User talk:Eaolson: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:01, 17 September 2007

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)[reply]

May 8, 2007: What is your definition of a digital microscope?

I believe the common definition is: Digital microscope. A microscope and digital camera combination that provides a digital output such as USB or Firewire for connection to a computer. Often includes software to display and process the image on a PC.

Ex-gay

Is there some way of phrasing it that would work better? I think the info should be there even if it is phrased differently. Joie de Vivre 15:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Environment and intelligence restored

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to stay neutral when speaking about Red army crimes?

How to be neutral whem speaking about the crimes or war crimes? Explain, please, why do you supose my article about Red Army crimes to be clearly nonneutral and deletable? Ttturbo 22:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this article and your other Red Army related articles, it's pretty clear that you're pushing a particular point of view. That's not how we do things at Wikipedia. You may wish to review WP:NPOV. eaolson 00:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks in Egypt

Can see you put this up for deletion very quickly - less than 24 hours! Let me explain how it works. Greeks do create 1 article over night. They start an article with a sentence, than other Greeks come and add huge amounts to the article. I assume this is how many articles are started. To issue something like this with a stub notice is more appropriate than your Draconian action to delete any idea of the article which is to be expanded shortly. Can you please remove it from deletion index. Reaper7 13:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can contest a proposed deletion (prod, not AfD or speedy delete) yourself simply by removing the prod template. I've done so for you on the Greeks in Egypt article. I warn you though, that article strikes me as an attempt to push an agenda and so probably violates WP:NPOV. I will check back in a few days to see if any additions have been made. eaolson 14:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now, I did not read the deletion request properly. Don't worry, there is no agenda to be pushed here. I simply read the Greek diaspora page and seeing that there is no section for Greeks in Eygpt I thought I would help. BTW I know there are at least half a million Greeks there still and some of the most famous Greeks in modern history are from there. I have put the article into the Greek wiki listings for expansion already. Reaper7 14:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

You explained, you helped. Ttturbo 23:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding proposal for deletion of Indian Outsourcing Companies

Strong disagree: There are literally thousands of List Categories on Wiki. This is a standard and accepted wiki practice. see a few examples:

...

If you don't believe me click here for a complete list:

List of Search

Also See: List of

Talk:List of Indian Information Technology Outsourcing Companies

The creator of the article has contended on the Talk page that the article should be kept. This means the prod needs to be removed, and the article probably listed for AfD. Corvus cornix 04:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be solved

I have taken the "List of Companies" problem (what to do with an entire class of articles that get repeatedly submitted for deletion en mass?) for debate to two different places. This really needs to be solved once and for all (we can't keep debating the same stuff for eternity). Would you take a look at either the discussion on the Village Pump or the relevant wikiproject? Aditya Kabir 13:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About recent vandalism

Dear Mr. eaolson, regarding the message you left in my user talk page, I for once will make a call to reason: you probably haven't even looked at my edit on the article you mentioned, for it would be obvious the "just vandalizing lol" summary was thought as a little pun to moderators. You would notice, if you go back in the history to that edit, that it was in fact a correction I did in Good faith, although I'm considering high the possibility of your replay to be an innocent joke too. As to lighten your burden in checking said history, I'll explain what the correction was about: "do not support efforts to change young people's sexual orientation through "reparative therapy" and have raised serious concerns about its potential to do harm" You may discover, if you look cautiously, that the preceeding quote has quite a big sintactical mistake, as there are four double quotation marks (") but one quoted statement is ensted within the other. The correct form of expressing this would be: "do not support efforts to change young people's sexual orientation through 'reparative therapy' and have raised serious concerns about its potential to do harm" With single quotation marks ('). you may find more information on this in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark#Quotations_and_speech I hope this will clear all doubts that may have raised from this little misunderstanding. And, I'm sorry if, for not being an adept in the ways of Wikipedia, I replied in the wrong place, as I wasn't sure you would read this if I wrote it on my own talk page. Thanks for taking your time to read what I had to say.

Uh... sorry, I didn't realize I had to sign 190.55.86.40 20:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see your point, and it was a valid edit. I just saw an anon editor, a strange punctuation change, and the claim of vandalism in the edit summary. eaolson 02:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bismuth caps

What was I thinking? Thanks for catching that. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tayru

I removed the speedy tag and made it a redirect to Ţayrū, among all the hogwash there really is a town in Syria by that name. Learn something new every day. :-) Keep up the good work helping to keep WP clean. Carlossuarez46 06:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JamesAShapiro

In re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professor_blogs Proposed Deletion.

How is this page a directory? It does not list contact information and is not for business purposes.

I think this list should remain. There are many useful lists of people affiliated with various different media (i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times#Current_management_and_employees, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_programming#Personalities). It would be inconsistent to exclude this one.

Non-breaking spaces

Re: Silver edit [1];

I had read the manual of style (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Unit_symbols_and_abbreviations) and there is no preference for spaces before Celsius and Fahrenheit units. I was following the article precedent—which is with spaces. (Element box template on the right.) 212.32.87.198 17:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I didn't know that about the MOS. I was just going by what I usually see in journals. eaolson 17:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too speedy deletion

According to my notes I created an article on Mac's back's bookstore at 10:18; at 10:19, according to the record, you tagged for speedy deletion.

Please note the following text from the Wikipedia article on speedy deletion Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion: "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete. Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criteria the page meets, and consider notifying the page's creator."

In my opinion, one minute qualifies as "too soon."

Geoffrey.landis 02:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense, the page didn't look incomplete; it looked like a complete page for a local bookstore. If you feel the article as it was can be improved, it can be recreated by posting at Wikipedia:Undeletion. Usually when I'm creating an article, I create it and work on it under my user space, like at User:Eaolson/PageName and move it to the main namespace when it is ready. eaolson 03:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

- Given that you deleted the article ONE MINUTE after the first two sentences were posted, my only conclusion is that you are camping on new articles, attempting to be the first to delete so that you can perhaps win some kind of contest for being the greatest deletionist on Wikipedia. You don't seem to be paying any attention whatsoever to Wikipedia policies. There is a well defined policy for deletions, and among other things, the standard policy is that deletions should be open for discussion. You seem to be misusing the speedy deletion policy simply in order to avoid disussions of deletions. Geoffrey.landis 16:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 03:52, 17 September 2007 edit Eaolson (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 5,653 edits →‎Too speedy deletion: respond ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:01, 17 September 2007 edit undo Geoffrey.landis (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users 6,375 edits m →‎Too speedy deletion Next edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 102:		Line 102:

	*In my defense, the page didn't look incomplete; it looked like a complete page for a local bookstore. If you feel the article as it was can be improved, it can be recreated by posting at Wikipedia:Undeletion. Usually when I'm creating an article, I create it and work on it under my user space, like at User:Eaolson/PageName and move it to the main namespace when it is ready. eaolson 03:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)		*In my defense, the page didn't look incomplete; it looked like a complete page for a local bookstore. If you feel the article as it was can be improved, it can be recreated by posting at Wikipedia:Undeletion. Usually when I'm creating an article, I create it and work on it under my user space, like at User:Eaolson/PageName and move it to the main namespace when it is ready. eaolson 03:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

			**Given that you deleted the article '''ONE MINUTE''' after the first two sentences were posted, my only conclusion is that you are camping on new articles, attempting to be the first to delete so that you can perhaps win some kind of contest for being the greatest deletionist on Wikipedia. You don't seem to be paying any attention whatsoever to Wikipedia policies. There is a well defined policy for deletions, and among other things, the standard policy is that deletions should be open for discussion. You seem to be misusing the speedy deletion policy simply in order to avoid disussions of deletions. [[User:Geoffrey.landis\|Geoffrey.landis]] 16:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)