User talk:Eep²/2006

Eep

I really don't care enough to enter in a discussion with you on the notability or the onomatopoeic quality of the word eep, so I'll not re-revert you and just leave it at that. I'll only note that I think that it was not without reason that Eep was deleted three times before, and that it's rather rude to call editors whose opinion on the notability of Eep differs from yours 'wiki nazis/trolls/vultures'. On a sidenote, please try to keep in mind WP:OWN. — mark ✎ 18:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mark, you didn't have to delete the entire sounds section. That is what makes you a wiki nazi, in my opinion. When there are so many pages with just links to other Wikipedia pages, and no unique content, it's damn annoying when wiki vultures loom over a page I created that does have unique content. I don't know about the other 2 times Eep was deleted but the times I created it it had (and has!) valid, unique, encylopedic content. People need to leave what others create alone and let it be. They can contribute, fine, but not remove unless it's blatantly offensive--but even then it's gotta be seriously debated. -Eep² 18:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed part of the content on the basis that Wikipedia is not a general knowledgebase. The fact that your addition is unique content doesn't automatically render it suitable for inclusion. But I think we can agree to disagree on this; as I said, I'm not going to re-revert you. — mark ✎ 17:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to join the discussion at Talk:Eep. — mark ✎ 08:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your personal feelings on what happened with your article belong on the article page. The language you use should be toned down and placed on a talk page. Perhaps whoever deleted it was wrong, but I don't think you should use such language or try to subvert the website. Perhaps there is some sort of arbitration for wikipedia? Meanwhile, I don't think your disclaimer can remain on the front page. Valley2city 05:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't realize this was a private user page, and for that I am sorry. However, if this were an actual aricle, I don't think it has a place on wikipedia in its current form. However, with a lot of polishing, it shows some promise. Valley2city 06:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

burial alive

Hi. No harm done, but It seems you've added a LOT of links in that article. usually only links that are relvevant to the subject at hand are added. thanks.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 18:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how does one know what's relevant and what's not? It could be argued that every word is relevant, but until Wikipedia gets a way to link EVERY word (since every word is encyclopedic), specific/explicit links will have to suffice. There is a Firefox extension, Hyperwords, that allows this but it's kind of annoying to use. -Eep² 07:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eep, we are making a highly customizable version of Hyperwords now and any suggestions are very welcome indeed. How can we make it less annoying? Please email me at frode@hyperwords.net and we'll see what we can do! -212.158.202.197 10:08, June 1, 2006

As I emailed the creator (I don't the emails and don't remember the name), I suggested that Hyperwords not automatically display its own context menu when text was selected but, simply, appear as a normal branching option in Firefox's context menu (when selected text is right-clicked). And having to use a hotkey to bring up Hyperwords' context menu is just annoying. -Eep² 11:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge the gap

There doesn't appear to be an article on Bridge the gap ; Is there an article which requires this?

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary, or thesaurus; WP:DAB disambiguation is not a tool for free association. Josh Parris#: 07:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason bridge the gap can't be in this wiki since it surely has a history that is definitely encylopedic. I don't care what the dictatoral WP:NOT page says--I don't agree with it (or the "official" way to capitalize section titles with only the first letter--that isn't proper English) and it doesn't make for a comprehensive wikipedia. -Eep² 06:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I advise that you read WP:STYLE, and do start to care about Wikipedia policy. Please also note, that if you ignore policy on Wikipedia, you face causing disruption, and may be blocked under WP:BLOCK, which would render you unable to edit Wikipedia. Please try to help improve the Wikipedia through following our policies, and if you disagree with them, I advise you take it up on the relevent talk pages, however it is unlikely that the policy would be changed. Thanks! Ian¹³ /t 21:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking

Please do not overlink articles like you did with Second Life --Crossmr 22:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, please read WP:CONTEXT. Unnecessary links create visual clutter and actually decrease the quality of the article by distracting from the links that actually are important. --Cyde↔Weys 04:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, this edit was entirely overdone. You shouldn't be linking every other commonplace word. --Cyde↔Weys 04:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; 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. --Crossmr 16:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar/style

In this edit, you seem to have edited a direct quote for grammar and/or style. Please do not do this. Direct quotes should remain as originally stated, even if the grammar or style is poor. Additionally, this was a talk page posting. It is generally not appropriate to edit other users' talk page postings. If you feel another user has made an error, you are free to reply and point it out, but you may not edit the other user's writing directly.--Srleffler 06:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize I edited a quote. However, it wasn't on a talk page. -Eep² 06:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]