User talk:Eaolson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm sorry, but I'm not at my talk page right now. Please leave a message at the tone. Beep. eaolson 03:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

May 8, 2007: What is your definition of a digital microscope?

I believe the common definition is: Digital microscope. A microscope and digital camera combination that provides a digital output such as USB or Firewire for connection to a computer. Often includes software to display and process the image on a PC.

Contents

[edit] Ex-gay

Is there some way of phrasing it that would work better? I think the info should be there even if it is phrased differently. Joie de Vivre 15:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Environment and intelligence restored

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --After Midnight 0001 22:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to stay neutral when speaking about Red army crimes?

How to be neutral whem speaking about the crimes or war crimes? Explain, please, why do you supose my article about Red Army crimes to be clearly nonneutral and deletable? Ttturbo 22:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Based on this article and your other Red Army related articles, it's pretty clear that you're pushing a particular point of view. That's not how we do things at Wikipedia. You may wish to review WP:NPOV. eaolson 00:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greeks in Egypt

Can see you put this up for deletion very quickly - less than 24 hours! Let me explain how it works. Greeks do create 1 article over night. They start an article with a sentence, than other Greeks come and add huge amounts to the article. I assume this is how many articles are started. To issue something like this with a stub notice is more appropriate than your Draconian action to delete any idea of the article which is to be expanded shortly. Can you please remove it from deletion index. Reaper7 13:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  • You can contest a proposed deletion (prod, not AfD or speedy delete) yourself simply by removing the prod template. I've done so for you on the Greeks in Egypt article. I warn you though, that article strikes me as an attempt to push an agenda and so probably violates WP:NPOV. I will check back in a few days to see if any additions have been made. eaolson 14:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see now, I did not read the deletion request properly. Don't worry, there is no agenda to be pushed here. I simply read the Greek diaspora page and seeing that there is no section for Greeks in Eygpt I thought I would help. BTW I know there are at least half a million Greeks there still and some of the most famous Greeks in modern history are from there. I have put the article into the Greek wiki listings for expansion already. Reaper7 14:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

You explained, you helped. Ttturbo 23:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding proposal for deletion of Indian Outsourcing Companies

Strong disagree: There are literally thousands of List Categories on Wiki. This is a standard and accepted wiki practice. see a few examples:

...

If you don't believe me click here for a complete list:

List of Search

Also See: List of

[edit] Talk:List of Indian Information Technology Outsourcing Companies

The creator of the article has contended on the Talk page that the article should be kept. This means the prod needs to be removed, and the article probably listed for AfD. Corvus cornix 04:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This needs to be solved

I have taken the "List of Companies" problem (what to do with an entire class of articles that get repeatedly submitted for deletion en mass?) for debate to two different places. This really needs to be solved once and for all (we can't keep debating the same stuff for eternity). Would you take a look at either the discussion on the Village Pump or the relevant wikiproject? Aditya Kabir 13:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About recent vandalism

Dear Mr. eaolson, regarding the message you left in my user talk page, I for once will make a call to reason: you probably haven't even looked at my edit on the article you mentioned, for it would be obvious the "just vandalizing lol" summary was thought as a little pun to moderators. You would notice, if you go back in the history to that edit, that it was in fact a correction I did in Good faith, although I'm considering high the possibility of your replay to be an innocent joke too. As to lighten your burden in checking said history, I'll explain what the correction was about: "do not support efforts to change young people's sexual orientation through "reparative therapy" and have raised serious concerns about its potential to do harm" You may discover, if you look cautiously, that the preceeding quote has quite a big sintactical mistake, as there are four double quotation marks (") but one quoted statement is ensted within the other. The correct form of expressing this would be: "do not support efforts to change young people's sexual orientation through 'reparative therapy' and have raised serious concerns about its potential to do harm" With single quotation marks ('). you may find more information on this in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark#Quotations_and_speech I hope this will clear all doubts that may have raised from this little misunderstanding. And, I'm sorry if, for not being an adept in the ways of Wikipedia, I replied in the wrong place, as I wasn't sure you would read this if I wrote it on my own talk page. Thanks for taking your time to read what I had to say.

Uh... sorry, I didn't realize I had to sign 190.55.86.40 20:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  • OK, I see your point, and it was a valid edit. I just saw an anon editor, a strange punctuation change, and the claim of vandalism in the edit summary. eaolson 02:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bismuth caps

What was I thinking? Thanks for catching that. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tayru

I removed the speedy tag and made it a redirect to Ţayrū, among all the hogwash there really is a town in Syria by that name. Learn something new every day. :-) Keep up the good work helping to keep WP clean. Carlossuarez46 06:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JamesAShapiro

In re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professor_blogs Proposed Deletion.

How is this page a directory? It does not list contact information and is not for business purposes.

I think this list should remain. There are many useful lists of people affiliated with various different media (i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times#Current_management_and_employees, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_programming#Personalities). It would be inconsistent to exclude this one.

[edit] Non-breaking spaces

Re: Silver edit [1];

I had read the manual of style (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Unit_symbols_and_abbreviations) and there is no preference for spaces before Celsius and Fahrenheit units. I was following the article precedent—which is with spaces. (Element box template on the right.) 212.32.87.198 17:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

  • OK, I didn't know that about the MOS. I was just going by what I usually see in journals. eaolson 17:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too speedy deletion

According to my notes I created an article on Mac's back's bookstore at 10:18; at 10:19, according to the record, you tagged for speedy deletion.

Please note the following text from the Wikipedia article on speedy deletion Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion: "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete. Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criteria the page meets, and consider notifying the page's creator."

In my opinion, one minute qualifies as "too soon."

Geoffrey.landis 02:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

  • In my defense, the page didn't look incomplete; it looked like a complete page for a local bookstore. If you feel the article as it was can be improved, it can be recreated by posting at Wikipedia:Undeletion. Usually when I'm creating an article, I create it and work on it under my user space, like at User:Eaolson/PageName and move it to the main namespace when it is ready. eaolson 03:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Given that you deleted the article ONE MINUTE after the first two sentences were posted, my only conclusion is that you are camping on new articles, attempting to be the first to delete so that you can perhaps win some kind of contest for being the greatest deletionist on Wikipedia. You don't seem to be paying any attention whatsoever to Wikipedia policies. There is a well defined policy for deletions, and among other things, the standard policy is that deletions should be open for discussion. You seem to be misusing the speedy deletion policy simply in order to avoid disussions of deletions. Geoffrey.landis 16:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • First of all, please calm down and don't make personal attacks. I didn't delete the page. I tagged it with {{db-corp}}. An admin reviewed the speedy delete nomination and actually deleted it. The article met speedy delete criteria WP:CSD#A7, specifically it was an article about a business, yet made no assertion as to the notability of the business. As I recall, the article was for a local bookstore and the only real information about the business was that it was an unofficial meeting place for some group or another. The speedy delete tag was well within WP policy.
Yes, I was doing newpage patrolling. When I did your article, I think I speedy delete tagged several bands that have never released an album and exist only on MySpace, an article saying how much some guy likes his girlfriend, and another about the best Mom in the country.
I've asked for an deletion review. If it's restored, that will give you the opportunity to improve the article. eaolson 17:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greeks in Egypt

remember how you deleted it? remember how i said articles get created by being started - then people add and you were too quick to delete? Check out the article now. Reaper7 22:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ann Coulter

Your RV of my edit to Ann Coulter does not seem to make sense. The category for Islamophobia[2] is for people who exhibit or are labeled as such, those who discuss such matters, as well as those who may have experienced first hand. Ann Coulter regularly uses the term "Raghead" in public speeches to refer to people of Arab, Muslim and South Asian acnestry[3]. Atari400 05:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • No, read the header at Category:Islamophobia: "Note: This category indicates that the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of Islamophobia. Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is Islamophobic.". The Ann Coulter article does not discuss the phenomenon of Islamophobia. eaolson 15:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This article does speak of Islamophobia, right here[4]. Atari400 15:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that Coulter's comments are reprehensible and racist, but that section doesn't mention Islamophobia at all. The label may be accurate, but for us to draw the conclusion that she is Islamophobic is original research. eaolson 15:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LED circuit AfD

I've reverted my own closure. Pegasus «C¦T» 05:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I added my $0.02. eaolson (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Sloyan

Hmm... this is a pretty interesting coincidence: a user with no edits to his name signs up for WP and makes a number of career-related edits to the Sloyan article which was recently running into some COI problems. Crazy, eh? Tijuana Brass 08:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I love it when a two day old account presumes to lecture longtime editors on policy. I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually end up doing a checkuser for this guy. The two IPs are interesting -- one is from Atlanta, the other Jacksonville -- but if I were a betting man, I'd put money on one matching up with the recently-departed User:Jpsloyan. Tijuana Brass 06:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Interesting, eh? And now there's another from the Jacksonville area. eaolson (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Eaolson, incorrect. According to statute 569, paragraph 14 of the South Central Georgia penal code, minor actors in science fiction television shows should be cross-referenced on a word by word basis according to their participation in Japanese automotive commercials. To do otherwise would illustrate the concept of "grifting". Tijuana Brass (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your NPWatcher application

Dear Eaolson,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! Unfortunately, your application has been declined because not warning user when nominating for CSD, not much experience. We will surely welcome your application in the future.

Snowolf How can I help? 21:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry!

I'm sorry for that. I have VandalProof and I'm new, and I accidentally put it on your talk page. My sincerest of apologies! — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 04:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Heh. No problem. You fixed it so fast I never saw it. eaolson (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Define "generally negative"

Please and thank you. 67.135.49.211 (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  • As others have pointed out, this is being discussed on the article's Talk page. We don't need the dicussion fragmented over many editors' pages. Let's take it there. eaolson (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Quit messing with the article. You obviously have an agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.145.232.226 (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't have good faith. Asuuming good faith from talk 2 action burned a lot of people too. The facts are as such - some sites removed false content - the game got high reviews and low reviews. Those are the facts. Just move on to something else. Truth will previal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.145.232.226 (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alexandra Richards notability

Howdy, I removed the db-bio tag from Alexandra Richards since I think the article does assert notability, though perhaps my perspective is wrong. She has appeared in numerous "big" magazines, so is some sort of famous person. On the other hand, maybe all models appear in magazines, and you have to actually have an article written about you to be notable. At any rate, let me know (here is fine) if that is how you feel, and add back the tag. In the meantime, it is just marked as a model bio stub. JackSchmidt (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure the article actually asserts notability, but on second thought, she might be notable. As the daughter of a famous person, along with her modeling career, there does seem to be a not-insignificant number of Ghits on her name. I admit I'm a bit quick on the db trigger when newpage patrolling sometimes. eaolson (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed prod on MiND: Media Independence

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from MiND: Media Independence, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that the deletion of this article may be controversial. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- Atamachat 16:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quebec

I WROTE A PAGE ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF QUEBECS PRO-CANADIAN CITIZENS AND REPLACING THEM WITH 3RD WORLD CITIZENS WHO SIGN SERVATUDE AGREEMENTS TO WORK OFF THE 40,000$ charged for citizenships by the 1000+ Quebec immigration board lawyers who immigrate up to 200,000 people a year. Most enter the usa illegally or not, some return home---At any rate the population of the greater montreal doesn't change---The bombers of the trade towers came thru montreal---The original plans of the old parti quebecois was to seperate and steal the Indian lands to mine the vast copper ore bodies that exist there which the Indians won't let them mine because of the eco damage. Montreal is a mess a world class mafia city where anything goes---It's the opposite of Ottawa, sort of---An elite few own the assets of quebec The media required to incite a pre 70's population who are rapidly dying off, Cigarettes,Booze etc etc---Its unfortunate because the first referendum to seperate had less than 25% of the population opting for seperation. THE PARTI QUEBECOIS with all the courtroom clout[crooked judges] setup a federal gouvernment in addition to the one that actually existed. and used all the power of all those gov't dept's to actually create citizen removal lists ond they pulled it off-WHITE anglo SAXTON citizens were the targets several hundren thousand little common people were removed In Canada the SENATORS ARE NOT ELECTED THEY ARE APPOINTED---The copper ore bodies with shared ownership of the selected mining companies with the quebec gouvernment believe people are what they read see and hear over the media---I the sixties and to some extent the seventies they were right and they almost pulled it off in 1995 a referendum to seperate saw 49% of the population voting to seperate---The old people are dying off and with the one book the youth will not be fooled---Its been a long fight that you don't read about unless you go very deep---ALL THIS IS TRUTH AND YOU SAID THIS WAS A PLACE FOR ALL THE PEOPLES TO BE HEARD DISREGARS THIS AND YOU ARE REFUSING TO PUBLISH THE TRUTH AND YOU TOO SHALL PASS AND WHAT YOU SAY YOU DO------IN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackie cox (talk • contribs)

  • Your article Etghnic cleansing anglos from quebec [sic] was speedy deleted under criteria A7, "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." I'm pretty sure I just tagged your article for proposed deletion, which is a different animal and I don't think criteria A7 is valid in this case. You could take this up at Wikipedia:Deletion review to get your article undeleted, but I think it would be a waste of time. Your article read like an original essay, which violates Wikipedia's rule against original research. It was written from the first person, not in an encyclopedic style. Lastly, you listed no reliable sources to support the claims in your article, which is one of the few rules of Wikipedia. No one is "refusing to publish the truth," but there are a few minimum standards for WP articles. eaolson (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Left Behind Eternal Forces Reception

I'm sorry to bring this up again but I noticed you were once involved in this pointless argument. Instead of going down that road again I made a topic on the project page here: [5] Of course you don't have to come given that it was months ago but I'm skeptical over the other user's intentions (IE possible POV/bias). Stabby Joe (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)