User talk:Rhobite/Archive 9

CAIR Entry @ Wiki
I apologize for not knowing how to better get your attention than posting here. I am intending to add some information to the CAIR wiki page. As you have helped others in the past with NPOV, I want to insure your participation in this new discussion. Please feel free to delete this entry on your page, but let me know how to better contact you as well.

What is Useful to Wikipedia?
I've recently been chastised for my attempt to include links to iQcuties on a few pages related to intelligence and online dating. Admittedly, the site is mine. I have linked to other creations of mine from wikipedia and have not been met with this level of resistance. I am not trying to be spammy, so perhaps you can help me understand how those links go against the grain of Wikipedia. Thanks. Geneffects

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stock Exchange World Wide
I see you started a site for the NYSE. I am making a user group for WikiProject Stock Exchange World Wide and would like you to take a look at it and maybe sign up. I could use your imput. John R G 05:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of Gun politics in the United States
User 24.12.208.181 has apparently taken the user name Yafnot after your 2nd Level warning. He has continued to delete content of Gun politics in the United States. Thanks. Yaf 06:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Please provide your rationale on the GWB article's 'talk page'
When you deleted the content the first time, I posted a question asking your rationale and did not revert your change. You did not participate in the discussion, and have reverted your edit again. Please contribute on talk, so we can try to find consensus. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't push your POV in the lead section of Wikipedia's most visible article. I responded on the talk page. Thanks. Rhobite 06:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm doing no such thing. Do not edit war without making a reasonable effort to resolve conflicts. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As tbeatty said, "You are confusing contemporary with contentious. Last year it was social security. Before that, Afghan war, before that tax cuts." I'm happy to have a civil discussion with you about the article, but I won't let that garbage sit in the lead section while you try to turn a talk page into a political debate. Rhobite 06:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm doing no such thing. The content, which is neutral and factual, was there before I even addressed the topic on talk. It should remain based on the community's input. You are not the arbiter of consensus, and your edit is unfounded by your accusations of POV-pushing. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems to be me, RN, Tbeatty, and PPGMD vs. you and Kevin. I think it's disingenuous then for you to claim that there is more support for your version, particularly since you and Kevin are both single-issue editors whose main goal here is to malign George W. Bush. The habeas corpus thing isn't even mentioned in the main article - a prerequisite for lead section placement. Rhobite 06:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm claiming no such thing, but as a member of the community, I asked you to explain your deletion of that section, and you have refused thus far. And your personal attacks on me are unwarranted. Please focus on the facts. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I responded on Talk:George W. Bush. Rhobite 07:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You responded after revert warring, not before. That's a shame, as my request was in good faith. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It takes 2, you know. Rhobite 07:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So you should have joined the conversation, instead of simply reverting. As an admin, shouldn't you set an example, rather than tit-for-tat? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, I did join the conversation. I'm sorry that you feel I should have posted a note before removing this overtly opinionated text, but I do not believe that I'm under any such requirement. I feel that I explained myself adequately in my first edit summary. I'll point out that for all your complaining about me not using the talk page, you still haven't actually responded to my note. Rhobite 07:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I left your edit unreverted, and asked for your rationale on 'talk', as is common Wikipedia practice. You chose instead to ignore the request, and revert war, only answering after you'd gone to 3 reverts. And what note have I not responded to, exactly? I apologize in advance for any such oversight and ask you to assume good faith. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to run around calling for my head on a platter, that's OK I guess. But please respond to my note on Talk:George W. Bush. You seem to care more about complaining about me, than about discussing the actual article. Rhobite 07:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you feel I'm running around complaining about you - I asked you to stop your personal attack, and you repeated it. Your revert warring and personal attack on Kevin and I are a real concern and I followed Wikipedia policy to get some help from the community. I'll go look at your note and respond the best I can. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

May I know what exactly it is you consider vandalism?
I guess you dont care too much for the rest of the bill of rights besides the 2nd amendment GunsKill 20:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Save "List of school pranks" From Deletion
Hi, the article List of school pranks has been targeted by the Wikipedia Thought Police&trade;. Please help preserve this marvellous testament to human inventiveness&mdash;and cruelty&mdash;from certain extinction by voting Keep at the article's deletion page if you haven't already done so. May algid reason never reign supreme! Thanks, Maikel 15:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC) PS:  This is a generic message that has been hand-posted to you as a former contributor&mdash;hope you don't mind.
 * I'm actually annoyed by your talk page spamming and your incivility. I agree with the deletion rationale and I have voted to delete the article. Please don't equate the belief that some topics do not make appropriate encyclopedia articles with the totalitarian regime of 1984. Wikipedia is not a government; nobody is preventing you from mirroring this article somewhere else. Rhobite 18:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
I’ve come to you because I know you’ve had some experience with preventing vandalism. The user (2 I.P. addresses for the same user) 70.176.164.107 and 82.12.97.249 is continuously vandalising my user page. He’s doing this because he doesn’t like what I’m saying about Michael Moore on my user page, but because it’s my user page I don’t think he should be allowed to keep doing this.

Is there anything you can do to help prevent this? Thanks. --Miller 16:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I will take a look. Rhobite 18:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, you're both wrong. He should not have edited your user page after you asked him not to, but calling him a redneck is a clear personal attack. It would be best if you removed all mention of the anonymous editor from your user page. All that does is provoke him. Rhobite 18:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done and done. Thanks for your help.--Miller 18:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[[Image:Signature george.PNG]]
 * Thank you. I've placed your user page on my watchlist, and I'll warn the guy in the future if he continues to edit your page. Let me know if I miss something. Rhobite 18:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just out of interest is my user page breaking any of the Wikipedia rules relating to user pages? The user who was vandalizing my page said it was (too much information about where I was from, too many personal opinions etc).--Miller 19:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[[Image:Signature george.PNG]]
 * It looks fine to me. Although many people recommend that user pages should only be used for Wikipedia-related text, in practice good contributors have a lot of freedom and control over the content. If you're making good edits to the encyclopedia and you want to have a few personal opinions on your user page, that's fine. User page explains this balance well. Rhobite 19:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Phew!Miller 19:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of admin powers: Speedy deletion in spite of vote to keep
There was a vote that ended in a 9 to 5 majority in favour of keeping the template:User independent Iraq. The vote itself already shows it was not appropriate to speedy delete as there had already been a couple of people thinking about this. You abuse your powers. ROGNNTUDJUU! 04:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Rhobite 04:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fortunately wikipedia has rules not to allow people like you to censor others. If you do not agree with a deletion vote you can take it to deletion review, not speedy delete. ROGNNTUDJUU! 05:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You can't cite that to do whatever you want. "Sorry! Doesn't matter what all of you think. WP is not a democracy! I do whatever I please. Deal with it." It should be blatantly obviously to you that deleting something that got a majority to keep is outside of what is understood to be appropriate use of admin powers (that's the nicest way I can think of to put it). If it had, say, 60% delete, OK, that would be one thing, even though by the rules even that wouldn't be proper; you'd really need 66% or so. But to delete when there's a large keep majority? I've hardly ever heard of such a thing. And yes, I am posting this here specifically because I don't want to have the wrath of God brought down on me for complaining about an admin action outside of that admin's talk page. Everyking 08:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have any response to all this? Everyking 03:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get dragged into an Everyking interrogation - sorry. Rhobite 13:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop Vandalizing my Talk Page
That you lodged a false complaint against me for violating 3rr, when you were obviously engaging in VANDALISM which I was merely reverting, and then found an admin willing to VIOLATE 3rr policy in blocking a user for correcting VANDALISM, does not constitute a good faith editing of my talk page.pat8722 18:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Removing valid warnings from your talk page is frowned upon on Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's definition of vandalism - disagreements over an article's content are not considered vandalism. Falsely accusing other users of vandalism is also frowned upon here. Rhobite 20:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

User:68.42.215.228
Noticed you warned this guy bout posting nonsense a couple of times hes at it again on Geddy Lee--KaptKos 09:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

ASG1022
Thanks for blocking ASG1022. As you probably noticed, he also vandalized my user page (although I don't really mind sometimes, it boosts my "this page has been vandalized" userbox, which makes me think I must be doing something right in fighting vandals.) Con  Dem Talk 01:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I've always wondered if those userboxes actually encouraged vandals, but it's your choice whether you want to display one. Rhobite 02:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? on iPod article
You were correct in reverting that edit. I've heard that troll before about Apple shipping viruses with iPods. Simply untrue.--Mboverload 04:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Neologisms
Hi there, a while ago you made an edit on the Avoid neologisms guideline. I am proposing a revision to the guideline and I'm soliciting your comments. You can find the link to my rewrite at Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms -- cmh 00:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

false alarm
I answered on my userpage --Mkill 21:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Bepenfriends
Friend I haved added an intro page about my website bepenfriends.com. But it is not visible. It is vanishing from wikipedia> I added my site intro and about in websites category where match.com, plentyoffish, eharmony are placed. But only my site page is getting deleted. There is no history of delete. Advice me what to do. You said not to add external links but what abt content. Am i not supposed to add anything in wiki. I added some content about friendship(not even specified my site name) even that is deleted. Even though content is related to friendship in my country. It is deleted. Albert Arul Prakash 15:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * With an Alexa rank of 820,503 it is likely that your web site does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. See WP:WEB. Your repeated attempts to add the site to online dating service suggest that you're trying to use Wikipedia in order to promote your site. This is not an acceptable way to use Wikipedia. Rhobite 17:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images
Hi. You listed the following for deletion. Image:Johnson-mugshot.jpg Image:53233991.JPG Image:Pedro martinez 2005.jpg Image:CarlosDelgado.jpg. I've deleted Image:53233991.JPG because there's no way it qualifies for fair use (resolution too high and the copyright owner's logo is prominently displayed showing the claim the image). I've left the others as I believe the qualify for fair use, being low resolution and only being used to illustrate the people in question. I won't argue if you feel you need to list them again. Mark83 23:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you believe it is OK for Wikipedia to take player photos from MLB.com without permission? How do you feel this falls within the bounds of fair use? It isn't the resolution of the photo that matters, it is the scope of the copying. If these images are OK with you, then one could infer that you have no problem with taking every single player photo on MLB.com and placing it on Wikipedia. Rhobite 18:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

brainhell
Hey, thanks for the warning about copyrighted material. Now please supply any indication you have that I've done so. Brainhell 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate your diligence, this statement is demonstrably false: "On January 8 2006 you copied Peter Dale Scott's biography from his own webpage." I would appreciate it if you would undo the changes you made that made the article completely unavailable. Brainhell 16:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The subject's page now says "(This page, and my Curriculum Vitae, are not copyrighted. They are available for legitimate public use or reproduction, though not for private gain.)" I think this may resolve the concern about copyright. Please let me know. Regarding Rhobite's concern about bias, no one is suggesting we take Scott's page verbatim (with the use of the word "I" for example); we can simply revert back to the edit prior to his block of the article. Agreed? Brainhell 16:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Rhobite. My article on the subject was original, the Jan. 10 version you blocked. Your concern was "copyright." Though I disagreed with your opinion, I respected your concern. The subject's page now says it's available for "public use or reproduction." Thus your concern is moot. In the interest of readers who might want to know about the subject, I'll revert your changes tomorrow or soon. Brainhell 01:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I would hope, under the circumstances, that you would not continue blocking this content. Rather than have one of the fabled "edit wars," I suggest that you take this issue to whatever arbitration process is available. I believe that the onus is on you to commence that process, since I intend to restore the content and you apparently believe it should not be restored. I checked your user page and it does not appear to state whether you are an admin; I don't know if you have the Wiki-authority continue blocking this content despite our disagreement. Perhaps more opinions are needed. Brainhell 01:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Starforce Article
I've done a major revert on the article because the most recent version was plagued by edits from people with poor english, spelling and major POV. I reverted it to the most recent "Clean" version from a few weeks ago. Perhaps we should take it up with admin to semi-protect the page from anonymous and new users? huntersquid 19:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Netflix article and link removal
Sorry to drag you back again, but User:Efreeti has continued to remove the link to the "Hacking Netflix" site. Aside from the fact that I (and the small number of others weighing in on the issue) seem to feel that it is a worthwhile reference for the article, and that it has been somewhat mischaracterized as an amateur blog, etc., my sense of Wikipedia (FWIW) is that a single user continuing to make such a removal over even a small consensus as has been gathered is not the most useful of situations. This may just be an overzealous application of some sort of "no blogs" concept or other evaluation of the usefulness of the link that differs from ours. His most recent posting in Talk:Netflix mentioned "...until an admin provides guidance" - if you'd be willing to comment again on the issue, and/or suggest other admins who might provide useful input, it could be helpful in clearing this up. I don't want the article to get into a edit war over this, but I also hate to see the editing process yield to a single strong opinion to avoid conflict. Thanks, David Oberst 18:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, I responded on Talk:Netflix. Rhobite 22:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The Netflix issue has been put up in "Request for comment section" and a mediation between Me, PhaseDMA, and you has been request to solve this issue. P.s. Netflix talk page needs to have the formatting fixed. --Efreeti 20:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee in regard to the article Netflix. Mediation Committee procedure requires that all parties to a mediation be notified of the meditaion, and indicate an agreement to mediate within fourteen days. Please review the request at Requests for mediation, and indicate your agreement or refusal to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation or contact a member of the Mediation Committee.

Vandal
User:E30driver has vandalized my about page three times and has been emailing me as well. Please do what you got to do. WillC 21:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I warned him. Rhobite 21:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Your defense of User:GO WHARTON
I haven't removed his comments; what are you talking about? As for acting like children, I don't have a lot of choice but to simply revert his changes when he's lying about his edits (e.g. a neutral POV = vandalism). MBAguy 04:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You did remove his comment, but I see you replaced it again. Thanks. And please stop calling him a vandal, that is what I'm referring to when I say you're acting like children. You're both namecalling. Rhobite 04:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation of disruptive behavior by User:GO WHARTON - please help
You seem to have expressed an interest in mediating the dispute over the promotion and reversion of NPOV edits to Ivy League business schools. If you're still interested, I'm writing to request that you help out, reviewing the talk page IN DETAIL and make up your mind as to what is going on and take appropriate action. Policing his disruptive edits is taking just way too much of my time, and my frustration is showing, to my embarassment. Thanks. MBAguy 04:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to sit out of this one, it seems I've stumbled into a couple other mediation cases already and I don't have a lot of time. Rhobite 13:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Maryland
I have a newbie who does not understand sourcing or NPOV policies on wikipedia. She is User:Joan53. She has been consistently reverting good faith edits on the Maryland wikipedia page....note her contributions and subsequent arguing on other entries. She needs to understand the rules and also calm down. Her agenda is obvious and agendas/bias of any kind has no place here. She does not deal in verifiable info or facts in general. WillC 01:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm happy that you trust me, but it would be best if you didn't count on me for some sort of enforcement. You appear to have a content dispute with Joan, and you need to follow the normal dispute resolution process. Rhobite 02:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Image tag
I forgot to put an image tag on the picture Image:Rupertscanjpg.JPG. Please can you add a GFDL self-made tag to it. Thanks. Miller 18:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there some reason you can't do it yourself? The tag you want is GFDL-self. Rhobite 18:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Because I didn't know how thats why! Miller 19:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Name Calling
per your warning: honestly sorry. Extenuating circumstances of being called a 'right winger' by 8bitJake and my mistaking your edit dropping "outdated and unfair" out of our desire to see the court system play an active role in striking down bad legislation led me to think that you were trying to make the statement seem extreme (a right wing tactic) got my blood boiling. I don't know about 8bit, but I now see that you were not trying to attack the article. Nikodemos (f.k.a: Mihnea) 19:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin
This arbitration case has closed. Lou franklin is indefinitely banned from editing Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and related articles and discussion pages. He is also placed on personal attack and revert parole. These remedies will be enforced by block. For further details, please see the arbitration case page. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 18:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies
According to User:Dragons flight/Evil looking lists, lists that are derived from polling data are OK. AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies would seem to fall under this: from http://www.afi.com/tvevents/100years/movies.aspx "Voted the number one movie was CITIZEN KANE...". And on http://www.afi.com/tvevents/100years/quotes.aspx they go into more detail about the balloting process. Qutezuce 23:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you have any response to this? Or should I just restore the list? Qutezuce 04:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was also concerned about the removal of the list from the AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies article. While I don't know much about copyright law (although Qutezuce's argument does sound pretty solid to my non-expert ears) I do know that there are many articles on Wikipedia which include such lists.  The other articles in the AFI 100 Years... series immediately jump to mind.  If Wikipedia's policies (and copyright law) do not allow for the inclusions of these lists, then they should be removed from these other articles as well.  If such lists are allowed, then the list should be returned to the AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies article. NoIdeaNick 14:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Why?
Newsmax is notorious for telling half truths and outright lies.

If a story can't be found at a legit site maybe there's a reason. 132.241.246.111 03:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I Love Toys
Are you going to get rid of any list that is on this web site. First of all 110-101 of I Love Toys is not listed on the vh1 web site and there is a mistake in the listing of 100-81. On vh1.com they put D&D in the 90's list but it was 89 on that list. That list you got rid off was information about the show. I am sick of you getting rid of information even if it does not violate CR rules. I don't think lists violates copyright laws but you do. You got to stop and talk to Jimmy Wales. Maybe he will tell you what violates copyright laws and what doesn't. When the block comes off i am going to make the I Love Toys page different then it was. It won't be a list but I will put not a list, I will put the toys that did make the countdown from A-Z, But I hope you put back the 110-101 list because it is not listed on there web site, you have go the VSPOT to find that out and who with and DIAL-UP internet connection is go to find out what this 110-101 list is, NO ONE! So put that listing back on the article please. If you think i did anything wrong please tell it to me on my talk page. I'am telling my opinion about list on this web site. To let you know there is a lot of lists on this web site, so if you think they violate copyright laws take them out, but if you do you are getting rid of information that people won't know someday, because someday the web sites that have lists won't be there. I hope you think of this question over because the I Love Toys list won't be at the vh1.com site someday. Thank You.--Stco23 17:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, lists which involve people's opinions (as opposed to raw facts) are copyrighted. No amount of talking will change that. If you add the list back to the article, you will be blocked from editing. "Look, someone else did it" is not a valid excuse. Rhobite 17:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What happens if I list the toys from A-Z, are you going to block me for that. I want an answer on my talk page. Thank You.--Stco23 19:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Probably. Please don't do that. Rearranging a copyrighted work doesn't erase the copyright or magically become valid fair use. For the individual toys which have articles, it would be fine to mention that they made the list in an appropriate way. Rhobite 20:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you think the 110-101 list violates copyright laws even though it is not listed on the vh1.com web site and can be seen on VSPOT Video.--Stco23 21:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Defending Vandals
I got your message about not spending time on User:GO WHARTON's page. There was a warning put up by another user, along with proof of him being User:JDMBAHopeful, which User:GO WHARTON keeps deleting, and other users, including myself, keep putting back. Please don't involve yourself in discussions or disputes unless you're willing to invest the time in them to understand what's going on. Dc9 16:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And by the way User:Dc10 is obviously a handle User:GO WHARTON has created to confuse admins such as yourself. His edits consistently, randomly change the message of the original warning and delete the proof provided by previous users. Dc9 16:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You have no proof of any of this. If you don't stop posting these notes, you'll be blocked from editing. Please find something productive to do on Wikipedia. Rhobite 16:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ample proof is provided, and you haven't invested the time to even read it. Looking through your discussion here and elsewhere, it looks like you have a history of abusing your admin powers. Since you've threatened me, I'll stop policing this vandal, but one has to wonder why you're so insistent on protecting vandals in general, and this one in particular. Dc9 17:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And by the way, you can see that other admins disagree with you on letting him constantly blank his Talk page. Why not do something useful and block him instead of harassing me? Dc9 17:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sockpuppet link for User:GO WHARTON

 * Thanks for pointing this out. To quote from the second link, "Using multiple accounts for [...] deception [...] is forbidden.". So it is indeed a violation of Wikipedia policy in this case. I assume you'll stop interfering now? Dc9 03:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think your evidence supports the conclusion that GO WHARTON is JDMBAHopeful. If we're basing decisions on pure speculation, maybe I should block you from editing for being a sockpuppet of MBAGuy. Is that OK with you? Rhobite 16:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD for Right- and Left- wing terrorism articles - have your say
Please take a look at Articles for deletion/Right-wing terrorism and also Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism and have your say, if possible.Xemoi 21:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't tell me what to do...
Just because I'm posting via IP instead of my regular account, doesn't mean I do not understand what "NPOV" means.

LGF does not "cover" anything. News organizations "cover" stories. LGF posts other news organizations' articles and flame. Hence the reason for putting "coverage" in quotes.

Please do not let your obvious conservative bias effect how you edit articles. And please do not post garbage on my talk page. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.254.64.246 (talk • contribs).
 * If you don't like the word, you could find a synonym. Putting the word in quotes is known as scare quotes and it usually indicates derision or sarcasm on the part of the writer. Scare quotes are usually not acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Rhobite 02:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

RFC needed
On either Kaiser permanente, or possibly User:Pansophia. DO you wish to join in this? Midgley 03:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. He stopped for a while but it appears he is back adding anti-corporate POV to articles. Rhobite 03:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pansophia and Kaiser Permanente In progress. Midgley 19:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Now I see Midgley actually recruited you. You're helping a guy who is retaliating because he got caught spoofing someone else's username. Helping Invisible Anon was the right thing to do, and helping Midgley with punishing the good guys only sets a bad precedent that will discourage people from trying to help each other when there's a serious attack going on - such as trolling under someone else's username. Please refer to the "don't be a dick" policy: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick --Pansophia 04:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I confess that I don't know much about Midgley, but I support his edits to the extent that he opposes your poorly-sourced additions to Kaiser Permanente. I will look into his edits, but I don't view Wikipedia as a political game. For the purposes of this discussion, I don't really care if Midgley has an unsavory background. His background does not change the fact that the KP article is filled with anti-capitalist POV and misleading statements. It does not change the fact that you've now made 7 or 8 reverts in just a couple hours, and you will be blocked shortly. Rhobite 04:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think you do. I think about your edits, and I finally agreed with you on the NoRankism image, for instance. I also agree that the KP article needs much improvement: I'm just trying to keep the criticism from being outright deleted. Also, I would not have made that many edits if Midgley hadn't have called on you and Calton to pile on me. Please look into what Midgley has been doing. I hope you will do the honorable thing. --Pansophia 04:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, in regard to my take on Kaiser, have you been following the situation with their transplant program? http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-kaiser13may13,1,5276524.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&track=crosspromo


 * I'm not "anti-capitalism", I'm against mismanagement that's killing people. --Pansophia 04:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I hadn't heard of the transplant program.. it sounds like a fiasco. That is the kind of story which we should cover. It should not be framed as "criticism" (people have a tendency to incorrectly label negative news as criticism), but it should be described in a neutral manner based on reliable newspaper sources. Rhobite 04:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review/Myg0t (second)
Hi, I notice you've had a say in previous discussions about deletions/undeletions for the myg0t article, I'd just like to inform you that another such discussion is occurring now, so if you'd like to voice your opinion, for or against undeletion of the article, feel free to post your thoughts. - USER-cacophony 20:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer RfC
I've filed a request request for comment at Requests for comment/Irgendwer and your input would be appreciated. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 04:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wal-Mart, POV
Can you explain your reason for removing the POV tag from the Wal-Mart article? I'd argue that Criticism of Wal-Mart is a WP:POVFORK and the main article doesn't have a good enough summary for criticism. I would add the tag back in there myself, but I won't because I am also trying to rewrite that section (draft). Tuxide 20:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read "What content/POV forking is not" in WP:POVFORK. "Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique."


 * Criticism of Wal-Mart is a spinoff article, it is not a POV fork. I don't care whether Criticism of Wal-Mart stays as a separate article or whether it gets merged back, but you should know that people have merged and split it several times and it's getting very annoying. I think we should leave it split simply because that's the status quo. I agree with you that Criticism of Wal-Mart is not summarized appropriately in Wal-Mart, and I support slightly expanding the "Criticism" section. It should be no more than three paragraphs, though, since it is just a summary of the criticism article. User:Tuxide/Wikiproject Retailing/Wal-Mart is currently much too long. Rhobite 21:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reponse. Obviously, you've seen the work I haven't done yet on my draft page.  The one thing that I do find wrong with the Criticism of Wal-Mart article is that it is very bloated and specific.  For example, Criticism of Wal-Mart doesn't need to list as many examples as it does already, and I've been able to synopsize the first three subsections into a couple of paragraphs.  Although a List of Wal-Marts in Germany article is encyclopedic, this much detail on a Criticism section might not be.  I'll have some more time to work on it in a few hours...  Tuxide 21:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Podfather and Wired link
User:Podfather did another removal of the Wired link from the iPod article. I reverted and left another note on his Talk page, but I won't revert it again today. The account has only been used to remove this link - last Nov-Jan and starting again today. David Oberst 04:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Pansophia
Please don't needlessly poke Pansophia during his block, I doubt he is inclined to listen to you at this point. Let me try to talk to reason with him. JoshuaZ 04:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Parthian shots and last words...
 * It is a sustained pattern, it should not be encouraged. There is a non-policy but reasonable body of opinion and essay  suggesting that course of action.  And the appearance of illness, as opposed to rational activity in pursuit of an achievable goal, or even a continuing demonstration of feeling, is actually there.  It isn't possible to diagnose on the basis of reading what is written on the 'Net, but that content is suggestive.  Whatever one does this is a mess, and will continue to be so - it is easy for unreasonable behaviour to cause trouble and less easy for reasonable behaviour to solve it.  Midgley 15:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation of Mediation of Netflix links section
I've put myself forward to mediate this dispute, and I request your acceptance of this under my comment on the mediation page linked above. Once I have consent from everyone to my work, I can begin. Thanks. -- Xyra  e  l  T 16:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems that User:Efreeti is indeed no longer available for comment/mediation, and he has not supplied an e-mail address so I am unable to get in touch with him. Since he is the only involved party on one side, I see no reason to continue this mediation because the situation has remained stagnant for some time. However, I feel that all parties should be ready to restart the process should the user we speak of become active again, because then he will still have a say. This, of course, if only my suggestion, and I would appreciate your comments on the mediation's page. Thanks. -- Xyra  e  l  T 21:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

beer

 * look at the article about beer and make it unable 4 editing. West Brom 4ever (from cro-wiki) :-))
 * Why? It doesn't look like it's being vandalized frequently. Here on en we need a good reason before we protect a page. Rhobite 22:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi there
Nice to see another k5er here. So far I've not found any others; at one point I thought I saw codemonkey_uk here, but it turned out to be someone different using the name codemonkey. Kasreyn 03:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi! I haven't gone on k5 in ages, but it's nice to see you here as well. User:Ta bu shi da yu is another k5er. And rusty has edited a couple times as User:Kuro5hin. Rhobite 03:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

SarahTeach is back
I saw that you had a brief run in with User:SarahTeach a few months ago. She is back and as uncivil this time as last. Her comments on the Talk page for the Plagarism article and my own Talk page are very similar to the comments for which you addressed her behavior in January. She even removed another user's post from a Talk page, something which you warned her against in January. Would you be willing to again help address this user's conduct so that we can file a user-conduct RFC if necessary? I would hope that would not be necessary but given her history I am not very hopeful. :( I am also contacting User:Alabamaboy as he has also had discussions with SarahTeach in the recent past.

Of course, I am open to any other suggestions or advice you may have! --ElKevbo 04:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Concrete
Hi! You seem to have deleted a significant section of the article on Concrete in an attempt to do something. Could you please put it back? Argyriou 15:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been more careful making that revert. I see you already removed the section I intended to remove; thanks. Rhobite 18:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, someone else did. I still haven't figured out how to do automatic reverts or some of that other stuff. Argyriou 18:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Affiliate Marketing Article Discussion - Invitation to Participate
Your Contribution History shows that you have some interest in the content and the quality of the Article Affiliate marketing. The Concern has been expressed that this article or section is missing information. An open discussion was started at the articles talk page and I would like to invite you to participate in this discussion and express your opinion regarding the issue that was raised. Sincerely. --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 09:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

F'd Company Talk
I suppose you are likely right. I am not that familiar with the policies and will look into them. It just seemed to me that others would be interested in what happened with the bbs.fuckedcompany.com message board as until its recent demise, that was where 80%+ of the massive traffic was going to the site was going. I figured that would justify then having a section on the board with history. I did also figure that more comprehensiveness would good and benificial for users seekign information. However, I have to yeild to your opinion because obviously you are more familiar with the rules and guidlines than I am and from skimming a little bit it does not look like wikipedia wants great expanses of information about a topic, but more concise and focused information. Take care. Nisanu 01:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

?
Are you lurking my contributions or seomthing? Because you seem to be following me around, a lot. Also you seem to be prejudiced against any of my edits because of my past. Don&#39;t give an Ameriflag 00:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Smartquotes
I thought you might have something to add to this on the administrators noticeboard. Tyrenius 23:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

RFC at Democratic Underground
I thought you might want to lend your wisdom to the RFC currently underway. BenBurch 04:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please semi-protect Euthanasia again
Hi Rhobite. The single-issue troll ROHA has returned to plague the Euthanasia article again. He has violated 3RR today, and I doubt he's going to stop any time soon. Please semi-protect, and we'll see if we can wait him out again. If that fails, is it appropriate to complain to his ISP? &#0151; JEREMY 08:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Uncitable Personal Health Info, Patrick Volkerding
Hi, I hope I didn't appear to be too snippy on the Patrick Volkerding talk page, but if you'll check the history you'll see that the Three Revert Rule has been disregarded so this does become a matter for Wikipedia arbitration. I hope to convince you away from your current stance by referring you to HIPAA and libel as well as pointing out the lack of a substantitive source on which to defend this content. The only source is a Slashdot message. This is not a verifiable source, nor is it a citation of a reliable source. Whereas health information is temporal and continually updated within the confines of doctor-patient confidentiality (if such a diagnosis ever existed the diagnosis may be updated, changed or reverted at any moment without press releases or public announcements with which to update the article). US Federal Law prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of private medical information. Whereas there is NO PUBLIC RECORD of new or old diagnoses the matter should be viewed as utter heresay, although any lawyer with a penchant for libel law would could easily make a strong case for libel -- such a case would stand quite firmly on the tenets of HIPAA.

Whereas your re-addition lacked the scrutiny of a scan for current and verifiable sources as well as a misunderstanding of the legal prohibitions on this private information I respectfully request that you consider my points, the law and the ethical implications of such disclosure of private health information and stand-down on the matter rather than further escalate the issue to arbitration.

Thanks! Zosodada

Volkerding
Hey, thanks for your support in the Volkerding talk page. There have been some developments; if you can spare a few minutes, you should drop by and chime in with your support / opposition. Thanks. --Ori Livneh (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A new userbox you might like
Hi Rhobite,

I couldn't resist making the following userbox after reading the attached link. After being insulted on numerous occasions by trolls I decided to fight back the best way I know how -- with a witty userbox! Feel free to remove this from your talk page if you don't appreciate the humour. = )

Cheers,

 Netsnipe  (Talk)  06:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No thanks. Rhobite 17:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Solar updraft tower
Please do me a favor and have a look at Solar updraft tower and Talk:Solar updraft tower. I would appreciate your input. JdH 17:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-serious question
So does your user name come from the pesky jumping rabbit-like faunae in the exhalted Secret of Mana? Chris53516 14:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh.. I got the name from FF6 - I didn't know Rhobites were also in Secret of Mana. I still don't know why I picked the name. Rhobite 20:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, they are in Final Fantasy VI. I think they showed up in Mana first though. You should try the game. I use the SNES9x emulator, and it works great. Chris53516 20:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

World Trade Center
You mention that I am posting "nonsense" when adding the point that all Jewish employees at WTC were warned not to come to work that day or leave work immediately. This is NOT "nonsense" it IS fact. Many mainstream news articles were released on this and it was even talked about on CNN. So why don't you quit trying to filter what facts people see about the tragedy. Good day. Erliquin
 * This is an urban legend. Several Israelis were confirmed to have died in the attacks, not to mention hundreds of Jewish Americans working in the towers. Please see here. Rhobite 16:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rhobite, can you sight your sources for such a claim? Where is the CNN article or transcript with these details? Chris53516 20:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Image quality
I’ve recently purchased a 17 year old MFM hard drive for my personal collection. These are hard to come by and I thought the inside of an old hard drive might be appropriate for the history section of the hard drive article. The only problem is I don’t have access to a high quality digital camera so I used my 6600 mobile (cell phone) to take a picture of it. This is not a very high resolution image and I wondered if it the image Image:Hard drive mmf 1.PNG was high quality enough for Wikipedia. Do you believe the image is suitable? Thanks for you help.

If the image isn’t good enough I will have access to a high quality camera in two weeks time when I see my mum again. Miller 13:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * While I’m asking you about this image I might as well ask about something else, or rather someone else, who’s been causing me trouble recently. The user Laurence Boyce Is continually reverting my edits to the article The root of all evil? without any reasonable explanation as to why he’s doing so. This is what he said:


 * I have reverted your edits again George; they're no better in my view. Please don't edit. Talk. Laurence Boyce 13:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Does he really have the right to tell me to stop editing?!


 * I believe there is a minor POV violation and other small problems with the article such as:


 * Sections of the article which quote Dawkins often make him appear arrogant and ignore what the other person has said to him.
 * There are very few sensible quotes in the article about Dawkin’s discussion with various religious people
 * A bi-product of that last complaint is that very little about the religious people’s views on evolution are mentioned. If you know Richard Dawkins you will know that this is a central theme in practically all of his works and it is largely ignored in this article.


 * I believe that the user Laurence Boyce doesn’t like Dawkins And it is clear from the other sections on his talk page that there is some kind of agenda at work which surrounds Dawkins (there are complaints on his talk page about the Selfish Gene and Dawkins himself). He is keeping the article in the way he wants it and is continually reverting other people’s edits. Could you please ask him to stop immediately reverting my edits? Thanks. Miller 14:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I’m sorry to nag you here, but I desperately need help here. The user Laurence Boyce has reverted my edits again. Please could you talk to him? Miller 14:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Icon ads spam
Hello. I notice you removed twice the icon ad spam from Template:MusicBrainz album. Apparently, a false new user took advantage of summer to put it back for ten days (I just removed it). You may want to chime in at


 * WP:VPP

Regards, -- 62.147.37.34 23:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Affiliate Marketing - External Links Section Preview
Hello Rhobite,

Please have a look at the preview of External Links at the Affiliate Marketing Talk Page and let me know what you think about the selected sites and their description. Please also state if you agree to their addition to the Article or not. Thanks --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 13:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidate review: Buffy article
Hi

Just letting WikiProject Buffyverse members know that the article 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' has recently been nominated as a candidate to become a featured article. Should it become a featured article, it will be possible for the article to appear on the Wikipedia main page on March 10th 2007, the 10th anniversary of Buffy (the premiere, "Welcome to the Hellmouth" aired March 10th 1997).

Any feedback you can offer to improve the article and/or to either object or support the nomination would be wonderful:

Featured article candidates/Buffy the Vampire Slayer

-- Paxomen 17:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The HP Way
I'm not going to revert you, but there's no doubt among anyone I know who has encountered HP (etc.) that the section you removed is true: Agilent is the true descendent of Bill Hewlett and David Packard. The company now known as HP is just an appendage, and was hugely damaged by Fiorino's tenure at the helm; the HP Way does not exist there anymore.

Atlant 00:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If everyone you know has the same opinion of HP, then it should be easy to find a notable source who also shares this opinion. Feel free to cite this source in the article. Rhobite 10:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Walter Andrew Stephenson
Please see BenBurch 00:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Michael Crook is back in the news!
Rhobite, I know you remember that whole debaucle in trying to get and keep and Article on this guy, but certainly there is enough Noteriety to warrant one now?

http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_11.php#004976

He is being sued for sending false DMCA notices... not only that, but to do a search on Wiki for his exact name, you will find that he has placed himself in numerous articles. Google the guy, and you might find that it is worth taking some time to build a good article about him, especially since this suit will make establish some presidence in the high tech world for people that are trying to silence critics via DMCA.

Request for some little help
Hi Rhobite, I was expanding the article for Affiliate marketing a lot and would like to ask you for your help when it comes to the grammar and wording. You did such a good job last time (several months ago) so I thought that it might be possible to borrow your editing skills again :). You don't have to of course. I try to get some more people to contribute to this topic in general at my blog. My time is also limited and the subject is pretty complex. Its growing slowly which is better than nothing. We will get there. One listened to my call already and did some improvements. Thanks in advance and happy Thanksgiving. Cheers! --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 10:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

xenimus talk page
hi, please dont say your gonna make love to the page on the xenimus talk page. thats very unprofessional —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Olir (talk • contribs) 17:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the note. I didn't write that, it appears that someone vandalized a comment I made on that talk page. I have fixed it - thanks for letting me know. Rhobite 04:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Baked ziti
Without citing any policy page or prividing a direct link, you stated, "recipes are not appropriate wikipedia [sic] content."

Please point to the Wikipedia page where there is an official written policy stating, specifically, that recipes are not appropriate Wikipedia content. Until that time, I have returned the material you blanked from the article. Carmela Soprano 04:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Edited to add -- please note there are hundreds, if not thousands, of recipes already included in Wikipedia, which can be found at the List of recipes entry. So, clearly, recipes are an important and established part of Wikipedia. Carmela Soprano 05:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The actual recipes linked from there are all on Wikibooks, which is not part of Wikipedia. Wikibooks specializes in how-to articles, including recipes, while Wikipedia prohibits them. I would be happy to help you move your recipe from baked ziti into Wikibooks. As you can see, there is already a baked ziti article there. They probably have room for two. Rhobite 05:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, you are wrong. You state, incorrectly, "the actual recipes linked from there are all on Wikibooks." Flat out wrong. Some recipes on that page link to Wikibooks, while others link to articles right here on Wikipedia where there are recipes. Look, for example, at Irish stew or Madeira cake or Espagnole sauce -- three that I found within thirty seconds.
 * I don't know why you decided to pick on me, but before jumping down someone's throat again, you might follow Wikipedia policy before blanking material. Carmela Soprano 05:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Those recipes shouldn't be on Wikipedia. By and large, the links on that page go to WB. I'm sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you. It's nothing personal. I'm sure there is a good place for you to put your recipe, but Wikipedia is not that place. You agreed that you'd stop adding the recipe if I quoted a policy against recipes. I have linked to WP:NOT, so I'd appreciate if you held up your end of the bargain. Rhobite 05:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There was no "bargain." I made that statement before I added my "edited to add" comment noting the many other recipes here. With hundreds -- if not thousands -- of other recipes here, there is no reason to remove this one recipe. You've twice stated something as fact, and I've twice demonstrated you were wrong, so please stop trying to make me the villain here. I'm trying to contribute to this encyclopedia, not blanking material I don't personally like. It doesn't "seem" like you're picking on me -- you are picking on me and you are being abusive toward me. I note on your user talk page there are other complaints about your destructive behavior and your not following the rules. As well, you did not follow the "Please do not bite the newcomers" policy you link on your very own user page. Perhaps, rather than worrying about baked ziti recipes, you should worry more about your behavior.Carmela Soprano 05:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's nothing more that I can say. The "other articles are doing it so why can't I" excuse does not hold much water. Many wikipedia articles are far from perfect, but this is not an excuse to create additional problems. We can't fix everything at once, can we? If I have some free time in the future (doubtful) I will try and move those recipes you found out of Wikipedia and into Wikibooks, which is the proper location for them. I don't know why you're getting so upset at the thought of your recipe being moved over into Wikibooks. Wikibooks is a very well-known site and people will definitely read (and cook) your recipe. I apologize if it seems like I'm picking on you - I simply looked up the article because baked ziti was on my mind, noticed that it had a recipe, and removed it. I have no idea who you are and I've never seen you edit before, so I really have nothing against you personally. Good night. Rhobite 05:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're clearly picking on me because you're repeatedly violated Wikipedia policy in dealing with this matter. The issue is no longer baked ziti; the issue is your abusive behavior toward me and violation of much more significant Wikipedia rules and policy than recipe inclusion. Accordingly, I've commenced a complaint action against you. Specifically, you have violated, at a minumum, Wikipedia's resolving disputes policy and Wikipedia's three-revert rule. You could've stepped away from this matter and allowed a third party to resolve it; however, you chose not to and, instead, attempted to lord over and bully me. That sort of personal attack is rude, inexcusible, and intolerable. It was so important that you get your way that you violated far more serious policies and procedures and made this a much bigger issue than recipe inclusion.Carmela Soprano 05:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A better policy to quote to Carmela Soprano might be the one on copyrights, since her recipe is word-for-word identical to this one. --Calton | Talk 14:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Three-revert rule violation/administrator abuse
You have violated Wikipedia's three-revert rule in the baked ziti article. As well, because of your false statements to me and failure to follow other Wikipedia policies, I have initiated a complaint procedure against you for Administrator abuse. Carmela Soprano 05:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The three-revert rule does not apply to removing content that belongs in Wikibooks rather than in Wikipedia. Durova Charg e!  03:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Health Wiki Research
A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.

Thanks, Corey 16:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sveasoft and WRT54G articles/talk pages
I think the Sveasoft and WRT54G articles may be in need of full protection. Also, Renniy (and his sockpuppets) are flooding Wikipedia with personal attacks, heresay, and plain ol' lies.

On a lighter note: I love how this guy thinks he's got huge balls because he "drops d0x" like the script kiddie he is. As if anyone cares that they have their real name put on the Internet. This is, of course, a violation of Wikipedia's policies, but considering how many rules this guy has violated, I'm not surprised. --Tokachu 17:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Time to send a message to Robert E. Fitch High School?
Hi Rhobite, I just AO-blocked 159.247.236.221 for a month, but I also noticed your comment on the block log. I'm not sure if you want to make good on this promise, but I just thought I should let you know about the latest block. Cheers, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You have been invited to join a WikiProject
Tenacious D Fans 11:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Che Guevara - Handling Eye Witness Testimonies to his Ruthlessness
How do you propose anyone should add any material that describes Che as personally executing, many times with his own pistol, ordinary Cubans during the revolution? There are very reliable sources, which include the testimonies of over 20 fellow revolutionaries who fought along side Che, whose testimony is that he was an arrogant, ruthless, cold blooded killer of innocent, non-combatants. These are not Anti-Castro activists talking, these were his comrades in the Sierra Maestra. I am asking you BEFORE I post how you recommend anyone should proceed to show Che's ruthless side. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DoubleEagle32 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Che Guevara - Handling Eye Witness Testimonies to his Ruthlessness
How do you propose anyone should add any material that describes Che as personally executing, many times with his own pistol, ordinary Cubans during the revolution? There are very reliable sources, which include the testimonies of over 20 fellow revolutionaries who fought along side Che, whose testimony is that he was an arrogant, ruthless, cold blooded killer of innocent, non-combatants. These are not Anti-Castro activists talking, these were his comrades in the Sierra Maestra. I am asking you BEFORE I post how you recommend anyone should proceed to show Che's ruthless side. Incidentally, you are correct, the post was long, too long. I will govern my postings differently in the future. Thank you. DoubleEagle32 18:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for leaving this message. I appreciate that you're asking me about how to include this information. My best recommendation would be to follow the advice at Reliable sources and Neutral point of view. Please make sure that your additions are attributed to a reliable source. And try to avoid unnecessarily emotional words such as "cruelty", etc. You should also investigate whether Pierre San Martin's account is accurate - if it has been debunked somewhere else, it would be problematic to include his account without a rebuttal. I would also make your addition much shorter - including the full story is unnecessarily verbose for an encyclopedia article. A paragraph-long summary and a link is all that is required here. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Rhobite 14:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunatley, when dealing with dictatorships, or authoritarian regimes, words with emotional impact seem to abound. The following words appear in the Wiki articles for the persons shown in parenthesis as follows, either in the body of the article or in the footnotes at the end of the article: "sordid", "violent", "tortured", "evil" (Pinochet) "exterminate", "mass murder", "mass executions", "systematically killed" (Hitler) "terror", "inconceivable starvation" (Stalin). Would these kinds of words be too emotional to use with Che, if and where they are applicable? By the way, don't you think it a bit touchy to debunk Cuban political prisoners (Pierre San Martin for example) since no one is really that inclined, by comparison, to say, question the veracity of someone who was in Nazi concentration camp, or a Soviet Gulag, or had the unfortunate fate of being a Tutsi, or surviving the killing fields of Pol Pot, or a mother of a "dissapeared one" in Argentina? Benefit of the doubt is appropriate, don't you think? Or do I need say a body count - "x" number of Cuban political prisoners have said..." x". Maybe a quote from Armando Valladares, "Against All Hope", or perhaps from Cuban Comandante Huber Matos, who wrote "Como Llego La Noche / How Night Fell" that tells it from the point of view of a former comrade in arms of Che, and of course Fidel? Tell me where the accounts of Che being an executioner belong - he presided over thousands of executions, signing death warrants and further said to the U.N. General Assembly on December 9, 1964 in his speech: "Certainly we execute!" "And we will continue executing as long as it is necessary! This is a war to the death against the revolution's enemies!" (there's an audio recording of his voice, it in Spanish of course) Please let me know if that quote is permissible or if it is too emotional. DoubleEagle32 01:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sticky Fingers
Have you seen the page for Sticky Fingers lately? BGC really edited the hell out of it.Stan weller 22:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Help Me
Please see the Jehu Eyre talk page. I think you'll agree that I've done a fine job.

SwedishConqueror 05:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)SwedishConqueror

To Conclude the Dispute
If you do not feel you are qualified to analyze the sources provided in the article, please alert those who would be so that this can be resolved. I would be glad to bring others into the discussion if need be.

SwedishConqueror 17:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)SwedishConqueror

Great Neck North High School, Great Neck South High School
People who suffer from profound mental retardation could not attend public schools. Not everyone can attend public schools...you need to have at least average ability. Just because one person doesn't pass the regents, doesn't mean that person doesn't have average ability..they may have special educational needs...which i have mentioned. You make me so angry...you didn't even tell me that you were going to change it. I gave you a reason. So now just accept it. There is nothing wrong with using an IP address. I don't need to sign up to edit Wikipedia. (209.177.21.6 - Talk )
 * You are correct that you don't need to sign up for Wikipedia, however I would prefer if we didn't bother anyone else in the Great Neck library with this discussion. You wrote "the source is on the bottom". Could you please point to the specific evidence where it states that every single student in the Great Neck school district is at least average? This statement is false. However, when I replaced it with a true statement: "The percentage of Great Neck South students passing the New York State Regents Examinations was above the state average in all categories" - you decided to revert my edit anyway.
 * As for the other sentences you wrote: every high school has "A wide variety of students", so that sentence is unnecessary. Similarly, every high school has students with "exceptional learning abilities" as well as students with special needs. If you are going to continue to edit, please try and add information which is unique to Great Neck schools, and always remember to follow the verifiability policy. Rhobite 23:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take another look at Great Neck Village School
Hi Rhobite,

In the deletion discussion for Great Neck Village School you said you saw nothing particularly notable about it. I happened to click on the Alternative schools article which mentioned that there were very few alternative high schools in the U.S. back in 1970 (admittedly, it's an unsourced statement in that article), and that year called to mind something I'd read whille Googling the school: it was founded in 1970. That makes it one of the oldest alternative high schools in the U.S. I think that's very notable. (I wrote up a sentence or two on it and stuck it in the article.) What do you think? Noroton 03:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That text appears to have been added by User:209.177.21.6, who has been making some problematic edits on Great Neck school articles. It appears to have been added because of that user's relationship with the school (he/she appears to be a student there). I think any conclusion based on that statement would be circular reasoning. However this is a good example of that user's tendency to add dubious statements to articles. Rhobite 04:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help with the footnote. I actually made another change to it which finally gets it the way I wanted it. After I typed in the message above, I went to the school district Web site and found a PDF document there that said essentially the same thing: The school, founded in '70, is one of the oldest alternative high schools in the country. You may have seen the latest edits from another editor who also added some comments to the bottom of the deletion discussion -- the article's looking better ... ;-) Noroton 06:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)