User talk:Rhobite/Archive 8

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

Vandalism

Half of what you warned me for was vandalism (the wanker comment). The other half was both accuarte, and just as importantly, relevant (The Nextstep stuff- that's the operating system that the first ever web browser was written on, you know, sonny ;). Please restore it, I'm trying my best to restrict my urges... 84.9.75.111 00:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

But we are all flawed human beings! Where would Lincoln be without his slave raping, or Churchill without his heavy drinking, or Van Gough without his ear shooting? I want to contribute, to set the seeds for others, and I will never perform more than 25% vandalism - surely it ought to be offical policy that a bit of playfullness is allowed, if one is, in the majority of cases, adding to this wonderous project? Where might I propose such an idea - it might wet-en the reputed drying up of new volunteers 84.9.75.111 00:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank for your response re Alex Rodriguez. What I do question is your haste to condemn as vandalism something done in good faith and simply to give some balance to a rah-rah article, in the interest of preserving Wiki's NPOV policy. Vandalism is the clown who keeps putting "Yo quiero Taco Bell" in the article about Miguel de Unamuno, an article in which I incidentally have inserted material about his life and philosophy. Regards and yours in Wikiness (if there is such a word).Alloco1 16:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

ROHA

I think I've disovered his riddle, concerning the spelling of "Zimmerman"- click Autoharp on Discussion page, on my post of other instuments Dylan plays. Best wishes, Lion King 00:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That's funny, I actually read autoharp today after you mentioned it and I noticed the same thing. I don't think ROHA is that clever, but you never know I guess. Rhobite 03:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

sharp eye

nice catch on the spam plug on Reality television. havent seen you edit that page, and then swoop, you fixed this. thanks. :) Airumel 05:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I only found it because the same user spammed another article which was on my watchlist. Rhobite 16:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

i figured you were tracing/following the poster/post somehow, not watchign that article in particular. :) Airumel 17:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Now why, exactly...

Are you requesting/suggesting IP addrs not start AfDs? 68.39.174.238 06:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Because I'm not sure it's allowed. You're not allowed to vote in AfD's, why should you be allowed to start them? It's easy to sign up for an account.. you should do that. You don't even have to give an e-mail address. Rhobite 14:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

UMass Amherst

Hi, just noticed you've had a lot of edits recently on the University of Massachusetts Amherst article. I thank you for your interest in our institution, but it concerns me that a lot of information has been deleted in the course of your edits.

Specifically, I don't see the need for this bulimic section cutting business, the article isn't too long, and each time someone merges a section, information is lost. The article actually has less information now than it did a month ago, and that to me is alarming.

Out of curiousity, are you or have you ever been a stud ent at UMass?

Yes, there is normally no place in the article for individual organizations, but Take Back UMass is a bit different than the Cannibis Reform Council and the Chess Club- something anyone who's gone here for more than a semester knows. And there is no such thing as Residential Government, you wouldn't change the name of the US Congress section of the US Goverment article to Parliament just because its shorter.

From what I've seen on the definition for stub, it says, "These entries have categories that need to be developed" , so is it really the most appropriate thing to delete and merge information?

I don't want to make this seem like I'm attacking you, I'm just a little concerned, I look forward to your response,

Thanks

Vvuppala 21:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Replying on Talk:University of Massachusetts Amherst. Rhobite 21:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

GNAA

Nominating other "GNAA" articles for deletion is clearly disruptive. If you nominate these articles again you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rhobite 03:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Why is nominating a bunch of trolls for deltion disruptive? surely you won' defend them?--Anyone who 03:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Obviously Guilford Native American Association are not a bunch of trolls. Knock it off. Rhobite 03:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • They're way to similar, seems like an excuse backdoor in content from one GNAA article to another, the second GNAA is finally deleted by consenus, where do you think all the trolls will run to? You guessed it, straight to the Guilford Native American Association, and you know it, it is a pre-emptive anti-vandal strike, and will cut their very heart from wikipedia--Anyone who 03:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me...

But if you look at the edit in question, Cusps - or whatever his name is - wiped my last edit, as he did on many articles - that had nothing to do with the infobox, nor vandalism of any sort. Guero is an example of this. Why don't you go issue a warning to him? BGC 22:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Bad Edits

I can't say I am overly impressed with your editing. You reversed several of my edits which added external links to articles. The external links added clearly related to the subjects at hand. I would particularly take exception to your edits on the affiliate marketing category. Tell me, do you actually know anything about Affiliate marketing in the UK? I do and I was adding some legitimate affiliate networks to the list already there. There was no referral link, it was not spam and I am wondering why on earth you deleted them, given that they perform exactly the same function as the other external links on that page which you chose to keep.

stevenmar 22:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What's up with all the 9/11 revisionism?

Why, after all this time, are so many 9/11-related articles being edited to promote conspiracy theories, criticize the United States, or criticize President Bush? patsw 03:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

ERP

Since you have edited Enterprise resource planning, here is a courtesy notification that I have updated the article, and its talk page, since your last activity there. I have tried to repair what I view as an unfortunate WP:POV, or historical bias, but I still need to address a better way to present information about commercial software, open source, and homebrew. Many facts about ERP are true in one of these three main areas, but totally wrong for the others.

I asked about disadvantages style in December 23 section of Help Desk whose first response cautioned risk of WP:NPOV. There is a potential need to show several commonplace WP:POV that can otherwise risk article contamination, if not acknowledged. User:AlMac|^(talk) 22:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Abuse

I am receciving abuse on my talk page from users Adam Carr and Fear EIRANN. Will you take a look at LONDON on my page, and please advise me. Best wishes Lion King 22:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)corection- ENGLAND

Help

An amusing fellow who is also an admin. is refusing to let Ed Gein be added to the category of LGBT serial killers.

Will somebody please think of the dial ups

de-transcluding a page as oversized as that is not vandalism, it's a public service, removing just the one transcluded header from WP:AN cut it's loading time in half, very few people realize just how long it takes for some of these pages to load--63.22.79.21 08:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Collective nouns

Hi. I had a long discussion with another user about this and it lead me to email 2 professors from my university and I consulted with 2 other editors on here as well. The 2 English professor from university confirmed that the usage is correct and also made me aware that most people aren't aware or don't know how to use collective nouns correctly. The handbook I am using is The Bedford Handbook (2002). In British English, it is correct to use "Aerosmith are" but in the U.S., we say, "Aerosmith is". I am not changing all of the articles, just some of the articles that are incorrect. Some of the articles are using it correctly like I am. RJN 02:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The names might be plural but they are still one collective entity—therefore they are singular. Collective nouns are very tricky and most users of English are not aware or know how to use it correctly. There are some articles that use correct collective nouns. Not all articles use "are" or "were". I know it doesn't make sense to some people but this is the correct usage. RJN 02:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Raimes's Keys For Writers does not support your usage. I think what you're doing is extremely awkward and likely incorrect English. That's all I have right now, I'll try and track down a better handbook and see if you are right. If you have a specific page or example from Hacker's book would you mind quoting it? In any case it's correct to use "are" in British English, so why are you changing it? Generally you should not change between British English and American English on Wikipedia. Rhobite 02:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about how ridiculous this sounds when you use the past tense. Are you seriously suggesting that it would be grammatically correct to say "The Beatles was on the Ed Sullivan Show"? Rhobite 02:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I have been browsing articles for bands and sports teams—almost half use "is" and "was" for plural names. Like I said, just because the name of a band or team is plural doesn't mean that the sentence is plural. Whether their names are plural or not, do you agree that, collectively, it is one entity? See Houston Texans. They use "is" in that article and Backstreet Boys uses "is" as well. There are several other bands and sports articles that use "is" and "was" with plural names. I have emailed my English professor and she confirmed that it is correct in American English. Yes, "were" and "are" are correct in British English. I am only correcting the U.S. related articles. I left The Beatles alone since they are not Americans. RJN 03:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

AMG supports using the plural "are/were". I really doubt that AMG is wrong here. [1] [2] [3] The Texans article uses "is" because the subject is "Houston Texans American Football club", not "Houston Texans". In Backstreet Boys, the subject is "The Backstreet Boys, or BSB". I asked on the reference desk. Do you have any response to my Beatles example? I don't care that you're not editing the Beatles article - I'm asking you if the sentence "The Beatles was on the Ed Sullivan Show" sounds OK to you. Again, do you have a specific page or example from Hacker? I'm probably going to start reverting your changes tomorrow. Rhobite 03:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the handbook on page 270. "In American English, collective nouns are nearly always treated as singular: They emphasize the group as a unit." Yes, generally speaking, the example you gave me sounded awkward. It is correct since "The Beatles" is the name of a band. Now, if we were to talk about the beatles (bugs), then it would be incorrect. Also, I did not vandalize any page for it to be reverted. I haven't vandalize a page ever since I started editing here. You should let other editors editing bands and/or sports teams to decide if my usage is incorrect and they will revert it per article. The name of a band is a collection so it is singular in usage. You can replace "The Beatles was on the show" with "The band was on the show." The Beatles make up one band. It is a single entity and therefore is singular. I am trying my best to explain things to you online as it is hard to explain things in typing than face-to-face. I don't doubt that my English professor and other English majors from my school I contacted were wrong. If I were in doubt, I wouldn't have made my edits. RJN 03:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a response on the help desk that would support what I am trying to say, "... the rule is simple and well-known: If more than one person is acting as a group, the verb is singular." RJN 03:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a sentence from MCA Records that would support the use of "is". "New Radicals, led by young liability/singer/songwriter/producer Gregg Alexander, is chomping at the bit." Hope this helps. Sorry to bother you with this. http://www.mcarecords.com/ArtistAbout.asp?which=bio&selected=1&aboutid=38819&artistname=New+Radicals&artistid=62 RJN 06:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Another sentence from Nine Inch Nails that was never edited by me. "Nine Inch Nails (abbreviated as NIN and typeset as NIИ) is a critically and commercially successful American band formed in Cleveland, Ohio in 1988 by Trent Reznor." RJN 06:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of band pages that use "is" and "was" and were not edited by me. RJN 06:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

User:BGC on new revert spree

User:BGC has again resumed systematically reverting album articles to his preferred text, deleting all recent contributions from other editors and using inappropriate/misleading edit summaries when he uses edit summaries at all. Beyond the usual issues, he is adding various star images back to infoboxes, despite the recently established consensus to remove them. He is also systematically delete all admin warnings from his talk page, usually no more than a day or so after each is posted. Monicasdude 15:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into it. I wasn't aware that there was consensus to remove the star images - could you point me to that discussion? I know that Template:Stars caused problems, but what's wrong with the images themselves? Thanks. Rhobite 15:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I wasn't aware of any changes to the star system. I don't why they'd be vetoed. Secondly, it takes two tango and Monicasdude has long stalked me and my edits, which is how he's managed - almost impressively - to earn himself TWO RfC pages with his behavior. I revert to mine because he wipes out far more info than he should be wiping, and it's all out of animosity for me after several attempts to work together with him. Thirdly, if you look at some of the edits, I have actually REMOVED many of the album infobox 2 templates, yet my edits are erroneously slagged off as "revert spree". You want things to change? Then his behavior should be dealt with. The RfCs speak for themselves.... What more can I say? BGC 16:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that answer doesn't cut it. You seem to feel that as long as Monicasdude has an RFC outstanding, you can revert him all you want. But his current RFC has nothing to do with the album/infobox/POV dispute. I'm asking you to stop blaming him and please consider whether it's appropriate for you to add statements of opinion to Beach Boys articles. A compromise about the stars or the infoboxes would be great, but opinionated statements must be removed from the articles. I'm also not aware of changes to the star system, and I'd like to see proof of consensus from Monicasdude before he removes more stars. Rhobite 16:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You may be right about the stars; I inferred that the images themselves were deprecated from the fact the users implementing the TfD decision were inserting text rather than the image files. Many, many edits like this one [4] showed up on my watchlist, and I didn't see any argument (on dozens and dozens of articles) about it. Monicasdude 16:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I don't know.. I can't see anything wrong with the star images. Maybe the robot should have put those images back in, instead of the "(4/5)" text. Rhobite 16:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Last time BGC did this, I warned him that he'd get a very long block if he ever did it again (I spared him on that occasion, and I seem to recall that he did stop). What do you think of the situation now, Rhobite? If he's being reasonable and stopping I'm still inclined to let it go, but if he's pressing on and the reverts are not reasonable then I'd block. Haven't made my mind up yet --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Brute force approach

You're coming across a bit heavy, mate. Any nominations that are bad can be defeated just by raising the appropiate facts. People aren't stupid, there is very little chance of anything deent getting delted, and even it it did then WP:DRV can sort it out.

Some of the meatpuppets from the Checkerboard Nightmare Afd have turned into real contibutors. We don't have to WP:BITE. Just put the "sockpuppets beware" template across the top of the AfD and let it go.

brenneman^(t)(c) 03:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with pointing out someone's agenda. Show me where I've attacked anyone and I'll apologize. Otherwise knock off the holier-than-thou act. Rhobite 03:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't nice, to begin with. Unless you are trying to get people to make a recomendation to "keep" based upon something other that the article in question, what's the point of mentioning the "agenda"? That's not what you're doing, is it, trying to get people to think about something other than issue? We shouldn't care who nominates an article, if it's crap it should go, and anything that diverts the AfD discussion from examining the article is a bad thing. - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Baseball on Wikicities

Hello Rhobite, Googie Man here and I want to ask you something as a fellow baseball fan on Wikipedia. Jimbo and Angela have made a new webstie called Wikicities. This link in particular will take you to the baseball Wikicity. As you'll see it's similar to Wikipedia, but my hope is this will allow baseball fans to do more and different things, like reporting on games, in depth statistics, create mulitple pages for pictures, and whatever else baseball fans care to create. You've done great work on Wikipedia and I was hoping you could help get this baseball Wikicity off the ground. Please let me know what you think either at my talk page, or you can email me at terry@wikia.com. Thanks! Googie Man^(Talk), 17:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

Check your Facts

I note with considerable exception your inexplicably misinformed comment made [here] that most of my contributions have been to the ongoing listing of blogcruft on AfD (which I wholeheartedly endorse). A quick trip to my user page would have shown you that I am a principal and in many cases the sole author of articles such as:

• Gottfried Semper
• Bayreuth Festival
• Antonio Cánovas del Castillo
• Maximilian Francis of Austria, Elector of Cologne

among a host of others.

• Please do not disparage editors' contributions if you cannot be bothered to ferret out the facts first. Eusebeus 04:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Your personal attack defence

Then give me a hint. What can I do to stop these people from attacking me? There is a policy by the way: you can remove personal attacks.--Fenice 16:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks is not policy. Although some users agree with RPA, there are some valid concerns about removing attacks. Second, those weren't personal attacks. Observing that a user appears to be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is not a personal attack. I recommend talking to users you disagree with and attempting to form a compromise. Removing other users' comments is a serious rule violation. Rhobite 17:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

GFDL violation: Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Mno#meds4dumbbells.com

A site being hosted by Yahoo! Small Business hosting consists of copy & paste of various drug articles, like codeine which you edited, and Google Ads. There is no contact information on the site (I found out that Yahoo was hosting them from the source code), so we have to go through Yahoo;s copyright infringement process. Yahoo told me that someone with a legal copyright interest needs to contact them. The diff establishing your claim is at [5]. I have/will email you a copy of the message I sent and Yahoo's response. Please take a couple minutes to send off a letter as this is particularly blatant WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 19:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC).

I appreciate that you're pursuing GFDL violators but I'd rather not get my real name mixed up in this if at all possible. I'll look over the e-mail from Yahoo though. Rhobite 15:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

arbcom case

I am about to file a requests for arbitration against Gibby. Do you wish to be involved as a party? Elle _{vécu heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 11:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that may be the only way to convince him to change his behavior. Thanks for filing it. Rhobite 15:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Double vote

Hi, thanks for pointing out my accidental double vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.bloggar - I won't do it again! Also, I do notice you seem quite protective of blog-related articles. Please be reassured that there's no sneaky conspiracy going on (as far as I know). Thanks for keeping an eye on things; the last thing I want is the war on blogcruft to fail through poor procedure. Regards, Proto t c 21:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have assumed that it was an honest mistake. Rhobite 23:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It honestly was. Plus the first vote had no comment associated with it, although if I'd noticed I'd already voted, I'd have just amended that vote. Sorry about accidentally wiping your talk page, too ... stupid Opera Mini. Proto t c 09:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Leave me alone

I don't agree with your interpretation of the ruling. I also don't like living in fear of being blocked for who knows what, who knows when. Obviously you're trying to threaten me with a block. Well, unless you want to talk in some positive way, leave me alone, please. Everyking 18:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not threaten to block you. I wouldn't feel comfortable blocking you given our past mentorship arrangement and my involvement in the Ashlee Simpson article. I just wanted to let you know that in my opinion, you are violating the ruling and you should stop commenting on administrative discussions. Rhobite 18:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I was prohibited from discussing actions. I don't think you're very familiar with the actual ruling, from the sound of things. And in any case, what I was doing was simply trying to give somebody good advice on how to survive here. I suspect that, in fact, is what you object to, because you feel the user doesn't belong here. Everyking 05:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate this with you any more, and I'm not going to block you. I just wanted to tell you that in my opinion, you are violating the ruling. Since you have a history of misinterpreting the sanctions against you, I thought you should know. If you'd like me to leave you alone, please don't reply to this message. Rhobite 05:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

KDRGibby

The request for arbitration concerning this user has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#KDRGibby. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 10:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for filing the request. Rhobite 15:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

bullets

you have no legitimate reason to get rid of the bullets the style GUIDE states this: "This Manual of Style has the simple purpose of making things easy to read by following a consistent format — it is a style guide. The following rules do not claim to be the last word." So stop doing it...especially since there are 3 other sections formated with bullets only. (Gibby 05:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

Did you bother discussing that here? Or at the Wal-Mart discussion page. There is no reason to delete them.

Benjy Bronk

Rhobite, I believe I've given more than enough proof as to the age, hometown, high school and graduation date of Benjy Bronk. What other proof is needed? And still the clowns are editing it back to inaccurate stuff. 148.126.100.82 21:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)148.126.100.82

Hi. You blocked Accuratemedia but didn't list it on the 3RR page. So I ended up blocking him too [6]. However, I chose 3h. I don't know how those overlapping bans will work - does mine replace yours or does mine just expire and yours continue? William M. Connolley 22:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC).

I blocked him for repeated copyvios, you blocked him for 3RR. The way it works is the shorter block prevails, unless someone unblocks and reblocks. I am fine if he's only blocked for 3 hours, though. Rhobite 22:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explaining that. Since you're happy, I'll leave it at 3h. William M. Connolley 22:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC).

I see that someone else is at work vandalizing the Benjy Bronk page again. I'm not even going to get involved this time and revert it back to the correct addition. It's becoming a waste of my time. The person now put stuff related to 12 year old black girls and the KKK. If people are so determined to vandalize Benjy Bronk's entry, then how does a George W. Bush entry not get vandalized 1000x more? 148.126.100.82 18:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)148.126.100.82

I wish you would stop deleting TOCs and quotes

You have been going around for some time now , deleting the TOCs and quotes that i have put in various book articles. The result is now people are arguing about what is or is not in those books , when the TOCs and quotes were the most NPOV way of establishing the basic facts as to the contents. I hope you will take time to rethink this through , and cease removing the TOCs and quotes. Hopefully then , we can move away from the ridiculous bickering about what the topics are of book articles and can get busy writing some decent articles on them. --CltFn 05:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You can put the TOC and quotes on the talk page, if their only purpose is to resolve disputes with other editors. I've already explained my reasons: You seem to go out of your way to pick quotes from each book which express an anti-Islamic opinion - this is an NPOV violation. And I don't think a raw TOC conveys any useful information to readers. This is an encyclopedia, not a book review service. Rhobite 14:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Re your deletion with vandalism notice about my insertion about Alex Rodriguez: It's hardly nonsense; in fact it's been an issue ever since shortly after A-Rod started playing for the Yankees. Apparently the pressure gets to him and too many times when it's a late inning and the Yankees need a run he falters in comparison to other players; there have been statistics that cofirm this anecdotal observation. The last playoffs against LA simply were the coup de grace. He's had some psychological help to try to deal with the stress. In short it's a legitimate issue and not nonsense and certainly NOT vandalism; it's perfectly in keeping with WIKIPEDIA's NPOV policy: namely showing the both good and bad and NOT just the rah-rah of the original article.Alloco1 21:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop stalking my edits

I copied the supposed "original research" from another article which I merged. I will revert it, and suggest that you discuss this with the author of the original text. --Timecop 02:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Operation Site Down has been on my watchlist for months. My, you're a narcissist. Rhobite 02:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah? Then you should have fixed it "months ago". Or perhaps noticed there was Site Down and Sitedown with somewhat relevant info in both, and merged them. Oh, right. You'd rather vote keep on worthless blog AFDs. --Timecop 04:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean I'm not perfect? Crap. Rhobite 04:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Johnwife.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Johnwife.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — THOR ^=/\= 20:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't upload this image, I merely reverted it when it was vandalized. I don't know where it came from. Probably a wire service. Rhobite 01:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Block discussion

Please see, WP:AN#Continued block of User:208.183.105.11 as I think that you placed the block under discussion. DES ^(talk) 18:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I responded there. Rhobite 01:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

diffs for evidence in arb case

You cited "diffs needed" for vandalism by Gibby for communism, and I didn't dare modify your section because I was wondering if that would go against procedure, so I have supplied them here:

[7][8][9]

Cheers. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added them to the evidence page. I was going to dig them up, just lazy. Rhobite 03:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Rhobite, thank you for your vote on my RfA. I am sorry that my participation in (what really should not be called a war) the "war on blogs" has soured your opinion of me. I do not consider myself a deletionist, although I do vote more "delete"s than "keep"s (but this is because more articles on AfD should be deleted than kept). I appreciate that you are in favour of including many blog-related articles on Wikipedia, and that's your right.

However, I would like to think if it were you going for adminship, I would base my decision based on whether or not you seemed civil, which you do, and whether or not you seem capable of following Wikipedia policy, which you also do - irrespective of my opinions of your voting patterns on AfD, which is, after all, a 'free vote'. I'd would assume good faith, and that you'd be able to allow Wikipedia policy to guide you in your actions.

I would like to think that if my RfA were to pass, I would not start rampaging through AfDs on Wikipedia, deleting articles here, there, and everywhere, and I would assume you would not rampage through AfD speedily keeping everything in much the same manner. It is a shame that you feel I cannot be trusted in this manner, as I don't think I have ever tried to circumvent due process in such a manner.

Anyhow, no hard feelings. I don't expect you to change your vote, but please consider things other than AfD voting patterns when you vote on others' RfAs in future. All the best. Proto t c 14:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rhobite, just wanted to say thanks for commenting over on paper mill (essays). Feel free to leave comments at my talk page any time. Cutter20 20:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The one that got away

I've been leaving welcome messages, and not sure how I created that one. Wasn't paying close enough attention -- it gets mind numbing after awhile. I tagged it for speedy deletion as soon as it occurred. Thanks for the heads up. --Go for it! 03:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, just wanted to make sure you knew about it in case you were using a bot or something. Rhobite 03:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

I had completely quit talking with Pamento and only reverted back to him at the request of Cenestrad the Emperor of Wikipedia's request. I think he felt it might resolve the problem, and in a way(by having you bar him) it has. I can hopefully get back to some more constructive wikipeding. Ill let you know if he bugs me againpickelbarrel the giant ASSHOLE 01:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Hi Rhobite/Archive 8, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Protest Warrior

A blast from the past. A Protest Warrior member is trying to rewrite the article to suit his personal view of the organisation. Any chance that you could take a look at it and see what you think? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC opened for Mr j galt

An RfC has been opened here against User:Mr j galt (talk · contribs). If you are familar with his editing and would like to add your input, please feel free to do so, whatever your POV. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

65.182.172.x

I noticed that you have had some interactions with 65.182.172.x on Talk:Chicago-style hot dog. Cyberdenizen and I have filed a user conduct RfC about his behavior and I would appreciate your input. You can find it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/65.182.172.x. Thanks! - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 04:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't call anybody anything

Without using names I simply said some administrators are douche bags (an opinion shared by many & one I firmly stand behind) This is no diffrent than saying some editors are trolls or vandals. If an administrator took offence it is probably because said administrator is a douche bag. I would never call any person usng wikipedia any insulting name. --Cenestrad The Emperor of Wikipedia 13:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a violation of Wikipedia:Civility and it would be much better if you could refrain from childish namecalling, whether or not it's directed at specific people. Rhobite 15:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if I seemed uncivil but an abuse of power boils my blood. --The Emperor of Wikipedia 02:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Superbowl...

I am sorry I have to let people know!

I have seen it

Validity of astrology

I think modern astrology's basic premise is silly, for the most part (when it works, if it "works", it works for reasons other than most of its adherents claim, IMO), but Isaac Newton was familiar with the nuts and bolts of the alchemy and astrology of his day, apparently. A Google search turns up many references, at the top of the list: [10]. So there is some room to at least credit it as a proto-science before the 18th century, to my mind. Cheers, --Fire Star 20:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

But was he really an astrologer? Anyone researching physics in that day would have been familiar with astrology. The article claims that astrologers invented calculus. Unless Newton was an astrologer, it shouldn't make that claim. Rhobite 20:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that to call him an astrologer, there would have to be some evidence that he drew up horoscopes. I'm not aware that such evidence exists. --Fire Star 21:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

12 hour block on AOL sharedip?

awe jeeze--152.163.100.196 21:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, I unblocked it. Rhobite 21:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Pinktulip

User:Pinktulip was blocked from editing. See the entry for Amorrow. --JWSchmidt 01:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized that after I left that message. He really created a lot of work by messing up that sourcewatch template. Rhobite 15:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

User:82.43.198.133

I see you unblocked this character "after email discussions" - anything interesting that we should know about? He was into some serious plugging. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Talk!) 13:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

He was being pretty reasonable in e-mail, and he wanted to discuss the issue with other Wikipedians. I told him I would unblock him but warned him not to spam any more. I'll keep an eye on him. Rhobite 15:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Rhobite. Sandy 01:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha ... thanks again !! Sandy 01:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to change it back now thanks

http://www.bradblog.com/Audio/AnnCoulter_CPAC_021006.mp3

about 4 minutes and 20 seconds into the rant she calls Arabs "ragheads".

She also has refered to Helen Thomas as an "old Arab"

That's not what categories are for. They are broad groups into which we put articles.. their purpose is not to push an agenda. It is your belief that Coulter persecutes people.. I think she's an idiot, but people who feel persecuted by her should turn off the TV and not buy her books. It is important for Wikipedia categories to not express an opinion. Rhobite 04:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Much as I would love to just call her an idiot she is just as much a racist for calling Arabs Ragheads as she would be for calling Black people burrheads.

132.241.245.49 04:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

My talk page

I haven't done anything involving you recently that I'm aware of, do you have any idea why I ended with a comment about you on my talk page? Night Gyr 03:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I was responding to User:132.241.245.49 aka Grazon, who is complaining about me to you. I don't know why he's doing this. Rhobite 04:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

South Bass Island spam

Hi Rhobite. I saw that you were involved in protecting the Put-in-Bay, Ohio article to stop a small edit/spam war and was wondering if you'd consider doing the same to the South Bass Island article. It's pretty much the same situation. Same users adding the same spam sites and removing the external link that existed previously. Thanks. --NormanEinstein 19:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for semi-protecting the South Bass Island article, Rhobite. :-) --NormanEinstein 00:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Rhobite 03:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Doretel

Rhobite how can I ad our company to this thing with out you deleteing it? If you can please call me at 404-755-5721 or email me at sbreen@doretel.com I do not want to piss anyone off so please guide me thru getting the right stuff up so that this deleting stuff doen't keep going on.

Thanks

I was just about to get 83.17.199.150 blocked, that was 5 reverts, I have no idea what they were doing :)

On the subject, I blocked for 24 hours for a 3RR violation (I felt that was the clearest block); would you object to me restoring the longer block, since your three hour block will override mine? Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 23:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind, I just don't know if you should call it a 3RR violation since that would imply Tawker should also be blocked. Clearly this is disruption (arguably vandalism), so there's no need to block Tawker too. Rhobite 23:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I see your point; I usually tend to think "3RR does not apply to vandalism reversion," implying that it does apply to vandalism, especially if that is the least controversial reason for blocking. ;-) I certainly agree that Tawker shouldn't be blocked; I'll leave your block in place for now, and if it causes more problems when the 3 hours is up, I'll hit it with a longer one. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 23:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

DVD-Audio

Thanks for the compliments. In terms of SPUI, I was just acting out of frustration as SPUI is a personal friend of mine who I've known for many years. I said some things I shouldn't have said, but I've had some time to cool off now. Let's just let bygones be bygones, put this behind us, and let's look to improve Wikipedia, which is the ultimate goal in the end. We'll get DVD-Audio there eventually and the Beach Boys POV stuff is a whole monster in and of itself. That's next. Cheers! --Analogdemon (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Santorum

You were right about Dan Savage's inclusion in the Santorum article; I thought it had been more prominent than apparently it was. The other issue is that there were so many bad arguments against keeping it out (mostly "it's too icky") that I hadn't given the "this really isn't that notable" enough credit. Anyway, see you 'round the Wik', JDoorjam Talk 22:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

User: Urthogie committed 3RR

Yo have deleted my report of Urthogie committing 3RR. Can you give me a logical reason. If it was not proper place to report then you should have advised me to proper page. You conduct in this matter questionable.

'I have created a page, Jewish terrorism, to discuss the history of Jewish terrorism. The user has redirected my page and reverted my changes. I would like to report this incident so that proper action be taken. I was also banned for violating this rule but it did know about this rule and nobody warned me. I had already warned user Urthogie not to violate this rule.

Siddiqui 21:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby case. Raul654 06:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

ROHA

He's been at it again! He changed Dylan's name to Zimmerman on People with the surname Dylan page 6 days ago, I'd forgotten to add it to my watchlist! Best wishes, Lion King 12:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I have taken the case of Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and will be the mediator. Before mediation can begin, we will need to decide on a mode of communication. We can either do this on the wiki at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, or we can discuss it off-site using e-mail or IRC. Please indicate your preference at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. Thank you. —Guanaco 04:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have closed the mediation case because I don't think continuing it would be productive. Further discussion can take place at Talk:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. —Guanaco 05:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that was inevitable. I'm glad that the mediation produced some positive change in the article - thanks for taking the case. Rhobite 05:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

capitalization of white

I'm not sure if it's significant to capitalize the word "white," I was just copying the style used in Stormfront (website). If it's POV or bad grammar maybe it should be fixed there, too. I won't because I have no idea what I'm talking about. Ineloquent 22:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Peppers

I'm ok. I'm more of in a damage control mode now that I voiced my anger. I was careful not to direct it at anyone in particular, but it was still not nice. At first it was a more mocking/jokingly. But when I got a serious response... And realized that they actually had the nerve to ressurect that thing and say I'm the one violating POINT? Whatever. --DanielCD 06:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry we had to be introduced under such circumstances. I think it will all come about for the better in the end. Thanks for your comment at my page. --DanielCD 15:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Young Zaphod RfC

An RfC has been filed against Young Zaphod. See (and endorse) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Young Zaphod. --Karnesky 12:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by 141.156.208.66

Hi: I just wanted to clarify something, that I was un-aware that only admins can protect pages. But other than that, I did not protect the page to gain advantage. Please look into the matter. the IP in question tracerouts to the Brady Campaign to Control Handguns. He has been editing three articles (constitution, second amendment, and Brady article), to make them clearly POV towards the Brady campaign. And considering that they ARE the brady campaign, I do not consider his edits as in "good faith". Please look into this. -- Dullfig 22:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best to direct the user to discuss issues on the talk page. An editor's affiliation with an anti-gun group doesn't preclude them from editing Wikipedia, although it is a problem if they are adding opinionated or incorrect statements to articles. I'm not familiar with the details of the editor's claim - is it true that all but one circuit has rejected an individual's right to own handguns? His statement seems true to me, judging by the restrictive handgun laws in many states. If there was caselaw supporting an individual's right to own handguns, wouldn't handgun laws such as Massachusetts's, Illinois's, D.C.'s, and New York's, be unconstitutional?

One more thing, please do not erroneously accuse other users of vandalism. Thanks. Rhobite 22:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Look at the editor's history. In months past he has deleted entire sections of articles whithout comment or discussion. There have been repeated attempts to engage this person in conversation, but he never answers any request that he explain why he deleted large portions of articles. Once he deleted the entire Brady Campaign article, excepte for the first paragraph. Then he goes away for awhile, only to come back about a month later. -- Dullfig 17:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Postmodernism on crack

Thanks, I thought it up when I was discussing the idea from zenmaster and others that the title Conspiracy theory was inherently POV. :-) --Cberlet 01:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kaiser Permanente, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Delete Image

You seem to enjoy deleting images so can you please delete Image:Ch19f13.gif. I uploaded this file by accident. I have uploaded the correct self-made version now. Thanks.--Miller 23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it, per your request. I am worried that your replacement, Image:Home made fig 19.13.GIF, is too similar to the image from the book. The author does hold copyright on the creative aspects of the image - you can't just move some text around and claim that it is your original work. Rhobite 23:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried my best to replicate the image without violating the copyright. Do you think I should create a new image with a different layout? (Altough they do look very similar I did make the second image myself). Thanks for your time.--Miller 00:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be great. The scientific concept behind the image cannot be copyrighted, but the artistic design can be. It would be good if you created an image illustrating the process (which I don't understand at all), but used your own design. Rhobite 01:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem like a very experienced user so I want to ask do you think that the article (which is about three quarters finished) is worthy of being a featured article in its current style? If not could you edit the article or tell me how to edit the article so that all capitalizations are correct, all spelling is correct, it meets all the standard Wikipedia featured article criteria, that it conforms with all necessary EC regulations and it’s approved by the central bureaucracy. Thanks.

Although I can't comment on whether the article is scientifically accurate, it looks pretty good to me. My main concern would be that it is hard to understand if you don't have a background in biology. It's hard to write articles about scientific and technical subjects, because writing in layman's terms can sacrifice meaning. But articles written using complex language aren't useful to a general encyclopedia readership. Terms like "dimer", "reduction potential", and even "photon" need to be explained. I'd also look at context, and how the article is integrated into the rest of Wikipedia. There is some overlap with photosynthesis, and reaction centre doesn't even link to that article. It doesn't appear that your article is linked from many places.

I'm concerned about the copyrights on images such as Image:Photoarrange.JPG, Image:Bacterial_reaction.JPG, and Image:Photosystem 2.JPG. Did you create all of those yourself? Are you sure that they have been licensed under the GFDL?

Once you're satisfied with the article, you should submit it for Wikipedia:Peer review, so that other people can give suggestions about improvements. Rhobite 01:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't create those images myself. One of them was on a site which had no data on it regarding copyright, the other said the image was copyrighted but could be used for 'educational' purposes. Here's the new version of the electron flow diagram: Image:Copy PSII new design.JPG . (you can delete the one which is very similar now)

Then they are not licensed under the GFDL, and are unusable on Wikipedia. Even an image that's licensed for educational purposes is not allowed here, because the GFDL allows anyone to take Wikipedia's content and sell it. Please read Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Image use policy, and GFDL before uploading further images. Rhobite 01:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Are they allowed on Wikipedia if they are described as having a different license? If so which license do you believe is most relevant for the images?

I don't understand the question. If the copyright owner hasn't licensed the image under the GFDL or another free content license (certain, but not all, Creative Commons licenses are compatible with Wikipedia) then it isn't allowed on Wikipedia, period. There is no tag you can place on the image which magically makes it OK to use. In some cases fair use is allowed, but that isn't really applicable in your case. Unfortunately the images will have to be deleted. In the future please create your own images or make sure they are properly licensed. Rhobite 02:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The image is licensed to be used for educational purposes. I understand the distinction between GFDL and educational now, so can't it simply be licensed as "copyrighted - for educational use only". Surely Wikipedia is an educational website. If not what does "educational purposes" refer to? What is an example of educational use of the image? Miller 17:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Wikipedia is considered educational - anyone can take Wikipedia's content for free and use it for whatever purpose they want, which may not be educational at all. Images with these restrictions are incompatible with Wikipedia. Rhobite 19:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Two things: first that was a joke, second how the hell did you find that comment so quickly?! I don't want to break the rules, but that's no easy task; that's why I'm asking for more experienced users to find appropriate images. Sorry for the comment, it honestly wasn't meant to be snide, but with an anti-newcomer banner on your front page you're kind of throwing the fishing line out.--Miller 01:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. It looks like we both misunderstood each other - that image represents the Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers policy, which I value greatly. I also think the image is hilarious, which is the main reason it's on my user page. I put a caption on it so nobody else will be confused. As for the images for your article, I have no good answer for you. Wikipedia has many featured articles, many of them on scientific topics, which indicates that there are ways to find PD and GFDL images. You may want to post on Wikipedia:Requested pictures. But please remember that it's better to have an article with no images than to have an article with infringing images. Rhobite 01:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Again I’m sorry. I know that you’re well meaning and I am after all breaking the rules, but it’s incredibly frustrating when I can’t find a decent image (you deleted the first two images I uploaded!). Since I can’t find any outside of Wikipedia then I guess the obvious place to look is inside. I’ll try to find some appropriate images used elsewhere on Wikipedia.--Miller 01:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Return on Affiliates / Affiliate Marketing and Online Marketing

Hi Rhobite,

Thanks for cleaning up the Affiliate Marketing Article. Reads Good.

Regarding Return on Affiliates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliate_marketing#Return_on_Affiliates They started end of last year and have seen a rapid growth since they started. The concept of the site is new and a great thing. The Internet Marketing Community needs a place like this. It helps a lot to inter-connect and associate Names with Faces. They work their a** off to improve usability and features. The best of all is that it is free. What surprised me was the almost complere absense of Ads on the site, although I don't mind ads that are related and do not interfere with the usability of the site.

Are you responsible for the Category where Affiliate Marketing resides? If so, please see my comments here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Online_marketing and let me know what you thing.

Thanks for your efforts. I can imagine how hard it must be.

Don't hesitate and stop by my User Talk Page to leave some comments. --Roy-SAC 07:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you help me out here?

Bijoux is making a stink on the Protest Warrior talk page about how I'm lying about his insertion of a link to Stormfront in the article on his very first edit, when the diff clearly shows that he put it in. As he can rant on and on all day about how biased I am, could you take a look and make sure I'm not blind or something? Rogue 9 17:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Chadbryant

What name calling? I have been asking for help to stop his reverts of Rec.sport.pro-wrestling. WillC 02:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Calling him a fat mormon and telling him to kiss your ass would both qualify. Last warning. Rhobite 02:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

He still has "Dink" in that external link that runs near the top of his talk page. While that page was created BY him (and thus is 100% invalid and unsubstantiated in a fit of personal obsession and attacks), I noted that you removed this in another article; you might want to consider removing it on his talk page as well. Fair's fair, and all that. --Eat At Joes 02:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not wish to have harassing comments/personal attacks from Eat At Joes or WillC placed on my talk page, but both users insist on placing them there. - Chadbryant 02:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I find his motivations to be valid enough to warrant a discussion on the topic, at the very least. Please tell me how this is "harrassing" or "harrassment" or even the "vandalism" you love to claim so often? All I did was place my dissenting opinion on the entry. It's just that my opinion disagrees with yours. Are you saying that the only comments allowed on your talk page are ones that agree with your own? That's rather childish of you, don't you think? --Eat At Joes 02:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine, warn me. But note that Chadbryant is the aggressor here by vandalizing legitimate articles. Will you do nothing about that? WillC 02:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing incorrect information from an article is not vandalism. - Chadbryant 02:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to RSPW, you are removing information that has been or can be established as fact, not incorrect. --Eat At Joes 02:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Chadbryant is a vandal. WillC 02:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

it is highly probable (99%) that Master Of Rspw is Chadbryant. He is editing all of Chad's articles and posting comments on my talk page, WillC's etc etc. I have put, as per Wikie policy, a suspected sockpuppet template on his user page which he is constantly deleting.

TruthCrusader 08:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"TruthCrusader" is clearly upset about his arbitration request against Chad being unanimously rejected, and is on another campaign to harass him in any way possible. Master Of RSPW 08:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Chad, seriously, its so blatently obvious its you its not even funny. Its your old ID on usenet, it was the name of your Live Journal Blog, its your old sig file quote, you are editing all your own articles, you are flaming the SAME people, you are doing the SAME crap as usual. And the fact that you STILL havent been punished for posting all that supposed real life info has made me take the matter to a higher Wiki authority. I'm sorry, I was hoping that for once you would grow up and not flame anyone. You claim so many times your whole attitude is a 'work' and that you are a 'usenet performance artist'..but the truth is you apparently cannot co-exist with people who do NOT agree with your every opinion. Its sad, really TruthCrusader 08:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

So, in other words, you are clearly upset about your arbitration request against Chad being unanimously rejected, and you are on another campaign to harass him in any way possible. It is BLATANTLY obvious that your edit wars and your constant tattling about everything Chad does and your arbitration request and your unfounded sockpuppet accusations are nothing more than a campaign of harassment that started the day you registered a Wikipedia account. Nice try, but your actions speak louder than your words. You are only here to harass someone who got the better of you on a newsgroup that you haven't the courage to post to anymore. Master Of RSPW 08:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

uh newsflash...just because my RFA was rejected doesnt mean it failed. The decision was since your posting of info was such a blatant rule violation the ArbCom wasn't needed to resolve it, just a higher admin authority. And your last sentence proves beyond all doubt you are Chad and you are evading your block. TruthCrusader 10:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh, newsflash...your RFA was rejected. You're still attempting to harass Chad in any way possible, and that includes accusing me of being his sockpuppet and claiming that you are taking your failed complaint to a "higher authority" that only exists in your own mind. Sorry, but not everyone who sees you for what you are is Chad. I suggest dropping this argument and going away because an RFA filed against you would have a much better result. Master Of RSPW 10:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Go for it Chad. TruthCrusader 15:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are claiming that my real name is "Chad Bryant", you have broken the very rule that you filed an RFA against User:Chadbryant for. Let me refresh your memory:

Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether the information is actually correct) is almost always harassment. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media.

You may now cease your claims that my real name is "Chad Bryant", or you will suffer the consequences. Master Of RSPW 16:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. He is not calling you "Chad" in referring to your real name as being "Chad Bryant" thus violating the rule you stated above. Rather, he is calling you "Chad" because of you being suspected as evading the 24 hour ban placed on User:Chadbryant. If you wish to dispute this then perhaps this is not the place to do so; you only seem guilty as being Mr. Bryant with remarks such as this. A ban is headed your way anyway. --SteveInPrague 17:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

User:WillC

This user has once again deleted my comments on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR [11], after being warned that doing so was considered vandalism. - Chadbryant 03:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What would you know about vandalism? You claim my remarks on your talk page are at first "harrassment" and now you are claiming they are "vandalism." I find his motivations to be valid enough to warrant a discussion on the topic, at the very least. Please tell me how this is "vandalism" or even "harrassment?" --Eat At Joes 03:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration which names you as a party. --Malthusian (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Eat At Joes

I have due cause to believe that this is the same user who is responsible for over 140 sockpuppets designed specifically to harass and Wikistalk me. He more or less admits that he is this particular person in various contribs to talk pages. I believe that a checkuser of this account compared to others would confirm this, and that a block much longer than 48 hours is appropriate. - Chadbryant 03:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you should request a checkuser at this point. See Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser although there's quite a backlog right now. Since you haven't shown any evidence that he's DickWitham, I'm still assuming good faith, although his recent vandalism is disappointing. Rhobite 03:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Much like every other "DickWitham" sock, User:Eat At Joes has done the following:

• Appeared as soon as another "DickWitham" sock was blocked indefinitely for abuse
• Attacked my talk page (particularly the external resource outlining his years of internet-related abuse)
• "Wikistalking" in the form of reverting my edits
• Made allegations of stalking, impersonation, etc. to paint himself as a victim
• Engaged in relentless personal attacks against me, including the use of various terms such as "paranoia", "sociopath", etc.
• Inserted himself into a debate/discussion regarding rec.sport.pro-wrestling, only to use it as a soapbox for more personal attacks against me

I will request the checkuser, but I do believe that this latest sock passes the "duck test". - Chadbryant 03:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

First and foremost there is not and never has been any "Wikistalking." This is paranoia on Chadbryant's part and has been present in numerous remarks he has made, not just those dealing with reverting. I do find it humorous, however, that he has to claim "Wikistalking" yet he has a history of reverting an article in an edit war but trying to claim he is in no violation of a 3RR rule as a result of his changing non-existant "vandalism."

Second of all, I did not attack his talk page. You may go and see the history of the page if you wish to verify this, but all I did was make a comment that was not in agreement with what he said. Because he dislikes me, and because of his paranoia, AND possibly because of other reasons (which I won't go into because he'd just cry about personal attacks), he removed the comments I made. All because they didn't go with what he said and believed. This was immature, selfish, childish and stupid at best, but as I said on another page if he wants to look that way who am I to stop him?

Then there is this "appeared as another blah blah blah as soon as blah blah blah." Isn't this funny or what? He has to go and request a checkuser because he can't tell who is who yet he has no problem pulling out the sockpuppet accusation and whipping it around like a cowboy's lasso at a rodeo. Of course there's no WAY Chad could ever be Master_Of_RSPW despite evidence pointing towards him. For it would be unthinkable for someone to directly accuse him of the same behavior of which he so loves to accuse others.

"Made allegations of stalking" [ . . . ] "to paint himself as a victim." Did Chad even read what he wrote? Did he realize that he claims I made allegations of stalking to paint myself as a victim yet in the same remarks he claims Wikistalking on himself? I mean, you just gotta laugh sometimes at these things, you know? But being a hypocrite is nothing new to him.

As for the attacking of the external link -- he still has no proof I am that person who he claims that I am. This is the same debacle he got into with TruthCrusader. And how fucking funny is it for him to claim I am that person, yet three paragraphs later he has to go and claim a checkuser?

You get the idea, I hope/think. This is stupid, but when you are dealing with Chadbryant, you have to expect that. --Eat At Joes 15:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You blocked User:Eat At Joes (a suspected "DickWitham" sockpuppet) for three days for assorted abuse, and this user is now evading his block by "anonymously" editing from an IP (User:166.102.104.28) in the same block as other "anonymous" users that have been traced back to the "DickWitham" troll. See [12]. These edits include removing my comments from a talk page, and removing the sockpuppet tag from one of his other "anonymous" user pages. Master Of RSPW 15:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You blocked User:Chadbryant (a known Wikipedia troublemaker) for 24 hours for abuse of the 3RR revision, and this user is now evading his block by "anonymously" editing from User:Master_Of_RSPW in the same manner that has been traced back to previous "Chadbryant" behavior. See [13]

Tawkerbot2

It's been taken into readonly mode for now, we tightened a setting down a few notches more and it was a little too far, we've updated it to a higher level. In theory it will be fully automated but because it is a bot and it *can* make mistakes (but then so can humans and rollback) it is going to run without a flag and edits it can make will be carefully audited.

We are closely monitoring it and we currently have 2 main ways of killing it, both the emergency shutdown button (aka block) and an irc bot that when killed takes down Tawkerbot2 (they use a common feed as the CVU vandalism bot.) However, if you feel its gone "rogue" you have our full permission to hit the block button, once its under control we'll have it unblocked)

If you have any technical questions could you direct them at Joshbuddy - he wrote the detection patterns and is tweaking the bot as we speak.

Again, aplogies on the false positive, we're working on it. We've had a pretty positive response so far, its looking promising. Tawker 16:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, sounds like the heuristics are a little more complex than I assumed. Good luck! Rhobite 16:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, we just put a new filterset in and its looking more promising, though the bot sure isn't a replacement for human editors, it frees up time for the humans to focus on the tougher stuff. If you want the heuristics, I could send you the file. -- Tawker 21:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Nah that's OK, you guys seem like you're on top of things. It'll be great if this bot can revert vandalism with a low rate of false positives. Rhobite 21:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

H0rizon

Hey Rhobite.

I was reading over the discussion at James W. Walter, between you and H0rizon. Have you seen his discussion page? I'm pretty sure it's a clear violation of the hosting policy. I feel kinda bad for the guy, but he's got a pretty skewed view of Wikipedia as far as self-promotion goes. Isopropyl 02:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I did see his discussion page, but I'm not sure that it's a problem or that it's worth fighting over. It just seems like a collection of random thoughts, it's not harming anyone. My view is that it's better to leave well enough alone as long as he's generally a good user. Rhobite 03:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies if it sounds like I wanted to debate the issue. Let me rephrase: my concern is that the user doesn't quite understand some of the more basic Wikipedia guidelines (i.e. that it's not a democracy). While I don't profess to know everything there is to know about editing, perhaps contacting H0rizon at his discussion page would be more useful than arguing at the article in question. Isopropyl 03:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Walmarting

Thanks for your editing. Much improved.--Beth Wellington 19:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Lost etc.

Whoops, you're right -- I apologize. I misread the vote, it did indeed only apply to the Lost page, not LOST -- I reverted myself! What a mess. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom Palmer

Good call on the placement of that Palmer link. I was so busy trying to keep sockpuppets off of the link that I didn't pay any attention to where i was in the list! Dick Clark 22:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Most Common Name applies exclusively to article naming. It does not apply to opening paragraphs, which on WP follow chronology in the event of a name change/deed poll change/stage name etc. Hence the Tony Blair article is at the right MCN location but opens Anthony Linton Blair, the Cary Grant article opens Archibald Leach. Both articles then go on to explain in the opening line subsequent name changes or shortened versions. That has long been WP policy for people who have gone through name changes in their lifetime. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for you to actually provide a link to this policy. I've never heard of it before. Rhobite 00:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Crook

Can we take the delete tag off yet? It is obvious there is no grounds for deletion, and that the people that seem to be for deletion are the same people, with the same arguments, and the same writing style (which is strangely similar to his personal writing style.)

There is no solid evidence, or reason to assume the information is false, and the arguments for keeping it are infinitely better than those for deleting it.

Thanks.

AfDs are typically open for 5 days, plus some lag time until someone gets around to closing them. Please don't remove the tag - the admin who closes the AfD will remove it when the time comes. Rhobite 23:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I guess I am done talking to Mike about this... how many times do we have to endure him trying to put this up for deletion under another name?

I really hope this is it as apparent to everyone else as it is to me, that he is the one writing under different names and proxies... I am done arguing with him... isn;t waht he is doing considered vandalism?

Hey Rhobite, about Crook

After he died yesterday, he changed all his websites to redirect to a porn site, probably not appropriate to link to for right now... I have a feeling the article is going to get nailed for vandalism, as he keeps swearing that he died in Alaska in a fatal car accident yesterday (I looked up all the major news outlet, and there was a fatal car accident, but it involved a native Alaskan family,) and I just wanted to get it fixed, or let someone know before it got locked down.

All this business about how Wiki has been proven to be malicious and such... it be settled today? PLEASE?...lol.. thanks for your hard work. just wanted to let you know.

ROFL, I've been had, he redirected my IP to a porn site and may have done it with the Wiki link too... I just looked and he says there is no comment on the accident in Alaska.

Some Help\Proxy

I have been using the same ISP (Alltel) since I started here. I am not using any proxy software. PrometheusX303 13:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Stalking

Stop stalking and blocking me. Your admin privileges and request to become a bureaucrat would seem to warrant a NPOV to editing, deletions and reverts. However, for reasons known only to yourself you prefer to stalk, harass, malign, and block many editors who bring your violations of Wikipedia policy to the fore for discussion. Again, stop stalking me. Do not send me email, and do not contact me for any reason. If you delete or revert this, or block me to punish me for having confronted your violations of Wikipedia policy, I have a copy to forward to support my contention that your admin privileges should be suspended indefinitely.

I have no idea who you are. If you want me to review past actions I've taken, you need to give me some background. Also I never requested to become a bureaucrat, maybe you have me confused with someone else. Rhobite 15:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Are you absolutely, positively, certain that you don't know who I am? Have you harmed, maligned, slandered, and harassed so many others that you can't keep track of them? I think you are lying about not knowing who I am just like you lie when you abuse your admin privileges, which, by the way, I am working 24/7 to get permanently revoked!!! In the meantime, I am warning everyone about you and hope you will eventually give up and simply go away from here before you harm, harass, slander, and malign, the entire community - who you seem to enjoying enraging.
  • 24/7? That must be exhausting. Rhobite 23:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• • hehe. It almost sounds like he's stalking YOU, Rhobite. --AStanhope 03:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• he he, admin privileges gone

Master Of RSPW

User: Master Of RSPW vandalized my about page. WillC 02:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Jack Thompson

Hi there my buddy Rhobite, I hope Jack Thompson is not in some way related to libertarianism, anyway please stop misreading things my friend, the +lesbian dementia quote comes from his newsmax articles(some of which have been removed and you need to acess trough archive.org, not from his election). Thanks 210.142.29.125 03:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You're the one who is misreading things, Chuck. You put quotes around the sentence "closeted lesbian deranged by medication for Parkinson's disease" even though the Miami New Times article never presented it as if it were a direct quote from Thompson. As I pointed out in the talk page, it is obvious that the Miami New Times made a mistake, since Reno's Parksinson's was not public in 1988. Rhobite 04:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay Never mind, I can't read english grammar correctly, I thought the commas were in different places: "Back in 1988, after losing a race for state attorney to Janet Reno, he even accused her in various media of being a closeted lesbian deranged by medication for Parkinson's disease." Techinally he did accuse her of thoese things after losing the race for state attonery, but he did it 12 years after losing. Sorry for fasley accusing you my friend 210.142.29.125 04:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Time zone

Thanks for correcting me. I must be way too much sceptical about Wikipedia to put blame on it automatically.

Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks is informed, item on Wikipedia:Copyright problems cancelled. Pavel Vozenilek 05:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I added some more info to the mirrors and forks listing. Rhobite 05:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Impostor

A Wikipedia user, one would assume User:Chadbryant based on [14], has created an account with the about page just like mine. He is attempting to impersonate me. Please block this user, even though I have no clue where the email address comes from. The fake ID is User: Flyhighfreeebird@aol.com. Furthermore, there is now a category called "suspected sockpuppets of WillC. I am neither of those. In fact, I assume they are both Chadbryant. He needs to be banned. WillC 00:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Logos policy

To address your concerns that not enough people have seen or agreed with the guideline I proposed at Wikipedia talk:Logos, I've now made it over at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) as well. The new guideline would read "Corporate logos outside of infoboxes should always have captions." Kurieeto 12:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Port Clinton, Ohio external links spam

Sorry to bother you again, Rhobite, but the same people that repeatedly added their web sites to Put-in-Bay, Ohio and South Bass Island are now at work on the Port Clinton, Ohio article. I was wondering if you could stop them with one of your magical admin powers. ;-) Thanks. --NormanEinstein 21:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

sprotect for Ted Kennedy

Hi Rhobite. Is there any chance I could convince you to sprotect Ted Kennedy indefinitely? Thanks! (Hooray for Spring! - I'm in Mass, too) --AStanhope 00:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

you just bit a newcomer

Why would you do such a thing? You blocked me wouthout any warning... I did my best to look up all the Wikipedia "rules" and I was pretty sure it was all allowed. I'm guessing you blocked for the Paul subpage, but that was not public, it was a private note and all I did was google search. Either way you were unfair about this, about the "OR" claim, and I'll be filing appropriate complaints about this. Digg 22:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Posting personal info in an attempt to intimidate another Wikipedia user is considered harassment, and is strictly prohibited. I thought we had come to an understanding - you seemed civil enough on IRC, but I guess I was mistaken about you. What you did was irresponsible and childish. I will ask for you to be blocked from editing again, and I expect you to apologize. Rhobite 19:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for the paul page.... but I thought it was private (how did you find it to begin with?)... You should not have deleted the IRC logs as they were not from either of the the meta:IRC_channels where IRC logging is not allowed.Digg 00:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

All wiki pages are public. Anyone can see a list of another user's contributions, or find a page using the search feature. The omission of #wikipedia-bootcamp from the list was an oversight. As with almost all wikipedia IRC channels, posting logs without permission is prohibited. Apology accepted - I hope that we can put this disagreement behind us now. Rhobite 00:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Digg

Posting IRC logs is not allowed, yes, but it definitely isn't a blockable offence. Digg hadn't broken any other rules prior to that, and has contributions seem mostly useful. I think you were too harsh blocking indefinitely. Esteffect 19:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You obviously didn't investigate the situation sufficiently. Please explain how User:Digg/paul was an acceptable use of Wikipedia. I would like you to reblock this user, since you didn't do your homework before unblocking him. Rhobite 19:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

A Rod article

Personally I don't like infoboxes. They *look* better but contain much less information. Wikipedia is all about the information, and not in looking the best. Why do you prefer the infoboxes? Take care, Googie man 22:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand you - infoboxes don't contain less information than ad hoc tables, do they? Infoboxes serve to standardize Wikipedia's look and feel. They are exceedingly important - I think if you have additions to make to the MLB player infobox, your suggestions would be welcome. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball players. Rhobite 22:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Delgado picture

I know this is a hot topic lately... What's invalid about the Image:CarlosDelgado.jpg fair use claim? Just curious - I'm unlikely to argue since I know that Wikipedia will be almost sans pictures soon and I'm certainly not in possession of legal knowledge with which to fight it. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Your fair use claim doesn't address any actual requirements of a fair use defense. It is irrelevant that MLB.com's main business isn't photographs, for instance. It would be easy to create a free image of Carlos Delgado by photographing him, and many Wikipedians have uploaded free pictures of players. This is another argument against the fair use claim. There has been a recent wave of people copying images from MLB.com.. do you really think it would be OK for us to appropriate photographs of every MLB player from MLB.com? That would be using their own copyrighted content to compete with them. Rhobite 23:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This isn't helpful. Item number 2 of WP:FU#Policy talks about competition with a company whose function is selling photographs - that leads me to believe the function of the source of the photo is completely relevant. How is Wikipedia competing with MLB.com when neither is selling photographs? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That is just an example, it doesn't mean that we can steal content indiscriminately from any site that doesn't sell photographs. MLB (or probably the teams or MLBPA) owns the copyright to those images - it is part of their product, it's part of the game's image. It is not appropriate for us to use these images when free replacements are easily obtainable. Rhobite 01:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Not easily obtainable by me anyway. Using this argument, you must be going after 80% of the images in the whole site. Magazine and movie covers are part of those products so those must be deletable too, right? Logos are only supposed to be used within reason so their use in pages like Norwegian football cup must be questionable. How about baseball cards? I know people that upload pictures of those by the dozen. How about Image:Wagner Billy.jpg? That has no source listed - are we to simply trust that it's from a press release? Until someone can easily explain what's in and what's out, this will continue. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There are thousands of GFDL, PD, and other free content images on Wikipedia. Obviously some people care about respecting copyrights. To answer your questions: Yes, we just deleted a huge number of Time magazine covers which had no legitimate fair use claim on Wikipedia. Magazine covers are fine if we're discussing the magazine, they are not fine if we're using them to illustrate the cover's subject. It's just plain lazy. Movie posters and other cover art are almost always OK, you would know this if you had read Wikipedia:Fair use. Logos are also fine in most cases. The Billy Wagner image was released for promotional purposes so it's a bit different. It should probably still be deleted, but the case isn't as clear-cut as images taken without permission from MLB.com.

You're acting as if this is a great loss to Wikipedia, but these images should never have been uploaded in the first place. The burden is on the uploader to provide free content or make a legitimate claim for fair use. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball players: "Do not upload images from MLB.com or any other site unless you are certain the images are public domain or otherwise fair to use on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information." The fact that you're unwilling to go to a Mets game and take some pictures is probably not a great defense against a copyright infringement claim. Don't make me out to be the villain here. Rhobite 02:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have read WP:FU and your argument for removing the Delgado picture - because it's supposedly competing with MLB itself - would apply just as well to movie screenshots and CD covers and such, IMHO. What about the picture on Meryl Streep or the litany of images on Lindsay Lohan? Are people just too lazy to wait on red carpets or go to Lohan's favorite club to get a picture of her themselves? BTW, I'm not even trying to defend the copyright - I'm trying to understand this razor thin line that people seem to get around by wrapping the image in context. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not going to sit here and patiently explain every fair use claim on Wikipedia. Some of them are justified. Many of them are not. There are many fair use images on Wikipedia which, in my opinion, should be deleted immediately. Many more images should be replaced with free content images, and then deleted. I am not going to list these images for you, and I'm not going to defend the use of images on articles which I had nothing to do with. If you disagree with my imagevio notice, please respond on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Otherwise, this discussion is pointless. Rhobite 02:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

CNN

Please assume good faith, i did not know there was a difference, i would have paid more attention to that if i knew about it. --Striver 06:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Explain this one example to me... Image:ALMP_pub.jpg. I found this at URL under a menu heading just called "Photos". It doesn't say publicity anywhere in there. It's a picture of Lohan posing for a picture - just like Delgado at mlb.com - and it's used as the main image in an infobox for Lohan's article - just like the Delgado picture was for his article. Can you explain the difference to me? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't upload that picture and I don't think I've ever made a substantial edit to Lindsay Lohan, so why do I have a duty to explain that image to you? I don't know if it's a valid fair use image. It probably isn't. Rhobite 21:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Am I mistaken or are you an admin? To me, this is a perfectly valid question so I don't understand why your response needs to be so venomous. Thanks for confusing me even more instead of alleviating my confusion. I'll go find someone more helpful... —Wknight94 (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how that matters, I'm not wearing my admin hat wrt this discussion. I'm not omniscient, all I did was nominate a handful of mlb.com images for deletion. Do you really believe it would be OK if Wikipedia republished, without permission, every player photo on mlb.com? If not, why is it OK to republish Delgado's image? Rhobite 01:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm just trying to reconcile what seems like a double standard - how baseball players' images can be deleted - but people in featured articles whose images are seemingly from similar sources and are being used for similar purposes are not deleted. I'll be happy to start nominating other images for copyvio if someone can explain the rules. That's all. Sorry to bother you. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you answer my question, please? Why do you feel that it is appropriate for a purported encyclopedia to take all of its MLB player images from MLB.com without permission? Rhobite 19:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you're still at it here? I've never seen an admin with such a desperate need to get the last word in. I pretty much answered your question already - it's equally appropriate to "take" all of its MLB player images from MLB.com without permission as it is to take all of its Lindsay Lohan pictures from Vanity Fair magazine covers and LL-music-based websites that don't have the word "promotional" on them. You fill in the answer for the LL question and my little equation will give you the answer for the MLB question. And I'll be expecting them to get similar treatment at WP:IFD and WP:CV. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

re: DRV for myg0t

Several days ago, you recommended undeleting the article for myg0t. I'm not sure to what extent you based your opinion on the prior AFD discussions. Since your comment, I discovered that the second AFD discussion in question had been vandalized by an anon user between the closure of the discussion and the start of the deletion review. The vandalism obscured several valid comments and made the strict vote-count appear to be a "no consensus" decision. If the prior AFD discussion played any role in your decision, could I ask you to review the unvandalized version of the AFD discussion? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Lauren B. Weiner

Please weigh in on Lauren B. Weiner deletion if you have a chance. --Tbeatty 16:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wetlook article edit

Looking at the Wetlook article revision as of 02:45, 2 May 2005 I notice that you removed the paragraph on wet hair. Could this be returned? It is definitely known for members of the wetlook community to appreciate wet hair and one couple in particular are very fond of wet hair as well as wet clothes (See Jet Wet Fun although you'd have to study the photograpy to discern their preferences; I am also going by Todd's forum posts)

I will accept my comments made about the media being removed, although one does have to wonder!

--Ghiraddje 22:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)