User talk:Escape Orbit/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Fair is fair

Since you apparently have nothing better to do with your time than target a few articles to remove links to MySpace pages, I think in all fairness you should go into EVERY SINGLE article on a band or artist and remove EVERY SINGLE MySpace link. Literally, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of articles with such links in them. Have fun. 98.220.41.194 (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

What is on other article pages is irrelevant. It's not as if it was even their official MySpace site, it was a fansite. Fan sites links are discouraged. MySpace ones doubly so. Wikipedia is not a links directory. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Kilts

I, then, would assume that any method for allowing the education of the member to enhance their knowledge of the proper method for wearing of this clothing would be toward the education of the public. This clothing is worn in such a manner that the education is needed in proper attire. Disussion on this subject allows this to happen from experienced individuals. How does one 'bring this to the table' in here??? -K5hwk1959 (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to present some addition to a article but run it by someone else as you keep from having it 'shot down' to meet with my understand of how to educate the masses? To keep from going through the embarrassment of having this happen again, I propose to present the additions in a manner such that it is not publicly discarded.K5hwk1959 (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Creation of a new Topic

Is there a format or form to use to make sure I create a new article properly? I can not seem to find any reference to this so I can properly create the new topic/article so it is within the proper format.K5hwk1959 (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing publicity !!!!!

I removed all of your modifications to draw your attention to the fact that "...Removing publicity blurb..." is extremely offensive.

My English might not be perfect and I welcome your input and modifications, but to remove what could be the most important paragraph in this article with one broad stroke is outrageous!

Just look at the article that was there just a few days ago .... why didn't you correct it then!

I understand that the last two sentences might be a bit too much, but it is crucial to understand that the PC revolution started with the 4004 even though it was not the first microprocessor there! The immediate and unconditional availability of the 4004 changed the world and it's important to know that!

I'm looking forward to reading your answer and for us to cooperate in bringing this article and all the other articles I've written or participated in to the highest possible standard, but please ....

Cheers,

(Ezrdr (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC))

Busicom - New revision

I understand your concern and will try, in the next couple of days, to either add more references to sustain my writings or remove what could be considered as opinionated.

I AM NOT a mad supporter of Intel (I'm writing to you with a computer that uses an AMD chip) but the serendipity of the Intel/Busicom association has to be told ....

Even Intel didn't know what they had invented! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezrdr (talk • contribs) 14:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yoshihiro Akiyama

look pal there are sources stop changing it look at UFC 108 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.153.11 (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There are no cites on the Yoshihiro Akiyama article. The UFC 108 cite describes it as 'likely'. How likely we don't know, as the cite is broken. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this Devon?

I can't help but feel that your agenda in the Street Wear Wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_wear is to promote yourself. Not to mention the quote you reference is based on a 3 line blurb about one person's (devon) opinion about streetwear. Furthermore anyone can quote themselves from a blog page and that does not make them the authority on the subject. Massive Authority is not THE authority by any means. Finally I say this all to make you realize that adding or deleting should be done in a way unbiased by personal gain. Because if you really wanted to just help the world of street wear, you could do a lot better than what you did. --Mutem (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are barking up the wrong tree. The quote is not mine, and was not added by me. I have zero personal interest in this. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Lulu.com

There is a need to explain why links to Lulu.com are being banned in Wikipedia. 122.3.208.237 (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Because it's a vanity publisher. Fences&Windows 16:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Red hair

Good call on removing that talk section. DNFTT. Fences&Windows 16:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Re Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

You can remove the following, or ignore, or reply - your choice, that's why I've posted this here rather than Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone#Newspapers. I'm not making any accusations against you, but I think that some aspects of your comments Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone make a unfavourable impression:

• Your repeated comments on the theme "Their circulation is UK wide", "It has nothing to do with nationality", "But the perceived nationality of them is irrelevant", "it is a UK paper", "It is irrelevant what nationality The Scotsman and The Herald are. It is irrelevant what nationality papers like the The Guardian are", and "I am not here to debate the existence of Scottish papers, or English papers come to that" are in a style that is often associated with POV-pushers - short, black-and-white, and unsupported with citations of their own. In fact nationality is a very complex subject, to which whole bays in libraries have been devoted, including shelves on Scottish nationality (not Scottish nationalism, which is a different matter).
• The fact that you demand citations from me while not presenting any yourself makes an impression that you have the right to judge. Whatever you actually think, I think you should consider the impression.
• I was so concerned that I checked 3 pages' worth of your contribs. Apart from vandal-fighting, which is always welcome, your contribs seem to be entirely what could be described as "fault-finding", and I found no content-building in those few pages of contribs. I admit that serious faults need to be fixed. The problem is that "fault-finding", if not balanced with content-building of your own, looks arrogant - as if the "fault-finder" sits in judgement on content-builders.

As I said, you can remove these comments, or ignore, or reply - your choice. --Philcha (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply on Philcha talk page --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well to be honest...

To be honest this stuff is NOT stuff we made up one day. It was made up three years ago and has spread to a rather large percentage of the students at the school... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabor117 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Stuff made up "three years ago" is stuff made up one day. But either way, you need cites to establish that it is notable. An in-joke or slang used by a couple of dozen people isn't. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

oops

I was reviewing my edits this morning and came across this. Apologies for stepping on your edit and my belated appearance here. Also, thanks for your patience in dealing with this faux pas. See ya 'round Tiderolls 14:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Mariah Carey: Legacy

Please join the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mariah_Carey#Legacy Reidlos (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Red hair

Hi Escape Orbit, it looks as if the same troll active on the talk page a few weeks ago[1] has now returned.[2] --Pondle (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift response. Looks like he's also been active under various guises [3].--Pondle (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your edits to Disambiguation pages

ok, it's fine with me... thanks anyway... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enzofroilan (talk • contribs) 01:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't know where to make tags so I made one up myself. Thank you. Head of Security for the World (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Newschool skiing

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Newschool skiing. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newschool skiing. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Shaycarl

An article that you have been involved in editing, Shaycarl, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaycarl. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kyle1278 05:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry 'bout that. I got a second notice regarding the thing (I should never have gotten notified in the first place) and when I went back to the article, it had a speedy delete notice on it. No AfD. I thought the AfD had run its course and the article had been recreated. I'll recreate it with the AfD. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Found the problem. The original user removed the AfD notice yet again and another user tagged it as a speedy. That second user alerted me to the speedy without realizing it was an AfD issue. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Keira Knightley

The section about her theater performance on the West End I feel should be added to. They didn't get whole quote and it was obviously taken out of context. There should be more added to it. TCT (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I’m not saying you have to include everything but the quote from the guardian was more so positive than neutral. And no you don’t have to include the FULL quote but if you are going to talk about THAT particular quote, then you should at least get enough what it was saying. Cause they didn’t say “She wasn’t duly stretched” they said “one can say she wasn’t duly stretched” they also added this part to it.

“Knightley brings to the role fine, sculpted features, palpable intelligence and a nice mix of faux-innocence and flirtiness. Even if she doesn't always know what to do with her hands, she gives a perfectly creditable performance”

If you want to go for neutrality then you should’ve added that part as well. I mean it’s still a neutral opinion and it still reflects the whole “Generally positive” part. Also in talks of CONTRASTING that bit, you should add MORE to the Quote Quinten Letts made in the Daily Mail. Which stated that she had the Charisma of a gold fish.

So you have the positive WITH the negative. This doesn’t take away from the neutrality. If anything it shows just how neutral the opinions were. 74.105.159.145 (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Keira Knightley

I’m not saying you have to include everything but the quote from the guardian was more so positive than neutral. And no you don’t have to include the FULL quote but if you are going to talk about THAT particular quote, then you should at least get enough what it was saying. Cause they didn’t say “She wasn’t duly stretched” they said “one can say she wasn’t duly stretched” they also added this part to it.

“Knightley brings to the role fine, sculpted features, palpable intelligence and a nice mix of faux-innocence and flirtiness. Even if she doesn't always know what to do with her hands, she gives a perfectly creditable performance”

If you want to go for neutrality then you should’ve added that part as well. I mean it’s still a neutral opinion and it still reflects the whole “Generally positive” part. Also in talks of CONTRASTING that bit, you should add MORE to the Quote Quinten Letts made in the Daily Mail. Which stated that she had the Charisma of a gold fish.

So you have the positive WITH the negative. This doesn’t take away from the neutrality. If anything it shows just how neutral the opinions were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.159.145 (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

About the article "Zaid Hamid"

Hello Escape Orbit,
I saw your comments in the edit summary. Just FYI, I'm not doing any original research (I'm aware of Wikipedia policies, thanks). Whatever this person's views are, they have been referenced through appropriate sources. However, I see your point that putting his claims in the "Criticism" section may not be appropriate. Hence now there's a new section on "Political views" in which his views have been mentioned. Let me know if there's a problem with this. Regards, Max ^{- You were saying?} 09:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi EO,

Thanks for your reply and for giving a neutral touch to that section. I guess I got a little carried away with the descriptions :-). Anyway, the conspiracy-theory-based views mentioned in the section are the ones that he expounds most of the time on TV (as seen from the references and his YouTube videos). I'll try to put his other political views as I gather more info about the man. Please do add your inputs too to make the section more comprehensive. Best regards, Max ^{- You were saying?} 19:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You removed a link to Zaid Hamid's business site. While your point about there not being a need for a link to a commercial site is a good one, in this case it is important. The phrase "so-called security consultant" keeps coming up in media and informal discussion keeps coming up and providing a reference to his security consultancy seems very important in that regard.

--iFaqeer (talk) 06:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

why can't i add a link

why can't i add a link to the page. i am the largest tamaskan breeding in the USA and founder of the Tamaskan Club of America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rightpuppykennel (talk • contribs) 00:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

not Original research

I undid original research and yuou reverted it as original research i changed it based on precident and concensus in another part of wikipedia as stated in the summary based on what are you stateing this is OR [4]--69.146.146.25 (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid what you describe above is exactly original research, or more precisely; original synthesis. You are taking information from other 'eves', and applying it to "New Year's Eve" on the basis that that called 'eve' also, and therefore, in your estimation, should be treated the same. For that not to be original synthesis you need a cite that refers specifically to New Year's Eve. And those cites cannot be Wikipedia, as it cannot act as a cite for itself. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia wasnt being cited the OED definition for eve was --209.181.16.93 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but you refer above to precedence of another part of Wikipedia. Does the OED definition refer to New Year's Eve? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It refers to eve also was referring to concensus on what eve means also if what I did was OR you reverted it to yet further OR seeing as they changed it from what I reverted it to with an even less valid citation--209.181.16.93 (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Does the OED definition refer to New Year's Eve? If it doesn't then it cannot act as a cite. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Blanking out Sections of a Wikipedia article

Please refrain from vandalizing the works of others. You completely blanked out sections of the Mixed Britons page, even though the individuals in the category all have Wikipedia pages with sources supporting that fact. If you continue doing so, it will be reported. Thanks.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Introduced CreativeSoul7981 to Wikipedia policy and good practice on their talk page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 02:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you. You just deleted a whole section without discussion (that wasn't even my edit by the way). None of this is even my research or edit. This article is on my watchlist. Blanking out sections without discussion can be considered vandalism. Various articles that have been sourced on Wikipedia on these Notable Britons mention their mixed heritage. There is no reason to delete this section. This who section was added by several editors and part of this article for quite a while. If you'd like to start a discussion, you are welcome to without destroying the works of others or part of an article. Thank you. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 04:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You haven't discussed, as other people besides me have not chimed in on the subject. Also, blanking out is vandalism. Do not delete sections of an article without a consensus.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion begins and continues on CreativeSoul7981's talk page and Mixed (United Kingdom ethnicity category) talk page. I explained fully my actions there before CreativeSoul7981's input. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)