User talk:Rsm99833

/Archive 1

Vandalisim to The Germs
Why did you remove the link I posted to THE GERMS? It was NOT a commercial page, nor was it a personal page. What YOU did was vandalisim... Teamgoon 01:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * the Names Database a commercial link & database, and it is not an official profile. Rsm99833 01:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Gateway All in One revertion
It says on Gateway's site that the processor is now a Core Duo, yet you changed it back to the Intel P4.


 * It would be best if you include a summary of your ediets. Were these unintentional typos? Rsm99833 00:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sadly they were. I am typing in the dark, and am not the greatest typer in the world. Corporal clegg48 00:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I can remove the warning, unless you want to continue using this account for future edits.Rsm99833 00:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What warning? I thought I was signed in, but forgot I wasn't using Firefox at the time... I am slightly confused now. Corporal clegg48 00:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The warning, if you look at the article history, was done under your I.P, and not user account. I've reverted the warning.

Oh, I gotcha now. Thanks man, and sorry for the trouble. Corporal clegg48 00:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

John Wayne Vandalism
There seems to be a bit of bickering/vandalism going on over at the John Wayne page tonight. I tried to add the Biography Actors Box and it seems to be locked down. Can you check it out? trezjr 01:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. I'll take a look.Rsm99833 14:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my user page
Much appreciated.--Runcorn 21:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad to be of service. Rsm99833 21:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Thanks for catching that. Seems that the person in question isn't fond of my articles on the far right in Canada. AnnieHall 23:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad I could be of help to you.Rsm99833 23:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for covering my mistake at Edward Furlong when the anon vandal hit. I've noticed a lot of the vandals are making multiple edits at once to throw manual reverters off. Seems I'm a little off the mark today. --Targetter (Lock On) 23:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Bacon cheesburger
Hi I think I was going a bit too far in calling the section on the bacon cheeseburger at Cheeseburger 'fatuous', but I do think it was pointless. It was more or less a dicdef, and not at all encoclopedic. If there's a policy that covers my actions, I think it would be WP:NOT, not a discriminate collection of information. Are we also to have decriptions of the double cheeseburger, vegieburger with cheese, etc. etc.? Frankly, I think the existence of the cheeseburger article itself is pretty dubious – it should really be a section of hamburger. mg e kelly 07:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

East Milton, Massachusetts
What do you think of redirecting this one to Milton, Massachusetts? The Milton article already mentions the concentration of Irish people in East Milton. The rest of the East Milton material is either promoting or disparaging the "EMM", which doesn't seem like an especially encyclopedic group. I redirected once, but one of your reversions overwrote it, so I figured I'd check with you before putting the redirect back. FreplySpang 16:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea. Apologies if your redirect was nuked. Looking over the history, there appeared to be two anonymous I.P. users going back and forth in the re-writes. Rsm99833 16:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem! Now, if you'll excuse me, I have an appointment at "The Crater", even though it's raining in the Greater Boston area. ;-) Cheers, FreplySpang

I went looking for...
...a welcome from somebody to you, as you do good work. I didn't see one. If nobody ever did welcome you to the community, consider this a belated one. Kukini 17:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate that.Rsm99833 17:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

UAV Video link
I have added the video link for visual information, not for ad.Raven UAV has its video here, I also make contributions. Please tell me if it is ok
 * What links did you want to add in? How do they differ from the ones currently in place?Rsm99833 22:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I added Privately developed section, a company link as well, as all the others are so.
 * That might work a lot better. Rsm99833 23:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And also 2 other links, one is a demonsration video for VTOL platforms, as there is no such visual info here. I added also another link for others to see what is inside in a UAV, example. --Haluk 23:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you explaining the significance of each link?Rsm99833 23:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I mean, there are many similar links up there if you investigate. So the links that I add are just for more info type. The video is additive.--Haluk 23:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Also there are a lot significant company ads there, please note that--Haluk 23:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If they're ads that I may have missed, examine to see what they contribute to the article. If they go against Wiki policy, you'll probably want to delete them. Also, consider taking all of the like-links, grouping them together, and add a brief explaination as to the significance to them so that the page isn't littered with redundant information. As an example:
 * In a battle situation, the craft can be used as a scout :

Ok, thanks a lot. I will try to do that. But first I would be very familiar with Wiki rules as well, so as not to mess up things.--85.104.47.184 00:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Mercury
It seems like everyone else managed to get to Mercury to clean it up before I logged on. Were you trying to edit with VandalProof or just with a browser? I've had Vandalproof refuse to revert before, and it's usually when a vandal is rapidly vandalising a page and the page changes while it's reverting. Switching to my normal browser usually lets me revert it fine. Anyways the page looks ok now though maybe someone should request semi-protect. Cheers.  Canadian - Bacon  (contribs) 00:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for defending my userpage, good to know I'm watched too :) Soosed 23:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of help.Rsm99833 01:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Voyage Edit
"Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia, as you did in The Voyage (roller coaster). Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links as long as the content abides by our policies and guidelines. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Rsm99833 22:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)"

It's obvious that you should learn a bit more about this subject before you go ahead and edit. I posted links to two extremely well respected, non-commercial sites. And they aren't mine. In fact, that you thought these sites were mine shows how limited your knowledge really is in this area.


 * Please review the following links-[], []. If afterwords, you feel that the links in question meet Wiki criteria, free to revert. Also, please read Read WP:NPA. Have a good week, and welcome aboard. Rsm99833 21:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

My article
Why are you reverting my page back to normal? I do have 8 websites! 9708191616 01:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If that is your account, then you should log into it, to do edits. Else, it will be looked at with a sceptic eye. Rsm99833 01:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Anal Sex
I wasn't experimenting with the anal sex page. I was contributing positively. Imagine if you were a guy and you wanted to be as close as possible with another guy. Sometimes sucking eachothers dicks doesn't cut it, you know?

Taylor Hewitt 00:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your contribution is, at best, POV. I suggest re-reading the articles on what makes a good contribution. Have a good evening. Rsm99833 00:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info & tips
Dear Rsm99833 --> Thanks for the info and tips...

I've added summary details for each edit completed.

Regards!
 * Glad I could be of service. Don't forget to sign your messages. Have a good week! Rsm99833 04:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Misusing Vandal Proof
What was this all about? You rolled back dozens of edits. Quit misusing VP. --Asbl 17:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's odd. I don't remember making such an edit. And from the looks of it, I certainly don't see any reason why I would make such an edit. Rsm99833 17:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I've looked over the edit, and previous edits I had done last evening, and I have no idea how or why that one was done. But since my name is attached to it, I take full responsibility. All I can say is that the edit was unintentional. My apologies. Rsm99833 18:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That Was Quick --
Sorry about the defacement of the shark article -- though intentional, it was done to prove a point about Wikipedia, which was that anyone could edit Wikipedia to successfully make a (dumb) point and have it reverted. As you had, literally, fixed the problem both (a) before the other person (sitting across me, laptop on her lap) had a chance to access the page I had defaced and (b) before I had a chance to change it back myself, you lost the argument for me, but renewed my faith in Wikipedia

Thanks for your time, and sorry about the inconvenience.

-- ACS

Hello and thanks
You know, I rarely see cordial "hellos" with no strings attached like that. I really appreciate it. "Hello" right back at you, and you have a great weekend too!

P.S. Feel free to let me know whenever you might need a second hand in vandal control. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Howard Carter
I am off to bed. could your revisit Howard Carter a little later and see if the IPVandal has carried on regardless the test4 I placed on his talkpage. No reply needed. Agathoclea 21:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Jerry Springer
Why revert the Springer link? If there was ever a more appallng collection of White Trash on TV, I've never seen it. 24.0.77.170 23:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The link was placed in an inappropriate place. Add to this, that the show can hardly be considered an example, as that it encompasses more than just "White Trash". If anything, the show is catagorized as "Trash TV." If you want to include it, consider placing it under the appropriate catagory. Rsm99833 23:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Pants1992
Im most cases, I agree with the decisions concerning vandals. However, I must ask for a reconsideration of Pants1992. Looking over the history and picture uploads, it's pretty obvious that the account is for nothing more than harrasement. Would like to discuss this with you. Have a great weekend. Rsm99833 02:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad you mostly agree with me :-) However, I cannot block a user who has not vandalized since their only warning (last edit at 02:06, only warning at 02:07).  If he vandalizes again tomorrow or later today and he is properly warned, then I will consider a block. — Mets 501  (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Er...
What did you just warn me for? -- thunderboltza.k.a.D e epu Joseph 05:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

User:StevO
Erm, I was reverting vandalism.--Konstable 05:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know. for some wierd reason, Vandalproof sent out a couple of warnings to legitamate users. I think it's due to another program that was running in the background. Sorry about that. Rsm99833 05:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No prob =) --Konstable 05:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Its fine, dude. Np. :)-- thunderboltza.k.a.D e epu Joseph 05:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of 7th Day Willisite information
Wesley Willis was an important impact on the creation of the 7th Day Willisite band. This is a real bad that produces real music. Your constant removal of my additions about the 7th Day Willisites is not only petty but quite unnecessary. Who are you to decide that my additions are vandalism. It is easy to verify the information I add. However, your blatant removal of anything that you think is vandalism in its own way is vandalism. Thank you for limiting the knowledge that people can get on this subject.
 * First of all, who is 7th Day Willisites that would call for such inclusion? The only information I'm able to find is a MySpace page. Based on the information found there, they are nither notable, nor should be included. The paragraph is, at best, vanity with a design to promote a band that very few have heard of. Overall, they are non-notable, and there is no reason for them to be included. Secondly, if every individual (notable and non-notable) were to place a paragraph in about how WW influenced them, the article would become far too-long. If you disagree with my decision, please raise the the issue up in discussion. Thanks. Have a great week! Rsm99833 01:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your decision. But what is my disagreement going to do. Your opinion on this page is all that really matters since you control whatever is placed on it. So why bother even complaining. You have a great week too.
 * I'm only human, and can be wrong. This is why you should bring it up in discussion, where others can comment. And no, I don't control the article. I am but one editor that works on the article. One of many. Rsm99833 02:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Puzzled about Johnny Cash revert
Not that I care much one way or the other whether Man in White is in the Selected Books section, but I'm puzzled about your unexplained revert of my own reverting of its anonymous, unexplained, removal. Hm, maybe that needs more explaining. I'd like it if I weren't the only one in this process explaining my edits. That's rather a frustrating position to be in. -Stellmach 13:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Anonymous user removes reference from list, without explanation.
 * I revert this change as having no apparent justification.
 * You revert my change, without explanation.
 * Why should a book that is not written or about Cash be included in the biography be included? Rsm99833 13:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to be a little garbled. I'm guessing you meant to say "not written by or about Cash." If so, that explains the confusion. He did write that book. -Stellmach 17:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you misunderstood my comment? When I said that "Man in White does not link to Cash's novel" I didn't mean that he was not the author of the novel Man in White. I meant that the wikilink Man in White does not go to a page that's usefully about that book. So I made it not a wikilink rather than deleting the entire reference, as the previous editor had done. -Stellmach 17:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if he did write the book, then you need to make that clear. If you include that, I see no reason to edit it out. You may even want to place it in it's own catagory (books authored by Johnny Cash). Have a good week. Rsm99833 19:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

In regards to your comment regarding vandalism
If you would take the time to check, I had already spoken with another individual about the matter. It was my 16 year old and he has been dealt with regarding the matter and I assured them it will not ever happen again.

Since that time, it has not happened again. He has not had even the remotest access to the internet nor will he until I am sure that he has learned his lesson, fully and completely.

I can appreciate what you are attempting to do here, and I apologized then for his actions; however, getting chastised by several different individuals for the same offense after I had addressed it is a bit disconcerting. No offense is intended and the matter is closed as far as I and his mother are concerned.

Sincerly,

Mark Hogan

System of a Down
It's a very sensitive topic in regards to the Armenian Genocide. Turkish editors use them to paint a picture of Armenians as what they call "heavy-metal satanists". Also note the user's name "Emerald Flame" which could imply that the account was created to spark a flame war. Indeed the only contribution the user made was adding that topic to the Armenian Genocide talk page. -- Clevelander 00:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses
When you have a Jehovah's Douchebag ruin your family's life by converting one of your loved ones... you will also earn the right to put them down in any way possible. And here's a nice link to an article prohibiting Yoga among it's members: http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/2002/8/1a/article_01.htm

For the record, that's not POV... it's the conclusion of EVERY major religion that has EVER taken a stance. Not to mention the conclusion of many nations! Fact is, I love Wikipedia and I probably spend about 4 hours reading articles on it every week... but the article on Jehovah's Witnesses isn't scathing enough. They are devilish people that internally plot the religious conversion of every single person they interact with everyday. They see 99% of the people they meet as either "possible convert" or "destined for destruction". I wish I were so convoluted and egomanical that I could believe everyone else is destined for hell/destuction/fire and brimstone... it would probably make the world a very fun place to live. F**k them with a passion.

Sincerely, I.D.

PS- When Hitler was exterminating them in concentration camps (they wore a nice purple triangle), their leaders sent a 'we disagree with your policies' letter to him--which he promptly wiped his ass with and threw away (possibly POV--needs citation!). Then when the allied forces freed them, they continued with their "we don't recognize governments and believe all armies are evil" even though every single one of them is living on borrowed time. They deserve nothing less than our scorn for such ignorance.

Example: Jehovah's Witness: "Life is great, I'm gonna cross this street." Random guy: "Oh no... a car is coming! :::pushes JW out of the way::: JW: "Wow... thanks for saving my life. Do you want to be a JW?" RG: "Um... no." JW: "Oh.... well then I'm sorry we can't be friends... and you are gonna be destroyed very soon."

POV? Sounds like a NON-SEQUITOR to me. Let's let readers decide.

Good Revert on Bill O'Reilly
I was just about to do the same thing...you beat me to it. --Blue Tie 22:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Jonah Matranga
I'm going to remove your speedy tag as the lead section claims he was part of at least two notable bands which means he'd qualify based on WP:MUSIC. If you think the article still needs deletion, please take it to AFD. (By the way, I didn't read past the lead. If the article contains self-promotion, consider editing it out instead of deleting the whole thing). - Mgm|(talk) 08:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I just reviewed the edit history, and there appears to be some actuality to the article. Rsm99833 08:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'd like to point out that the page is not self promotion. I created the page and I am not Jonah Matranga, but I am a fan of the various bands he's been in and I would argue that the page establishes notability. Feel free to put on AFD if you disagree :) Halo 17:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

3-Revert Rule
Hi, are you familiar with the three-revert rule? You only get to break it in cases of potential libel. Since I imagine you're not a lawyer, the standard, as set by the Supreme Court, is actual malice--it has to be something the person KNEW was untrue. Everything here is not only true but fully cited. This is a ceiling--state standards may very but they can never make it easier to sue than this. Thus you are exceeding your very limited authority by continuing in your reversions. Good day! :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.117.8 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm quite framiliar with it. I'm also framiliar with i.p jumping. I can also see your edit and block history. Not very pretty. Have a good week 64.12.117.8 Rsm99833 08:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's all very fascinating. Are you aware you misspelled familiar as framiliar twice?  In any case, the three-reversion rule must be observed at all times.  Your breaking it entitles me to remove your reversions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.117.8 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 11 September 2006  (UTC)
 * You seem rather unfamiliar with the guidelines of WP:3RR. Please read it thoroughly before making more assertions, accusations, and especially reverts. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 08:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem unframiliar yourself. Care to be more specific? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.117.8 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 11 September 2006  (UTC)

You have the above reference to read, as well as WP:LAWYER. I would read both. Rsm99833 08:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * After reading that lawyer section I have to say I'm suspicious of the idea that you read, understood, *and* applied anything in to what I'm doing. From your posts and writing style my guess is you're not a lawyer, know nothing of legal principles or even the basic legal method--thus it's odd you'd point me to that section.  Please read those sections yourself and if you can make the crucial application, you let me know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.117.8 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 11 September 2006  (UTC)
 * Please stop wikilawyering, please stop making clever little snipes about other people's writing and intelligence levels, and please just "let it go". -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

User:64.12.117.9 is making exactly the same edits as User:141.149.54.179 whom you have already blocked for various reasons. I suspect they are one and the same person. --Blue Tie 08:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

HENRY
Hello. I just want to ask, what happened to Matthew Carroll's user page. Everythings gone and the last edit in the history thing wasn't done by him. The talk page has a recent comment from you so I'm assuming you know what happened. Please tell me (on my talk page). Thank you Henry Kricancic 13:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Al Franken Page Why
I added an external link to an Al Franken Discussion Forum which appeared to be in keeping with other like discussion forums in the external links list on that page. Ten minutes after I made the change it was reverted by you using VP - a vandal proof program?

Could you explain to me why the link I added was determined to be vandalism? I checked my talk page and there was no explanation of the revert there. I checked the Wikipedia explanation of what is considered vandalism and could not find anything there.

If this change was made in error by an automated program I quite understand. Would you please review the revert and explain the reason for it or undo it if it was an error?

I would also like to point out if you have any questions about the validity of this link as a legitimate discussion forum about Al Franken that Al Franken's Air America web page which you may find here at http://www.ofrankenfactor.com/ considers it a worthy enough site to link to under the Franken Stuff links section.

Thank you.
 * The link you provided states right on the main page that it is "unofficial" which means it is a private link, and is not providing any information to the article. Rsm99833 00:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please Explain the Al Franken Page External Links
Forgive me for creating a new comment. I would like to reply to your reply of my previous comment? I am new here and would like to understand the External Links on that page and why some qualify but the one I added does not. You state that the one added has the word unofficial at the top and that makes it a private link?

The AlFrankenWeb Forum is the oldest fansite and discussion forum (to my knowledge) with the largest membership of any other discussion forum on the web. Try doing a Google Search of the name Al Franken. It is the only fansite linked to by Al Franken's Air America Radio web page. I did read in the extended links section that listing one fansite might be acceptable. If this is not acceptable and private site links like this one are not allowed I can respectfully accept that rule.

However, I do not understand given your reason why three other links


 * Al Franken Fan Club and Forum
 * Frankenlies, a conservative Al Franken rebuttal site
 * Satirical "Official Homepage"

are considered acceptable.

The first is a private fansite. The second is another private site which is intended to "debunk" information in one of Al's books. That clearly is a matter of highly controversial opinion. The third is another private site which is intended to take satirical potshots at Al (also a matter of highly controversial opinion.)

My intent is not vandalism or disruption. I added an external link that was in perfect keeping with other like links already in the list. Please explain so I may understand what constitutes a qualifying external link.

Thank you.

Why?
That is a legit non-biased edit. So maybe give me more insight into why this was changed back.

Your Deletion of the links I placed on the sites you edit.
I'll simply respond to all three of my edits that you chose to reverse.

This is not a new phenomenon on Wikipedia. It's obvious that certain prejudices would inevitably manifest themselves on any purportedly 'free' and 'open' contributor-maintained forum. Wikipedia is obviously plagued by little despots as much as any other facet of our increasingly compromised society.

The Digital Deli Online is--and always has been--a collection of RESOURCE PAGES directed toward helping the nostalgic amongst us, find sites, resources and information to assist them in learning more about the past, finding other similar resource sites, finding interesting anecdotes and trivia about various nostaligic interests, and sharing images and histories of some of these areas of interest.

I don't advertise--anywhere--and if you can find even ONE page among the 8.6 million web pages on the internet wherein I either advertise, promote or in any other way present my site as anything BUT a reference, history or resource service, please show even one such page to me. Because if you do--and we both know you won't--someone's embezzling from me big time without my knowledge.

I couldn't help but be amused by several other blatantly commercial pitches you selectively 'overlooked' on the three pages from which you deleted my links. Here's a few:

http://surfing-gooroo.com/main.cgi/Learn%20to%20Surf/Surf%20Products/

http://www.swingdanceshop.com/

http://www.swingmonkey.com/html/page.php?file=static_content/instruction.html

Help me understand why these clarly commercial sites escape your edits while my site--which receives not one thin dime from either advertising or promotion, nor offers any product whatsoever related to the three topics you deleted my links from.

I fund the entire site out of pocket, or from an occasional donation through Amazon.com from those that have the means to, and have found our thousands of references, historical facts, artwork, or resources of value.

It's obvious you didn't bother to follow the links I hoped would prove helpful to the respective topics. Had you even bothered, I defy you to show me even one commercial promotion accruing to me--or The Digital Deli Online--from even one of those pages.

Show me even one commercial appeal, pitch or offer on any of the linked pages, and I can assure you that I will end this dialogue with my profuse and sincere apology--and my vow to never darken the pages you control ever again.

In plain point of fact, my 1200 pages are--every 72 hours now--crawled for images by Google in particular, and over a hundred of them have found their way to various Wikipedia topic pages. When I find and recognize them as my own, I'm frankly quite complimented that others found them valuable enough to include in such a valuable universal resource as Wikipedia--moreso when they actually attributed the source, naturally. But I happen to believe that the Internet is a resource for sharing--not establishing tiny little fiefdoms of tyrannical power. Sadly, I seem to be one of a shrinking minority in this viewpoint.

Do what you wish with the topic pages you so clearly control. It's obvious this isn't even the 'free', 'user supported', 'user contributed' resource it's purported to be. More's the pity for all of us.

RE: edit to Fast Food`
I have never been on the article "Fast Food", let alone edited it! I believe this must be a case of mistaken identity.
 * You yourself may not havem but your I.P. number has. Rsm99833 16:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ketchikan, Alaska linkspam
I'm afraid User:206.223.204.253 continues to add the same linkspam to the Ketchikan, Alaska article (seven separate times now!) despite both your and my reversions. S/he has been warned by both of us to stop yet has continued. What is the next step of recourse? Jarfingle 08:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Report them to admin would be the next step. Rsm99833 16:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverts to Pasty
On what basis are my edits to Pasty being reverted as vandalism? Tubezone 06:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Aside that they ingredients are *not* the same, nor are they even remotely even similar? Rsm99833 13:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * On what basis are you claiming THAT? Have YOU ever been to Pachuca, Hidalgo, Mexico and eaten a quesadilla or a paste? I have, and other than the casing, they're practically identical. if they weren't, I would not add such a comment to Pasty. I seriously doubt that the similarities are a coincidence. If you check out my record, this is the first incident where anyone claimed I was vandalizing an article. I use VP myself. VP is not meant to be used as an editorial tool, rather, it's supposed to be used as tool to delete vandalism. If you want to dispute content, the Pasty article discussion page is the place to argue about it. The English and Spanish language Wikipedias support what I say.
 * There's no argument about it: A quesedia is nothing like a Pasty. It may be in some small village in central Mexico that no one has heard of/visited, but seeing that it a small exception to an overall larger picture, it doesn't merti mention. And yes, I have been to Mexico many times. Not that it's suddenly going to change a quesedia into a pasty. Rsm99833 18:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

68.77.140.5 linkspamming
I removed your WP:AIV entry for. It appears that the jumping IP is only spamming one article, right? And only once or twice a day? If so, I'd recommend either watching the page closely and reverting until s/he goes away or listing that article at WP:RFPP. Range blocking is a pretty big step that seems like overkill for a situation this tame. Let me know if you have questions/issues. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC) In most cases, I would agree, except if you look at the history, this has been going on for more than six months. Rsm99833 04:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well hopefully you're not requesting a range block for the next six months! First, the 68.7x.xx.xx IPs have been editing that article for only about 10 weeks (since this edit).  Second, it appears the range block would need to cover 68.77-79.xx.xx which is potentially tens of thousands of IP addresses.  That's awfully risky for such a small amount of spam (17 edits in 10 weeks is hardly George W. Bush-level vandalism).  If it's picked up lately, try WP:RFPP but I'd be surprised if that worked either.  —Wknight94 (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well no. I would recomend placing a lock on the page, so that anonymous users (all of which in the past few months) have been from the 18 speed tranny spammer. Rsm99833 03:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi there! First of all, thanks for posting on WP:AIV and thanks for letting me know on my talk page.  Could you point me to the link of the history you're referring to?  If you're referring to the Stoner rock history, I can see that IP's with a 68.7 have been editing that article rather frequently, but I'm not sure if a range block is justified.  Could you post your concerns on WP:AN/I?  This way, more administrators will be made aware of a situation and will decide on how to fix the situation.  Thanks again!  Cheers   hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 05:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I would *highly* recomend having the article anonymous locked, as that the anon spammer isn't going to stop anytime soon.Rsm99833 02:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the most recent offender but agree it's tricky to do a range block... It's an annoying thing to s-protect the page for but I guess that's the next move. If you need admin help with this just give me a shout.  Dei zio  talk 08:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added the article to the watchlist of VoABot II. Assuming I did that correctly (which is a big assumption), maybe the spam will be reverted more quickly.  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not blacklist it? see m:WM:SPAM Agathoclea 17:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is not enough widespread spamming to warrant WM blacklisting yet. There are many many links that often get added that are not serious enough to warrant WikiMedia site wide blocked. Voice -of- All  19:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

vandalism
Please note that in order for a user to be blocked, he must be properly warned with a series of templates:,. Thanks, AdamBiswanger1 03:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to know which user or history you are refering to, as that I normally follow protocol. If it's in regards to Stoner Rock, I suggest you view the history. If not, let me know. Rsm99833 04:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure. From my computer, it appears that the user reported for vandalism to Stoner Rock has no talk page whatsoever... I don't know maybe there's something wrong with one of our computers... Keep me posted, (I'll check back on your page) AdamBiswanger1 04:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Check the history page for Stoner Rock. This anon user has been a pain for some time, and jumps IP numbers to avoid banning. Best to place the entire article under an anon lock for a few months. Rsm99833 04:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me ; ) AdamBiswanger1 04:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A few months is certainly not appropriate. Take a look at WP:PP - pages are not protected for more than a couple weeks except in extreme cases of damaging constant vandalism like in George W. Bush and the like - and even those get unprotected for short periods of time.  The edits to Stoner rock are neither damaging (it's just spam) nor constant (once or twice a day is nothing compared to other articles).  Yes it's annoying and yes it's a changing IP but it's really not doing nearly enough harm to warrant subverting the most basic principle of Wikipedia (the encyclopedia anyone can edit).  —Wknight94 (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wknight, I was the one who protected this page. I think you are a bit on the extremes here in that you are understating the amount of vandalism taking place, and you are overstating the damage anon protection does to Wikipedia.  Stoner rock has been vandalized daily for the last week, with some days containing 4 or 5 instances of vandalism.  Also, I wouldn't turn this into an issue of contradicting the "basic principle" of Wikipedia.  I just want to protect it for several days until these anons lose interest-- I would certainly not protect it for longer than, say, a week.  In any event, let me know if you think this is unreasonable.  I'm interested in what you have to say.  Cheers, AdamBiswanger1 14:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A week or so is fine. Your response to "anon lock for a few months" was "Sounds like a good idea to me".  A few days or a week or whatever is fine - although I don't think it will accomplish much in the long run.  As far as the supposed vandalism, it's actually spam, right?  You have to admit there's a big difference between adding a link to some weird site once or twice a day - which is what is happening here - and changing the entire article into a giant picture of genitalia or the word Nazi (or some other vulgar thing) 50 times a day - which is what happens at real vandalism targets.  Like I said, I'm fine with a few days or whatever since this page doesn't seem to get much legitimate IP editing traffic but page protection is usually reserved for extreme cases - and this doesn't seem like one of them.  Spam is hardly going to lead to the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy.  —Wknight94 (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandal bot
Your vandal bot twice removed the link I replaced at the FSM article. That link was part of the article for over a year and a vandal removed it! Could you please replace it?
 * I looked over your edits, and edit history. Your link was obviously spam. And no, it wasn't a bot that did it. It was me. And no, I won't replace it. If you feel that it should be included, please bring it up in discussion. Thanks! Have a great week! Rsm99833 23:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Wild One
Of course I believe the article should not have been reverted. You could not determine whether the edit was vandalism or a constructive contribution?!?!? Excuse me, but are you blind??? I replaced the old leadind poster (a DVD cover) for the original movie poster, more appropriated, of course, and you couldn't see that?? You need an edit summary to see that?? lol

In the future, please, wear glasses my dear user. The edit summary is there now. Cheers. Machocarioca 08:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)machocarioca
 * No, I did not see any poster replacement, until I checked the source. In addition, I could not see any reason to change the picture over. Rsm99833 16:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi?
You just left a stock message on my talk page -- I am wondering which article or edit you were upset with?

Bye, Chris 01:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mental_retardation&diff=prev&oldid=81877112

Rsm99833 01:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The Marx Brothers Edit
I will continue to change obvious errors in spelling and dating. And you can waste time changing them back, incorrectly. To address the change you made, that was back to the wrong date, on the Marx Brothers page; it is an obvious error in dating as the name of the file of the picture is 1948 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Marx_Brothers_1948.jpg) and the brothers in the picture are of an advanced age as well, very apparently past 1935 as dated in the picture caption (my edit fixed this simple oversight).

I hope this is automatic since this is a complete waste of time your and mine time. But I do have a minute and this was the first time my simple edits where harassed I felt compelled to answer. And it is a more than obvious error: a person would see it as a more then proper edit. And please do not worry as I will continue read your awesome and well written pages with a zeal for knowledge and continue to fix embarrassing errors. But I will leave the Marx Brothers page alone to see if proper change can happen and with speed.

Sorry, 72.74.194.170


 * I have no idea what you are talking about.Rsm99833 20:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

reversion of Jello Biafra
If one looks at the history of the recent commits to Jello Biafra, the contents of the change I'd made, and at the actual URL cited, you'd have seen that the URL is, in fact, a citation of Jello Biafra being a subgenius. --moof 05:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We've been over this several times. Just because someone gives a list doesn't make it so. He has never claimed to be, nore has he ever made any mention of being one in public. Rsm99833 14:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

attempts to linkspam
My addition to the Pee-wee's Playhouse page is legitimate information. It pertains to the subject even more so than the "sponge bob" addition. So please next time try not deleting someone's addition without knowing what you are talking about first.


 * Since 2001 music creator Nick Gathany has been recording music under the name "Zyzzybalubah", as a nod to the lonely playhouse abductor, and the amount of influence the show has had over his music and art.

Not only is this truth, but there are no external links to Zyzzybalubah. So try not to be such a twit, even if it is for a good cause!


 * I looked over your information, and it's not only obvious linkspam, but vandalism. Attempts to link to some some midwestern nobody who no one has heard of to Pee Wee's Playhouse, in an attempt to garner publicity is known as 'linkspamming'.Rsm99833 14:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

An exact quote from George McGrath, co-creator of Pee-wee's Playhouse and actor who played/created Zyzzybalubah, "zyzzybalubah music! i couldn't be more proud.". So next time, try going to hell.

Pee-wee's Playhouse Zyzzybalubah contribution
Look, this is the second time you have deleted the information I've added to the Pee-wee's playhouse section. Not only is my information valid, but it did not include any kind of spam link and was not a form of promotion. My edit follows all guidelines and is not trying to promote anything. Instead it provides relevant information. Information that is much more significant than a sponge-bob pee-wee reference, or richard simmons doing the pee-wee. I think you need to find a new hobby rather than vandalising the Pee-wee's Playhouse wikipedia entry by deleting valid and relevant information. Zyzzybalubah music is a very significant offspring of the show Pee-wee's Playhouse, and has been revered and regarded by creators of the show itself. Stop trying to deny information to the world of information. What is wrong with you? I'm going to try adding this information for the 3rd time. If you delete it again, I'm going to have to report you for vandalism.


 * Look, if you want to promote your music, there are great places to do it. But attempts to place links,first-person information, exagerations, etc are against wiki standards (as are personal attacks and insults, threats, etc). As I've suggesed many times over, read the wiki guidelines. Also, please learn to sign your posts.

Rsm99833 12:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: The name Sexual Healing
Actually, I wasn't aware of the song. Even so, the username policy is meant to be fairly conservative in terms of what it allows. A name like that could be fairly inflammatory, regardless of intent. There isn't an exemption for beingg a famous song title, lyric, etc. Certainly, there are plenty of other song and album titles that we wouldn't allow as usernames even though they're famous for being titles. Sorry; the reality is that those usernames tend to be more controversial than they're worth (remember, the primary purpose of a Wikipedia username is to faciiltate record-keeping and communication), and are blocked on sight. — TKD::Talk 02:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Why was Outlaw Biker World link removed from Biker description? It is a relative link.

Outlaw Biker World
A link to Outlaw Biker World was placed under a few topics, as a way to provide information to visitors. The links were not there to promote Outlaw Biker World, nor to advertise Outlaw Biker World (We get over 20,000 visitors a day as it is). What steps need to be taken to assure a link to Outlaw Biker World can remain on the link section of the topics?

Chopperguy 20:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you could create an article on the magazine.Rsm99833 17:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

tony robbins edit
The category is obviously slanted in favor of putting Robbins in a positive light. I would like to help balance this category and so I have linked to a website that contributes to this balance. You are allowing linking to website that sell tickets. Why not link to a site where you can find out what happens when you buy those tickets? I would like to think Wikipedia does not engage in censorship.
 * If you want to contribute, that's fine. However what you are contributing is, at best, non-sequitar, and poorly written. I suggest you start with the body of the article first. also, what you are adding is a commercial web site, read Wiki's policy about this. Thanks. Enjoy the weekend. Rsm99833 17:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with the wikipedia standard procedures. I don't provide "edit summaries" for my edits. The edit didn't have an intention to vandalize, but rather to bring some aspects of criticism into attention. (Energon 16:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC))


 * That's fine, but I'm not finding either the claims or detractions anywhere, via Google.Rsm99833 16:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

GG Allin
I don't understand what was wrong with adding in those links to the videos of Allin on Springer. I have noticed numerous other articles with links to youtube.com on them... If you could explain to me what was wrong, that would be a great help. Vint 18:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's because of copyright issues. There is no way to verify wether the videos are free-use, or under copyright protection. Yes, I know, GG wouldn't care, but it's a policy to help keep Wiki safe from legal problems. Also, if you do see other sites with links to places such as Youtube, myspace, etc, they should be removed. Rsm99833 18:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, sorry for the mixup. Vint 08:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit to motorcycle?
Because it was unsourced, POV, and poorly written. Not to mention the devices you were attempting to attach are NOT motorcycles by any way, means or definitions. Rsm99833
 * My edit was to add a link to Electric motorcycles and scooters. Sounds like you are talking about something else.  I will re-add my edit. Daniel.Cardenas 16:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, someone else already did it for me. Daniel.Cardenas

The link to electric motorcycles and scooters looks perfectly valid to me. That is why I have reinstated it. They are two wheeled powered vehicles. They don't fit into your personal definition of motorcycle but they certainly fit into mine. The first paragraph in the Engine section of the page states "Almost all commercially available motorcycles are driven by conventional gasoline internal combustion engines, but some small scooter-type models use an electric motor,. --Cheesy Mike 23:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because a vehicle has two wheels and a motor does *not* make a motorcycle. What you are trying to add in are classified as motor-driven cycles, which are not the same thing. This is why those particular vehicles have a different classification when getting a license, and also this is the same classification that has been established and recognized by the motor-vehicle industry and is recognized by most, if not all, motor vehicle governing bodies. Rsm99833 00:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If you take the trouble to look at the Vectrix, Taz Electra, Eco Glide and Evader EV1000 you will see that they are in fact electric scooters, not electric cycles. An electric cycle is open framed more like a regular bicycle. Your argument about classification is not valid either. Maybe that is the case in the US but in the UK, for example, all two wheeled powered vehicles are in the taxation class "bicycle" regardless of the nature of the motive power. The Vectrix was exhibited at the Motorcycle World motorcycle show in Beaulieu UK in 2006. It was advertised there as a motorcycle and is subject to motorcycle regulations in that a helmet must be worn. This is not the case in the UK for motorised bicycles. The motorcycle page covers scooters. These machines are electric scooters on two wheels and are therefore valid inclusions in the "see also" listing for the page. I am therefore going to reinstate the link that I still believe was correctly inserted by Daniel Cardenas. --Cheesy Mike 01:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * All fine and dandy. But for it to be a true motorcycle it has to have an engine over a specific cubic size. "electric motorcycles" neither have an engine, cubic size, nor is it thought of as being a motorcycle by any stretch of the imagination. Feel free to link to scooters, as that those are a bit closer. But not the electric. Rsm99833 02:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've copied this fascinating discussion to the talk:motorcycle page, where I think it belongs. I hope you don't mind. -AndrewDressel 14:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Vadalism?
I did not put no nonsense in the johny cash page. I put legitimate information based on the information from billboard magazine. That is not vadalism at all, it is all based on your point of view on the information that I put. It was legitimate information, it was not incorrect or fake information. The information that I placed on Johnny cash page is based on the singles chart performance on the billboards here in North America. This information can be found in billboard magazine (which I am a subcribed member of the magazine). It is not complete, because I could only find about 22 years of his single performance. Besides I have placed inforamtion about other artist like his and I have been thanked by other users for my work.Angel,Isaac 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ringtones are not songs, and do not belong in the article. Rsm99833 03:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Interface of a Cheeseburger
Yes, I am the autor of the article "The Interface of a cheeseburger" myself and it does link to my company homepage. But if you read the article you'll see that actually there is more information on the (Mac Donald's)Cheeseburger design than anywhere else. I don't really need the minor traffic from Wikipedia, as this article is extremely popular in itself. Because of its humurous yet informative content. Check Google...

Of course it's your choice to judge weather it's spam or not. My point is: This was not spam. If it's generally against the law that one posts one's own articles or articles on any company page then that's the law. Not a really waterproof law, as it doesn't matter where the info as, as long as it's relevant and honest.

In that case you will have to remove my self-reference to the english translation of the Japanese Mac ads as well as the entry on readability. I posted them both in good faith strongly believing that they're relevant for the subject.

Just wanted t make that clear. No hurt feelings on my side and I can perfectly live without those links. Yet maybe you reconsider.

Best

Oliver

Revision to David Lynch
I am curious about your revision of my addition of the link for:

http://www.othervoices.org/1.3/bh/highway.html

to the David Lynch page.

You have links to more than a few commercial Web sites, including a direct link to MTV.com (!!!) on the page yet you remove a link to a scholarly article published in a reputable, peer-reviewed, open-access (OA) journal from the Univ. of Pennsylvania. Seems more than a little odd.

Vbell 17:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if I did, it was a while ago. However, first-person information is generally disallowed. Feel free to bring it up in the discussion area. Rsm99833 05:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for removing obvious vandalism, but...
I'm the one who added those (admittedly) ridiculous Fact Tags to the Steve Pfauter page, but only because all previous attempts to remove the vandalism were reverted by I.P. vandals. If it happens again, the page should be locked, so keep an eye on it. Thanks again! Roz666 02:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Stingray Sam
The Wikipedia article for the upcoming Cory McAbee's film Stingray Sam is nominated for deletion. Please contribute to the discussion.--DrWho42 (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)