User talk:Rhobite/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 You're an administrator 2 Thanks 3 Unjustified personal attack 4 re: Govandi 5 Thank You 6 Deleting material 7 Editing Libertarian articles 8 Improper use of RFA page 9 Improper Editing of Protected Pages 9.1 Please note 3 revert rule 10 Exploding whale 11 Rhobile 11.1 Proscription against editing 12 Lesch-Nyhan syndrome 13 Three revert rule 14 ron paul 15 2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities 16 User:Chuck_F and Libertarianism 17 Your Secret Admirer 18 Michael Moore 19 FYI: Temp injunction in Reithy's ArbCom case 20 Reithy & ChuckF 21 Articles about the 2004 election problems 22 Vandalism and destruction of HOURS of editorial work! 23 Legal threats 24 La La 25 Mike Ness 26 American Football League links, etc. 27 Chuck F 28 Capitalism 29 Regarding woman 30 Chuck F 31 Video game music RfC 32 Wikilinking to temporary versions of protected articles 33 Thanks for the welcome 34 Television - relative importance of sections 35 The Humungous Image Tagging Project 36 Bad Faith 37 Metamerism (color) 38 Images by Axel Bueckert 39 Article Licensing 40 three reverts 41 Cabal 42 Not helpful 43 Cool images 44 Sealand/MPLX 45 Personal Attacks

[edit] You're an administrator

Congratulations!. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. Please be especially careful when you ban users, as the policy in this area is complex and there is the potential to create ill will. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful.

Best wishes

uc 23:21, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations! :) You know, people should really quote me more often: I am incredibly brilliant. ;-) func(talk) 23:34, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you! Rhobite 19:42, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Hey, congrats! Good to see another reasonable, non-partisan administrator in our midst :) - Ta bu shi da yu 03:37, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you very much for your vote for my adminship. I greatly appreciate your support. ffirehorse 23:47, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Unjustified personal attack

Please either substantiate or withdraw your outrageous personal attack on me[1]. If you fail to do so within 24 hours, I will take the matter further. Reithy 19:13, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

'Reithy, every word you type is oozing with sarcasm and insincerity. If you think you're fooling anyone here, you're sorely mistaken. Anyone who reviews your recent contributions will find a long list of instances of stalking, nitpicking edits and copyvio notes, and rudeness. You are well aware that you can get a rise out of Chuck, and you've been doing it for some time now.'

*'every word you type is oozing with sarcasm and insincerity' Mmm, a rather sweeping and baseless and emotive allegation, what's your proof?

*'if you think you're fooling anyone, you're sorely mistaken' What does this mean?

*'stalking' This is a serious crime, and no evidence is provided.

*'nitpicking edits' From what I've seen, that's pretty much what you do.

*'copyvio notes' Only where I've thought it was justified, where I suspected genuinely a breach of copyright.

Your attack on me and on others on this page reveal a pattern of hypocrisy and self-righteousness that make you unfit to administer others. I urge you to review your intemperate words above or substantiate them, otherwise I will be forced to go to arbitration. Reithy 21:01, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

You now allege my "intentions" are bad, you've admitted to a libertarian bias, then said you don't edit libertarian articles. Then you edit them. Your fellow libertarian Chuck_F is busy reverting practically anything I contribute, eg Roppongi Hills, Citizens Electoral Council and you hardly have a word of criticism for that. You seem perfectly comfortable with Libertarians exclusively editing articles on Libertarians, with strong POV's. I think it's unreasonable for you to question my intentions while you do nothing to attend to that problem and the carnage perpertrated by Chucky. Anyway, I am happy to live and let live with him, because he doesn't pretend to be something he isn't. There is a light-hearted edge to our disagreements in a way you wouldn't get. You on the other hand pretend to be an impartial paragon of virtue when your intentions are clearly quite sinister and petty. The only article you've initiated was an atrocious thing on Dick Morris which was hopelessly misinformed. I hope you learn to take yourself less seriously, throw less criticism around arrogantly and remember there is life beyond your computer screen. I note many others share my view. As for an RFA, watch this space. My suggestion: take a good, hard look at yourself. You might not like what you see. Reithy 23:12, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] re: Govandi

Thanks for fixing up Govandi - I couldn't make heads or tails of the original article, so I (prematurely) tagged it as speedy. Thanks for catching it before deletion -- Ferkelparade π 15:33, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't blame you, it's still a substub and it was more or less nonsensical. Rhobite 15:40, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

I can see that you already have plenty of these, but thanks fo fixing up several of the articles that I wrote or expanded. You'd think that I'd take the time to copyedit my own work, but I have a consistant bad tendency not to. Quintucket 21:09, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting material

I will not re-post the material you object to, however I cannot accept that you feel free to delete material from your Talk page, which does rather seem to defeat the purpose of having one. I will leave this to your own conscience. Your threat to block me in these circumstances I believe to be an abuse of your authority and highly regrettable. Reithy 23:50, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

So file an RFC against me. I'm done reasoning with you. Rhobite 23:52, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to file anything against you, I am happy to gather more and more evidence of your misconduct which I fear will not be difficult. You have abused your authority as an administrator in a way that surprises me. I know you are new to it, but I think you should consult others about whether your actions have been improper or not. To recap, I invited you initially to remove your remarks which contained sweeping, emotive and hateful comments. You didn't remove it. I think they were grossly unfair. Now you accuse me of harassment for responding in kind, and with similar words. You get annoyed, and you threaten blocking, in a situation where most would consider that you have engaged in precisely the same behavior you accuse me of being guilty of. You write something very unpleasant and emotive about me. I respond. You edit my remarks. You delete my remarks from your Talk page and threaten using your admin powers to enforce your deletion. I very much doubt anyone could defend this misconduct. You normally seem even-tempered, I don't know why you went down this path. Time to disengage I suspect. Reithy 00:01, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

It is highly ethically dubious for you to continue to gather evidence against me in an arbitration as an apparently disinterested party. Your bias and willingness to misuse your authority is very evident. You should cease and desist before your reputation is further tarnished. Reithy 12:38, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

As I said, you are welcome to file an RFC against me, but you should know by now that your indignant messages are not going to convince me of anything. Rhobite 14:00, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

You have accused me of many things and have not substantiated any allegation. You threatened to use your admin powers to resolve a dispute about whether you could edit my comments on your Talk page. You lost it, and know it. You've been desperately trying to cover your tracks since. You've had admin powers for a week, and it's taken you that long to start abusing them. Good luck. Reithy 23:45, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

I substantiated every allegation on the evidence page of your RFAr. I did threaten to use my admin powers to block you from vandalizing my talk page. As for desperately covering my tracks, I've done the exact opposite on the RFAr evidence page. Rhobite 23:58, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

LOL, your RFAr effort was Clintonesque spinning which was very funny. You have been caught red-handed and you know it. I will be watching your use of admin powers very closely, just waiting for the next abuse or THREATENED abuse of power. You are a disgrace to those who administer Wikipedia fairly and without favor. Reithy 00:05, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Editing Libertarian articles

Now you're editing protected Libertarian articles. Mmmm. Reithy 20:23, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

You are welcome to file an RFC against me, propose mediation, or emphasize that I should be added to the RFAr. However as of this point, I am asking you not to edit this page again. I do not value your pestering comments, and I don't wish to read them. I will engage in on-topic discussion with you on article talk pages if you can regain your civility. Rhobite 20:31, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Improper use of RFA page

Be advised, I deleted your inappropriately placed references on the RFA page and moved them to Talk as required under Wikipedia rules. You are not a party to the arbitration, although have expressed strong views about it, but are not entitled to amend the RFA page. I suggest you more carefully review the rules before posting again. Reithy 12:09, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Improper Editing of Protected Pages

Rhobite, in case you missed it:

You are correct in that admins should basically never edit an article when it is protected, even to correct grammar mistakes or other minor things. However, I am pretty sure it was in good faith, and it is really a very minor thing to argue about... — David Remahl 13:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And this is from someone unfamiliar with your term as Admin, marked by:

• Personal attacks attacking my integrity and good faith and commitment to the Wikipedia project despite the fact I have made more substantive contributions to articles than you
• Threatened use of blocking to resolve personal disputes
• Editing and adjusting my comments on your Talk page to suit yourself
• Inappropriate editing of the RFA page outside explicit guidelines
• Your pledge not to edit Libertarian articles and then editing even protected ones
• Your reprimanding of others for conduct you yourself a guilty of.

I suggest you seriously consider whether you can handle your admin duties. They seem beyond you. I suggested previously we disengage and yet you follow me around in the manner of a troll, harassing me. Please leave me alone.Reithy 22:57, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Rhobite 23:04, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

I would prefer you to remove your personal attack on me as "insane" from your user page ASAP. Best wishes. Reithy 03:54, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Rhobite 03:56, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

I have reviewed my options and in the interests of compromise and conflict minimization have removed the offending remarks from the User page. I think you should take some time off Wikipedia to see you can comply with its etiquette guidelines. Maybe a week. See you then. Thanks for your input too, it is really appreciated. Reithy 04:25, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Please note 3 revert rule

Take care. Reithy 04:37, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Exploding whale

Thanks! I couldn't beleive it when I saw it on the front page today :P - Ta bu shi da yu 05:23, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rhobile

No impersonation intended I assure you. I accept there were some visual similarities in our userpages which I have changed already, although mind you I suspect many userpages are probably similar to mine. I will change Username's if you really want me to, how do I go about doing that? Rhobile 19:39, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am not even sure who Reithy is. I accept your apology. Rhobile 19:53, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aww come on... that has to be Reithy, for one thing you think he'd notice Reithy on your page here and at least have a clue.. secondly don't you think it's just a bit strange that this rhobile takes a break from editing for just a an hour to allow reithy to edit something. Finally his page is all talking all about authoirty and injustice and how's going to live to fight another day. Oh one more thing: he's doing very reithy style edits(of reithy's sock puppets, where he wanted us to think it wasn't him)... he's been wondering around changing one word in articles that doesn't make much differented aka presumed -> apparantly. or in articles like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Royal_British_Legion he's just copy and pasted a whole lot of text from a copy-righted website, or for warden,montana he's done the extremly reithyeqsue act of instering a criticsm of the place that is twice as long as the article and really doesn't serve much point important to the town.Chuck F 04:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm trying to be open-minded here. Either way, you know what they say about imitation. Rhobite 04:26, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I have reverted Rhobile's contributions and blocked the account. uc 17:44, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proscription against editing

I removed your proscription against Reithy editing your talk page as it seemed retailiatory and inappropriate. uc 17:44, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

With all due respect, if RickK can prohibit certain people from using his talk page, why can't I? Rhobite 20:10, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

The fact that the community indulges his bad habits does not mean that they are a model for others to follow. Take it as a compliment. With regard to that particular problem, he's beyond hope. You're not. uc 21:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rhobite, I hope you can learn something from this. Your unjust use of power has gone too far. You have involved your high office in unseemly conflict, which was so easily avoided. Reithy 23:24, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

As a victim of Rhobite's personal attacks, unexplained reverts motivated by a fanatical POV and threatened use of his admin powers to block me writing on this Talk page, I believe it is incumbent on me to challenge the wisdom of appointing him to the high office of Administrator. Reithy 22:26, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

hello now that Reithy has admitted he is ultra-vandel and stuff do you think you could do something about unprotecting the Ron paul page, so you know at least a semi-resonable verison can go back up? Chuck F 16:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I'm involved in editing that page, so I won't unprotect it. Rhobite 16:51, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lesch-Nyhan syndrome

wow, thanks for the heads up i really appreciate it i'm going to try and pick through it using your suggestions. thanks a lot. --Larsie 17:07, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

hey there i went through the article and tried to fill in the reds by writing articles for the red links, i also got rid of a lot of sub-headers etc. i will try to write articles for the remaining afflictions/syndromes and bios for lesch and nyhan as well. what do think now? --Larsie 22:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it's a big improvement! You still need a picture that's specific to the syndrome, though. Rhobite 23:58, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

hey there i've managed to find one image that would be relative to the treatment aspect of Lesch-Nyhan syndrome but i can't seem to figure out if it's copywritten or not. nor can i download it as i make all of my wikipedia contributions from my pc at work. if you could lend me a hand by finding out if is usable and then posting it to wikipedia i would be more than thankfull. i'll 'owe you one' http://www.clevelandclinic.org/health/health-info/docs/0300/0369.asp?index=4590 --Larsie 16:36, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately that picture appears to be copyrighted, it's probably from a medical reference database. Rhobite 20:06, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Three revert rule

Hi, you accidentally left a message about the three revert rule on my Talk page, rather than User:Chuck F's.

I'm just reverting his vandalism. Surely that doesn't count under the 3-revert rule. Otherwise what the hell do you do when someone like Chuck breaks it?

User:Chuck F is back with anon ip 210.178.220.65. And also 202.78.94.101.

RADB Whois query for 210.178.220.65

route: 210.178.0.0/16 descr: KT Pubnet origin: AS9768 mnt-by: MAINT-AS4766 changed: modori@kt.co.kr 20030904 changed: eyeface7777@kornet.net 20040825 #05:51:33(UTC) source: RADB

route: 210.178.128.0/17 descr: REACH (Customer Route) tech-c: RRNOC1-REACH origin: AS9318 notify: irr@net.reach.com mnt-by: MAINT-REACH-NOC changed: irr@net.reach.com 20040604 source: REACH

RADB Whois query for 202.78.94.101

route: 202.78.92.0/22 descr: SKY-ROUTE-OBJECT-202-78-92-0-22 origin: AS6648 mnt-by: SKY-INTERNET-MAINT-MCI changed: route-admin@skyinet.net 19980929 source: SAVVIS

route: 202.78.80.0/20 descr: SKY-ROUTE-OBJECT-202-78-80-0-20 origin: AS6648 country: PH remarks: Please report all incidents of abuse and remarks: acceptable use violations to abuse@skyinet.net notify: route-admin@skyinet.net mnt-by: MAINT-PH-SKYINET-INC changed: mla@skyinet.net 20040531 source: APNIC

He's in Korea or dialling into Korea and in Philipines or dialling into there. LOL.

The desperation of the addict knows no bounds. Imagine travelling to such cool places and spending time editing articles on wikipedia. Get out of your hotel room, Chucky.

WikiCorp 09:20, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Chuck seems to have been unblocked but the unblocking is not noted in the block log. Reithy does not yet appear to have been unblocked.

[edit] ron paul

YEAH? there's differences? LIKE MAYBE ONE INCLUDES THE ENTIRE race QUOTE IN CONTEXT? and hey maybe one lets him have a voice too? No I'm pretty sure my verison is compleate Chuck F 14:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities

I'm taking a timeout from this. I hear your concerns that people are making it hard to NPOV the page, but others like Netaholic are also making it hard for us to state our facts or even discuss issues becaue they keep removing sections before discussing them — they aren't even trying to strike a consensus! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:12, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User:Chuck_F and Libertarianism

Hi Rhobite, I realise that Chuck shouldn't be reverting so many times against an anonymous user on Libertarianism, but can you help me make sure we're fair and warn the other party to stop the reverting also? I just checked the edit history of that page and I notice that User:195.92.67.74 did just as many reverts but noone warned him to stop. In fact, User:Reithy actually egged them on. Also, User:195.92.67.70 should have also been warned. You're a reasonable guy, so I thought I'd give you a heads up. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:07, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can't speak for Reithy, but Chuck_F seems OK. I'm talking to him now and I willing to help him out when things get rough and he thinks he's getting involved in an edit war. Chuck got blocked for a short period of time, but I think he understands why this happened. I think Chuck could be a very good editor. Reithy? I don't know. He could, I just don't know if he'd accept an olive branch. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:36, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Hey, the edit wars are happening again on Libertarian Socialism and Libertarian Capitalism. What would you suggest to deal with them? --Improv 18:12, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Chuck F is the problem here. He comes back every day or so to revert a set of 6-7 articles including Libertarian capitalism and Libertarian socialism without any discussion. If you block him, he evades the blocks using open HTTP proxies. 203.112.19.195 is a confirmed IP address of Chuck's (not a proxy). 195.92.67.65 is not Chuck. I think it's important for you, I, Radicalsubversiv, and anyone else to revert Chuck in order to stress the consensus that his edits aren't helpful. Rhobite 20:11, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • To keep it above board, and to make it easier to manage in some respects, should a RfA be (re)opened on Chuck F? I'd prefer not to worry about accusations about breaking the three-revert rule, and the most officiality possible here would probably spare us a headache. And.. who knows, perhaps Chuck F will decide to talk to us. --Improv 20:17, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I'll keep this here in my talk page, hope you're watching. I believe Chuck F is already included in the Reithy RFAR. If the ArbCom doesn't ban him for at least a few months, and if Chuck continues his behavior, I'll get on board for another RFAR. Lately Chuck has only been editing a couple times a day, so 3RR isn't the issue. But anyway he has an active injunction against him, and I don't think it would be a 3RR violation to enforce this injunction. Rhobite 20:30, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Your Secret Admirer

Someone keeps creating new accounts just to stalk you: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu&diff=7441748&oldid=7440225 func(talk) 03:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Moore

I'm sorry, Rhobite, I have no idea what's going on with my attempts to edit and/or revert things at Moore's page. I'm beginning to suspect that my browser, (Safari on Mac OS X), has some kind of cache problem. I thought I was reverting the blanking of that section, yet somehow the edit history shows that I am the one who blanked it... it gives me a headache trying to figure out what happened there. :( func(talk) 20:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sigh... I see what happened now, it was just some sort of Wikipedia dyslexia on my part. I've decided to remove the page from my watch list... the constant vandalism is becoming too stressful for me. Cheers. func(talk) 20:41, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, I knew it was an accident. Rhobite 21:23, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] FYI: Temp injunction in Reithy's ArbCom case

"Both Reithy and Chuck F and any sockpuppets are to edit only on their respective arbcom case. Edits to the mainspace may be reverted on sight."

--mav 20:38, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was editing from 172.188.140.92 . I am not Reithy. Further to the comments made by User:Ta bu shi da yu I have not reverted any of Chuck's latest reverts and I will not engage in any revert wars from now on. But I believe the edits I made after the pages were unrpotected were necessary and I do not believe that any of my edits were "problematic".

On Libertarianism I reverted to restore the link to Libertarian Socialism and the historical information that Chuck deleted and the various bits of grammar and Wikilinks that got caught in the edit war. But I specifically removed the comments about Libertarian Capitalism as they are causing conflict as expressed on the Talk page.

On Libertarian Socialism I tried to NPOV the discussion of the two types of Libertarians. I again avoided terms that seemed to have caused the conflict such as "free market libertarian".

On Liberal Democratic Party of Australia I reverted and added a mention of the US Libertarian Party in line with what was said on the Talk page. I think that article is a clear case of Chuck presenting false information to try to make political gains. The party's website does not mention the word libertarian or libertarianism even in places where it would be most obvious. Three Australian users have said that the term does not mean the same thing in Australia as it does in America. None of them seem to have been involved in any of the other conflicts with Chuck.

I do not see how any of this is problematic unless you are saying that pages should not be edited for fear of offending Chuck. The information on those three articles that Chuck kept deleting was added and edited by several users, including some of it by you I believe. I also believe that if anyone has a problem with those edits they should do what Chuck should have done in the first place and edit them further or discuss them on Talk not just blanket revert.

I'll keep it on my talk page since your IP changes frequently. I'd like to suggest that you make a user account. It's free, it's easy, and you don't need an e-mail address. You can keep a watchlist, and people have a way to contact you. That said, I think you have tried to provoke Chuck F with your edits, at least in the past. Restoring Libertarianism to Reithy's version may not have been the best choice. It's unfortunate that these two characters have caused so much trouble, because now any contribution to libertarian articles is suspect. Rhobite 03:02, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

But I went out of my not to provoke Chuck by removing the things he said were provoking him. It seems that anything except letting him use Wikipedia for his political campaigning is provoking Chuck. And that is not just Reithy's version of Libertarianism. In fact I do not think anything in that version was written by Reithy. The link to Libertarian socialism has been in the article for ages. The historical information in the section on Terminology is information I added to the article that is directly from my political science class: [2] (that was me editing from an account at college). I do want to get an account but I would rather have a fresh start and not be always asscoiated with going down to Chuck's level of revert wars on these articles, which I do regret doing.

I'm not sure what you just did, but you seem to have sorted it out. However, you missed that Chuck has added himself to the Arbitration Committee Candidates page: [3]. As Reithy was removed, presumably he should be too.

I worked a bit too quickly there and I jumped to the conclusion that that IP was a Chuck proxy. If it was you, I apologize. Reithy and Chuck should be treated equally in terms of their arbitration committee candidacies. I'll bring this up with UninvitedCompany. Rhobite 19:47, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reithy & ChuckF

Reithy's nomination can and should be removed on its own merits. While it is convenient and sufficient to cite the injunction, other reasons are legion. While we may not have any rule prohibiting people from offering to pay for votes, I belive that alone is sufficient cause to remove the nomination. And the nomination contained a condemnation of French editors, which was counter to the core values of the project. That too would alone be sufficient reason to remove the nomination. Now, the nomination process is not being closely managed. If it were, then we could, should, and hopefully would, impose some sort of minimum standard to discourage frivilous nominations, like a minimal number of edits or length of service to the project, or a requirement for support of a certain number of users.

Now, as for ChuckF, his nomination does not pose the same problems. Yes, there is the injunction, and I would understand completely if someone were to remove his nomination based on that. But I am not moved to remove it myself, because unlike Reithy's, I firmly believe that the nomination was made in good faith. It contains no personal attacks, and does not abuse or belittle the process. Again, if we were closely managing the nomination process, we would probably find that Chuck F doesn't meet the minimum level of tenure or sponsorship to qualify. But we're not, so the nomination should stand.

I'm unmoved by a call for equal treatment of the two based on fairness. Yep, they've both made trouble, but Chuck F at least seems willing to respect community rules to some degree. Reithy is just plain abusive and is utilizing any process or forum available to toot his horn.

My two cents

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Articles about the 2004 election problems

You supported my proposed new lead section, but it was reverted on the grounds that it didn't well summarize the article (an article that's now been moved to 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy). My proposed lead section was a general overview of voting controversies. The article was, and is, a very detailed examination of one issue, the use of electronic voting machines, with particular emphasis on exit poll discrepancies as evidence of machine error. The article had comparatively brief mentions of a few other issues.

I've now written the article that my lead section applies to. You'll find it at 2004 U.S. election voting controversies. If you're still interested in the area, I'd be glad for you to take a look at that article. JamesMLane 20:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look. Thanks for the note. Rhobite 21:43, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism and destruction of HOURS of editorial work!

Moved to Talk:Sealand: A Legal History

You have created a mess. It was named "Sealand: A Legal History" because it is a sub-article to the main article called "Sealand".

Since the "Sealand" article is nothing more than nonsense which was beginning to exceed the Wikipedian page length the legal history of Rough Tower was placed as as sub-article with a sub-heading. It was prefaced by "A" to show that it was not "THE" - the very thing that defines a POV article. "A Legal History" means that it is just that. A legal history.

Compromise = I have absolutely NO objection to moving the page to "Sealand: a legal history" if you want to remove the capital letters/

This work has taken HOURS and HOURS to put together from legal records and research. If you are going to just charge in and screw up hard work just because you can, that is vandalism and nothing more. You contributed nothing to the text.

How can you post a dispute notice on paragraphs that are documenting and sourcing actual case law and legal opinions and undisputed legal history? That is insane and that is why it is vandalism.

The article was not completed and due to your actions my interest in completing it have diminished considerably.

My question now is to wonder if you big enough to admit that what you did was unthoughtful and ignorant? If your answer is no then I will walk away from Wikipedia and direct my energy and efforts elsewhere. I will not get into a revert war with you or argue with you over something that should be obvious. MPLX/MH 06:43, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are really overreacting and taking this very personally. Please quit with the personal attacks - you're coming across like a person who cannot engage in a civil discussion. Rhobite 06:47, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Legal threats

There are several precedents for people being blocked for making legal threats. Right now, there are two people banned for such actions--User:Gordy and User:Hey now my boyfriend's back. RickK 20:33, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] La La

Following a period in which no discussion takes place, and in a situation in which no actual specific complaints are raised, at what point would you say it'd be appropriate to remove the listing? Everyking 03:21, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would give it a week. I don't see what harm could come from an RFC listing. The fact that you don't believe there is an actual dispute, while other people do - right there, that's a dispute. A meta-dispute. Rhobite 03:28, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

All right, we'll give it a week, then. Everyking 03:52, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Would you please drop your opposition to unprotection of La La, Rhobite? Everyking 10:30, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are you going to remove the NPOV tag again? Rhobite 17:14, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Ness

Hello. You fixed some of Michael's mess. Maybe you can solve the missing "Wreckage" redirects! Robin Patterson 21:32, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The deleted article is available here: [4] This is indeed a mess, and I don't know how to classify re-releases, but I can try cleaning it up. I'm sure you're aware that all of Michael's facts need to be scrutinized. Sorry, I don't know where to start with this. The article also needs to be renamed, the correct name is "Mainliner: Wreckage From the Past" but it appears in parens on the cover. Rhobite 21:44, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Well I took some time and I believe I fixed this one up. The article is now at Mainliner: Wreckage From the Past. There may still be some stray redirects and red links around. Rhobite 22:14, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

• • Good work. (I just used your August comment, by the way - "Fix User:Michael's mess") Robin Patterson 00:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] American Football League links, etc.

You wrote (my emphasis): I'm happy that your site is not commercial, but you have still been spamming Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for self-promotion. If you want to put your player articles on the site, please consider donating the actual content to Wikipedia instead of adding hundreds of links here. I think your site deserves to be linked from the Wikipedia article on American Football League, and nothing more. No links from AFL teams, no links from AFL players. Wikipedia doesn't prohibit commercial sites (that's why NFL links are fine), but they do prohibit self-promotion. Rhobite 22:52, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a question of "What is self-promotion?" The American Football League no longer exists (that's why it can't have an "un-official site" - if there's no official site, what's an un-official site?). It has few advocates in todays' sports media. Its impact on professional football in the US is historical fact. I gain absolutely nothing from the AFL website: visitors to the site gain information not available elsewhere. It seems that others who could gain from promotion of the NFL (thru increased sales or use of their NFL-oriented services) may put links to the NFL site on any football-oriented page. If I placed links to "The Fabulous Ange Coniglio", that would be self-promotion.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "donating my content" to Wikipedia. How do I do that, how would it show up on Wikipedia, and would I still be able to keep the content on other sites? I did not create the original list of "American football players". I saw a list with some existing names of American Football League players, and added bios for those players, then added other players and bios. Is this outside the intent or scope of Wikipedia?

I'm sorry it took me so long to get involved in these discussions, I'm sort of a novice at carrying on conversations in this mediium. I really enjoy Wikipedia, and the opportunity to use it. ... RemembertheAFL

[edit] Chuck F

Ok, what charges do you feel will stick to Chuck F? I tried personal attacks and only one found one where he called someone a moron. As to violating the temporary injunction, he has been sanctioned already for that. At Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reithy/Evidence#Users_Chuck_F.2C_203.112.19.195_and_210.142.29.125 you say he has violated the 3 revert rule many times but there are no diffs. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reithy#Final_Proof_of_Chuck_F.27s_Misconduct is presented as evidence of automatic reverting but hardly lives up to "final proof". Under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reithy#Counterclaim_by_Reithy there is the "moron" attack, and some evidence of POV editing. Is this enough to restrict his editing? Fred Bauder 20:03, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Please see the edit history of Ron Paul for November 11th: [5] Chuck reverted that article about ten times in a single hour. If you really want me to add 10 or so diffs to the RFAR, I will. Rhobite 21:50, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

• You may also find this interesting. Feel free to make what use of it you will on the RfA case. --Improv 04:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalism

There wasn't any discussion when people reverted the article back to factually inaccurate and POV. When people get tired of a revert war and want to get down to editting that is fine with me, But until such time, I will simply revert material back to the best version that I can find. Stirling Newberry 16:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From the top: economies with large entrepreneurial private sectors are considered capitalist, and aside from the screaming of politicians from time to time, everyone involved with the day to day business of the industrialized economies admits that they have the characteristics of a capitalist economy. Even France and Germany would be described as "capitalist economies with large state sectors". The argument, in mainstream policy is not about whether these economies are capitalist, but how to keep the private sector healthy and how to utilize the growth it produces to deliver services and social goods. The question of whether America is a "capitalist" economy doesn't cross bob rubin's mind, nor chuck princes, nor almost any trader on wall street. Stirling Newberry 16:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it if you would not make edits to subjects you don't have a thorough grasp of. The paraphrase is the summary of Smith's argument at the head of Book II of Wealth of nations. After your going on about the need for discussion, such bad faith, and ill-informed, edits, as well as a seeming excessive reliance on rule of three "allowances" are not encouraging. The point of wikipedia is not game playing, it is not a reader's guide to google. It is about accumulating documentable information in the hopes of expanding knowledge. Stirling Newberry 17:49, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding woman

You suggested that I was "disrupting" Wikipedia by adding a caption to a photo. You need to re-read Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. It's not about that kind of edit - it refers to disingenuous changes, moves, or arguments. - Nunh-huh 04:27, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Chuck F

I'm wondering what you think should be done about Chuck F at this point, given ArbCom's peculiar dismissal of the case. I guess the temporary injunction is lifted by default, and the decision seems to imply that this needs to go through mediation first, despite your already having tried that. Maybe we should try to gather a group of editors who've been dealing with his POV-warring and jointly file a request for mediation, in the interests of demonstrating that this wasn't just about Reithy? RadicalSubversiv E 07:35, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I'm thinking about putting the following text through RfC and then a binding poll. I'm trying to see if Chuck can be convinced through said poll (and who knows, maybe we'd lose?) that the community as a whole has a position. Take a look here and let me know what you think. I do have a fairly strong perspective that his edits are POV and bad, but I'm hoping to make some progress so the edit wars can stop. I've been talking a lot with him on IRC about this. --Improv 12:43, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've just filed a new Request for Arbitration to deal specifically with Chuck. Comments, added requests, whatever go there. I thought I should inform you because you're mentioned repeatedly in the supporting evidence, which should incorporate all of the evidence you offered in the original case, as well as the prior RFC. RadicalSubversiv E 13:33, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Video game music RfC

I've moved it to Pages Needing Attention. Thanks. D. G. 12:57, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinking to temporary versions of protected articles

Well, it's acceptable to me...is it stated somewhere in policy that you can't do that? I figure it's got to be more acceptable than deleting a bunch of content from an article. Everyking 22:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with creating wikilinks to temporary articles. I don't believe there's a policy against it, but it strikes me that common sense should prevail here. Assuming the temporary article is eventually integrated into the main article, the merge will create double redirects and force people to go around changing a bunch of other articles. Linking to temp articles leaves wikipedia in an inconsistent state. It implies that the temp article is the "official" version, when it may not be. Most importantly, it allows groups to put forth their own POV versions of articles and integrate them into Wikipedia. What if I create POV temp articles and surreptitiously begin wikilinking them? This subverts the process of peer review. Rhobite 02:58, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Oh well, no big deal, I guess. I suppose you're right. It wouldn't be an issue at all if the damn page wasn't protected. A week has passed with no real discussion, you know. Don't you think it should be unprotected by now? I asked User:Snowspinner to do it, but he hasn't responded yet. I've done a great deal of work on the temp version, including some current event updates, so I think I ought to have a chance to try those out. At the very least, it might stimulate discussion again, and I can't imagine anyone would object to the current events updates. It just seems wrong to leave it protected indefinitely like this, and it makes me feel like all my work is going towards nothing. Everyking 06:00, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you and Reene need to apologize, or at least agree to quit with the revert war. It would also be a nice show of good faith to explain your edits on the talk page before putting them in the main article. Rhobite 06:11, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Tell Reene that. She insists that she has the right to make radical changes and then expect me to discuss them on talk while they remain in the article. My position is the same as yours, I say in a dispute major changes should be discussed prior to being implemented. But every time I propose that I get treated rudely and disregarded. Everyking 06:17, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the welcome

Thank you for the welcome and your guidance in getting my proposal through. I definitely look forward to contributing to wikipedia as my schedule and expertise allow! You have a good night. Parahost 06:32, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Television - relative importance of sections

Since this discussion should involve everyone, I moved it to Talk:Television Rhobite 23:45, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Humungous Image Tagging Project

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

[edit] Bad Faith

At this point I have more than sufficient evidence of bad faith by Slrub and RJII. Including attempts to start revert wars and horrendously POV editting.

Demanding that people not use this word or that, in my experience, is never productive, there are plently of ways "within the rules" to make editting an endless exercise in nitpicking and unpleasantness without violating nominal "rules". The point of wikipedia is to produce better content.

It is for this reason that I suggest you and I enter mediation, or find some means of "cooling down". I don't have any hope for slrub or RJII - they are not acting in good faith and have shown every indication that they are going to try to use rule of three blocking tactics and so on to get their way.

Stirling Newberry 00:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I usually respond on my talk page, I hope you're checking it. I'm glad you'd be willing to try mediation, but unfortunately I don't have a lot of time right now and I'm not involved in the whole postmodernity thing anyway. I'll have to turn down your proposal at this time. Anyway, this is less of a content dispute and more an issue of conduct. I do not agree that their edits have been "horrendously POV". Neither are your edits. On postmodernity and on capitalism, it seems to be a dispute over how to present things as opposed to a POV dispute. You are just as culpable as they are in any edit wars, and some of this is due to your penchant for accusing people of vandalism and name-calling. I hope you'll reconsider this practice - you'll actually encounter less resistance about your article changes if you stay polite. Rhobite 01:17, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

So in otherwords you don't want things fixed, you just want to threaten me and have them go away. I'm going to simply stop working on the capitalism page - and note to avoid you and the others as best as is possible. Stirling Newberry 01:40, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm trying to help you, if you don't want my help, so be it. Please just keep the personal attack and 3 revert policies in mind - you aren't excepted from them. Rhobite 01:45, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

I am going to reiterate what I said previously: your behavior is, as far as I am concerned in bad faith, since you have expressly said that you don't want to fix things, merely threaten me (as you have just done again) with consequences, the best solution from my perspective is to avoid you and the pages you are editing at any give time. Stirling Newberry 02:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stirling, I don't see where Rhobite is threatening you. It looks like he's just reminding you that you're expected to play by the rules, as there is apparently an edit war. Could you suggest exactly where in the two comments above, the threats are, and what they're threatening? --Improv 18:05, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Metamerism (color)

I still want to get the Metamerism page perfect too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamerism_%28color%29 Dkroll2 02:53, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

---

[edit] Images by Axel Bueckert

We talked Axel Bueckert into letting us use his pictures by promising him credit. -- Ŭalabio 04:06, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

He is credited on the Image: page. Photographers are not credited in captions unless they are notable or relevant to the article. Rhobite 04:09, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry. -- Ŭalabio 04:14, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] three reverts

Sorry, didn't realise they were within 24 hours since I slept in the interim. I'll be more careful in future. AndyL 01:43, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cabal

Apparently (according to CheeseDreams) you are part of my Cabal. The secret has been revealed! This can't be on so I'm throwing you out. Sorry dude. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Hehe... I was just looking at Cabal. Since it only takes one admin to unblock someone, and since not one has chosen to unblock this user, then apparently hundreds of admins (publicly listed, with widely varying views on what Wikipedia should be) are part of some secret cabal enforcing publicly published, community-created policies to advance some nefarious, personal design. LOL! Some cabal.  :-) SWAdair | Talk 04:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually the main reason most admins have not is because they are afraid of the cabal. You should see the discussions on the IRC channel. They are all about to rise up, and then it is mentioned who the admins involved are, and they all fall deathly silent. The very fact that that happens should be enough to tell you that there is a cabal. CheeseDreams 21:00, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Not helpful

Your revert on Libertarian Party (United States) is not at all helpful. I'm trying to avoid a revert war. Chuck refused one compromise, I thought this one would be more acceptable to him. It's not trying to make a point. It's about, as insane as it sounds, trying to find some reasonable way to work with Chuck. If nobody else is going to support that then sod it, I guess we'll have another revert war. 195.92.67.208

I don't think you were justified in removing the information you did. The text about the Constitution Party and about Ron Paul is very relevant. If that's your attempted compromise, it's not beneficial to the article. In general information like that shouldn't be removed. Rhobite 19:33, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cool images

Just had a look at your images page.

Wow! Some rad pics, thank you. Makes a really nice change from all the moaning and whining about your edits on this page.

Mudthang 21.35, Dec 19, 2004 (GMT+2)

[edit] Sealand/MPLX

Thank you for your comments about Sealand and MPLX. I was beginning to think I was the only one who had picked up on his game. I'm happy to work with you to try to restore a degree of neutrality back into the article.--Centauri 07:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd never expect there not to be arguments, but it would be nice if I could edit in peace without being threatened and tormented. Everyking 23:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks

I'm sorry about what was on my userpage. I was just very, very angry at the ignorance of that person at the time and I guess I wasn't thinking. *removes* —OvenFresh☺ 00:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)