User talk:Bobcheezy

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 21:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Help / advice needed
I've started to add to wiki's page on my great-grandfather at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Edward_Guinness%2C_1st_Baron_Moyne#_ref-32 He was an over-achiever who was sadly killed by Jewish terrorists in 1944. I don't mind that, but in adding a lot of references about his earlier life the discussion page has got nasty, as in:

"ridicilous POV based on a minority of historians, perhaps only one

it now looks like a tribute to Moyne the martyr, even though his personal responsiblity in the fate of the hungarian jews and other european refugees is fully documented. this was the main reason for the assassination. Amoruso 20:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried to attempt to bring back the whole sections being deleted for no reasons without reverting to the old version. It may require complete clean up. Amoruso 20:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)"

It seems to me that the page has been used for arguments about anti-semite this and that. I don't mind that, but feel that my great-grandfather's earlier life also deserves to be told.

I don't think it needs arbitration - yet - but when I have reff'ed everything over a day, I am alarmed to see that someone says "It may require complete clean up." The page belongs to all serious published references, surely? I don't mind in the least if people mention his death and the last two years of his life, but I feel the first 62 years deserve serious mention as well.

Plus I am new to wikipedia editing...thanks in advance. Wikiman 21:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:PCP
Welcome to the Pokémon Collaborative Project, we hope you have a fab time editing Pokémon articles. If you have any questions about the articles, style, content or simply what our favourite Pokémon is (it varies, trust us) leave a message on the project talk page. Cheers and happy editing, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 21:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Chobin.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Chobin.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 12:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Need help on saving Minor characters in Sonic the Hedgehog page
I dont know if this is a dispute as such but just the other day [Minor characters in Sonic the Hedgehog] ended up deleted under copyvio. Citing the reason as infomation taken from a website. Wiki claims that copyright doesnt cover text from public domain so surely this means it's not a copyvio? In any case the notice now on the page says after a week it gets deleted :\. Could you help us save the page, it had so much work done on it that it would be a shame to see all that hard work going to waste Jennytablina 22:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Help
Dear Sir:

Can you please help me. I received a bizarre message from an unknown source on Wikipedia stating that I am believed to be someone else. To the best of my knowledge I am the same person I have always been.

I do not know exactly what this means as I have only been using wikipedia for several weeks but whoever sent the message deleted my edits, which I believe are responsible edits (Patrick Mercer, Force Research Unit). Can you please help nip this in the bud.

Thank you for your help!!

Mary Louise O'Callaghan MaryLouise@gmail.com 16:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Nintendo-Portal Notice
You listed yourself as a member of Wikiproject Nintendo. Please do see This proposal for a nintendo Portal.-- A c1983fan  ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your help.

MaryLouise@gmail.com 02:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

June 12, 2006

Dear Bob:

The same Wikipedian who accused me of being a sockpuppet previously is doing it again. You told me to contact you if anyone reposts the same message which has again happened and this individual has deleted all my edits from today. He seems to be pursuing some sort of vendetta against another Wikipedian and I am caught in the crosshairs. Is this acceptable behavior and shouldn't he or she be penalized for this?

See below from my edits to Peregrine Worsthorne's page:

(cur) (last) 20:28, 12 June 2006 Demiurge m (rv blocked User:Rms125a@hotmail.com) (cur) (last) 18:30, 12 June 2006 MaryLouise@gmail.com m (minor syntax/grammar edits)

Please help!!

Thanks!

MaryLouise@gmail.com 00:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note this edit by User:MaryLouise@gmail.com, which is very similar to the edits to the same page revert-warred over by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com and his various sockpuppets. (see page history). Together with the previous evidence, this means that my suspicions that this account is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user have now been confirmed. Demiurge 00:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Bob: Is this person whoever he or she may be permitted to engage in this type of behavior beased on alleged suspicions. How come he or she has never contacted me instead of pre-emptively deleting my edits and forcing me to do them over once you have given me the all clear. This cannot go on indefinitely as I refuse to re do all my work every night because of this individual. My edits should be judged on their merits. And this person needs to be warned that if he or she continues he or she will be blocked. Why do I have to endure this behavior when you have already adjudged in my favor in this ongoing situation?

I hope this will be the last time I have to contact you.

Thanks!!

MaryLouise@gmail.com 01:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Andrew (sorry I called you Bob previously):

I think I understand now why this is happening. Apparently "Demiurge" resents my having updated something he/she had previously edited, although my edits were not very different from his. I checked out his/her home page briefly and apparently we are both Irish, so we have some shared interests, although mine are more contemporary.

I think he/she should have contacted me rather than behaving as he or she did. As far as other points he mentioned on Bottesini's page in response to my complaint (he seems to be stalking me on Wikipedia): in re breast cancer, I am extremely interested in the subject, having lost a grandmother to the disease and I am very gratfeul that list exists and I plan to add more names to it as the opportunities (unfortunately) arise. Am I the only one interested in this subject?

I am interested in entertainment and politics (as Demiurge accuses me) just as it says on my home page but Brian McCargo, Simon Towneley and Kellyanne Conway are hardly "minor Hollywood celebrities."

Please help with this nonsense so it is not a recurring issue every night.

Thanks!!

Marylou 02:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I am going to wait to hear from you before I re edit what he vandalized.

If you would like to know what HappyCamper reverted...
Hi Bobcheezy,

If you would like to know what Happy Camper reverted, I can post it to your page again. It wasn't spam. It was request for help. My email address is MichaelDWolok@aol.com

Michael D. Wolok 08:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bbobcheezy
The name of the article is Hugh Everett's Many-Worlds Interpretation. In order to understand what is going one, someone needs to read my first edit to the article, and Lethe's reaction to my first edit, and his totally dismissive comments on the talk page. He insists that everything I write is patently wrong, even though I have ample support for every one of my contentions. As a matter of fact, there is no dispute among physicists about any of the changes I want to make to the article, that is what makes this so frustrating.

I see much more of what I originally put in the article has been put back after Lethe revereted all of it. The problem is if I add something, Lethe reverts it. If someone else adds the exact same thing, he doesn't. My problem is with Lethe. Lethe says everything I write is patently wrong, even though I provide ample support each of my claims on the articles talk page. Lethe claimed my assertions were so wrong, he could revert them all without bothering to address any of them.

Lethe claimed the word "paradox" and "constradiction" always mean the exact same thing. Instead of editing my additions or modifying them, he always reverts everything I add.

I think it is better to list each point separate instead of lumping them all together. Michael Price says if a person disagrees with one advantage, that weakens the whole theory so it is better to lump all advantages together under a few points. I disagree. If you lump many points together, and someone disagrees with one aspect of one point, many advantages they agree with are lost, as you've lumped many advantages they agree with together with one they don't. If any part of a point is wrong, the whole point is lost. Hence, it is better to list each advantage separately.

Moreover, there is no dispute among physicists about the truth of any of the advantages I listed. I have ample support for each and every point. Everything I wrote is important to the article. I would like to hear one objective party tell me that is not the case. I am ready to support each and every contention I've made. CSTAR who initially objected to my list was satisfied with it after he modified it.

I want to find one objective person interested in the subject tell me that what I wish to add does not improve the article. I provided important, highly relevant quotes by Einstein, David Deutsch, and Richard Feynman that have all been stripped from the article. Anyone should be able to see the difference between what I want to add and what is there now.

Why don't you email me at MichaelDWolok@aol.com

Michael D. Wolok 17:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Lethe continues to violate all these Wikipedia rules
Lethe violates all these Wikipedia rules. Is there anything that can be done about this?

To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning.

So, when you can reasonably assume that something is a well-intentioned error, correct it without just reverting it or labeling it as vandalism.

Especially, remember to be patient with newcomers, who will be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's culture and rules. Correcting a newly added sentence that you know to be wrong is also much better than simply deleting it.

You should not act like their mistake was deliberate. Correct, but don't scold.

Avoidance The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place.

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to.

Michael D. Wolok 17:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Nagel just wrote my addition is excellent
Hi Bobcheezy,

Nagel just wrote in the article's discussion page that my addition is excellent and should be added to the article, not two seconds later Lethe was all over my new addition, nitpicking like crazy. Lest you think Nagel and I are the same person, a quick review of the discussion page will make clear that this is not the case.

Please look at Lethe's reaction to my first Wikipedia edit, and how he reverts every word I try to add. If others add the exact same thing I do, he leaves their edits alone.

He reverted my first addition saying everything I wrote was patently false, and he could revert it without commentary because not one thing I said was correct. Please read the article's discussion pages from the time of my first edit.

After other editors modify my additions, he continously reverts everything.

Warmest and kindest regards, Michael D. Wolok

Michael D. Wolok 19:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andrew
Lethe refers to me "the lamentable Michael D. Wolok." I think this is uncivil and an insult.

The only article I am working on now is "Many Worlds," and the only editor I have a problem with is Lethe. Others may disagree with my additions, but they are reasonable. Lethe from the beginning has only wanted everyone to dismiss everything I have to add. He is the one who reverts every word I add, and every change I make.

Michael D. Wolok 04:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Respond to your posts
I read what you wrote in the article you were working on. None of it seemed like it was wrong. I might not be an expert on the topic, but I don't understand why Lethe keeps reverting. If you find out why, just respond on my talk page Bobcheezy 14:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you would like to know about why I made edits to the article many-worlds interpretation, all you have to do is ask at the talk page. It's no big secret, and you might even find the answer is already there.  So you don't have to employ Wolok to investigate my reasons.  You could simply ask.  And please try to remember to assume a little good faith on my part.  Thank you. -lethe talk [ +] 14:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi can you help me?
Hi there, I am currently having a dispute with a moderator of the word Mulatto. His name is JereKrischel and I believe he/she is being extremely biased. I'd like you to follow along, if posssible. Because I will show you thing's that just don't make sense.

Thank you for time Andrew!

- Angela


 * Hey bobcheezy - just to let you know, I've got no dog in this fight...this is strictly a linkspam issue. User:131.247.234.199 started linkspamming explicitlymixed.com a few months ago.  It looks like a new online magazine, attempting to drive traffic...it's pretty much completely broken when viewed in Firefox, but the linkspamming started when it was going public.


 * Since the initial linkspamming, other alias (possible sockpuppets), have tried to add things back in, like User:Liberalpunt, and now User:Aries90. AFAIK, the commerical links Aries90 has been removing are established yahoo discussion groups, so they get to stay, but trying to drive traffic to a new online magazine is clearly not appropriate.  If you have any other questions, please leave me a message on my talk page.  Thanks! --JereKrischel 03:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Andrew, no Explicitly Mixed isn't an online magazine. Jereschel: Seems? Seems like an online magazine? Where did you get that? Explicitly Mixed is not a online magazine. If that is the case I could say the same thing about a non-yahoo webpage like mulatto.org. Please re-assess this, this is absolutely non-sensical. How can explicitly mixed not be added as a resource while another website whereby the same assumptions can be made on another website such as mulatto.org? The page posted is a MULATTO page. Simple enough. Jereschel you are being unfair in ASSUMING Explicitly Mixed is an online magazine. Why not assume the same with the "non-yahoo" webpage's. You Assume? A moderator on wikipedia ASSUME instead of getting the facts?

=
======= Jereschel nor you bobcheezy has given me a good reason for anything. You only ASSUME it's a online magazine without even contacting the site. Wow, he even removed the link under the word Multiracial. I take it he really hate's Explicitly Mixed. I think I know where this is heading. Thank you for your time gentlemen.

AMA Roll Call
There is currently an AMA Roll Call going on. Please visit the page and sign your name to indicate whether or not you're still active. :-) אמר Steve Caruso ( desk / poll ) 17:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, please, please help!
Hi Andrew,

Are you able to help me? Can you phone me? Can I phone you?

I am about to give up on Wikipedia.

My email address is MichaelDWolok@aol.com

Please email me. Thanks.

Did you notice how nasty Lethe was to you?

Am I imagining this or what?

Warmest and kindest regards, Michael

Michael D. Wolok 19:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy request
Heyo, Steve Caruso here. There is a Request for assistance by Sholom  (talk) on  Thelma Drake. Would you be willing to take their case? If you will, please leave a note and sign under the entry on WP:AMARQ and change "(pending)" in the heading to "(open)." When you're finished with the case, set it to "(closed)". If you're not able to take the case, please leave me a message on my talk page so I can continue searching for a willing Advocate. Many thanks! אמר Steve Caruso  ( desk / AMA )  23:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars WikiProject Roll Call
" Hello! "

Thank you for contributions. You have signed as a member of the Star Wars WikiProject their is a Roll call going on currently at the Star Wars WikiProject talk page. Please sign if you still want to help out.

Again, Thank you for your help! --Team6and7 21:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (Dave Chappelle Article)
Good job on the edits man (: Santorummm 04:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Help with the Deus EX articcles
Hey.. I was wondering if you could help me with the group of articles about Deus Ex, since a a_man_in_black has taken to marking a group of perfectly good articles for deletion without presenting an official policy to back this up. If you could look into this, it'd be great. -Durandal- -Durandal-

Megatanks
It's already there. "In fact, they have made the least appearances (though they apper more frequently in the third season) of any normal monster and do more damage than any other monster." – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Association of Members' Advocates
Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! M a  rtinp23  20:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

GAC backlog elimination drive
This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :GAReview underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive
A new elimination drive of the backlog at Good article candidates  will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :GAReview underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 23:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Nintendo Page Redesign
A new page design is being considered for the WikiProject Nintendo page. A rough draft can be viewed here. Please add all comments and thoughts to the discussion. From the automated, Anibot 22:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for November 2007
The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007
The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles January Newsletter
Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

April GA Newsletter
The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter
The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles newsletter
Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Quixotic plea
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. —  04:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)