User talk:Eaglestorm

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome[edit]

Hi Eaglestorm. Welcome to English Wikiquote.

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

That '70s Show[edit]

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 Bond[edit]

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

Gattaca[edit]

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)

Honneamise[edit]

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 Periscope[edit]

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 Mother‎[edit]

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)

Uncivil responses to efforts at even civl compromise and deference[edit]

I firmly support what Kalki has written above and ask that you refrain from continuing an edit war on the Argo (2012 film) page. As in the past, continued uncivil behavior in this regard is subject to blocking. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
He's a ranting freak who thinks his condescending tone makes him a better editor. Trimming is trimming and we let people like him violate LOQ just for some notability schtick, why implement this LOQ in the first place? his long blocks are nothing more than TLDR stuff and I'm quite disappointed you "agree" with his frothing off at the mouth, not to mention even letting that other LOQ violator cry on your shoulder. I've deleted his rant because frankly he just couldn't leave things alone and go back to his book quote work. The nerve to using edit summaries for everyone to see how crazy he really is. how did he land an adminship in the first place despite all his past behavior. Dun't know and don't care. The culling continues and if anyone stands in my way, you shouldn't be editing WQ either. I've done nothing wrong, and its him pushing issues. LIMITS ARE LIMITS, and it's hypocritical to see certain people who couldn't understand that. --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll just make two points (that I've made before): the limits that you so often quote are merely the result of a proposed policy. It has never been officially adopted. Second, the other criticism that many have leveled at you is that you continue to behave in an uncivil manner, preferring to bully others to get what you want - this will not be tolerated and its continuation will only lead to further blocks (further demonstrated by your threats in this latest post above this one). There is plenty of room on this site for us all to continue to improve it without the need for threats of this kind. Please refrain from it in the future. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 11:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Full Metal Jacket[edit]

As we have in the past, you and I disagree on aspects of the number of quotes permissible for a page. As I have stated before, the guideline you cite as the reason for your edits is merely a proposed policy that has never been formally adopted. I do agree that there are certainly times when we need to control the amount of cruft that appears on many pages (particularly on TV show pages, where the bloat can become extreme). That guideline also allows for exceptions when a work has a sufficient number of memorable quotes or is considered a "classic". I believe that this film qualifies and that we should allow more quotes on its page. See for example the page for Casablanca as an example. I do not believe that any of the quotes that I added back to the page are unmemorable or do not belong there. If we simply blindly enforce strict limits without considering each case individually, I believe we are not serving our community in the best way possible. And again, the guideline is proposed, not a formal policy. I will not yet revert, as I do not wish to engage in an edit war, but I am trying to instead engage you in a discussion as to why you feel so strongly that these quotes should be removed. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I am asking again for your comment on what I have written. In the absence of a counterargument, I will bring my argument to the film's talk page before ultimately replacing the quotes on the page. Remember, I am not against limiting quotes for pages where that makes sense (and I have helped with this effort many times in the past and continue to do so), but I believe that certain pages qualify as exceptions to the rule - this being one of them. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Star Wars[edit]

Will you please stop changing my comma back to a period in the Star Wars page? I’m not the arrogance here. I’ve been trying to solve a problem that I started in the Han vs. Greedo quote. AdamDeanHall (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

and crywhining to UDScott helps your cause? --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Christian M. (2016)...[edit]

...needs to be reported to the Administrators' Noticeboard and VIP. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

You have my approval. He's clearly gone off the deep end if his edits over the past several weeks have shown anything. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
And for future reference, focus solely on the hard facts. Your color commentary against Christian M. is only going to run the risk of botching the report. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
It's not botching anything. "color commentary..." wasn't it a fact that he got called out for coming aboard instead of spamming individual editors? I don't have to see what that shitbag has stated knowing he ruined my experience in another project. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I understand that you two are engaged in some protracted dispute, but "lying fool" and "shitbag" are somewhat below the standard expectations of civility, not just here, but across projects. I'm not super familiar, and I've never really been involved in pages on works of fiction, but as DD points out above, you're not really doing yourself any favors by tossing vitriol, in the case you want somebody to take your side on the issue. GMGtalk 13:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, being civil may have been an option, when you got a recalcitrant like him who makes unnecessary edits and pressgangs people into being allies that only exist in his mind, there's nothing dignifying about him. His rantings of "I can't give up on the site" are no different from Linus losing his security blanket. Too many cosmetic changes.--Eaglestorm (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior[edit]

Once again, I must warn against what appears to be uncivil behavior. 98.216.67.148 (talk · contributions) has asked you to explain the removal of quotes on a page - rather than just answer the question and move on, you are continually removing the question from your Talk page and refusing to address it. Please reconsider and act in a different manner. This type of behavior is not conducive to a constructive community. If this continues, you will be blocked. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you (98.216.67.148) 16:02 17 May 2021 (UTC)
And yet, despite the warnings, you continue to act in an uncivil manner towards others (see the comment you left here: User talk:Steinmetz2020) This is your last warning. If you again act in this way towards other users (despite whatever behavior they may have exhibited), you will be blocked. ~ UDScott (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey he deserved that heat trying to think he knows me from before and there's a laundry list of suspects who have gradually built up an alliance against me. and "whatever behavior they may have exhibited"... they drew first blood with their trying to barge in and imposing their own ideas, right down to that guy who had to invent a "father" response to prove his point. You on the other hand, should have done better by deleting those edits of his from the official record in addition to a global lock as had been done with other SPA troll editors over the years who think they get better sleep from throwing insults at me.
and as for that anon did he put you up to this? Besides, he ought to have researched why it was done instead of me spoonfeeding him. You threaten me with another block? Great, play yourself more into the hands of people who see me as the last hurdle to their running wild with acts such as copyvio bloats. I'm not in the wrong here, and I will not kowtow to anyone. You think I express "uncivil behaviour"? I'm simply telling them in very direct ways and they are so weak and slighted. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Black Widow (2021 film)[edit]

Just a quick note: LOQ does not include taglines, only quotes from the film. I'm not looking to add anything to this page, but I noticed your edit comment. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I never said anything to that effect. I just figured the LOQ based from the WP article. --Eaglestorm (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Your comment on Christian[edit]

Hello, Eaglestorm, nice to meet you. Thank you for your reminder on his talk. I don't comment on that, but it would be a good occasion to exchange greetings with you, so I come here just to say hello. I read discussions on the above, and notice your old comment on civility. I'm happy to know you admit civility might be an option. I'd be much happier to agree with you civility is the first basis of all cooperation. It is not mere an option, but categorical imperative of human society in my opinion. Cheers, --Aphaia (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi thank you, but given his long history of issues under the guise of mental illness, when you try to be civil, you can only take so much. --Eaglestorm (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)