User talk:Eebster the Great

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Eebster the Great, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


This was on the talk page, right? I see an edit by you in the talk history on 17 March last, and a couple by me on 5 June, and 18 July, neither of which I recall very well. The edit by Dpr was years old, and I don't believe I touched it.

My 5 June edit seems to have concerned the removal of the "Disappointed" section re. the "condensed energy" definition (by the IP editor, I do not know how or why that happened. I would not ordinarily remove a talk page comment. It may have been accidental. I see now that that section has been restored (with an added comment by you, which I don't think I touched?)

The other, 18 July edit, seems to have been the removal of a long section from the article (by IP editor, and copy into the talk space, in case some of it might be salvaged. I guess that is not at issue?

Anyhow, sorry if I mangled your stuff, I think it must have been inadvertent.

Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

'In Popular Culture' section[edit]

Could I suggest that you move this page into Wikipedia space (this can be done by clicking on the move tab at the top of the page and adding "Wikipedia:" to the beginning of the article title. Whilst the information is interesting in terms of the project I don't think the concept of "in popular culture" sections has recieved the attention from reliable sources that will allow a separate neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia article to be written - leaving it open to being nominated for deletion. See this search which seems to only give results from wikis, blogs and webcomics. By moving it into project space you would be able to give a more in-depth description of the topic with the different points of view outlined in a way that would not be appropriate in mainspace. Apologies if I've overlooked potential sources, in which case good luck improving the article. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that the article has been moved to a more appropriate name: "In Popular Culture" (Wikipedia). Obviously this page at the outset seems specific and ridiculous, but there is potential for improvement. "In Popular Culture" sections have become perhaps the most common non-generic section on Wikipedia, and have themselves sparked somewhat of an internet phenomenon throughout the web. I don't have many good sources right now and very little time to work on the article, but I would prefer to leave it up in case somebody else can improve it.
It is also interesting to note that "In popular culture" sections represent a unique situation on Wikipedia where the same vague topic of information can be cross-applied, for better or worse, to more specific subjects, something I would like to look into. They are also one of the most debated open questions on Wikipedia. Eebster the Great (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree it's an interesting topic but I'm not sure if it's suitable for an article in mainspace, I'll tag it as needing improved referencing and see what happens. There is at least one other article on Wikipedia culture - Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia - so I guess sourcing could be possible. Guest9999 (talk)
On a lighter note I applaud you for putting an "in popular culture" section in the article (and await the moment when In popular culture in popular culture is split off). Guest9999 (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Clearly a page on "in popular culture" could never be complete without a section on "'in popular culture' in popular culture." And you can't deny its relevance! :) Eebster the Great (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "In Popular Culture" (Wikipedia)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on "In Popular Culture" (Wikipedia), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

it is a self-confessed joke article; see talk page of 'Wood'

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Lots42 (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


CopyeditorStar7.PNG The Copyeditor's Barnstar
While your edits are infrequent, when they come they add significant depth, superb prose and finely tuned reason to Wikipedia. For that we are in your debt. - RoyBoy 04:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The Game[edit]

The blocking of editors on that article by admins was before I started editing it, but it was due to unproven and seemingly paranoid accusations of them being meatpuppets of a guy called Jonty something who runs a website on The Game. That website is blacklisted as it encouraged vandalism of Wikipedia, including a script to auto-vandalise pages. A couple of editors made the (innocent) mistake of mentioning the page, and got blocked. My own experience was the use of wikilawyering to try to block a perfectly good image. I would have let it drop but for the weakness of the arguments used against it. I can see why they get so uptight about this page due to the level of vandalism it gets, which of course isn't an excuse. Fences and windows (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I read through the entire page and talk page, scanned the page history, skimmed every Wikipedia policy, guideline, and essay they cited, and performed a comprehensive Google search on the blacklisted web site. I also viewed both OhNoItsJamie's and MickMacnee's User pages and skimmed their User Talk pages (finding, ironically, they both had had some temporary bans themselves). I feel I have seen enough to form some reasonable opinions and draw some reasonable conclusions.
OhNoItsJamie very aggressively removes spam, and has received some unwarranted complaints as a result. He has a tremendous edit count and hopefully has significantly improved Wikipedia, However, he often seems to receive legitimate complaints from people banned or reverted without adequate review of their edits. His dismissive tone and excessive rudeness are astonishing in their frequency and magnitude. I do not doubt his value as a copyeditor, but his administrative actions do seem questionable an unfortunate amount of the time.
Mickmacnee is somewhat different. He has considerable experience with biographical articles, as he claims, but unfortunately this experience seems to have done little good. His edits are more inconsistent than OhNoItsJamie's, and generally more disparaging. The archives on his talk page tell a story of ceaseless problematic vandalism, reverts, and ad hominems. He has been banned on and off for a long time.
The thing is, I am not substantially involved in any major abuse. Other users on the page were, and should report the problem.
On another note, I posted a proposal to remove from the blacklist. Some spamming accusations are legitimate, but the accusation of promoting vandalism of Wikipedia seems unfounded, at least at this point. It is possible the promotion of wiki vandalism was removed long ago in order to increase the chances of Wikipedia starting an article on The Game.
I'm not that familiar with how to pursue any complaint. I've reported vandals and sockpuppets, but not more subtle behaviour. I was only on the receiving end of some annoying reversions and talk page arguments, so am not really an injured party as such. Fences and windows (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

neoteny article[edit]

sorry for the mixup, I just did not know whether to agree or disagree with your reversion, as it was made with absolutely no reason given. I could thus only assume that my edit had been mistaken for vandalism. -- (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't my edit you reverted, but either way it doesn't matter, it took all of three seconds to fix. The usual process on Wikipedia is "Bold, Revert, Discuss," which makes sense, because contentious edits should be discussed before being included. Presumably there is some reason your edit was reverted, and I assume it was because it was unsourced (even if it seems apparent, I don't think that particular label is used in any of the sources currently in the article), so that was my reasoning. Eebster the Great (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment, on JudgementSummary's POV/OR essay in Clockwork universe theory[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I've been having trouble with JudgementSummary in this article. He's written a POV/OR essay. I've asked him to remove it, but he's deflected by arguing about minutiae in the first two sections. Honestly I don't care about these. He needs to delete his 5 "Objections"/"Considerations"/whatever he's calling them now.

wing gundam 01:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this canvassing aswell Eebster? You didn't mention this in your post?? (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

  • I have no idea what you are talking about. Eebster the Great (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Probably the very non nuetral manner which was used to notify you. The main issue is the notice contains a goal or desired outcome. This is indeed a type of canvassing that is called Campaigning per Wikipedia:Canvassing:
"Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages."--Amadscientist (talk) 08:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the "goal or desired outcome" anywhere. I stated the history of events (trouble with JudgementSummary, I asked, JudgementSummary deflected, I don't care, I've been asking JS to delete), an appropriate action.
Yet as the WP:ANI clearly states, I request a block on JudgementSummary and his IP, and I state this nowhere in the notification.
wing gundam 09:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
This was a request to comment at the article, not the ANI and you clearly stated the outcome you desired. Funny that you claim not to see what you just struck out above.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
You obviously didn't read what I struck out.
Last time I checked, "He needs to delete his 5 Objections" is not "He needs to be blocked for WP:DISRUPT" —wing gundam 11:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
wing gundam 1 - 0 Amadscientist (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia founder User Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) disagrees with his "off-wiki" obsession: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 125#Consensus and off-wiki canvassing: "I don't think it's a serious issue. I don't like the term 'canvassing', even on-wiki. I think it's more often used by people who want to shut down an open dialogue than people who have a righteous cause for concern. Another word for 'canvassing' is "engaging more people in the discussion" - it's open to all sides. The idea that it's bad to go out and recruit editors when you see a problem in Wikipedia is problematic. That isn't to say that some kinds of approaches to that aren't annoying - they are - but in general, this paranoia about it is not justified.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)" [193] and "I don't disagree with it (much) as written, but I think people tend to overstate the likelihood or importance of it, and tend to underestimate how often the real problem is people screaming 'canvassing' to prevent people from seeking outside voices. Many things on Wikipedia would benefit from more participation, more eyeballs, and the bias against recruitment means that decisions are made in obscure corners without relevant people being properly notified. This may suit the interests of a group that has a majority in that little corner, but knows that they are in the extreme minority in the broader community or world. But it doesn't suit the interests of Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)" [194]. (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Um, thanks.
Let me just say that from my perspective, this whole debate is unnecessary, and seems to stem from Machine Elf following me around with a magnifying glass. To say that i was canvassed is particularly preposterous, since I haven't even said I support the block. I hope that's enough to end the unwarranted scrutiny. Eebster the Great (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe in religion[edit]

Do you think I'm wrong? (talk) 02:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)