User talk:RxS/Archive4


 * Archive 1 (March 5 to Nov 21):


 * Archive 2 (Nov 21-April 17th):
 * Archive 3 (April 30-June 2007):

Vandalism is not appreciated
Hi, I saw you're trying to stir up controversy for your 9/11 conspiracy theories by deleting articles. We're not interested.

Never deleted the article. Just changed your intellectually dishonest label of "conspiracy theorist". It is a fact that over 1000 scientists, architects, former CIA analysts, structural engineers, physicists, etc have put forth factual evidence for the demolition hypothesis. I did not broach the subject. All that was done was to change the inappropriate classification. That is clearly not positing a view.

Also, what is the problem with stating that there is a NY Times article and a scientific paper available on the subject? NIST accounced they do not know why WTC collapses at free-fall speed. This demolition hypothesis has already been broached in the segment. Wikipedia is interested in full accounting of each subject, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.5.233 (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comment at WP:BN
Re : Amen, a thousand times amen. And these are the people that we hold in high enough trust to perform this function? This is appalling and utterly repulsive. Essjay did it with WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U (where clerks no longer exist and it is open to people who want to help thank God), and even wrote an essay about it. Now Mackensen is doing it too. If he doesn't want people peeing in his sandbox (as Essjay put it) then he's in the wrong sandbox. --The disruptive, interfering, officious, demeaning, policy wonking, inflexible, martyr complex afflicted, theatrical editor previously known as Durin 16:35 7 March 2007 (UTC)

All-Clad
I have added a "" template to the article All-Clad, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

The article lacks primary criterion to show a company is notable. -ChristopherMannMcKay 18:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Heather Wilson
Thank you for removing the potential slander from the artical. Why is this even included in the article to begin with, who knows? If I am not mistaken the article is about Heather Wilson not her husband. To throw out accusations and innuendos serves no purpose to the individual or Wikipedia. In fact, I would shy away from any and all controversial language, possible slander, considering some of the press focused on Wikipedia now regarding topics just like this. Once again.....thanks00:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification
I have never initiated an office action or performed one of my own volition. Make of that what you will. Danny 14:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I was working under Office authority. Danny 14:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

So your problem is with the tool, one which I voluntarily gave up. Danny 14:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. In my oppose vote I sais that the likelihood of abusing tools was really the only question that should be at issue. And in my comment to Doc, I tried to say that history of how admin (or similar) tools were used in the past is relevant. Again apologies if I wasn't clear. I mean, isn't that what RFA is for? RxS 15:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Minneapolis
Hello. Does Minneapolis, Minnesota look all right to you? Please pardon this form letter that is going to about a dozen people whose user name I recognize from some Wikipedia edit (could have been recent or in the past year). I expect to close peer review by nominating Minneapolis to featured article candidate in a day or two unless other editors have more work they'd like to do. In case the links help, places to make a difference are to edit in place, comment in the peer review, comment on the talk page, support or oppose when and if it gets to featured article candidate, or work on a child article linked from the following template. -Susanlesch 23:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous
Regarding this edit, I hope you have checked the link to understand it is not a personal attack. Personally, I find the lack of common sense in your removal worrisome. -- ReyBrujo 05:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Calling someone a coward is always a personal attack, no matter who or how many it's directed at. I'm surprised you found that term helpful to the discussion, especially in so controversial a topic. I'd worry more about keeping things civil. RxS 05:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Geez, can you believe I just got an edit conflict trying to post this: Disregard what I said here. Someone actually took the time to explain me why the wording is used. Sorry for bothering you. -- ReyBrujo 05:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. RxS 05:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo
Do you have a better (larger, higher resolution) copy of Image:CathedralofStPaul.jpg? I'd like to replace this one before Minnesota is on the main page on May 11. thanks--Appraiser 13:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Greetings, I do have larger examples of that photo. I actually have several I took that day. Would you like me to just replace the one that exists here? By the way, if you're looking for any other metro area photos (or better examples of what we already have) let me know and I can try and get take some over the next week or so. RxS 12:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes; you could simply replace it if you have a better one; I've asked the same of User:Mulad who took the KSTP picture (which is also small).  Other pictures I've thought would be good to replace at some point are
 * Image:Loring-Park-Minneapolis-2005-11-08.jpg, which is Charles Loring's office
 * Image:BasilicaofSaintMary.jpg. This picture is an acceptable perspective, but the photo lacks contrast, color, and brightness
 * Image:Lowry Hill Tunnel.jpg. Again, the scene is OK, but it's not a great picture
 * Image:Walker Art Center.jpg. We ought to have a public domain picture to replace this one.
 * Image:Woodburycityhall.jpg. This is one of mine.  The weather was lousy that day and the picture is lousy too.

Thanks for offering to improve our visuals. --Appraiser 15:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I uploaded a larger version to Commons, if you'd like a full size version let me know. Looking over your list, I noticed that I took the Basilica one...it was taken from the footbridge so it's fairly distant. I can see if I can get over there again. I also have several of the Walker, in fact I thought I had one on that page..I'll take a look. I'm assuming you have this page watch listed, let me know if you see this. If I don't hear back I'll drop a note on your page...RxS 22:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again. Sorry; I didn't intend to insult your photography.  Today I was looking at bridges that cross the Mississippi and found that Lowry Avenue Bridge doesn't have a picture.  Most of the other Twin Cities bridge have decent ones.--Appraiser 19:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The KSTP photo looks good to me now. Thanks--Appraiser 15:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I found another one: Image:Lakewood Chapel.jpg could be substantially better--Appraiser 14:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're still interested in photo ideas, we need photos of the State Theater, Orpheum Theatre, and Pantages Theatre. I believe these are all on Hennepin downtown.  Thanks --Appraiser 14:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've got a new bug... I started compiling county courthouse buildings after looking at this, and I started Category:Courthouses of Minnesota. There's a list of Metro Area courthouses that we don't have pictures of here.  Thanks--Appraiser 19:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:24.195.205.252
This is not a content dispute, scroll through the talk page, he's VANDALIZING the comments, and now he's using socks to do it. Nardman1 01:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see the socks now, tell you what, let's let it settle down a little and see if he starts up again. If he does, drop me a note and I'll take a look. He really hasn't vandalised any articles has he? RxS 01:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This be true. Nardman1 01:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Visual Paradox
seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. --Android Mouse Bot 2 04:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The bot
>>How does a bot decide about Notability? It doesn't decide on notability. It only alerts the creators of articles when they are marked for speedy deletion, if the nominator doesn't notify the creator themselves within a given amoutn of time. --Android Mouse 04:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy talk page
I couldn't agree with you more. My comments on the page are there to specifically address questions and comments regarding the article and its content. Too much bad information on that page (i.e. fire didn't melt steel, etc.) is being propagated across the internet. I was simply attempted to address these issues in how they related to the article. Thank you for archiving it, but respectfully, I believe the discussion on that page is useful and proper when discussing the context of the article and the facts presented in it. — BQZip01 — talk 02:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey mate, no worries (I've been talking to Aussies a lot lately, can you tell?!?). I know it takes me a while sometimes to get back to people...especially when I am busy.
 * "...how steel reacts to fires is a little off topic (as regards to the article)." Gotta REALLY disagree with you there. That is one of the tenets of the 9/11 "Truth" movement, most recently and famously espoused by Rosie O'Donnell. I agree that we should not try to come to any conclusions and should be talking about is how/if some research fits into the article. I contend it is not research, but conjecture and object to its inclusion as such. But hey, it's a semi-free country. On that note, I HIGHLY recommend watching this clip from Penn and Teller about freedom of speech. Note the nervous applause after the flag is gone. — BQZip01 —  talk 18:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

toned down...
Thanks for toning down, removing unneeded details, and adding refs where those were most needed. That article has the potential for history of being a soapbox. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Poll
You may want to actually read the poll, if you scroll past what must be a pretty diverting picture, you can see in paragraph 9 the direct quote "The poll also found that 16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed." I would appreciate an apology, or you can just stop reverting without reading the source. --74.73.16.230 01:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Invitation
Hi, I would very much welcome your response to Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks. Thanks. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Disappointed
I'm officially disappointed by your encouragement of forum shopping on WP:ANI. If you bother to scroll up and read the introduction to that page, you will discover that it warns in red letters: "This is not the Wikipedia complaints department". I know the background for this conflict and I assure you than my attempt to remind about the purpose of ANI was by no means intended to be rude. Apologies are welcomed. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Bmedley Sutler
In regards to your comments at User talk:Bmedley Sutler, this editor has linked to another editor's "friends" list as a justification for his list, and has changed the title of his own list to "friends", to hide that it is an enemies list. The only problem is that the list of friends in Morton's user space is a list of his actual friends, not an enemies list disguised as a friends list. I would point this out on Bmedley's talk page myself, but he has asked me not to post on his talk page, so I am hoping that you could drive that point home for me. Thanks. - Crockspot 18:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I just realized that since Bmedley is doing a thorough investigation on my edit history, he will probably see this edit himself, so you may not need to even pass this message along. - Crockspot 18:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A 'thorough' investigation? I said I only looked at the 4-500 last edits and didn't care to look at more. You told me to look at a whole year, didn't you? I don't have enemies on Wikipedia. You have a whole page of lists against Elmosary too. Link Bmedley Sutler 20:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Because Eleemosynary has been uncivil, attacking me, and questioning my good faith for a good while, starting with unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry that were spread all over user, WP, and article namespaces, and I am tired of his crap. If he doesn't improve his behavior, I will use that evidence I have gathered, and keep pulling the chain on him until it reaches arbitration. For you to jump on his bandwagon and attack me as well is not a smart move on your part. I can work with anyone who wishes to attempt to work with me in a civil fashion. Skoppensboer and I have come to a personal understanding in the past day or so, and I am willing to let his past trangsressions fall to the side, so I am no longer collecting evidence on him. (He and Eleemosnyary were working me over as a tag team lately). And by the way, my last 500 edits only takes you back about three weeks. If you go back a year and a half, I am sure you will find some iffy edits from before I started learning the rules and trying to be a good editor. (I would say that since Oct 06, I have been a very good editor, and since the MONGO 2 RfC, I have been making an extra effort to be civil.) I am not the same editor I was when I first came to Wikipedia. The things you have been saying about me are intolerable, particularly for a new editor who supposedly has no history with me, so I'm going to tell you one more time, knock it off. Eleemosynary is no example for you to be following, but if you want to hitch your wagon to his star, you are welcome to be dragged into the abyss with him. Eleemosynary's fate is in his own hands, and is determined by his behavior toward me, and toward other editors. The same goes for your fate. If you want to do your thing, I couldn't care less, as long as you are not attacking established editors. - Crockspot 20:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I never attacked you. I am joking around just like all of us were. Should I find your posts saying I'm crazy? Like where you said that 'you really believe this stuff' and you need to 'tiptoe away' from me (even when I made proof of the USGOV Department of Defense editing the Waterbording article) I am sorry if you don't have a sense of humor so I won't joke with you any more. Bmedley Sutler 21:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't buy that you're joking. Were you joking when you put my name on your list of Spooks? Were you joking when you told me I was no longer welcome on your talk page? Are you joking now, or are you being serious, because frankly, I can't really tell from this last reply. You contradict yourself. You appear to be claiming "jokes" only in the past few hours, and probably as a way to save your own ass. I don't find you funny, at least not at this point in time. - Crockspot 21:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you're upset. You seem to have a lot of fights with anybody who disagrees with you and take every thing so personally. Maybe you need a break. I will ignore you so you have one less person to fight with. Okay? Bmedley Sutler 22:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche RfC
Please do not delete this RfC. The conduct RfC was delisted. This is a content RfC on LaRouche aiming at a constructive dialogue. Dagomar 05:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * An editor has asked for a deletion review of Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/RfC. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dagomar 00:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you (make an archive?)
Thank you for your directions. I am trying to be even nicer. 'Turn the other cheek' is what I will do! Thank you again for your commentary. It is very much appreciated. Do you know where I can find how to make an 'archive' of my talk page? Thanks Bmedley Sutler 00:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I didnt use a sock
I did not use a sock on the 9/11 articles. These are entirely differnt computers, people, and ips. Debeo Morium 06:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance
As someone with whom I have reviewed or worked with on an article or talk page, I humbly request your assistance in reviewing the Aggie Bonfire page for Featured Article status. Any/all constructive input is welcomed and appreciated on the FAC nomination page, but please read the instructions for reviewing before you make a comment. Thanks in advance for your assistance. — BQZip01 — talk 05:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 22:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense
Please be more specific - I have no idea what you're talking about. Ignorance is strength 04:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

&&Hugs&&
Friendly hugs and kudos to my lovely StrangeLove, I think I met you on LJ before. Anyway, you put up with too much crap. Btw my comments on your pages aren't meant to smack you, I was just pissed about something else during that time. HUGGZLES** .:DavuMaya:. 08:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Admins in Minnesota
Hi Rx,

I work for a radio program here in Minnesota and I am trying to talk with folks who have a lot of experience with Wikipedia. I have a handful of questions I'd love to ask you, where's the best way to do that? Is there a private way I can send you my e-mail?


 * I tried sending you an e-mail. Did it work? I've been known to flub simple things like that before. Let me know if you did or didn't get anything from me. Thanks.*

--Sandboxes unite talk 22:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Meetup RSVP
 Minnesota Meetup Sunday, 2007-10-07, 1:00 p.m. (13:00) Pracna on Main 117 Main SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota Map Please pass this on! RSVP here.  Spam delivered by -Susanlesch 15:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA
I am sorry you felt it necessary to oppose my recent RfA, which did not succeed. I will attempt to get more experience in the main namespace and the Wikipedia namespace and will try again for RfA in two month's time. I hope I will have satisfied your concerns by then, but if not, please comment as you feel you should. You also expressed concerns about my article writing experience, while it is true that I haven't written much, I don't see why article writing is a prerequisite to being an administrator. The administrator tools are more for cleaning up (thus the term "mop") rather than writing other articles. Thanks for participating in my RfA. -- Cobi(t 08:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize
Between December 14, 2005 and June 7, 2007, I vandalized Wikipedia under my previous username (YechielMan) and under various IP addresses and alternate accounts.

I recently reviewed the contribution logs of all the accounts and IP addresses that I can recall having used. My goal was to identify all of the intentionally harmful edits I caused, and to apologize to the individual users who reverted those edits, or warned me, or blocked me.

Hence, I apologize to you and to all of the following users:


 * Adam Bishop, Amarkov, Antandrus, AntiVandalBot, Bdj (Badlydrawnjeff), Conk 9, CanbekEsen, DLand, Downwards, Eagle 101, Ericbronder, Gogo Dodo, High on a tree, Hut 8.5, Interiot, Jayjg, Jrwallac, Kingboyk, Kuru, Noclip, Patrick Berry, PFHLai, PhantomS, Pollinator, Rachack, Ranma9617, Rx StrangeLove, SlimVirgin, Tfrogner, TommyBoy, Vary, Woohookitty, Zzuuzz, and some anonymous IPs. (I also reverted one edit myself after it went unnoticed for three weeks.)

Thank you for maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia against everyone who has attacked it, including my old self.

If you wish to respond, please do so at my talk page.

Best regards, Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please explain reversions on 7 World Trade Center
I added the following:

The decision by Rudy Giuliani to site the emergency response center and associated diesel tanks at a vulnerable site, despite a memo by his appointee Jerome M. Hauer advising a more secure location, has been blamed for the intense fire that consumed the building.

You've reverted it almost instantly twice now without explanation. Why? The information is well sourced. I feel the article running is essentially a political whitewash that puts a higher priority on protecting Rudy Giuliani's mythos than providing background on how the fire came to happen. Maybe the Chinese Wikipedia has a more open discussion. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt it but maybe, I've never used that wiki, see the talk page for my opinion, thanks. RxS (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits to a protected page
I reverted your edits because you committed them by accident or you were currently in the edit window prior to my application. Please consider restoring to the protected state. Regards, M er cury    18:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL
"wait, your removing one sentence because it's ref needs work and adding one and saying it doesn't need a ref?" The ref doesn't need work....it does not remotely resemble the claim made in the sentence. In fact where the sentence says (paraphrased) "weeks of detectable work" the reference mentions "a small amount of explosives in strategic points" which going by other sources can be as little as 8 hours of undetectable work. I didn't say I didn't need a ref for my own edit. I said I had them but couldn't use them because they were not RS for WP due to being blogs and 911 sites. This is an area I often dispute in regards to RS's. If you are quoting claims made by them, why can you not use them as refs for their own claims? As it stands now even if it's true they made a claim, technically they never made it because there are no sources allowed to be used. Wayne 04:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You might think pushing POV at Wikipedia is funny but I don't. Laugh it up...RxS 01:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not being funny (or POV). In fact I had contacted WP over this and was advised to take it to talk if reverted. Apparently sources not considered RS's by WP can be acceptable if the edit can be shown to be relevant, verifiable and not a case of single source being copied. Wayne 04:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WikBack
Thank you for registering at the WikBack. I look forward to your posts. (If you didn't register, please let me know as it may have been an imposter.) The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 3
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools.  My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 05:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Use of rollback
Well, first I noticed that the sourced phrase was rearranged with terrible spelling and some parts were deleted:

"... the hand he performs the technique on gets it's nerves severed and damaged, eventually if Naruto keeps using Resenshuriken his nerves in his and will seperate and he wont be able to move it rendering him unable to use justsu. ."

I reverted it back to this:

"... the hand he is performing the technique with is damaged in the process. Should he continue to use this technique, Naruto will eventually be unable to perform any more jutsu."


 * Ok? Don't worry about me, I read well the revisions before I act. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll be content with taking this to WP:AN/I if you're that concerned. What I saw on Naruto Uzumaki was a vandalism edit and, therefore, I rolledback. Sorry but I really don't see what I did wrong. Can you point it out, perhaps? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Instruction creep
I've had to clean this up a couple of times already Requests for rollback/Header. You might like to watchlist and help out.--Docg - ask me for rollback 16:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:MFD
Thanks for your quick response on such short notice. :) - Mtmelendez (Talk) 06:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Right to Resist
I'm happy that it appears that my userbox will remain (I THINK you're the one who closed the debate - but I'm still sort of half-newbie so I'm not sure) for the time being. However, I'm willing to continue to engage in the discussion over whether there is an even better place for the link to be to. Is there a good way to invite people to join that discussion who see that the discussion that existed was closed and who are unhappy? I've said it before in the dabate: I like making new friends and avoiding making new enemies wherever possible. What is the most appropriate way for me to leave a note on Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right_To_Resist inviting upset people to engage in a talk about a better endplace for the link? -- MQ Duck 07:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'd like this invitation to be personally from me. -- MQ Duck 07:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * good close. No consensus pretty much describes it. DGG (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Your message
Unfortunately, temporarily protection is needed to stop edit warring and gross violation of WP:CIVIL. Feel free to leave comments on other talk pages in the case, my talk page, or the main RFArb talk page. We regularly read all these pages. FloNight (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision
On 17 January, following a series of edits to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision, User:FloNight protected the page and added the following in an edit summary: "I protected the page from all editing until the case is closed or edits all agree to make all productive comments about the proposed ruling and not other editors". Flonight has not left any further messages as yet, so I am posting this message to all those who edited the page in this period, and asking them to consider signing this section at Flonight's talk page indicating that they will abide by this request. Hopefully this will help move the situation forward, and enable the talk page to be unprotected (with any necessary warnings added) so that any editor (including those uninvolved in this) can comment on the proposed decision. Thank you. Carcharoth (talk) 05:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa
I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

???
it wasnt vandalism anddd i only edited one thing maybe just twice to make it pretty...but uhmmmm...cool it?

Neurosynthesis (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Archived 9/11 discussion
I went ahead and put the template up. I hope it isn't too early, but four editors have already requested it be archived, not including a couple others earlier in the discussion. Perhaps you can assist in explaining to User:Xiutwel why the discussion has been archived? If he/she continues to push this, as been going on for some time, would you see the need for warnings? Preferably, I'd like to see this editor get better acquainted with Wikipedia policy rather than warn him or her constantly. I’m far from suspecting any negative intent. Okiefromokla questions? 05:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Okiefromokla. RxS, would you please take a look at my "attempted consensus" list, and point out where I'm wrong when I think the page is edited in violation of WP:NEUTRAL ? &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of wikipedia policy
You have consistently and flagrantly tried to have people believe that what "reliable sources" call something is a criterion for naming articles according to wikipedia guidelines, despite the fact that it has been pointed out to you many times that this is false. While the occasional mistake can be forgiven, flagrant and reckless misrepresentation of wikipedia policy or guidelines is totally unacceptable. ireneshusband (talk) 09:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. You know, it never ceases to amaze me how some editors seem to think stridently and repeated stating their opinion as fact will convince anyone of anything. Shrug. RxS (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems to work in presidential campaigns. ;) ~ S0CO ( talk 02:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI
It's probably academic now but I was saying WP:DNFT in response to Tiptoety saying, "...Maybe talking with those "trolls" may change their contributions to the project." I didn't even know who Tiptoety or Guy was specifically talking about - just generally reacting to Tiptoety's general suggestion of trying to reason with trolls. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence
You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.

The proposal can be found at: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 01:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV DUE
Dear Rx StrangeLove,

I thank you for your contributions concerning my proposals to get more clarity on the DUE WEIGHT issue. I've drafted new proposals, and would welcome any improvement or critique you may have! Thx, &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfB
I wanted to personally thank you, RxS, for your participation in my recent RfB. I especially wanted to thank you for taking the time to clearly articulate your concerns, and help me better understand the community's desires about their bureaucrats; I appreciate your patience and your clarity. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I am thankful and appreciative that in general, the community feels that I am worthy of the trust it requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I hope that over the near future, you will become comfortable and satisfied with my understanding of the particulars and subtleties inherent in the RfA process, and that I may be able to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

no controversy

 * To quote from myself: There's no political controversy, no academic or scientific controversy, there's no journalistic editorial controversy. There's no controversy at all among reliable sources or relevant academic community. No controversy = No significant minority view. RxS (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC) [ Talk:9/11 ]

That's a clear position, and that can help. The next thing I need is: where does policy say that we have to look for controversy among reliable sources? The policy just says: contoversy. Can you help me find that? (The policy also says that information must be based on RS, but all the information I wish to add is based on RS) &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship
 Dear RxS, 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 ⁂ 11:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

needed
Dear, I need your input on Talk:9/11 concerning the text for inclusion we are discussing. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Xiutwel
Hello, Rxs. I'm planning to bring this user to WP:ANI, but I'm really not sure how to present the case. You might want to see User_talk:Haemo and User_talk:Aude for some related discussion and examples of disruption that I've written up. Note that Xiutwel is also probably using the two recent IP addresses as sockpuppet accounts, based on their contributions. I'd like your input. Thanks. Okiefromokla questions? 22:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, a topic ban sure sounds like the best course of action. Since most of the editor's time is spent arguing on 9/11-related talk pages, a ban will force him/her to actually contribute helpfully to the encyclopedia. Being forced away from the topic of his/her bias would probably do a world of good.


 * However, I have warned Xiutwel formally on several occasions that there could be action taken if the disruptive editing continues. I'll consider a RFC &mdash; however, when so much time is being spent by editors just to stop Xiutwel from breaking policy, there is a problem that needs attention. And, as you know, if we ignore him, he takes it as a sign of consensus and attempts to add his material. Would you still favor a RFC instead of ANI with the suggestion of a topic ban? Okiefromokla questions? 22:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, it may be easier to start a new sockpuppetry case against him based on those two IPs. Okiefromokla questions? 22:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi
I was wondering if you could please stop by here to offer some insight on the edit war consuming the 9/11 page. Cheers, Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  01:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

request your input in a consensus survey re 9/11
Dear ,

At Talk:9/11 I started a survey to get a better picture on how editor's opinions are varying with respect to the following statement:
 * "The current form of the 9/11 article is at odds with the WP:NPOV policy, and the proposed inclusion of the fact that Michael Meacher alleges the US government of willfully not preventing the attacks, would make the article better, in stead of worse.

I would appreciate it when you could take a look. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

answer on talk 9/11
&mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks

Requesting assistance
I'm trying to put something together for a Rfc on Xiutwel, but I'm having trouble finding particular diffs. You're familiar with the disruptive history of this editor, so you know he hasn't been overtly disruptive in any one particular comment and that's been the problem in getting action taken. I'll compile lists of his contributions but I do need some help with compiling specific diffs. I am currently trying to locate a few of his comments in which he uses the argument that reliable sources are 'wrong and bias' and we shouldn't pay attention to them. Otherwise, I'm at a loss. If you can help, I would appreciate it very much. Okiefromokla questions? 18:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. No problem. I think it says a lot that he was pushing a conspiracy theory on Talk:Oklahoma City bombing with his first 50 edits back in 2006. I'll point that out in the RFC. In the meantime, I'll start putting some diffs here when I get time. If you get time, drop off some too. Thanks! Okiefromokla questions? 17:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration
I have named you as an involved party at Requests for arbitration. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK § 19:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification request
At Requests for adminship/RfB bar you said "I'd really like them to consider some sort of recall process though." I personally think anything in that realm should be a community driven process, at the minimum to hand bcrats the mandate to do something like that if that were the choice, but I'd like to know what you have in mind. Were you saying we should come up with a process to recall ourselves and vote each other off the island as it were :), or something else? - Taxman Talk 17:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Your evidence to the arbitration
Actually, my mainspace contributions to 9/11 are 3.3% of my total, which are spread over what were technically two accounts with the same name after a password debacle in november 2007 (see here and Interiot: ). It's not a big deal though :) Okiefromokla questions? 01:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I did it. Thanks for permission. Okiefromokla questions? 15:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Apology for my incivility
The other day the stress got to me, I lost it, I ranted publicly on the 9/11ct arbitration evidence page. I ranted, among other things, about you. There's no excuse for that. While I find some of the things you do hard to understand, I don't know what you are really like as a person because I have never met you. Therefore I fully accept that I should, as I have been strictly instructed to do, stick to the facts and not make inferences about people's motives. I am very sorry for being so uncivil towards you. ireneshusband (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Extraneous hoopla
I noticed you referring to this on Wikback as your new favourite phrase. If you're curious, I've done a bit of research on the expression and have posted it on my user page as a modified "Did you know." It's been around longer than I thought. Risker (talk) 06:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I read it, that's great! There's something about that phrase that just kills me. RxS (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
I just wanted to drop by and thank you for having my back in the arbitration case. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA question
What did you mean in your support of EyeSerene's RfA? I think I'm missing something... Tan  |   39  00:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Further to this, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The full remedy is located here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny  15:49, 8 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  18:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

9/11 Structure
Hi, Doc
 * Long time no see! I submitted a proposal for the structure of the 9/11 article and would appreciate your input.
 * Sincerely,
 * GuamIsGood (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

RfB Comments
Hi. I'm responding here as I have brought this point a few times on the page already, and there is no point bringing it there again, it is getting long enough already :). There is case precedent for running two months post a prior RfB (successfully, and for the THIRD time I might add) IF the issue involved was not one of trust, but of the community wanting to see more RfA involvement. Please see Requests for bureaucratship/Redux 3. Thanks -- Avi (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

ED in shock site
I've readded ED to shock site as while the refs never use the word "shock site" (and for that matter, neither do the Rotten.com refs, for example), but they make it clear that the site hosts offensive material. And though this is original research, I would like to point out that the site clearly is a shock site. The images it hosts alone (including many images from other sites that are listed in the article as shock sites) are enough to identify it as such, and this doesn't even touch on the textual content. A shock site (based on the sites that the article lists as shock sites) doesn't have to be a site that is designed in such a way as to trick people to going to it and viewing offensive content. Orgerish.com is an example of such a site. It is designated as a shock site simply because it hosts offensive content, even though it is not designed in any way so as to trick people into viewing it.-- Urban  Rose  15:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

ED
Many of the articles at ED are simply satire but some of them exist solely for the purpose of offending people. For example, there is an article called "Offended" (which I do NOT recommend that ANYONE view by the way) that I had the displeasure of seeing which is essentially just a collection of gross shock images. You mention that there are many sites which feature disturbing content which are not shock sites. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that a site which hosts shocking content becomes exempt from "shock site status" simply because it also contains satire.-- Urban  Rose  18:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Fast!
That was quick!...Thanks!--MONGO 16:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks
Hello, RxS.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. As you felt the need to oppose my candidacy, I would appreciate any particular thoughts or advice you may have as to what flaws in my candidacy you perceived and how you feel they may be addressed. Once again, thank you for your participation. -- Avi (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User page
Thanks for the revert. I am sure that these are getting stranger. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 12:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

9/11 Attacks
Regarding the slight modification I did to the 9/11 article, can you explain to me how it is nonsense? It is a legitimate hypothesis that some members of government one way or another carried out the attacks for different legitimate reasons. I think that the constant blaming of Al-Queda for the attacks is nonsense. - Magicman710 —Preceding comment was added at 03:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)