User talk:Rambo's Revenge/Archive 22

Adi Da article
Hi Rambo,

The ACTUAL wording I agreed to be inserted into the article was ''Two lawsuits were filed against Adidam in California. The O'Mahony suit was dismissed in 1986. The other lawsuit and several other threatened suits in subsequent years were settled with payments and confidentiality agreements, negatively impacting member morale and bleeding the organization financially'' This was not your fault Rambo. It seems that after agreeing to specific wording Tao added additional wording not agreed upon. This is one of the reasons I would prefer that no changes occur in the article until ALL agreements are done. To make it simple we could even put in a summary of those agreements in a new section. But, this kind of seemingly innocent "slip" makes me not totally trust things yet. Please change the wording to reflect this. I would appreciate that agreements made are kept with other editors. Thank you, JasonJason Riverdale (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reverted all changes as this is clearly still unstable. Were you aware that used impersonated you? Rambo's Revenge (talk)  23:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)  (Comment struck, Rambo's Revenge  (talk)  10:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC))


 * This accusation was utterly false, as acknowledged by other admins. Please retract and acknowledge your mistake.Tao2911 (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Rambo- Were you aware that used impersonated you Not familiar with that wiki term. What does it mean:) If it means was I aware he was mis-representing my agreements and language I agreed to. No, but when I read the change in the article that kind of surprised me because that was not the wording I agreed to. So I spelled it all out in Discussion. Not that mysterious. Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Again- There is some very un-civil language and personal attacks continuing to be thrown back from Tao at most editors .... which also has a long history. Nobody is "ganging up" on Tao right now.Two guys both sides being represented. It has just basically been me working with him. Even Goethean, who actually comments on both sides, and whom made a comment siding with one of Tao argument today, and which I submitted to, is getting lashed with irony and un-civility. I don't know if mediation would work. Is there a way to make some very small changes via working with a wikipedia formal editor ?I would abide by whatever is decided... even if I don't like it :)Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, Jason. Sigh. When you get a chance, maybe go back to Adi Da talk, and actually address the points.Tao2911 (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please, I made a mistake in how I viewed this edit and have struck the comment above. In future, though, when representing someone else's view you should use a diff (e.g. ) and still sign that post yourself. As for the dispute, please keep all further continuing discussion to the Talk:Adi Da so it is obvious for any editor to see. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  10:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. Also, just to point out - as I say on adi da talk page, the "unstable" edit in question is over a single word mistake I caught before edit in question posted (which it did quite quickly, by you), and proven and discussed in talk. It is not a controversial or contested issue. I think Riverdale is (not for the first time) simply using this as opportunity to control, dither and defame. End of issue here. Thanks.Tao2911 (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Tennis statistics
I have a problem here I'd like you to take a look at, not wanting to get into an edit war with a newbie (or seeming newbie). In Tennis statistics an editor named user talk:Striving4 keeps adding what I consider to be a ridiculous chart... Career Grand Slam runner-ups. I did not revert it initially but asked on the talk page to discuss the addition. On his talk page I asked him not to add any more until some discussion had taken place. That seemed fair to me. He refused and started adding more so I reverted the whole thing and he has now reverted it back. []. He didn't even give it a few days for people to read and discuss the issue. Can I expound upon you to use your expertise in these matters so we can keep it cordial? I have no idea how this guy got a barnstar since he "supposedly" only began editing 3 days ago. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

question on your user page at Wikiversity.
Please see, thanks. --Abd (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

William Powell Picture
The William Powell picture that I posted years ago was one that I obtained in Hollywod in 1990 at a dealers table which sold vintage photographs. The dealer had it labeled as an early 1920s photograph. My definition of early is 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923. Anything past 1923 is mid-1920s. Since, it fit, by definition, as an early 1920s publicity photograph it would fall under public domain. Feel free to remove it if you do not agree. Dwain (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Striving4
This user is moving way too many pages, but I did not want to get you involved, which now I have to. I found s/he move the 2010 Wimbledon Women's Singles page, and s/he is decaptailizing the W in Women and S in Singles, which I think we have to stop it before the user goes to far look. BLUE DOG TN 04:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Go to WP:Tennis to talk it out! BLUE DOG TN 04:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Prize FAC
Hello! You reviewed the Nobel Prize during its previous FAC and opposed it. It is now up for nomination again and I wonder if you would like to review it again and see if the problems are fixed? Cheers! Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 14:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 June newsletter
We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were (A),  (B, and the round's overall leader),  (C)  and  (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.

If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17