User talk:Rhobite/Archive 6

Don't Worry
I removed the "attack" that most people would say is the "truth." Don't worry, maybe the Mets will win the World Series, or the Jets will win anything, and then you can be happy. --Lord Voldemort 1 July 2005 14:12 (UTC)

About my rating stars
They just were created by me. As you could see on the corresponding description page I said I drew it myself and I licenced them under the GFDL, just because I thought it would be fine. What do you say, should I change the way I justified them? Regards, Luis María Benítez 2 July 2005 13:05 (UTC)
 * Please, are you telling me that I have to change them and that those stars were registered? Who cares... I didn't took them from Amazon.com, but from another site: In fact I just took one and then made further modifications to complete the rating sequence. I could change the color, the size, etc, but the esence is the same. They will be changed, but again, I see no reason for this. Luis María Benítez 22:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You may not see any reason to respect Amazon's intellectual property, but it speaks poorly for this encyclopedia if we choose to take content created by other people and present it as our own. You claimed that you created these graphics - now you've admitted that you took them from another site. This is dishonest. If we want star graphics, we should make our own. Rhobite 02:40, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

CSD proposal
Hi there! I've refactored the long discussions on the CSD proposal into a final version, now open for voting. Please join :) This includes a (somewhat reworded) version of your proposal regarding redeletion of recreated content. Please take a look; if you disagree with my rewording please let me know ASAP. Yours, Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 4, 2005 17:02 (UTC)

User:24.6.59.24
Hi there! User:Jobe6 asked me to block this IP for vandalism. Since you blocked him twice earlier, I thought I'd ask your opinion on it. I couldn't find recent vandalism at a first glance. Yours, Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 4, 2005 17:38 (UTC)

Hey. It appears our friend User:24.6.59.24 has been up to more misinformation and changing links. Jobe6 July 4, 2005 17:50 (UTC)

DVD-Audio's CPPM Circumvented
I think you might be intereseted in a recent item on Slashdot. You might know more about this subject, and be able to update the article on DVD-Audio, which states that CPPM has not been cracked. &mdash;Vespristiano 6 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)

and RFC
pleae read and comment on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy-2

thaks Gabrielsimon 02:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

RFC on SlimVirgin
I have filed a request for comment on SlimVirgin. You can visit the page by going here. FuelWagon 22:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Unfree images
Regarding Image:1_out_of_5.png et al, I've created suitable replacements which are my own work, and hence have removed the possibly unfree image tags. I've also edited the relevant entry on the PUI page.
 * Thanks! Rhobite 15:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

unsolicited advice
you would be well-served to avoid blanket indictments such as your comment to steve: "It's unfortunate that anti-Semitism is so prevalent on the left." anti-semitism is indeed unfortunate, as is any kind of bigotry. but, the word 'prevalent' is a pretty small hedge to hide behind. and if you read the edit history of his talk page, you will see that steve is clearly just a troll. no, i'm not left, but i am offended anyway on behalf of wonderful people i know. of course, i understand why his comment would provoke anger, but that doesn't make your response ok. Derex 15:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This is really a pointless discussion, but I stand by what I said. I am also disappointed that islamophobia is so prevalent on the right. Not all liberals are prejudiced against Jews, but a sizable number are. Rhobite 15:58, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * well, that's mighty big of you: "not all". i figure a sizable number of males, heterosexuals, people between 30 & 40, baseball fans, new yorkers, and republicans are also anti-semitic.  do you also attribute that to membership in those categories?  i dislike bigotry of any sort.  and i call people on it when i see it.  that's the point of this discussion, which i suppose is now over. Derex 18:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So I make one offhand remark to an anti-Bush vandal who also happens to be an anti-semite and a homophobe, and suddenly I'm the enemy here. Yeah, this discussion is over. Rhobite 18:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Truth
Thanks for your edit. I get the impression that .6 is rather young. Banno 21:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous user 205.188.116.11
Sorry, the comment I just had here wasn't exactly truthful. 205.118.116.11 doesn't have any complaints, but a large number of other similar IPs do, and this one is connected to them. The one you just edited to point out that it is a shared IP is one of many that I've seen a certain person use to put random, meaningless crap on wiki articles. --Vyran 05:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't check into any of the other IPs, but I would guess that they all belong to AOL. The way AOL proxy IPs work is each user gets a new IP with every request. So you could have one person making edits from a bunch of different IPs. It's annoying to Wikipedia, but there's nothing we can do about it. Rhobite 05:51, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I knew about the AOL IP problem, but I wasn't sure if there was a way to deal with it. I figured there wasn't, though. I guess I'm just going to avoid the articles this guy goes after. Vyran 06:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Tlotz RfC.
I'll be joining you, on that one. Shem(talk) 03:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Chuck F
He's up to his usual tricks on Ron Paul and Libertarianism, and has violated 3RR on libertarianism. Since you seem to be the semi-official user:Chuck F guardian, I thought I'd tell you first.

Thanks in advance for dealing with this, Dave (talk) 15:14, July 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * He's up to his old tricks again... Dave (talk) 17:33, July 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Just blocked him. I reloaded my watchlist just in time to see his edit. Thanks for the notes. Rhobite 17:35, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

New 5-star set
In order to avoid any conflict, or doubts, a whole new set of rating stars was created. They look slightly different: color and size. Here you could see an example: 3 out of 5 and here is the original image image:LMB_stars.png with all the stars. The license remains the same. That's it. I hope there is no problem now. Luis María Benítez 21:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

My appreciation
Thanks for your help in reverting the vandal who was spuriously adding my name to various articles. An oddity: The same IP had been used, only two hours earlier, to create a stub about Jimmy "Jax" Pinchak. I thought it might be a hoax, but it turns out to be a real child actor. He's appearing in a TV series that was mentioned in the stub but with a red link, so I did a little research and wrote Over There (series). Thus the siege of vandalism resulted in a small expansion of our coverage. Strange are the ways of the wiki. JamesMLane 22:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

RfC
Rhobite, your Requests for comment/Tlotz isn't showing evidence that two users have tried and failed to resolve the same dispute with this user. Do you have evidence of that? The RfC as it stands is not properly certified and I'm considering removing it, so please let me know asap. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:50, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * In fact, I have deleted it, Rhobite, because I just noticed that the single diff you gave as evidence of trying to resolve the dispute was timed just two hours before you posted the RfC, so Tlotz didn't even have time to respond. There has to be evidence from two users of genuine attempts to resolve the dispute &mdash; not just evidence of the dispute itself, but of efforts to deal with it. Otherwise, lots of frivolous RfCs could be brought against anyone. Let me know if you disagree with my decision. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:00, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course I disagree with your decision. You deleted an RFC which was certified by four people, because you felt that some arbitrary standard had not been met. You should have just added an outside response if you felt that I hadn't attempted enough dispute resolution. In fact, Tlotz did acknowledge my threat of an RFC, with another personal attack: I put up a request on Votes for undeletion. Please explain your rationale for violating the RFC policy there. Rhobite 00:52, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that the RfC was valid, but Tlotz seems to have gone away. My personal preference is that we not allow him to waste any more of our time unless we have to.  See User talk:SlimVirgin for my thoughts on the subject. JamesMLane 00:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Rhobite, please quit the ad hominem remarks. What are the customs of the RfC process that you feel I'm not respecting? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:53, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't see your comment above. If you want me to see your messages, you'll have to post on my talk page. I told you earlier why I deleted it: the rules say you have to provide evidence within 48 hours of two people - two, not one - attempting dispute resolution. You didn't provide that. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:56, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any other time an RFC page with 2 or more certifications has been deleted. If you thought I was the only one who tried to resolve this, you were wrong and you could have read the Republican Party talk page to verify this. Please stop deleting it now, let people on VFU sort this out. Rhobite 02:59, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Rhobite, why are you not listening? There is a space on the page asking for the diffs from two people showing attempts at dispute resolution, to be provided within 48 hours. You did not provide diffs from two people. You could have a thousand people certify it and it would make no difference. You also have to provide those diffs or the thing is invalid. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:55, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Wolf hunting controversy
Thanks for you helpful edits in Wolf hunting controversy. I've been trying to clean it up, but I'm at my wits end with a difficult editor and I've already come perilously close to violating 3RR on that article. Friday 01:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

close doenst cut it. and if you had been les stubborn and discussed mattes it wouldnt have come to that. Gabrielsimon 01:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Please don't carry this flame war onto my talk page, guys. Rhobite 01:57, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I'll bite
Is there ANY way I can mark an article that I know is inappropriate? I'm interested in going through new pages as they come up and making a note that they are wrong in some way (letting someone else sort out the details). Does this eventually get done anyway and I shouldn't worry with it? Thanks. Category 05:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hope I didn't give the wrong impression.. it's great that you're tagging new articles, this is a necessary step. You're just using the wrong tag sometimes. You may want to read Maintenance for an overview, the number of tags can be overwhelming. Generally, material that doesn't belong in the encyclopedia should go to VfD unless it meets one of the criteria for speedy deletion. We can speedy delete things like gibberish and one-line external links, but not articles about relatives of politicians or songs, for instance. If you feel an article is salvageable, then it is always better to tag it with or a similar tag. You may also want to look at the stub-sorting project, which categorizes stub articles that are useful but short. WP:WSS. Rhobite 05:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
for dealing with the excessive reverts. Banno 10:11, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Adoption of Judge Roberts' children
I have just warned 214.13.4.151 that his repeated edits to remove the word "adopted" from the articles for Judge Roberts and his wife are not agreed to and that if he continues to try to make the change without consensus I will report him. He apparently has a history of somewhat controversial edits. Jdavidb 13:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

not quite literal crapshooting
what do you think of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gabrielsimon

Gabrielsimon 21:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

sigh.... thats why i called it c rapshooting... well, at least you were honest, if not really all to helpfull to me... Gabrielsimon 21:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Broadbandreports Reverts
Hi'ya, thanks for the revert ... it seems multiple times we've been reverting the same "Controvery". I started up a Talk on this, hope you can join: Talk:Broadbandreports. --Paul Laudanski 17:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Trying to get AIDS as a Featured Article
Hi there! In an effort to make the article here on AIDS the best possible before trying to submit it as a "Featured Article", I've looked up some active submitters in the last month or so and found you. Please, take a little time to go by the AIDS article and it's Talk page to see how you can help. One rather large source of confusion and complication, the References/External Links section, has just been cleaned and polished, thus your experience should be much more tolerable in general ;).

AIDS is a very serious world wide issue; never before have we needed to spread AIDS education as much as we do now. We need as many people as possible working together to make this article on AIDS the best it can be. Hope to see your contributions soon! JoeSmack (talk) 17:53, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that's a great goal, and I'm glad to see that the article has improved. I'm a little worried that Sci Guy continues his attempt to confuse and muddle issues, though. Rhobite 18:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's hard, but I think his intentions are good. We've butted heads more than a few times, but it doesn't mean we can't work out a consensus of whats best. Plus, the more level headed people we have working on this the better Sci Guy's stuff will be monitored.
 * Hope to see you around the AIDS article soon. We could _really_ use your help. JoeSmack (talk) 18:56, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hehehe. On Steve
I see you locked in the tracking text for Steve's current IP. Heh.

The funny thing is that I just spent 15 minutes typing up a long response to Steve. About his options going forward. I think I'm one of the few here who saw the potential in him to be a useful Wiki member. (That view of potential has shrunk to almost nothing as I watch him fail to learn anything from repeated blocks.) And I can't post it because of the block. :) I've saved it off to file, and will get to send it to Steve one of these days.  It's basically one final attempt on my part to get him to see he's going nowhere with his current path.

I hope I didn't cross any lines with my comments on the history lines. I'm not letting myself get annoyed at Steve, and treating the back and forth as something of a game (keeping score on reverts) is one way to not let myself get annoyed by the whole situation.

This does bring up an interesting point. It's one thing to get into a revert war on a main userspace page. But what is the policy on such on a talk page? I know it's very bad Wiki eticit for him ro delete our comments, but where do *I* stand? It is, after all, *his* talk page onto which I was forcing the comments. Just wondering. TexasAndroid 21:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I felt it was important to have that text up there, and it was petty for Steve to claim that he was a different person. I've unlocked the page for now. I think we have given him enough slack considering his tendency towards personal attacks and his disruptive editing habits.


 * There's no set rule about who owns an IP talk page. Generally if the IP is causing problems, we use the user page and/or talk page to track the user, and revert the user's insults/blanking. It's a different situation than with logged-in users, since nobody really "owns" an IP address. I probably wouldn't have gotten into an edit war with him on his own talk page, but I don't think you did anything wrong.


 * Also, if you are willing to write an RFC about Steve I'd be willing to certify it. Rhobite 22:13, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Steve has blanked the User_talk:134.161.245.70 page again. TexasAndroid 19:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I would say leave it be. He hasn't edited any articles (yet) today, there's no need to continue stirring up this dispute unless he continues to disrupt articles. I recommend you find another place to keep track of his activities. A subpage of your user page would be good, but be careful to avoid personal attacks, jokes, etc. Some users get very upset when another user keeps tabs on them. Rhobite 19:39, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, we already have it. The User pages (not talk) of the various IPs.  Steve is apparently unaware of them.  As far as getting upset, we've already seen how this upsets him.  But then, so many things upset him.
 * Anyway, I'm not going to push the list back onto the talk pages for now. Not really worth the hassle. Currently having fun debating him on his current IP's talk page as to whether he's Steve or not.  Oh, and he has said what his new account is on it.  Wheee.
 * An evidence page on a subpage of mine would not be a bad idea. Gather together as many things as I can that link the IDs together, or show his general attitude.  Just in case a RFC becomes necessary.  I suspect if one is filed, I will not be the one to file it, but will gladly contribute to it. TexasAndroid 19:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

DNFTT
Probably fair enough. If the user is a troll, I was aiming to give the user enough rope, as it's a brand new account that's appeared just after so many provocative edits. Buffyg 00:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok how did you send me personally a message? I cannot find a way to do the same to you. Anyway, sorry it was a joke. A friend and I were suggesting wikipedia at the same time and I said "I wonder what wikipedia means" and he said I should search it and it would probably turn up wikipedia=god. Well it didnt stay long enough for him to see it though. :(  But wikipedia is the best site and I think I will learn more and be a volunteer myself.

Not just a bunch of links
Hi Paul, I don't understand why I can't list my site under affiliate marketing. Did you look at the site? It is not a collection of affiliate links, nor is it even a directory. It is a comparison engine that lets online ecommerce merchants contrast and compare the different affiliate software packages out there. It fits in perfectly with this stub and I don't know where else it could be better located.

I have updated some of the text in the article itself in order to improve it and will keep doing so. I know there was another guy named Vince or something that was spamming in there but I don't see why you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I have already had several comments from merchants who were impressed with the site, and some found it via Wiki.

Comments?

Regards, Peter Affiliate-Software-Review.com

Darn now all the links at affiliate marketing are gone in a bold move by someone who had their external link removed and decided we need to discuss it.Peterkoning 17:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Gabrielsimon
Gabrielsimon has progressed to removing comments off the talk page that he doesn't like and removing part of the evidence section of the RfC against him. I was hoping you could help watch him and make sure he doesn't do it, tracing it back and undoing it is getting complicated for me. DreamGuy 18:19, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Jacko
Thanks for chiming in on the Michael Jackson talk page. I thought I was fighting a losing battle, and that those guys were going to slowly whittle the intro down to "Michael Jackson is a singer." :-) It's amazing what you get involved in when you add a page to your watchlist as an anti-vandalism measure... android  79  18:38, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Your assistance would be appreciated.
Given I'm not entirely certain what to do, now, with a personal-attack-fest I've stumbled into with User:IZAK. Would you mind reviewing the discussion at both this VfD and his talk, and give me an idea as to what Wikipedians're supposed to do in such situations? Shem(talk) 10:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello? Shem(talk) 18:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not going to be able to look into this for a while since I'm going away for the weekend. Rhobite 18:27, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Digg.com
You protected Digg.com, as it had been recreated after being deleted by vfd.

I just stumbled on the website digg.com, and it seems like a innovative and original website which I should be able to read about in Wikipedia. It is currently getting 1.2 million google hits. Do you mind if I unprotect the page to allow it to be created? Thue | talk 19:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Go for it, the site seems to be picking up. Alexa rank of 8,615 is not that bad. And please put the article at Digg, making Digg.com a redirect. Rhobite 20:52, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

hand
Your reversion was wrong. The hand is a must IMHO. The whole point of that message is that it is the ultimate and most serious warning. I have spoken to users who were banned and who said later they did not see the message among other messages and did not understand that it is was a serious 'this is your final warning' message. After discussing it with them (two emailed me afterwards asking why I had blocked them without warning. I explained that I had warned them.) I added in the hand to make it abundantly clear that this is not just another 'stop it' warning. This is a 'you are one step away from being banned' warning. It has to have visual impact or it is worthless.

As it stands, given what I have been told it is worthless because it is all too invisible to someone who doesn't spot it among their messages. The hand, the classic stop sign, makes sure they see it and get the message - if you repeat what you are doing you '''will be banned. This is your final warning.''' With the hand they cannot but see the message and so it may actually stop vandalism and remove the need for a block. (The current tests really aren't adequate and need a graphic impact to draw attention to them.) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm copying your message to Template talk:test4 and responding there. Rhobite 01:06, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Another RFC
I have requested an RFC against you. See

Sveasoft
It appears that Sveasoft has been busy link-spamming. All the edits from [User:62.20.102.130] post links for Sveasoft's main site (not the Wikipedia entry) in any possible page dealing with wireless routers, hotspots, etc...which is why I nominate the IP address range 62.20.102.128/25 for a ban.

Here's the WHOIS info for 62.20.102.130: % This is the RIPE Whois query server #1. % The objects are in RPSL format. % % Note: the default output of the RIPE Whois server % is changed. Your tools may need to be adjusted. See % http://www.ripe.net/db/news/abuse-proposal-20050331.html % for more details. % % Rights restricted by copyright. % See http://www.ripe.net/db/copyright.html

% Note: This output has been filtered. %      To receive output for a database update, use the "-B" flag.

% Information related to '62.20.102.128 - 62.20.102.255'

inetnum:     62.20.102.128 - 62.20.102.255 netname:     SE-SVEASOFT descr:       Sveasoft Utveckling AB descr:        Wireless ISP country:     se admin-c:      JE730-RIPE tech-c:      JE730-RIPE status:      ASSIGNED PA mnt-by:       TELIANET-LIR source:      RIPE # Filtered

person:      James Ewing address:     Sveasoft AB address:      Myrvagen 3 address:     13463 Ingaro address:     se phone:        +46702704417 e-mail:      james.ewing@sveasoft.com nic-hdl:     JE730-RIPE mnt-by:      TELIANET-LIR source:      RIPE # Filtered

% Information related to 'JE730-RIPE'

route:       62.20.0.0/16 descr:       TELIANET-BLK origin:      AS3301 mnt-by:      TELIANET-RR source:      RIPE # Filtered It belongs to Sveasoft. They should be notified that propaganda and advertising are not welcome here.

Sveasoft
Double-post, sorry...but here's the link I was trying to give you: User contributions: 62.20.102.130.

VFD
Hey, I'm sorry to bother you, but I am trying to nominated Time to Relax for deletion, but I am having trouble with the syntax. Do you mind dropping me a message on my page to help me? Thanks, Sensation002 00:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Dot-Six Update
Dot-Six states that you blocked one of his IP addresses. I assume that you did it for good cause, either 3RR or some other gross violation of the rules. Could you please add the details either to the RfC or a subpage of the RfC? We will have to go to the Arbcom, because this vandal is persistent, and we need a very strong case.

Thank you for dealing with this vandal. Robert McClenon 00:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * A few of them actually. He has been repeatedly removing the VFD tag from the top of Tyranny of the majority, an article he wrote. It is common and uncontroversial to block people who vandalize VFD notices. I'll add it to the arbitration if the time comes. Rhobite 01:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

ASTs
As a former K5 user, are you interested in voting on Votes for deletion/Adequacy Style Troll? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Proxies
I've been wondering this for a while and was just waiting to see someone in the blocklog I could ask: How do you determine open proxies? -- Essjay ·  Talk 08:27, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * I use http://openrbl.org/ and/or http://completewhois.com/ to check if they're on proxy lists such as the DSBL. Another option is to Google search for the IP address, or simply try to use the proxy yourself (try ports 80, 8000, and 8080). If an IP is on a reputable list of compromised hosts, I usually don't bother to test it myself. Block indefinitely, with a reason " ". Rhobite 08:33, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Vfd / Vfd
The problem is that the VfD attack was launched by interested parties (2) who failed to disclose their bias. That in my opinion is unfair, and so the process should be canceled on account of poisened fruit - then it can be renominated for Deletion. What's wrong with that?


 * There's nothing in the deletion policy that justifies ending votes early simply because the nominator is somehow biased. Why don't you just vote to keep the article? Rhobite 03:28, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Re: System of a Down
Yes, Rhobite, of course I know that Billboard is the company that originally publishes the chart positions for all the singles. But, I don't care which source to cite for charting singles. I wasn't trying to say that the allmusic.com or billboard.com version is correct. That's why I kept reverting you and anon users on Mezmerize. -- Mike Garcia | talk 21:49, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Links to blogs on 'weblog'
I was just driving by, and noticed your comment on the changelog. I'm as big on snark as the next guy (well, probably bigger :-), but from a quick perusal of the list of example links you pulled out, I'd say you're being *really* pessimistic if you think that the poster is responsible for all those blogs. --Baylink 23:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

IM SORRY - Jordan

DYK
Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * My first DYK (although a self-nom). Sweet, thanks! Rhobite 21:01, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Func's RfA :)
Rhobite, as an admin I have so much respect for, (and as the guy who suggested you would be a good admin :) ), your vote was very important to me, and I very much appreciated it. :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e, ) 22:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

DotSix has just violated 3RR
DotSix has reverted Talk:Truth 4 times in the last 24 hours. See:   

Also, all of these edits were to delete someone else's comment. I believe when you blocked him for 24hrs last week, it was for exactly this reason and you warned him you would do it again if he deleted comments again. Can I ask that you please block him again? By the way, since you blocked him, he was blocked 3 more times, by Uncle Ed, Carbonite, and (I think) Sasquatch. The latter reset his block when he was caught using a sock puppet. Since 24 hrs is apparently not punishment enough for him to learn his lesson, can you block him for longer this time? If it all possible, could you impose and injunction so that he can only edit his RfA until after the RfA is decided? Thanks for anything you can do. --Nate Ladd 00:18, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

And now he's done it a 5th time. --Nate Ladd 01:52, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Chuck
He's up to his old tricks. He edited Ron Paul again... Dave (talk) 03:32, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Digg
The article has gone through three VfUs, the last less than a month ago. Don't lecture me on proprieties. Zoe 06:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? The criteria for speedy deletion have changed, please re-read them. Rhobite 06:34, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? The Votes for Undeletion are still consensus to keep deleted, please read them.  Zoe 06:38, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, you're rude. Rhobite 06:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Pot, kettle, black. Zoe 06:55, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I asked you nicely to re-read a policy page which you don't appear to be familiar with. In return, you commanded me not to "lecture" you and mocked what I wrote. Only one of us has been rude here - please lose the attitude. Rhobite 07:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Does it occur to you that simply un-doing something some can just do up again is pointless? Take it to WP:VfU. When the page gets deleted and protected again, I mean. brenneman (t) (c) 07:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The point that I am apparently failing to make to you is this:
 * If Zoe was wrong, would it have killed someone to put a note on xir talk, providing evidence of the mistake and let Zoe fix it xirself?
 * The circus could have been halted by either party letting the version they didn't like remain while they talked.
 * You'll notice that most admins have identical powers. Thus any contest between them is not only pointless, but is very poor form.  It amounts, in the absence of discussion, to a test of who'll push the button more.
 * I'd like to point out that while WP:BOLD says to be bold in editing articles, WP:ADMIN urges you to use caution. brenneman (t) (c)  04:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You can write an RFC about me and Thue if you like. I'm done explaining. I will point out that the VFU vote is now heavily leaning towards keeping/undeleting the article. Rhobite 04:15, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration of DotSix requires evidence in a new form
It looks like we have to add the evidence against DotSix a second time, in a different form at Requests_for_arbitration/DotSix/Evidence. I have added some already. Scroll down to see the template they want us to use. They also want us to fill out the template at Requests_for_arbitration/DotSix. I have already pasted in the stuff from the RfAr including your statement. Hope that is ok with you. --Nate Ladd 02:21, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've submitted evidence in arbitration cases before. I'll probably get around to posting some of my evidence within a couple days. I'm going to focus on the worst stuff - blanking the RFAR page, blanking talk pages, removing comments, editing WP:NPOV, etc. Thanks for getting the ball rolling with the evidence. Rhobite 02:34, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Internet slang
I'm beginning to wonder if the cleanup process is futile. Check out the note I dropped on the discussion page. &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

HEEELP
You seem to know quite a bit about this place... The Michael Crook entry keeps getting butchered by Crook himself...

Any idea how to keep him from messing with the entries?

Mr. Crook doesn't seem to want to keep his hands of the article even after repeated warnings... anything we can do... this guy is being a real idiot...

Mike Garcia
Would you mind assisting me with Mike Garcia and Hypnotize? I have settled for compromise language (I don't think the mistaken beliefs of a few fans merits inclusion) but he insists on having it 100% his way with unsourced info. Thanks in advance. 66.36.133.229 22:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 66.36.133.229, your edits on Hypnotize are nothing but a spew of vandalism. -- Mike Garcia | talk 23:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks anyway, Mike was finally blocked for vandalism. 66.36.133.229 00:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No he wasn't, he was blocked for disruption. --fvw *  00:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Joe Nichols Copyright Violation???
You removed the information I added to the Joe Nichols artist page, citing it as a "copyright violation"... I have a compact disc of the original Joe Nichols copyrighted in 1989 - before the major label artist whom you have listed in his place. I will be contacting a legal adviser if you want to dispute this.
 * Are you saying there are two Joe Nichols recording country music? If so they should have separate articles. I assumed they were the same person. I removed the text you added because it was copied from the record label web site. Since Wikipedia is an open content encyclopedia, we can't accept copyrighted submissions. Rhobite 02:40, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I represent that record label. Wikipedia created a profile of our record label without our knowledge or permission (which is fine). Nevertheless, when this was done, all of the information listed about our label was copied from our record label website. Now you are saying that we can't post information about our artist because it's copyrighted, even though we own the copyright? This being after Wikipedia copied similar information from our website without our permission? Additionally, our label profile listed the names of our artists, including Joe Nichols - with a link to the wrong Joe Nichols. Since our artist predates this one, I edited that information since that was who Wikipedia linked us to. Do different rules apply depending on who is adding or editing information? There seems to be a substantial double standard here.


 * OK, well whether or not it's a copyright violation the text is breezy and promotional, so it's unsuitable for an encyclopedia article. Both Joe Nichols should be covered in Wikipedia, although the young Joe Nichols appears to be far more notable than the WV Joe Nichols. And what do you mean, "Wikipedia created a profile of our record label without our knowledge or permission"? Wikipedia users are allowed to write about anything we want, we don't need permission from the subjects of articles. If you can point to any specific information which was copied from your website, I'd be glad to remove it. Rhobite 02:52, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

This was posted on Wiki without our knowledge or permission:

Syphrus Music is an independent record label/collective based in the East Coast/Mid-Atlantic region of the United States, and affiliatedMusicRecordings was started and continues to be operated by musicians, for musicians, in a way that bypasses the traditional mainstream music industry.

This is text from our website:

''Syphrus Music is an independent record label/collective based in the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia. We are basically an eclectic rock label, with artists ranging from hardcore/metal to roots/world music and anything in between. Syphrus Music was started and continues to be operated by musicians, for musicians, in a way that bypasses the traditional mainstream music industry. We do this through a homemade, do-it-yourself ethic enhanced by professional studio, media, and promotional resources. Because we are all musicians ourselves, we keep an open mind regarding the music we are involved with. ''

We did not post this info, meaning that someone copied it from our website. Which is exactly what you're telling us that we cannot do about our own artists. That makes no sense whatsoever. Why can you violate copyrights by copying text from our website, but we cannot copy text from our own website and post it?


 * How was I supposed to know that you own the copyright to the text? You haven't signed up for an account, you don't sign your posts, and you don't use edit summaries. Sure, you can copy text from your own web site, but please make sure it's not promo copy. If you're going to write a blurb about Joe Nichols, be my guest, but please don't make it an ad, and don't remove all the info about the other Joe Nichols again. Rhobite 03:02, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Implementing Injunction of DotSix
6 of the 9 active members of the Arb Committee have voted for the injunction of DotSix. Do you know how to implement this? Is it something you can do yourself? Thnaks, --Nate Ladd 05:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * First thing, you have to wait until the Arbitration Committee says the injunction is effective, typically it takes 24 hours before it's in effect. Second, I'm not going to enforce this since I'm involved in the case right now, but please ask on WP:AN if you need DotSix blocked or anything. Other admins should be happy to help. Rhobite 05:56, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

History of Moldova
I applied a lengthy range block on this vandal (who is also the Luxembourg/Mississippi/"per capita"/hoax vandal. Accordingly I've unprotected the article. The range block comes with a message that tries to enlist other users of his ISP to report him (he's almost certainly violating their terms of service).  I've applied blocks of 1 hour, 3 hours, 24 hours in the recent past. -- Curps 05:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I was thinking about a range block but I wasn't sure if it'd affect other users at the vandal's ISP. Hopefully not. Rhobite 05:57, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, if you apply a range block to 63.19.128.0/17, you have be careful to keep the message short, or it gets truncated (and the e-mail and phone number don't appear). After experimenting with 1 minute blocks on myself to see what a blocked user sees, I settled on this:  + many more. Sorry if this is not you. Abuse contact @ your ISP to report IPs/timestamps: [mailto:abuse-mail@mci.com e-mail], +1-800-900-0241


 * -- Curps 16:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Please fix this line on ron Paul "Paul's libertarianism is not absolute: He voted to prohibit adoptions by same sex couples in the District of Columbia." it is in violation of serveral wikipedia policies including No_original_research and Neutral_point_of_view and Verifiability and Cite_sources.

1. It assumes that ron paul voting against these adoptions is un-libertarian. Under Wikipedia guidelines "In summary, if the facts, opinions, or arguments you want to include in an article have not been published by a credible or reputable publication, you're engaged in original research" goes along with 4, as no source has been citied

2. It is written from an uneutral point of view, it assumes that voting to prohibit adoptions by same sex couples in the district of Columbia is unlibertarian and states this as a fact. without even delving into any Paul's reason.

3. Information is unverifiable

Thank you

Chuck F
Just a heads-up: it looks like Chuck is back to editing anonymously from 203.112.19.195. I've just reverted him at Ron Paul. RadicalSubversiv E 17:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

American Liberalism
One anon user seems to want to remove the Clintons from the list of liberals. We have been having a mini edit-war. Can you ding him for not going with consensus as is being established on the talk page? Thanks. --Lord Voldemort <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark) 21:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

RfC on Monicasdude
Started at Requests for comment/Monicasdude. Please help certify it and flesh it out.

9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories
Sigh. Kevin Baas is at it again. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 08:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)