User talk:Eric B. and Rakim

Welcome
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!


 * If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.


 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: . If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.


 * If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 14:18, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

-

Eric B and Rakim:

I saw your note on the mailing list, and I'm a little saddened that some of your first experiences on Wikipedia were discouraging and less than friendly. All of us here, I believe, share the vision of creating a compendium of human knowledge; we just have diferent persectives on how exactly this should be done. Much of the time this settles itself out in friendly debate, but sometimes people aren't so courteous. RickK spends a good deal of time fighting legitimate vandals; it's an thankless task, and he doesn't necessarily give elaborate justification for all of his actions.

One of the principles which a lot of of Wikipedians try to apply is AssumeGoodFaith. Generally people don't mean to be malicious, but they can come across that way sometimes. That's always a useful lens through which to exmine other people's actions, at least in my experience.

I know from firsthand experience that it can be quite a shock to see your work listed for possible deletion; however, keep in mind that it only takes one person to list a page on VfD, and, once it's listed there, it's debated by the community (or rather, whatever portion of the community chooses to comment. It looks like some of your work will indeed be kept; it takes a strong majority to delete on VfD for the page to actually be deleted, and there is usually at least a one week discussion period.

You're also right that Wikipedia isn't necessarily very welcoming of newbies, often because some veteran Wikipedians have become impatient with dealing with the common mistakes that new users make (they forget to remember to AssumeGoodFaith), instead of gently pointing them out and helping folks learn.

Another place you might want to ask questions (if you have them) is on the Wikipedia IRC Channels; there's almost always a veteran user or five there who can give you tips about how to deal with a confusing or frustrating situation. You can always, of course, post to the Village Pump, although that may take an hour or two to get a meaningful response. Don't hesitate to ask questions. :)

I hope you decide stay; it seems like you have a lot of knowledge which you could offer the project in a field that it seems we're a bit weak on. -- Seth Ilys 02:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm with Seth on this one. Unfortunately, your first encounter was with someone who ought to have his virtual butt kicked into a pixel pit. You will meet some truly amazing people here; you will, it also being real life, meet some total jerks. Persevere, ask for help, remember your friends, and if worst comes to worst, ask Angela for help. She is our resident goddess, if there is anyone you can go to and get a square deal, it's her. (Mind you, if you're being a toad, don't expect any sympathy either ) BTW, I'm going to have to deal with Linux when I move up to OSX - I hope you can put together a few general articles on what it is and how it works. (Check the Linux articles we've got - my bet is you can improve them big-time!) Denni 05:06, 2004 May 20 (UTC)

Sysop Accountability Policy
If you want to vote on Sysop Accountability Policy, please do so, but without the profanity. I've reverted your edit until such time as you feel you can vote professionally. And please sign your vote. Rick'''K

Moveon
Please see my reply at Talk:MoveOn.org Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:11, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Administrators/Administrator Accountability Policy
I saw your vote on Wikipedia talk:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and I have to say I thought your explanation for your vote so on target that I referred to it in mine. I also wondered why I hadn't seen your vote on Administrators/Administrator Accountability Policy. -- orthogonal 13:44, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

U.S. embargo against Cuba
You voted for U.S. embargo against Cuba, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

hey thanks
hey, thanks for reinserting the Wikinerds link to Homo floresiensis! NSK 17:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your certification of my RFC
Since you weren't involved in the dispute leading to my RFC, could you please remove your certification? That section is only for use by people who attempted to resolve the dispute before submitting the RFC. Rhobite 00:56, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Eric B, thanks muchly, maybe you could propose Rhobite resign as admin for a month and then when he refuses certify. Ha. Time to puncture his ballon. Ollieplatt 02:25, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Eric B. we salute you
Eric B. I agree with you, Rhobite has grossly acted outside Wikipedia rules. Do you think he should himself be blocked for a while? I think this is the only fair outcome. Ollieplatt 01:49, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oll, I voted that I want the Arbitration Committee to take a closer look at the case. Nothing more, nothing less. Eric B. and Rakim 02:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you invite Rhobite to resign his adminship over this abuse, and he declines you are then involved in the dispute and I will take it further to arbitration. He is unfit to be an admin and I have the evidence. Ollieplatt 02:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Important Test Case
I hope you can reconsider your certification for the following reasons:


 * Rhobite has something to hide: he seems desperate for this examination of his conduct not to proceed. Why?


 * You are now involved in the dispute, by virtue of the interchange you have now add. You can see from the RfC page that he gave an apology and then withdrew it by saying he did not "err".


 * Only by certifying can there be a careful examination of Rhobite's conduct and the issues of administrators' power.


 * Rhobite is coercing participants in this RfC in a manner unbecoming of an administrator.

Ollieplatt 03:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * this is completely ridiculous. By now, Ollieplatt's obsession with this is nothing short of disruption. Rhobite acted in good faith, and apologized for his minor mistake. That is certainly good enough. Admins are not expected to be perfect. If Ollie wants to make a case of this, he would have to show that Rhobite has a tendency to block users with a specific (anti-Democratic) pov. Which I am convinced is not the case. He blocked Ollie for acting like a jerk, not because of his/her pov. dab (ᛏ) 08:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * re, your concern that if it's just 'you vs. a hostile admin', i.e. you would have no way of getting your rfc approved if nobody else was involved: such a scenario is very unlikely, because such an admin would almost certainly exhibit offensive behaviour towards other users, and be involved in lots of disputes. Therefore, such an inappropriate block would almost certainly be just another step in a larger dispute, and could be added to an rfc with a broader basis. (e.g. if Rhobite really blocked Ollie for his/her pov, he would be prone to blocking other users with similar views, and the rfc would get wider support). For this reason I think we should not worry too much about hypothetical cases without precedent. We may sooner or later need clear procedures for desysopping, but policy will evolve with WP, anyway. dab (ᛏ) 09:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why you are writing this as a message to me, but anyway; Wikipedia has rules to be followed. Those rules has to be enforced or noone will follow them. That is why you can expect to be banned for 24 hours if you break the 3RR. You should also be prepared to face consequences if you ban someone without a reason. However, everyone knows that unless you ban people extremely often, you wont face any consequences at all. Other admins take advantage of this knowledge and bans people even if they know that they are acting badly. Because why shouldn't they? Nothing bad will happen to them! The same thing has happened with the politicians, they know they can do practically whatever they want without anything happening to them - and so they do whatever they want! Bush wouldn't have invaded Iraq if there was even the slightest chance that he would be tried in a court as a war criminal. Exaggregated example maybe :). But the rule should be: You ban someone for no good reason, you should not be an admin. And I'm not saying that because I hate Rhobite (never heard about the guy), but because Wikipedia will become a very hostile place if admins is allowed to do whatever they want. Eric B. and Rakim 16:31, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gitmo
Thanks for the contributions over on the Guantanamo Bay article. Ombudsman 20:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thankyou! It was my pleasure. Eric B. and Rakim 29 June 2005 16:52 (UTC)

Trolling
Your comments on Talk:Ubuntu are distinctly trollish. I assume you were joking, but I suppose there's a chance you weren't. If you meant them genuinely, you may wish to get a sense of proportion. Ubuntu Linux, impressive though it is, is just a piece of software. It happens to share its name with Ubuntu, which is an important political concept in Africa. Your comment: "Nobody cares about the stupid word, everyone wants the real Ubuntu here which is 100x more famous than the word" is only true for people preoccupied by the world of computers. I wonder, did you actually read the article? Please try to be more civil in your dealings with people on Wikipedia. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 29 June 2005 22:07 (UTC)


 * The name of the distro is "Ubuntu." It happens to be the same as a South African concept. The distribution happens to be much more well known than the concept. Therefore, a page move is warranted. It all comes down to what the user typing down "ubuntu" in the search box likely mean. Eric B. and Rakim 30 June 2005 00:17 (UTC)

Image:Gentoo-new.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Gentoo-new.gif, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 18:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Thuresson 11:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Situation of administrator abuse
Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.

The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.

I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here  Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 06:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Wingide2-personal-screenshot-qtr.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Wingide2-personal-screenshot-qtr.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 12:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Demish


The article Demish has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Article has been an unsourced stub for six years, no reasonable claim of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of XFree86 logfile for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article XFree86 logfile is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/XFree86 logfile & until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Safiel (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Date (Unix)


The article Date (Unix) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Wikipedia is not a manual and this article is written exactly like a man page. It can, however, be moved to one of the sister projects or a Unix/Linux wiki.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Codename Lisa (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Date (Unix) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Date (Unix) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Date (Unix) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Codename Lisa (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of NvAGP


The article NvAGP has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Does not appear to meet NSOFT or NPRODUCT. Reads much like a how-to guide."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  SITH   (talk)   11:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of MUD client for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MUD client is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/MUD client until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Ovinus (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)