User talk:Eep²

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]

Shemale art

Since you contributed to it, I thought you'd like to know that Shemale art has been proposed for deletion. NickelShoe (Talk) 03:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link

I've removed the link to "pyramid scheme" from "stock market", because apart from the one in russia that was (vaguely) linked to the ignorance of the victims concerning the stock market, there isn't much of a link between the two. Cheers. yandman 10:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Paul Shockley

A tag has been placed on Paul Shockley, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) 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. NigelJ ^talk 23:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Shockley

Why did you delete Paul Shockley? I only JUST got word of its notability dispute on my talk page and had no chance to contest the deletion (or add notability to it). Where is the original article so that I may add notability to it? Sheesh... -Eep² 06:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is now at User:Eep²/Paul Shockley. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you caught my response but it is here, (I reply to messages where they are created because otherwise it disrupts the flow of conversation --NigelJ ^{talk SIMPLE} 22:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Unexplained"

Hello - Just to help you out following your accidental creation of "The Unexplained" rather than The Unexplained. I don't know if you know about the move tab at the top of every article page, you can use this to rename a page, and a redirect will be placed on the original page. Thanks for putting 'please delete' on the page. However if you blank a page that you have created in error in the future, using the {{db-blanked}} will ensure it receives the attention of an admin sooner. I have added that template to "The Unexplained". Happy editting! Suncloud 18:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did move it originally (as the article history shows) but the quoted article name just doesn't need to be there anyway. I was going to add the db-blanked template but didn't know the right syntax. -Eep² 02:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of commercial sites on Michael Tsarion

Sorry, it is not permitted under Wikipedia policy to link to commercial sites for any reason. It is not the correct way to "prove something exists". The correct way is to cite it with its ISBN or to cite a non-commercial source which discusses or otherwise confirms its existence. To save you some time, personal sites on myspace, geocities, angelfire or other free hosting services also cannot be used. Neither can forums or other online discusion groups. Jefferson Anderson 19:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then linking to any TV network website shouldn't be permitted since they tend to have stores that sell the series on DVD. Wikipedia policy logic is fallacious. -Eep² 02:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not fallacious. Links to amaazon and other sites which sell or promote books are strictly not allowed. Please stop adding them. If a book or other publication has an ISBN, cite it by name and give the ISBN. If it does not have an ISBN, it is considered self-published and can't be mentioned in the article unless there is a serious third party review of it to cite. Jefferson Anderson 18:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More vagueness. What site that talks about a book isn't promoting it?? You seem to just want criticism of something as a "serious reliable 3rd-party source"--even of something's existence! Care to invent any more terms to use as an excuse? Ridiculous. -Eep² 03:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is about a TV network, then of course you can link to the TV network's homepage, if it's about a book, your allowed to link to the main webpage for the book, if you want to reference a book that doesn't have an article on wikipedia then you link it's ISBN number or an independent review (i.e., a site that does NOT get paid for reviewing a book), although, that site must have existing community credibility. Check out WP:CITE etc for extra info. --NigelJ ^{talk SIMPLE} 11:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel, the commercial sites Jefferson claims "is not permitted under Wikipedia policy to link to ... for any reason" is simply a site that proves Tsarion even created the Origins and Oracles DVD series that Arthur Rubin claimed wasn't "a source for the claim he has had a book or DVD published" [1]. Jefferson went on with his uncited sources tirade from there. Yes, the site sold the DVD but so what? The source was used JUST to prove the DVD series existed, which Authur appeared to be questioning with his edits. Second, Jefferson claims (in his edits) that "links to amazon and other commercial sites are STRICTLY PROHIBITED" and blogs ("remove links to blogs per Wikipedia policy") but I checked the GUIDELINE pages (which he misconstrues as POLICY) and there is NO mention of either Amazon.com or blog linking as being prohibited. Jefferson appears to be making a big deal about this article--why, I don't know but it's damn annoying and I tire of it. -Eep² 05:36, April 18, 2007

No personal attacks

In references to your comment here, 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. Jefferson Anderson 17:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tsarion

Just thought you'd like to know this page has been nominated for deletion. Since you added to it, you might want to put your vote in at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Tsarion. Thanks. -Eep² 09:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only did a minor edit the first time but I see no real reason why this should be deleted. I did a minor cleanup and rewrite on it, if it is unhelpful feel free to revert or (of course) copyedit. El hombre de haha 21:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second warning

Template:Halt

Dude, you're not an admin; get over your low self-esteem already. -Eep² 04:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of The Granada Forum

A tag has been placed on The Granada Forum, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you feel that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) 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 the subject's notability under Wikipedia 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. 68.239.79.97 20:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No shit, Sherlock. However, you never gave a reason as to WHY the article should be deleted. Get over yourself, egotistical anonymous user. -Eep² 20:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia." —68.239.79.97 (talk · contribs) 20:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, are you that dense you can't figure out why it belongs on Wikipedia? It is a page about a discussion forum which many people already in Wikipedia have been a guest on. How is that not notable? Get a clue, anonymous user... -Eep² 20:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you are in complete violation of civility. I see you were rude above to someone for warning you without being "an admin." Well, I am an admin, and consider yourself warned. This kind of communication with another editor is unacceptable. In regards to the the comment you left User_talk:68.239.79.97#speedy_deletes_vandalism, you are completely wrong in warning the IP. There is no requirement to leave evidence on the talk page. None at all. You should read WP:CSD to learn more. Shape up or ship out, your tact is unacceptable. Teke 01:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving articles

Two things:

Copying and pasting content is not how to move articles. You do that by using the move tab up top. Should you find such an action is impossible for you to perform thanks to redirect edit histories or other such nonsense, you turn to WP:RM.
As for your idea itself, disambiguation pages are only required when three or more articles exist under the same title. As your entry had only one red-link page and the original, creating a disambiguation page is quite pointless.

— Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to move it that way since it would've created an auto-redirect (which I would've had to've removed anyway). <shrug> -Eep² 05:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, there's only one correct way to move pages. Rather than improperly replace the page, you could have simply edited over the redirect. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]