User talk:Eep²

Archive: /2006 /2007

Speedy deletion

In my view the speedy tag was also valid.--Anthony.bradbury 08:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must apologise for the brevity of my comment, above. I had a little trouble with my PC, and had then to go out unexpectedly. I do not, I must say, see why this talk-page should not be speedied, as it contains no content. You will have noticed that User:Krimpet took a similar view in deleting it an hour before I deleted it again. If you meant to query the deletion of the article itself, that was User:Krimpet. For your information, an AfD tag does not of itself automatically guard against speedy deletion if the article qualifies for speedy, and if another editor has attached a speedy tag.--Anthony.bradbury 14:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSS discussion

moved from Template talk:Resolved#forced white background

OK, now I need help in removing the background from closed AfD debates. This is the tag: <div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF;> but .boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed div {background: inherit !important} doesn't work. :( I even tried just .boilerplate metadata div, .boilerplate div, .metadata div, and even div boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed! But still no good... :/ ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 21:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try .xfd-closed {background: inherit !important}. Trying to catch all the class names won't work, too many. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool--that works; thanks, though you could've just replied on the template page... Anyway, odd the HTML element (div, span, etc) doesn't need to be specified, unlike for .resolved span... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 04:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was an issue that had nothing to do with {{resolved}}, so I opted to move it here. If you've got any CSS questions in the future, feel free to drop me a line directly.
As for the difference in code, it's because for {{resolved}}, it was the span tag that had the background, whereas here it's the div tag (which doesn't need clarification, as that's what the "xfd-closed" does). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken spindle

What is the purpose of this dabpage? Anyone who searches for "broken spindle" has likely misspelled Broken Spindles. Aside from that, it's a pure dictionary definition that doesn't disambiguate between multiple unrelated articles. –Pomte 21:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, when I first created it I didn't realize both articles were directly related to each other; it could probably be deleted but I didn't do a thorough search for other "broken spindle"-named articles yet... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 21:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you should be aware by now, consensus is (still) that the dab term is a part of the article name is irrelevant to inclusion in the Dab page. Taemyr 23:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 17:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That says the dabpage can include such links, not all of them. It's only relevant if people would legitimately search for an article using that term. Place names should be the main case because people may refer to places like Broken River as the Broken for short. But it's highly unlikely they refer to artistic work names like Broken Meat as Broken. –Pomte 22:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highly unlikely to who? Have you conducted a scientific study in search algorythms or something? (I doubt it.) Regardless, by that logic, no dab page should have any compound word made up of the dab page's name (i.e., Smith shouldn't include names of people/places that are not soley named "Smith", including "Smith Company", "Smith, Inc.", etc). See how ridiculous that is? Same goes with broken (disambiguation), though I just put links to multiple-use compound words, such as to broken spindle, broken record, broken heart (disambiguation), etc. It's not that hard a concept to grasp, really, and it makes complete logical and intuitive sense. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 23:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use common sense. My logic didn't restrict people or company names. You call Bob Smith by his last name, but you don't call the United States by "the United". If someone wanted to read about broken heart, they would type "broken heart" into the search box. It's not intuitive to be faced with a bunch of unnecessary, barely relevant links. If you think this distinction is arbitrary, think about how people decide which words and phrases to link in an article. –Pomte 23:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's common to one person may not be common to another. Your "logic" is contradictory, inconsistent, and hypocritical, for reasons I've already stated on this and, oh, just about every other dab discussion I've ever participated in on Wikipedia. The links also aren't "unnecessary" for reasons I've also already stated here and elsewhere many times. I also have a problem with how people link to certain words/phrases in an article and not others. I believe all words and phrases should have links but, obviously, that would clutter up the articles, which is why MediaWiki needs to be redesigned to (optionally, of course) allow all words, phrases, names, and groups of characters/words be intuitively searchable (without having to manually copy-paste the selection into the search box, or use one of those context menu selection search browser add-ons. The problem with Wikipedia is that it is easily biased and controllable as to what content is connected, often times leaving out much more extensive history and connections with other things. It's all relative--and it's high time more people started thinking relatively... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 23:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most complicated systems end up being inconsistent. IAR is an obvious culprit, so you should either use IAR to denounce all policy, or refrain from considering IAR a policy. Of course dabpage writing is subjective, but there's a reason people can generally agree on things they can't define with rigorous logic. Your conception of "extensive" connections is trivial at best; being all-inclusive is not necessarily an improvement. I may not know what readers want most, but how do you? If you think you're improving the encyclopedia, start a study to see whether readers (not necessarily editors) agree. –Pomte 01:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Outer

I've nominated Outer, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Outer satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outer and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Outer during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Taemyr 23:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy O'Brien

Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Courtesy blanking? That AfD was particularly insensitive and could be damaging to the subject. --Iamunknown 07:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? Vote on it. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 08:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you joking? Wikipedia:Consensus is policy, we don't vote. --Iamunknown 03:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, you better reread Wikipedia:Courtesy blanking cuz "It is usually done at the request of the person in question, however any user may do this if the contents of a AfD discussion would be best not indexed by search engines" doesn't say anything about "consensus"--in fact, it's rather vague and arbitrary as to when "courtesy blanking" (censorship) occurs. I'd say that calls for a vote. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 04:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{namedab}} vs {{surname}}

Hi. Is there a specific reason for this change? It is my understanding that {{hndis}}/{{namedab}} should only be used for full names, eg. Robert Johnson, and {{surname}} for all the other cases. I currently work on a lot of surname pages, and since I (think that I) am pretty much up-to-date with dabbing guidelines and consensus, I have replaced lots of malplaces {{hndis}} templates with {{surname}}. But you're an experienced editor, so I ask whether I have missed a guideline or if I just don't see where you're coming from in this case, because anybody may be known by just their surname, making the difference between {{surname}} and {{hndis}} useless. Greetings, – sgeureka ^t•c 07:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem with {{surname}} is that it automatically categories the article in the general Surnames category, which is annoying when the surname is from a specific country/culture. The {{surname}} template needs to be altered so it doesn't automatically do this or an alternate template created that doesn't auto-categorizes (or has an option to categorize elsewhere). ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 08:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know in how far you have the surname template on your watchlist, but I've made a note on Template talk:Surname. I've also invited User:Eliyak who included the old non-autocat function a while ago. The template might still be updated significantly, therefore I wouldn't start adding "nocat" to the template on articles right away. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole scheme is somewhat confusing and I added a thread here to seek some help. As for the categorizing, Template:WPBiography has a "listas=" parameter that permits an editor to list the name as they feel most appropriate. Kingboyk might be able to program something like "listas=" for this template to permit overriding the auto-categorizing of the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Ob

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia, as you did to Ob. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. You've been told that what you are doing is inappropriate by several editors. Please stop. IPSOS (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack warning

In regard to this edit: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. IPSOS (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Says the hypocrite who has also vandalized "Closed"... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 02:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop calling people names. You've been warned many times before. While you are often a good editor, that does not excuse incivility. If you wish to continue to participate in this project you must be civil. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a more navigable, searchable encyclopedia.

Please see Inner and Outer. I think that you have some good ideas. You might want to work on presenting them in a more civil fashion. Remember that you are basically dealing with a bunch of tight ass volunteer librarians who are trying to make this a better place. Not, as you seem to believe, a bunch of dictatorial, narrow-minded, assholes. —Gaff ^ταλκ

Heh, I appreciate the support...but librarians? Surely, if true, they would have better ideas of categorization and navigation! Although, perhaps all those years using the Dewey Decimal System has screwed them up permanently? :o ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 06:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category recreations

Please stop recreating validly deleted categories without consensus. These were already endorsed by DRV. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 06:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry...was just trying to clean up the wanted cats list. If those categories are disbanded, they shouldn't have any articles in them... But it seems that it's a futile attempt to restrain Wikipedians from voicing their affiliations--otherwise you'll have to remove ALL Wikipedian categories (including country/language ones)... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 06:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV affiliations are different from location and language. In any case, I think a bot is in the process of depopulating them already, to fix the redlinks. Dmcdevit·t 06:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ob

Regarding this revert of yours, I have explained on the talk page why your approach is in violation of existing guidelines. If you are unable to provide counter-arguments but will continue to revert-war, I will regretfully have to report your behavior as disruptive.

Note that WP:MOS does not apply to disambiguation pages; WP:MOSDAB does. I also don't see where exactly in the manual of style the {{lookfrom}} entries are listed as acceptable on disambiguation pages. Please discuss before reverting. I'd appreciate your response at Talk:Ob. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban

Stalking me to articles you've never edited before was not a good idea for someone with an RfC as long as yours. I've opened a request for a community ban, [1]. You are intentionally disruptive and refuse to follow consensus. IPSOS (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Eep² (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

How did I fail to "properly" respond to my RfC? Since when is "cluttering" of dab pages a violation? I wasn't cluttering them, as I've stated numerous times in my defense--I was simply improving them.

Decline reason:

While you are still blocked, please read over what your fellow members of the wikipedia community advised you. Ignore all rules is well and good when the action you take has a chance of being supported by the community at large. As is clear here, what you were doing is not supported. I would suggest that if you want to inflict change on our disambiguation style, that you raise conversations on the relevant pages of our manual of style. Regards. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 01:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 01:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, again (as I've stated numerous times in dab-related discussions), I've tried to raise conversations on relevant pages but people just don't (or won't) get it. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 01:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't unblock this user, s/he is an habitual edit warrior who will not allow any other editors to disagree, will not discuss, and imposes their own style, formatting and ideas in violation of current consensus. IPSOS (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Says the hypocrit who is himself under RfC--tHat's rich, IPSOS... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 01:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I have blocked you for one week. From the discussions at both WP:CSN and WP:RFC, it is clear that you are not seeing the errors of your ways in these pages. While, Wikipedia does have Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, as you claim to uphold, it also has Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. Your cluttering of disambiguation pages with marginally related terms as well as putting random notices on pages with {{otheruses}} have made some members of the community disagree with your methods. In response to these, you have simply just continued to go on with how you edit.

One of the items brought up is that you believe Wikipedia needs to have information on everything, which includes dictionary-like pages. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it is not a dictionary. Wiktionary, however, is a dictionary, where some of your edits seem to belong. To me, it seems that you need to go over Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and see where you belong in all of this.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Wikipedia:Disambiguation is something you should also look over.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of WikiProject Disambiguation, thank you for a restful coming week. --Piet Delport 01:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unblock 2

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Eep² (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Uh, how did I fail to "properly" respond to my RfC? First I tried replying on the main RfC page but then others removed my comments (until I made a big enough stink about it by reverting the deletions for the person to properly move my comments to the discussion page, which I continued to reply to there). Also, as I've stated numerous times, my so-called "disruptive" edits were not disruptive at all--merely improvements to MediaWiki's poor disambiguation system. A weeklong ban for trying to improve Wikipedia? That's rich...especially when the Wikipedia policy: ignore all rules is in place for those who are trying to legitimately improve Wikipedia, as I have done. One look at my edit history shows I have contributed extensively to Wikipedia these past few months alone. I have gone over what Wikipedia is not, and have found it to be contradictory, inconsistent, and hypocritical--as I have also stated numerous times in my defense of the many AfDs my recent dab contributions have received--unjustly/unfairly, I feel, too. Consensus can (and needs to) change. This is ridiculous how someone is treated simply by trying to improve the system, not "disrupt", "clutter", or whatever other negative terms you choose to arbitrarily use to define my actions. You should be glad I'm even bothering to make an effort to want to improve Wikipedia! Sheesh...

Decline reason:

Your incivility seems to be continuing, as clear through comments like this unblock request ("that's rich") and this reply ("incivility my ass", accusations of hypocrisy, etc.). Please cease your incivility and wait out your block. Your block review was already denied, and you are bordering on disruption here; if you post another incivil unblock request, your block will be extended further for disruption. — Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 15:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

And why can't I even edit my own user page? God damn...I was working on something and don't feel like losing it... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 01:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked users cannot edit anything but this user talk page. And if you continue to use this page for personal attacks, you will be unable to use it within the next week. In my expanded block reason, as well as Eagle 101's decline, you need to understand the following: Despite the fact that you feel that you are ignoring all rules to improve Wikipedia, there are users who feel that your are not improving the project. When this happens, you stop and discuss it with them, instead of continuing to ignore them and the rules. The "MediaWiki "poor disambiguation system" does not exist. It is a set of rules set forth by the Wikipedia community. In ignoring these rules, you are angering people that lead to the RFC and then the "ban discussion" at CSN. I chose a middle ground here, and simply gave you a defined week long block. In this time, I expect you to read over the policies I listed above, as well as the RFC on your behavior. If you persist in these behaviors that led to the complaints, administrators such as myself will be inclined to impose longer blocks on your account to prevent further damage to the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And while consensus can change, you discuss what you want to change instead of performing it unilaterally.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Middle ground my ass, you choose. A middle grounded person would not have banned me. A middle-grounded person would have worked with both parties to find a common ground. A middle-grounded person acts an arbitrator, not a judge, as you have done. Duh. Wikipedia's rules are inconsistent, contradictory, and, hence, hypocritical--as is anyone who follows them to the letter, like you and most everyone else here on Wikipedia that gangs up on people trying to make sense out of all of this conflicting political nonsense. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 04:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a consensus for you to be indefblocked at multiple pages. You don't want to be indefblocked. This is a middle ground.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there wasn't. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 09:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there such thing as a large set of practical rules that is non-contradictory? Inconsistent rules are there for everyone to fix, and you'll know when something doesn't need fixing when consensus disagrees with you. Dabpages only need rules so there's some sort of consistency between them. For actual inclusion criteria, just use reason and sensible argumentation. See also my comment above. It seems clear that your idea of navigation on this site is drastically different from other people's, so you should consider backing off from that area. Attacking Wikipedia in general terms isn't going to get things done. Work on pages like Wikipedia:Problems with Wikipedia. –Pomte 04:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution has a habit of beginning with overwhelming consensus against the minority (me, in this case, allegedly--but I doubt I'm the first to go against consensus--appeal to majority fallacy). ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 09:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia

In response to a post at the Village pump, I added a membership criteria to disambigous pageSophia. The page needs some work and I read at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation that you like to deal with disambigous pages. If you get some time, would you mind giving Sophia a good once over. Thanks -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shyea...I liked to before I was blocked for a week because of it. No thanks...Wikipedia can keep its craptacular disambiguation system; I'm not even bothering anymore. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 22:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Afterworld (animation)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Afterworld (animation), by Drat (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Afterworld (animation) is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Afterworld (animation), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Afterworld (animation) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 08:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

proposed merge: Aldebaran in fiction

I have proposed merging Aldebaran in fiction into the main article, Aldebaran. I'd appreciate any input on Talk:Aldebaran_in_fiction#merge_into_Aldebaran. Regards, —AldeBaer 15:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, again

It's not a smart thing to undo edits that were undone by the administrator who blocked you. Please do follow the rules.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 06:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am following the rules. I provided reasoning per WP:MOSDAB#The "See also" section for my reversions. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 08:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning on incivility and personal attacks

I note that after serving out your block, you have continued your pattern of incivility and personal attacks, such as at [2], [3], and [4]. You have already been blocked three times in the last month and a half for these very reasons; blocks are intended as a preventative rather than punitive measure, however I see no indication that you plan to reform your behavior. This is your final warning. If you continue your pattern of incivility, personal attacks, and disruption, you will be indefinitely blocked from this Wikipedia. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 02:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, how are those examples of incivility? I'd call being blocked for trying to improve Wikipedia far more incivil. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 08:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to kind of agree, even despite the fact that I don't like your style in general... your last few "examples of incivility" are pretty mild, actually. You'll find that around here some animals are more equal than others; there are a few bigshots who get a free pass to be as uncivil as they want, while others can get blocked or banned for rather minor things. *Dan T.* 12:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like this and this show that you seem to be completely unwilling to work with the community and cease your disruption. Like it or not, Wikipedia is a community effort. You have been indefinitely blocked. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 23:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I think you're way too sensitive. I was actually being quite patient with Xcommunic8 over the past few days since he was the one who insulted/abused/was in-/uncivil to me (as I outline on his talk page). As for Piet, well, he's continually harrassed/wikistalked me for a couple weeks now and I was actually quite patient with him as well. I'm not completely unwilling to work with the community--hell, I've put up with it for this long, playing its various AfD/RfC and other "consensus" games, haven't I? I can only deal with oppression so much before it becomes ridiculous... I have contributed much to Wikipedia for you to just casually (and it is) block me indefinitely. Your blanket definition and interpretation of civility is unrealistic. Wikipedia is not a college/university or a renowned scientific instituion--hell, it's just a casual hobby website, for the most part, yet it is taken way too seriously by some editors (and most admins). Aside from the hypocracy, when others are uncivil to me, it goes barely noticed (like with IPSOS above, Xcommunic8 on Talk:Jordan Maxwell, and Reverend Zapanaz on Talk:CKLN-FM where he implied I was an idiot). The others have ganged up on me, particularly in AfDs and my RfC. Where is the justice? What happened to the arbitration process? If being uncivil means not being able to express onself (i.e free speech) in an effort to improve a flawed system, Wikipedia won't succeed under such oppression. I will be appealing this block, too, to most likely futile avail... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 03:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Eep² (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

see above

Decline reason:

I have not unblocked you completely, but I have shortened the block to twenty-four hours from now. Pithy sarcasm does not make an indefinite block, but I'm afraid if I unblock you entirely you'll think it's 100% okay. Based on the comments above, I don't think you realize yet how insulting your condescending remarks, like the ones noted by Krimpet, can be. -- tariqabjotu 14:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thank you. I am not trying to insult people, but people insult me when they revert my edits (or immediately nominate pages I create for deletion) when I am trying to improve Wikipedia. I will discuss things more before reverting other edits, but I tried discussing recent reversions with the admin (Ryulong) who previous blocked me for a week, to no avail. He usually didn't even bother answering the questions and played dumb--even after pointing his question evasion out. He's since deleted the discussion from his talk page. This isn't very civil behavior from an admin--especially one who blocked me for a week over the issue in question. I don't appreciate being treated like that when I am trying to improve Wikipedia. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 15:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.. but Eep, you are in fact insulting people, whether you are trying to or not. And you're doing it repeatedly, doing it again, and doing it over and over. If you don't understand that this is how your behaviour is interpreted, perhaps you need to take another look. You might consider that people who don't agree with you are ALSO honest contributors who are trying to improve Wikipedia, and see no more justification for your insulting their opinions (by continuing to insist that you, and only you, know how Wikipedia should be) than you seem to see for their reverting your contributions? --Alvestrand 16:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people named John

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article List of people named John, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Realkyhick 08:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello eep2. My humble suggestion, no offence. Dont remove prod warnings so early. Do it on 5th day otherwise they go for afd soon. Delay for 5 days so that you can improve article and think of gameplan. Why do you try to teach everyone game of wikipedia? There are some million users, mind your motives and use all possible means. Again, no offence intended. Jst enthar 04:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

autoblock

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 69.111.164.118 expired. Request handled by: Netsnipe ► 16:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Oliver (disambiguation)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Harry Oliver (disambiguation), by Masaruemoto (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Harry Oliver (disambiguation) fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Delete this redirect to make way for a page move from Harry Oliver (dismbiguation) (typo) to Harry Oliver (disambiguation) to retain the history.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Harry Oliver (disambiguation), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Harry Oliver (disambiguation) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esotericism

Why did you revert my edit to Esotericism? Those links were superfluous, unrelated to the article, and there were so many that it made it difficult to read, considering most people are used to reading text in one color.--209.162.40.183 06:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steamshovel Press

Any chance you have scans of the seventh issue? And does that issue have a masthead inside? Please don't get upset, but someone named User:Dcooper has deleted the Phil Gounis info because it was OR, and although I dislike having to agree with him, it seems he's correct. I'm hoping the magazine has the information we seem to be looking for. However, that will probably be disallowed because it's not a secondary source. 68.89.149.2 22:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the seventh issue says that he's the co-founder, you can cite it without needing a scan, in my opinion.--Dcooper 23:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe any of the issues state who the founder(s) is/are, actually. Gounis has not replied to my latest email regarding the lawsuit and a request for a reference about it. I don't have a scan of it but feel free to email him and ask. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 03:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my questions may not exactly bear on whether Wikipedia would include this information, but I'd like to know whether the seventh issue has a more formal look than the first issue, whether it has anything like a masthead, and whether Phil is mentioned in any role if there is a masthead. I imagine some of us would like to know the outcome of Gounis's lawsuit, but I don't know how to go about finding out. 68.89.149.2 19:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, email him...and Kenn Thomas. Try a St. Louis, Missouri court website for a public record of the court case, if it exists. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 03:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you "agree that Gounis probably did co-found the magazine" and yet you say "there just isn't reliable, credible proof of that"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Truthdoc (talk • contribs) 03:10, July 5, 2007 – Please sign your posts!

Because there isn't (that I and others have yet been able to find, anyway). See Wikipedia:Reliability for more info. As I've said on Talk:Steamshovel Press, Gounis needs to provide a credible, reliable source that shows he co-founded the magazine. Wikipedia (or at least User:Dcooper anyway) doesn't consider my email exchange with him, and the scan of the first issue, to be credible/reliable. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 10:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really out of my league here and can't figure out how to get this information to anyone so I'll leave a note here. I have scans of the mastheads for issues 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Steamshovel Press (from Gounis). They all list Gounis and Thomas as co-editors. Apparently, the first issue was just a publication of an interview (no other content) so they didn't bother with a masthead. I don't know what happened to issues 2 and 3. Thomas may have copies, but if he does, he's not offering them for us to see. However, if Gounis was editor by issue 4, and the co-publisher of the first issue/interview, it stands to reason he was listed that way on both issues 2 and 3, which, in my view, makes him a founder. How should I proceed? Thanks. (P.S. My apologies if I somehow inadvertently screwed up your user talk page, sigh...) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mosaic2007 (talk • contribs) 09:30, July 5, 2007 – Please sign your posts!

Well, do you have a website to upload the scans to? If not, you can get free space at Flickr, various web-based email providers (Google, Yahoo!, Hotmail, etc) or a free blog at Vox, Blogspot, LiveJournal, etc. Oh and you didn't screw up my talk page but you forgot to sign your post (I did via a template for you). I doubt Dcooper et al ("consensus") will accept the scans though since they're not from a "reliable, credible source" (i.e. published in some zippity-do-dah bigshot name-brand old-media print publication--or something), but who knows... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 17:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to scan the issues or create a blog or e-mail anyone. Just edit the article to say something like "the early issues were edited by Thomas and Gounis" and then cite those issues as your reference. You could also say "the first issue consisted of an interview by Thomas and Gounis" and cite it. A secondary source would be preferable, but I don't think anyone would challenge you citing the primary source. I certainly won't. But you can't say that Gounis published or founded the magazine unless you can find a reliable source (such as the magazine itself) which states that he did.--Dcooper 20:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

It seems to me that you are not able to contribute anything to the encyclopedia. You consistantly turn pages into disambiguation pages, add barely related items to disambiguation pages, and you have, once again, copied content of a page that is to be deleted into your user subspace. Wikipedia is not a search engine for you to fine tune. It is an encyclopedia. I have blocked you indefinitely. You may appeal this block with {{unblock}} or an e-mail to the unblocking mailing list.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Eep² (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Huh? I've contributed plenty to Wikipedia. I don't turn pages into dab pages; I create dab pages. I copied the AfDed page to a subpage so I could work on it some more should it be deleted before I have time to find more references than I already have since the AfD. Geez.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Huh? I've contributed plenty to Wikipedia. I don't ''turn'' pages into dab pages; I ''create'' dab pages. I copied the AfDed page to a subpage so I could work on it some more should it be deleted before I have time to find more references than I already have since the AfD. Geez. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Huh? I've contributed plenty to Wikipedia. I don't ''turn'' pages into dab pages; I ''create'' dab pages. I copied the AfDed page to a subpage so I could work on it some more should it be deleted before I have time to find more references than I already have since the AfD. Geez. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Huh? I've contributed plenty to Wikipedia. I don't ''turn'' pages into dab pages; I ''create'' dab pages. I copied the AfDed page to a subpage so I could work on it some more should it be deleted before I have time to find more references than I already have since the AfD. Geez. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 08:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Ryulong. You have received a great deal of advice from editors with more experience than yours, and have had several chances, and appear to have benefited from neither. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't pressed my dab suggestions since my last block. Yes, I've contributed to dabs--and created new ones from scratch (not turned pages into dab pages), but so what? Since when is contributing to Wikipedia bad? God damn...regardless, an arbitration process should occur, if anything. To be permanently banned over contributing to Wikipedia is just stupid (just as it was stupid to be permanently banned for a minor case of "incivility" by the same admin, who's obviously trigger-finger happy). If you look at my contribution history you'll see I have far more positive contributions to Wikipedia than the few minor infractions that've occurred with overzealous editors/admins who have come down on me for the stupidest of things (which has then led to the so-called "incivility" and whatnot)--ridiculous. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 02:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]