User talk:RUReady2Testify

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --John 17:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Estonia and NPOV
Perhaps you should calm down a bit. Do not accuse other editors of vandalism and breaking WP:NPOV, when they don't agree with you - that is a very serious accusation, users have been blocked for baseless vandalism accusations.

Now, as for the links to genocide and genocide denial, they do not belong to article about Estonia. While there are no denying of Sovier crimes, that was not genocide - and article Estonia is about Estonia, not what happened during Soviet occupation. And denial of Soviet occupation article was deleted, so there is really no point of adding it to the article.

And finally - please do not add essays such as this to article talk pages. This is not proper for Wikipedia - and quite frankly, rather damaging to Estonia, so you have achieved exactly opposite to what was your intention. I am sure there are some who would call it trolling. Always stay calm and civil, use non-insulting language and accept that there are other viewpoints then yours. Back up your words with valid sources - and read Wikipedia rules. When needed, Wikipedia has several methods to resolve conflicts - or deal with edit wars and "bad" users.

DLX 19:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What happened in Estonoia is genocide. Genocide includes attempted genocide. Genocide is not clearly defined but Soviet treatment of Estonia exhibits nearly all the elements. There is no point in discussing this. Provide the link and let the reader inform himself. The link is relevant. It is beyond belief that someone would say it is not.

I am calm. Anything else is your opinion and you should keep that to yourself as you seem to be getting a bit personal in your discussion of me.

My essay, as you call it, is not an essay but a quick off the cuff reason for including something or the reason for objecting to the deletion. I have found that few editors on wikipedia have anything other than an extremely limited experince and narrow worldview. Thus, I have found it necesary to explain the simplest things in more detail than I would like. See my "essay" on literacy and why it should be included in the entry on Estonia. RUReady2Testify 19:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You may have not realized this, but I am an Estonian - and from Estonia as well. There was russification, but no real genocide. There was no official (or unofficial) policy to kill all Estonians during Soviet occupation - if there would have been one, then we could call it genocide. If Stalin would have lived longer, it might have become that - but thankfully, he didn't.


 * I have found that Okupatsioonide muuseum is a very good source for reading what happened during Soviet and German occupations. Perhaps you should browse it as well.


 * Please don't take my suggestions as personal insults, they are not meant to be that. And if you are calm, it certainly doesn't show in your messages. I would hate to see my countryman end up like user M.V.E.i., who was yesterday blocked permanently for racism and insults - but if you don't change the style of your edits, you will end up like he did - and no one will mourn you. If you want, ask help from other Estonian editors - there are quite a lot of us here. You can always come to me - or, to name few other Estonian users, Digwuren, Staberinde, Alexia Death, Erik Jesse - or even the administrator of Estonian Wikipedia (et:), Andres.


 * Few more things. If you edit using Firefox, you can enable spell checking for English in Wikipedia. This helps to make your messages clearer - and I have also found highlighting misspelled words in articles very useful. Secondly, do look at the date before you reply to someone - for example, this topic was from October 2006. If that is stayed that way since then, you can be pretty sure it is a consensus - or that the matter is already resolved.

DLX 19:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I realized (not immediately but before you mentioned it) that you are Estonian. I looked at your user page.

Thanks for the advice. I will try to adjust my tone. However, I believe I am being a bit misunderstood. I think today people are very quick in everything they do, including understanding what someone else is saying. So quick in fact that they hear a few words and think they know where it is going and stop listening. But that is why my explanations or arguments are so long (of why I think something is or is not relevant) and ironically why there are not met with a lot of sympathy.

As for harm to Estonia. I am sorry but I have to disagree on two points. One, I do not see how my one-graf reason in the "discussion" page does any harm to Estonia. You will never convince me that this graf has damaged Estonia. Sorry. Two, this article is in English and it is for English readers and it is written from the NPOV of an English speaker. It is neither for nor against Estonia. My little warning earlier about vandalism is not entirely consistent with remark, but then as Thoreau said, Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

I use Firefox at home but at the moment I am at work. But thanks for the tip. However as for clearer messages, maybe some posters should take a course in English grammar. Unfortunately, this is not something that Firefox highlights. In any case, I don't think I made any spelling errors in the text of the entry. The discussion pages are for discussion of what is relevant and so on.

As for the discussion pages, yes I did notice the old date of one topic. But it is still appropriate to respond to that topic--no doubt it wil come up again, if not in this entry then in another. When it does, anyone who saw it and agreed with it may mention this in that context. This should be obvious. This is another example of having to explain things in detail when they should need no explanation, much less such detail.

Why don't you do some reading on genocide? If you are interested in the topic, you would serve those interests best if you do not limit your reseach to Wikipedia. Genocide is not the killing of all of a people, nor is it the attempt to kill all of a people. RUReady2Testify 19:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello fellow countryman. Just a few worlds from me as well. Try to take things bit by bit. Wikipedia is about as stable as "sitt pilpa peal"(figure of speech meaning unstable for all lingual watchdogs) when it comes to Estonia. We are currently having debates with some users whether Occupation actually occurred. Yes, there are people that go around and remove all references to occupation claiming its POV. So trying to push genocide at all costs right now will get you banned and does nothing to help the Estonian cause for fair and sourced representation. We would however appreciate your participation in articles like Occupation of Baltic States and Estonian SSR. You might benefit from reading the base Wikipedia policies, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. What might seem odd for you at first is that WP is not about truth. It is about Verifiability and Reliable sources. Makes sense, really when you think that every person has his or her own truth. Happy editing and relax.--Alexia Death 07:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello AlexiaDeath. Thanks for your kind welcome and your words of advice.

All of this duscussion that you see here could have been avoided if other users had taken your approach.

That said, I don't think you should even speak to anyone who takes the position that the occupation occurred. (Unless they are like me and they think the word "occupation" is too mild. The United States occupied Japan after the war. What happened all across Europe for more than 50 years was not an occupation.) History is written by the winners. That saying needs no citation. For a long time, someone else was writing our history. Now it is our turn. (By the way, since you called me Countryman, I should mention that I'm Estonian [sort-of, will explain later] but not living in Estonia.)

As for pushing genocide at all costs (I know that you are not saying that that is what I am doing), I have to say that is far from what I am doing. There has been precious little discussion of that topic. I added three links (earlier I said two but it is three).They wer deleted. The discussion is about the way they were deleted and the communication that followed from the persons who deleted them. Anyway, I have had enough for now of discussing this. I have some real work to do. Thanks again for your note. RUReady2Testify 22:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey one more thing: You said WP is not about truth but verifiability and sourcing. Just in case anybody else is reading this, I need to point out that I DID NOT EDIT THE TEXT OF THE ARTICLE IN ANY WAY. I made no claims or assertions so ther was nothing to source. I did not even delte or revert anyone else's text or claims or assertions.

I was attacked by two editors for adding links to OTHER WIKIPEDIA ENTRIES. Two or three links to two or entries. If the other WP entries were not properly souced I cannot say. I did not edit them or add or delete anything to or from the linked articles. So it was not a roundabout way of putting something in an article.

Even if one does not agree that what happened is a genociide, one should still be able to see that the link is relevant. For example, whaty if a reader wonders, "Does hat hapened her amopunt to genocide?" The link will help them find the answer. What if someone thinks to himself, "This is horrible, but it was not genocide because not all of the elements are met. By the way what are all the elements?" The link will help him find an answer.

I am begining to think that I am so naiive. This whole thing is not substantive as I thought it was. It is about John and DLX defending their turf. This is their article and they will not let anyone they have not personally approved come in and start messing about. That's what this "dispute" is about. RUReady2Testify 22:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you're misunderstanding. You appear to be overly insecure over this.  You shouldn't; excessive insecurity can lead to rigid thinking and in extreme cases, authoritarianism.  (I must admit I considered you to likely have been an Estonian neo-Nazi for quite a while based on your early edits and comments in Wikipedia.)
 * What you did was adding connections to only tangentially relevant articles into Wikipedia articles. Doing that is not the worst thing you can do on Wikipedia, but it's still a bad idea.  DLX and John have been trying to explain it to you, in varying ways.
 * By the way, in some of these cases, the relevance can be increased rather easily. For example, a mere mention of the Memorial's topic in the article on Estonia -- and probably also in Estonian SSR and/or History of Estonia -- would probably warrant linking to it.  Without explaining its relevance, of course, this will not work. Digwuren 23:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren: Thanks for your note. I am about halfway to understanding now what everyone here is talking about. Maybe I am too thin-skinned or too sensitive to criticism. But I still maintain that my adding of a 3 links that others editors did not like was not the huge crime it was made out to be. If anyone had bothered to look they would have noticed that I had alphabetized one prior link and added noncontroversial links to Danish Estonia, Narva, and Tartu, and maybe some others. My only desire was to consolidate all the Estonian related links in one place. There are actually many articles in Wikipedia that relate to Estonia but they are not linked to the main article. Long before I made any edits or added links, I had just been surfing around and reading various entries on Estonia and I was repeatedly, pleasantly surprised to find an article on almost every topic I could think of! Amazing, I thought to myself. My intent in adding links--ironically--was to make a small contribution without disrupting anyone else's project! I thought that adding a few links in the links section to other articles that already exist would be the least bit I could do to help out. I also had in mind that I thought it would be a good resource for my youngest brother who grew up in Sweden and knows almost nothing about Estonia other than it used to be that you couldn't go there. Far from being an Estonian Neo-Nazi, I just wanted to help develop a comprehensive resource. I still think that someone like my youngest brother--who is not particularly academic minded--would benefit from having a link to some of those controversial topics so he can see for himself, what is X, does it apply here?

I now see that they are controversial, but I have to say it is not obvious that they are controversial to someone on the outside, like me. I initially thought that user John who deleted my links and reverted my alphabetising was being intentionally anti-Estonian and personally disruptive as a way of carrying that out. As for DLX, his behaviour mystified me--how he could carry on a civilised debate with someone like Lantios and then attack me is something I still do not understand.

On that note I should add that I think there are some positions that should not be debated. Do the Jews debate the Holocaust? Of course not. Whether the occupation took place is not something that is open for debate.

Thanks again for your note.

BTW, I might just leave this topic alone for a while and work on some articles on cooking. I think they might be less controversial. But actually, knowing cooks, it could be that there is a lot of lively debate in that area too. Is there an entry on Estonian cooking? RUReady2Testify 14:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Notification of centralised discussion
Hi. As you are clearly unhappy with my treatment of you, I have opened a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents so that others may contribute. Best wishes, --John 17:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fender Sentence
Just wanted to let you know I changed the sentence in the Fender article to: In recent years, Fender Musical Instruments Corporation has branched out into making and selling steel-string acoustic guitar Izzy007 00:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Great. I thought it wasn't correct but I didn't want to guess at a correction. RUReady2Testify 20:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. THF 21:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as described here, you may be blocked. THF 16:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:Tort reform in the United States. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. THF 16:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people&#32;as you did at Talk:Tort reform in the United States, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. THF 17:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Ted Frank. OK. I will not post anything further on the Tort Reform discussion page until we can reach some kind of determination on your accusations against me (of making personal attacks, etc.). I believe I have not made any personal attacks. Anything I posted that related to any individual person, you I guess were the only one, and even then I didn't know it was you (whoever you as a person might be), was related to what such person said or did (posted or reverted) and was not personal--it was about what they posted or reverted. Indeed, knowing almost nothing about the other users personally (as is my policy and practice), I have nothing personal about them within my perception which could be attacked. The only other way I can imagine right now that someone might attack another personally would be to call them names. OBviously that's not an issue here. Anything I have posted that could possibly be interpreted as relating to an individual was in defense of my posted comment. Attacks on my coments and contributions is something to be expected and to learn from. RUReady2Testify 17:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you even look at the edit history before making false accusations on my talk page? User:Wafulz created the redirect, not me. I have not deleted a single article; I have merely used the AFD procedure, as Wikipedia permits. Harassing an editor, as you have been doing, with bogus warnings for legitimate editing activity can get you blocked. Finally, you continue to violate WP:TALK by misplacing your talk comments on the top of the page. Please read Wikipedia rules and policies if you wish to contribute to the project, because your actions have been inappropriately disruptive. THF 04:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I have not deleted any articles. I have brought inappropriate articles to administrators' attention, and administrators deleted the article.  Check the article logs, learn how Wikipedia works, and stop harassing me, or I will bring your behavior to the appropriate Wikipedia administrators' attention, and they can evaluate which of the two of us has been acting appropriately.  THF 04:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As you continue to persist in violating WP:TALK and in leaving inappropriate warnings on my talk page, I am leaving a courtesy notice that your conduct has been reported to WP:AN/I. THF 04:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Southpaws Unite!
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Southpaws Unite!, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Southpaws Unite! seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Southpaws Unite!, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 19:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Instead of throwing an inappropriate tantrum on my talk page, if you think the article has been deleted inappropriately, why don't you read the Wikipedia instructions and WP:WMD and fix the problem? But repeatedly falsely accusing someone of vandalism because they used WP:CSD violates WP:NPA.  If you do it again, you will be blocked. THF 04:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Scott Morgan (rock musician)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Scott Morgan (rock musician), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Scott Morgan (rock musician) seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Scott Morgan (rock musician), please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 19:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey guys, thanks for the heads up! I guess I better get these entries in shape. I have been slacking off a bit on various things this summer! BTW if anyone wants to help start a Wikipedia "project" on the Detroit rock movement from the 60s onward Ted Nugent Alice Cooper Bob Seeger Iggy Pop Grand Funk Railroad Question Mark & the MysteriansBrownsville Station and so on (but only referencing Motown, which should be a different project) all the way up to Madonna and Kid Rock and Eminem, let me know! This Scott Morgan thing was supposed to be part of my attempt to clean up the entries on rock history, Detroit rock, and so on with various cross-links to each other. No tragedy if he gets deleted for now, but eventually, as one of the prime movers of the modern rock movement, he'll have to have his own entry some day. BTW, if anyone has any particular interst in Scott Morgan, please, do not hesitate to pick up the ball and do a little editing! Thanks. RUReady2Testify 20:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

TedFrank
As he explains above, THF did not delete or redirect your article. Such speedy deletions are reviewed by an independent administrator. In this case, User:Natalie Erin deleted "Southpaws Unite!" for the same reason THF tagged it: because it didn't assert any claim of significance. If you feel this was in error, you could contact the admin who deleted it (THF cannot undelete the article in any case). If you still are not satisfied, there's a whole undeletion review process. However, it appears to me that the deletion was proper. See WP:WMD.

Please take some time to review our policies. I think you aren't grasping some points. On the tort reform talk page, you wrote an apparently personal essay that doesn't address any actual defects of the article. Talk pages are not meant to debate "truth"; they're meant to improve articles using previously published research in reliable sources. We do not discover our own facts. See WP:TALK, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV.

I warn you to stop harassing THF and using article talk pages as a soapbox. If you continue, you may be blocked for a time. See also WP:NPA. Cool Hand Luke 04:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, users are given a large measure of control over their userspace (see WP:USER). THF has every right to remove your comments from his talk page, and your repeated reversions on that page might violate the Three revert rule and constitute harassments aside. You will be blocked if you continue. Cool Hand Luke 05:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Sonic's Rendezvous Band, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. THF 05:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

I'm going to assume good faith that you merely misunderstand our policies, so I'm only blocking you for eight hours. Please take this time to review the policies above. Subsequent blocks will be longer. Cool Hand Luke 05:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

To Cool Hand Luke: I ask for your help as an administrator with this problem.

I thought I complied with the policy, it seems to say that "any user" can "contest" the proposal by "removing" the tag. It seems obvious that this article easily meets the criteria for notability--the stated reason for deletion. Beyond meeting the criteria's specifics, the criteria also has a catchall inclusion rule that the mere fact that an article does not meet specific criteria is not a sufficient reason to delete it.

I believe that the proposal to delete this article was made in retaliation against me personally and was not made in good faith to further the goals of Wikipedia, and that the proposal to delete, along with the reasons given, which I believe are not in good faith, therefore violates various Wikipedia policies.

The evidence for this belief includes (1) the proximity in time to an unrelated disagreement with the user proposing deletion; (2) the user's prior lack of interest or contribution or current knowledge of (as demonstrated by his reasons or comments) to the subject of the article proposed for deletion; (3) the fact that I have worked on this article in the past; (4) the fact that this user on or about the same day and time, in close proximity to the unrelated dispute with me, proposed two other articles that I have worked on that the user also has not previously or currently demonstrated any knowledge of or interest in; (5) proposed such articles for speedy deletion and then before I or anyone else had a chance to object (Wikipedia is not a full time job for most users, who only visit the site from time to time, and note also the stated policy that there are "no emergencies on Wikipedia," the user decided not to wait for any objections or to follow the policy of allowing the stated time period to pass, redirected the article to another article, effectively deleting the original article. In fact the redirect was effect as I was typing out an objection to the deletion with a reasoned explanation on why it should stay, and when I hit save, the article was gone and my objection and response are now lost; (6) he gave me three rapid succession warnings (in bad faith, for what I believe were good faith acts on my part) and had me blocked before I could make a response to his "warnings"; it appears that he has dome similar things in the past to other users.

It seems quite clear in light of the above, and further facts that can be marshalled in support, that this user's intent is (1) not supported by facts or policies, (2) not in good faith, (3) in retaliation, and therefore (5) in violation of Wikipedia policy.

Recognizing this, I communicated to this user that I would refrain from any activity that was the subject of the origial unrelated disagreement, by not making any further comment on the talk page of Tort Reform. I had hoped that this would resolve that dispute but it has not, as the user had made the dispute personal.

As for my being blocked by you as per the 3-revert rule, I must point out that I do not believe the rule applies to what I did, because I was (1) making a good faith effort to resolve the dispute by asking the user to stop his vandalism and disruption, (2) the posts involved were all on his talk page--the most appropriate place to discuss a user's (his) apparent violations; (3) rather than reply, he deleted the warnings and requests to stop; (4) did so more than three times, in violation of the rule; (5) in bad faith, turned the rule on me--I did not delete anything, and technically, I did not revert anything either, I think, but was adding to previous posts, and merely included the previously deleted material as support for a NEW post.

Other indications of bad faith:

The user asserts that I committed "vandalism" to the entry on Sonic's Rendezvous Band by removing the delete tags. My reply is (1) I did so in accordance with policy; (2) it is not "vandalism" to remove delete tags to attempt to save an article, especially one that has legitimate support (see discussion on deletion of that article, the only person in favor of delete is the user in question)--it would be incoherent to call saving an article vandalism--deleting it is vandalism; and illegitimately marking an article for deletion in violation of the rule that says this can only be done wherr the user believes there is no controversy, is vandalism and disruption.

There are other indications but this is enough for now.

I therefor ask you as an administrator to help resolve this issue. I know another administrator that I will also ask for help on this issue. RUReady2Testify 20:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * AfDs are different from speedy deletions and PRODs. It's apparent that you didn't read the header before removing it, and that you still have not read the tag. It says clearly:
 * this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed
 * Removing an unfinished AfD tag is against policy and can result in blocks. Other processes for deletion work differently: proposed speedy deletion are challenged by editing the article (not by removing the tag, but by adding the "holdon" tag with reasons that the article should not be deleted). In PRODs you can contest the proposed deletion by removing the tag within five days.
 * AfD's, on the other hand, usually take a few days in order to be resolved. Users basically collectively decide whether the nominated article should be deleted. In order to contest an AfD, you must add your reasoning to the AfD page linked from the article. If you had looked at the AfD page for your article, you would have seen that most editors believe it should be kept. Therefore, you should be happy about it. Articles that are nominated and kept cannot be easily deleted. The issue is practically settled forever. Future admins will see the AfD and not speedy delete it, and if someone nominates it again, many editors will refuse to delete it on the basis of it surviving AfD before.
 * Even if the AfD process is going against you, you are not entitled to remove an AfD tag until the process is over. Independent editors must decide in close cases whether the article belongs, and users are not to interfere with this process under any circumstances.
 * As for the three-revert rule, there are very few exceptions to it. Even if editors are "right" they can be blocked for it. It's one of the few absolute rules we have. You should have been able to tell that adding your warnings to his page was not helping anyway. He has the right to remove comments in his own user space, and you have that same right.
 * I warned you about adding those comments to his user page in violation of the three-revert rule. I told you that if you kept doing you would be blocked. After this warning you did it again twice. There was sufficient notice for your block. Cool Hand Luke 22:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User page
Hi again. I wonder if you would consider altering the wording on your user page to be a bit less hostile? Thanks in advance, --John 23:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that another user has already commented on this. I think you should take John's suggestion. Cool Hand Luke 02:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. What do you mean? I am in the process of writing a little welcome and how to. John, if you recall the minor dispute about the Estonia links really caught me off guard and I was a bit thin-skinned in taking criticism for what I thought was my helpful addition of a couple of links. I learned from that and other experiences here that practically every article has two sides, and that you can't just go in and naiively think you're adding objective information, when that info most likely has already been debated. I was also caught off guard in that the other contributors to the site took me for a Neo-Nazi! (See comment from DLX to that effect.) They were quick to jump to that conclusion, I thought, based only on a few bits of info gleaned from my posts. Anyway, I'm trying to make it clear that I do not do anything on Wikipedia because of what I do for a living. And I wanted to point out, with the "About me: Who cares", that I do not participate here to draw attention to myself or to please my employer. RUReady2Testify 20:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, John, can you take a look at the dispute (there is a BRIEF reference on my user page) involving user THF or Ted Frank. Do this only if you have time to look at all the backround--there is a lot of it on his talk page, some on the talk page for tort reform in the united states, and some on sonic's rendezvous band's talk page and deletion discussion page. I believe this user has violated several rules and policies and, in general, the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia. I have asked Cool Hand Luke to look at this but so far he has not. He only made a comment about something I did in response to being attacked by this user. Thanks for your consideration. Perhaps DLX can look at this issue too. I hope that both of you have concluded from our earlier discussion that my approach may have been ill-considered, but my purpose and intent was to make a good-faith contribution, not to disrupt and certainly not to enforce any particular politically motivated point of view. Thanks. RUReady2Testify 20:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello RUReady2Testify! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created  are  Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current  article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Laurence B. (Larry) Miller -
 * 2) Hillar Rootare -