User talk:Ramsquire/Archive 2

Andreasegde
Are you both serious? It has shocked me. You say about me: "Your hero"?, and "Conspiracy nut"? This is beyond the pale, and I feel affronted by those comments. RPJ has never attacked me (not yet, anyway; but probably because I am neutral) but you both have. Do you not feel that you have gone too far? I will not hold my breath for an apology. andreasegde 16:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for your reply. My point is this: Why can you all not work together? It´s a dictionary, is it not? Name-calling and silly insults (RPJ, Gamaliel, or anybody else for that matter) is not the way to work together. I have defended RPJ, and I have also worked (cordially) with Gamaliel on "The rifle" page. What does that make me? (Don´t answer that one :))

I used to believe Oswald did it, then I didn´t, then I did, then I didn´t.... so I became neutral about the whole confusing mess before I went bananas (laugh...)

I still believe that being neutral is the only way to go forward. Put both points together and let the reader decide. If we continue to squabble we will only confuse the people that want some seriously cited information, from a wonderful project like Wikipedia. C´mon; agree to disagree. There is enough Internet space for everybody to cite their sources.

Have fun. andreasegde 18:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Ramsquire. My intentions were as you read them. If I had read the collection of insults that have been (supposedly) thrown around, I would have written something else. I can only go on what is presented, can I not? I would have thought one could archive insults and attacks, so as to have some form of defence in case of disagrement, and not delete them. Might be a good idea, huh?

Anyway; I have agreed with RPJ about a quote from LBJ, (see talk page) but I disagreed with him about a right-wing conspiracy piece. So there you go... now my hat is in the ring.

I do think RPJ has some valid points about people deleting stuff because they disagree with it. It´s not very Wiki, and the page is getting to be "I´ll let you put your bit in if I can put mine in." Maybe we have to agree (good grief - is it possible?) about the basic rules and layout of the page. I´d throw these in, for what they are worth:

1. No personal name-calling. 2. No theories without citations. 3. Both sides must be presented. Take out "Response" and merge it into "One-shooter".

There you go, you can now kick me where it hurts (Ouch!) if that´s not sensible. andreasegde 15:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"There are still a good number of comments by you attacking the credibility of users who disagree with your point of view." Ramsquire 23:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don´t get this at all. Comments by me attacking who´s credibility, exactly? Can you explain this? andreasegde 05:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I get it now... silly me. I am laughing about it though, because you are writing to each other on MY page. Give me a break, guys... (laugh...) andreasegde 06:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the very nice message, Ramsquire. Nice one. I only said I would be irritated if I wasn´t laughing so much. It was meant as a silly joke. (It´s a bit like saying, "I would kill that woman if I didn´t love her so much..."

Anyway; I´ve been chopping a few bits out of the page, and I wondered what you thought. I always leave a message on the talk page in advance. Have fun. andreasegde 16:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC - Clay Shaw
Got your message. I'm no expert on Shaw, but I'll give it a glance. Thanks Dubc0724 02:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; got your message as well. I put my answer on the Clay Shaw discussion page. andreasegde 17:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Oswald page
I was totally confused about the Oswald page, and I "bit the bullet" before I understood what was going on. Thank you, Sherlock Ramsquire! I would give you a Barnstar, but I don´t know how to... andreasegde 21:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Earlene Roberts
This is a problem, because Gamaliel said her testimony - seeing a police car etc. - was in question (which I agreed with at the time) but SBHarris thinks her testimony about seeing Oswald at the bus stop should be included. She was blind in one eye. If seeing Oswald "walking fast - almost running" - into the house - is not to be included, then why should her testimony about seeing him across the street from the house (when she was watching the TV report about Kennedy) be included without a comment? Interesting... andreasegde 19:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answer. Roberts talked about the police car (in her WC testimony) but did not mention the bus stop. What should go in? andreasegde 20:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for the reply.


 * I think she is right about Oswald ""walking fast - almost running", (which was deleted) but I agree with Gamaliel about the police car. She could have been confused about the number of the police car (so she admitted) as she was watching TV at the time, and police cars had turned up at other times, and had used the same "Pip-Pip" car-honking thing. But I can find no reason to include that she saw Oswald at the bus stop across the street. (She never mentioned it in her WC testimony.)


 * This is crucial. We can not include some of her evidence, and then discount other bits of it, without a comment. andreasegde 21:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: How do I create an archive?
''I've been trying to clean up my talk page so that only recent discussion appear on it, however, I don't know how to archive a previous discussion. Please help. You can respond here or on my talk page, whichever is more convenient. Ramsquire 23:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)''
 * Just letting you know that I've answered your Help Desk question as follows, since you asked to have it answered on your talk page too:
 * You can create a subpage of your usertalk that's something like User_talk:Ramsquire/Archive and copy the content from your talk page that you want to archive, or there's probably some way to do it with a bot, but I'm not really familiar with bots. I'll leave a note on your talk page too, that I answered. — Keakealani  •Poke Me•contribs• 23:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA
No, you can discuss it on talk pages, of those who either support or oppose you. One of the main concerns on RfA, is that a user who requests adminship has a sumwhat large amount of experience. You have in fact been around since 2004, but your edit count and contributions do not reflect your time on Wikipedia. Also note, I dont speak for everyone. You seem to be a perfectly good editor, but you should look into contributing to other areas on Wikipedia. Such as WP:AfD, and other xfd's, as well as WP:AN and WP:ANI. Also, try reviewing the standards page. I might also suggest that you withdraw your nomination, you have a very slim chance. Sorry, and I will support another nomination for you in a few months down the road if you continue on the same path you are on. Keep up the good work. SynergeticMaggot 23:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To withdraw, just specify you wish to do so on your RfA. Either a crat will remove it, or an experienced admin will remove it. I understand your dissapointment, I just had an RfA of my own fail. If you need any advice in the future, please contact me. RfA's can either make or break you. Don't let this discourage you. SynergeticMaggot 23:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have now closed your RfA. Please look it over and (Requests for adminship/Ramsquire) and take notice of any comments made before re-nominating yourself or accepting a nom. My talk page is still open to you if you have any further questions. SynergeticMaggot 23:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's good that you were bold by requesting adminship. However, edit count is an important factor in many RfA voters' decisions. I would suggest that you set a goal for yourself, depending on how much time you can spend on Wikipedia. (I try to make 50 edits a day, but you can set your own goals.) --Gray Porpoise 00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We try not to measure people by raw numbers of edit counts, but some people still do that. See Editcountitis. --Gray Porpoise 00:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You work well as a Wikipedian. I will support you with just a bit more work. --Gray Porpoise 01:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Awww, so sorry your RfA failed! Your edits, as I said in my "neutral" vote, are very high quality, but many users believe that a bare minimum of 1,000 to 2,000 edits are necessary to establish an editor's reputation. I really do think you're a great editor, though, and I'll support you in a few months. Heck, when you're ready, I'll even nominate you myself. :) Until then, happy editing, and remember that you can drop me a line if you ever need anything!  Srose  (talk)  02:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Jack Thompson (attorney)
Sorry if I came across as blunt. My concerns are two:

1) As I assume you're aware, video gaming websites or magazines are not acceptable sources for the article. Even if we were to cite the legal document itself (which, to be honest, I don't actually know how to do), we would still have to note where we found the document.  Unless we actually have a copy of the document in our own hands, it would seem that we would have to cite the website, which is probably unacceptable.

2) This one is a bit more subtle. One could argue, and I often do, that the incident's lack of mainstream news coverage means that the incident is not notable enough to be included in the article.  Of course, this occasionally leads to the problem of unresolved plot lines, if you will, such as the Florida Bar lawsuit.

These are both grey areas regarding our policy on the article, and I thought I'd see if you had anything to add to the conversation before I ask User:Michael Snow, who should be able to clear up the concerns. Thanx! --Maxamegalon2000 22:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You got your wish
Articles for deletion/Great Liberal Backlash of 2003 (second nomination) Morton devonshire 02:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to your post
Frankly, I see nothing wrong with this edit-->"And how can you say with such certainty that Monroe was not one of his affairs?"<-- I think it is a reasonable question. Did you read the post I was responding to? Lam dismissed the possibility out of hand, when there are, IMO, many credible witnesses to the contrary. Perhaps the 2d edit in question was a bit harsh, but accurate-- admissions by the people involved aren't a credible enough source for Rjensen. Achilles2006 05:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Your msg on AIV
Hi, I blocked 207.63.191.182; however, he seems to have stopped vandalising almost 4 hours ago. Why did you report him now? Am I missing something? TIA, --Gurubrahma 17:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Users
Thanks, Ramsquire. I appreciate your advice. Now... how can I rephrase it? Too many bosses and not enough workers? Too many white-collar workers and not enough blue? I´ll change my original contribution, BTW. Thanks again. P.S. Got it. Critics and contributors... andreasegde 17:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Speechless
I am truly speechless (even though I can still write...) I really don´t know what to say. I thank you for giving me one of the greatest compliments that I have ever had. I will think about it, but my head is spinning at the moment. I thank you again, Ramsquire. andreasegde 21:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Roger Wilco! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 00:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian
Oh yes indeedy, The Guardian is right up there with The Times, and is a very well respected paper. (It´s slightly conservative.) The Independent and The Daily Telegraph are also well-respected. The papers that are like The National Enquirer are The Sun, The Daily Miror and The News of the World. (The last one has headlines like "Vicar in sex probe shocker...")

Try these:

To compare I´ll give you these as well :

Happy reading. andreasegde 09:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

My John F. Kennedy Photograph
I see now in the discussion section of the JFK page that there was already another who thought that "lead" photo of JFK was unworthy of being in the article, please let it be known that my uncle's photo was not placed there to "beat" anyone for a change, it was only after I saw that unflattering and "doctored" photograph, that I remembered there were at least three or four photographic shots that my uncle Malachi took of the late President that would serve the encyclopedic article on him far better than the distorted image that someone had placed as the header photograph, which I found to be an offense to JFK's memory.

The one I published to replace it was one which showed the President as we who were alive remember him (and in true colour), and shows to those not yet born, his fair continence and a view... a look at him as he really was for all to cherish and remember. A charismatic leader loved around the free world, the great man we lost that awful day in Dallas, only a few weeks later. (cathytreks 21:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC))

+cat

 * I tried but they want to delete than one too ! Category:Human extinction best to go from neutral to KEEP so the list doesn't disappear. Thanks MapleTree 23:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Luna Santin
DVD R W deleted the page, not me. Anyway, I will speedy close the AfD, so you don't have anything to worry about. -- Nish kid 64 20:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Clay Shaw
Why don't you have an email address set up? I have something you might like to read. --Ali&#39;i 20:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't list my email because I don't like receiving spam, which is always a danger in forums like this. Just give me a link to the info if you have one. Ramsquire 20:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry... there is no link. If I get the time, I'll just add it later. Thanks. --Ali&#39;i 20:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

namespace violation
I have moved Archive of previous nomination to User:Ramsquire/Archive of previous nomination. -- RHaworth 22:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

hmmm... could you move Archived copy of First RfA to be in your userspace, and then tag the misplaced article as for speedy deletion? Thanks. bikeable (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ramsquire - I have changed the link to your first RfA to the actual archived version. --Alex (Talk) 20:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA
I am sorry to inform you that your Request for Adminship (RfA) has failed to reach sufficient consensus for promotion, and has now been delisted and archived. Please do not look upon this outcome as a discouragement, but rather as an opportunity to improve. Try to address the concerns raised during your RfA and, in a few months' time, resubmit your request. Thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity! Redux 17:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about
You left a message about a "slight" by one of the editors. Why did you leave me such a message?

RPJ 21:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)