User talk:Eeekster

Welcome!

Hello, Eeekster, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --OrphanBot 06:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

leave me alone...

stop it! i've included a infobox since then, and the page is still underconsruction!!! i need more than 5 minutes to finish!! And anyway...

"However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion."

i put {{ stub }} in my very first edit. gow away!!!

Deletion review for Comsec Consulting Ltd.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Comsec Consulting Ltd.. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Ohio representative pages

Hi Eekster. I removed your CSD tags from two articles (Tom Patton and the other) because it looks like they are legit, but the editor that created them seems to be having problems figuring out the infoboxes. Just a FYI. §FreeRangeFrog 00:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I figured he'd put something in them and the CSD would serve as a prompt. Eeekster (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H:TMM/Button

Please notice what you're doing before randomly tagging anything you see as vandalism. It was created specifcally as a test for button text at H:TMM. I'm removng the tag and will have it deleted when we are done testing its function. §hep ^Talk 01:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that randomly creating pages without any edit summary appears to be vandalism. It'd help if you explained such edits and would allow people patrolling to not waste their time. Eeekster (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should not be tagged as creating vandalism solely for not using an edit summary. They're not mandatory, all I ask is that you're more careful as that was a legit page. It's over though and there's no use crying once the milk spills. (Read:I'll be quite now) Thanks, §hep ^Talk 01:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Helped Create The MC (Rapper) page, any thing I add to this site is authorized and is not vandalism. Thank you ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by NathanExplosionism (talk • contribs) 13:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AndreTT: Response to possible deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Álamos_Golf

NOTE: This was my first contribution to Wikipedia, so be kind cause I'm still learning.
I'm going to improve this page by inserting relevant images of the golf course.
I'm also going to insert relevant linking to several pages on Wikipedia's related articles.

My plan is to contribute to Wikipedia with relevant information on all Golf Courses in Portugal.
All of them are going to have the same structure, based on:
- Description
- Main Information
- Details
- Technical Details
- Facilities
- Score Board
- External Links
They're going to interconnect between each other.
There are going to be main pages listing all the portuguese golf courses, like:
- Portugal Golf Courses
- Golf Clubs and Courses by Country
- Golf by Country
- etc..

I still don't know many things but you should give me time to learn.
Instead of applying this article to deletion you should help me on this, the information I have about Portugal Golf Courses is very useful to many golfers cause its a premium destination for them. Having no information in Wikipedia on Portugal Golf Courses is unforgivable.

Thanks for your attention,
André
Andrett (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of enema

I don't feel that my additions to the enema section constitute and sort of "Vandalism" I added some points that were and are of relevance. The section on enema social groups provides a great resource. Please accept my changes to the article and don't revert it again. Thank You, EnePaul225 —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnePaul225 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC) I keep adding relevant links and posts to this article..........Then it gets called vandalism......It is not and the links I provided for discussion groups I feel add a great deal to the article. Being active in the enema community I know such things as how people modify the douche nozzle for enema use and how much wine people use. Please Reconsider keeping on pulling down my productive mods. I am quickly loosing Respect for wikipedia and its members. EnePaul225 EnePaul225 (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting called vandalism for good reason and I'm not the only editor objecting to what you keep adding. If you really feel strongly about this, I suggest you take it to arbitration. Eeekster (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read the definition of vandalism, and consider contributing to wikipedia in a more productive fashion than subst'ing warnings on people's talk pages? When I have the time, I might try intergrating this users edits (NONE of which qualify as vandalism) into the article in a better fashion, but for now I have too much work to do - you, however, apparantly have plenty of spare time, and could spare some of it to properly copyedit and integrate this user's good-faith contributions. Bushytails (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Society of Muslims

I do not think it is either helpful or useful to place tags on articles immediately after they are created, when they are clearly in a process of construction. Checking the subject before adding speedy deletion tags might also be desirable. It creates unnecessary work and stress for editors who are creating new articles to have to deal with such instantly-appearing tags. Paul B (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Immediately after creation" is the nature of new page patrol work. Eeekster (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albums produced by Van Morrison

per your speedy deletion tag, I have uncounted, at least thirty or forty albums to add to this category. Why do the ones I am adding show up red linked? because of the speedy deletion tag? Agadant (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The CSD tag wouldn't cause red links. You have something strange in your page that might do it though. Eeekster (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? The fact that the other editor deleted it? Can you help me with this? All I wanted to do was create an authentic category page for a producer of thirty or forty albums — not all his own—and then work on it to complete it, as time permitted, and now I'm bogged down in this time-consuming mess. Agadant (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't have any context in the article. That's why it was deleted. Don't create the article until you have something to put in it. Eeekster (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never have before but I guess I was too confident that I would have a few minutes to add to it. Can it be reinstated? Thanks, Agadant (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just create again with some content and you should be fine. Eeekster (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Eeekster = Lesson learned! Agadant (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

What you think is vandalism is sometimes biting commentary. So closed minded! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.108.228 (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think "biting commentary" has any place in that article? Eeekster (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better idea then a simple revert

1 this user obviously wanted to add a hangon tag, although they blanked the page whilst doing so, so you could have reverted their removal of content but left the hangon tag there, just for future reference, anyway, good work on NPP, thanks! Spitfire^Tally-ho! 15:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that but didn't think it worth the effort for a page that's just vandalism. Eeekster (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in future I suggest you do consider it, just as they don't have the right to remove speedy or AfD tags, we don't have a right to remove hangon tags, or their comments from the AfD process, sure, the user should not have blanked the page, but remember they're new, and we are experienced, so we should compensate for their mistakes, cheers Spitfire^Tally-ho! 15:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]