Last modified on 23 August 2014, at 04:54

User talk:Eaglestorm

Return to "Eaglestorm" page.

WelcomeEdit

Hi Eaglestorm. Welcome to English Wikiquote.

Enjoy! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That '70s ShowEdit

Hello, thank you for your contribution, but That '70s Show is a copyrighted work and it has its own limit to addition.

Before your next editing, please give a careful look to our ongoing discussion about copyrighted works and guidelines from quoting such works on WQ:VP. Thanks. --Aphaia 21:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

James BondEdit

Hey Eaglestorm, I noticed that you removed links I added to James Bond pages for audio on Entertonement, isn't that stuff exactly the objective of Wikiquote? I found that stuff there and spent a decent amount of time adding the relevant links, and I don't think that it qualifies for spamming as you noted in your edit. Would appreciate a response, thanks! --love.of.bond.of.love

GattacaEdit

I'm just wondering if you intentionally or accidentally removed the pictures from the article Gattica when you cleaned it up. If you did it intentionally, I'm fine with that, but I was just unsure after looking at the article and seeing your edit summary. If it was an accident, just message me, and I'll merge them back into the article. Otherwise, no harm done. Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 02:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Just giving the topic here a bump because there is no response yet. Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 23:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

HonneamiseEdit

What is the point of filling up the article with technobabble like in https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiquote/en/w/index.php?title=The_Wings_of_Honnêamise&action=historysubmit&diff=1047256&oldid=1047156 ? A quotes page is not good in proportion to its length; it is good because of good quotes. --Gwern 14:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gwern, I know you've been such a pain in the neck to people trying to edit Gainax pages in Wikipedia - yeah, I know everything you and your cohorts did over there, but spare me the BS you do there by not doing it here, especially in a page I created. Good day. --Eaglestorm 04:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Down PeriscopeEdit

I've protected this page for a day to put at least a temporary hold on the continued edit war you have engaged in with another user. Please try to be more constructive in your edits to this and other pages. I happen to agree with the current set of quotes - and I properly formatted the director and writer section (which you removed during your war). Justifying your edits as a loq trim is not really helpful either, because that does not appear to be your true motive - instead it appears to be more of a dispute over content and selection of quotes. If you wish to engage in this type of discussion, a better place would be on the talk page rather than continuing these edit wars. Please consider acting in a more constructive manner. Many of your past edits have been helpful, but this type of activity is not. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That anon has been a problem editor for years and it seems he couldn't leave it alone. That guy has been whining about the quote limit for a long time. I have no respect for such people. If he can't even hack the limits, get out. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Again, I understand the sentiment, but it would be better to be more civil in trying to enforce the limits. And how has this user been a problem editor? If you are referring to arguing against the limits, I don't see this as being a problem, since a wiki community is all about discussion and almost continual evolution and revision of its rules and guidelines. I believe a healthy debate is beneficial to the project, but only if it is carried out in a civil manner. ~ UDScott (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
'I don't like that user,' he says on your talk page? He frets and bitches out over the games limitations and he wants to turn his attention to other avenues? Fuck him very much! and because of that, I will definitely go after every article he ever fixed and if nobody has trimmed that, I will...when I'm done with him, he'll wish he never messed with me. Putang inang anon yan (Tagalog for "that son of a bitch anon") --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Once again...Edit

Please refrain from editorial and combative comments in your edit summaries - why must you continue to act in an uncivil manner? Should this continue, you will be blocked. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

UDSCott, why go after me when he reverts my trimming work? You lend credence to his hot-air declarations of me losing against him - which I don't as my work shows. "Combative Edit summaries? You tell him that! I wish there was a WQ version of WP's failure-to-use-improper-edit-summary user talk namespace" message to slap him many times with. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to try to get between the two of you or pick sides. The point is that you have been asked by multiple people to tone it down and act in a more civil manner and instead you continue to engage in edit wars and to leave snide comments in your edit summaries. Should I see the same from this other user, I would make the same comment against him. The bottom line is that unless you calm down and act in a less combative manner, the problems continue to build. Thank you. [I also restored the topic heading here because my latest comment is not related to the earlier discussion on Down Periscope.] ~ UDScott (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Tell him that first - he's doing the wheelwarring by rebloating all those articles already trimmed. He is never going to change - and you're letting the real - for a lack of a better word - criminal here get away as far as violation of LOQ is concerned. And that anon has the NERVE to even forumshop Gwern because he messaged here and to copypaste my recent comment on your talk page as part of his stupid declaration of war? He can shove that up where it doesn't shine. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ambox warning pn.svg Please do not delete legitimate talk page comments as you did here. If you think it is pointless to respond then don't. Removing the comments of those you disagree with is disruptive and uncivil. If you continue to engage in combative behavior you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ningauble, I don't have to visit any talk page to see stuff from unreasonable editors who use edit summaries to highlight their arrogance and forumshop admins. It's baffling that you give me a warning when you don't even rap that guy for his wheel-warring of legitimate trims and improper edit summaries that are much worse than he can label mine as. --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Not all pages follow those guidelines, you know.Edit

No offensive intended in any way, but I'm surprised that you didn't do anything about these pages:

Player017 (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your header doesn't convince me. Your justification flies in the face of LOQ guidelines and you can do better by limiting those pages you mentioned instead of coming over here to talk shit. Want to test me? I dare you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

How I Met Your Mother‎Edit

I am not saying you were wrong in trimming the quotes on this page, but it would have been better to provide a bit more explanation for your edits. It was obvious the other user was unfamiliar with the term LOQ - if you had pointed him to WQ:LOQ, you might have avoided an edit war. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not my job to spoonfeed him what he needs to learn. He's playing dumb with his "what's LOQ?" nonsense. He's just like that douche anon from last year. UDScott, the point is, I've long lost my patience with people who thumb their noses at WQ:LOQ and even if he did, he's still a pigheaded freak. If he thinks this LOQ business is over, think again, I might cull all the stuff he worked on to proper LOQ levels - when I'm done with him, he'd wish he never reverted Bedtime Stories under the guise of his nonsense edit summaries. --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It's also not your job to be the ultimate ruler here. Per Wikiquote:Policies and guidelines, it is policy to "Respect other contributors. Wikiquote contributors come from many different countries and cultures, and have widely different views. By treating others with respect we are able to cooperate effectively in building a compendium of quotations. For some guidelines, see Etiquette." Please keep this in mind - all I am asking is that you not take out your frustration on others by failing to treat them with respect. Certainly there come times when it is no longer possible to remain calm, but in this case, it appeared that you were being deliberately vague and outright hostile from the outset. And continuing to call him names (as you did above - "he's still a pigheaded freak") does not help anyone. You have a history of such aggressive and hostile discussion and edit summaries - please stop this behavior. Please try to keep your discussions civil. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
As the edit wars between you and another user continue (with continued hostile edit summaries), you are temporarily blocked from editing. Once this block expires, please refrain from this behavior and work to come to some sort of compromise or agreement. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
He started this and he is obviously butthurt that his non-notable quote is being reverted. Sarcasm is the defense of the idiotic, and unfortunately he is one with his hostile edit summaries calling me names - no agreement is possible with people like him - like I said before, he's no different from that 63.XXX anon from two years ago hell even those Feafsgda sockfools. Your block of me is unjust - and how DARE YOU call me the "ultimate ruler"! He ought to work on other articles instead of concentrating on the one article he's been obsessed with reversions these past two weeks. If you think this has to stop, he should make himself scarce. --Eaglestorm (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Please reply to discussion on HIMYM talk page. --SuperJew (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Again, please refrain from engaging in edit wars. I believe that SuperJew has made a reasonable request to discuss the issue at the HIMYM talk page, rather than continually reverting the change. In the absence of such discussion, he assumed there would not be objection to his adding the quote again. If you do not wish to engage in constructive dialogue, and instead continue your current behavior, you will be blocked. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I;'m sorry but his ultimatum doesn't work on me and he's desperate. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikiquote for continuing to edit war (without discussion to resolve the issue). Once this block expires, please establish some meaningful (and civil) discussion. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hypertext links to other pages ARE standard devices on MOST wikisEdit

You have recently been removing links from pages where they have been added, in ways that I believe are detrimental to the growth of the project and interest in it and the articles available here. Though I was long averse to adding links myself, only in the earliest years of this project, when there were few developed theme articles, did I strongly oppose adding links to other than established person-pages, or links to unusual concepts, as at that time such links were usually little more than unsightly red links and doorways of convenience and temptation to many casual rather than committed forms of vandalism. As the theme articles gradually increased I was less reluctant to add such links, and now that there are many relevant theme articles, I like many other users, readily use them to offer doorways and windows to greater ranges of thought on various subjects, as is the STANDARD practice on MOST wikis, and encourage others to do the same. Your regular removal of links from pages by declaring them "overlinking" to me smacks of little more than an obtuse desire to constrain and limit others opportunities for expanding the ranges of their thought and consideration beyond those of very shallow and narrow interpretations of simplistic slogans and platitudes. I just noticed your appreciation of the relevance of some facts seems so limited that you just chimed in at an article where a vandal-troll had made ridiculous allegations against me on the Administrators' noticeboard back on 8 January 2014, which were soundly rejected as simply an obvious and malicious act of vandalism - trolling.

Returning to the primary subject, Hypertext links to other pages ARE standard devices on MOST wikis and I certainly do not consider it "over-linking" to have links to theme pages in both the captions and body text of articles, as well as having links to major concepts in different sections of a page. I believe that most people welcome such opportunities or further exploration or investigation of ideas and quotations available at this project, and they should not be removed. ~ Kalki·· 14:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC) + tweaks

I second Kalki's point above that such wiki-links are standard practice and are encouraged as a means to expand the viewing of other pages within the site. Your removal of them is not appropriate and your characterization of Kalki's reverting of your changes as personal attacks is also not appropriate. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I have again reverted your deletion of links, and you seem to be deliberately ignoring and rejecting the long established norms of most wikis and a slowly growing overt consensus on this one that hypertext links SHOULD be used, much as I and others have been using them for some years now. Please refrain from such edits in the future — especially with such misleading and improper edit summaries as you have been using. ~ Kalki·· 16:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

'Yes, Satan' quoteEdit

The least you could have done was to remove the 'Satan' link in the quote. --Mryoungcc35 (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)