User talk:Elektrik Shoos

Main page Awards Drafts UBX Sandbox Guestbook Talk page

Back Off

You didn't even give me time to finish editing my very first page creation before you marked it for deletion. Crazy man...what is your problem? Give a guy at least 2 minutes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ermoder (talk • contribs) 01:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to Jockiem Joyner. When I saw the page it was a merely a brief description of the artist and a brief discography. I see about 40 or so of pages similar to what yours looked like get created by new editors daily, and 90% of them are usually deleted for the reason I tagged yours - because most people just look to put some up some brief promotional about their favorite band without further expansion. I see now that's not what you intended, and I apologize for hastily tagging it. Since it appears you've remade the article at a new spelling, I've turned the old one into a redirect for you. Thanks for editing. elektrikSHOOS 04:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

However, in the future, when dealing with other editors, please remember to assume good faith. Any undue hostility is completely unnecessary when dealing with other editors. It creates unnecessary tension. Please read over WP:EQ. Thanks. elektrikSHOOS 04:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

At the same time, you should probably have a look at WP:INSPECTOR and remember it's best to patrol from the back of the log, as it pisses people off big time if you tag their article 2 minutes after creation. Take a look at WP:NPP. Trust me, I've been here long enough to have seen it repeatedly :). Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

After this discussion I started making a habit of working from backwards up. elektrikSHOOS 22:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what normally happens after an incident like this :P Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

2009 World Series

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to 2009 World Series has been reverted, as it introduced negative or controversial biographical material without providing a reliable source for this information. Wikipedia requires that all such material be sourced to address the issue of libel. Thank you. elektrikSHOOS 19:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The explanation made no sense nor was it grounded on any basis of reality. The source (ESPN.com) is completely reliable and there was nothing of a 'biographical' nature in the edit. Don't see how libel is an issue at all. Do you even know what that means? Get a clue. It seems like there is more than one comment on this page taking issue with your haste and questionable interfering. Back off. Tjrover (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Huggle must have glitched. I might have hit the revert button, thinking I was rolling back on a bio article, and it decided to revert that one instead because it was the next (or last) on the list. My apologies for any inconvenience. It was clearly in error. (There's also now a biographical article somewhere on Wikipedia that's still got bad content on it.) But please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Hostility is unnecessary. elektrikSHOOS 03:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh, don't forget to assume others assume good faith of you :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: GA Review of Google

Hello, Elektrik Shoos. You have new messages at Talk:Google/GA2.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RFA

Please do not add an RFA to WP:RFA until the candidate has answered the three questions, and formally accepted the nomination. Thank you. Courcelles 03:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I was just about to remove it but you got to it first, thanks. elektrikSHOOS 03:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In the future, though, can we refer it to them informally as the 'the questions three, ere the sysops rights they see?' elektrikSHOOS 10:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Klaus Ebner

Have you truly thought about a SPI report? He openly admits to seven sockpuppets. Not good. I'll help if you need it. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

There's been one open since earlier today here. Feel free to comment given, er, breaking news. elektrikSHOOS 10:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Short life-span, methinks... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

thankyou

Hi I am Rasoul.

thanks for welcome.I love your city very much.--یوشیمیتسو (talk) 10:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I love it too. I hope you enjoy editing. elektrikSHOOS 10:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Cordoba House

Explain how the quote is out of context, and how it is referenced earlier, as you put it. I've read the letter in its entirety, and Gingrich is quite clear on his belief that Muslims should not be permitted to build a mosque there until Saudi Arabia builds churches. And nothing alluding to that occurs anywhere else in the article. Newyorkmuslim (talk) 06:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop readding the quote. The rule on Wikipedia is bold, revert, discuss - if you want the quote in the article, bring it to the talk page as it was contested. elektrikSHOOS 07:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I did discuss it on the talk page, and I don't see anyone contesting it. The first person to bring it up wasn't me - I agreed with him. The person who keeps deleting it offers no explanation at all for doing so and actually isn't participating on the talk page. It's the first paragraph from a letter by Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of The House. The paragraph summarizes his entire argument for opposing the mosque. Thus, not only is the quote from an important person on his views on the subject, but it is the best quote to summarize his reason for opposing the mosque. By all of WP's guidelines, it belongs in this article - perhaps more so than any of the quotes cited. Newyorkmuslim (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've made my comment on the talk page of the article. elektrikSHOOS 18:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Shortcuts

Hi electrik shoes. I see that you've added the shortcut WP:TILDE to Wikipedia:Signatures. However, Special:WhatLinksHere/WP:TILDE shows that it is somewhat little used, so please try to gain consensus on the talk page before adding it in, because Wikipedia:Signatures is an important WP guideline. Cheers Kayau Voting IS evil 04:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Other edits

Tx for your help w/this editor who left a "cite needed" tag where there was a cite ... would you have a moment to glance at his earliest edits, all redirects? They seem off to me ... but I would appreciate someone else taking a look. (BTW, on another article, he left tags as well that did not apply, and even deleted a ref and then tagged the sentence as ref needed ...). Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't make any binding changes (blocks, etc) but I'll take a look from the outside opinion perspective. I'll report him to WP:AIV as a vandalism-only account if I see a pattern. elektrikSHOOS 08:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The redirects appear to be in good faith. All of them are either abbreviations, or in the case of Kristen Perry, one of the people involved in the case. I'll let him know about using an edit summary, as that would certainly help in the future. elektrikSHOOS 08:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be careful in the future about using such harsh templates when you're not sure if the edits are vandalistic. Especially the level-3 one. Try not to WP:BITE. elektrikSHOOS 08:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Frankly, three were more than three instances of problematic errors along the lines of deleting appropriate refs, after doing so tagging material as not having a ref, tagging an article w/many refs as not having a ref, tagging a sentence with a ref as not having a ref. It is a judgment call, and I'm careful to exercise my judgment. But looking back over it, this appears to be precisely the situation that IMHO the template was meant to apply to. Given the number of such instances, and the percentage of the editors' edits that fell into that category (surprisingly high), it was mild. Again, IMHO of course, and you understandably could believe that I what I see as a duck is something else.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Pageant Films

Please untag the 'Pageant Films' article immediately. It appears you tagged this article within minutes of its creation - while it is still being edited.

The article's creator is familiar with all the issues you have highlighted and is satisfied that the integrity of Wikipedia will not be compromised by the article's final content. Pageant office (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a conflict of interest? If so, I would recommend you stop working on the article immediately. elektrikSHOOS 02:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please remove the tags you added to this article mere minutes after its creation was commenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.33.100 (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would I remove the COI tags from an article when you were blocked for having a promotional username that mirrors the name of the article? In any case, there are only two ways maintenance tags are removed from an article - one, if someone addresses the issues that the tags bring up, or two, if someone provides a good reason why they shouldn't be there. (And no, 'you put them on too soon' is not a good reason.) elektrikSHOOS 07:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A corresponding username was devised with a legitimate intention; that of making explicit the source of current and future information pertaining to the activities of a noted production company. Contributors unfamiliar with Wikipedia's processes would doubtlessly appreciate constructive (i.e. non-adversarial) assistance from administrators. Any useful advice and guidance will be much appreciated. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.33.100 (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, sorry. Try addressing the issues the templates bring up. elektrikSHOOS 07:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

(TPS) WP:ARTSPAM, WP:VERIFY. Read these carefully, and don't use an IP to avoid your block (if that's the case)... Doc9871 (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Point? Borderline, but perhaps. Who exactly is the banned sock?

I'm definitely not a banned sock. If you have reason to believe that Herbert1979 is a banned user, please inform those in a position to act on the situation. --Onorem♠Dil 06:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

When I said "banned sock", I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to the above user. I'm sorry for not making that clearer in the edit summary. elektrikSHOOS 06:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've also already acted on the situation; the user was blocked by an admin and a case is open at WP:SPI. Feel free to comment if you'd like. elektrikSHOOS 06:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I hadn't noticed that an admin had bothered to block the user already. I was a bit confused how you'd gone from arguing against the report at AIV, but then removing the comments as being from a banned user. Sorry for any misunderstanding. --Onorem♠Dil 06:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that might have been me. When I was commenting at WP:AIV I was completely unaware of the sock situation. I only was alerted of it after I accidentally misspelled his name and discovered User:Herbert1989. After that... well... quack. elektrikSHOOS 06:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

your post on Materialscientist's page

Saw the edit summaries on my watchlist, and I have to admit that "Would you be able to block my socks?" gave me a double-take. :P sonia♫ 07:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That was intentional. :D elektrikSHOOS 07:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for Editing/Suggestions on Harbour Results following Speedy Deletion

Hi Elektrik Shoos - You had tagged the Harbour Results page for speedy deletion in July. I've worked to improve the article for posting, and I was hoping you might be able to provide some feedback on my edits. I'd greatly appreciate your input. I've posted the article on my subpages here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eisbrenner/Harbour_Results Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Eisbrenner (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Eisbrenner