User talk:Rhobite/Archive 5

Talk page archives
User:Rhobite
Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5
Archive 6
Archive 7
Archive 8
Archive 9
Current

America West

While I agree that America West's experience with drunk pilots is apropriate material for Air safety, it is also a notable (for PR reasons) event which is pertinent to any article about America West Airlines. If you strongly believe the paragraph should remain removed from the article, would you perhaps consider a link from America West to the pertinent Air Safety section? --ABQCat 05:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Buckshot, Inc.

It's a joke dude. Buckshot, Inc. does not exist, as far as I know. I may not be Linus Torvalds, but I ain't Bill Gates, either--read my user page--I'm a starving artist, and it's just too much fun winding y'all up-- :)

Winding people up is only part of my purpose--my purpose in winding people up is to simply have fun--when I say "you" I mean people who take what I say seriously--it's all just fun and games. If you read my contributions you will see how much I value Wikipedia--I'm no slouch, which is why I call myself a(n) (un)serious writer--get it? eh, eh?

and the thing you call a "mess" is something someone else might call "funny." not me, you understand, but someone with a sense of humor.

My mistake, friend, I thought humor was a serious pursuit, but apparently not--does this mean Wikipedia is not a serious pursuit? Encyclopedias are a joke, right? Isn't that the point of this site? To lampoon the idea of the encyclopedia by ratcheting up/down the seriousness of it?

Feel free, my friend, but be prepared for a fight--the vandalism policy clearly states that deleting large chunks of text with no explanation constitutes vandalism--so it makes no sense whatsoever for you to delete my Buckshot, Inc. on the basis of vandalism--in fact, unless you have a valid explanation for why you continue to vandalize my articles, I will notify one of the other admins and have you blocked, my friend.

Do we understand each other? I am this close to emailing another admin, my friend. You had better leave me a message. Being an admin does not give you the right to make empty threats, and I demand an apology.

Hey (wo)man, don't feel bad. It's all in good fun, now--it's all about blurring distinctions. As Derrida said, only you can prevent narcissism.

Oliver North

An old friend of yours, Tnuctnurgemetib, is back under the name Ger6 (talk · contributions) (after a brief incarnation as Winston88 (talk · contributions)). He's making exactly the same edits, and has reverted my defences four time in about an hour. I can't do any more; I've done my best, but even my unrelated edits (correcting and adding internal links, etc.) have been reverted wholesale. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:25, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oliver North

An old friend of yours, Tnuctnurgemetib, is back under the name Ger6 (talk · contributions) (after a brief incarnation as Winston88 (talk · contributions)). He's making exactly the same edits, and has reverted my defences four time in about an hour. I can't do any more; I've done my best, but even my unrelated edits (correcting and adding internal links, etc.) have been reverted wholesale. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

HM Fort Roughs

May I bow to you and ask you to perform same? It might be helpful in order to avoid more controversy after attempting to defuse the same. MPLX/MH 05:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What I am attempting to do is to remove all controversy concerning micronation status and just deal with the plain history of this installation. I noticed that since objections have ceased the fantasy has taken over the other article which contains a lot of non-factual details (such as the installation being abandoned after WWII and Bates being the first to occupy it. There were other squatters there before him and he threw them off.) My intention is to stay in the world of the United Kingdom and real law on this article, which is why I offered to defend any specific statements (or, if I cannot support them, I will gladly remove them.) I just don't want to get into time-wasting nonsense which is why I asked you to perform the task you suggested, in order that whatever is written - I didn't write it! I just trust to your wisdom and common sense to try to keep this article on the straight and narrow path of documentation. MPLX/MH 05:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why are you reverting AIDS?

Why are you reverting AIDS to remove all references to recent treatment guidleines? Why do you object to prevention being moved up the page? Why do you want to retain all the paragraphs that are repeated twice in this article? Sci guy 02:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have reverted agian! The Catholic Church does not advocote abstinence, that edit was incorrect. You say the CDC definition is badly written and I agree, but this is the current definition of AIDS, which is very carefully worded to avoid confusion. Sci guy 03:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's better than your POV family values nonsense. The Catholic Church recommends abstinence outside of marriage and lifelong monogamy. Did you even read the link you added? Rhobite 03:15, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

It was you who introduced the Catholic Church - I was just correcting your factual errors Sci guy 14:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why do you want so much Safe sex info? There is an article to link to. Why duplicate? The Safe sex article is exclusively about AIDS Sci guy 14:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jeffrey MacDonald

Hi, Rhobite. I've just done my 3rd revert to this article. The anon keeps adding very POV material, and refuses to discuss the issue on the talk page. I've posted two messages to their own talk page, and there has been no response. I'm done editing for the day, but I thought you might want to take a look at Jeffrey MacDonald and weigh in as an admin. Thanks, func(talk) 17:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with this article, Rhobite. :) I don't edit Wikipedia as much as I use to, and I'm afraid I was beginning to lose my cool with this one editor, (which wasn't really appropriate of me to do). Thanks. func(talk) 16:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think there are still some POV issues but it's great that the other editor has been open to compromise. They agreed to remove the most glaring instances of POV I saw. I hope you guys come to an agreement. Rhobite 17:28, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Taxation in the United States

Your revert of the anon edit by 142.154.128.42 seems to me to have removed a rather cogent analysis of why the U.S. tax code gets increasingly complex over time (especially following tax code "simplification"). I am curious as to your motivation for revert vs. edit. Perhaps some portion of this should be returned? Best wishes, Leonard G. 20:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please take another look at my revert - the anonymous user added nothing to the article, all they did was put in some random boldface and remove the list of taxes. Rhobite 20:53, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

My error, I should have read further down the comparison text. Leonard G. 18:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SamuraiClinton

Howdy. Feel free to edit my list of SC's contributions. I still can't figure out if SC is simply a severely misguided good-faith contributor or an extremely subtle troll. Regardless, I think an RfC is necessary, and have started a draft here. (Lucky 6.9 and Binadot both have expressed their support, as they have tried and failed to get through to SC.) The hardest part has been figuring out what policies have been explicitly violated – I'm still a relative newcomer, so I'm not all that knowledgable. Feel free to edit that page as well. At the very least, we'll be able to hash out some new policy for dealing with these types of contributors. Thanks. android↔talk 21:55, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Here's the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. He's gone from idiosyncratic articles and edits to outright policy circumvention, and I think the time to act is now. I'm going to finish up the RfC tonight and hopefully post it at around 04:00 UTC. Feel free to make or suggest changes at any time. android↔talk 00:40, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

The RfC is live. android↔talk 02:51, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Images and media for deletion votes

• I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicite photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another matter. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. ~ Achilles † 01:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

B1link injunction

(Thanks, btw, for talking the effort to do this). Can I suggest you amend your proposed injunction to explicitly prevent him from editing, correcting, refactoring or otherwise changing others comments on the RFC and Arb pages. His habit is to perform massive number of edits to everything, making it really hard to figure out what he's changed. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 17:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes that's probably the best approach. Thanks for the idea. Rhobite 17:51, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page! — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Photography External links

Hi Rhobite,

So would you care to revert the PhotoPoints guy. I'm more or less at the 3RR over this one. I've left them a standard spam note at User talk:24.8.190.44, but it could use some extra input. -- Solipsist 21:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Rhobite. I'm now trying to pluck up the enthusiasm to tackle the external links on London after removing one particuarly dismal example last night. -- Solipsist 20:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

I meant to delete out your name - you have responded - and to the guy who is making the accusations too Symes 00:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Rhobite/Speech of thanks

Were you aware of the existence of this bit of silliness? I was about to delete it, but then thought that you might be keeping it for a reason. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, someone left that for me a while back. I marked it for speedy deletion, thanks for reminding me. Rhobite 04:12, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

User talk:John Kerry Article Reverts

You and I apparently have vast misunderstandings. I thought it prudent to confront my accuser and seeing that you are from Massachussetts has not taken anything away from my belief that you are very biased toward Mr. Kerry. Let me set some things straight with you. First, I am not a republican but actually an independent who considers himself a mildly conservative. Second, I have never vandalized any Wikipedia article. The Bush article i edited was to take out a line from the main paragraph that stated that Bush enjoyed gay pron in his free time. I have tried to find this edit several times and post a link to prove it, but it seems that some of the editors here got to it before i could and removed that edit. I am not against knowledge and would therefore not remove anything that was infomative. It does appear to me that you are against knowledge, however, because you insist upon removing a quote. Now, you may believe that i somehow edited the quote to make Mr. Kerry look bad but i don't believe so. If that is the main point of your argument then i propose we insert the full quote, but i can guarantee you that your side will not gain any support as the full quote does not make Mr. Kerry look any better. Since the topic of the edit was war crimes, i inserted the parts of the quote pertinant to war crimes. Third, you may be a software developer but your facts are unfortunately very flawed. I have never tried to overload the wikipedia server. I did create a very large article in the SANDBOX but i was told BY YOU that is where i should do test edits. So please stop trying to gain support for your failing position by making outrageous claims about me.

I commend you on being able to locate some proxy servers i use, but it seems to me that you aren't all that skilled at actually finding where people are from. To make it easier for you, and because i know i am not at fault on anything, I am from Missoula, Montana. If you have some google time on your hands, you can probably even find out where my real school is. Bravo.

This quote issue is a problem for the validity of Wikipedia. The fact that editors like you are against the insertion of the quote and would rather have a small part of the quote followed by SOMEONE'S interpretation is a little POV, isn't it? I know i am not the only one to notice this. Other registered members have said the exact same thing. If you think i am putting the quote in in a biased way, lets just insert the entire quote. This was an important enough quote to the future of John Kerry in the run-up to the 2004 election that it should be included. People should know everything they can, shouldn't they? Don't you believe this community is pro-knowledge? This article is probably going to stay locked forever because i am adament on seeing that quote in the article. When it is unlocked, the quote will be put in. I also know quote a bit about software and i can easily create a program that will continuously insert the quote if deleted. I don't think that's the right way to go about this. This is a case where you want to limit information and i want to provide it. Don't turn this into some ugly partisan war. I don't know of any other users besides yourself who are actually AGAINST the quote.

Have a nice day.

-The John Kerry Editor

You created an article called "Mega memory usage", which consisted of over 3 megabytes of the text "Mega memory usage is the use of vast amounts of memory on an online server. This is a great way to increase the overal amount of knowledge accessible on the web. Here is in example of how to accomplish this." This is an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. You've now threatened to write a bot to continuously edit an article. You're a vandal, and I won't have a discussion with you. Rhobite 21:58, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

I never created such an article. This is a joke. You editors are so corrupt. First you find out i was right about removing the gay porn reference from the Bush page so you edit that history link, next claim outrageous things to help your failing position. You are refusing to have a discussion with me because you know i am right. This isn't the first time you've been accused of corruption. I've read previous things about you. You are the ONLY editor who is against insertion of that quote. You're also from Massachussetts, Paul. Don't you think you're just a little biased? What's wrong with the quote? Why are you afraid of the quote? Why do you insist on keeping the John Kerry article favorable to him?

And about the bot: Yes, i will write one if necessary in order to spread the truth. Find me where in the wikipedia rules it says using a bot to enter correct information is vandalism and i won't do it. I'm playing by wikipedia rules. You are not. Funny how you haven't banned yourself for your 3+ reverts on the John Kerry article. CAN YOU SAY HYPOCRITE!? I hope you enjoy the John Kerry article being locked. All of this just because you are pissing your pants at the thought of people knowing about John Kerry's admission to war crimes. He won't run for president in 2008. I know he's your Senator and you love him, but the truth is rather important. The fact that you take it upon yourself to limit the truth is sad. Well, i am adament about putting the quote in and you are adament about leaving it out. Good luck with your censorship.

Ah OK, wasn't sure we couldn't have two articles, I thought it might be good. Haussaud 04:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Toyota Infobox

Thanks for adding the {{{revenue}}} and {{{industry}}} data. The contributor who added this information to the Template:Infobox Company hasn't gotten around to all of the companies and I'm helping add the rest. Your help is definately appreciated. — oo64eva (AJ) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 04:39, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

No problem. It's important to get those tags off the articles as quickly as possible. Rhobite 04:41, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

How do you become an Admin for Wikipedia?

Thank you

Thank you for your inputting of thoughts into the vandal Helpful Dave matter. I am very concerned about this practice and believe he is - from what I have seen of his editings a promoter of certain political practices. UDoN't!wAn* 01:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey Rhobite, FYI, I believe User:UDoN't!wAn* is a sock puppet (registed account a few hours ago and has been voting on VfDs) and has been adding obvious POV vandalism to various articles, but take a look at history and judge for yourself. zen master T 01:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandals

Thanks for the reversion on my user page. I've attracted vandals for the first time; I feel so special! android↔talk 05:21, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Picture from Parc Guell

Hey! I've taken a picture of the very same house from Parc Guell in Barcelona. Crazy. All the best. —thames 18:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) (P.S. Soul Coughing rocks my face.)

user:Rhobite: Please do not deface my talk page.

1- I like you're photography, and you seem a well-intentioned soul by my reflex. 2- Please un-fuck, or at least not re-fuck-up my talk page. I leave it open as a gesture of openness to this wiki's community. Please respect it, and take the time to make sure that whatever message you leave on it is respectful. Best of luck, and please feel free to delete this post from your talk page. I understand that its presence here might tend to paint an innaccurate picture of user Rhobite's Wikipedia contribution.

)b

Thank you

Hello, Rhobite. Thanks for your vote at my adminship nomination. I appreciate the support. Cheers! — Trilobite (Talk) 13:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Masturbation

Would you care to register an opinon on the Masturbation Talk page as to whether a full color photograph of male masturbation is suitable for that page? Thank you. Force10 21:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hallo Rhobite....

Why the phrase Ark of acquaintance is vandalism?...I'm italian my name is Kolkov...i think that definiction of wikipedia, were a good idea....but isn't possible....ok!

Jeffrey MacDonald

Someone has been putting false information into the links at the bottom of the Jeffrey MacDonald article. I have shown (and anyone can prove to themselves simply by visiting the site) that The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site contains factual documents pertaining to the case. Yet someone has repeatedly been editing it to read that the site "presents evidence to show that MacDonald is guilty."

That statement is simply and blatantly false. The site contains trial transcripts, grand jury testimonies, defense's requests for access to evidence, a confession by Helena Stoeckley, and many other documents favorable to MacDonald, and it is patently untrue that the site is biased towards guilt.

Can't anything be done about this?

Napster

I'm preparing to do a big cleanup to Napster. Could you please read my comments on the talk page, and inform me if you object to anything? --Peter Farago 12:57, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Nine the Elevenderloin

Well. It seems that I can't avoid being tarred no matter what I do------ > they should have a "Village Rail" section for anyone who feels like getting Salemite up in Wikipedia's whatnot, und scheiss. I suppose it doesn't matter, what with all the violence going on in Grand Rapids. But there's not enough schpilkus-funk in all of creation to put a stop to the antics of Jeremiah McGill & crew. Buckshot 00:08, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Template:Tfd

Under what theory is it considered "disruptive" to make the TFD template more prominent? A cynic might suggest that some prefer that the template is hidden so that deletionism can be carried out under cover of stealth. LevelCheck 23:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

• It's quite clear that you intend to take sides in edit wars and then use your admin powers to threaten those who complain. Nice racket if you can get it. LevelCheck 23:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Law-Ref.org deletions

I have opened the problem at Village_pump policy. Please read the comment there and explain your position. I am really sad that you have started with an action without finishing the disscussion first. I am working quite hard and contributed quite a lot to the public domain (see Zvon.org). I have received in a few days quite a lot of hits from Wikipedia pages (so the links seems to be relevant) and even a couple of enthusiastic mails. Marketing is a necessary part of any serious webmaster or programmer work (especially open source one) and there is nothing to be shameful about this as long as your work is of a high quality. If you are trying to delete something, you should at least check other links. Your deletion of the link to European Constitution at Law-Ref.org while there are other unofficial versions of arguably lower quality left is not precisely a professional approach. --nicmila 09:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah :P

I see your antics on User:Lord Emsworth/To do. It is all an evil plot against me... *glares suspiciously* – ugen64 00:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanx for the welcome back :-) Hey, want to check out my Win2k article? Windows 2000 - Ta bu shi da yu 01:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject U.S. regions

I'd like to invite you to join this Wikiproject. The project was created to ensure that diversity within regions was preserved; the South currently does the best job of this. N0gar just joined and given your disagreements I thought you might want to offer opposing views. If you decide not to join, I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with our policies, especially the benifits and potential abuses of it. -JCarriker 10:20, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation tag SBEMAIL!

Hi Rhobite, please don't remove copyright violation tags from articles (unless you are clearing them after their listing period- see WP:CP#Instructions).

Write a new article at the /Temp link in the copvio tag instead.

We live with copyright violations in some page histories because they may be difficult to remove (if the page has a very long history). This doesn't mean it's a good thing to do.

When a new article is posted with a copyright violation the article gets deleted (after a seven day minimum listing period on WP:CP). --Duk 16:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's silly. It's a perfectly good article, save for the lyrics. No need to leave that ugly message there for 7 days. Copyvio is for pages which have no content except for something copy-and-pasted from other sites. Rhobite 16:52, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there is flexibility here, especially with older articles that just need a few lines reverted. And I feel bad for reverting.

But tagging and listing new articles that are copyright violations is an effective way of dealing with non-wikipedians (the vast majority of copyright violators). The waiting period makes it easy to stop edit wars by people who don't know the rules, and to keep track of the page and make sure a copyvio hasn't snuk back in. The clear instructions on the tag are usually followed by well meaning new contributers. And the copyvio, a large number of which are spam, gets deleted from history (I'm not implying that the current article is spam). Also, a significant number are found to not be copyright violations at all, or have GFDL permission granted. This wouldn't happen without the listing period and review.

When the instructions are not followed for a copyvio tagged page, it creates a real headache for the administrator clearing the listing page (I know, I've cleared hundreds). If you really want to remove a copyvio tag, please document it at the listing page WP:CP

If you really want to remove the copyvio tag on this page, I won't object again.

SBEMAIL!/Temp took one minute and twenty-two seconds.

--Duk 17:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One more point, you might think it ludicrous listing for seven days and deleting copyright violations out of history (for new pages). But we WILL remove copyright violations from history if the copyright holder asks (see WP:CP). Its easier to do this at the beginning of the article rather than several years down the road. Personally, I think it's ludicrous that we leave copyright violations in history at all. I know that people have suggested software enhancements to address this.--Duk 18:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I read Avoid Copyright Paranoia, it doesn't change anything about this case; the history is going to be deleted, and people tinkering with the listing and tagging process creates headaches for the admins clearing these listings.

Now, maybe you should read this thread --Duk 19:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments?

What comments are you talking about? JuliusThyssen 12:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

junk science

I don't understand what you mean by saying "we have a NPOV policy, we can't use terms like "junk science". Not telling the facts about how the cigarette industry tries to mislead and hide scientific fact is not neutral at all. --Howrealisreal 19:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Junk science" is a value judgment. Rhobite 19:40, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

FairTax

I see you made a post on the article's talk page; welcome to the FairTax article. I'm not trying to 'claim' or 'own' this article, but I would like to see a broader base of contributors. Please stop by and make some edits, this article needs 'em. Don't worry if you revert me, if you have a reason, I won't be offended. Just jump right in. I try to remember that contentious articles like this are the very reason why we have an NPOV tag to apply... people aren't going to agree fully on this issue, but we should have differing views documented properly. Best regards. Unfocused 13:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again for today's efforts at keeping the FairTax article properly sourced and free from unattributed POV speculation and pie-in-the-sky dreams. What I think the anon doesn't know is that, with proper sourcing, some of the stuff he pasted in (I presume from his FairTax advocacy group) would probably be welcomed. However, you should note that I think he's taken up masquerading as another, logged in user. (See the Talk:FairTax page; it appears he's impersonating User:Kirk) --Unfocused 02:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

seeing into the future

ha ha - my secret is out. Yes scientists are trained to see into the future (if only they trained us to type) Sci guy 14:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Treatment Guidelines 2005

I think you accidently deleted the new Treatment Guidelines 2005, see talk page for details.

Treatment of asymptomatic HIV infection is now controversial for CD4 less than 350 and data inconclusive for either alternative for CD4 above 350.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is not usually described as AIDS denialist.

Fred2005 12:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Treatment guidlines are not denialist

Are you saying that the US medical establishment are now AIDS denialists? Fred2005 14:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm saying you're inserting deliberately misleading statements to advance your own agenda. You and sci guy are overemphasizing the HAART "controversy" at the expense of the article. Rhobite 14:36, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

There is no HAART "controversy". HAART is recommended for people diagnosed with AIDS. The use of HAART it delay progression to AIDS has now been offically abandoned. This is the offical position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) guidelines to help doctors treat people with HIV in the United States. Please do not misrepresent the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as an AIDS denialist organisation Fred2005 14:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Pro-Vandlism admins at work again

I would like to be the first for thanbk you in the promotion of vandalism, soapboxing, and promotion of POV on the Philadelphia Eagles article. As would be your job as an adminstrator it is to lock the page while it has it's totaly sopbox and blatent npov edits from detractors of the subject in question. But once agian you show how it seems more in more that wikipedia rather coddle vandals then protect the intergerty of this as a valid soures. I also intend to remove the comment once unprotected, and will continue to remove what i consider soapboxing by fans of other teams, and that in responce i plan on aslo adding comments similar to that on this page to team pages that are related. Any action by you to mediate any dispute in whcih i am involved will be summiarly ingnored do to what i belive is the misuse of your "kiss-ass club" privlidges, and your shoot first ask questions later mentailty. Their will be no responce to further inquires. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The anon's edits are not vandalism by any definition. Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism and re-familiarize yourself with the term: "indisputably bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." Please also read m:The Wrong Version, and any complaints about my behavior should go to WP:AN or WP:RFC. I'm reasonably sure that I've done nothing wrong, but you're welcome to get opinions from other editors. On a side note, if you were considering reverting the article again it would have been a three revert rule violation, and you would most likely have been blocked from editing for a while. Rhobite 05:53, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

See MJ talk page

You have a very long talk page. Please get a button like Shanes. Also please to MJ talk page. Thodin 04:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Promoting Ethical Behavior

Since you chose to become involved, let me provide you with an update.

If you review the recent behavior of Squeakbox, you will see he has stalked Rexjudicata on Wikipedia, and made changes to any page edited by Rexjudicata. He has claimed that Agwiii and Rexjudicata are the same person. They are not.

Squeakbox has written on the Parents Without Rights page that Grayson Walker has had his parental rights taken away by the court. This is not true.

Beyond that, it would be impossible for Squeakbox -- in Honduras -- to have access to private records of a Florida family law case. The fact that he would write such a libel shows his intent is to harass and not contribute.

It is important to note that Squeakbox knows nothing of these topics, and the sole purpose of his changes have been to harass Rexjudicata. As Squeakbox is an "old" member of your clique (aka Wikipedia community), he rallied his friends for support and they joined him.

Your code of conduct notwithstanding, the fact remains that the behavior of Squeakbox is a violation of the Cyberstalking Laws of Florida, many other states, and a growing number of other countries. Your Wikipedia S.O.P. is in conflict with these laws, and that should give you pause. Why are your members allowed or even encouraged to break the laws in a growing area of International regulation?

If you can get past the fact that Squeakbox is "allowed" to make edits -- as are all Wikipedians -- and examine why and what he has been editing in his attack on Rexjudicata, you see that he has used your rules as a vehicle to harass Rexjudicata. The choice is yours -- ignore the stalking and harassing by claiming the rules permit Squeakbox's behavior -- or look at the unethical behavior of his stalking.

Consider what we call the ethics transparency test. Ask, "Could I give a clear explanation for the action, including an honest and transparent account of my motives, that would satisfy a fair and dispassionate moral judge?" Squeakbox's behavior fails this test.

Consider what we call the ethics Golden Rule test. Ask, "Would I like to be on the receiving end of this action and its potential consequences? Am I treating others the way I’d want to be treated?" Again, Squeakbox's behavior fails this test. If Rexjudicata had behaved as Squeakbox did, he would have gone to all of the substantive pages that Squeakbox edited, and made changes to them -- this did not happen. Instead, he posted his complaint about being cyberstalked and erased harassing comments made by Squeakbox on his page.

The choice is very clear. You may intervene and stop the unethical, stalking behavior of Squeakbox, or you can stand behind a technical interpretation of your rules, ignoring the fact that they permit unethical and illegal behavior. This is not about suggesting that Squeakbox or any other Wikipedian stalker be prosecuted, but about the fact that your rules are increasingly out of step with both ethics and laws. Philanthropists and investors are very careful about such issues.

Rex

Rex Judicata 07:57, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

The only clearly illegal edits in this case are this and this. If you pump the IP address into Google you get this cached version [1], note the reference to Spam & Kook Killers are Us, the company Rex admits to working for on his user page. Here, in another cached version, we see this is actually Grayson Walker, with a connection to this, which I used in the Grayson Walker article, and which is whois registered to Grayson Walker. So it appears to me clear that it was Rex who was impersonating me. Calling me a paedophile, from a new IP address, is typical of his past behaviour on other sites. I would welcome a police investigation of this case, as I believe the facts speak for themselves. Have a nice day, SqueakBox 15:48, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Rajesh

Oops, my mistake for putting {{delete}} on Rajesh- I was doing RC patrol, saw the blank page, and didn't bother to check the page history... Flcelloguy Give me a note! Desk 03:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No problem, it's not much of a page anyway. Rhobite 03:36, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Request

Will you please rewrite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thodin so it includes all the information but has no copywrite violation. I tried and tried. Thodin 01:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:SilasSnider

I was wondering if you could tell me where to ask to complain about a nameing conflict? This iser (User:SilasSnider) started editing today, right after I got active at Put-in-Bay, Ohio, where an anonymous users was adding commercial link-spam. Since the users only edits are to his talk page and vandalizing WP:VIP right around my entry, and since my real name (and the one that appears in my signature) is Silas Snider, I'm worried that this user is just trying to be an irritant. Thanks for any help. --Silas Snider (talk) 03:29, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

My guess is he'll never edit again, but since all his edits are vandalism and he probably is impersonating you, I'll block him indefinitely. Rhobite 03:46, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Rhobite. --Silas Snider (talk) 05:52, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

User:SilasSnider may have been a sockpuppet of user:Thodin, who had a little wikirage episode and was blanking the VIP page. Sorry for the "collateral damage". Cheers, -Willmcw 06:17, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Note from EK

I do read up. Point out a complaint you find excessive. Everyking 04:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mahalakshmi Temple

This page was a blatantly obvious copy vio. Please don't tag wikify on obvious cut and paste jobs just because you don't want to bother with the three steps of googling a sentence, editing the page, and listing it on the copy vio page.WAvegetarian 07:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, that came off as a rather hot flame. I've been doing a bunch of copy vio work lately. It seemed obvious to me, but I guess that was because I was looking for it. I'm also doing this at midnight, my time, with very little recent sleep, so I'm touchy and belligerent in the sleep deprived kinda way. I'm going to sleep now. Sorry, again. WAvegetarian 07:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Everyking Mentorship

The Everyking mentorship has officially been approved by the arbitration committee (see here) and is now in effect. →Raul654 05:51, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

In case it should be useful, I've created a central page for mentoring issues: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 2/Mentorship. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thodin

You must've thought I was crazy arguing that the text I'd posted was not plagiarism. I'd posted the wrong text and hadn't noticed it. (the topic is out of my field). I've reposted the text I'd meant to post at talk:Thodin. It's a re-write which had been immediately reverted a few days ago. I'll see if I can integrate it with wiki-editor contributions to the copyvio version, and then post the result on the page for future additions by other editors. Whew. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:07, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

plz hlp me

plz hlp me watt wus rong wi de Joe Wang artecul?

Question

you sent me this : Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Rhobite 03:12, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC) about my contribution to an article on tupac which was highly factual. i'm just responding to say that it cannot possibly be vandalism since i cannot be arrested for it since this is a free online encyclopedia which anyone can contribute to.

Hello Good Sir!

It is a well known fact that Tupac filmed the moon landing on a soundstage right after he performed an alien autopsy and invented chemtrails.

User:CltFn and User:Diglewop

Rhobite, if you know anything about this user that we should be looking out for, would you mind leaving a note at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:CltFn_and_User:Diglewop. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite, what's your view on the best way to proceed with this? I don't want to keep the redirects protected, but I also don't trust CltFn. I could simply edit them myself to make less POV/commercial, but if I edit them, I can't take any admin action in relation to them. If you have any thoughts, let me know. (If not, don't worrry.) Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:31, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the input. I unprotected them a couple of hours ago, having thought about the concerns you expressed last night. Maybe we could both keep an eye on CltFn's edits. By the way, I love the photograph on your user page, which led me to take a look at the others, and they're beautiful. I especially like Red Sunlight. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:51, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Causa Rovoam

Hi Rhobite, I noticed a minute deescalation effort on your part , with respect to Rovoam (Wikipedia List of Banned USERS). Having followed the revert ("World-") war Rovoam is engaged in, due to the rallying by Tabib of helpful and goodmeaning Admins, it is dawning on me that this has turned to some sort of continuous POGROM, in which any voice challenging Tabib is being assassinated upon sight. As someone fairly well acquainted with quite a number of issues in this context, I wish it were brought to the general attention, that Rovoam edits, or those of his suspected socks, tend to make a PERPLEXING lot of sense! It would appear a shame if this escalating character assassination were to be allowed to continue on WIKIPEDIA (our "lifeblood"). Let us all help bringing about a sensible solution, including the invitation of the scholarly learned intellectual Rovoam aka Andrew Kirsanov to a mutual table!! I do not mean to pester you with this ADDITIONAL honorable chore (I know, you are literally buried in incessant contributive work) but I gather YOU could wield some prudent influence in this quagmire of libel, aggression and POV pushing. Sincerely --Deli-Eshek 18:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Amazing

wow, their might be some good in you after all. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image restoration

Hi Rhobite. I see you restored Image:Lillebælt - Denmark.jpeg. There were two revisions of that image. I don't know where you got the more recent revision, but if it's possible, could you re-upload the old revision as well? Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 01:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN archiving

There's no need to do any archaeological work; I have them all in a file on my machines here where I have been busy organizing them into chronological order prior to archiving them (to minimize the amount of chopping and changing I have to do); I just haven't uploaded them yet - I keep getting diverted (right now I've just been diverted into replying to User:Pedant as I was about to start uploading them - after my computer crashed and I had to restore it, sigh). Noel (talk) 05:28, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PS: No, I'm not using a bot - I do it by hand, since I do things like leave old items, even when they haven't been touched for a while, if they are related to a current item. Anyway, I'm getting ready to give it up - it takes too much time, and I want to edit articles. Anyway, we're all up to date now. Noel (talk) 29 June 2005 09:21 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blanking the section on the talk:Fred phelps page, forgot to do itmyself--Tznkai 30 June 2005 15:05 (UTC)