Talk page archives |
---|
User:Rhobite |
Archive 1 |
Archive 2 |
Archive 3 |
Archive 4 |
Archive 5 |
Archive 6 |
Archive 7 |
Archive 8 |
Archive 9 |
Current |
Half of what you warned me for was vandalism (the wanker comment). The other half was both accuarte, and just as importantly, relevant (The Nextstep stuff- that's the operating system that the first ever web browser was written on, you know, sonny ;). Please restore it, I'm trying my best to restrict my urges... 84.9.75.111 00:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank for your response re Alex Rodriguez. What I do question is your haste to condemn as vandalism something done in good faith and simply to give some balance to a rah-rah article, in the interest of preserving Wiki's NPOV policy. Vandalism is the clown who keeps putting "Yo quiero Taco Bell" in the article about Miguel de Unamuno, an article in which I incidentally have inserted material about his life and philosophy. Regards and yours in Wikiness (if there is such a word). Alloco1 16:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I think I've disovered his riddle, concerning the spelling of "Zimmerman"- click Autoharp on Discussion page, on my post of other instuments Dylan plays. Best wishes, Lion King 00:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
nice catch on the spam plug on Reality television. havent seen you edit that page, and then swoop, you fixed this. thanks. :) Airumel 05:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Are you requesting/suggesting IP addrs not start AfDs? 68.39.174.238 06:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, just noticed you've had a lot of edits recently on the University of Massachusetts Amherst article. I thank you for your interest in our institution, but it concerns me that a lot of information has been deleted in the course of your edits.
Specifically, I don't see the need for this bulimic section cutting business, the article isn't too long, and each time someone merges a section, information is lost. The article actually has less information now than it did a month ago, and that to me is alarming.
Out of curiousity, are you or have you ever been a stud ent at UMass?
Yes, there is normally no place in the article for individual organizations, but Take Back UMass is a bit different than the Cannibis Reform Council and the Chess Club- something anyone who's gone here for more than a semester knows. And there is no such thing as Residential Government, you wouldn't change the name of the US Congress section of the US Goverment article to Parliament just because its shorter.
From what I've seen on the definition for stub, it says, "These entries have categories that need to be developed" , so is it really the most appropriate thing to delete and merge information?
I don't want to make this seem like I'm attacking you, I'm just a little concerned, I look forward to your response,
Thanks
Vvuppala 21:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi,
Nominating other "GNAA" articles for deletion is clearly disruptive. If you nominate these articles again you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rhobite 03:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
But if you look at the edit in question, Cusps - or whatever his name is - wiped my last edit, as he did on many articles - that had nothing to do with the infobox, nor vandalism of any sort. Guero is an example of this. Why don't you go issue a warning to him? BGC 22:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I can't say I am overly impressed with your editing. You reversed several of my edits which added external links to articles. The external links added clearly related to the subjects at hand. I would particularly take exception to your edits on the affiliate marketing category. Tell me, do you actually know anything about Affiliate marketing in the UK? I do and I was adding some legitimate affiliate networks to the list already there. There was no referral link, it was not spam and I am wondering why on earth you deleted them, given that they perform exactly the same function as the other external links on that page which you chose to keep.
stevenmar 22:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Why, after all this time, are so many 9/11-related articles being edited to promote conspiracy theories, criticize the United States, or criticize President Bush? patsw 03:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Since you have edited Enterprise resource planning, here is a courtesy notification that I have updated the article, and its talk page, since your last activity there. I have tried to repair what I view as an unfortunate WP:POV, or historical bias, but I still need to address a better way to present information about commercial software, open source, and homebrew. Many facts about ERP are true in one of these three main areas, but totally wrong for the others.
I asked about disadvantages style in December 23 section of Help Desk whose first response cautioned risk of WP:NPOV. There is a potential need to show several commonplace WP:POV that can otherwise risk article contamination, if not acknowledged. User:AlMac| (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I am receciving abuse on my talk page from users Adam Carr and Fear EIRANN. Will you take a look at LONDON on my page, and please advise me. Best wishes Lion King 22:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)corection- ENGLAND
An amusing fellow who is also an admin. is refusing to let Ed Gein be added to the category of LGBT serial killers.
de-transcluding a page as oversized as that is not vandalism, it's a public service, removing just the one transcluded header from WP:AN cut it's loading time in half, very few people realize just how long it takes for some of these pages to load-- 63.22.79.21 08:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I had a long discussion with another user about this and it lead me to email 2 professors from my university and I consulted with 2 other editors on here as well. The 2 English professor from university confirmed that the usage is correct and also made me aware that most people aren't aware or don't know how to use collective nouns correctly. The handbook I am using is The Bedford Handbook (2002). In British English, it is correct to use "Aerosmith are" but in the U.S., we say, "Aerosmith is". I am not changing all of the articles, just some of the articles that are incorrect. Some of the articles are using it correctly like I am. RJN 02:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The names might be plural but they are still one collective entity—therefore they are singular. Collective nouns are very tricky and most users of English are not aware or know how to use it correctly. There are some articles that use correct collective nouns. Not all articles use "are" or "were". I know it doesn't make sense to some people but this is the correct usage. RJN 02:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Well I have been browsing articles for bands and sports teams—almost half use "is" and "was" for plural names. Like I said, just because the name of a band or team is plural doesn't mean that the sentence is plural. Whether their names are plural or not, do you agree that, collectively, it is one entity? See Houston Texans. They use "is" in that article and Backstreet Boys uses "is" as well. There are several other bands and sports articles that use "is" and "was" with plural names. I have emailed my English professor and she confirmed that it is correct in American English. Yes, "were" and "are" are correct in British English. I am only correcting the U.S. related articles. I left The Beatles alone since they are not Americans. RJN 03:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a response on the help desk that would support what I am trying to say, "... the rule is simple and well-known: If more than one person is acting as a group, the verb is singular." RJN 03:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Here is a sentence from MCA Records that would support the use of "is". "New Radicals, led by young liability/singer/songwriter/producer Gregg Alexander, is chomping at the bit." Hope this helps. Sorry to bother you with this. http://www.mcarecords.com/ArtistAbout.asp?which=bio&selected=1&aboutid=38819&artistname=New+Radicals&artistid=62 RJN 06:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
User:BGC has again resumed systematically reverting album articles to his preferred text, deleting all recent contributions from other editors and using inappropriate/misleading edit summaries when he uses edit summaries at all. Beyond the usual issues, he is adding various star images back to infoboxes, despite the recently established consensus to remove them. He is also systematically delete all admin warnings from his talk page, usually no more than a day or so after each is posted. Monicasdude 15:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Last time BGC did this, I warned him that he'd get a very long block if he ever did it again (I spared him on that occasion, and I seem to recall that he did stop). What do you think of the situation now, Rhobite? If he's being reasonable and stopping I'm still inclined to let it go, but if he's pressing on and the reverts are not reasonable then I'd block. Haven't made my mind up yet -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 21:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
You're coming across a bit heavy, mate. Any nominations that are bad can be defeated just by raising the appropiate facts. People aren't stupid, there is very little chance of anything deent getting delted, and even it it did then WP:DRV can sort it out.
Some of the meatpuppets from the Checkerboard Nightmare Afd have turned into real contibutors. We don't have to WP:BITE. Just put the "sockpuppets beware" template across the top of the AfD and let it go.
brenneman (t) (c) 03:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello Rhobite, Googie Man here and I want to ask you something as a fellow baseball fan on Wikipedia. Jimbo and Angela have made a new webstie called Wikicities. This link in particular will take you to the baseball Wikicity. As you'll see it's similar to Wikipedia, but my hope is this will allow baseball fans to do more and different things, like reporting on games, in depth statistics, create mulitple pages for pictures, and whatever else baseball fans care to create. You've done great work on Wikipedia and I was hoping you could help get this baseball Wikicity off the ground. Please let me know what you think either at my talk page, or you can email me at terry@wikia.com. Thanks! Googie Man( Talk), 17:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC).
I note with considerable exception your inexplicably misinformed comment made [ here] that most of my contributions have been to the ongoing listing of blogcruft on AfD (which I wholeheartedly endorse). A quick trip to my user page would have shown you that I am a principal and in many cases the sole author of articles such as:
among a host of others.
Then give me a hint. What can I do to stop these people from attacking me? There is a policy by the way: you can remove personal attacks.-- Fenice 16:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
A site being hosted by Yahoo! Small Business hosting consists of copy & paste of various drug articles, like codeine which you edited, and Google Ads. There is no contact information on the site (I found out that Yahoo was hosting them from the source code), so we have to go through Yahoo;s copyright infringement process. Yahoo told me that someone with a legal copyright interest needs to contact them. The diff establishing your claim is at [5]. I have/will email you a copy of the message I sent and Yahoo's response. Please take a couple minutes to send off a letter as this is particularly blatant WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 19:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC).
I am about to file a requests for arbitration against Gibby. Do you wish to be involved as a party? Elle vécu heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 11:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for pointing out my accidental double vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.bloggar - I won't do it again! Also, I do notice you seem quite protective of blog-related articles. Please be reassured that there's no sneaky conspiracy going on (as far as I know). Thanks for keeping an eye on things; the last thing I want is the war on blogcruft to fail through poor procedure. Regards, Proto t c 21:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with your interpretation of the ruling. I also don't like living in fear of being blocked for who knows what, who knows when. Obviously you're trying to threaten me with a block. Well, unless you want to talk in some positive way, leave me alone, please. Everyking 18:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The request for arbitration concerning this user has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#KDRGibby. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 10:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
you have no legitimate reason to get rid of the bullets the style GUIDE states this: "This Manual of Style has the simple purpose of making things easy to read by following a consistent format — it is a style guide. The following rules do not claim to be the last word." So stop doing it...especially since there are 3 other sections formated with bullets only. (Gibby 05:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC))
Did you bother discussing that here? Or at the Wal-Mart discussion page. There is no reason to delete them.
Rhobite, I believe I've given more than enough proof as to the age, hometown, high school and graduation date of Benjy Bronk. What other proof is needed? And still the clowns are editing it back to inaccurate stuff. 148.126.100.82 21:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)148.126.100.82
I see that someone else is at work vandalizing the Benjy Bronk page again. I'm not even going to get involved this time and revert it back to the correct addition. It's becoming a waste of my time. The person now put stuff related to 12 year old black girls and the KKK. If people are so determined to vandalize Benjy Bronk's entry, then how does a George W. Bush entry not get vandalized 1000x more? 148.126.100.82 18:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)148.126.100.82
You have been going around for some time now , deleting the TOCs and quotes that i have put in various book articles. The result is now people are arguing about what is or is not in those books , when the TOCs and quotes were the most NPOV way of establishing the basic facts as to the contents. I hope you will take time to rethink this through , and cease removing the TOCs and quotes. Hopefully then , we can move away from the ridiculous bickering about what the topics are of book articles and can get busy writing some decent articles on them. -- CltFn 05:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Re your deletion with vandalism notice about my insertion about Alex Rodriguez: It's hardly nonsense; in fact it's been an issue ever since shortly after A-Rod started playing for the Yankees. Apparently the pressure gets to him and too many times when it's a late inning and the Yankees need a run he falters in comparison to other players; there have been statistics that cofirm this anecdotal observation. The last playoffs against LA simply were the coup de grace. He's had some psychological help to try to deal with the stress. In short it's a legitimate issue and not nonsense and certainly NOT vandalism; it's perfectly in keeping with WIKIPEDIA's NPOV policy: namely showing the both good and bad and NOT just the rah-rah of the original article.
Alloco1
21:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I copied the supposed "original research" from another article which I merged. I will revert it, and suggest that you discuss this with the author of the original text. -- Timecop 02:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
This image may be deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading Image:Johnwife.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{ GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{ Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — THOR =/\= 20:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Please see, WP:AN#Continued block of User:208.183.105.11 as I think that you placed the block under discussion. DES (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin ( talk) 01:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
You cited "diffs needed" for vandalism by Gibby for communism, and I didn't dare modify your section because I was wondering if that would go against procedure, so I have supplied them here:
Cheers. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 03:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rhobite, thank you for your vote on my RfA. I am sorry that my participation in (what really should not be called a war) the "war on blogs" has soured your opinion of me. I do not consider myself a deletionist, although I do vote more "delete"s than "keep"s (but this is because more articles on AfD should be deleted than kept). I appreciate that you are in favour of including many blog-related articles on Wikipedia, and that's your right.
However, I would like to think if it were you going for adminship, I would base my decision based on whether or not you seemed civil, which you do, and whether or not you seem capable of following Wikipedia policy, which you also do - irrespective of my opinions of your voting patterns on AfD, which is, after all, a 'free vote'. I'd would assume good faith, and that you'd be able to allow Wikipedia policy to guide you in your actions.
I would like to think that if my RfA were to pass, I would not start rampaging through AfDs on Wikipedia, deleting articles here, there, and everywhere, and I would assume you would not rampage through AfD speedily keeping everything in much the same manner. It is a shame that you feel I cannot be trusted in this manner, as I don't think I have ever tried to circumvent due process in such a manner.
Anyhow, no hard feelings. I don't expect you to change your vote, but please consider things other than AfD voting patterns when you vote on others' RfAs in future. All the best. Proto t c 14:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rhobite, just wanted to say thanks for commenting over on paper mill (essays). Feel free to leave comments at my talk page any time. Cutter20 20:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been leaving welcome messages, and not sure how I created that one. Wasn't paying close enough attention -- it gets mind numbing after awhile. I tagged it for speedy deletion as soon as it occurred. Thanks for the heads up. -- Go for it! 03:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I had completely quit talking with Pamento and only reverted back to him at the request of Cenestrad the Emperor of Wikipedia's request. I think he felt it might resolve the problem, and in a way(by having you bar him) it has. I can hopefully get back to some more constructive wikipeding. Ill let you know if he bugs me again pickelbarrel the giant ASSHOLE 01:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rhobite/Archive 8, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
A blast from the past. A Protest Warrior member is trying to rewrite the article to suit his personal view of the organisation. Any chance that you could take a look at it and see what you think? -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 14:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
An RfC has been opened here against User:Mr j galt ( talk · contribs). If you are familar with his editing and would like to add your input, please feel free to do so, whatever your POV. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that you have had some interactions with 65.182.172.x on Talk:Chicago-style hot dog. Cyberdenizen and I have filed a user conduct RfC about his behavior and I would appreciate your input. You can find it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/65.182.172.x. Thanks! - AdelaMa e ( talk - contribs) 04:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Without using names I simply said some administrators are douche bags (an opinion shared by many & one I firmly stand behind) This is no diffrent than saying some editors are trolls or vandals. If an administrator took offence it is probably because said administrator is a douche bag. I would never call any person usng wikipedia any insulting name. -- Cenestrad The Emperor of Wikipedia 13:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry if I seemed uncivil but an abuse of power boils my blood. -- The Emperor of Wikipedia 02:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry I have to let people know!
I have seen it
I think modern astrology's basic premise is silly, for the most part (when it works, if it "works", it works for reasons other than most of its adherents claim, IMO), but Isaac Newton was familiar with the nuts and bolts of the alchemy and astrology of his day, apparently. A Google search turns up many references, at the top of the list: [10]. So there is some room to at least credit it as a proto-science before the 18th century, to my mind. Cheers, -- Fire Star 20:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
awe jeeze-- 152.163.100.196 21:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Pinktulip was blocked from editing. See the entry for Amorrow. -- JWSchmidt 01:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I see you unblocked this character "after email discussions" - anything interesting that we should know about? He was into some serious plugging. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Talk!) 13:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Rhobite. Sandy 01:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
http://www.bradblog.com/Audio/AnnCoulter_CPAC_021006.mp3
about 4 minutes and 20 seconds into the rant she calls Arabs "ragheads".
She also has refered to Helen Thomas as an "old Arab"
Much as I would love to just call her an idiot she is just as much a racist for calling Arabs Ragheads as she would be for calling Black people burrheads.
132.241.245.49 04:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I haven't done anything involving you recently that I'm aware of, do you have any idea why I ended with a comment about you on my talk page? Night Gyr 03:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rhobite. I saw that you were involved in protecting the Put-in-Bay, Ohio article to stop a small edit/spam war and was wondering if you'd consider doing the same to the South Bass Island article. It's pretty much the same situation. Same users adding the same spam sites and removing the external link that existed previously. Thanks. -- NormanEinstein 19:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Rhobite how can I ad our company to this thing with out you deleteing it? If you can please call me at 404-755-5721 or email me at sbreen@doretel.com I do not want to piss anyone off so please guide me thru getting the right stuff up so that this deleting stuff doen't keep going on.
I was just about to get 83.17.199.150 blocked, that was 5 reverts, I have no idea what they were doing :)
Thanks for the compliments. In terms of SPUI, I was just acting out of frustration as SPUI is a personal friend of mine who I've known for many years. I said some things I shouldn't have said, but I've had some time to cool off now. Let's just let bygones be bygones, put this behind us, and let's look to improve Wikipedia, which is the ultimate goal in the end. We'll get DVD-Audio there eventually and the Beach Boys POV stuff is a whole monster in and of itself. That's next. Cheers! -- Analogdemon ( talk) 20:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
You were right about Dan Savage's inclusion in the Santorum article; I thought it had been more prominent than apparently it was. The other issue is that there were so many bad arguments against keeping it out (mostly "it's too icky") that I hadn't given the "this really isn't that notable" enough credit. Anyway, see you 'round the Wik', JDoorj a m Talk 22:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Yo have deleted my report of Urthogie committing 3RR. Can you give me a logical reason. If it was not proper place to report then you should have advised me to proper page. You conduct in this matter questionable.
'I have created a page, Jewish terrorism, to discuss the history of Jewish terrorism. The user has redirected my page and reverted my changes. I would like to report this incident so that proper action be taken. I was also banned for violating this rule but it did know about this rule and nobody warned me. I had already warned user Urthogie not to violate this rule.
Siddiqui 21:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby case. Raul654 06:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
He's been at it again! He changed Dylan's name to Zimmerman on People with the surname Dylan page 6 days ago, I'd forgotten to add it to my watchlist! Best wishes, Lion King 12:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I have taken the case of Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and will be the mediator. Before mediation can begin, we will need to decide on a mode of communication. We can either do this on the wiki at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, or we can discuss it off-site using e-mail or IRC. Please indicate your preference at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. Thank you. — Guan aco 04:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I have closed the mediation case because I don't think continuing it would be productive. Further discussion can take place at Talk:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. — Guan aco 05:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's significant to capitalize the word "white," I was just copying the style used in Stormfront (website). If it's POV or bad grammar maybe it should be fixed there, too. I won't because I have no idea what I'm talking about. Ineloquent 22:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm ok. I'm more of in a damage control mode now that I voiced my anger. I was careful not to direct it at anyone in particular, but it was still not nice. At first it was a more mocking/jokingly. But when I got a serious response... And realized that they actually had the nerve to ressurect that thing and say I'm the one violating POINT? Whatever. -- DanielCD 06:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
An RfC has been filed against Young Zaphod. See (and endorse) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Young Zaphod. -- Karnesky 12:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi: I just wanted to clarify something, that I was un-aware that only admins can protect pages. But other than that, I did not protect the page to gain advantage. Please look into the matter. the IP in question tracerouts to the Brady Campaign to Control Handguns. He has been editing three articles (constitution, second amendment, and Brady article), to make them clearly POV towards the Brady campaign. And considering that they ARE the brady campaign, I do not consider his edits as in "good faith". Please look into this. -- Dullfig 22:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I thought it up when I was discussing the idea from zenmaster and others that the title Conspiracy theory was inherently POV. :-) -- Cberlet 01:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kaiser Permanente, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
You seem to enjoy deleting images so can you please delete Image:Ch19f13.gif. I uploaded this file by accident. I have uploaded the correct self-made version now.
Thanks.--
Miller
23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rhobite,
Thanks for cleaning up the
Affiliate Marketing Article. Reads Good.
Regarding Return on Affiliates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliate_marketing#Return_on_Affiliates They started end of last year and have seen a rapid growth since they started. The concept of the site is new and a great thing. The Internet Marketing Community needs a place like this. It helps a lot to inter-connect and associate Names with Faces. They work their a** off to improve usability and features. The best of all is that it is free. What surprised me was the almost complere absense of Ads on the site, although I don't mind ads that are related and do not interfere with the usability of the site.
Are you responsible for the Category where Affiliate Marketing resides?
If so, please see my comments here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Online_marketing and let me know what you thing.
Thanks for your efforts. I can imagine how hard it must be.
Don't hesitate and stop by my User Talk Page to leave some comments. -- Roy-SAC 07:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Bijoux is making a stink on the Protest Warrior talk page about how I'm lying about his insertion of a link to Stormfront in the article on his very first edit, when the diff clearly shows that he put it in. As he can rant on and on all day about how biased I am, could you take a look and make sure I'm not blind or something? Rogue 9 17:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
What name calling? I have been asking for help to stop his reverts of Rec.sport.pro-wrestling. WillC 02:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
TruthCrusader 08:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
This user has once again deleted my comments on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR [11], after being warned that doing so was considered vandalism. - Chadbryant 03:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I have filed a request for arbitration which names you as a party. -- Malthusian (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I have due cause to believe that this is the same user who is responsible for over 140 sockpuppets designed specifically to harass and Wikistalk me. He more or less admits that he is this particular person in various contribs to talk pages. I believe that a checkuser of this account compared to others would confirm this, and that a block much longer than 48 hours is appropriate. - Chadbryant 03:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It's been taken into readonly mode for now, we tightened a setting down a few notches more and it was a little too far, we've updated it to a higher level. In theory it will be fully automated but because it is a bot and it *can* make mistakes (but then so can humans and rollback) it is going to run without a flag and edits it can make will be carefully audited.
We are closely monitoring it and we currently have 2 main ways of killing it, both the emergency shutdown button (aka block) and an irc bot that when killed takes down Tawkerbot2 (they use a common feed as the CVU vandalism bot.) However, if you feel its gone "rogue" you have our full permission to hit the block button, once its under control we'll have it unblocked)
If you have any technical questions could you direct them at Joshbuddy - he wrote the detection patterns and is tweaking the bot as we speak.
Again, aplogies on the false positive, we're working on it. We've had a pretty positive response so far, its looking promising. Tawker 16:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey Rhobite.
I was reading over the discussion at James W. Walter, between you and H0rizon. Have you seen his discussion page? I'm pretty sure it's a clear violation of the hosting policy. I feel kinda bad for the guy, but he's got a pretty skewed view of Wikipedia as far as self-promotion goes. Isopropyl 02:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your editing. Much improved.-- Beth Wellington 19:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, you're right -- I apologize. I misread the vote, it did indeed only apply to the Lost page, not LOST -- I reverted myself! What a mess. · Katefan0 (scribble)/ poll 21:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Good call on the placement of that Palmer link. I was so busy trying to keep sockpuppets off of the link that I didn't pay any attention to where i was in the list! Dick Clark 22:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Most Common Name applies exclusively to article naming. It does not apply to opening paragraphs, which on WP follow chronology in the event of a name change/deed poll change/stage name etc. Hence the Tony Blair article is at the right MCN location but opens Anthony Linton Blair, the Cary Grant article opens Archibald Leach. Both articles then go on to explain in the opening line subsequent name changes or shortened versions. That has long been WP policy for people who have gone through name changes in their lifetime.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
00:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Can we take the delete tag off yet? It is obvious there is no grounds for deletion, and that the people that seem to be for deletion are the same people, with the same arguments, and the same writing style (which is strangely similar to his personal writing style.)
There is no solid evidence, or reason to assume the information is false, and the arguments for keeping it are infinitely better than those for deleting it.
Thanks.
Sounds good. I guess I am done talking to Mike about this... how many times do we have to endure him trying to put this up for deletion under another name?
I really hope this is it as apparent to everyone else as it is to me, that he is the one writing under different names and proxies... I am done arguing with him... isn;t waht he is doing considered vandalism?
After he died yesterday, he changed all his websites to redirect to a porn site, probably not appropriate to link to for right now... I have a feeling the article is going to get nailed for vandalism, as he keeps swearing that he died in Alaska in a fatal car accident yesterday (I looked up all the major news outlet, and there was a fatal car accident, but it involved a native Alaskan family,) and I just wanted to get it fixed, or let someone know before it got locked down.
All this business about how Wiki has been proven to be malicious and such... it be settled today? PLEASE?...lol.. thanks for your hard work. just wanted to let you know.
ROFL, I've been had, he redirected my IP to a porn site and may have done it with the Wiki link too... I just looked and he says there is no comment on the accident in Alaska.
I have been using the same ISP ( Alltel) since I started here. I am not using any proxy software. PrometheusX303 13:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Stop stalking and blocking me. Your admin privileges and request to become a bureaucrat would seem to warrant a NPOV to editing, deletions and reverts. However, for reasons known only to yourself you prefer to stalk, harass, malign, and block many editors who bring your violations of Wikipedia policy to the fore for discussion. Again, stop stalking me. Do not send me email, and do not contact me for any reason. If you delete or revert this, or block me to punish me for having confronted your violations of Wikipedia policy, I have a copy to forward to support my contention that your admin privileges should be suspended indefinitely.
User: Master Of RSPW vandalized my about page. WillC 02:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi there my buddy Rhobite, I hope Jack Thompson is not in some way related to libertarianism, anyway please stop misreading things my friend, the +lesbian dementia quote comes from his newsmax articles(some of which have been removed and you need to acess trough archive.org, not from his election). Thanks 210.142.29.125 03:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting me. I must be way too much sceptical about Wikipedia to put blame on it automatically.
Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks is informed, item on Wikipedia:Copyright problems cancelled. Pavel Vozenilek 05:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
A Wikipedia user, one would assume User:Chadbryant based on [14], has created an account with the about page just like mine. He is attempting to impersonate me. Please block this user, even though I have no clue where the email address comes from. The fake ID is User: Flyhighfreeebird@aol.com. Furthermore, there is now a category called "suspected sockpuppets of WillC. I am neither of those. In fact, I assume they are both Chadbryant. He needs to be banned. WillC 00:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
To address your concerns that not enough people have seen or agreed with the guideline I proposed at Wikipedia talk:Logos, I've now made it over at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) as well. The new guideline would read "Corporate logos outside of infoboxes should always have captions." Kurieeto 12:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, Rhobite, but the same people that repeatedly added their web sites to Put-in-Bay, Ohio and South Bass Island are now at work on the Port Clinton, Ohio article. I was wondering if you could stop them with one of your magical admin powers. ;-) Thanks. -- NormanEinstein 21:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rhobite. Is there any chance I could convince you to sprotect Ted Kennedy indefinitely? Thanks! (Hooray for Spring! - I'm in Mass, too) -- AStanhope 00:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Why would you do such a thing? You blocked me wouthout any warning... I did my best to look up all the Wikipedia "rules" and I was pretty sure it was all allowed. I'm guessing you blocked for the Paul subpage, but that was not public, it was a private note and all I did was google search. Either way you were unfair about this, about the "OR" claim, and I'll be filing appropriate complaints about this. Digg 22:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Posting IRC logs is not allowed, yes, but it definitely isn't a blockable offence. Digg hadn't broken any other rules prior to that, and has contributions seem mostly useful. I think you were too harsh blocking indefinitely. Esteffect 19:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Personally I don't like infoboxes. They *look* better but contain much less information. Wikipedia is all about the information, and not in looking the best. Why do you prefer the infoboxes? Take care, Googie man 22:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I know this is a hot topic lately... What's invalid about the Image:CarlosDelgado.jpg fair use claim? Just curious - I'm unlikely to argue since I know that Wikipedia will be almost sans pictures soon and I'm certainly not in possession of legal knowledge with which to fight it. — Wknight94 ( talk) 23:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Please assume good faith, i did not know there was a difference, i would have paid more attention to that if i knew about it. -- Striver 06:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Explain this one example to me... Image:ALMP_pub.jpg. I found this at URL under a menu heading just called "Photos". It doesn't say publicity anywhere in there. It's a picture of Lohan posing for a picture - just like Delgado at mlb.com - and it's used as the main image in an infobox for Lohan's article - just like the Delgado picture was for his article. Can you explain the difference to me? — Wknight94 ( talk) 21:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Several days ago, you recommended undeleting the article for myg0t. I'm not sure to what extent you based your opinion on the prior AFD discussions. Since your comment, I discovered that the second AFD discussion in question had been vandalized by an anon user between the closure of the discussion and the start of the deletion review. The vandalism obscured several valid comments and made the strict vote-count appear to be a "no consensus" decision. If the prior AFD discussion played any role in your decision, could I ask you to review the unvandalized version of the AFD discussion? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Please weigh in on Lauren B. Weiner deletion if you have a chance. -- Tbeatty 16:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the Wetlook article revision as of 02:45, 2 May 2005 I notice that you removed the paragraph on wet hair. Could this be returned? It is definitely known for members of the wetlook community to appreciate wet hair and one couple in particular are very fond of wet hair as well as wet clothes (See Jet Wet Fun although you'd have to study the photograpy to discern their preferences; I am also going by Todd's forum posts)
I will accept my comments made about the media being removed, although one does have to wonder!
Talk page archives |
---|
User:Rhobite |
Archive 1 |
Archive 2 |
Archive 3 |
Archive 4 |
Archive 5 |
Archive 6 |
Archive 7 |
Archive 8 |
Archive 9 |
Current |
Half of what you warned me for was vandalism (the wanker comment). The other half was both accuarte, and just as importantly, relevant (The Nextstep stuff- that's the operating system that the first ever web browser was written on, you know, sonny ;). Please restore it, I'm trying my best to restrict my urges... 84.9.75.111 00:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank for your response re Alex Rodriguez. What I do question is your haste to condemn as vandalism something done in good faith and simply to give some balance to a rah-rah article, in the interest of preserving Wiki's NPOV policy. Vandalism is the clown who keeps putting "Yo quiero Taco Bell" in the article about Miguel de Unamuno, an article in which I incidentally have inserted material about his life and philosophy. Regards and yours in Wikiness (if there is such a word). Alloco1 16:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I think I've disovered his riddle, concerning the spelling of "Zimmerman"- click Autoharp on Discussion page, on my post of other instuments Dylan plays. Best wishes, Lion King 00:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
nice catch on the spam plug on Reality television. havent seen you edit that page, and then swoop, you fixed this. thanks. :) Airumel 05:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Are you requesting/suggesting IP addrs not start AfDs? 68.39.174.238 06:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, just noticed you've had a lot of edits recently on the University of Massachusetts Amherst article. I thank you for your interest in our institution, but it concerns me that a lot of information has been deleted in the course of your edits.
Specifically, I don't see the need for this bulimic section cutting business, the article isn't too long, and each time someone merges a section, information is lost. The article actually has less information now than it did a month ago, and that to me is alarming.
Out of curiousity, are you or have you ever been a stud ent at UMass?
Yes, there is normally no place in the article for individual organizations, but Take Back UMass is a bit different than the Cannibis Reform Council and the Chess Club- something anyone who's gone here for more than a semester knows. And there is no such thing as Residential Government, you wouldn't change the name of the US Congress section of the US Goverment article to Parliament just because its shorter.
From what I've seen on the definition for stub, it says, "These entries have categories that need to be developed" , so is it really the most appropriate thing to delete and merge information?
I don't want to make this seem like I'm attacking you, I'm just a little concerned, I look forward to your response,
Thanks
Vvuppala 21:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi,
Nominating other "GNAA" articles for deletion is clearly disruptive. If you nominate these articles again you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rhobite 03:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
But if you look at the edit in question, Cusps - or whatever his name is - wiped my last edit, as he did on many articles - that had nothing to do with the infobox, nor vandalism of any sort. Guero is an example of this. Why don't you go issue a warning to him? BGC 22:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I can't say I am overly impressed with your editing. You reversed several of my edits which added external links to articles. The external links added clearly related to the subjects at hand. I would particularly take exception to your edits on the affiliate marketing category. Tell me, do you actually know anything about Affiliate marketing in the UK? I do and I was adding some legitimate affiliate networks to the list already there. There was no referral link, it was not spam and I am wondering why on earth you deleted them, given that they perform exactly the same function as the other external links on that page which you chose to keep.
stevenmar 22:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Why, after all this time, are so many 9/11-related articles being edited to promote conspiracy theories, criticize the United States, or criticize President Bush? patsw 03:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Since you have edited Enterprise resource planning, here is a courtesy notification that I have updated the article, and its talk page, since your last activity there. I have tried to repair what I view as an unfortunate WP:POV, or historical bias, but I still need to address a better way to present information about commercial software, open source, and homebrew. Many facts about ERP are true in one of these three main areas, but totally wrong for the others.
I asked about disadvantages style in December 23 section of Help Desk whose first response cautioned risk of WP:NPOV. There is a potential need to show several commonplace WP:POV that can otherwise risk article contamination, if not acknowledged. User:AlMac| (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I am receciving abuse on my talk page from users Adam Carr and Fear EIRANN. Will you take a look at LONDON on my page, and please advise me. Best wishes Lion King 22:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)corection- ENGLAND
An amusing fellow who is also an admin. is refusing to let Ed Gein be added to the category of LGBT serial killers.
de-transcluding a page as oversized as that is not vandalism, it's a public service, removing just the one transcluded header from WP:AN cut it's loading time in half, very few people realize just how long it takes for some of these pages to load-- 63.22.79.21 08:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I had a long discussion with another user about this and it lead me to email 2 professors from my university and I consulted with 2 other editors on here as well. The 2 English professor from university confirmed that the usage is correct and also made me aware that most people aren't aware or don't know how to use collective nouns correctly. The handbook I am using is The Bedford Handbook (2002). In British English, it is correct to use "Aerosmith are" but in the U.S., we say, "Aerosmith is". I am not changing all of the articles, just some of the articles that are incorrect. Some of the articles are using it correctly like I am. RJN 02:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The names might be plural but they are still one collective entity—therefore they are singular. Collective nouns are very tricky and most users of English are not aware or know how to use it correctly. There are some articles that use correct collective nouns. Not all articles use "are" or "were". I know it doesn't make sense to some people but this is the correct usage. RJN 02:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Well I have been browsing articles for bands and sports teams—almost half use "is" and "was" for plural names. Like I said, just because the name of a band or team is plural doesn't mean that the sentence is plural. Whether their names are plural or not, do you agree that, collectively, it is one entity? See Houston Texans. They use "is" in that article and Backstreet Boys uses "is" as well. There are several other bands and sports articles that use "is" and "was" with plural names. I have emailed my English professor and she confirmed that it is correct in American English. Yes, "were" and "are" are correct in British English. I am only correcting the U.S. related articles. I left The Beatles alone since they are not Americans. RJN 03:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a response on the help desk that would support what I am trying to say, "... the rule is simple and well-known: If more than one person is acting as a group, the verb is singular." RJN 03:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Here is a sentence from MCA Records that would support the use of "is". "New Radicals, led by young liability/singer/songwriter/producer Gregg Alexander, is chomping at the bit." Hope this helps. Sorry to bother you with this. http://www.mcarecords.com/ArtistAbout.asp?which=bio&selected=1&aboutid=38819&artistname=New+Radicals&artistid=62 RJN 06:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
User:BGC has again resumed systematically reverting album articles to his preferred text, deleting all recent contributions from other editors and using inappropriate/misleading edit summaries when he uses edit summaries at all. Beyond the usual issues, he is adding various star images back to infoboxes, despite the recently established consensus to remove them. He is also systematically delete all admin warnings from his talk page, usually no more than a day or so after each is posted. Monicasdude 15:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Last time BGC did this, I warned him that he'd get a very long block if he ever did it again (I spared him on that occasion, and I seem to recall that he did stop). What do you think of the situation now, Rhobite? If he's being reasonable and stopping I'm still inclined to let it go, but if he's pressing on and the reverts are not reasonable then I'd block. Haven't made my mind up yet -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 21:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
You're coming across a bit heavy, mate. Any nominations that are bad can be defeated just by raising the appropiate facts. People aren't stupid, there is very little chance of anything deent getting delted, and even it it did then WP:DRV can sort it out.
Some of the meatpuppets from the Checkerboard Nightmare Afd have turned into real contibutors. We don't have to WP:BITE. Just put the "sockpuppets beware" template across the top of the AfD and let it go.
brenneman (t) (c) 03:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello Rhobite, Googie Man here and I want to ask you something as a fellow baseball fan on Wikipedia. Jimbo and Angela have made a new webstie called Wikicities. This link in particular will take you to the baseball Wikicity. As you'll see it's similar to Wikipedia, but my hope is this will allow baseball fans to do more and different things, like reporting on games, in depth statistics, create mulitple pages for pictures, and whatever else baseball fans care to create. You've done great work on Wikipedia and I was hoping you could help get this baseball Wikicity off the ground. Please let me know what you think either at my talk page, or you can email me at terry@wikia.com. Thanks! Googie Man( Talk), 17:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC).
I note with considerable exception your inexplicably misinformed comment made [ here] that most of my contributions have been to the ongoing listing of blogcruft on AfD (which I wholeheartedly endorse). A quick trip to my user page would have shown you that I am a principal and in many cases the sole author of articles such as:
among a host of others.
Then give me a hint. What can I do to stop these people from attacking me? There is a policy by the way: you can remove personal attacks.-- Fenice 16:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
A site being hosted by Yahoo! Small Business hosting consists of copy & paste of various drug articles, like codeine which you edited, and Google Ads. There is no contact information on the site (I found out that Yahoo was hosting them from the source code), so we have to go through Yahoo;s copyright infringement process. Yahoo told me that someone with a legal copyright interest needs to contact them. The diff establishing your claim is at [5]. I have/will email you a copy of the message I sent and Yahoo's response. Please take a couple minutes to send off a letter as this is particularly blatant WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 19:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC).
I am about to file a requests for arbitration against Gibby. Do you wish to be involved as a party? Elle vécu heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 11:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for pointing out my accidental double vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.bloggar - I won't do it again! Also, I do notice you seem quite protective of blog-related articles. Please be reassured that there's no sneaky conspiracy going on (as far as I know). Thanks for keeping an eye on things; the last thing I want is the war on blogcruft to fail through poor procedure. Regards, Proto t c 21:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with your interpretation of the ruling. I also don't like living in fear of being blocked for who knows what, who knows when. Obviously you're trying to threaten me with a block. Well, unless you want to talk in some positive way, leave me alone, please. Everyking 18:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The request for arbitration concerning this user has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#KDRGibby. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 10:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
you have no legitimate reason to get rid of the bullets the style GUIDE states this: "This Manual of Style has the simple purpose of making things easy to read by following a consistent format — it is a style guide. The following rules do not claim to be the last word." So stop doing it...especially since there are 3 other sections formated with bullets only. (Gibby 05:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC))
Did you bother discussing that here? Or at the Wal-Mart discussion page. There is no reason to delete them.
Rhobite, I believe I've given more than enough proof as to the age, hometown, high school and graduation date of Benjy Bronk. What other proof is needed? And still the clowns are editing it back to inaccurate stuff. 148.126.100.82 21:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)148.126.100.82
I see that someone else is at work vandalizing the Benjy Bronk page again. I'm not even going to get involved this time and revert it back to the correct addition. It's becoming a waste of my time. The person now put stuff related to 12 year old black girls and the KKK. If people are so determined to vandalize Benjy Bronk's entry, then how does a George W. Bush entry not get vandalized 1000x more? 148.126.100.82 18:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)148.126.100.82
You have been going around for some time now , deleting the TOCs and quotes that i have put in various book articles. The result is now people are arguing about what is or is not in those books , when the TOCs and quotes were the most NPOV way of establishing the basic facts as to the contents. I hope you will take time to rethink this through , and cease removing the TOCs and quotes. Hopefully then , we can move away from the ridiculous bickering about what the topics are of book articles and can get busy writing some decent articles on them. -- CltFn 05:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Re your deletion with vandalism notice about my insertion about Alex Rodriguez: It's hardly nonsense; in fact it's been an issue ever since shortly after A-Rod started playing for the Yankees. Apparently the pressure gets to him and too many times when it's a late inning and the Yankees need a run he falters in comparison to other players; there have been statistics that cofirm this anecdotal observation. The last playoffs against LA simply were the coup de grace. He's had some psychological help to try to deal with the stress. In short it's a legitimate issue and not nonsense and certainly NOT vandalism; it's perfectly in keeping with WIKIPEDIA's NPOV policy: namely showing the both good and bad and NOT just the rah-rah of the original article.
Alloco1
21:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I copied the supposed "original research" from another article which I merged. I will revert it, and suggest that you discuss this with the author of the original text. -- Timecop 02:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
This image may be deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading Image:Johnwife.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{ GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{ Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — THOR =/\= 20:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Please see, WP:AN#Continued block of User:208.183.105.11 as I think that you placed the block under discussion. DES (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin ( talk) 01:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
You cited "diffs needed" for vandalism by Gibby for communism, and I didn't dare modify your section because I was wondering if that would go against procedure, so I have supplied them here:
Cheers. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 03:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rhobite, thank you for your vote on my RfA. I am sorry that my participation in (what really should not be called a war) the "war on blogs" has soured your opinion of me. I do not consider myself a deletionist, although I do vote more "delete"s than "keep"s (but this is because more articles on AfD should be deleted than kept). I appreciate that you are in favour of including many blog-related articles on Wikipedia, and that's your right.
However, I would like to think if it were you going for adminship, I would base my decision based on whether or not you seemed civil, which you do, and whether or not you seem capable of following Wikipedia policy, which you also do - irrespective of my opinions of your voting patterns on AfD, which is, after all, a 'free vote'. I'd would assume good faith, and that you'd be able to allow Wikipedia policy to guide you in your actions.
I would like to think that if my RfA were to pass, I would not start rampaging through AfDs on Wikipedia, deleting articles here, there, and everywhere, and I would assume you would not rampage through AfD speedily keeping everything in much the same manner. It is a shame that you feel I cannot be trusted in this manner, as I don't think I have ever tried to circumvent due process in such a manner.
Anyhow, no hard feelings. I don't expect you to change your vote, but please consider things other than AfD voting patterns when you vote on others' RfAs in future. All the best. Proto t c 14:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rhobite, just wanted to say thanks for commenting over on paper mill (essays). Feel free to leave comments at my talk page any time. Cutter20 20:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been leaving welcome messages, and not sure how I created that one. Wasn't paying close enough attention -- it gets mind numbing after awhile. I tagged it for speedy deletion as soon as it occurred. Thanks for the heads up. -- Go for it! 03:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I had completely quit talking with Pamento and only reverted back to him at the request of Cenestrad the Emperor of Wikipedia's request. I think he felt it might resolve the problem, and in a way(by having you bar him) it has. I can hopefully get back to some more constructive wikipeding. Ill let you know if he bugs me again pickelbarrel the giant ASSHOLE 01:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rhobite/Archive 8, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
A blast from the past. A Protest Warrior member is trying to rewrite the article to suit his personal view of the organisation. Any chance that you could take a look at it and see what you think? -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 14:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
An RfC has been opened here against User:Mr j galt ( talk · contribs). If you are familar with his editing and would like to add your input, please feel free to do so, whatever your POV. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that you have had some interactions with 65.182.172.x on Talk:Chicago-style hot dog. Cyberdenizen and I have filed a user conduct RfC about his behavior and I would appreciate your input. You can find it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/65.182.172.x. Thanks! - AdelaMa e ( talk - contribs) 04:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Without using names I simply said some administrators are douche bags (an opinion shared by many & one I firmly stand behind) This is no diffrent than saying some editors are trolls or vandals. If an administrator took offence it is probably because said administrator is a douche bag. I would never call any person usng wikipedia any insulting name. -- Cenestrad The Emperor of Wikipedia 13:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry if I seemed uncivil but an abuse of power boils my blood. -- The Emperor of Wikipedia 02:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry I have to let people know!
I have seen it
I think modern astrology's basic premise is silly, for the most part (when it works, if it "works", it works for reasons other than most of its adherents claim, IMO), but Isaac Newton was familiar with the nuts and bolts of the alchemy and astrology of his day, apparently. A Google search turns up many references, at the top of the list: [10]. So there is some room to at least credit it as a proto-science before the 18th century, to my mind. Cheers, -- Fire Star 20:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
awe jeeze-- 152.163.100.196 21:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Pinktulip was blocked from editing. See the entry for Amorrow. -- JWSchmidt 01:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I see you unblocked this character "after email discussions" - anything interesting that we should know about? He was into some serious plugging. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Talk!) 13:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Rhobite. Sandy 01:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
http://www.bradblog.com/Audio/AnnCoulter_CPAC_021006.mp3
about 4 minutes and 20 seconds into the rant she calls Arabs "ragheads".
She also has refered to Helen Thomas as an "old Arab"
Much as I would love to just call her an idiot she is just as much a racist for calling Arabs Ragheads as she would be for calling Black people burrheads.
132.241.245.49 04:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I haven't done anything involving you recently that I'm aware of, do you have any idea why I ended with a comment about you on my talk page? Night Gyr 03:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rhobite. I saw that you were involved in protecting the Put-in-Bay, Ohio article to stop a small edit/spam war and was wondering if you'd consider doing the same to the South Bass Island article. It's pretty much the same situation. Same users adding the same spam sites and removing the external link that existed previously. Thanks. -- NormanEinstein 19:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Rhobite how can I ad our company to this thing with out you deleteing it? If you can please call me at 404-755-5721 or email me at sbreen@doretel.com I do not want to piss anyone off so please guide me thru getting the right stuff up so that this deleting stuff doen't keep going on.
I was just about to get 83.17.199.150 blocked, that was 5 reverts, I have no idea what they were doing :)
Thanks for the compliments. In terms of SPUI, I was just acting out of frustration as SPUI is a personal friend of mine who I've known for many years. I said some things I shouldn't have said, but I've had some time to cool off now. Let's just let bygones be bygones, put this behind us, and let's look to improve Wikipedia, which is the ultimate goal in the end. We'll get DVD-Audio there eventually and the Beach Boys POV stuff is a whole monster in and of itself. That's next. Cheers! -- Analogdemon ( talk) 20:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
You were right about Dan Savage's inclusion in the Santorum article; I thought it had been more prominent than apparently it was. The other issue is that there were so many bad arguments against keeping it out (mostly "it's too icky") that I hadn't given the "this really isn't that notable" enough credit. Anyway, see you 'round the Wik', JDoorj a m Talk 22:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Yo have deleted my report of Urthogie committing 3RR. Can you give me a logical reason. If it was not proper place to report then you should have advised me to proper page. You conduct in this matter questionable.
'I have created a page, Jewish terrorism, to discuss the history of Jewish terrorism. The user has redirected my page and reverted my changes. I would like to report this incident so that proper action be taken. I was also banned for violating this rule but it did know about this rule and nobody warned me. I had already warned user Urthogie not to violate this rule.
Siddiqui 21:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby case. Raul654 06:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
He's been at it again! He changed Dylan's name to Zimmerman on People with the surname Dylan page 6 days ago, I'd forgotten to add it to my watchlist! Best wishes, Lion King 12:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I have taken the case of Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and will be the mediator. Before mediation can begin, we will need to decide on a mode of communication. We can either do this on the wiki at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, or we can discuss it off-site using e-mail or IRC. Please indicate your preference at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. Thank you. — Guan aco 04:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I have closed the mediation case because I don't think continuing it would be productive. Further discussion can take place at Talk:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. — Guan aco 05:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's significant to capitalize the word "white," I was just copying the style used in Stormfront (website). If it's POV or bad grammar maybe it should be fixed there, too. I won't because I have no idea what I'm talking about. Ineloquent 22:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm ok. I'm more of in a damage control mode now that I voiced my anger. I was careful not to direct it at anyone in particular, but it was still not nice. At first it was a more mocking/jokingly. But when I got a serious response... And realized that they actually had the nerve to ressurect that thing and say I'm the one violating POINT? Whatever. -- DanielCD 06:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
An RfC has been filed against Young Zaphod. See (and endorse) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Young Zaphod. -- Karnesky 12:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi: I just wanted to clarify something, that I was un-aware that only admins can protect pages. But other than that, I did not protect the page to gain advantage. Please look into the matter. the IP in question tracerouts to the Brady Campaign to Control Handguns. He has been editing three articles (constitution, second amendment, and Brady article), to make them clearly POV towards the Brady campaign. And considering that they ARE the brady campaign, I do not consider his edits as in "good faith". Please look into this. -- Dullfig 22:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I thought it up when I was discussing the idea from zenmaster and others that the title Conspiracy theory was inherently POV. :-) -- Cberlet 01:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kaiser Permanente, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
You seem to enjoy deleting images so can you please delete Image:Ch19f13.gif. I uploaded this file by accident. I have uploaded the correct self-made version now.
Thanks.--
Miller
23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rhobite,
Thanks for cleaning up the
Affiliate Marketing Article. Reads Good.
Regarding Return on Affiliates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliate_marketing#Return_on_Affiliates They started end of last year and have seen a rapid growth since they started. The concept of the site is new and a great thing. The Internet Marketing Community needs a place like this. It helps a lot to inter-connect and associate Names with Faces. They work their a** off to improve usability and features. The best of all is that it is free. What surprised me was the almost complere absense of Ads on the site, although I don't mind ads that are related and do not interfere with the usability of the site.
Are you responsible for the Category where Affiliate Marketing resides?
If so, please see my comments here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Online_marketing and let me know what you thing.
Thanks for your efforts. I can imagine how hard it must be.
Don't hesitate and stop by my User Talk Page to leave some comments. -- Roy-SAC 07:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Bijoux is making a stink on the Protest Warrior talk page about how I'm lying about his insertion of a link to Stormfront in the article on his very first edit, when the diff clearly shows that he put it in. As he can rant on and on all day about how biased I am, could you take a look and make sure I'm not blind or something? Rogue 9 17:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
What name calling? I have been asking for help to stop his reverts of Rec.sport.pro-wrestling. WillC 02:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
TruthCrusader 08:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
This user has once again deleted my comments on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR [11], after being warned that doing so was considered vandalism. - Chadbryant 03:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I have filed a request for arbitration which names you as a party. -- Malthusian (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I have due cause to believe that this is the same user who is responsible for over 140 sockpuppets designed specifically to harass and Wikistalk me. He more or less admits that he is this particular person in various contribs to talk pages. I believe that a checkuser of this account compared to others would confirm this, and that a block much longer than 48 hours is appropriate. - Chadbryant 03:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It's been taken into readonly mode for now, we tightened a setting down a few notches more and it was a little too far, we've updated it to a higher level. In theory it will be fully automated but because it is a bot and it *can* make mistakes (but then so can humans and rollback) it is going to run without a flag and edits it can make will be carefully audited.
We are closely monitoring it and we currently have 2 main ways of killing it, both the emergency shutdown button (aka block) and an irc bot that when killed takes down Tawkerbot2 (they use a common feed as the CVU vandalism bot.) However, if you feel its gone "rogue" you have our full permission to hit the block button, once its under control we'll have it unblocked)
If you have any technical questions could you direct them at Joshbuddy - he wrote the detection patterns and is tweaking the bot as we speak.
Again, aplogies on the false positive, we're working on it. We've had a pretty positive response so far, its looking promising. Tawker 16:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey Rhobite.
I was reading over the discussion at James W. Walter, between you and H0rizon. Have you seen his discussion page? I'm pretty sure it's a clear violation of the hosting policy. I feel kinda bad for the guy, but he's got a pretty skewed view of Wikipedia as far as self-promotion goes. Isopropyl 02:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your editing. Much improved.-- Beth Wellington 19:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, you're right -- I apologize. I misread the vote, it did indeed only apply to the Lost page, not LOST -- I reverted myself! What a mess. · Katefan0 (scribble)/ poll 21:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Good call on the placement of that Palmer link. I was so busy trying to keep sockpuppets off of the link that I didn't pay any attention to where i was in the list! Dick Clark 22:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Most Common Name applies exclusively to article naming. It does not apply to opening paragraphs, which on WP follow chronology in the event of a name change/deed poll change/stage name etc. Hence the Tony Blair article is at the right MCN location but opens Anthony Linton Blair, the Cary Grant article opens Archibald Leach. Both articles then go on to explain in the opening line subsequent name changes or shortened versions. That has long been WP policy for people who have gone through name changes in their lifetime.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
00:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Can we take the delete tag off yet? It is obvious there is no grounds for deletion, and that the people that seem to be for deletion are the same people, with the same arguments, and the same writing style (which is strangely similar to his personal writing style.)
There is no solid evidence, or reason to assume the information is false, and the arguments for keeping it are infinitely better than those for deleting it.
Thanks.
Sounds good. I guess I am done talking to Mike about this... how many times do we have to endure him trying to put this up for deletion under another name?
I really hope this is it as apparent to everyone else as it is to me, that he is the one writing under different names and proxies... I am done arguing with him... isn;t waht he is doing considered vandalism?
After he died yesterday, he changed all his websites to redirect to a porn site, probably not appropriate to link to for right now... I have a feeling the article is going to get nailed for vandalism, as he keeps swearing that he died in Alaska in a fatal car accident yesterday (I looked up all the major news outlet, and there was a fatal car accident, but it involved a native Alaskan family,) and I just wanted to get it fixed, or let someone know before it got locked down.
All this business about how Wiki has been proven to be malicious and such... it be settled today? PLEASE?...lol.. thanks for your hard work. just wanted to let you know.
ROFL, I've been had, he redirected my IP to a porn site and may have done it with the Wiki link too... I just looked and he says there is no comment on the accident in Alaska.
I have been using the same ISP ( Alltel) since I started here. I am not using any proxy software. PrometheusX303 13:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Stop stalking and blocking me. Your admin privileges and request to become a bureaucrat would seem to warrant a NPOV to editing, deletions and reverts. However, for reasons known only to yourself you prefer to stalk, harass, malign, and block many editors who bring your violations of Wikipedia policy to the fore for discussion. Again, stop stalking me. Do not send me email, and do not contact me for any reason. If you delete or revert this, or block me to punish me for having confronted your violations of Wikipedia policy, I have a copy to forward to support my contention that your admin privileges should be suspended indefinitely.
User: Master Of RSPW vandalized my about page. WillC 02:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi there my buddy Rhobite, I hope Jack Thompson is not in some way related to libertarianism, anyway please stop misreading things my friend, the +lesbian dementia quote comes from his newsmax articles(some of which have been removed and you need to acess trough archive.org, not from his election). Thanks 210.142.29.125 03:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting me. I must be way too much sceptical about Wikipedia to put blame on it automatically.
Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks is informed, item on Wikipedia:Copyright problems cancelled. Pavel Vozenilek 05:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
A Wikipedia user, one would assume User:Chadbryant based on [14], has created an account with the about page just like mine. He is attempting to impersonate me. Please block this user, even though I have no clue where the email address comes from. The fake ID is User: Flyhighfreeebird@aol.com. Furthermore, there is now a category called "suspected sockpuppets of WillC. I am neither of those. In fact, I assume they are both Chadbryant. He needs to be banned. WillC 00:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
To address your concerns that not enough people have seen or agreed with the guideline I proposed at Wikipedia talk:Logos, I've now made it over at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) as well. The new guideline would read "Corporate logos outside of infoboxes should always have captions." Kurieeto 12:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, Rhobite, but the same people that repeatedly added their web sites to Put-in-Bay, Ohio and South Bass Island are now at work on the Port Clinton, Ohio article. I was wondering if you could stop them with one of your magical admin powers. ;-) Thanks. -- NormanEinstein 21:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rhobite. Is there any chance I could convince you to sprotect Ted Kennedy indefinitely? Thanks! (Hooray for Spring! - I'm in Mass, too) -- AStanhope 00:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Why would you do such a thing? You blocked me wouthout any warning... I did my best to look up all the Wikipedia "rules" and I was pretty sure it was all allowed. I'm guessing you blocked for the Paul subpage, but that was not public, it was a private note and all I did was google search. Either way you were unfair about this, about the "OR" claim, and I'll be filing appropriate complaints about this. Digg 22:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Posting IRC logs is not allowed, yes, but it definitely isn't a blockable offence. Digg hadn't broken any other rules prior to that, and has contributions seem mostly useful. I think you were too harsh blocking indefinitely. Esteffect 19:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Personally I don't like infoboxes. They *look* better but contain much less information. Wikipedia is all about the information, and not in looking the best. Why do you prefer the infoboxes? Take care, Googie man 22:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I know this is a hot topic lately... What's invalid about the Image:CarlosDelgado.jpg fair use claim? Just curious - I'm unlikely to argue since I know that Wikipedia will be almost sans pictures soon and I'm certainly not in possession of legal knowledge with which to fight it. — Wknight94 ( talk) 23:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Please assume good faith, i did not know there was a difference, i would have paid more attention to that if i knew about it. -- Striver 06:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Explain this one example to me... Image:ALMP_pub.jpg. I found this at URL under a menu heading just called "Photos". It doesn't say publicity anywhere in there. It's a picture of Lohan posing for a picture - just like Delgado at mlb.com - and it's used as the main image in an infobox for Lohan's article - just like the Delgado picture was for his article. Can you explain the difference to me? — Wknight94 ( talk) 21:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Several days ago, you recommended undeleting the article for myg0t. I'm not sure to what extent you based your opinion on the prior AFD discussions. Since your comment, I discovered that the second AFD discussion in question had been vandalized by an anon user between the closure of the discussion and the start of the deletion review. The vandalism obscured several valid comments and made the strict vote-count appear to be a "no consensus" decision. If the prior AFD discussion played any role in your decision, could I ask you to review the unvandalized version of the AFD discussion? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Please weigh in on Lauren B. Weiner deletion if you have a chance. -- Tbeatty 16:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the Wetlook article revision as of 02:45, 2 May 2005 I notice that you removed the paragraph on wet hair. Could this be returned? It is definitely known for members of the wetlook community to appreciate wet hair and one couple in particular are very fond of wet hair as well as wet clothes (See Jet Wet Fun although you'd have to study the photograpy to discern their preferences; I am also going by Todd's forum posts)
I will accept my comments made about the media being removed, although one does have to wonder!