User talk:Etaonish/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Favorite limerick:

The homoerotic GrandInquisitor
The attention of other males would spur
They'd drool over his bod
He'd just think it was odd
For the female race he did prefer

Please don't sign articles like you did in GameFAQs. The fact that you contributed to an article is already recorded in the history, accessible at [1], so any signatures in the article itself are removed as they only clutter the article. andy 23:37, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. No one owns the articles here. I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia. Chris Roy 23:42, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry! First time....--Etaonish 14:23, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Your articles and edits are very helpful and appropriate; keep up the good work! --Merovingian ↕ Talk 21:34, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Hello Etaonish;

In case you noticed, you have been blocked on meta. This was naturally a mistake, and I actually hope you did not notice :-) Our Alex is a bit hot on the block button; I unblocked you of course. Cheers. FirmLittleFluffyThing 22:28, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Have no fear: I don't even know what being "blocked on meta" is. I have absolutely no idea what happened. When did he block me? Wait, I think I know what meta is....I've never even been there. Oh well. --Etaonish 22:38, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

??? Interesting ... are you the one who made that edit Eta ? http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedians_by_age&curid=5960&diff=32175&oldid=32172

FirmLittleFluffyThing


Hmm, may have been my brother. It's accurate though, and from my IP. Was that the reason I was blocked? --Etaonish 01:19, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

your brother ??? No, the reason why you were blocked is just that we have a sysop there who do not really act responsability all the time. You did nothing wrong :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing

Contents

[edit] ugly sig

Sorry to say this, but you have one ugly sig. What have you got against black on white? It is also a nightmare for people with visual disabilities. Please consider less visually jarring ways of drawing attention to yourself. -- Viajero 13:30, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry. Was carried away for a while. Have changed it. --Etaonish 14:17, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Out of curiosity... is your username based on the letter frequency sequence 'etaoinshrdlu'? --Random|832 22:58, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes - according to Sherlock Holmes the frequency combo is "etaonish". You happen to be the first person in history to notice that, on any of the sites where I use this name. --Etaonish 02:57, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] VfD, deletion policy

Hey,

I saw and commented and voted on your recent nomination for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Something Awful Forums. I was thinking of adding a section about how I thought it was an invalid nomination, but since I believe you were acting in good faith, I'd just like to talk to you about the nomination first, and why it doesn't comply very well with the deletion policy.

There are three main reasons that I belive the nomination to be invalid. Firstly, the article is clearly encyclopedic, which was a major part of the nomination. Topics are rarely inherently unencyclopedic, simply by the definition of the word. A comprehensive enyclopedia article on the topic simply proves its encyclopedism, for lack of a better analogue. Secondly, comparison to other articles is never a valid reason for deletion. That other articles aren't as complete or detailed as one, does not mean that an article is too long. Perhaps there is extraneous information within the article, yet the article itself should be examined and not compared. Lastly, as a little research points out, this article was split off of the main article, because the main article had grown too long. Complying with wikipedia's suggested article size should not merit a vote for deletion.

One more thing regarding the discussion in general. Once its clear that an article has a large base of support, its never a bad thing to reconsider your opinion, or at least remain silent. To crusade for deletion (or even contraction) of a specific article is never a good thing. If an article truly should be deleted, the support will show; if it needs to be contracted, it should be discussed on the article's talk page, where the articles contributors spend most of their time discussing it.

Anyways, I don't mean to be harsh, but I just wanted to address those things. Happy wikiing.

—siroχo 20:15, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] more ruminations

I don't think an extended argument is really appropriate on VfD, so I'm leaving a couple notes here.

I think you should consider the influence that the SA community has on the greater net. Memes spawned or popularized by SA tend to spread all over. The forums are important to a reasonable number of people, and at least in the back of many others' minds.

Yes, the page might benefit from some culling of trivia. However, VfD is not the place to ask for that. Just edit the article, and then if you and the regular editors of the page can reach no compromise, RfC is the place to get community feedback. The voting page is looking like the site of a holy war these days, and that's not good for anyone. Parties involved would do well to chill. --Twinxor 22:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Birthday!

Happy birthday, Edward! (And only one day late!) Best wishes. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 00:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the kind words. Just doing my part in the WP community. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:01, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


[edit] VfD

Strange. I definitely didn't take those out, and I would say "edit conflict" if they weren't actually in the previous version. I hit "stop", fixed the formatting on the election thing, and hit submit again. No idea where they went though, definitely wasn't me deliberately deleting them :-/ Chris 01:51, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Apology accepted, though I understand your concerns. Either way, it seems people are patrolling the VfD Category watching for things which get lost nowadays. :-) Chris 02:01, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] VfA

I see that you were "nominated" by the EvilLibrarian, a new user who I think was experimenting as much as trolling. I think a bureacrat will have to remove the nomination, if I can't. You may be nominated for real in a few months, though! Cheers, Fire Star 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. There isn't any overlap between your edit history and EvilLibrarian's (admittedly short) edit history, so I'm guessing that you were a random target for a troll. The "Evil" in the name says it all! Cheers, Fire Star 04:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't see the Karpov article in my cursory viewing of your last 50 edits. So much for my random theory. Let me know if you have any more problems. Fire Star 04:26, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Vandalism

Not a problem. I usually check the Recent Changes page for any odd edits. Cyrloc 23:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ha, i just got vandalized too. Cyrloc 00:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

SA thing? Haven't heard of it, so probably not. :) What was it? Cyrloc 01:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh that. I took a look at it, but i wasn't involved. Cyrloc 16:18, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Unverified images

Thanks for uploading these images:

  • Image:Karkas1.jpg
  • Image:Karpov vs Topalov.jpg

I notice they currently don't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know their copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release them under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks, Kbh3rd 01:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)