User talk:ESkog/Archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] POV Forking Underway

Hi there, ESkog. The ancient thirty-years war known as Naked Short-selling has escalated into another front. Your sage advice would be appreciated.

An effort is underway to make an end run around the discussion in Talk -- and to circumvent the effort to achieve a neutral POV treatment of naked shorting -- by creating an article entitled Failure to Deliver Stock.

This article has not yet been Wikified, but can be located, via external link, here. One of the principal authors of this article is User:Bobobrien, who is Bob O'Brien, head of the coalition against naked short selling (NCANS). He has a page on his website devoted specifically to the Wikipedia entry, and also other material urging readers to intervene, raising the spectre of meatsockets, if I am using the correct term.

The Failure to Deliver Stock article combs out one aspect of the naked shorting controversy and builds an entire article around it. The majority of this article is a discussion of naked short-selling from the point of view of the anti-shorting camp. It is a textbook case of POV Forking, if ever there was one.

I raised this issue on one of the Administration pages and on the Naked Shorting talk page. Splash and another user suggested deletion as one option. However, since the page has not been Wikified it has no internal link that I can find, I am not certain how mechanically to go about recommending it for deletion. Any assistance you can offer would be appreciated. --Mantanmoreland 23:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your assistance in raising this issue. I hate to have bugged you about it, but my technical expertise is not up to snuff! --Mantanmoreland 14:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur that we need to stop the non factual discussions on discussion pages and stop the hiding of links to government sources and other reputable sources, no matter on what side of the issue it may fall. I have tried discussing the points with Mantanmoreland now many times and he responds with "so what" or ignores the points and refuses to engage in discussion. That is not fact based article writing or consensus building, IMHO.

Now he has requested the deletion of a page that is still being edited which has links to all kinds of sources, SEC, DTCC, NASAA among others yet Mantanmoreland fails to point out exactly why he wants it deleted. This type of vandalism has to stop.

I have tried the discussions process and have not made any changes to the Naked SHort Selling page out of respect for the process.

I would appreciate you mediation on this. I'm new to WIKI and so don't know how to put and end to this type of filibuster. --tom 23:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you Hello ESkog, and thank you for your support in my request for adminship! It passed with a final count of 63/4/3. I am honoured by the community support and pledge to serve the project as best as I can. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 16:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rASCIST

U R A RASCIST. YOU DELETED MY FUNNY POST. Y U DO THAT? POOPIEs—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cookieloo (talk • contribs) 20:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: EBaum's World

I've read the comment on my talk page about eBaum's World, and I still remain firm in the belief that stating that the entire website is rebranded is biased. First of all, it isn't true - there is some original content, as invisible as it may be, as suggested by the contests eBaum holds. Secondly, whether or not something is true does not always make it justifiable, as saying that "Ebaum's World is a website containing a lot of media, all of which is rebranded and taken from other websites" is glaringly biased, and it's trying to persuade readers that eBaum is a thief. Sure, he might not be a truly honest man, but going out of the way just to see how much that this can be emphasized is not OK on Wikipedia. You can't say in the beginning of the Osama bin Laden article that he is responsible for the shameless killing of thousands of innocent Americans, despite the fact that it's true. You can surely state that in a different way, but it is not permissable to try and make people presume right off the bat that he is a bad person. Ebaum's article doesn't fairly represent a neutral point-of-view. I personally feel that something needs to be done.

And just to let you know, I know what I'm doing and I have been on Wikipedia for a while. This is I take great offense when my good faith efforts are called vandalism. According to the article on abusive edits on Wikipedia, "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism". I really don't appreciate being told that my contribution is unwelcome, and at least by someone else, a test or done for no reason. Also, if I want to erase my own talk page because it is mine, I see no evidence that prevents me from doing so. 67.164.214.150 04:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naked Short-selling Redux

Hi ESkog, I just wanted to discuss -- here I think is the best place -- the suggestion you made to user Tommytoyz on his talk page suggesting that he go ahead and edit the naked short selling page.

Given the history of this situation, don't you feel that any changes should be discussed first on the Talk page for that article? I made no such changes without discussing them, even though I had the ability to edit the article when it was frozen.

Also, given the history of this page -- the editing war, the vandalism, the outside attention and possible meatpuppets, the unresolved POV fork -- your offer of protection against reverts against any well-sourced edits could be problematic. A user (not necessary Tommytoyz) could place huge hunks of objectionable (one-sided, unencyclopedic, etc.) but sourced material, and we'd be right back where we started. The problem has been one of failure to adhere to neutral POV, and constant changes/vandalism favoring one point of view. That is why there is a POV fork page being proposed for deletion.

I'd suggest building a consensus and then making changes. --Mantanmoreland 16:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much for your reply on my talk page. I did want to draw the following to your attention from the page to which you linked, on assuming good faith:

"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Things which can cause the loss of good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, and edit warring."

In this case, there has been repeated and ample evidence to the contrary. All three examples cited above have taken place. We have had an edit war, constant personal attacks resulting in a warning and (you may not know this) a request by myself for administrator intervention, and vandalism resulting in freezing of the page. I think that this is a situation in which good faith cannot be assumed. On the contrary, there has been no evidence of a change of behavior and quite a bit of evidence of intransigence and refusal to recognize basic Wikipedia requirements. --Mantanmoreland 20:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Say, is this the place to respond? If I respond my own page, you may not get one of them "tickler" msgs. OK, fair enough. One little point -- I don't think sourcing is really the issue. He or whomever can load up the page with sourced stuff and still turn it into an anti-shorting polemic. I could do the same thing. I don't happen to believe in the anti-shorting stuff as you can see, and I can quote voluminously from stuff supporting my point of view. --Mantanmoreland 21:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re adminship

Hi, assuming I were to nominate you for adminship, would you accept? I haven't nominated anyone in a few days and the last two people I nominated look like they're going to succeed. I think you have a realistec change of making it. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] House elections 2006

Hi, how do I ask for mediation between 8bitjake and myself? He is reverting my legitimite addition to the articel and claiming vandalism because it is contrary to his biased views. 24.164.148.158 21:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 04:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks

Thank you! Hello ESkog/Archive5, and thank you for your support in my request for adminship! It passed with a final count of 98/2/0. If there is anything I can do to help you, please leave me a message on my talk page! -- xaosflux Talk

[edit] Muslim Council of Britain - "rv pov (Veej)"

Hi Eskog. you recently removed;

In this one sentance, the MCB managed to completely contradict their previous statements on freedom of expression, and the use of the word "xenophobic" (a fear of foreigners) suggests that the council believes that Danish newspaper cartoons were targeting Muslims of Arabian origin, rather than Islamic views as a whole. In this statement, the MCB showed themselves up as racists, since a member of any race can follow the beliefs of Islam.

It seemed as though you attributed this statement to me. It was 86.130.64.10's statement. I struggle to write from a NPOV sometimes, but i'm not that bad! Veej 23:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Ahh, I see! sorry didn't understand. thanks for setting me straight. That 86.130.64.10 seems determined to make his/her views heard though. If he bothered to sign in we'd be able discuss it with him. Oh well. Veej 00:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:VAND

Hi Eskog. While you made a positive statement on the (delisted) RfC regarding me, you also wrote 'The editing/removal of other people's comments on Talk pages is also a violation of WP:VAND. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC).' Could I please ask for clarification of your point (because WP:VAND has now also been added as a result)? That policy states 'The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page'. So how does removing comments by someone on my talk page equal a violation of that policy? Thanks. agapetos_angel 17:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you agapetos_angel 00:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frankly

while I don't hate gay people it pisses me off that it's wrong to point out a person was a serial killer and gay yet it's ok to point out he was a serial killer and an America.

the cat is coming back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.241.245.49 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] template:user fsm

I'm calling out a posse, to fight for freedom of choice, to fight all those who think that only their opinion's right, template:user fsm was speedy deleted by an administrator without any cause or even discussion, I'm therefore putting it up for undeletion since people have put a jihad out against opinions in userboxes. As you were one of many people using the template, I'm trying to rally you into the posse. If you think the template should be returned to active status, put in a vote at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#template:user_fsm. Janizary 04:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GeaBios rewrite/change

Is it possible to help me change the article, yes it smells, but I suppose my English is not good enough, to do this in a short period (I don't like advertising tone also). MaNeMeBasat 14:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes, so take a look. I hope "no bad smell", spring is coming :-) MaNeMeBasat 08:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Massdoob spam thingy

Hi, thanks for removing the URL that Massdoob put on my talkpage. I don't know what it is/was and I suspect it was harmful, but had I have noticed it earlier, I very probably would've clicked upon it. Cheers, Downwards 03:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC) :-)

[edit] Help!

I see you've intervened on the naked shorting page and very kindly issued a warning when I was attacked. One user keeps messing up the page by making harmful edits, removing context, adding duplication and changing thing around. I reverted, but I don't want to get hit by the 3RR. Am posting this on the user pages of others who have previously edited this page. I see that this is some kind of long-running editing war. --Tomstoner 16:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 00:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on your new mop! Sango123 (e) 00:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• First! You are welcome. The thanks train made it and a big congratulations. --Dakota ~ ° 02:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulations and welcome to the club! I'm sure you'll make a fine administrator. see you around :-) Alhutch 04:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Best wish for your adminship.--Jusjih 06:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• congratulations ESkog --Ugur Basak 08:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Congrats from me too - if you need any help with your new superpowers feel free to drop me a note :) Grutness...wha? 08:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• No problem at all and congrats. PJM 12:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulations!! Mushroom (Talk) 13:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulations! You deserve this and keep up the good work! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulations on well deserved elevation. I wish you all the best in your new role.

Congratulations! May your mop never be needed. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your voting!

Hi, thanks for your voting on my RFA. It has finished with the result 88/14/9, and I am promoted. I am really overwhelmed with the amount of support I have got. With some of you we have edited many articles as a team, with some I had bitter arguments in the past, some of you I consider to be living legends of Wikipedia and some nicks I in my ignorance never heard before. I love you all and I am really grateful to you.

If you feel I can help you or Wikipedia as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very much, once more! abakharev 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler

Did i somehow miss a msg, from you to me on my talk page, questioning my {{Hangon}} on Hitler briefs and Hitler controversy, which were also nom'd with clearly invalid Db tags?
--Jerzy•t 15:44 & 17:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC) (for correction of mis-formatted Tl call)
You replied

The delete tags were clearly not invalid and the {{hangon}} text allows for deletion in such cases; criterion R1 (redirect to nonexistent target) applied in this case. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

_ _ Point taken, and your talk page suggests a responsible admin. Nevertheless, precision is IMO an important virtue in admin communications, and (excuse me) article tags do not apply to rdr pages. In fact, IMO that breach of orderly procedure by the nom'r created an extra presumption of good intentions re my time-consuming inspection of the circumstances (the red herrings involved deserve no explicit discussion), which should have suggested to you the courtesy of at worst a "WTF?" msg, despite your apparent sense of urgency about the (AFAI can see) obscurely isolated and thus trivial vandalism.
_ _ In fact, if there's a lesson-learned here for me, it's probably not abt putting something, anything, on the talk page immediately, in the hope that "Doesn't look like an article to me; checking history" would clear someone's head. Rather, it would be that "manic" admins indulge themeselves by executing speedies, and it's a waste of time for "compulsives" like me to try to share that burden, when i could be reviewing completed speedies and complaining about the breaches of procedure and comity.
_ _ Shall we keep further discussion (if needed) together here?
--Jerzy•t 17:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. I apologize for not dropping you a note to explain my actions sooner. However, the {{delete}} tag does not just apply to articles. Our criteria for speedy deletion include qualifiers for redirects, images, categories, etc - and I felt that the article fit under criterion R1. If you want to re-post the page, I won't delete it again. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No, no, i'd reached the point of trying, pro forma, to remove {{hangon}} & switch the Db to R1, before executing the speedy myself, when i realized you'd done the del: it was IMO bad procedure, but definitely a good deletion as you pointed out. (I might have considered going thru the motions of WP:DRV for the sake of clarifying the situation for those reviewing later. But when i did that once (when it was WP:VfU), over a wrong-reason speedy with no valid speedy reason available, that i agreed was a snowball-in-hell for AfD, the response was pretty solid abt the result being all that mattered for its purposes; fortunately no one was so harsh as to suggest WP:POINT as a precedent for that!) You also said on my talk:

Replied further at my talk page. Thanks for your civility - it makes all the difference in the world. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, not trying for civility would be silly. I don't always succeed, and sometimes it does no good, but it's probably always worth trying, even with many vandals.
--Jerzy•t 21:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply posted

Please see my reply to your message posted on my talk page. Thanks. --BRossow 14:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You call yourself a mod?

I made an edit to "O Rly" commenting on its state of being a phenomenon on the net with links, and you call it unconstructive vandalism? Tell me to respect the hard work of others? Listen up, pal. I have made sweeping constructive changes to the "Dominican Republic" article and continually update the exchange rate there. I created an article called "Prince Malachi" under the name "erchimichanga" on the reggae artist, which took me a very long time and lots of HARD WORK

Excuse me for trying to enrich Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.98.36.251 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, mod. I did not realize I had blanked the page. That was a MISTAKE not VANDALISM.

YA RLY —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.98.36.251 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Leinart issue

thanks for clearing up the edit war at the Matt Leinart page. My fault for leaving that guy a warning and then going to dinner, expecting that he would stop making the same stupid edit. these people are very persistent, and I really don't understand their motivations. Anyways, keep up the good work :-) Alhutch 00:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello there. User:Jossi came in well after the revert war was concluded and saw fit to block User:Davis21Wylie for a 3RR violation on Matt Leinart. Could you try to make it clear to Jossi that this is not a content dispute, but a case of vandalism?--Alhutch 04:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

seems to have been cleared up.--Alhutch 04:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khurshid Marwat

Hi, You did say if there's anything you could do to help, to get in touch :-) I wonder could you advise me on the best procedure for this article which is up for AfD? I'm concerned that all this article is totally unverifiable. It may be true, but I deeply mistrust it. What I've done is removed all unverifiable material from the article and noted that on the talk page. Pretty much as I expected, it's now been reverted to its unverified state. I don't want to get into an edit war over this - what best to do now? Dlyons493 Talk 19:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate that. Let's see how it goes. Dlyons493 Talk 19:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Administrator. I am deeply hurt at your taking side with another editor instead of forming your independent judgement. I myself dont want to involve in an edit war but atleast you should have remained neutral. I can also request some friend editors and they can post KEEP on that page but I dont see any point in it. Dlyons493 simply contacted you and you responded by gratifying him. Well I know that whatever I wrote is true however, it makes no difference to me whether the article is deleted or allowed to stay. But I have already requested Pakistan Television Center, Fulbright and the Publisher of Book to provide a proof. While I am in the process of obtaining that proof, I could have sent a copy of this book to you if I had an address.(Jtm97 20:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] That was fast

192.114.67.114 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) - thanks! Pavel Vozenilek 22:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St John Bosco

I am incredulous that you changed the page back to the one by Haiduc that asserts that the saint had homosexual tendencies and was a pederast. That was the addition that I was complaining about and said was not sufficiently sourced. Did you see the sources? They weren't very credible.

• Please go back and revert the page to the one from February 16. --evrik 05:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have once again looked at the three references provided for the Saint John Bosco article. Not only are they self-referential (to each other), but the original sources are not available on the web. I even went to the University of Pennsylvania library this morning to see what information they had. Before this information gets added to the article, there should be a better job of documenting this. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the online sources I found using a google search to document this article were all that were used to research those paragraphs. They're alos in Italian. I would revert the article again, but I don't want to get banned for 3rr. evrik 18:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism Detective

I wasn't deleting anything, actually i was trying to add something useful to the page. i am a history student that studies ancient egypt very extensively in school. yes, you ol pooball—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.198.245.135 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)