User talk:Rosicrucian/Archive2

DRV
Would you please look at my proposal re 911tRtT? Thanks, &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Your AfD comments
You may want to consider revising your comments at Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). Just a suggestion. Kafziel Talk 15:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I got a little chuckle out of it. But I was worried that the furor that was starting up might sidetrack the deletion debate. So thanks for your revision. Take care! Kafziel Talk 15:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD
Hi, I see you are keeping an eye on and keeping tidy the Andy Stephenson AfD, do you want to wikify my comments for all the SPA's I identified earlier, I didn't think about it back then. If not I'll quickly go in a do them. Cheers Khukri ( talk  .  contribs ) 18:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you 2
Please note: In general, if you have material that you do not wish for others to edit, or that is otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia, it should be placed on a personal web site. User Pages I intend to be VERY active on the PUBLIC 911TMCruft page. NBGPWS 04:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Abysmal ooze AfD
Hi. I'm slightly intrigued by your comment at Articles for deletion/Abysmal ooze about "be mindful of WP:SNOW". Personally, I find WP:SNOW one of Wikipedia's less helpful pages, so I was wondering if you could give me a slightly fuller explanation of what you mean by that. Cheers --Pak21 08:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * They were prodded. It was contested by I-think-you-can-guess-who-without-looking-at-the-diff. Cheers --Pak21 14:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Your Comments to JamesMLane re: Walter Andrew Stephenson
It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. BenBurch 01:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Muslim Guild POV-pushers trying to get original article deleted to protect their POV Fork
Striver's POV-pushing cohort User:Burgas00 has, in a fit of his POV-pushing zeal, nominated Beit_Hanoun_November_2006_incident for deletion here. The cowardly bad faith POV-pusher wouldn't even sign his own name to the deletion request either. I thought you should be warned of this. RunedChozo 22:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern
But Striver and his friends' behavior has been completely beyond the pale. I cannot just sit idly by and pretend that they are something they are not, e.g. honest and well-meaning contributors. RunedChozo 21:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Itaqallah and friends blatantly lying
See here please:

I have caught Itaqallah blatantly lying in his edit summaries. I see no reason to assume he or his "Muslim Guild" friends are acting in good faith any more. RunedChozo 19:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Itaqallah has now had an admin tool lock the page in bad faith on his behalf. This is beyond insulting behavior and so far beyond good faith it is not even funny, and FayssalF's involvement would appear to be just another Muslim Guild member. RunedChozo 19:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

thank you
Rosicrucian, I thank you for all your positive contributions to Wikipedia talk:911 POV disputes. They are valuable to me. I intend to pick up Wikipedia after January 8. Got any suggestions on how to proceed with this? Some thoughts I have: What would be a good title? 911-related? controversial-articles-related? &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * compare proposed interpretations with current adopted policy
 * try and reach consensus on:
 * interpretations?
 * new guidelines?
 * amendments to existing guidelines?

Regarding your edit to Jamie Spaniolo:
Your recent edit to Jamie Spaniolo (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a hosting or shared IP address to add email addresses, phone numbers, YouTube, Geocities, Myspace, Facebook, blog, forum, or other such free-hosting website links to a page. Please note that such links are generally to be avoided. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II 16:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

My Talk Page
I thank you for your concern as to my deleting of warnings on my talk page. I feel that I must attest to say that the one vandalism was not done by me, but by someone else using this computer. I have since talked to this relative and they have not proceeded to cause any harm to this free encylopedia. I, myself, do use it as a tool and try to fix any blatent vandalism I come across. I thank you again for taking time to concern yourself a little with this issue. May I also inquire as to why you were quisitive about myself? 67.162.76.82 04:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for explaining this. Even after a year are the warnings still relevant to this IP? I don't register because I don't edit enough on Wikipedia. It just feels like there is no trust even when you weren't the person. You still didn't answer my question as to why you were inquisitive about myself.67.162.76.82 05:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

ICP's Gold/Plat Counts
Thanks for reverting the ICP gold/plat counts. I'm glad someone else besides me gives a shit about that being correct. Juggaleaux 02:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR PROBLEM!?!?!?! the 4th and 5th Joker cards are PLATNUIM. bitch —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marioemily101 (talk • contribs).
 * Not according to the RIAA's website which displays the certifications they've handed out. Sorry.--Rosicrucian 21:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

YaR GnitS Vandalism
SORRY —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Son of YaR GnitS X (talk • contribs).

Image:The Franklin Cover-Up book cover.jpg
Hello, Rosicrucian. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:The Franklin Cover-Up book cover.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Rosicrucian/Franklincombo. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 09:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Marioemily101
I applied the proper warning templates to his user-page. It'll save you much time in writing :-) Cheers,  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 02:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If he keeps this up for two more days, we should file a user RFC against him. - Merzbow 19:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Platanogenius
Added! hope it works.. thanks! YoSoyGuapo 23:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

a few of the edits were typical platanogenius edits. it's just hard catching this dude. 64.131.205.111 02:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

EdwinCasadoBaez
Please look here. Similiar personal attacks have come from him "EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) Multiple references of personal attacks [155] "Do you think i give an F*** about the no Personal Attack policy" [156] "This Annonymous User is so stuped." [157] "Where the fuk did i said that...you stupid idiot..."(keep it short). As well as on user talk pages, [158] ,[159]. He has been warned numerous times [160], [161], [162] . As well as uses multiple IP's and usernames [163] . A block due to these multiple and flagrant violations is believed to be in order. YoSoyGuapo 20:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)" 64.131.205.111 19:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

he has been blocked for a week for personal attacks. lets see if more sockpuppets pop up. 64.131.205.111 05:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppet account found
EdwinCasadoBaez advocates for vandalism accounts  who we find out are his family members  and who will state that they will continue to act in a vandalistic manner. Already we have found a sockpuppet. No one owns an article, but that does not mean we have to put up with sockpuppets and vandals. 64.131.205.111 17:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets were found and confirmed to be sockpuppets a number of users were banned as well. Although the platanogenius account came up inconclusive it did not mean that sockpuppets weren't used. I stayed on it and was proven right less than a day later. I haven't done anything on Edwin's page but tag him for warnings. Nothing else. In fact I was first harrassed on my talk page by him after he made a number of personal attacks  and was banned. I have maintained an NPOV and will continue to do so. 64.131.205.111 08:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

no one is baiting him. even an administrator said that he has no one to blame but himself. . this is a group effort to help improve the article. i don't see the point of editing with a name simply b/c we are all behind the computer anyway. you can be blocked all the same and answer all the same. 64.131.205.111 23:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Jonathanmbaez
YoSoyGuapo 17:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

how am i a sockpuppets
can you please explain Avfnx 19:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the one that put you on that list, so I can't say for certain.--Rosicrucian 20:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * so how can I take my self the list Avfnx 21:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * he list stays as a record of the case. My notice to you was just to let you know that someone had put you on that list. Given that the CheckUser indicated you were not a sock, the list only exists as a record that you were accused, not that you were found to be a sock. In other words, you've already been cleared of suspicion.--Rosicrucian 21:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, for clearing that up. I can take a guess who accuse me, I like to add that my only goal is to me Dominican article as good as possible. Thank you for your time. Avfnx 21:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please help Me out
How can i be accused of Sock Puppet!User 64.131.205.111 is abusing us.!He caused me to get blocked!How can he do that?He is annnonymous user and he doesnt got no right to be postin in my account talk!i had to get in another computer so i could try to talk to you about this!this me EdwinCasadoBaez and i desperately need your help..How can he expect us to be civil when he is violating wikipedias policies!reverting edits and acting like and WP:OWN..Please help my case..I been blocked for a week unfairly. His anti dominican views are fustrating the dominican wiki community. Their already been three blocked users do to the big fustration he is causing on us!He is harrasing my talk page too!69.119.127.181 06:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * He can report, and the admins decide. Right now you've got two admins upholding your block. It's only a week so it might be good to wait it out. I'll keep patrolling the Dominican Republic article, and if he keeps harassing users I'm going to start tagging his account with warnings. Don't worry, this will work out.--Rosicrucian 07:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

user 63.215.27.205
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Pablo_Duarte

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_del_Rosario_S%C3%A1nchez

and 63.215.27.197

and those two article made pushing a point of view which simply not true, they did vandalism. AvFnx 05:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Wao
Look At the Racist Intentions of this Users when reffering to another Wikipedian!!!is Alarming and the worst of all is that he says it in Spanish so he could try to cover himself!He Assults a user calling him "Sucio Mono"(dirty Monkey) as described in this section. Not only this is racist(he calls him Dirty Monkey to another user a way to insult a dominican) but is a way of destroying peace in article after he helped to block several user...He has done it before It several other Cases!Please Give A Warning!69.119.127.181 06:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

put in new broader information. 64.131.205.111 21:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

your dominican demographic edits
First of all who gives you the right to write those racist ignorant edits you made to the dominican article. You should keep your own personal opinions or others opinions and thoughts that u use as refrence or citation to ur self. what do you even know about dominican demographics. Things like "dominicans consider themselves white" so ignorant and stupid.Most dominicans are mullatos, european and african mixes what makes u think that they consider themselves white. U are a very racist person DO NOT damage anymore this article you will get warning to be blocked from editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.119.56.116 (talk • contribs).
 * Actually, the edits you're referring to were made by 64.131.205.111. I have been trying to revise his edits so they do not contain the racist slant. You'll notice that the version of the passage I restored after your removal did not contain statements like "Dominicans consider themselves white." The whole time I've been trying to reach a compromise that 64.131.205.111 won't revert automatically. Unfortunately if I sway too close to the one point of view he reverts me, and if I sway too close to the other you revert me. It's pretty frustrating to be the guy in the middle trying to stop the edit war.--Rosicrucian 23:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If ur not the one doing those edits why do you appear as if u were, and u told me that im in a edit war and warned me for no reason. Iam trying to improve that article from being vandalized as it was, from whoever it is. the CIA citation was good enough to describe dominican heritage not add anything irrelevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.119.56.116 (talk • contribs).
 * I warned you because you were in an edit war. You were reverting without comment and without discussing on the talkpage and I'm required to warn you so I don't have to report you for the three revert rule. It's procedure and in the interests of being fair to you. Basically I am trying to create a version that hopefully everyone can be happy with, that isn't as extreme as what he wants and isn't as sparse as what you want. The trouble is, if you two are both so focused on reverting it to the version you favor, I can't make any headway.--Rosicrucian 23:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting article with many citations
Saw this on a reverted edit. It's sources include UNICEF. Take a look at it. http://www.ecpat.net/eng/ecpat_inter/Publication/Other/English/Pdf_page/ecpat_sex_tourism_dom_rebublic.pdf 64.131.205.111 20:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting perhaps, but considering who was trying to add it in I'm understandably hesitant to bring it back.--Rosicrucian 20:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You won't find me placing in most of his edits. I simply can't agree with non-cited material.  The sex trade is problematic, and the placement of new material based on the source may be beneficial in showing the totality of what is DR. 64.131.205.111 20:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi rosicrucian
Hi i'm interested to know if You are an administrator that can help me out in several issues i have!

A few days ago the Dominican Republic article was officially Semi-Protected by the Administrations!After this article was semi protected a significant amount of IP Users where unable to Edit espicially User:64.131.205.111...This user stop his editing after succesfully being unable to edit but after a few days another User called User:YoSoyGuapo(Probably and Administrator) started editing the article with the same writing style and the consistent anti-Dominicanism Agenda as of User:64.131.205.111!I think this users are the same and they bug me out because they have the same writing Agenda...They Both are being consistently being Warned of their Anti Dominican Agenda and i feel like theirs been Sock Puppetry in this Case!!!please help out!!Please!!

While User:64.131.205.111 has contributed to the banning of several users in the Dominican Article like User:Platanogenius,User:Jonathanmbaez,User:Memeco(a Supposed Sock Puppet of JonathanmBaez), and lastly User:EdwinCasadoBaez for accusation of personal attacks! but the weird thing is that The Actual person that blocks them is User:YoSoyGuapo(but User:64.131.205.111 is the one that post them up) which makes me think that they have something involved together!Please Help me in the situation!the Dominican Discussion page is becoming unlivable!

please try to check if the both Users have the same IP Address and if this case is the true then they both should be banned.(user:64.131.205.111 and user:YoSoyGuapo)

If You not an administrator please help me contact an administrator as Soon as possible...Your Help will be appreciated!69.118.48.94 05:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

the river
Rio Massacre that the river name AvFnx 22:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it? It seemed off to me, so when I researched it I got the impression it was another name for the Rio Artibonito. Appologies if I came to the wrong conclusion.--Rosicrucian 23:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No need for apologies, if you say that other then that other name...so let use both and say the page this river know as this two name. I never knew that everyday you learn something new. I'm sorry if you got the impression that I'm hard to work with, but give me time and i show you that im really all about neutral point of view. Hope keep working with you. AvFnx 06:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Pennsylvania
Hello there!

I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:
 * Contact us on IRC at #wikimedia-pa
 * Join our mailing list
 * Visit our blog at http://wmfpa.blogspot.com

Thanks and I hope you join up!  Cbrown1023   talk   04:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)