User talk:ESkog/Archive4
Adminship[edit]
You wouldn't happen to be interested in adminship, would you? NSLE (T+C) 06:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Late February would be the best time, now would be too soon. NSLE (T+C) 07:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reversion. I have been checking my watchlist more than I can afford to due to RL time constraints in part becuase of stuff like this. It's nice to know that someone's watching out for my page while I'm gone. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 07:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Please Help with a user User:CthulhuFhtagn to stop editing my page[edit]
This user repeatly keeps editing my team wiki page. [Zombie Squad] He keeps added a section to my teams page that we are accused of an act called Zerging. He has changed it multiple times and wont respond to my warnings. Is there a way to prevent this user from vandalizing my teams page Thanks Skeletor —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.46.202.226 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
In Regard to My Warnings[edit]
I am sorry. I allowed one of my nephews to check out Wikipedia while I was at work. I am a supporter of Wikipedia and will try harder to become constructive and punish my nephew for this attrocity. I am terribly sorry for any problems that this incident may have caused.-207.69.137.26 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:207.69.137.26
The Vandalism IRC channel[edit]
Sorry it took so long to get your request processed, it normally goes quite a bit faster. It was absolutely nothing personal, there was nothing wrong with your request, the people in the channel (myself included) just all thought someone else was handling it... Anyhow, we hope to see you around, you are very welcome to join us! --JoanneB 23:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks[edit]
AfD? 12:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Abortion[edit]
You have this wrong: [1] read it carefully —This user has left wikipedia 03:15 2006-01-25
- pro-life (prō-līf')
- adj.
- Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion.
- Oops, my bad. —This user has left wikipedia 03:21 2006-01-25
Your revert on the Pakistan page[edit]
Sorry about changing the version back, but an anonoymous editor (65.92.244.156) twice inserted a change about Jinnah without explaining why. After two reversions, this user David Matthews suddenly appeared and made the same change without explaining. I know you reverted user 70.31.11.199 edit but I felt the need to change back to before David Matthews. Thanks Green Giant 03:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Award[edit]
Barnstar removed to User page
Thanks![edit]
Well, I briefly considered being nonchalant as though receiving barnstars happens to me all the time, but... Thanks! That was the first one I've been given, and it came at an especially good time; I've been getting very frustrated with my several attempts to work with editors on high-conflict pages as my major contribution. To have my efforts at cleanup/rewrite recognized so quickly goes a long way toward making me feel that I can have a positive impact on WP.
In fact, I'm going to drop my wikistress meter down a level, thanks, ESkog!
Fox1 (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Re: 221.169.51.189[edit]
Regarding the message you left at User talk:221.169.51.189 this is liley an open proxy being used by User:Bonaparte banned indef for running a sock farm through open proxies used for 3RR workaround, RFAdm multiple voting and trolling. His othe proxy I exposed having been blocked by Mikka just minutes ago, makes clear why he chose to vandalize the pages of these particular users this time. Open proxies should be banned as per WP policy. Reagards, --Irpen 20:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
my rfa[edit]
thanks for you support on my rfa Benon 06:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Mb1000's Request for adminship[edit]
Hi, this is Mb1000. You recently voted Neutral on my request for adminship. Is there anyway you could reconsider and vote to Support me? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. --Mb1000 18:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
P.S. If you have any questions you'd like to ask me, just post them on the comments page. I'll answer them as soon as I see them. Thanks.
I'm sorry you misunderstood me, ESkog. I was not intending to pressure you or anything. Just asking you to reconsider. :) --Mb1000 19:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Neutral POV violations[edit]
Appreciate the assistance in rectifying persistent POV violations in short-selling page.--Mantanmoreland 19:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Note that the page has been vandalized -- again. Different ISP number, same vandalism -- an apparent sockpuppet.--Mantanmoreland 20:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the page can be reverted back to a neutral state and frozen? --Mantanmoreland 20:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have reverted back to a neutral version, and hopefully the administrators will have mercy.--Mantanmoreland 21:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Naked Short Selling[edit]
Your "Naked Short Selling" page is definitely biased in favor of the naked short seller. It is not neutral!
I have tried to replace it with factual information to no avail. A poster named ESKOG (you?) has entered a message to me that I am in violation of the "neutral" policy of Wikopedia. Either the author is not adequately knowledgeable regarding naked short selling or he is intentionally placing untruthful and biased information on this page.
I sincerely hope that this person is not an official moderator who controls this page. If this is an example of neutrality, it is blatantly hypocritical. Please let me know how to correct erroneous and biased information on this "Naked Short Selling" page.Riverrunrun 00:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Counter Reply to Naked Short Selling[edit]
Thanks for the reply. Hopefully we can have a constructive dialog with truth as the goal.
I have been investing in the stock market for over 30 years and have seen all sorts of schemes to bilk the unsuspecting small investor out of his money. I don't know how much experience you have had with such actions, but, by the tone of you comments, I would guess very little.
You have mentioned several "problems" with removed version of this page. My version attempts to rectify the inaccuracies in the protected version.
You state that this version was "extremely biased with a thesis that 'naked short selling is bad'". I suggest that you look at the SEC ACT of 1933 and 1934. Illegal Sale of an Unregistered Securty has always been forbidden, by Sections 5 and 6 of the Securities Act of 1933, and by provisions of the Securities Act of 1934. It is illegal. In light of this, how do you construe that "naked short selling is bad" is biased? It is nothing more than taking someone's money and not delivering anything in return. That's why they call it FTD (Fails To Deliver), i.e., no shares are ever delivered to the buyer. This is a crime. Crime is bad.
Using this illegal ploy, a hedge fund can, with broker complicity, sell unlimited shares on the open market and drive a target stock issue down dramatically, even to zero. I am not talking about penny stocks either. Believe me, this really is happening to the tune of billions of dollars per day of lost retail investments. Last year I lost over $500,00.00 due to this type of criminal action. The stock involved had over 200% of company issued shares being traded. Now, obiously, not all of these shares were legitimate.
This IS fraud! You say that there is no evidence of this happening. The SEC, DTC and NASD will not allow the true numbers of FTD shares to be given out. Even using the FOIA will not bring forth the numbers. Do you honestly think this is OK?
If you want to remain "neutral", then allow the current version of this page to give facts and not erroneous propaganda in favor of naked short selling. Facts are not argueable. Distortion of same is.
Since the mid 1990's, the SEC has been aware of naked short selling and failed to adequately respond to investor and company complaints alike. In recent years the FBI, SEC, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have conducted investigations into naked short selling and followed these sales through money laundering schemes used by criminal elements. Those elements jeopardize our Homeland Security. Unbelievably, the practice of naked short selling still continues to this day regardless of where the profits are going.
Brokerage firms make their money not by representing their clients, the average investor. They make their money by trading stock. It's that simple. And no one trades more stock that the hedge funds. Between the two of them, they have created some of the wealthiest individuals in America, lining their own pockets with outrageous salaries, unbelievable commissions, and massive bonuses that most Americans can only dream about. And they do it in a stock market where the average investor is still struggling to recoup even a fraction of the losses sustained in the market meltdown of 2000.
They do it by selling stock. It doesn't even matter whether that stock is real or imagined, just as long as the shares keep flowing. It doesn't matter whether the shares are delivered or not, just as long as the "customer" keeps paying the commissions for the shares that flow in a neverending stream from one hand to another. Counterfeit or real, as long as the brokerage firms collect their fees, they'll continue to buy and sell, sell and buy.
As I said previously, you are being hypocritical if you think that the wording of the protected version of this page is "neutral". It is showing the true bias or lack of knowledge of the author. This biased diatribe hurts the small investor, our economy and, by money laundering, our national security. Be informed before taking a stand on neutrality. Learn and advocate the facts. Otherwise you are definitely become part of the problem. Riverrunrun 02:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Might it be possible to have one central place for discussion of this issue? This dispersal of the subject is confusing.--Mantanmoreland 03:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Further Dialog on Naked Short Selling-Need To Change Current[edit]
Regarding the "protected version" of Naked Short Selling, the deleted version which I have proposed is totally based on facts, unlike the protected version. Therefore, this protected version should be replaced with the factual version. Phrases like "pump and dump scam operators", "no evidence found", "the buyer requesting physical delivery of share certificates....are used by scam artists to artificially elevate share prices", "opponents of naked short-selling, which include many stock manipulators and scam artists",etc. are fraught with inaccuracies and unproductive innuendos.
I have problems with many of the inaccuracies and biased innuendos in this version, such as:
1. "However, the extent to which this practice takes place has been widely exaggerated, and allegations of naked short-selling have historically been used as a scapegoat by pump-and-dump scam operators wishing to shift blame for the inevitable decline in manipulated stocks."
Prob: There has been no exaggeration regarding this practice. If anything it has been inaccurately minimized. Having the SEC admit that 1% of all trades are Fails To Deliver says that an average of 6 billion dollars of ficticious shares per day are being traded. Relating this to the published fact that the majority of these trades are in a relatively few target issues which remain on the SHO list shows that these few issues are being illegally manipulated to bring their pps down for the benefit of large hedge funds. All FTD's are patently illegal. No scapegoating here.
2. "By making naked shorts illegal, volume of trading is reduced resulting in higher spreads and illiquidity. Also, present naked shorting rules allow brokerages to make large profits doing "bona-fide market making" while stock markets are falling."
Prob: Fact - naked shorting is illegal. Naked shorting allows brokerages to make large profits. Brokerages do not do "bona-fide market making". For instance all NYSE market makers are employed by the following firms:
1. Bear Wagner Specialist LLC. 2. Fleet Specialist, Inc. 3. LaBranche & Co., LLC. 4. Performance Specialist Group, LLC. 5. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists LLC. 6. SIG Specialists, Inc. 7. Van der Moolen Specialists USA, LLC.
3. ".....regulators have found no evidence of that actually taking place." (naked short selling)
Prob: The SEC finally producing the REG SHO threshold list proves that FTD's (naked short shares sold without delivery) exist. Trouble is that this list only shows those company shares in which there are more than 1% of their shares sold naked (never delivered). Many of these companies have been on this list since its beginning (January 2005). These relatively few companies account for the approximately six billion dollars per day of fraudulent share sales. The SEC will not divuldge the number of FTD's, therefore it is impossible to give evidence of this number. (Why do you suppose this is. It could be because the SEC does not want it to be known the extent to which this illegal practice exists.)
4. "Despite the enactment of Regulation SHO, opponents of naked short sales have continued their campaign against naked short-selling, and have been accused of seeking to attribute ordinary price fluctuations to naked short-selling."
Prob: The first part of this statement is non-sensical while the latter part is a point of truth, except that naked short-selling causes abnormal price fluctuations. Obviosly, REG SHO has not stopped this practice, due to its very existence, because there is no enforcement of the regulation.
5. "These (methods that are used to fight naked short-selling) include the buyer requesting physical delivery of share certificates."That can artifically inflate share prices via what is known as a "short squeeze." Such manipulative methods are frequently illegal, and are used by scam artists to artificially elevate share prices."
Prob: Both of these statements are frivilous in the extreme and attempt to denigrate the right of the individual investor. Any rational thinking person person would expect to be able to receive that product (shares) which he paid for. This is not manipulative nor is it used "by scam artists to artificially elevate share prices".
6. "....opponents of naked short-selling, which include many stock manipulators and scam artists."
Prob: This is an unproven statement of innuendo which unfairly and inaccurately labels legitimate investors.
7. "Critics charge that this system encourage "short squeezes" aimed at artificially inflating share prices."
Prob: Short squeezes exist when the short sellers are forced by law to cover their short shares by buying back in when they have mistakenly picked a company with solid fundamentals. This merely brings the price back to fair value. Trouble is when naked shorting is allowed to occur with impunity, there is no legal enforcement to force them to cover. This is the problem as it exists today as it did in 1929, which brought about the 1933-1934 SEC ACT to prevent this very practice. Remember, short selling is perfectly legal. Naked short selling is not, except on a very short term basis by maket makers to produce an orderly market.
8. "Despite the overwhelming evidence that "naked shorting" is a nonissue that is a drain on regulatory resources..."
Prob: The "overwhelming evidence" shows that naked shorting is an issue, a very large issue.
There are many more examples, but I think any honest thinking person can see that the above, which is included in the presently preferred version of this Wikipedia definition of Naked Short Selling, shows that this version is truly fraught with errors and biased innuendos. My opinion is that the version which I offerred is not. Publication of untruths given as fact is at the very least troubling and unethical.river 19:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Correction: The "unbiased" version that was aggressively dumped on the page was written by an anti-naked shorting lobbyist named Bob O'Brien. --Mantanmoreland 23:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Effort Appreciated[edit]
Eskog: Your efforts to rewrite the naked short selling page, making it more nearly accurate and informative are appreciated. After all, that's what encyclopedias are all about.
There does seem to be one point that has been misconstured. That is the difference between short selling and naked short selling. These terms should be explicitly defined to remove any confusion.
Short selling is perfectly legal where a borrowed share is sold. In this case, a real share is traded. The short seller expects the stock to go down.
Naked short selling is where there is a sale to a buyer of a non-existent share and no share is borrowed or ever produced. This short seller never had the intent to produce that share. Therefore the buyer has been defrauded by definition and the naked short seller pockets the money and pays no tax on his ill-gotten gains.river 23:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
small correction[edit]
The lawsuit filed by Overstock does not accuse Rocker Partners of naked short selling. The lawsuit actually accuses Rocker Partners and its Principals of conspiring with Gradient Analytics (formerly Camelback) to manipulate the stock price by publishing biased research after taking short positions, not naked short selling. It has been widely and incorrectly reported that Patrick Byrnes accused Rocker Partners of naked short selling (AKA strategic failure to deliver). Dr. Byrnes has offered evidence that the trading in Overstock shares includes naked short selling, given his family's large ownership of shares and assurances from institutional holders that they have not lent out their shares for legitimate short selling. This opinion from Dr. Byrnes has gained credibility due to his reported purchase of 50,000 shares which were not delivered for more than a month, and his father's reported similar experience with another major brokerage firm for a purchase of 200,000 shares. It is probably most distressing to public investors that the electronic delivery system allows Patrick Byrnes and his father to pay more than $6,000,000 for stock, to have that money debited from their accounts, but to have the actual delivery of the stock (reportedly) delayed for more than two months. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.9.150.245 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Churning[edit]
Not trying to muddy the waters, but there is another practice that you might want to look into. That is the practice of "churning". Churning is when a large hedge fund trades between two separate accounts (A and B). A sells to B at a lower than market price. Then B sells to A at an even lower price and so on. This produces a continual lowering of the price per share of the target company. When the price has been forced down in this manner to the desired level, the hedge fund, probably from a third short account, can then buy back its shorted shares for a handsome profit as the stock starts back up in normal trading. This is another form of "manipulating" the stock price in order to pocket a profit at the expense of long investors. Much, if not all of this, is done from offshore accounts to prevent detection of the principals. There are many schemes out there to intentionally defraud the honest retail investor. river 21:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I haven't encountered that in my research. There is a recognized stock fraud technique called "boxing." However that involves an "upside" manipulation. "Churning" is a recognized securities industry term describing brokers making excessive trades to improperly increase their commissions. --Mantanmoreland 23:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Your vote on the RFR poll[edit]
Hi, ESkog, you voted oppose on the requests for rollback privileges consensus poll, suggesting that people who would like rollback should just become admins instead - that being an admin is "no big deal". While I think that in an "ideal" Wikipedia, this would indeed be the case, I believe that over time standards for becoming an administrator have clearly risen. This is apparent by looking at the RFA system throughout Wikipedia's existence - intially, all one had to do to become an admin was just ask nicely, now we have a complicated procedure. A recent proposal on the RFA talk page for requiring at least 30 minimum support votes and a significant number of existing contributions was given some serious consideration. There is frequent talk of "bad admins slipping through the RFA net", and while you may not agree with that philosophy of adminship it is undeniable that the standards have risen.
Because of this, candidates who pass are already very experienced with Wikipedia. While this in itself is no bad thing, it means that for the month or so before they become admins they are not being given the tools an admin has which would help them to improve Wikipedia, by removing vandalism and performing administrative tasks such as moving pages. The qualities which make a good administrator are not determined by length of stay on Wikipedia or number of friends you have, but by personality and character. Time at Wikipedia only gives familiarity with the way things are done here. However, being at Wikipedia for an extra month doesn't grant any special insight into the ability to determine which edits are vandalism and which are not. This is why I believe that we should hand out rollback to contributors who are clearly here to improve Wikipedia but won't pass the RFA procedure because of their percieved lack of familiarity with policy by some Wikipedians. I think that adminship should be no big deal, like you, however I see just two ways to make sure Wikipedians can quickly and efficiently remove vandalism - either by all those who believe adminship should be no big deal involving themselves much more in RFA, or by supporting this proposal and giving out rollback to good contributors who have not yet been here long enough to become admins. We have to remember that our ultimate aim here is to produce an encyclopedia, and we should balance the idealism of "adminship should be no big deal" with the pragmatism of granting rollback to our best non-admin contributors. I would be very grateful if you would reconsider your viewpoint on this issue. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 13:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Much Better[edit]
Eskog: You have written a much better version of naked short selling. The only thing I wish you hadn't left out is that the SEC does not allow any transparency as to how many FTD shares exist for each issue on the Reg Sho list. It could be combined with the following statement: "One alleged effect of naked short-selling, according to opponents of the practice, is that it results in "counterfeit shares." The SEC has denied that this effect occurs. [8] The SEC will not provide the number of FTD shares (naked short shares) for the issues on their monthly published Reg Sho list." Otherwise, it is a good rewrite and factually informative. Thanks. river 05:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I actually was much relieved to see a more balanced page. As to the counterfeit share issue, that is a question of rhetoric. Naked short selling results in a sales transaction wherein money is paid by a buyer, but no share is delivered. The impact on the price of the security is the same as though the sales transaction was for a genuine share. When the buyer looks at his account, he sees a representation from his broker that he has "shares" in his account, but in reality what is there are IOUs, or "entitlements to shares" which are represented via the mail and online as shares. An important distinction most don't get first time around is that an "entitlement to shares" is an IOU, and does NOT have voting rights, nor any other rights a genuine share posesses (and which ARE the value encapsulated in a "share"). That is one other correction I wanted to make in this SEC section following "The SEC has denied that this effect occurs": I would add the sentence, "Critics point out that FTDs have no voting rights or any other rights of a genuine share, so when they are represented to the buyer as "shares" they are actually facsimiles void of a genuine share's intrinsic rights - the very definition of "counterfeit". Bobobrien 04:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)BobObrien
Can we please move this discussion to the talk page for Naked shorting? We are again discussion one subject in three or more different places. Mr. O'Brien, your changes re "counterfeit" are assertions of your organization's position represented as fact. The SEC disagrees with you. This needs to be noted to maintain neutral POV. --Mantanmoreland 20:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Naked Shorting Page Hijacked[edit]
I just wanted to add my compliments to the ones above, and also advise you that the page has been hijacked! Several of us worked hard to hammer out a compromise, and I hate to see it sabotaged like this. I have reverted to the compromise and would ask that the page be frozen, but I am not sure of the mechanics. Thanks again for a fine job, but unfortunately the problem isn't over alas. --Mantanmoreland 17:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Alas, full-scale editing war resumed. Oh well. It was good while it lasted....--Mantanmoreland 21:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to use the talk function here, but I wanted to point out that another statement on the naked short selling page is incorrect/false and misleading. The quotation attributed to Cam Funkhauser of the NASD is not accurate. For an accurate version you can refer to the NASAA transcript at TheSanityCheck.com in the Library Section, page 48, where he says that IN BERLIN (not all foreign exchanges) when he went there, he found no evidence of rampant naked short selling or manipulation on the BERLIN EXCHANGE. I tried to edit it but it wouldn't allow me to. This limited scope statement in the NASAA forum was widely twisted by journalists and the DTCC to mean that NASD hadn't seen any evidence of rampant naked short selling everywhere, or on all foreign exchanges - something Cam just never said, as anyone reading the transcript can see. Bobobrien 04:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Bobobrien
- In fact, Mr. Funkhouswer was making a general statement concerning short-selling. His remark was not confined just to the Berlin exchange. I have posted his actual words (from page 13, not page 48) of the transcript, to clear up this matter. I am frankly at a loss to understand how you describe the quote in question as "incorrect/false and misleading." The reference on page 13 is, by the way, the only time the word "rampant" appears in the transcript, so this is indeed the quote in question. Mr. O'Brien, please do not make changes that do not correctly characterize the source material. Your change made an accurate statement inaccurate. Thank you. --Mantanmoreland 20:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
You made my day, E![edit]
Thank you so very much for the kind words about me you left over at Gene's RfA. You realy did make my day!! All the best, Lucky 6.9 18:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey :) Thanks for sanitizing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liam Stone. Although clearly inappropriate, User:24.126.69.199's comments gave me my best chuckle this morning :) I appreciate your taking the time to admonish them; I didn't want to do it myself as that would probably only provoke 'em further. Cheers! Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 20:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
My RFA[edit]
Hi ESkog/Archive4, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Babe Ruth[edit]
I'm posting this message on you Talk Page either because you've contributed to the article Babe Ruth, or because you've edited other baseball or sports related articles. I've recently completed a revision of this article at Babe Ruth/rewrite. If you have the time, I'd appreciated it if you'd compare the articles and leave any feedback you might have on the rewrite discussion page. I'd like to reach a consensus before makeing major changes to the main article. Thanks for your help. --djrobgordon 20:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks[edit]
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage! It is much appreciated! --Hansnesse 21:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
My RFA[edit]
Hey, ESkog, I wanted to thank you for your support of my (unfortunately unsuccessful) request for adminship. The final tally was 37/16/5, which fell short of the needed 75-80% for "consensus". Your kind words over Running up the score were greatly appreciated. That really was nice of you! I don't know if or when I'll go up for nomination again, but even if I don't, I will try not to betray the trust that you and 36 others were willing to place in me. Thanks for having faith in me... and happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Flatulence Vandalism[edit]
I noticed that in removing vandalism from flatulence you noted me as the vandal in your edit notes. Please look again. In fact, I have been removing vandalism from this page all day, as the page's history reflects. If you look closely at the history, you will see that the vandalism you removed was added by an editor who edited right after one of my edits, not by me. What was that prior edit, you ask? Removing vandalism. I would appreciate it if you could make a note on this page's discussion page and on my usertalk page that you made a mistake and I did not in fact vandalize. Thank you. Interestingstuffadder 02:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- In that case, I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant. Interestingstuffadder
Joke's RfA[edit]
Hi ESkog, thanks for your support and kind comments in my (successful) RfA! –Joke 16:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
My talk page[edit]
If you can point me to a policy that says I can't blank my talk page, I won't do it. Until then, refrain from reverting it. --HasNoClue 03:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
My RfA[edit]
. It ultimately succeeded with votes of 52/1/2, so I am now an administrator. Should you have any questions, comments, complaints, or requests at any point in the future, please do not hesitate to let me know on my talk page or via e-mail.Vandalism[edit]
Define vandalism. How the hell is erasing warning on MY discussion page VANDALISM??? Please tell me that sir ESkog. Otherwise, shut the hell up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vsf3000 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Why Falsely Accuse Me of Adding Commercial Links[edit]
Hi,
I signed on as an editor, and one of my first moves was REMOVING a blatant commercial link.
In thanks, ESkog leaves me a message accusing me of adding commercial links.
And then I come here and find out that ESkog thinks its a crime for a user to blank his Talk screen.
So, I've been falsely accused, and now, forever, people who come to my talk page are supposed to read about how I add commercial links to my own web pages?
Not likely. I'm a student with no commercial ties to anything. So, I feel justified in removing your post from my page.
Please be more careful about accusing people in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Bangs (talk • contribs) 05:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)