Jump to content

User talk:Rhobite

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zosodada (talk | contribs) at 18:38, 9 July 2006 (→‎Please semi-protect Euthanasia again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

What is Useful to Wikipedia?

I've recently been chastised for my attempt to include links to iQcuties on a few pages related to intelligence and online dating. Admittedly, the site is mine. I have linked to other creations of mine from wikipedia and have not been met with this level of resistance. I am not trying to be spammy, so perhaps you can help me understand how those links go against the grain of Wikipedia. Thanks. Geneffects

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stock Exchange World Wide

I see you started a site for the NYSE. I am making a user group for Wikipedia:WikiProject Stock Exchange World Wide and would like you to take a look at it and maybe sign up. I could use your imput. John R G 05:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of Gun politics in the United States

User 24.12.208.181 has apparently taken the user name Yafnot after your 2nd Level warning. He has continued to delete content of Gun politics in the United States. Thanks. Yaf 06:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide your rationale on the GWB article's 'talk page'

When you deleted the content the first time, I posted a question asking your rationale and did not revert your change. You did not participate in the discussion, and have reverted your edit again. Please contribute on talk, so we can try to find consensus. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't push your POV in the lead section of Wikipedia's most visible article. I responded on the talk page. Thanks. Rhobite 06:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing no such thing. Do not edit war without making a reasonable effort to resolve conflicts. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As tbeatty said, "You are confusing contemporary with contentious. Last year it was social security. Before that, Afghan war, before that tax cuts." I'm happy to have a civil discussion with you about the article, but I won't let that garbage sit in the lead section while you try to turn a talk page into a political debate. Rhobite 06:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing no such thing. The content, which is neutral and factual, was there before I even addressed the topic on talk. It should remain based on the community's input. You are not the arbiter of consensus, and your edit is unfounded by your accusations of POV-pushing. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be me, RN, Tbeatty, and PPGMD vs. you and Kevin. I think it's disingenuous then for you to claim that there is more support for your version, particularly since you and Kevin are both single-issue editors whose main goal here is to malign George W. Bush. The habeas corpus thing isn't even mentioned in the main article - a prerequisite for lead section placement. Rhobite 06:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm claiming no such thing, but as a member of the community, I asked you to explain your deletion of that section, and you have refused thus far. And your personal attacks on me are unwarranted. Please focus on the facts. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I responded on Talk:George W. Bush. Rhobite 07:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You responded after revert warring, not before. That's a shame, as my request was in good faith. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It takes 2, you know. Rhobite 07:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you should have joined the conversation, instead of simply reverting. As an admin, shouldn't you set an example, rather than tit-for-tat? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned, I did join the conversation. I'm sorry that you feel I should have posted a note before removing this overtly opinionated text, but I do not believe that I'm under any such requirement. I feel that I explained myself adequately in my first edit summary. I'll point out that for all your complaining about me not using the talk page, you still haven't actually responded to my note. Rhobite 07:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I left your edit unreverted, and asked for your rationale on 'talk', as is common Wikipedia practice. You chose instead to ignore the request, and revert war, only answering after you'd gone to 3 reverts. And what note have I not responded to, exactly? I apologize in advance for any such oversight and ask you to assume good faith. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to run around calling for my head on a platter, that's OK I guess. But please respond to my note on Talk:George W. Bush. You seem to care more about complaining about me, than about discussing the actual article. Rhobite 07:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you feel I'm running around complaining about you - I asked you to stop your personal attack, and you repeated it. Your revert warring and personal attack on Kevin and I are a real concern and I followed Wikipedia policy to get some help from the community. I'll go look at your note and respond the best I can. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I know what exactly it is you consider vandalism?

I guess you dont care too much for the rest of the bill of rights besides the 2nd amendment GunsKill 20:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save "List of school pranks" From Deletion

Hi, the article List of school pranks has been targeted by the Wikipedia Thought Police™. Please help preserve this marvellous testament to human inventiveness—and cruelty—from certain extinction by voting Keep at the article's deletion page if you haven't already done so. May algid reason never reign supreme! Thanks, Maikel 15:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC) PS: This is a generic message that has been hand-posted to you as a former contributor—hope you don't mind.[reply]

I'm actually annoyed by your talk page spamming and your incivility. I agree with the deletion rationale and I have voted to delete the article. Please don't equate the belief that some topics do not make appropriate encyclopedia articles with the totalitarian regime of 1984. Wikipedia is not a government; nobody is preventing you from mirroring this article somewhere else. Rhobite 18:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I’ve come to you because I know you’ve had some experience with preventing vandalism. The user (2 I.P. addresses for the same user) 70.176.164.107 and 82.12.97.249 is continuously vandalising my user page. He’s doing this because he doesn’t like what I’m saying about Michael Moore on my user page, but because it’s my user page I don’t think he should be allowed to keep doing this.

Is there anything you can do to help prevent this? Thanks. --Miller 16:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look. Rhobite 18:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you're both wrong. He should not have edited your user page after you asked him not to, but calling him a redneck is a clear personal attack. It would be best if you removed all mention of the anonymous editor from your user page. All that does is provoke him. Rhobite 18:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done and done. Thanks for your help.--Miller 18:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've placed your user page on my watchlist, and I'll warn the guy in the future if he continues to edit your page. Let me know if I miss something. Rhobite 18:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of interest is my user page breaking any of the Wikipedia rules relating to user pages? The user who was vandalizing my page said it was (too much information about where I was from, too many personal opinions etc).--Miller 19:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine to me. Although many people recommend that user pages should only be used for Wikipedia-related text, in practice good contributors have a lot of freedom and control over the content. If you're making good edits to the encyclopedia and you want to have a few personal opinions on your user page, that's fine. Wikipedia:User page explains this balance well. Rhobite 19:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Phew!Miller 19:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of admin powers: Speedy deletion in spite of vote to keep

There was a vote that ended in a 9 to 5 majority in favour of keeping the template:User independent Iraq. The vote itself already shows it was not appropriate to speedy delete as there had already been a couple of people thinking about this. You abuse your powers. ROGNNTUDJUU! 04:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Rhobite 04:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately wikipedia has rules not to allow people like you to censor others. If you do not agree with a deletion vote you can take it to deletion review, not speedy delete. ROGNNTUDJUU! 05:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't cite that to do whatever you want. "Sorry! Doesn't matter what all of you think. WP is not a democracy! I do whatever I please. Deal with it." It should be blatantly obviously to you that deleting something that got a majority to keep is outside of what is understood to be appropriate use of admin powers (that's the nicest way I can think of to put it). If it had, say, 60% delete, OK, that would be one thing, even though by the rules even that wouldn't be proper; you'd really need 66% or so. But to delete when there's a large keep majority? I've hardly ever heard of such a thing. And yes, I am posting this here specifically because I don't want to have the wrath of God brought down on me for complaining about an admin action outside of that admin's talk page. Everyking 08:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any response to all this? Everyking 03:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to get dragged into an Everyking interrogation - sorry. Rhobite 13:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Vandalizing my Talk Page

That you lodged a false complaint against me for violating 3rr, when you were obviously engaging in VANDALISM which I was merely reverting, and then found an admin willing to VIOLATE 3rr policy in blocking a user for correcting VANDALISM, does not constitute a good faith editing of my talk page.pat8722 18:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing valid warnings from your talk page is frowned upon on Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's definition of vandalism - disagreements over an article's content are not considered vandalism. Falsely accusing other users of vandalism is also frowned upon here. Rhobite 20:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:68.42.215.228

Noticed you warned this guy bout posting nonsense a couple of times hes at it again on Geddy Lee--KaptKos 09:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ASG1022

Thanks for blocking ASG1022. As you probably noticed, he also vandalized my user page (although I don't really mind sometimes, it boosts my "this page has been vandalized" userbox, which makes me think I must be doing something right in fighting vandals.) ConDemTalk 01:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I've always wondered if those userboxes actually encouraged vandals, but it's your choice whether you want to display one. Rhobite 02:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? on iPod article

You were correct in reverting that edit. I've heard that troll before about Apple shipping viruses with iPods. Simply untrue.--Mboverload 04:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neologisms

Hi there, a while ago you made an edit on the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms guideline. I am proposing a revision to the guideline and I'm soliciting your comments. You can find the link to my rewrite at Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms -- cmh 00:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

false alarm

I answered on my userpage --Mkill 21:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bepenfriends

Friend I haved added an intro page about my website bepenfriends.com. But it is not visible. It is vanishing from wikipedia> I added my site intro and about in websites category where match.com, plentyoffish, eharmony are placed. But only my site page is getting deleted. There is no history of delete. Advice me what to do. You said not to add external links but what abt content. Am i not supposed to add anything in wiki. I added some content about friendship(not even specified my site name) even that is deleted. Even though content is related to friendship in my country. It is deleted. Albert Arul Prakash 15:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With an Alexa rank of 820,503 it is likely that your web site does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. See WP:WEB. Your repeated attempts to add the site to online dating service suggest that you're trying to use Wikipedia in order to promote your site. This is not an acceptable way to use Wikipedia. Rhobite 17:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images

Hi. You listed the following for deletion. Image:Johnson-mugshot.jpg Image:53233991.JPG Image:Pedro martinez 2005.jpg Image:CarlosDelgado.jpg. I've deleted Image:53233991.JPG because there's no way it qualifies for fair use (resolution too high and the copyright owner's logo is prominently displayed showing the claim the image). I've left the others as I believe the qualify for fair use, being low resolution and only being used to illustrate the people in question. I won't argue if you feel you need to list them again. Mark83 23:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe it is OK for Wikipedia to take player photos from MLB.com without permission? How do you feel this falls within the bounds of fair use? It isn't the resolution of the photo that matters, it is the scope of the copying. If these images are OK with you, then one could infer that you have no problem with taking every single player photo on MLB.com and placing it on Wikipedia. Rhobite 18:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


brainhell

Hey, thanks for the warning about copyrighted material. Now please supply any indication you have that I've done so. Brainhell 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


While I appreciate your diligence, this statement is demonstrably false: "On January 8 2006 you copied Peter Dale Scott's biography from his own webpage." I would appreciate it if you would undo the changes you made that made the article completely unavailable. Brainhell 16:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The subject's page now says "(This page, and my Curriculum Vitae, are not copyrighted. They are available for legitimate public use or reproduction, though not for private gain.)" I think this may resolve the concern about copyright. Please let me know. Regarding Rhobite's concern about bias, no one is suggesting we take Scott's page verbatim (with the use of the word "I" for example); we can simply revert back to the edit prior to his block of the article. Agreed? Brainhell 16:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, Rhobite. My article on the subject was original, the Jan. 10 version you blocked. Your concern was "copyright." Though I disagreed with your opinion, I respected your concern. The subject's page now says it's available for "public use or reproduction." Thus your concern is moot. In the interest of readers who might want to know about the subject, I'll revert your changes tomorrow or soon. Brainhell 01:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope, under the circumstances, that you would not continue blocking this content. Rather than have one of the fabled "edit wars," I suggest that you take this issue to whatever arbitration process is available. I believe that the onus is on you to commence that process, since I intend to restore the content and you apparently believe it should not be restored. I checked your user page and it does not appear to state whether you are an admin; I don't know if you have the Wiki-authority continue blocking this content despite our disagreement. Perhaps more opinions are needed. Brainhell 01:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starforce Article

I've done a major revert on the article because the most recent version was plagued by edits from people with poor english, spelling and major POV. I reverted it to the most recent "Clean" version from a few weeks ago. Perhaps we should take it up with admin to semi-protect the page from anonymous and new users? huntersquid 19:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netflix article and link removal

Sorry to drag you back again, but User:Efreeti has continued to remove the link to the "Hacking Netflix" site. Aside from the fact that I (and the small number of others weighing in on the issue) seem to feel that it is a worthwhile reference for the article, and that it has been somewhat mischaracterized as an amateur blog, etc., my sense of Wikipedia (FWIW) is that a single user continuing to make such a removal over even a small consensus as has been gathered is not the most useful of situations. This may just be an overzealous application of some sort of "no blogs" concept or other evaluation of the usefulness of the link that differs from ours. His most recent posting in Talk:Netflix mentioned "...until an admin provides guidance" - if you'd be willing to comment again on the issue, and/or suggest other admins who might provide useful input, it could be helpful in clearing this up. I don't want the article to get into a edit war over this, but I also hate to see the editing process yield to a single strong opinion to avoid conflict. Thanks, David Oberst 18:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I responded on Talk:Netflix. Rhobite 22:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Netflix issue has been put up in "Request for comment section" [1] and a mediation between Me, PhaseDMA, and you has been request to solve this issue. P.s. Netflix talk page needs to have the formatting fixed. --Efreeti 20:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee in regard to the article Netflix. Mediation Committee procedure requires that all parties to a mediation be notified of the meditaion, and indicate an agreement to mediate within fourteen days. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Netflix, and indicate your agreement or refusal to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation or contact a member of the Mediation Committee.

Vandal

User:E30driver has vandalized my about page three times and has been emailing me as well. Please do what you got to do. WillC 21:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I warned him. Rhobite 21:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your defense of User:GO WHARTON

I haven't removed his comments; what are you talking about? As for acting like children, I don't have a lot of choice but to simply revert his changes when he's lying about his edits (e.g. a neutral POV = vandalism). MBAguy 04:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did remove his comment, but I see you replaced it again. Thanks. And please stop calling him a vandal, that is what I'm referring to when I say you're acting like children. You're both namecalling. Rhobite 04:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation of disruptive behavior by User:GO WHARTON - please help

You seem to have expressed an interest in mediating the dispute over the promotion and reversion of NPOV edits to Ivy League business schools. If you're still interested, I'm writing to request that you help out, reviewing the talk page IN DETAIL and make up your mind as to what is going on and take appropriate action. Policing his disruptive edits is taking just way too much of my time, and my frustration is showing, to my embarassment. Thanks. MBAguy 04:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to sit out of this one, it seems I've stumbled into a couple other mediation cases already and I don't have a lot of time. Rhobite 13:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland

I have a newbie who does not understand sourcing or NPOV policies on wikipedia. She is User:Joan53. She has been consistently reverting good faith edits on the Maryland wikipedia page....note her contributions and subsequent arguing on other entries. She needs to understand the rules and also calm down. Her agenda is obvious and agendas/bias of any kind has no place here. She does not deal in verifiable info or facts in general. WillC 01:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy that you trust me, but it would be best if you didn't count on me for some sort of enforcement. You appear to have a content dispute with Joan, and you need to follow the normal dispute resolution process. Rhobite 02:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tag

I forgot to put an image tag on the picture Image:Rupertscanjpg.JPG. Please can you add a GFDL self-made tag to it. Thanks. Miller 18:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason you can't do it yourself? The tag you want is {{GFDL-self}}. Rhobite 18:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because I didn't know how thats why! Miller 19:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name Calling

per your warning: honestly sorry. Extenuating circumstances of being called a 'right winger' by 8bitJake and my mistaking your edit dropping "outdated and unfair" out of our desire to see the court system play an active role in striking down bad legislation led me to think that you were trying to make the statement seem extreme (a right wing tactic) got my blood boiling. I don't know about 8bit, but I now see that you were not trying to attack the article. Nikodemos (f.k.a: Mihnea) 19:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin

This arbitration case has closed. Lou franklin is indefinitely banned from editing Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and related articles and discussion pages. He is also placed on personal attack and revert parole. These remedies will be enforced by block. For further details, please see the arbitration case page. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 18:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies

According to User:Dragons flight/Evil looking lists, lists that are derived from polling data are OK. AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies would seem to fall under this: from http://www.afi.com/tvevents/100years/movies.aspx "Voted the number one movie was CITIZEN KANE...". And on http://www.afi.com/tvevents/100years/quotes.aspx they go into more detail about the balloting process. Tnikkel 23:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have any response to this? Or should I just restore the list? Tnikkel 04:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was also concerned about the removal of the list from the AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies article. While I don't know much about copyright law (although Tnikkel's argument does sound pretty solid to my non-expert ears) I do know that there are many articles on Wikipedia which include such lists. The other articles in the AFI 100 Years... series immediately jump to mind. If Wikipedia's policies (and copyright law) do not allow for the inclusions of these lists, then they should be removed from these other articles as well. If such lists are allowed, then the list should be returned to the AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies article. NoIdeaNick 14:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Newsmax is notorious for telling half truths and outright lies.

If a story can't be found at a legit site maybe there's a reason. 132.241.246.111 03:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Toys

Are you going to get rid of any list that is on this web site. First of all 110-101 of I Love Toys is not listed on the vh1 web site and there is a mistake in the listing of 100-81. On vh1.com they put D&D in the 90's list but it was 89 on that list. That list you got rid off was information about the show. I am sick of you getting rid of information even if it does not violate CR rules. I don't think lists violates copyright laws but you do. You got to stop and talk to Jimmy Wales. Maybe he will tell you what violates copyright laws and what doesn't. When the block comes off i am going to make the I Love Toys page different then it was. It won't be a list but I will put not a list, I will put the toys that did make the countdown from A-Z, But I hope you put back the 110-101 list because it is not listed on there web site, you have go the VSPOT to find that out and who with and DIAL-UP internet connection is go to find out what this 110-101 list is, NO ONE! So put that listing back on the article please. If you think i did anything wrong please tell it to me on my talk page. I'am telling my opinion about list on this web site. To let you know there is a lot of lists on this web site, so if you think they violate copyright laws take them out, but if you do you are getting rid of information that people won't know someday, because someday the web sites that have lists won't be there. I hope you think of this question over because the I Love Toys list won't be at the vh1.com site someday. Thank You.--Stco23 17:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, lists which involve people's opinions (as opposed to raw facts) are copyrighted. No amount of talking will change that. If you add the list back to the article, you will be blocked from editing. "Look, someone else did it" is not a valid excuse. Rhobite 17:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happens if I list the toys from A-Z, are you going to block me for that. I want an answer on my talk page. Thank You.--Stco23 19:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Probably. Please don't do that. Rearranging a copyrighted work doesn't erase the copyright or magically become valid fair use. For the individual toys which have articles, it would be fine to mention that they made the list in an appropriate way. Rhobite 20:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the 110-101 list violates copyright laws even though it is not listed on the vh1.com web site and can be seen on VSPOT Video.--Stco23 21:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defending Vandals

I got your message about not spending time on User:GO WHARTON's page. There was a warning put up by another user, along with proof of him being User:JDMBAHopeful, which User:GO WHARTON keeps deleting, and other users, including myself, keep putting back. Please don't involve yourself in discussions or disputes unless you're willing to invest the time in them to understand what's going on. Dc9 16:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have no proof of any of this. If you don't stop posting these notes, you'll be blocked from editing. Please find something productive to do on Wikipedia. Rhobite 16:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ample proof is provided, and you haven't invested the time to even read it. Looking through your discussion here and elsewhere, it looks like you have a history of abusing your admin powers. Since you've threatened me, I'll stop policing this vandal, but one has to wonder why you're so insistent on protecting vandals in general, and this one in particular. Dc9 17:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, you can see that other admins [2] disagree with you on letting him constantly blank his Talk page. Why not do something useful and block him instead of harassing me? Dc9 17:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out. To quote from the second link, "Using multiple accounts for [...] deception [...] is forbidden.". So it is indeed a violation of Wikipedia policy in this case. I assume you'll stop interfering now? Dc9 03:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your evidence supports the conclusion that GO WHARTON is JDMBAHopeful. If we're basing decisions on pure speculation, maybe I should block you from editing for being a sockpuppet of MBAGuy. Is that OK with you? Rhobite 16:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Right- and Left- wing terrorism articles - have your say

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right-wing terrorism and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism and have your say, if possible.Xemoi 21:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't tell me what to do...

Just because I'm posting via IP instead of my regular account, doesn't mean I do not understand what "NPOV" means.

LGF does not "cover" anything. News organizations "cover" stories. LGF posts other news organizations' articles and flame. Hence the reason for putting "coverage" in quotes.

Please do not let your obvious conservative bias effect how you edit articles. And please do not post garbage on my talk page. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.254.64.246 (talk • contribs) .

If you don't like the word, you could find a synonym. Putting the word in quotes is known as scare quotes and it usually indicates derision or sarcasm on the part of the writer. Scare quotes are usually not acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Rhobite 02:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC needed

On either Kaiser permanente, or possibly User:Pansophia. DO you wish to join in this? Midgley 03:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. He stopped for a while but it appears he is back adding anti-corporate POV to articles. Rhobite 03:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pansophia and Kaiser Permanente In progress. Midgley 19:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see Midgley actually recruited you. You're helping a guy who is retaliating because he got caught spoofing someone else's username. Helping Invisible Anon was the right thing to do, and helping Midgley with punishing the good guys only sets a bad precedent that will discourage people from trying to help each other when there's a serious attack going on - such as trolling under someone else's username. Please refer to the "don't be a dick" policy: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick --Pansophia 04:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I confess that I don't know much about Midgley, but I support his edits to the extent that he opposes your poorly-sourced additions to Kaiser Permanente. I will look into his edits, but I don't view Wikipedia as a political game. For the purposes of this discussion, I don't really care if Midgley has an unsavory background. His background does not change the fact that the KP article is filled with anti-capitalist POV and misleading statements. It does not change the fact that you've now made 7 or 8 reverts in just a couple hours, and you will be blocked shortly. Rhobite 04:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you do. I think about your edits, and I finally agreed with you on the NoRankism image, for instance. I also agree that the KP article needs much improvement: I'm just trying to keep the criticism from being outright deleted. Also, I would not have made that many edits if Midgley hadn't have called on you and Calton to pile on me. Please look into what Midgley has been doing. I hope you will do the honorable thing. --Pansophia 04:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


By the way, in regard to my take on Kaiser, have you been following the situation with their transplant program? http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-kaiser13may13,1,5276524.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&track=crosspromo
I'm not "anti-capitalism", I'm against mismanagement that's killing people. --Pansophia 04:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't heard of the transplant program.. it sounds like a fiasco. That is the kind of story which we should cover. It should not be framed as "criticism" (people have a tendency to incorrectly label negative news as criticism), but it should be described in a neutral manner based on reliable newspaper sources. Rhobite 04:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Myg0t (second)

Hi, I notice you've had a say in previous discussions about deletions/undeletions for the myg0t article, I'd just like to inform you that another such discussion is occurring now, so if you'd like to voice your opinion, for or against undeletion of the article, feel free to post your thoughts.[3] - USER-cacophony 20:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irgendwer RfC

I've filed a request request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irgendwer and your input would be appreciated. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 04:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wal-Mart, POV

Can you explain your reason for removing the POV tag from the Wal-Mart article? I'd argue that Criticism of Wal-Mart is a WP:POVFORK and the main article doesn't have a good enough summary for criticism. I would add the tag back in there myself, but I won't because I am also trying to rewrite that section (draft). Tuxide 20:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read "What content/POV forking is not" in WP:POVFORK. "Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique."
Criticism of Wal-Mart is a spinoff article, it is not a POV fork. I don't care whether Criticism of Wal-Mart stays as a separate article or whether it gets merged back, but you should know that people have merged and split it several times and it's getting very annoying. I think we should leave it split simply because that's the status quo. I agree with you that Criticism of Wal-Mart is not summarized appropriately in Wal-Mart, and I support slightly expanding the "Criticism" section. It should be no more than three paragraphs, though, since it is just a summary of the criticism article. User:Tuxide/Wikiproject Retailing/Wal-Mart#Criticism is currently much too long. Rhobite 21:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reponse. Obviously, you've seen the work I haven't done yet on my draft page. The one thing that I do find wrong with the Criticism of Wal-Mart article is that it is very bloated and specific. For example, Criticism of Wal-Mart#Local community impacts doesn't need to list as many examples as it does already, and I've been able to synopsize the first three subsections into a couple of paragraphs. Although a List of Wal-Marts in Germany article is encyclopedic, this much detail on a Criticism section might not be. I'll have some more time to work on it in a few hours... Tuxide 21:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Podfather did another removal of the Wired link from the iPod article. I reverted and left another note on his Talk page, but I won't revert it again today. The account has only been used to remove this link - last Nov-Jan and starting again today. David Oberst 04:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pansophia

Please don't needlessly poke Pansophia during his block, I doubt he is inclined to listen to you at this point. Let me try to talk to reason with him. JoshuaZ 04:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parthian shots and last words...
It is a sustained pattern, it should not be encouraged. There is a non-policy but reasonable body of opinion and essay [4] suggesting that course of action. And the appearance of illness, as opposed to rational activity in pursuit of an achievable goal, or even a continuing demonstration of feeling, is actually there. It isn't possible to diagnose on the basis of reading what is written on the 'Net, but that content is suggestive. Whatever one does this is a mess, and will continue to be so - it is easy for unreasonable behaviour to cause trouble and less easy for reasonable behaviour to solve it. Midgley 15:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put myself forward to mediate this dispute, and I request your acceptance of this under my comment on the mediation page linked above. Once I have consent from everyone to my work, I can begin. Thanks. --Xyrael T 16:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that User:Efreeti is indeed no longer available for comment/mediation, and he has not supplied an e-mail address so I am unable to get in touch with him. Since he is the only involved party on one side, I see no reason to continue this mediation because the situation has remained stagnant for some time. However, I feel that all parties should be ready to restart the process should the user we speak of become active again, because then he will still have a say. This, of course, if only my suggestion, and I would appreciate your comments on the mediation's page. Thanks. --Xyrael T 21:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

beer

Hi there

Nice to see another k5er here. So far I've not found any others; at one point I thought I saw codemonkey_uk here, but it turned out to be someone different using the name codemonkey. Kasreyn 03:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I haven't gone on k5 in ages, but it's nice to see you here as well. User:Ta bu shi da yu is another k5er. And rusty has edited a couple times as User:Kuro5hin. Rhobite 03:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SarahTeach is back

I saw that you had a brief run in with User:SarahTeach a few months ago. She is back and as uncivil this time as last. Her comments on the Talk page for the Plagarism article and my own Talk page are very similar to the comments for which you addressed her behavior in January. She even removed another user's post from a Talk page, something which you warned her against in January. Would you be willing to again help address this user's conduct so that we can file a user-conduct RFC if necessary? I would hope that would not be necessary but given her history I am not very hopeful. :( I am also contacting User:Alabamaboy as he has also had discussions with SarahTeach in the recent past.

Of course, I am open to any other suggestions or advice you may have! --ElKevbo 04:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concrete

Hi! You seem to have deleted a significant section of the article on Concrete in an attempt to do something. Could you please put it back? Argyriou 15:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been more careful making that revert. I see you already removed the section I intended to remove; thanks. Rhobite 18:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, someone else did. I still haven't figured out how to do automatic reverts or some of that other stuff. Argyriou 18:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliate Marketing Article Discussion - Invitation to Participate

Your Contribution History shows that you have some interest in the content and the quality of the Article Affiliate marketing. The Concern has been expressed that this article or section is missing information. An open discussion was started at the articles talk page and I would like to invite you to participate in this discussion and express your opinion regarding the issue that was raised. Sincerely. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 09:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F'd Company Talk

I suppose you are likely right. I am not that familiar with the policies and will look into them. It just seemed to me that others would be interested in what happened with the bbs.fuckedcompany.com message board as until its recent demise, that was where 80%+ of the massive traffic was going to the site was going. I figured that would justify then having a section on the board with history. I did also figure that more comprehensiveness would good and benificial for users seekign information. However, I have to yeild to your opinion because obviously you are more familiar with the rules and guidlines than I am and from skimming a little bit it does not look like wikipedia wants great expanses of information about a topic, but more concise and focused information. Take care. Nisanu 01:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?

Are you lurking my contributions or seomthing? Because you seem to be following me around, a lot. Also you seem to be prejudiced against any of my edits because of my past. Don't give an Ameriflag 00:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smartquotes

I thought you might have something to add to this on the administrators noticeboard. Tyrenius 23:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC at Democratic Underground

I thought you might want to lend your wisdom to the RFC currently underway. BenBurch 04:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please semi-protect Euthanasia again

Hi Rhobite. The single-issue troll ROHA has returned to plague the Euthanasia article again. He has violated 3RR today, and I doubt he's going to stop any time soon. Please semi-protect, and we'll see if we can wait him out again. If that fails, is it appropriate to complain to his ISP? &#0151; JEREMY 08:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncitable Personal Health Info, Patrick Volkerding

Hi, I hope I didn't appear to be too snippy on the Patrick Volkerding talk page, but if you'll check the history you'll see that the Three Revert Rule has been disregarded so this does become a matter for Wikipedia arbitration. I hope to convince you away from your current stance by referring you to HIPAA and libel as well as pointing out the lack of a substantitive source on which to defend this content. The only source is a Slashdot message. This is not a verifiable source, nor is it a citation of a reliable source. Whereas health information is temporal and continually updated within the confines of doctor-patient confidentiality (if such a diagnosis ever existed the diagnosis may be updated, changed or reverted at any moment without press releases or public announcements with which to up[date the article) and that US Federal Law prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of private medical information the matter should be viewed as mere heresay, although any lawyer with a penchant for Libel law would could easily make a strong case for libel. This would stand quite firmly on the tenets of HIPAA.

Whereas your re-addition lacked the scrutiny of a scan for current and verifiable sources I respectfully request standing-down on the matter rather than further escalation to arbitration.

Thanks! Zosodada

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rhobite&oldid=62916560"