User talk:ESkog/Archive8

Index of Talk Page archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D E F 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F May 19-December 22, 2010 - December 23, 2010 - November 10, 2011 - December 8, 2011 - October 8, 2012 - October 18, 2012 - May 27, 2013 - May 30, 2013 - March 26, 2014 - January 29, 2015 - March 15, 2017

My userpage

Thanks for the revert Prodego ^talk 01:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant Additional Links Removed?

Please explain why the relevant additional links that I added to Macintosh related entries were not considered appropriate. Were they formatted incorrectly? The content is certainly on topic. Thank you.

I've re-read the guidelines and the links seem to be ok. Are you not allowed to also link to the home of a suggested site?

—This unsigned comment was added by 67.9.135.161 (talk • contribs) .

The site does not require membership to view the linked content. It's only for some additional content and to post messages and it doesn't cost anything. Lots of sites require signing up to post messages. Thanks for the fix. —This unsigned comment was added by 67.9.135.161 (talk • contribs) .

I saw that you (ESkog) reverted 67.9.135.161's addition of the link to EveryMac to the Motorola StarMax article. IMO the link seemed appropriate, especially as the article doesn't currently have detailed specs on the StarMax. -- Hawaiian717 06:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The anon user has been spamming his links across a huge range of articles. The removals were justified. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shultz III

I would be more than willing to keep an eye on and be ready to help; helping people adapt to the Wikiprocess just gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling, you know? :) Take care, _-M ^o P-_ 03:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Darth mhaw (talk · contribs)

I am sorry that you feel this way, I am not trying to be a vandal. I am just interested in trying to make it known that Muslims are not good people. I am sorry that you feel this way, but i am allowed to freely express my opinions on my user page. Thank you, that is all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darth mhaw (talk • contribs) 21:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

See User page for more information, particularly the section titled "What can I not have on my user page?". Isopropyl 21:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Block

I have to say, frankly, that I am disappointed with the blocks you and user:Ashibaka has applied on me. If you have actually looked into the edit history of the templates in details, you can tell what had been happening. User:Alanmak created a new template at template:HK as a fork by cut-and-paste, and edited many articles across Wikipedia to apply his template. He has ignored all my discussion requests, both via edit summaries and his user talk page. Many users and sysops keep getting themselves into trouble when dealing with such users. Consequently there's a growing tendency for sysop to avoid getting into trouble and keep a yellow light for these edits, whereas some are exercising their power without paying attention to what's actually going on. Wikipedia will never be successful with such a problematic mechanism. — Instantnood 16:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nood, I'm not trying to bait you here, but let's go over this so you can flesh out what the problem is.

If you have actually looked into the edit history of the templates in details, you can tell what had been happening.

Actually, we can't completely because at least one edit history is completely wiped out. The other only shows back and forth moves.

User:Alanmak created a new template at template:HK as a fork by cut-and-paste

Please explain why this is a problem. The template consists of two words and one picture, there is no reasonable edit history to maintain. If people expect an HK template, this isn't a fork, but a convenience. He may not have known that template redirects work (I don't) so try to assume good faith.

, and edited many articles across Wikipedia to apply his template.

Please explain why this is a problem. The end result to readers is the same.

He has ignored all my discussion requests, both via edit summaries and his user talk page.

Yes, he has, but you should be very familiar with Wikipedia's dispute resolution. Going on a revert war isn't the solution, and it's not only Alanmak that you are revert warring with. In this case of the template, the template consists of two words and one picture, is this really worth getting blocked over? Have you actually discussed anything on the talk page for this template?

Many users and sysops keep getting themselves into trouble when dealing with such users.

And people say the same about you. For every hundred reverts you've made, I've made one, and when I complained, we've both been blocked only once, not once for me and 100 for you. Put yourself in my position with you, while you deal with Alanmak. Find a course of action, or non-action, that doesn't result in getting yourself blocked. This is frustrating, but it's the only way to continue contributing.

Consequently there's a growing tendency for sysop to avoid getting into trouble and keep a yellow light for these edits, whereas some are exercising their power without paying attention to what's actually going on.

Very true, and I agree this is problematic. You have to know however, I see it from a different side than you do. What I've realized is that admins (and Arbcom) are never going to actually pay attention to the core of any problem and create a solution tailored to that problem. Admins are too involved in their own petty little squabbles. Arbcom simply doesn't have time to actually read the amount of stuff thrown at them. The only answer then, is to stop the behavior that attracts their attention towards you.

Wikipedia will never be successful with such a problematic mechanism.

In some sense, Wikipedia already is successful. How the project deals with individuals leaves a lot to be desired and in some sense makes those editors question it's value. However, there are thousands of editors and from the POV of the project getting rid of problematic editors (no matter whether they be right or wrong) keeps the project moving efficiently. From our POV, that is a systemic failure of Wikipedia; but it's a failure we have to acknowledge and live with if we wish to continue contributing. You can't beat the system.

SchmuckyTheCat 17:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at user talk:SchmuckyTheCat. — Insta ntnood 15:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As said earlier, if it's possible to have the matter solved, nobody wants to resort to series of reverts. If a sysop only acts to stop, paying no attention to the details of the disputed matter, she/he is far from really fulfilling her/his responsibilities. I do want to have your assistance to help solve the matter, and please don't delay reaching an ultimate solution. If you're really helping us, please step in. — Instantnood 18:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Instantnood (talk • contribs) 21:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation

You placed a warning on my talk page regarding the 3RR and reversions made to the Anthony Beevor article. I did violate the rule, but I wanted to know if you had any suggestions for how to better handle such a situation in the future. The user had placed a POV low-quality (re: poorly translated) section in the introduction to the article, and I was trying to keep it out, because it seemed inappropriate to me. Should I have simply left the section in while trying to work out consensus on the talk page, even though the material obviously shouldn't have been on the page? SS451 07:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cassie's Three-Legged Dog Club

ESkog:

I wanted to bring to your attention this Reference Desk conversation. Apparently, this new editor was writing their first article and you speedied it within seconds of their contribution for CSD A7 and A8, and this person was somewhat distraught over it.

The editor's contribution, though perhaps non-encyclopedic, is clearly not vandalism and as such you ought to have left a message on the editor's talk page (or at the least, welcomed them.)

I wanted to point out that this is not very good customer service or welcoming behavior, as Jimbo advocates, and it bites. You might want to lay off the hair-trigger on RC, at least when the contribution is clearly not blatant vandalism.

Thanks,

KWH 17:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Your Recent Edits

In reviewing your recent activity, I see a lot of good contributions and a few things I'd like to mention as regards other policy.

This edit requesting personal information from another user is unacceptable, and I think you've been blocked for similar behavior in the past. If someone wants to volunteer something about themselves, that's great - if you want to ask once, politely, about someone, that's sometimes ok.

He posted a ridiculous addition on line 6 here. That gave off some hints of immaturity. I removed the image from Line 29 because I don't think that's encyclopedic, and to let it stay means to the demented uploader that what he did was a success. --Shultz IV 01:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit and others inserting the same information appear to be false, I can't verify it using Firefox or Internet Explorer. Is this meant to be an April Fool's joke? At any rate, the information is also pretty trivial in connection with the Korean Wikipedia, and reinserting it several times may run you afoul of the three-revert rule.

I did not make the cartoon behind the Wikipedia logo. The only modification I made to the image was drawing those red highlights to immediately give away the apparent April Fools gag. I couldn't know how to draw a cartoon that good, and attempting to would require me to go through a LOT of trouble to think up and trace one, which would take several hours, too many for me to spend. If it was an already-existing cartoon character, I wouldn't know how to put it behind the Wikipedia logo anyway, nor would I want to waste precious time to do all this. --Shultz IV 01:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Eureeka's Castle

Per our policy on copyrighted song lyrics and poetry, I have removed your edits to Talk:Eureeka's Castle as a violation of copyright. Let me know if you have any questions. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It took me ~20-30 minutes to listen to the song over and over again, in slow-play (on WMP 10), so I could transpose it onto the page. It was a talk page, so I thought it wouldn't matter as much. Is it ok if I place it under a user subpage instead? If so, can you please copy & paste the deleted content onto there so I won't feel like I've wasted my time? Thanks. --Shultz IV 01:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it can't be in your userspace either. Wikipedia cannot host copyrighted material anywhere. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On WP:L&P, I searched for "anywhere" and "user" using the Ctrl+F (Find) feature. There clearly isn't anything stating the disallowal of copyrighted material onto userspace. Maybe the policy page needs an update. Anyway, I know you can still email me the lyrics. My email address is chomusclavus (at) yahoo . com. --Shultz IV 02:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shultz IV

I understand that you've decided to mentor him? Please remind him, blanking AFD notices[1][2] is vandalism. NSL E _(T+C) at 06:26 UTC (2006-04-03)

ESkog, help!

Some anon has only been targeting MY articles. I guess it was easy to find because I keep a list of articles I created on my userpage. He might have a username I'm familiar with, so can you request a CheckUser on him?

He's trying to get someone to delete ReturnPath, but it's more notable than many think. 153,000 hits?? Case Closed!

He's trying to get OXXO deleted too. OXXO is a major convenience store chain in Mexico and has 388,000 Google hits!

Same for Year-round school. 303,000 Google hits.

He's clearly targeting ME. Please stop this clown! Also, remove the AFD notices and delete the AFDs themselves. Thank you. --Shultz IV 06:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, ESkog, I've reverted a couple of Shultz's removal of {{prod}} and AFD notices, and blocked him 24 hours for disruption. You're free to unblock him when you've looked through the situation. NSL E _(T+C) at 06:40 UTC (2006-04-03)

Addendum, I've also replied to Shultz's similar rant on his own talk page - including giving him a link to WP:OWN, which he seems to fail to understand ("MY articles"). NSL E _(T+C) at 08:57 UTC (2006-04-03)

Nixer

Actually, I don't believe I've ever dealt directly with the guy, though his name looks familiar: I wandered into that particular article (Antony Beevor) because I was looking up/fiddling with an article related to Beevor, and saw the blatantly POV intro. I'd probably try to contribute to an RfC, but it looks like he spreads his antagonism around instead of concentrating it in a few articles, so I suspect people don't feel it's worth it to do more than block the axe-grinding/bad behavior as it pops up. --Calton | Talk 02:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei American School 3RR

I didnt do 3RR first, Wikibofh and benjamin tsai kept reverting my edits first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.201.35.145 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

wikibofh reverted 3 times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.201.35.145 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

so 3 reverts is allowed but 4 reverts isnt? am i allowed to edit if its not a revert? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.201.35.145 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2

The log shows it as a large lowercase replacement, hmm, I'll see what I can do to fix it though -- Tawker 03:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it already had provisions in the code to skip over this exact sort of case. I'm made a few adjustments, hopefully this won't get repeated. joshbuddy^talk 05:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shultz <n> mentoring; talk page archiving

I'm a bit puzzled on how Shultz is "archiving" his talk page, and I'm curious as to whether you've given him any advice on the subject. Rather strikes me that removing comments, placing them in a subpage with a highly inobvious link, and wondering aloud how to password-protect them(!), is rather adhering to the "letter" of the convention on archiving, as opposed to simple deletion (not that that doesn't happen often enough). Alai 16:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, not a big deal at all, just struck me as a bit odd. Alai 23:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Sorry about the confusion, it startled me when I was temporarily autoblocked because another user had used my IP, as I was not aware that it was being shared. I am able to edit now, thanks. Phoenix2 23:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moline

Why did you revert all of my work on Moline Illinois? I find it incredible that you think all of my efforts are dismissible. Clearly you didn't even look... I'm not sure exactly how to dialog with you so please do me a favor and either respond on the Moline Illinois discussion page or by sending me an email at coreyjahns@gmail.com, or at this location. Again, you are way off-base if you think my efforts are vandalism or nonsense... --coreyjahns —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.80.194.19 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Quick question

Hey ESkog. Would you mind taking a look at User talk:Morton devonshire? I'm not familiar with the user, but I get the distinct impression from browsing his discussions that it's gradually turned into an attack page. I don't know what the context of any of it is, but there's a purported weasel list and a bunch of veiled personal attacks strewn about. Anyways, good luck with the vandal fighting, I see the count's increasing steadily. Isopropyl 01:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's safe to describe it as "POV-pushing", at the least. Isopropyl 21:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

I know how you feel about me editing that page but it is a legitimate edit..although not standard to wikipedia. But the man who owns that site was directly referenced by that boy (Justin Berry) today in congress. Sorry if you have trouble believing that. I trust you wikipedians to correct what I add and include it in this write up about Justin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.192.59.132 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

82.43.210.155

Hope you don';t mind, but I extended your block of 82.43.210.155 to one week. It was the second time and the vandalism was pretty bad. First 24 hour block didn't seem to do the trick so I felt one week may. No problems if you want to use your time, I just wanted to notify you of the change.Gator (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

...for reverting vandalism to my user page. —Nightst a llion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 09:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know two of your brothers

: ) cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 17:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moline 2

A few days ago I asked you why you reverted my efforts on the Moline, Illinois page and either I didn't get a response from you or I didn't receive it. In your initial message to me, given at the time when you reverted all of the work I had done, you called my efforts vandalism and nonsense; I realize this is probably a auto-generated message sent in response to a flagged *accidental* event, but given that I've made several attempts to communicate to you, via this page as well as four or five times thru the original "vandalism/nonsense" (to which to you responded *once*, with, I might add, a tone that was less than in keeping with the tone I see when I read the messages on this page). Nevertheless, what I was trying to accomplish with the Moline page was to take a wikipedia entry that was woefully lacking and add some real value to it -- I had added the the Moline page a "location", "air travel", "major interstate highways", "sports", "gambling", and "landmarks; and notable bridges" sections. Additionally, I completely revamped the schools section into an "education" section that provided internal and external links to every school mentioned. You removed all of that. BTW, I tried to document all of my efforts in the Discussion page, so anyone could see what I was trying to do: make the Moline page better. Before I found it, it was little more than a glorified rundown of which neighborhood has more Mexicans than the next... and I found it simply too racist to let stand. Yes, I also was trying to edit the Neighborhood section, to remove the racism, but also better demonstrate the real flavor and history of the town. Thanks to you, the history and flavor is gone, and the racism is back... Congratulations. A final request; if you see fit to keep my efforts out of the wiki, then please be so kind as to be consistent, for I still see the results of my writing on the Moline page. IF you are going to remove my work and have the Moline page reflect the rants of one racist hick, please be consistent and completely remove all of my work --- either keep all of my work in... or none of it. Thanks, and kind regards, ~~--Coreyjahns 07 March 2006 (UTC)~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.190.204.81 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Moline, Illinois again

As I said to you before, your edits accidentally caused a large section of text to be removed from the page. This was reverted, and flagged as a test message - at which point I suggested you work in the Wikipedia:Sandbox until you were more comfortable editing. I apologize again if I reverted constructive edits. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Re: Moline...

Thanks for the message. I will take your kind advise, however, I find it amazing that --if I read your message correctly-- the work and value added to a wikipedia entry will be permanently removed... all because of an administrative mistake. And, given that you are now completely aware of the full situation, I still wonder as to whether or not you are going to restore the Moline page to something worthy of the wikipedia of leave it currently is -- a vanity rambling of a racist. --Coreyjahns 07 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Moline3

You are more than welcome to edit the page again. My revert made no judgment about the content, just that it seemed quite a lot was being removed without explanation. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Re: Moline3

Sorry but I do think the words "nonsense" and "vandalism" make a judgment about content, but nevertheless... BTW, when you say that it seemed quite a lot was being removed without explanation, that's becuase quite alot of text in the "neighborhood" section was racist rants, and All of my edits were completely documented in the Discussion page. I would think that you Wiki Admins would at least take the five seconds or so that it would take to look before you assume there is no explanation for such removal... However, you now invite me to re-create my efforts... to do the work all over again. I must assume this is because you are unable to correct your mistake yourself. That is a shame... ~~--Coreyjahns 07 March 2006 (UTC)~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.190.204.81 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Email to you - 4-7-2006

Hi, I'm checking to make sure you got the email I just sent you. I didn't want to leave you a message here, and you'll see why, so I emailed you instead. If you don't see it, check the junk mail filter and label it "Not Spam". Thanks. --Shultz IV 21:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just now, I'm trying to enter IRC so I can speak with you about this, but it keeps giving me this error message: "* Connection failed. Error: Connection refused". I don't know why it's doing this, but I don't feel too comfortable about it. Did you get the email? --Shultz IV 20:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shultz and blocking policy

FYI - Shultz has proposed a change to the blocking policy: [3]. I moved it to the talk page Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy for discussion, because it hasn't gathered much support at this point. FreplySpang (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

68.102.195.220

This guy has been defaming you on certain pages. I noticed he' had numerous warnings; I think he should be blocked now. TydeNet 05:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm

-shuffles a bit- Can you PLEASE block my doom127 account now? I thought all that other bit would have been enough to bring a climactic cymbal-crashing roar to celebrate my 1000th edit on Wikipedia and a bigger "F you!" to Cyde. Seems kind of a waste of time if all I can get out of that is a bloody 24 hour block. And by the way, if you just are planning on blocking this IP without blocking the doom account, it would save headaches if you didn't, as I'll just drum up another IP. I would really rather just discuss the issue at hand. -- ~~user:doom127~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.242.12.194 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

All you saw was templates from the top of the page?

What's your screen resolution? Mine is 1280*1024. Can you set it higher than you have right now? --Shultz IV 22:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your message on the top of my talk page

The current message: "If you block him, please leave a short note on his talk page." makes me look like a bad guy . I don't want that.

I liked this message better: "If you are considering blocking him, please run the block by ESkog first if that is at all reasonable." I won't look so bad and I'd feel better when I see this instead.

Admin ?

Thank you for your consideration. I am interested in becoming an Admin someday. If you think I might be ready I would be willing to accept a nomination. Cheers. No Guru 00:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Didn't Shoot the Sheriff

Mister, can I get an explanation why you deleted 'Faster mustache.' If you thought it was self-promoting, shouldn't you give it a warning and ask for it to be verified? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roger3b (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Freedom (philosophy)

Hi I made a mistake. I wanted to move the freedom article to the freedom (philosophy) I went about it all wrong. I think we are fighting each other. could you please move the 'freedom' article to 'freedom (philosophy)' or let me delete freedom (philosophy) so I can move the original freedom article

to 'freedom (philosophy)' thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrdthree (talk • contribs) 19:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for following up and the great work!Mrdthree 19:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faster Mustache

I contend that 'Faster mustache' should have been given an 'AFD' warning not a Speedy Deletion. Critical_Mass is worthy, can you please repost my content to give me a chance to prove it's worthy. -Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roger3b (talk • contribs) 19:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Faster Mustache - locked for editing

Now I'm locked out from editing that page, I need a couple days to work on it and I can make it verifiable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roger3b (talk • contribs) 21:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've supplied the reasoning for the protecting of the article (and why it seems unlikely that anything will be gained from unprotecting it) on the user's talk page. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 22:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doom127

If was comproved that User:Doom127 created and used sockpuppets he will be block indefinitevely? --Pinoi 03:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You DO know that these guys know how to do a sockpuppet check, right Brazil? Daniel Davis 03:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(replying here since you'll just create more socks) - I'm not sure really what I have to do with this, but our sockpuppet policy does not call for any blocks for simply using sockpuppets. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you delete articles?

Thanks for the info on the Geronimo Stilton articles. I would like to delete the stubs about the books, but since I am new here, I don't know how. Help! TrapStilton 19:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting the redirects on the articles.

Dagen McDowell

I would have turned the Dagen mcdowell page into a redirect, but I imagined that one would be unlikely to use that spelling; I don't think it needs to go to RfD, though, inasmuch as it's not a wholly unnecessary redirect. Thanks also for the celerity with which you resolved the problem. Joe 20:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiletics

Hi, I was about to say delete on this as the wiki has only been running for 2-3 weeks and contains only 5 articles. But then I noticed that the article had only been created a minute or two before you placed your AfD notice. It might be an idea to see if you can contact the author first. As for me, I'll wait a while to see what happens to the article coming back to the AfD page. Best regards, --BillC 01:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point. I was unaware it was a recreation of previously deleted material. I have been looking up the author's history. There's definitely some material there that are nn candidates. I'll have a look at it in the morning. --BillC 01:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vadalism?

Perhaps you are confused about your role in the environs of Wikipedia, but removing content is simply another form of editing, just as correcting spelling or adding content is a form of editing. It is the very purpose and nature of wikipedia that people be allowed to correct mistakes, remove biased or misleading information, and truncate articles to remove that which is unnecessary, off-topic, or factually inaccurate. Don't call it vandalism and then just put it all back without actually looking at the content and examining whether it is needed. How dare you make accusations of vandalism and act as though your grasp of subjects is somehow superior to others simply because you spend more time on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.45.9.215 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if you actually wasted all of ten seconds to actually look at the revisions, you would notice that content was being added as well as removed, and that numerous paragraphs containing criticism were left in place, because they were accurate, unbiased, and actually of note. Given the already ridiculous length of the article, including every comment anyone has ever made about Michael Moore, whether in favor of or detracting, was not important to the factual purpose of the article. I also removed biased language that meant to paint Moore one way or another. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.45.9.215 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Umkomaas drift primary school

Hi! You speedy deleted Umkomaas drift primary school (log). It turns out that the article wasn't {{db-author}} (as the user tagging the article thought), as the author has expressed interest in expanding the article. So I restored it, and will keep an eye on its progress. Also, thanks for fixing up the mislaid speedy deletion tag on the talk page. Cheers, --Commander Keane 17:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[4]

Hi, you couldn't delete hounding please? --Dangherous 16:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Facebook

Thanks for letting me know ESkog. I can't say I'm overjoyed with the edi. But it's a wiki :) and I can live with it. Thanks again -- sannse (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought that if someone posts their portrait on their userpage, then it's gotta be ok to post it on our Facebook. Otherwise, if they didn't want it shown on the Facebook, they wouldn't put it up on their userpage in the first place because showing a self-portrait on the userpage is just as public as showing it on the Facebook. --Shultz IV 23:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Parker Angel

Hi there. You protected this nearly 3 weeks ago, so I'm just letting you know that I'm going to unprotect it now. Since WP:SEMI is for dealing with serious, current vandals, I figure it's been more than long enough. Can I ask you to check your other recent protections and lift them as necessary, also to remember protections in general. CAT:SEMI is nearly 100 items, most of them seem to have been forgotten by the protecting admin. -Splash^talk 21:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Emo (slang). -Splash^talk 21:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a request

When you speedy delete articles that have an attached AfD discussion (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Northwest Territories capitals/temp, which you speedy deleted as the author requersted deletion), please take the time to close off the deletion debate per Wikipedia:Deletion process#Articles for Deletion page. I've done the one I cited as an example, but please remember in the future. Thanks! -- Saberwyn 22:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. What newsletter?

I didn't want to ask Maru this because I think it's generally not a good thing for people to be clueless about what's supposedly their own. Here, he said he'd like to subscribe to my newsletter. What newsletter? I didn't know whatever I made would be construed as a newsletter. What exactly was Maru referring to? --Shultz IV 05:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MY EDITS WERE LEGITIMATE

Okay!???? --PizzaIsGood 01:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey idiot

you were the one that was repeatedly undoing MY edits. Go away, AND STOP VANDALISING! --PizzaIsGood 01:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]