User talk:Ronnotel/Archive 3

Yup
It's easy to convince people you're not a kook. Why not tell SA that you know that the Cold Fusion supporters are wrong, that their "peer reviewed" publications are garbage, that there is obviously a cadre of perverse people trying to push their "cold fusion investment" garbage into the encyclopeda, and that it's got to be stressful to try to counteract that, but you're not on their side, and that you would like to work with him to make the article reflect the reality that Cold Fusion isn't Cold or Fusion. You do believe those things, right? PouponOnToast (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Poupon, in fact I do. I agree with you that there are fanatics who are clinging to Cold fusion as our best and only hope to save our planet - a notion I reject. However I wasn't aware that the European Journal of Physics was considered garbage but I'm willing to be convinced. You'll find that my edits are pretty much concentrated on making sure that that one source isn't unfairly deprecated. I would relent if can be successfully impugned. Ronnotel (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You agree, of course, that the vast majority of scientists consdier Mosier-Boss and Szpak raving kookasauruses, right? You've read the New Scientist article? Why not pair "It's not quite accurate that they've never been well published" with "However, it's obvious that everyone discounted that publication also." You fought so hard over this teeny tiny little nothing that you lost sight of the big picture - we've got an article that says basically says that the US government believes in cold fusion protected and locked in mainspace. As a final note, it's not just people saying it's our only hope to save the planet, it's people defrauding old ladies out of investment monies. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Poop, I am all astonishment. I had no idea that I was dealing with a savant. In this comment, you state your intent to familiarize yourself with the ongoing mediation on Cold fusion. You spend a total of eight minutes crafting two edits to said mediation, and then less than an hour after starting your review, you happen across my above edit. One minute after your previous edit, you have correctly identified the obscure article that I had obscurely referred to, tracked it down, read and comprehended it, and apparently sampled scientific consensus to pronounce its authors raving kookasaurases. Your intellect beggars belief. Either that, or you're an obvious sock puppet of SA. Ronnotel (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Or we could go with consensus and much discussion earlier, which SA (or you) did not participate in, and work together to improve the lead -- instead of using divisive tactics such as this. Your uncanny support of SA is mind-boggling.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to accuse me of something come out and say it. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Of wading in the water, splashing about to make a scene and nothing more? Sure. Of being a SA-apologist? Sure. Of not assuming good faith? Absolutely. Your forum shopping and the refactoring of comments, with explicit notices from other administrators and editors to cease that activity, clearly shows that.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology
Do you intend to? PouponOnToast (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Once I have been convinced your train of thought is parallel to that of SA and not single-threaded as it appears to be. That you and SA don't use the same IP comes as no surprise. I already knew that SA was not a fool. Ronnotel (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ask that you resign your admin bit when you apologize to me, as well, at this point. PouponOnToast (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * POT, you are not generating sympathy with these remarks. Forced apologies are always bad; do not ask for them. Jehochman Talk 14:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking for sympathy. Ronnotel failed to assume good faith that two contributors could agree on something without being identical to eachother. He was incivil via saracasm in both his report, and his comments to me. This is conduct unbecoming an editor of this encyclopedia, and it will need to change if Ronnotel intends to continue to contribute here. One step he could use to demonstrate that he intends to comply with our rules on civility would be to apologize to those he was incivil to. Another would be to stop being incivil. I have seen no evidence of either. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your intellect beggars belief. Either that, or you're an obvious sock puppet of SA.
 * Ronnotel (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

POT, you need to stop this now. Your behavior is doing more to convince me that you may actually be a disruptive account than anything Ronnotel has said. Jehochman Talk 14:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not as if PoT hasn't been blocked twice only a few days ago for disruptive editing. If he continues to press the matter and continue to disrupt discussions and use WP as a soapbox, I see no reason why PoT cannot receive another stern warning.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 14:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * PoT - is your purpose here to collect sysop bits or something? How many threats is that you've made in the last few weeks? Three? Four?? - A l is o n  ❤ 16:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, he was just blocked and unblocked for calling another editor a "trolling fuck" and for this incivility.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 16:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And he's "retired."
 * "Obviously, I'll keep using the sock that I'm certain the checkusers found to go right on rvving and creating isoteric articles on things I find out about in my daily travails - and I'll use that sock as opposed to some other one so that the next time I find myself tempted to edit anything controversial at all [...]"  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA Card
My RFA →→→   

Dear Ronnotel, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind vote on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (29/5/5).

I cannot thank you enough for you're support on my RFA. And now that I am a sysop, I will work hard to improve the encyclopedia with my new editing tools. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.

Thank you again and I look forward to editing alongside you in the future. &mdash; Chetblong T  C 20:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for List of CEP Vendors
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of CEP Vendors. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bardcom (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!
You've made it to my coveted quotes page. You've made me laugh out loud with one of your recent posts and have now been added here. Please take this as a high compliment for two reasons: 1. I only add one or two quotes per month at best, and related 2. It's hard to make me laugh. Great work, and happy editing! Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  19:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Ronnotel (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Pgsylv
User:Pgsylv, who you blocked for 3RR is back making what appear to be the same edits as he was blocked for 3RRing, and seems to be leaving hostile edit summaries. Another user filed a WQA here and I thought I should contact you, as the blocking admin. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm - he doesn't seem to be revert warring as he was before and while not exactly civil, perhaps you can look past his edit summary. At this point I suggest you engage and try to resolve the issue through discussion. Please assume the presence of a belly button. Ronnotel (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This was more of a courtesy note. I'm not expecting you to jump back in and block him again, but when someone 3RRs, gets blocked, and then jumps back in with hostility (and his edits may not be the same sort of edit-warring, but it's the same issue he's reverting on), if I were the blocking admin I'd like to hear about it. Your comments are welcome at his talk page or the WQA, if you'd like to add anything. Note that since I'm responding to a WQA complaint, civility is not something I'm really going to want to immediately "look past." --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the heads up. For now I'm going to lay low but let me know if it gets worse. Ronnotel (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Tasc0
In my view, a prerequisite to believing that he won't re-offend is for him to acknowledge the severity of his actions. As yet, he hasn't done so and, as much as it saddens me given his productive history, I can't support an unblock (he's also indicated that he doesn't intend to return to the project). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree. But as my objectivity is hopelessly clouded I was hoping to foist the decision onto someone else. I deeply appreciate your support in this matter and I now consider it SEP (someone else's problem). Ronnotel (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Man, there should really be a WP:SEP. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * At the risk of violating WP:CANVAS, I note that Somebody Else's Problem field is nom'd for AfD. I've suggested that it be turned into WP:SEP. Ronnotel (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

decided to appeal his indefinite ban to the Arbitration Committee. No action by them, but I have looked into it and he admits he was wrong. I am going to change his indefinite block to a month. Fred Talk 16:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the heads up. Ronnotel (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Demo
I am not sure if I have done it right, but I have add my name to the request about Demo.Slatersteven (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)]]
 * Yes, that looks fine. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I reformatted a bit and moved to what I think is the proper location. Feel free to revert if you prefer it the other way. Ronnotel (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

“For those of us who are multi-lingual, it is very handy to know what the term for these series of events in Hindi is as well. DemolitionMan (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)”

“Too bad. What is your reasoning for suggesting that "it is hardly necessary to put in the translation" - it is an India related article and English and Hindi enjoy official status of the Federal Govt - while languages like Marathi and Bengali are official languages of different states but not of the Federal Govt. I am putting it right back. DemolitionMan (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC) “

This clearly gives the impresion it’s a translation, not an alterantiv name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indian_Rebellion_of_1857/Archive_5#Hindi_text

“Correct me if I am wrong. This is what Wikipedia policy states: "If there is no commonly used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language. Latin-alphabet languages, like Spanish or French, should need no transliteration, but names from languages which do not use a Latin alphabet, like Chinese and Russian, do." We have stated clearly in this article that there is no commonly used English name for these series of events. So based on the policy, shouldn't the transliteration of the name in the original language be used? DemolitionMan (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)” This states that it is a translation, not an alternative title. Slatersteven (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)]]

RfC Filed
Just to keep you abreast - after having tried reasoning with you multiple times, I have filed an RfC asking for suspension of your administrator privileges from desi-related articles for a period of 6 months which you can use to introspect and learn about different cultures and refrain from attacking other religions. DemolitionMan (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[]

Please check out my recent addition to Algorithmic trading
Ronnotell and User:Hu12

Please check out my recent addition to Algorithmic trading dif

I actually inserted the text from an advertisement into the article. This is obviously sensitive and should be checked in any case, but I think it makes a key point in the article that no other source could make as well. I'm not trying to push Dow Jones, just document the content of the article.

Thanks for any help.

Smallbones (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * yes, I saw the same ad campaign and I agree it's an interesting facet that illustrates one type of algo trading. However, I'd be happier if we were quoting a reliable source rather than an ad. It seems like we are taking DJ's word about being two seconds faster, and that the two seconds was actionable. I work in high speed trading, and I'm somewhat dubious about the claims in the ad. Its hard to measure data feed lag accurately. Just my immediate feedback.Ronnotel (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Noted, I'll leave it in and look for something that says something similar. (might be hard) If you want to take it out please do. It's the claim, more than the accuracy that makes the point - but then that starts to get into OR.  Thanks Smallbones (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've removed the quote, but kept the reference (i.e. toned it down) trying to follow your suggestion. Smallbones (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's difficult editing articles in this space because it can be hard to find reliable sources that discuss the latest developments such as this. While strictly speaking someone could come along and challenge an ad as non-notable, I think you are doing the best that can be done with the available resources. Ronnotel (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you very much for giving your support to my admin application, which recently closed successfully (36/3/1). I hope I can continue to justify the confidence that you have placed in me. If there is any way that I can help out more, or if you have any handy tips for a freshly-hatched admin, please drop me a line. Thanks again. - 52 Pickup   (deal)  22:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Requests for comment/DemolitionMan
The RfC looks very legitimate and there are obviously serious concerns with his editing. I'd like to see the RfC run for some time longer - it's not like the admin noticeboards, discussions here can take some time to get attention and they often run for months at a slow pace. The 1RR restriction on all Desi related articles looks like a good proposal, however RfC decisions are considered non binding, so can I suggest you take the proposed community 1RR to AN? The proposal should be something along the lines of " is limited to one revert per-page-per-week on all articles related to Desi. Should he break this limitation, he may be subject to blocks of upto one week by any administrator." - that would work well IMO. Is that any good for you?  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ryan. I appreciate the time you took to review. Having never asked for a community sanction before, I was a little unsure how to approach this. I'll let it run a couple more days (but I seriously doubt any light will go off in anyone's head in that time) and then take it to AN. Ronnotel (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. I don't see a need to wait any longer before proposing the community sanction - it can run concurrently with the RfC. If the sanction is accepted, then that would probably sort many of the problems that caused the RfC to be filed in the first place and may make it moot, but it would be good to get a few more opinions on the other problematic behaviour that has been quoted.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I had specifically volunteered for a one revert limit only on this article and not on all Desi-related articles. I don't see a resolution passed which limits me to one edit for all desi articles but your comment on my page and the community board seem to specify otherwise. Please clarify and if necessary make the requisite changes on the community board. Thanks. Btw, I still see you as targeting me solely for my views though I now seem to think that your intentions might be right. I don't really know what to make of your actions to be quite honest. I shall be observing your neutrality for the next two months as well and will use my discretion to take action as I deem fit. DemolitionMan (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed this comment earlier. The consensus view was that you have been disruptive based on your POV. It's common in these situations to extend the restriction to cover all articles to which the POV would likely have an impact. As I said before, if you believe others are behaving inappropriately, feel free to use the dispute resolution system. However, I haven't seen them resorting to behavior in which you have engaged - sock-puppetry, name calling, assuming bad faith, etc. There was a minor assumption of bad faith on the part of F&F, however I also note he apologized for it and self-reverted when it was called out. I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to accomplish on Indian Rebellion of 1857. I have yet to see you sway a single editor to a view point to which they did not already subscribe nor has a single edit of yours stood up to consensus. I fear you will continue to be disappointed until you figure out how to do that. As to your most recent edits, yes, your second change would in fact be a violation and I thank you for self-reverting. You will find that WP:1RR will limit your ability to edit in controversial areas of the article, which is what it was intended to do. Ronnotel (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring
I've been treating the straight up removals of the Rezko image with the Clinton image from the Rezko page without comment by IPs as vandalism. Ever since the image was added a different IP comes through on a fairly regular basis and removes the image without discussion, so that's why I've been treating it as vandalism. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The image is controversial and simply removing it is not an act of obvious vandalism. In this situation, I suggest you exercise caution and discuss the issue rather than revert. I'll step in and protect the page is there is much more back and forth but I'd rather not. Ronnotel (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
for keeping things under control at Tony Rezko. I had yet to read WP:DBTN, and considered myself to be somewhat of a newcomer. It seems that the controversial subjects bring a lot of new users into the site, but, in fairness, an IP address does not directly indicate that a user is new. Corey Salzano (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all, that's what admins do. I only started watching this article because I live in Wilmette and noticed when someone added him to the page. The way I determined that User:99.147.17.156 is new was to look at his contribution history. Ronnotel (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please sir, may I have rollback?
Bowl held out plaintively, with winsome expression. I've been rolling back vandalism old-school style. I hear there's a better way. It would be a nice present for reaching one year as an active editor here (and only being called a "wiki-fascist" once!) --Sfmammamia (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Happy to oblige. Ronnotel (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, you are a most gentlemanly admin. I will use it with care, I promise. --Sfmammamia (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship
 Dear Ronnotel, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight. I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community. I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :) I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Indian Rebellion of 1857
Your point is heeded and i apologize for getting side tracked. Hoping in the future this page can be resemble an Encloypedia, instead of a continual POV pushing page. Rockybiggs (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Retail Invester
An admin already deleted it, so it's a moot point now. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I aware, we do delete advertising in userspace or in article space. If the user wants to change username then they can, it shouldn't impact on it unless they try to recreate it in mainspace like it was. Woody (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Indian Rebellion of 1857
If its not DemoMan, it is user:Desione, who has now moved the (term) page you created to another one, which I'm sure is not legal. I feel Desione will need some kind of constraint just as DemoMan did. He's continuing to make unhelpful edits on the Indian Rebellion page and trolling the talk page. Please advise. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  08:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He discussed it here. I didn't see any issue with it but feel free to register an objection - everything is reversible. User:DemolitionMan's history was much more problematic - at this I point I urge you to continue to engage and seek consensus with Desione. While not ideal, I see much more willingness for constructive collaboration on the page than in recent months. Ronnotel (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. My concern was just that it not become a POV fork.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK, I see you've put the "(term)" back. Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Josuquis
Is it possible for you to rein in this British POV pusher? Just look at his edits - almost all are India-centric and pushing the British POV at all costs. I shall be filing an RfC against him shortly. DemolitionMan (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Holding a POV is not a punishable offense; violating WP policy to do so is. If you have valid complaints, then feel free to lodge them at the appropriate venue (include diffs). But if they aren't valid, don't be surprised if the reviewing admin takes a dim view of frivolous abuse of the dispute resolution system, a disruptive tactic for which you have already been warned. Ronnotel (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

ip address
Its the ip of the hub through which my connection is going. I forgot to login sorry. Desione (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * nothing to be sorry for, just wanted to make sure I understood who was who. That's all. Ronnotel (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * can the ip address be removed and replaced with my username for clarity if possible? Desione (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know. While that would happen automatically for regular user change requests requests, I don't know if it can be done for anon ip addresses. You might want to check at WP:CHU but it's probably not necessary. Ronnotel (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Users reverting blindly on Indian Rebellion of 1857 page
can you do something to prevent users from reverting blindly without any reasoning. thanks Desione (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have protected the page. I would ask you to stop reverting as well until this is agreed on the talk page. Ronnotel (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

IP personal attacks
You probably saw them already on my talk page, but I decided to answer their questions, since they seem so persistent in asking them. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The only advice I can give is that being an admin is like being the one who always shows up at the gun fight packing a knife. Think carefully about whether you really want to go through the RfA process just to become even more of a target. Good luck. Ronnotel (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User Desione
As your aware user Desione is the same as port 63.82.71.139. This user is guilty of 4 reverts on Indian Rebellion of 1857, can you please advise if you can issue a block on this user, or please advise if i must take this to a Administration board.--Rockybiggs (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I was aware of the issue however my response in this case was to protect the page. However he wasn't the only one edit warring. You can file a report at WP:AN/3RR but it will probably be turned down because he has not been issued a warning to stop. However, I'd much rather have this discussed and a solution arrived at jointly. Ronnotel (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info, but i don`t think negotiation is in their vocabulary--Rockybiggs (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF :) Ronnotel (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Ron, Sorry to get you involved in a different article, but user:Desione has made four reverts in less than 24 hours on Company rule in India: Revert1, Revert2, Revert3, Revert4. I have left a warning on his talk page, and will be bringing up the issue on the article talk page.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The second revert wasn't actually a revert (it basically reverted things half way) due to clicking some buttons accidently. I merely corrected the revert error in the next one. Desione (talk) 06:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  06:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you didn't have any problem with it at the time since the edit summary that you used to revert after that was rv desione's second revert. Now you seem to have changed your mind. Here is a link to the text after second revert . The revert was partial half-way revert, so I fixed it in next revert (see ) with edit summary "fixing bad revert. 2nd revert: article is not npov. any POV can be properly sourced. Thank you." After that fowler reverted my changes again as expected with edit summary rv desione's second revert. Please take a look at the sequence in . So again, three reverts not four and this is confirmed by your own revert whose edit summary says rv desione's second revert. Does it hold water now? Desione (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not count the first revert you mention above (the partial half-way one with time stamp 04:13), only the second (with edit summary "fixing bad revert" with time stamp 04:14). My edit summary said "second revert" only because at first I believed you, but when I examined the history, I realized your statement was incorrect.  The sequence of four reverts is:
 * 1st revert: 04:53, 16 March 2008
 * 2nd revert: 02:58:24, 17 March 2008
 * 3rd revert: 04:14:44 17 March 2008
 * 4th revert: 04:43:14 17 March 2008. I have now reported you to WP:AN/3RR.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The point being Fowler needs to fix his POV in British Raj article rather than following me around everywhere I try correct and enhance a British Raj topic article (in this case Company rule in India. His edits started in Company rule in India only after I made the first few changes there. He is merely playing games when the time could be better spend by me fixing the Colony rule in India and fowler focusing on British Raj. Without stepping over each others toes. However, that idea doesn't seem palatable to Fowler. He wants to get into conflicts. Desione (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid your information is incorrect: My first edit on Company rule in India was on August 27, 2007. In fact I uploaded the maps (of East India Company Expansion), which were scanned from a personal copy (as the image page states).  Please also see my post on the talk page.  However, you made your first edit only on March 14, 2008.  Similarly, I made my first edit on British Raj on October 9, 2006 and added most of the images and text there, whereas you made your first edit on February 14, 2008.  Lastly, I made my first edit on Indian Rebellion of 1857 on March 2, 2008, whereas you made yours on March 3, 2008.  Who is following whom?  As for your idea of divvying up the page, Wikipedia doesn't work like that, especially when the material you have thus far added, as evident from Talk:Company rule in India is poorly written and poorly sourced.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm going to recuse myself from any involvement in enforcing WP:3RR in this matter given my history with D1 and DM on Indian Rebellion of 1857. I think reporting to WP:AN/3RR and letting an uninvolved admin handle it was appropriate. Ronnotel (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

User:DemolitionMan
I have been looking in on Indian Rebellion of 1857 since your WP:AN post a couple of weeks ago. I haven't noticed any kind of improvement in the behaviour of User:DemolitionMan, as most recently shown by his tendentious and vindictive post on the talk page of that article. What are your thoughts on revisiting the idea of a topic ban for this user? Leithp 08:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please also see comments made regarding yourself Ronnotel Comment--Rockybiggs (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Leithp, I must admit it's difficult to find anything in his behavior that can be defended. He remains locked in a mindset of WP:BATTLE although he seems to have at least toned down the animus that is overtly racial. If you would like to seek a modification to his editing restriction I would not object. Ronnotel (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he should be banned from all editing for a three months and user:Desione should be restricted to 1RR on India-related articles.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that there is a difference between holding a POV and acting disruptively to further it. While D1 brings his POV into the argument, I have not yet seen him do it in a way that suggests a casual disregard for WP policies in the way the DM has in the past. The reason that DM is in the position he is in is because he chose augment his edit warring with abusive sock-puppetry and vile personal attacks. While D1 may edit aggressively, he is not the only one doing so and I doubt there would be community support to place him under a restriction at this point. I commend F&F in particular for bringing erudition into the debate. His focus on citing reliable sources has elevated the discussion and I think we have made progress. I note that DM and D1 have recently begun citing more sources as well. IMO that's the only way this issue is going to be resolved. Ronnotel (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have started another thread on WP:AN here, if you'd like to comment. Leithp 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Credible Source?
Regarding a Tony_Rezko edit.

ABC News article

Article photo

The ABC News article talks directly about Tony Rezko's involvement in the Obama residence deal. Does it sufficiently constitute a credible 2nd source? Interested in hearing your thoughts. Ddweb (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC) comment relocated as per WP:TALKRonnotel (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see your comment until now. Please remember to put comments at the bottom of talk pages. That's where they are expected to be and will be easier to find.
 * Yes, I was aware that reliable sources are now publishing pictures such as this. Here's my take (which is by no means definitive). Images of the house are fair game provided they are neutral and well-sourced (i.e. not copy vio, etc.). An image of Rezko and Obama together would also be OK, but not I'm not at all excited about an image that has been manufactured to put them together. I have issues with the neutrality of such an image - i.e. a clear editorial intent can be inferred from such an image which, in my mind, fails WP:NPOV. I looked carefully for a policy on such an image but I couldn't find one that deals specifically with images like this so I can't say much more than it just feels wrong. Others may feel differently. Ronnotel (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

SA arbcom blocks
I had no idea that he had so many blocks for incivility. Man, I congrat the guys at Arbcom on having the patience of saints --Enric Naval (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * SA is a difficult situation. The remedy prescribed by ArbCom is nearly unimplementable as there always seems to be a sympathetic admin willing to overturn any block issued under the ruling. SA uses this fact to act as if the restriction doesn't exist and freely insults and attacks anyone with whom he disagrees. What I find really odd is the dichotomy that has been set between devotion to civility and devotion to science. Somehow the "anti anti-science" cabal have decided that WP's policy on civility is a fatal impediment to their agenda. Ronnotel (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the "anti anti-science cabal", but I think WP:CIVIL needs to interpreted in a way that allows us to call a stupid idea a stupid idea. Civility should serve to make communication more productive and smoother, not be abused to forbid clear language and opinions. It is a means, not an end. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That WP suffers from an excess of civility is a difficult argument to make. Rather, I find it's chief proponents are intellectually-challenged, scientist-wannabes types, who are are simply looking for an outlet to redirect the scorn and derision that they themselves have been on the receiving end of in the struggling quasi-scientific academic career they have fallen into. Oops - was that language too direct? ;) Ronnotel (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please pardon my facetiousness. But please don't disregard my position out of hand. WP can survive some ill-thought fluff around the edges. It can't survive !WP:CIVIL. I feel quite strongly about this. Ronnotel (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Confederate till Death unblock request declines.
Please be assured that your review is fine - I am referring to some trollpuppets conducting "reviews" that have been removed from the page, and we should be reasonably sensitive in reviewing the blockee as we don't condone jerking anyone around. It was for future reference, and I wholeheartedly apologise if it appeared to reflect poorly upon your actions. I shall amend my comment there for better clarity. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * not necessary - I was just looking for a sanity check. After my involvement with User:DemolitionMan and his race-baiting, I am somewhat skittish in this area. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Jokes, personal and otherwise
yes, probably better not to bring up previous cases. I fixed my edit on the administrator noticeboard. Thanks. Desione (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Profitability?
Could you check my edit (redirect) on "Profitability" to "Profit." It was a stub on a technical analysis term that as far as I can tell had no following, real references, or meaning.

BTW, isn't it time to take some photos?

Thanks for any help.

Smallbones (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not much of an expert on TA so I can't really speak to whether profitability is a real term or not. I don't see a hugh issue with the redirect. It's been a long winter, still snow on the ground :( Ronnotel (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked ped advocate
returned very quickly fulfilling the Village Pump "promise". Thanks, SqueakBox 16:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Let's keep our eyes open. If the editing becomes tendentious we'll know what to do. In the mean time, we are bound by WP:AGF. Ronnotel (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah sure. Certainly the user seems to be calm and open to dialogue, its the content and advocacy that are the potentially tricky areas but as you say the latter isn't going to be an ongoing issue anyway. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

re: That wonderful subject. ..
Strangely that deletion didn't have anything to do with pedophilia. I was just cleaning up this little sockfest. That might of some interest to you too! I thought it was just run-of-the-mill trolling. ~ Riana ⁂ 18:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ports
Hi Ronnotel, could you tell me if a port is 100% Unique to a particular computer or is there a flaw in the Wikipedia system ? --Rockybiggs (talk) 08:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at your contribution history, I'm going to make an educated guess that you are asking whether the anonymous IP user you cautioned may be a sock puppet of a topic-banned user. It is true that there is not a one to one relationship between users and IP addresses, one user can edit from many addresses and many users may edit from the same address. If you think there may be abusive sock puppetry, then you can file a case at WP:AN/SSP. Hope this helps.Ronnotel (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No its a bit more bizarre, as an edit was done on . However as i only have access from this port, and i didn`t make this change, so im a little bit miffed.--Rockybiggs (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Without knowing more about your actual setup I don't think I can offer much advice. It is possible for a single IP addresses (your use of the term "port" is somewhat misleading here, WP contributions are tracked by IP address, each of which has thousands of ports which are assigned at random when you make a connection) to be used by multiple users. For instance, if you are behind a firewall such as a school, business or apartment block, you might share a single IP address with everyone else from that unit. It's also possible for IP addresses to be assigned dynamically, whereby an address you have used for months could suddenly be assigned by your IP provider to another user without your knowledge. In fact, IP providers often charge extra for the 'privilege' of maintaining a static IP address. To be honest, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Ronnotel (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It was more Curiosity. As usual thanks for your help and comments. --Rockybiggs (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Main page request
Turns out that my request is null. So don't worry about 16 April. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for being so understanding. Ronnotel (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My RFA has closed
My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence §  t / e  18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Black Monday (January 2008) again
Please take a look. The article's name was changed "per" the deletion discussion (!). I've checked out the "Black Monday" citations and they are remarkably weak - essentially headlines only (from Omaha TV no less - maybe they think Warren Buffett is getting upset). I've added to the talk page a Guardian article which makes fun of Wikipedia's BM article.

I've made some changes, but I have no doubt that they will be reverted (AGF only goes so far) My real worry is the "(January 2008)" part in the title. Are they hoping to add a "Black Monday (May 2008)"?

Maybe someday I'll write an essay, or propose a guideline, or even a policy: WP:FinArticles (somebody already took WP:Finance and WP:Stocks)

Other than the above, I think the only realistic action toward this article is no action at all. It's a POS that nobody will every come back to. But that would seem like just giving up on the whole project ...

Smallbones (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Front page, good job
Very well done article today. Difficult topic, indeed. I sat in the Atlanta airport last August waiting for a plane, wearing my Florida Gators t-shirt. A family of 5 sat next to me with Va Tech clothes on, and I tried to convey my sympathy for the school without crying and it was impossible. At any rate, a kajillion people are reading your article today. --Moni3 (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words, but I hardly feel worthy of them. I was a bit player in the whole production - if you really want to thank someone, you should start with User:Sfmammamia. Ronnotel (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Aw shucks, Ronnotel. An ensemble effort; that's the nature of Wikipedia. --Sfmammamia (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * enough with the modesty ;) BTW, when you are going to let me pitch you for the mop? Ronnotel (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh, yeah, about that...I guess when I get out of overwhelm on paid work as well as learning other things; yes and I realize they usually go hand in hand. --Sfmammamia (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Technical editing question
I just got my rollback feature recently. How do you go about reverting multiple instances of vandalism by multiple users? I was struggling to do so on the VA Tech Tragedy page. I noticed you fixed it (most recently). Thanks. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What I do is go to the history page and click on the timestamp of the version to which I want to revert. I then edit and immediately save that version with an appropriate edit summary message. There is probably a better way to do it, but that's what I know. Hope this helps. Ronnotel (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

West Nottingham Academy
Please check out the anon editing West Nottingham Academy. It's almost looking like an edit war. Everything should be pretty clear, if not please drop me a note. Smallbones (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have semi'd for 1 week. Let me know if that doesn't do the trick.Ronnotel (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Priory-of-Sion.com spam and disruption
Hi. You were involved earlier with this earlier:
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February_2008
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive361
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive361

FYI, this has come around the track again: -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.

Tasc0
Several months ago, you indefinitely blocked Tasc0 following his horrible threat to your family. An arbiter decided to give him a second chance and unblocked him. Tasc0 has resumed his personal attacks and I am proposing a community ban. Because of your prior actions in this matter, I am notifying you. Please see WP:ANI#Ban proposal of Tasc0 if you are interested in commenting. Thanks. --B (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Smallbones11??
This probably isn't a big deal, but I left a note on the new user User:Smallbones11 user page that I'd like him to use a different name if he is going to edit the same articles I do. Smallbones (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have left him a note pointing out policy and what he can to do comply. If he continues to make edits let me know. Ronnotel (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. fast and accurate as usual. Smallbones (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Edwards article
Do you think I should post it at deletion review? Or should I not bother? I am concerned that people will think that I post attack pages, when actually I have done a lot of work in the BLP area and really try to be sensitive of it. I actually decided to write an article myself specifically because I thought it would be better for me to do it than someone who was politically partisan. Kelly hi! 19:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest, I don't know that a deletion review would change anything. I commend your effort, but until the MSM case is crystal clear I doubt this article will survive. Ronnotel (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering our history
Please stay off my user talk page. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. My comment was meant to correct the erroneous impression that you have been blocked on 19 separate occasions, when in fact it has only been 11. Nevertheless, since you seem sensitive to this issue, I will refrain from any further efforts on your behalf. Ronnotel (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Your adding a warning to my talk page
I suppose, prior to your | threatening to block me for allegedly making "unreferenced, controversial" edits to the Sarah Palin article, it was simply an oversight on your part that you | completely missed the references which I had already clearly provided. And I'll be happy to speak up on your behalf when I bring the issue up on the Administrator's noticeboard. J.R. Hercules (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Do as you must, but the warning stands. Alleging an affair based on a single unreliable source is exactly what WP:BLP is intended to prevent. That a couple of blogs have noted the McCain campaigns reaction fails per WP:COATRACK. Get some confirmation from reliable sources regarding the allegations before adding this back in. Ronnotel (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

RFAR alert
One of the arbitrators has asked that every admin who is arguably involved in the events at Sarah Palin be notified of an arbitration case covering it. I therefore draw your attention to Requests for arbitration. In your case, you are, like me, one of those who made an edit to the article while it was full protected. GRBerry 18:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Believe me, it's on my watchlist! Ronnotel (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

List of edits
For anyone who cares, here are the two edits I made to Sarah Palin while it was fully protected. In both cases, they were in response to a (IMHO) non-controversial change request made from the talk page.


 * 1) change, request
 * 2) change, request

Ronnotel (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war
The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.
 * Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
 * Your contributions are also welcome at Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny   ✉  20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

elope/Marraige
As to your change re Sarah Palin, I think there IS a big difference. The reader will now assume there was a typical wedding ceremony, with flowers, family, cake, etc. There was not. They eloped. No big Church wedding with family and friends which the word "married", as used here, implies. To not say they eloped is misleading to the reader. I will revert, soon. thank you...--Buster7 (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you have it backwards. Between the words married and eloped, married is by far the more neutral. Eloped is the term that carries connotations. Ronnotel (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They both carry connotations. Eloped is more specific to what happened. Information is the goal, not neutrality. Changing to "married" is a cover-up. As I state in the Talk, I have no problem with elope. I think its Romantic.--Buster7 (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy for Well-Known Public Figures
Mr. Ronnotel, perhaps you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy regarding Well-known public figures, which reads, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." --Zeamays (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You claim Palin was unfamiliar with the Bush Doctrine. Her supporters would counter that she was simply insisting on a consistent definition of the term before being drawn into an answer. By failing to take into account both sides your text was inappropriate. Please save us all the time and discuss these edits before adding them. Ronnotel (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are a supporter and have that view, I suggest that you add what you wrote above to the article. Both sides of any controversy should be presented, rather than what you seem to want, which is no controversy at all. Your aggressive stance is not appreciated. I strongly suggest that you stop threatening editors with well-sourced material. --Zeamays (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)  I should have added, that you should add that position if you can substantiate it with a reference, as I did.  --Zeamays (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion is best had on the article's talk page, before material is added to the article. That's all I'm asking. If I appear aggressive, I apologize, but the article has been subjected to an extraordinary amount of POV pushing, perhaps more so than any other article on WP. WP:BLP clearly calls for aggressive enforcement in situations like this. Discuss first and get consensus and you won't get angry admonishments. Ronnotel (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help then. I have added a post-interview (New York Times) reference to the Gibson interview, which substantiates the text I added, but the zealots keep deleting it. It is a fair and accurate reporting of the interview. Instead, the zealots have repeatedly substituted a before-the-interview reference that doesn't substantiate any of the topics covered nor how she answered them. Maybe you should be warning them instead. --Zeamays (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I think the article's talk page is the best place for this discuss. The key is to get consensus and my actions were primarily motivated by the fact that you failed to do so. Ronnotel (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: good block
I was just about to post to the talk page saying that I'd beaten you to it. ;) Glass  Cobra  15:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla Assembly of God
Hi! If you'd like to engage in the discussion over at Talk:Wasilla Assembly of God, you'd be quite welcome. A couple of other editors are very interested in the section you describe. While I believe it's essentially a WP:COATRACK what is there has been hammered out on the talk page, is properly cited, and "rm unsourced material" was clearly not an accurate edit summary. Jclemens (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

consensus
I am quite aware that I lack consensus. But that is my goal. I am seeking out commentary. I knew my edit would be reversed. I now ask you, what are your objections. Lets talk.--Dstern1 (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * will respond on Talk:Sarah Palin. thanks for slowing down. Ronnotel (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed bailout of United States financial system
Seeing as my attempt to rename the article to 2008 United States economic relief propositions was quickly reverted, I'd like to request that you make an effort to temporarily rename it based on this argument. Thanks, and sorry for the hassle. —  C M B J  02:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that we may have miscommunicated. See here. —  C M B J   04:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Black Monday (September 2008)
Ron,

Maybe this is one of my pet peeves - panic pushing in financial news. But could you keep an eye on this? It's not as bad a situation as the January 21 article. (Actually the financial situation is worse, but editors - so far - are acting much better).

BTW - please check out Today's Featured Article, Tulip mania which I worked on.

Smallbones (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. And thanks. Nice article. Ronnotel (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion
Any comments welcome. Smallbones (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Moves, merger and Proposed bailout of United States financial system
Re: Talk:Proposed bailout of United States financial system and Talk:Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

Since you took an interest in the move wars, I'd like to interest you in the move/merge process again, since my desires will require an admin because of the move over an edited article. Most of the anti-arguments at the EESA-2008 talk page are moot, but not all of them.

Or perhaps you would choose to re-state the proposal for comment, given the current state of the process, legislation, bill, and (very soon) law.

I desire, as stated in the proposal at the EESA talk page, a move of Proposed bailout of United States financial system to Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, and convert Proposed bailout of United States financial system into a redirect...and I would propose the redirect be protected from moves for a week or more. The history at the present EESA is of no particular consequence, so there's no harm in turning it into a redirect. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As I stated in a thread on the talk page, I support this proposed move. However, my only reservation is that the term "bailout" be somehow used as an alternate name for the event, preferably in the first sentence. I remain concerned that people will have a hard time trying to find the now article otherwise. I'd like to wait for some more input on the talk page before making the actual redirect, however. Ronnotel (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Any google search will get you to the article via the redirects, which there are a number already with "bailout" in them. Try it. You should get the redirect with "(2008)" in the title. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And the location the article moves to should also be move protected for a while too. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and don't forget to swap the talk pages. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ronnotel (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed template
Would you check out my proposed template at User:Smallbones/draft template. Any comments appreciated. BTW, the template MAY be useful today. Smallbones (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

List of largest daily changes in the Dow Jones Industrial Average
Hi Ronnotel,

Don't you think you were much too quick on the trigger to full-protect that page, even for 3 hours? Edit warring / content dispute? I don't see it at all. Three edits in the previous 5 minutes does not constitute an edit war or content dispute. There has to be several editors reverting each other repeatedly (and maybe some of them running up against 3RR) in order to be a real edit war or content dispute.

I'd unlock the page myself, but prefer not to wheel war. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hsu.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Hsu.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I am curious
I have read your posts both on and off Wikipedia. I have yet to see you express anything more than the utmost sympathy and support for cold fusion advocates. If you could point me to one place where you criticized cold fusion advocacy I'll gladly refactor. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am largely skeptical that cold fusion will ever be more than a scientific curiosity, and I have said so on a number of occasions (first section, second para on this page for one). However, the burden of proof is on you to back up your assertion that I am an advocate, rather than just scientifically curious. The brush you wield is too broad and inaccurately impugns me with a label that is supported by neither evidence nor fact. That someone might find your methods objectionable and oppose them on those grounds alone should hardly be surprising. That you choose to leap to the conclusion that I am an advocate based on my opposition to your methods is erroneous. Ronnotel (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)\
 * I find your example to be unconvincing. I don't know what "largely skeptical" means. I can point to dozens of posts where you advocated for a claimed reliability of cold fusion advocacy sources. "A scientific curiosity" is simply far more credibility than the reliable sources give cold fusion. I don't know what you mean by "just scientifically curious". You are involved in editing an article and, for better or worse, your advocacy has been solely on the side of promoting cold fusion in defiance of WP:NPOV. This is completely independent of myself, who you ironically continue to malign even as you decry my characterizations of yourself. That is my judgment of your writing here and off-site. If you don't want to be painted with this brush, you can either learn a thing-or-two about the subject or avoid the topic entirely. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I think you'll find that my posts are generally in support of a single set of peer-reviewed experiments in which the available evidence suggests a curious event is occurring, a finding that has been replicated by other groups, and, btw, a view it appears that I hold in common with Bob Park. I've made a total of seven edits to the article in a year. How does this raise to the level of advocacy? By largely skeptical, I mean even if it shown that there is a real effect, I sincerely doubt there will ever be a way to put it to practical use.
 * OK, I shown you my cards, time for you to show yours. Tell me why you are so violently opposed to the idea of scientific curiosity in this case? Something is clouding pitting those CR-39 detectors and I've never seen a reasonable explanation for what that might be. After, CR-39 is the gold standard for detecting charged particles. Say the skeptics right and the effect is entirely chemical. Wouldn't science be served by determining the source of the clouding so that CR-39 are not misused in other experiments? Ronnotel (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT is my mantra. Please see the top note on my userpage for why it is irrelevant whether I think cold fusion is bunk or not. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice newby spam
Ronnie baby,

User:Jennifer Ames is a newby and an O.T. realtor with spam. I think she needs an automatic mop up job, and maybe a little encouragement on proper use.

As always,

Smallbones (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have left a note. I'm a little concerned about the images, for instance at Loft. I'm fairly certain these images are of properties that she represents and therefore they seem like they may violate WP:COI. If she doesn't remove them, I may raise the issue at WP:COIN for clarification.

Possibly unfree File:Cal.png
An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Cal.png, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 18:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)  -- Skier Dude  ( talk ) 18:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA thankspam
Denbot (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

test page
Adding a test. 74.201.3.19 (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The Aviator
Please see the following page, The Aviator. I have been observing some vandalism of a section of the article, but now it's advanced instead of through other means to a legal threat. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Hi, looks like things have been taken care of, correct? Let me know if you still need some help. Ronnotel (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

De-formatting at Cobbe portrait
Why would a strip of illustrations down the right-hand edge, in the style of a deli menu, be a "prefered" formatting? Prefered by whom? I often see editors boldly de-formatting articles in this fashion: usually, as in your case, editors who have not contributed content to the article in question. I wish you'd desist, but I don't imagine anything I might say would move you. So, you have no illustrated books at home? Nothing to develop an eye for a well-balanced page layout? It's hard to imagine. -Wetman (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * first off, my apologies if my edits came across as dismissive. That was not my intent. Ithink there are a couple of reasons for keeping the images on the right, but I'm quite happy to be convinced otherwise:
 * as per WP:MOSIMAGE, portraits should face towards the text, not away.
 * left aligning the image interfered with the Latin box directly below (at least in my browser)
 * the text indicates a link between the Cobbe portrait and the First Folio image. Lining them up one under the other makes them easier to compare.
 * that said, I really don't care that much. If you still feel strongly then go ahead and switch back. Ronnotel (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Revert
I'm sorry, but may I ask what your reason was for reverting my edits at WP:DYKSTATS? Both of the entries I added met the criteria for the monthly lists (over 5,000 views). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 02:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * argh, a thousand apologies. Caused by a combination of trying to browse via an iPhone and the new rollback button they added to the Watchlist page. Sorry again. Ronnotel (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, I was just curious. I've done the same thing before, when trying to click "contribs" or something.  Best, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 13:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)