User talk:Rhobite/Archive 7

Talk page archives
User:Rhobite
Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5
Archive 6
Archive 7
Archive 8
Archive 9
Current

Social Distortion

Thank you for reverting the article so quickly. After you did, I realized that I should have done it myself. I went back to the guide and learned how to do so. DBBell 20:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Raymer

Why did you revert my edits? Greg Raymer is chubby. It's an obvious fact.

It's an opinionated statement, and Raymer's weight is not really relevant to his notability as a poker player. Rhobite 00:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However, he does throw his weight around at the table, being an aggressive player and such. And at times you could say he overindulges in bluffing. No? How bout if we call him "portly"?

I don't see any need for the article to comment on Raymer's weight, metaphorically or literally. Rhobite 02:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well who got crucified and made you God? This is a crime against information.

Michael Crook

This guy can;t keep his hands off... he keeps coming in under renewed I.P.'s and screwing with the page... can you help?

You asked why me and others worked on and blanked the article. Jimbo Wales himself, under the username jwales on the IRC chat room, told us about the article and it needs major NPOV'ing. So, I blanked some sections and I reworded others. While I noticed you kept some of the changes, but I think the main focus of the article should not be trying to kill this guy. Though, we could also have sources for much of the article. Zach (Sound Off) 06:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Conspiracy theory"

Hello Rhobite, it seems to be your original research POV that "conspiracy theory" is appropriate in the title of 9/11 conspiracy theories, what about the need to present other people's cited allegations fairly? In a debate side A presents their case, side B responds, a fair summary of that debate would not allow side A's arguments to be characterized using side B's word choices. If something is as dubious (uncited) as you claim then it doesn't belong in wikipedia at all. Why doesn't the Flat Earth article have a title that implies it's false/dubious/non mainstream? Is it a title's job to convey a conclusion about a subject? I am ok if, inside the content of the article, there is a sentence to the effect of "these theories are non mainstream" or "groups A, B and C discount theory X" or "critics of theory X argue it is a self rationalizing rumor with no basis in fact" or etc. I look forward to your response. zen master T 17:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep looking forward to it, I'm not getting into another debate with you. I posted my comment for the purposes of consensus; further discussion is pointless. Rhobite 17:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh, "I posted my comment for the purposes of conensus; futher discussion is pointless" doesn't make sense. If you were interested in consensus then further discussion would not be pointless. I don't necessarily want a debate, I just want people's claimed position and motivation on this issue to add up. zen master T 17:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to discuss it with other people. Based on past experiences, further discussion with you is pointless. Rhobite 17:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is your right to choose not to respond to my challenge for you to explain your position and/or rationale. good day to you sir. zen master T 17:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation?

My entry in Myopia (Combination of Genetic and Environmental Factors) has been reverted twice, by you and by Edwardian, claiming that it is a copyright violation. This is clearly not a copyright violation, for the following reasons:

1. (From the Wikipedia copyright page): "Some cases will be false alarms. For example, if the contributor was in fact the author of the text that is published elsewhere under different terms, that does not affect their right to post it here under the GFDL". That is precisely the case here: I am the author of the text published elsewhere.

2. User Edwardian claimed that I "copied" or "changed only slightly" the text that appears on the external link

When I pointed out to him that the text was neither copied nor changed only slightly, given that the page on the external link has a word count of 2,970 and my addition to the Etiologies section has 1,129, a difference of 1,841 word, he didn't reply.

However, another user, Splash, did reply, asserting that nevertheless it qualified as copying because what was copied was the concept. This argument is moot, however, because of No.1 above. In addition, as explained in No.3 below:

3. Copyright law only covers the particular form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested. "It is not designed or intended to cover the actual concepts, facts, styles or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the ideas or information."

Also, Wikipedia procedures noted below were not followed:

"Remember to drop a warning template into talk pages of users who submit copyvios. If we don't educate, the problems will only swell. Insert this code into a user talk page: {{nothanks|name of copyvio article}}".

"If you suspect one, you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text."

Researich2

You should have said that you were the author of the text in an edit summary or on the talk page - how are people supposed to know that if you don't tell anyone? Rhobite 20:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry--it was an oversight on my part. On the other hand, you didn't warn me on the Talk page that you were going to revert it. If so, I could have clarified the question.

Have a nice day...

Researich2

thank you

I asked him to change his IP. Hopefully he will. Job E 6 20:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User page vandalism

There was a little vandalism to your page today. Thought you might want to know. See you around. Psy guy ^(talk) 20:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting this vandalism. Apparently it's some troll throwing a hissy fit. Rhobite 21:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just means that you are doing something right. Psy guy ^(talk) 22:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He's Back

Please see the He's Baaaaack section of my user talk page. Thanks. --Nate Ladd 22:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear there is some possibility of Ehrlich (talk · contribs) being yet another sockpuppet of Dot6. The edits made by this user strongly resemble the style used by Adrigo (talk · contribs) to continue Dot6's edit-warring on Atheism and Agnosticism. I'm not making any accusations at this point, but thought it best that the situation be brought to your attention.--chris.lawson 21:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, sorry about the goofiness on the Talk page for a minute there. It appears someone in the "copyvio" section a couple headers up forgot to <nowiki> a template tag, and then *also* forgot to close it. I've fixed the problem. :)--chris.lawson 21:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I saw that and was confused for a minute. I'm completely convinced that Ehrlich = Adrigo = DotSix. I'm reluctant to block this user myself since I'm involved in the arbitration, but thanks for letting me know. Rhobite 21:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

on User:Ehrlich being a sockpuppet of Adrige/DotSix, please see the latest addition in Dot6's case page. Jules LT 14:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three Revert Rule

I fail to see why I should not revert obvious vandalism. I, unlike the anonymous vandal, attempted to use the article's discussion page, with no response. Rogue 9 22:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying.

I have been trying to add to the article but there is a member of the group present who will not tolerate criticism.

== could you? ==

could you please lock the protestwarriors article till rouge 8's friends who are now doing his dirty work go away?

+

What is your problem with this revert here?

Do you not see what you did? The references section is all screwed up -all because you are making POV-warrior edits without actually seeing if there was a violation of policy.

Your edit summary says this: "rv. I have to agree - removing vanity links and POV," however, a link is not necessarily a vanity link simply because it has a connection to one of the editors on Wikipedia. I removed all the "vanity" links here:

Talk:Terri_Schiavo#To_Calton:_Vanity_links:_Now_Removed_per_User:GordonWatts

You think it's funny to "mob" (gang up on) an editor with several, but how in the hell are you going to cite your sources when that which was cited was deleted? Huh? If you can find another online source for that article, then you may replace it -edit, do not revert.

If you had actually read the article's talk page and saw that this link was approved by others who are NON-Gordon editors (such as this admin: ""The only link of yours that is proper is one that covers important legal information covered nowhere else. I'll let other editors decide if that article is important enough, but the others have to go..." [1]), then you would see that I did not act improperly.

The "vanity" policy is not 100%, but Wikipedia:Cite_sources to ensure Wikipedia:Verifiability are not negotiable.

Look again at your handiwork -before I mention your name to Jimbo or other authorities: There are 40 notes but only 38 references.

Did you also not see that you removed the non-Fair Use photos that were agreed upon by consensus? In fact, I think you were a part of that consensus. Did you also not see Mark's (Raul654) statement, supporting my addition of said photos that you removed?

RvWagonToLastVersionByGW:[2] Consensus was to use NONFair Use pics

Mark had said, in that diff above, that the problem was, in part: "every image used in the article is fair use,"

(Opposing Mark, the FA-editor, in re Fair Use also hurts the Featured Article status and exposes you to blame or liability should Terri Schiavo be removed from the FA-nom.)

You simply reverted without even looking at what you were doing -and managed to violate Fair Use, Wikipedia:Cite_sources to ensure Wikipedia:Verifiability --in addition to totally screwing up the references section and removing the reporting of some of the legal timeline in the article --and, in the process, causing a great disruption.

I will not try to convince you of my moral or religious beliefs (because you obviously do not have a high opinion of me), but if the old Bible book is true then you are no better protected when you join in teaming up with FuelWagon and Calton in trying to gang up on me:

"Everyone proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD; Though they join forces, none will go unpunished." (Solomon the wise man, as quoted from Proverbs 16:5, HOLY BIBLE, NKJV)

I don't like to use religious history in a negative fashion, but this is a dynamic that you don't understand: Even with "teamwork," a person who cheats (you've violated scads of policy here, lol) will be caught -maybe not today -maybe not tomorrow --mayBE tomorrow --maybe not in this lifetime?? Maybe so.

If you have a case, state it -in public forum: This subject is being discussed on Jimbo's talk page, and I have his attention.

See you there -if you have a case.--GordonWatts 04:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brevity, man, brevity. All I'm saying is that I don't think you should be using a Wikipedia article to link to your own websites. Oh, one more thing: You're mistaken if you think Raul654's voice counts more than anyone else's. Arbitrators don't have any special policymaking power. Rhobite 04:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long-windedness, brother! Anyhow, you have a point on the vanity issue, and yes, Mark's just one person, but in that diff, he spoke the consensus (regarding use of GFDL photos, such as mine) -the voice of the people. Also, if you have a better link to cite the source for that court case, you may use it, but trust me, R, I was the only news reporter in that hearing, so it was apporoved by Taxman (see Schiavo talk -or better yet, see the diff above where I quote Taxman, who, by the way, is right and correct) to use that one "vanity" link --I removed all the others. All I'm saying is you may have a point, but you slashed and burned -and reverted a LOT of work: Edit -do not revert please?--GordonWatts 05:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you saw this in Talk:Terri_Schiavo, then you can ignore this Cc duplicate...

I don't think GordonWatts should be using this article to link to pages on his own website. Rhobite 04:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My website is http://GordonWatts.com -- The Register is not "my" website: We have numerous editors. See e.g.:

http://www.geocities.com/gordon_watts32313/TerrisLawPressRelease.html

mirror at

http://hometown.aol.com/Gww1210/myhomepage/TerrisLawPressRelease.html

http://www.geocities.com/Gordon_Watts32313/Letters.html

mirror at

http://hometown.aol.com/Gww1210/myhomepage/Letters.html

http://www.geocities.com/gordon_watts32313/TerrisLawHearing06-14-2004.html#QuoWarranto

mirror at

http://hometown.aol.com/Gww1210/myhomepage/TerrisLawHearing06-14-2004.html#QuoWarranto

etc...--GordonWatts 05:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lord Voldemort

Could you give any examples of personal attacks by Lord Voldemort? I'm a strong believer in WP:NPA, so any adminship with NPA issues is important to me. --fvw * 01:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See [3], [4], [5], [6]. I edited his user page to remove the text which called Gabrielsimon an idiot.. he responded by calling me a homo. Not admin material. Rhobite 03:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --fvw * 04:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rhobite, I acknowledge that I was wrong to do those things. I am not sure you will ever forgive me or like me, but I hope you can at least trust me. I understand I was wrong. I doubt you would ever change your vote from oppose, I just want you to know that I am sorry for offending you in the past. Since you will not support me, I hope you will at least forgive me. Thank you for your time. --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate that you're apologizing for that user page stuff. Many people do things they regret when they first start editing here. I'm not changing my vote this time, but if you get renominated in the future I'll really consider supporting you. I'd just like to see more time between the user page incident and your RFA nomination. Rhobite 19:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Alford

Rhobite, when I reported Adrigo as being DotSix, I did not claim that DotSix created the account Donald R. Alford (although I happen to think that he did). I claimed that he is in real life Donald R. Alford. The evidence for this is overwhelming. Indeed, he admitted it at one point and has NEVER denied it. Please see [7]. Whether an imposter created the account Donald R. Alford is not a big deal. But it is important that the Arb Com know that DotSix (= Adrigo) is Donald R. Alford an internet troll with a long history. --Nate Ladd 23:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think only an intentional misreading of 67.182.157.6's comments here [8] would lead one to the conclusion that he admitted he is Donald R. Alford. He clearly intended to say that user:DotSix, user:Donald R. Alford and User:The Donald were all created by an impostor, and not him. He was not admitting that that's his real name, or that he controlled those accounts. I think he is probably the same guy who used that name on USENET a bunch of years ago. But there's no way to know if that's his real name. As I recall it was simply the first name he posted under. Could be real, could be fake. Rhobite 01:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm misreading his remark. (And I know I'm not intentionally.) I agree that ONE of things he wants to say is that user:DotSix, user:Donald R. Alford and User:The Donald were all created by an impostor. But that is not the same thing as saying he is not in real life Donald Alford. He has not ever denied the latter. So we'll have to agree to disagree about that. By the way, if your reading is what he intended, he could have said so. But that would mean admitting he mistyped and he is basically incapable of admitting any imperfection at all. As for his name, Donald Alford, it is not just that that was his first online name. There's more to it. Over the years he revealed things about himself that match Donald Alford of Bellingham. Such as that he is a retired trainmen, that he's a member of a union that Alford is also a member of, that he lives in Western Washington. Also, DotSix's IP is owned by Comcast of Bellingham, WA. And the all the Internet white pages directories list a Donald Alford in Bellingham. You'd have to believe in an awful lot of coincidences to believe that DotSix is not Donald Alford of Bellingham. Too many for me to swallow. --Nate Ladd 04:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blog

Ooh, you are defending the page, laudably. Thanks! --fvw * 23:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I go through phases where I get annoyed about all the self-promotion there, then I ignore the article for a while. Thanks for your work too. Rhobite 23:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request

Currently I have a case before the ArbCom by Snowspinner which looks like it's about to be accepted (3 accept votes currently). Also, later this month my four month mentor period will expire, so I am thinking that if this case is accepted I will try to get them to look at that issue as well, as part of the same case (since there'd just be another one in about two weeks anyway). Anyway, I was wondering what your thoughts are about the mentor arrangement and removing the mentorships. If you could say something in my defense about how mentorship has been unnecessary, with the exception of one time on the talk page when you attempted to cool a discussion that was getting too hot on both sides (which is why I'm asking for your thoughts first, since you're the only one that ever got involved to any degree), I think that would help me out a lot. My hope is that presenting a positive assessment of my record on the previously disputed articles will help to deflate Snowspinner's demonization of me and the result of this case may thus not be quite as disastrous as it otherwise will be. Everyking 05:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really really busy now but I'll take a look. Rhobite 12:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean immediately, I meant some point in the relatively near future. Everyking 04:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rhobite/SamuraiClinton articles

Well, I thought AfD would be appropriate for virtually all Wikipedia pages with requests for deletion. --SuperDude 17:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 65.66.197.215

Thanks for the block. I edit conflicted with you adding my own reply noting the copyright problems. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ape reverts

You note that you have warned User:131.107.0.80 about reverts on apes. He has, however, just reverted again. Marskell 17:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He reverted at 17:09 but I didn't warn him until 17:16. I will block him from editing if he reverts again. He is engaging in discussion, which is a start. Rhobite 17:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of NHL Draft Busts

Hello The Rhobite. Thank you for voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NHL draft busts but I am asking really nicely for you to reconsider. There is already a precedent of this sort of list on wikipedia. For example, if these article were put of for deletion, would you vote keep or delete?

List of commercial failures, List of flops in entertainment, List of military disasters, List of political flops, List of famous failures in science and engineering, and List of commercial failures in computer and video gaming.

I don't see the difference between List of NHL Draft Busts and those articles. The NHL list just needs a stronger criteria set and it would be a great list. Thank you. Masterhatch 03:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably vote to delete those articles if they were nominated. They're also inherently POV. Thanks for the message. Rhobite 03:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if you think those pages are POV, why don't you put them up for deletion. Let's be consistant. Masterhatch 03:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll think about it. Rhobite 04:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the spelling was in error.

and it got fixed.

now please stop stalking people.

132.241.245.132 04:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making opinionated contributions. Rhobite 04:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

posting pov articles is one thing stalking is another.

132.241.245.132 04:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as you make contributions that aren't haphazardly written, poorly spelled, or opinionated, I'll stop looking through your edits. Rhobite 05:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well since you asked so nice.

132.241.245.132 05:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rhobite is acting correct by carefully monitoring and mercilessly correcting many of your edits. For whatever reason, it may be that you are not cut out to be an encyclopedist. That's ok, not everybody is. We'll respect you even more if you find your true calling, somewhere else. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appologize.

Sorry for editing your page so much, I wasn't aware it was being reverted, I just thought my changes didn't stick for some reason. I will stop editing. Davethewave 20:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sex offender

Bill O'Reilly would say, "You do have a vibrator, don't you? Every girl does!"

http://aztlan.net/oreilly_lecher.htm

Grazon, sex offenders are people who have been tried and convicted of criminal sex offenses such as rape. O'Reilly's suit was civil, not criminal, and was settled out of court. O'Reilly admitted no wrongdoing, and is not on any sex offender list. For these reasons your edit was vandalism and I won't hesitate to block you from editing if you do it again. Rhobite 01:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RDBMS

I've started cleaning up the RDBMS/SDBMS mess. Some pages require a move so as not to remove history. I've moved the current RDBMS to "truly relational...". Any help in cleaning up everything else is appreciated. Thanks. Turnstep 15:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind

Never mind, it was a stupid mistake on my part. I was looking for an edit from 2004 in the 2005 range. Rogue 9 00:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Severin Thank You

Thank you for wanting to assist on the Jay Severin article. I will continue to monitor it indefinitely and add more information as my research permits. --Slango 04:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Think you are wrong about the Wead information in the George Bush article

The information I added to the George Bush article were the complete facts related to the Wead tapes. Seems you want only some of the facts to be presented. Why? Why would you only want the part of the story that is negative to Bush? Shouldn't all the facts be presented? -LastVisibleDog 03:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article is already 90KB long. We just can't add everything. I think your additions would be great at the substance controversy article. Rhobite 12:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my word!

That vandalism lasted for hours, as you said!! I have spent the last ten minutes trying to find the last unvandalised version. I cant believe this, I think this is a good arguement for Semi-protection. Anyway, good work getting rid of "george bush is a son of a bitch" Cheers Ban e s 15:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am pissed about this. People need to look at the history and make sure they are reverting all vandalism. I agree that something needs to change about the article. The editors who say "just revert it" are clearly too far removed from vandal-fighting. Rhobite 15:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you. Want to venture a guess as to how many visitors saw that stuff? Its crazy. Ban e s 15:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Hi Rhobite. 172.190.163.230 (talk · contribs) has reported you to WP:AN/3RR and neglected to inform you. Just thought I'd let you know. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me...

A lot of the latest editors on the Protest Warrior article seem to have signed up just for that article. They seem to follow the same modus operandi as well; both Tennik and Sortenos made edits on precisely one other article before coming to the Protest Warrior one to stay, and once there they started attempting to discredit other editors, first me and now Jpers by insinuating that he's a sock puppet of me. Further, Tennik's first edit was to add a page from Rock'n'Rev's website to the article on Pwn. I'm pretty sure I'm looking at an organized attempt to use Wikipedia as a platform to discredit the organization, but I don't want to just launch into an edit war. Rogue 9 17:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rogue. It's possible that people are discussing the article on a liberal discussion board - it's a pretty common occurrence for members of a board to organize and edit Wikipedia. And I should point out that it happens with both liberal and conservative boards. A couple months ago LGF ran a few articles about Wikipedia which attracted a large number of conservative editors, some helpful, others vandals. I wouldn't make too big of a deal about it unless (for example) you find a post on DU saying "everyone sign up multiple accounts on Wikipedia and vandalize the PW article!" Single-issue editors usually aren't ideal, but they are still encouraged to edit here. Also Sortenos has been participating in discussion and appears to have compromised on the language of the article, which is very good. Rhobite 17:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I realize it happens on both sides; as Sortenos says, I did ask for help with the article on PW, but he's incorrect in saying that I called for it to get the "PW treatment," whatever that means. I'm not saying they shouldn't edit; it's just that seeing multiple editors all descend on the article like that at once makes me nervous; I've seen it once before on Wiki, and it ended with the permanent deletion of an article through the expedient of holding VfDs in rapid succession until one (the third) succeeded through getting an admin to count over half the keep votes as sock puppets with no evidence. So yeah, maybe it's irrational and I'm seeing a pattern where there isn't one.

Oh, and I'm not particularly afraid that it's the DU doing this. If it was, the article's history would look about like Kfir Alfia's after Grazon was done with it. They have quite the user base. ;) Rogue 9 07:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DotSix case. →Raul654 01:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everyking

I've formally repealed the mentorship. Thanks for the excellent mentoring. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that

I know my spelling is rather bad, and thank you for your corrections. I will try to be more diligent in that regard in future. Thank you.--Irishpunktom\^talk 17:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Rhobite 20:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ha Ha

Where did you find the original HA! HA! picture? I searched at the height of the mania and was unsuccessful. Tempshill 06:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brandt

Thanks for stopping that mess on Daniels page, It's been protected 3 times in 36 or so hours. I protected it and Canderson7 protected it before that. I'd like to try and leaving it unprotected and start blocking people after a couple warnings. What do you think? Rx StrangeLove 02:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you'd want to unprotect it quickly, but go ahead if you like. I will protect it again if it continues to be vandalized though. Mr. Brandt appears to have access to a large number of unrelated IPs. I'm not sure how he does it, but it won't be easy to block him. Rhobite 03:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about it some more and I'm trying unprotection again. Rhobite 16:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bellil and CltFn

Hello Yuber, Rhobite, and FayssalF,

There has recently been a conflict over a article, Samira Bellil, that you were involved with, involving user CltFn. I have tried to negotiate a compromise over the article that I believed was fair, but CltFn has rejected part of that compromise (which involved him adding inline and in-text citations to many of his contributions.) I believed the compromise was very fair and that it was strongly consistent with wikipedia rules.

I've been involved with a few recent content disputes over other articles, and both of them were resolved to everyone's satisfaction after lots of work. I really don't have the energy to do it all over again right now. I would appriciate it if you would attempt to find a solution to the problem of NPOV, bias and what I think is anti-Islamic and racist material, that exists in the article any way you can. If you end up having an "official" dispute with CltFn, either about this article or in general, please contact me on my talk page, and I will be happy to provide any comments to any official dispute process. Sdedeo 04:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually No I have not violated the 3RRs

I have made numerous edits and rewrites on the article in question. Furthermore it is not a question about Islamic bias , it is about documented truth, watch the video link which you have deleted. --CltFn 04:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could post diffs on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR which would result in your being blocked from editing, or you could stop adding awkward islamophobic text to the intro. Your choice. I did watch the video, it is true that one group of rioters was saying "Allahu Akbar" but I still disagree with your stubborn insistence on pointing out that they are Muslims in every sentence. You are clearly bigoted and like many of the LGF crowd, you try to spin every issue so that it casts Muslims in a negative light. It doesn't mean that the rioters represent Islam, nor does it mean that every rioter is Muslim, nor does it mean that the lead section is the best place to mention it. You also imply incorrectly that the ones who were chanting "Allahu Akbar" were the ones who first rioted in Clichy-sous-bois. Rhobite 04:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then go ahead , find an instance of violating the 3RRS. You only think I did because you have not taken the time to examine my edits on the page. You seemed to have rushed to judgment. Your position is clearly different than mine in numerous topics in which we have found ourselves arguing, but that does not give you the right to inititiate name calling and personals attacks for which you yourself could be reprimanded at the administrator's notice board. He who lives in glass houses should not throw stones --CltFn 04:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CfD

If you got a minute can you take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 7#Category:Soviet spies to Category:Aed Soviet spies. This is a challenge to the sourcing of Venona project materials & direct related article series. Thank you. nobs 21:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Walmart reverts

Let me know if help is needed fighting vandalism on the Walmart page. Thank you for your good work. LegCircus 02:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for watching my userpage

Thanks alot. Klonimus 08:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NYSE template

When I removed Category:Companies traded on the New York Stock Exchange yesterday, it was because individual radio stations such as CJRQ-FM and CJAQ-FM were inappropriately appearing as individual entries in the category. Somehow you reverted it without that inappropriate categorization being reinstated. How exactly were you able to readd the category without forcing inappropriate articles back into the category? Bearcat 00:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I edited Template:Rogers Communications to use Template:Nyse2, which doesn't include the category tag. Rhobite 08:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Grazon (132.241.245.49)

An RFC has been opened on Grazon/132.241.245.49 for violation of NPOV and other issues; you can comment here. --DDerby-(talk) 08:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Baas blocked.

I have blocked Mr Baas for vandalism (ie, deliberate posting of copyright material after warnings to stop) for 24 hours. FearÉIREANN 07:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opie & Anthony

"Please drop the "hoo hoo howie" stuff. This isn't an O&A fansite, nor is it a Stern fansite. Please use a more formal tone when writing articles."

If you paid a little closer attention, you'd see that I was only reverting what someone else had written, and that it was not me who wrote that. Please pay attention to what's going on before criticizing others Attention Whore

Your edit to KC Armstrong [9] was also immature. Rhobite 13:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO RfA

Thanks for your support on my RfA. They promoted me due in no small part due to your support and I appreciate it. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you!--MONGO 08:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking a Vandal: 71.196.87.36

Hello Rhobite,

I wanted to contact an administrator that I have dealt with in the past and upon reviewing the list of administrators found you there. Didn't know you were an administrator already.

Today I found a vandal posting the same political spam in several talk pages. I deleted one, but I see he has done it in several pages and will probably keep doing it. [10]

I suggest this unregistered user has his IP blocked.--AAAAA 04:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

why did you rv it?

[11] seemed good faith to me --tyomitch 22:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on Talk:Microsoft. Rhobite 23:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Credit et alli

Four reverts in a row... you just beat me to four reverts in a row. That's it, you're off my Christmas list.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 21:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I rulez. Rhobite 21:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for blocking all those sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CJS102793 and for reverting their edits. Mushroom 21:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He has now blanked his request for adminship and also Template:Rfalinkonly. I will warn him. Mushroom 21:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like he wants to withdraw the nom.. we should let him. Rhobite 22:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was probably his way to withdraw the nomination. I have left this message on his talk page, but he hasn't answered yet. Mushroom 22:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vozia deletion, not spam, it is an actual new site

Hi Rhobite,

In regards to the pending Vozia deletion, it is a real new site. It is the spanish version site for the Advose Voip provider. You can find an English link at the bottom of the page to the Advose site. Since it is a new site, it has just being submitted to the DMOZ and other sites, that is why it does not have a google rank yet nor alexa ranking.

I hope you take this into consideration before deleting.

If you have any questions please let me know.

Best regards,

WallyM

I don't doubt that it is a real site. Since it is a new, unknown site it shouldn't have a Wikipedia article. You may want to read Wikipedia:Websites to get a sense of the level of notability a website should have before it gets a Wikipedia article. Thanks. Rhobite 05:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Message from 207.106.42.107

Hi, Rhobite. Here's a message that was accidentally left on your user page. Thanks, Sango 123 (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm not adding "Comercial Links". I make no money off of wikipedia.

It is a Public service for me to add this information.

What do you have againstit?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.106.42.107 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 1 December 2005

Off-topic comment of mine on Talk:American liberalism

Sorry about that. It was one of those thinking-out-loud moments that went to my keyboard. I wasn't implying anything or even asking anything of you, really. It's just that I was think along the same lines of your comment regarding not deleting a section over on the other talk page. Anyway, thanks for setting me straight. --Elliskev 20:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Email Marketing - external link removal

Hi Rhobite,

You're doing a great job keeping the "email marketing" pages clean so that they only provide relevant information. That's why I was very surprised to see that you removed an external link to a very valuable source of information for those who are interested in learning how to get started with email marketing. [12] is indeed my own private blog, but it's purpose is solely to provide people with educational content. I don't make a profit out of it, on the contrary. I set it up because there isn't a single source that gives someone the information they need to get started with email marketing, and rest assured, I looked hard and long.

I will add the link again to the email marketing topic, and hope that this time you will not remove it. Let me know if you want to discuss further.

Thanks! Tamara

Hi Tamara, I'm sure you have interesting things to say about e-mail marketing - why not add them to Wikipedia instead of linking to your own site? Generally, Wikipedia doesn't link to individual blogs as external links. It is also not OK for people to link to their own sites from articles. Thanks. Rhobite 15:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voting Request

I don't know. Maybe you don't like polls. But on the American Liberalism page it looks like everyone's willing to abide by the poll results. If you and Griot both vote No, then we only need one more vote to tie and two more to win. The poll's open for another week or so. Eliminating this really strange section would allow us to focus on real editing again. Do you think this additional section on the word "liberal" is necessary when the entire article is about American liberalism? I'd like to stick to the facts and stay away from POV and sliming. Your No vote would be great. This link link should go right to the poll. luketh 01:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote on the talk page, I don't like polls and I strongly believe the section should stay in the article. I won't vote in your poll but I still hope that you'll consider my opinion when considering whether a consensus exists to remove the section. I think it would be helpful to remind yourself that Wikipedia isn't a game. You should not be using words like "win" and "lose". Rhobite 01:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a game either. If I did, I wouldn't be so passionate about it. Don't you ever use the phrase as in "good wins over evil" and "truth wins over falsehood?" You're certainly free not to change your mind. And I'm strangely outnumbered by these editors. Something like this would never fly on the "conservative" page because they have a strong group of editors to keep it under control. Maybe I'll get a bunch of my liberal friends to help manage this site. Did you see the recent interview by Jimbo on CNN? There's a real concern about Wikipedia being used to spread falsehood. I never understood their argument until today. In principle, Wikipedia is a great idea based on trust, a liberal idea even. However, what happens when the majority is more interested in gossip and rumor than in truthful reporting? It can be dangerous. I hope Jimbo finds a way to deal with it before the public backlash leads to federal regulation. Notice that the current editors of American Liberalism aren't interested with other sections of the article. They ARE trying to use it to spread POV and gossip. luketh 01:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is going nowhere. Rhobite 01:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Media Matters

I have no problem in Media Matters being labelled a left-leaning media watchdog, as I feel its an accurate label. I do question, however, the necessity of the label in the context of the sentence in the War on Christmas article..... simply because any perceived "leanings" are irrelevant to how many times Fox News talks about the War on Christmas. The bias label should really only apply if they're answering some kind of normative or subjective question, rather than something as concrete as how many times a report is run.

I'm a leftist myself, but I have the same problem when someone labels The Economist or the Wall Street Journal as "right-wing". Both of those publications do have neoliberal leanings, but their fact-reporting is as good as any: I read the WSJ every day, instead of some crappy leftist publication such as the New York Times. If the WSJ or The Economist prints some concrete figures, I feel that attaching their name to it is sufficient without trying to label any perceived political bias.

Similarly, Media Matters is leftist... as evidence by the fact that they don't take liberal journalists to task... but their facts are accurate.

But -- i'm not going to change it -- i'll leave it in your hands. Just something to consider. Cheers. Jackk 16:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I think it's up to readers to decide what is and isn't relevant, so we should err on the side of giving them more information than is necessary, as opposed to less. It's worth noting that Media Matters focuses a significant amount of their attention on Fox News. Even if Media Matters got their count right, readers should know that there is a potential for spin due to their ideological commitments. Rhobite 16:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DinkSock Template

Template:DinkSock was created by User:Kelly_Martin for the purpose of documenting Alex Cain's numerous sockpuppets. - Chadbryant 21:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine, but you need to stop using it. You are far too involved in the dispute to act neutrally. You can obviously see that the template provokes Alex, but you continue to use it. Rhobite 21:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your position, but I must state that my intent is to help document his abuse, not provoke him. At this point, anything is going to provoke Mr. Cain, because he is not getting his way in regards to his behaviour here on Wikipedia. Chadbryant 21:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your intent is to provoke, pure and simple. Your Contributions page speaks for itself. Please stop trying to make yourself out as some sort of twisted Supernanny, thanks. Oh Good Grief 23:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Whoops, sorry about the deletion. I thought I could restore it manually, but then I saw that I'd have to check 25,000 checkboxes in order to do it. You'd think being able to selectively delete revisions would be a part of the Wiki software... anyway, thanks for undoing my mistake. —Cleared as filed. 01:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that feature is necessary.. but even if it existed, admins shouldn't be able to completely erase the revisions, for accountability reasons. That is what's necessary in this case since the personal info is in the edit summaries. Rhobite 01:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ambition

I don't want to get into this flamewar, because I think it's stupid, but you gave poor justification for removing the game and I am reverting. 69.95.52.131 00:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK Mike. Rhobite 00:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up on your warning to User:71.56.55.160

Since I'm not an admin and can't follow up on it myself, and you were the person to put the level-4 on them.... They're at it again today. Bill 17:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Earl Jones

Why did you write that James Earl Jones won a Tony award for portraying the villain in Conan? Was that supposed to be a joke? Rhobite 04:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Umm.. I have not logged in for a long time (so I moved it to your messages because I know you won't find it on mine), but I remember just pointing out that he played the villain. I don't remember if I put that he won an award. Unless a Tony is an award for music (I don't care to look it up, there's a lot of award types so it probably is film), you sound personally offended and upset at that movie. It is possible that someone can win an award for a movie you don't like. All I remember is pointing out he was in that movie (that nobody else mentioned). If I did say an award, then it was because it was on a movie site. DyslexicEditor 11:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in the wrong part so you deleted the entire thing instead of making it its separate unconnected sentence (since nowhere else did it mention the movie role). Great job man, keep up the good work. If you were a car mechanic you would wreck cars instead of fixing them. Nothing personal against you, I'm in a bad mood today. DyslexicEditor 11:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight, you can't be bothered to proofread your submissions and I'm the bad guy? Rhobite 14:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's coo. The neighbor's dog nearly killed my on my doorstep that night so I was upset. DyslexicEditor 20:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]