User talk:Rpeh/Archive 1

Merlin
We decided on the talk page not to include every piece of fiction that includes Merlin, but only those that are either very important works as pieces of Arthurian literature, or in which Merlin is the main character. The applicable guidelines are WP:TRIVIA and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which says "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." I don't recall leaving reference to Harry Potter in there; I removed another one again today, as it's even less notable than the ones you reinstated, as Merlin never actually appears.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

White tiger
The changes I just made have been explained over and over again. Look at the history of the article and the discussion page. look at CambridgeBayweather's page.72.1.195.4 (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you delete large chunks of cited text without any kind of explanation, you're going to have your edits undone. At least use an edit summary of "See talk page" or similar to indicate that there's more going on behind the scenes. --rpeh•T•C•E• 19:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

April 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. ''Your "warning" was inappropriate, given your post here: User_talk:Tmtoulouse where you show yourself to have a COI, and now you are warning me because another RW member has repeatedly posted to my talk page after being asked not to. You are not assuming good faith and trolling me. Be gone.'' TK-CP (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The warning was entirely appropriate because you violated WP:NPA by calling another user a vandal when no act of vandalism had been committed. It doesn't matter who the involved parties are, such behaviour is inappropriate on this site. Accusations of bullying are similarly inappropriate. Please read the appropriate policies. --rpeh •T•C•E• 11:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello!
Hello! Why did you cancel this sentence in 007 octopussy?

Curiosity When James Bond hitches a ride, some boys make him a joke: they stop but immediately run away with their car. Bond makes them the "bras d'honneur".

I will not read your answer. If you want, cancel it again but explain in the page of the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.53.175 (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well apart from being almost incomprehensible, as another editor has already said, "It may be true but it doesn't really add anything important to the article"


 * If you state an intention not to read my answer, then there's not much point in going into any more detail. --rpeh •T•C•E• 00:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello!
 * Yes, maybe it is incomprehensible, I am Italian...
 * I said I would have not read your answer because, probably, I thought in that moment that you would have answered me to the IP address ( anonymous ), so I told you to answer in the article's page, or I thought that I could forget to read your answer.
 * Thanks for your answer in spite of the misunderstanding!!! Alessandro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.151.22.38 (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Filibuster
Hi, and thanks for clarifying this link. I had momentarily forgotten that the USA is not the only country with filibusters. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Other helpful contribs
Thanks for this revision. I guess my idea of summarizing the lede with a quote, didn't fly. Good catch.

(And have you really gone off-site to follow my work at another project? ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's fair to say that your edits at "another project" are pretty famous. --rpeh •T•C•E• 22:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry
I didn't know that rule (WP:RS) and I thought you were a vandal. But you should remember civility, too. --Rudolph Ripley (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't believe I've been uncivil at any point. --rpeh •T•C•E• 01:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey
Hey, I rarely edit pages because I'm at a complete loss. I only make the small edits. :p I'd love to make a page for Dr. Masters, but I wouldn't know how to make the thing. ^.^

No problem about the edit; noticing her two Ph.D's isn't something that many people picked up on. I'm just a stickler for them since I'm working towards my own doctorates XD — Preceding unsigned comment added by GravesendAuthor (talk • contribs) 19:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Facetious comments
On the talk page do not help your cause either. They at least verge on disruptive editing, and "closing" the discussion is certainly disruptive editing. Disruptive editing is only tolerated to a certain point. It is not yours to decide that a discussion is "a waste of time". Rich Farmbrough, 21:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC).


 * No, Rich. I appreciate your expertise in being disruptive given that AN/I has been given over to your own disruptive activities recently, but that !vote had absolutely no basis in any policy and was only ever intended to cause disruption. Thank you for your concern, but I suggest you put your own house in order first. Kindest regards. --rpeh •T•C•E• 21:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You do so love telling people the rules Ref.
 * Ion Zone (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * When the rules are misunderstood, misrepresented, or ignored, it's the duty of any Wiki editor to point it out. You ought to read them some time. --rpeh •T•C•E• 21:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And you ought to remember they apply to you too Ref! They aren't just there so you can use them to override discussion and furfil your moderator fantasy. And then try to make it sound like you are Batman. XD "When the rules are misunderstood, misrepresented, or ignored - It's up to one man to set things right. Coming soon to a theatre near you" XD
 * Ion Zone (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You are being tendentious
You were incorrect to close the proposal. A vote had not been asked for, but that does not mean people cannot register their agreement. There was nothing in policy to say it was illegitimate. Continuing to argue about it will end you up on AN/I. I have warned Ion Zone, there is no need to respond to him.DMSBel (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe the proposal in itself was tendentious. It was an attempt to use a WP:VOTE to force a consensus where none existed. I knew perfectly well that "closing" it was going to be a provocative action, but it seemed the only action to take. I hope your warnings will extend to User:The Four Deuces for starting a clearly-inflammatory proposal? --rpeh •T•C•E• 22:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No my warnings will not extend to TFD. There was nothing inflamatory in the proposal. You could have stated why you disagreed with it, but instead you chose to close it, you should read all of the WP:VOTE page, then you would see that it does not prohibit votes. Trying to indict an experienced editor who is acknowledged for his patience in difficult articles is not a good idea.DMSBel (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Mmmmm... no. TFD has been the subject of AN investigations before, or did you not realise that? If you think that starting a vote in the middle of an active, partisan, discussion is not inflammatory, then your judgment is suspect. Feel free to report me, but I'm afraid your own actions are clearly suspect in this case. --rpeh •T•C•E• 22:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have opened an Incident at AN/I here [], you may wish to respond there. I have also included User:Ion Zone DMSBel (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to respond to this in the morning. I hope you're read WP:BOOMERANG. --rpeh •T•C•E• 22:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I would prefer not to have had to take the matter to AN/I. But the squabbling there is trivialising the whole discussion. It needs to stop. DMSBel (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Names
Really, having disagreements about sourcing and interpretation is one thing, but allowing a mis-spelling of your WP username to become the focus for a session of talk-page ping-pong is not good. Registering that the misspelling had occurred is fine, but really after that you need to just drop it, especially as Ion has already said he is dyslexic. Is it not enough that there are already substantive disputes? Just walk away from this. Rich Farmbrough, 15:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC).


 * No, Rich, and at least one admin disagrees with you too. It shows incredibly bad faith to deliberately misspell somebody's name time after time.


 * In a heated discussion, for one party to deliberately add to the flames is hugely unhelpful. That's what Ion Zone was doing. --rpeh •T•C•E• 15:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

See here.
I have no intention of whitewashing anything. Tentontunic (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Apologies, that was aimed more at some of the other editors and you got caught in the crossfire. In any case, I'm not interested any more. Editing at WP is supposed to be fun and rewarding, and on that page it's become neither. --rpeh •T•C•E• 19:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A pity, I had hoped my compromise proposal would tempt you back, I believe you are acting in good faith, take a few days and perhaps take a look. Take care. Tentontunic (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

More broadly, I think it's a pity the way this whole dispute has gone. But I, too, think you are acting in good faith, and I hope that, after a break, you'll consider coming back. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

House
Xeworlebi ‎decided they didn't need to AfD and they could do it all on their own. He skipped Season 7 episodes, but he removed content for all most everyone episode in seasons 1-6. Look at Xeworlebi's contribs and this category he made Category:House episode redirects to lists. Xeworlebi decided that consensus or an AfD was not necessary. Look at what I left on their talk page User_talk:Xeworlebi. I told them that they need to undo all their redirects and another user backed me up. If the pages are not fixed by Saturday afternoon (afternoon defined by Pacific Standard Time), I will begin using my rollback privileges to undo the disruptive edits. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, I forgot to mention that another attempted a mass AfD that failed a few months back; the consensus was Keep (to be clear, it wasn't "no census to delete" or something "weak" like that, it was a solid keep, see Articles for deletion/Hunting (House)). For that reason, I don't think Xeworlebi attempting an AfD would go very far. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Bloody hell! I was only watching some season 7 episodes - I hadn't realised he'd done all the others. That's outrageuos. Thanks for pointing it out to me. --rpeh •T•C•E• 08:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Those were the two exact words I was thinking when I saw his edits, which is very coincidental (and I am an American, we rarely use bloody as an exclamatory). Wait for them to revert on their own (if they don't I will on Saturday). It will be a mess if multiple people have to revert. Clicking "rollback" while looking at their last 1000 edits will be the easiest way if they don't heed the warning they have been given. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey. Deliriousandlost also filed a motion on your AfD to make it valid for every season so we don't have to go through this seven times. I am backing the measure, I hope you would too. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and done. --rpeh •T•C•E• 18:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Cut it out
Please stop WP:HOUNDING me, refactoring off-topic material is perfectly acceptable.  X  eworlebi (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop acting like a bloody idiot. --rpeh •T•C•E• 11:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice, were starting with the personal attacks. Very mature.  X  eworlebi (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're the one making personal attacks - falsely accusing a user of vandalism is a serious offense. Shall I take you to AN/I now or would you prefer to continue your behaviour to make my case stronger for later? --rpeh •T•C•E• 11:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously just ANI him now. I am going to ask a neutral admin if the AfD can be considered a snowball keep yet. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well it's tempting, but he stopped when I asked him to do so, and it might be the case that he's learning. I'm not convinced, though.
 * The whole discussion on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not‎ is just bizarre. It's like he's trying to start a second discussion to invalidate the AfD.... but I'm not really sure what the purpose is.
 * I note that X seems to be a real deletionist. He's trying to get a new template deleted because he doesn't like it. I really don't understand people like this: do they really think that the best way to improve WP is to delete content? --rpeh •T•C•E• 23:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I asked an admin Elockid if X canvassed. He said it is canvassing on his talk page. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's pretty obvious. The hiding of comments he didn't like was a nice touch, too. --rpeh •T•C•E• 05:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Christian Terrorism
Greetings, Rpeh! The issue of Christian terrorism is far too contentious for me to step in to once again so I have to decline even though I would like to make a case for including systematic and systemic Christian terrorism which is not covered in the Wiki page. Covering the war crime atrocities committed against the people of Iraq as a matter of religious ideology (example Christian terrorist -- General Boykin et al.) would mean endless arguments from fellow Christians who refuse to admit or accept that Christianity routinely gives rise to ideology-based terrorism, war crimes, and treason. It's not worth the aggrevation to defend accuracy in Wikipedia in the face of abject denial and refusal to accept demonstrably correct references in support of accurate updates.

I would also argue that anyone who is honestly interested in the phenomena of Christanic or Islamic or Israeli terrorism would in any event not focus upon Wikipedia as the sole source of their research, ergo fleshing-out the Wiki page on Christian terrorism to include more well-documented, highly-referenced examples of the phenomena seems to me to be a low priority and in any even not very useful. Other resources available on the Internet cover religion-motivated terrorism very well, enough so that Wikipedia's page is redundant. Damotclese (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ron Barassi
Hi, I just saw that you undid my edit here to Ron Barassi. While I agree that it is nearly always better to use a redirect, rather than a section link, it should not be used in this case. The Harold Ball Memorial Trophy is awarded to the Melbourne Football Club's best first-year player, but the link is for Melbourne Football Club leading goalkicker. If you use the redirect, it may confuse people by making them think that the Harold Ball Memorial Trophy is awarded to the leading goalkicker, which is not the case. I realise that you may not have known this (as I don't think you regularly edit Australian rules football articles) so I have taken the issue here rather than simply reverting you. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 06:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Apologies - I see what you mean. I misread the paragraph on the destination page. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries it happens, thanks for the quick reply. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 06:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit war
I do not accept that i am causing an edit war. I am conforming to the status quo by using a source which is used in 16 other Wiki articles (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=JPandS&fulltext=Search). I have already stated the obvious several times that a ruling at Reliable sources/Noticeboard is required to overturn the status quo. ‎One para used doesnt even have any relevancy to the disputed source.--Penbat (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter whether or not you accept it - you have reverted more than three times, so you are in violation of policy. There's no argument about that.
 * On the existing sources matter, you have already had this explained to you twice. JPandS may be a source for some material, but certainly is not reliable for medical matters. If you want to add material that doesn't use JPandS as a source, that's fine, but in the light of your current violation of policy, I suggest you refrain from editing that article for a while. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

accused of edit warring at Sham peer review by User:Rpeh
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette_alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikiquette_alerts and relates to Sham peer review. Thank you.--Penbat (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Research assistance
Thanks for this edit which found a reference for a claim I had reluctantly deleted. It's so nice when great minds work together to save ideas. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No probs - although using a Daily Mail article as a source is not something I want to do too often! rpeh •T•C•E• 19:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)