dispute and tell me if there is any factual references? Are you a Zionist?Kiumars 02:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what the Persian Gulf naming dispute has to do with the article you created. Zetawoof suggests you were attempting to report some sort of incident to Wikipedia:Iran, Shi'a, and Middle East related articles noticeboard/Incidents, if so that's the best place for it, I guess. I've never been to Zion, nor do I know where it is. Please remember that Wikipedia has an official policy about making personal attacks. eaolson 03:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Basava edit

I'm sure you didn't mean to partially blank the Basava page when removing Sureshsk's claim to ownership, but you truncated a lot of other text as well: [3]. Keep up the good editing, but make sure your edits aren't doing the unexpected! :) -Phoenixrod 04:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)