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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please reply to discussion on HIMYM talk page. --SuperJew (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I;'m sorry but his ultimatum doesn't work on me and he's desperate. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Civility is something that must be kept at all times, there's not a matter of taking so much or anything like that. No matter how much of a pain the other person may be, you must stay civil. This, for example, is just completely unnecessary, so is this. --Ferien (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ferien, he has long been a problem thats why he was labelled as such. He can't leave anything alone. I no longer have respect for him.--Eaglestorm (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't speak to someone in a civil manner then you shouldn't really be speaking to them at all. Looking above and below I can see you've received countless messages about uncivil behaviour from you. And I see you had similar problems on enwiki a while ago. Please treat this as a warning. --Ferien (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Ferien. You want to dredge up stuff from another wiki I don't even try to log in to circumvent blocks (unlike some people who've messed with me before)just to defend that guy who can't leave well enough alone? please. So saying in very raw terms is being "uncivil". Then about his promises to leave the site but doesn't have the guts to be true to his word? --Eaglestorm (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not necessarily saying someone else's behaviour is right, I am not trying to defend anyone. Tbh I am not fully aware of the situation with Christian M., I am not very active here. But it's the incivility that is the problem. If they are a troll, deny recognition please, instead of being uncivil with them. Thank you,--Ferien (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Be Civil![edit]

Your uncivil behaviour here is unacceptable even when dealing with problematic users. You may get yourself blocked . Cheers --Synoman Barris (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Synoman Barris, It's not being about civil anymore, it's about reining in people like him who just couldn't take a hint that he's a chronic problem. He's been the subject of a noticeboard report and he's lied many times about leaving the site. I no longer trust him to be of any use, but he should just go away. the hell with him. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale[edit]

Hi Eaglestorm,

Could you help me understand the reason for this revert? I've not contributed much to Wikiquote's content but I thought it matched conventions and formatting I observed so far. Thanks! --Krinkle (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikiquote for abuse of editing privileges. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When this block expires (in one hour), please take a breath and stop the edit warring that is not helpful to anyone. Please work to resolve your differences in a civil manner. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikiquote for abuse of editing privileges. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires.

As I warned, your continued refusal to act in a civil manner towards other users has resulted in this latest block. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't warn me with anything but you let that guy go wild on his accusations? His claims are simply based on plain stalking. If he thinks he's gonna be the one whiteknight hero, he's got another thing coming and congrats too UDScott for playing into the hands of people with agendas against me. And yeah I needed a break from the toxicity that editor has spawned - THE NERVE TO use that user page as citation for his laundry list. What a [term suppressed due to NPA] --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did warn you on the Admin's noticeboard, where I wrote: "Eaglestorm, I believe that the case laid out here is quite strong and shows a pattern of abuse by you towards other users and some sort of belief that you own the pages contained in this site. The next incident of such behavior (whether in edit summaries or direct discussion with another user) will result in a block - no further warnings will be given." This block was of your own making, when you refused to act in a civil manner, something that I and others have asked of you for some time. Perhaps, when the block is over, you will reconsider your actions and behave differently towards other users, especially those with which you disagree. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I take offense that one user is stripping the LOQ limits on Avengers Endgame [[1]] for purposes of their own, accusing me of "lording". Seems they are the ones doing the very things I am being accused of. --Eaglestorm (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have a clear pattern of bad faith activity. I have little reason to presume you didn’t just tag the article for your own purposes. Do you have any evidence anyone but you and DawgDeputy endorse the tag? Dronebogus (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dronebogus, you need to stand down a bit on this. The addition of the tag is completely appropriate and is something that is often added to film pages (which are particularly prone to having to many quotes). Why are you continuing to prolong this argument. I suggest you move on to other things and leave this alone. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WQ:LOQ is NOT an official policy.[edit]

It’s an unofficial guideline. Your relentless enforcement of it is purely disruptive. Dronebogus (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you really have a obsession with taking me down. It's just rich. and you have the nerve to ask how did I get unblocked? --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if you weren’t constantly enforcing a non-policy then being uncivil to literally everyone around you when you’re called out on it, we’d get along better. Have you learned literally nothing from getting kicked off Wikipedia and blocked twice here? Dronebogus (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

I've blocked you for edit warring for a longer period this time. When you are able to edit again, head back to the talk page of the article if you are interested in the other edit being reverted. If this edit warring continues, you'll be given a much longer block, so please do not spend time edit warring and causing disruption. --Ferien (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand on Goldeneye. He's never edited that before until I took the time to LOQ it. He's become more annoying with him following most of my edits and reverting all in the name of what he calls a non-policy. --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Raw/Ministry invading Vince's house[edit]

I can't add the Ministry of Darkness invading Vince's house segment on the WWE Raw page, this warning appears:This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: GRP 178.233.52.235 18:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eaglestorm&oldid=3283324"