User talk:Rocdahut

Welcome!

Hello, Rocdahut, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor Baby reverts[edit]

Please DO NOT simply engage in a "revert war" without participating in discussion about this issue on the article's talk page. Also, please take care not to violate the three-revert rule, or else you may end up being temporarily blocked from editing. Richwales 19:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would take the advice above to heart. I see your new to Wikipedia and would like to welcome you. If you need assistance with anything - let me know. The rule of thumb is to count to ten before posting or if that doesn't work count to one hundred. I concur with your anchor baby move and will support you in this. I see no reason to use 'pejorative' in the opening context. PS. Don't let this dispute bother you. I am sure you have much to contribute here, BE BOLD AND STRIKE YOUR COURSE, is my personal motto for everything in life (and first part thereof a Wikipedia standard!) Best Wishes. --Northmeister 01:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I invite you back to the talk page for Anchor Baby as we've worked out a consensus among three editors there. I would like your input on the matter, since you were involved in the discussion early on. It would help to solidfy the consensus to have your comments and hopefully support. Thanks. --Northmeister 21:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denver download[edit]

Could you please indicate how the term "Denver download" is notable enough for inclusion in the article on Laser Quest? Discussion forums do not qualify as reliable sources, and cannot be used to establish the notability of a term. Googling for +"denver download" +"laser quest" gives only six hits: two forum discussions and four Wikipedia mirrors. A ecis^Brievenbus 13:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your own experiences with the term Denver download, or with laser quest in general, are not enough to warrant inclusion of the term. I'm sure it's a real term, what matters is whether it's verifiable. The term "Denver download" is only verifiable if you can point to reliable sources using the term within the context of laser quest. Internet forums are not reliable sources, blogs are not reliable sources, you and I are not reliable sources. Newspapers and magazines otoh would be reliable sources. If you can quote a laser quest magazine using the term, you've come a long way towards establishing verifiability, and probably the notability of the term as well. A ecis^Brievenbus 20:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your comments basically telling me not to edit the article if I don't play the game, please read our policy against article ownership. Secondly, our policy on verifiability applies to every single article. Insisting on verification of a laser quest related term is not a right limited to people familiar with laser quest. You haven't provided any proof of the notability of this term yet. I hope you understand that we can't just take your word for it. A ecis^Brievenbus 20:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a reliable source using the term "Denver download" in connection to Laser Quest? A ecis^Brievenbus 13:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laser Quest reverted again[edit]

I have again reverted your edit to Laser Quest. You have been asked time and again to provide a reliable source using the term "Denver download". You still haven't provided a reliable source, after over a month. Not a single term in the LQ Slang section has been verified. Not a single one. You have made only one edit to the talk page, and you didn't bother to talk about what you should have talked about, which is the lack of sourcing. You've tried to put up a smoke screen about my "sheer laziness" and "trolling", but have you actually bothered to talk about the subject? No, you haven't. Please don't revert to restore uncited content. Remember, you want to see it included, so the burden of proving why it should be included lies on you. A ecis^Brievenbus 20:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keetoowah[edit]

Just wanted to say hello. --Eleemosynary (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I now see why some one accused me of being another person. I am not a sockpuppet account. And if this is some one's attempt to discredit me, then I am beyond insulted and incensed that someone would do this. I guess I have to seek an admin about this. Whoever you are who is trying to screw with me and my ability to edit can take a long walk off a short peir. Rocdahut (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News Entry Request For Your Comments[edit]

Hi. I agreed with your comment in the Fox News entry about the inclusion of criticisms in the lead. While I don't think it is possible to build a consensus to get the info moved down into a separate section, I am currently building a consensus to at least have the "other side's" POV (critics that think Fox is relatively balanced) included with the current POV included in the lead to make the lead less one sided. I am not a fan of Fox News or of any particular media outlet, but the lead strikes me as very one-sided, and wikipedia should not be like that. If you want to, you can now go to the Fox News entry's talk page and "cast your vote" in the Request For Comment at the bottom of the page. It seems like the numbers are starting to favor the more balanced version of the lead I have proposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsn9333 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please revisit Talk:Fox_News_Channel[edit]

There is discussion as to whether new editors to the discussion are being shooed away when they speak against the content of the article. We could use your input as one such editor. Bytebear (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge[edit]

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless Accusation[edit]

Whoever accused me of being a sockpuppet should be ashamed of themselves. Perhaps I need to make it clear I am from Colorado? Or perhaps I should post a message on their homepage that I think they are a sockpuppet. What is the deal? Why no warning and why the rudeness. I feel insulted.

Re[edit]

Hi. Sorry that you were annoyed, but if I restored Pumpjack's comment on your page I would have to restore it for the eight other users who were canvassed. If I did that I would be encouraging such users to do this by saying that it's ok to mass-spam other people's talk pages. We're trying to discourage that kind of stuff here. I explained on Pumpjack's talk page why, you might want to check that out if you are curious. But the bottom line is that it would be chaos if all those users started getting involved. The Iranian users would then feel that they have a right to canvass other Iranian users. You probably are still annoyed that I deleted his comment, but I just want you to understand why I can't restore it. Khoi khoi 01:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Fastlinking"[edit]

Aloha, Rocdahut. You recently posted on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents apologizing for not knowing how to "fast link" "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:74.68.132.134". More commonly called wikilinking, this is very simple. For stationary pages, all you have to do it place the title of the page in double brackets [[ and ]]. So instead of listing the whole url, you could just write "[[User talk:74.68.132.134]] which will come out as: User talk:74.68.132.134. Hopefully this helps. You can read more at Wikipedia:Editing FAQ#How do I make links?. Then, you can learn all about piped links too. :-) Let me know if you have any further questions, or you can use the helpme template by typing {{helpme}} on this page with a question. Someone will come by and try and help. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Dobson[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you like to remove referenced facts from the James Dobson article using the claim that any non-positive fact is point of view. It is certainly not the intention of Wikipedia to hide facts to promote your conservative Christian views, the opposite in fact. This is meant to be a neutral site that shows all facts, positive and negative. If you could explain why referenced facts are point of view and explain how deleting referenced facts is appropriate it would be helpful.

Perhaps you are a fan of James Dobson and the 'conservative Christian' viewpoint he espouses, but your behavior in deleting referenced facts is not the intention of Wikipedia. If you have other positive facts to add, then do so, but do not remove referenced information. It is unethical, wrong and a reflection to the world of the 'conservative Christian' way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.73.146 (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I removed unsupported items from the Focus on the Family article, and you added them back. Could you please explain? 71.174.183.99 (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Levin's Page[edit]

I attempted to initiate a discussion about the Lithwick review of "Men in Black" on Mark Levin's page. I still maintain that reviews of the book not only need to be fair and balanced, but that they only have a place on the page dedicated to the book itself.

I'm also a bit put off that Lithwick's review is sourced twice on the page (it's also sourced in the "Other links" section). I, too, am trying to avoid an edit war and think we could have a reasonable discussion in the talk section and resolve this issue. Thanks. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]