User talk:Rhobite: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:12, 15 October 2004

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I find useful

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 19:47, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Long-time lurker, short-time contributor. --Rhobite 19:57, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

ACLU Page - Patriot II Act

I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia, so forgive me if I'm being erroneous. I made a minor edit on the ACLU page concerning the PATRIOT 2 act... deleting the "proposed" portion and shifting it into the definite. Correctly, you changed this. However, I am wondering if there should be yet another edit to this page, as while the entire act has not been passed yet, major portions of it were signed into law December 13th, 2003, the day Saddam Hussein was kidnapped by coalition forces? The San Antonio Current, the Associated Press (through Boston Globe Link), and the President himself. Your thoughts?

--jackferd 22:26, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I'm new here too. I wasn't aware that parts of PATRIOT 2 had been signed into law in another bill. You may want to add this information to Domestic_Security_Enhancement_Act_of_2003 but I don't know if it belongs on the ACLU page. Rhobite 15:24, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Sociobiological theories of rape

I've started on reworking this. It needs to be fed through the grinder a few more times before anything acceptable comes out the other end. See the talk page, too. -- The Anome 16:56, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Abandonware

Alright. I see what you mean. Maybe at a later date WinWorld can be referenced in some way, as it continues to grow. Please remember that I don't own WinWorld.--Surfinshell23 04:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re: Commercialism

Hello,

Although I agree that Commercialism is, as you wrote on my talk page, rather vague and somewhat speculative, I don't think the {{cleanup}} tag was applicable. It's a simple article. It had a good start, but it will take some time to develop into a good article. It was a good idea to post at WP:PNA, hopefully to get the attention of Wiki-veterans knowledgeable in the field.

I don't think we should call for a clean-up on brand new articles, as time should be allowed for an article to grow in length and in depth. IMO, the {{cleanup}} tag should only be used on unattended (no one working on it the past many hours) articles with serious problems, e.g. nonsense, poor organization, atrocious grammar, non-NPOV/bias, unwikified data-dumping, etc. (Judging from what have been listed at WP:CU these days, there are people who disagree with me .... Oh, well .... )

To some extent, I was also trying to be gentle to a newbie. He just started here a few days ago, and apparently, this article on Commercialism was his first major undertaking ......

If you have ideas on how to improve the article, perhaps you can make suggestions at Talk:Commercialism.

Have a nice day.
-- PFHLai 16:00, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm still learning the intricacies of the various "call for help" pages here. Between cleanup, PNA, RFC, VFD, speedy delete there really is a confusing array of choices - too many, in my opinion. Thanks for clearing this up. Unfortunately I don't have too much background in the area but I do think I'll fix the references to "cave men." Rhobite 16:32, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I have to say that I have only been around for a few months, so my opinions should not be taken as any "authority" at any level. I do think PNA was the right route in this case. Wikipedia:Requests for page expansion is a possibility, but things don't really move there... If you don't feel like fixing it, let it be. Someone else may stroll by anytime and fix things to his or her liking.

Yeah, there are Wikipedians who prefer different ways of handling problematic articles, and there are articles that require different handling procedures. It IS confusing. But it's better than having edit wars.

Happy editing. :-)

-- PFHLai 17:54, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)

US Mint copyrights

Thanks for the notice. I agree that the images are probably Public domain. Not sure who owns the images of the US currency, but it is probably the Government, and hence PD. At Wikipedia, copies of 2D work are assumed to have the same copyright as the original work, (e.g. a painiting by Rubens has expired copyrights even if it is a modern photo thereof) The arrangement of the bills and the labels are probably original work, but very minor. I think we can also claim {{fairuse}} if necessary. -- Chris 73 | Talk 02:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Windows XP

I don't know what you're talking about removing stuff--I haven't removed a single thing, I promise. As a matter of fact, I created the spyware sections. I also like the fact that the similarites to Mac OS X is gone, but I kind of started to like it, it seemed to bring a little friendship into the mix between the two, which have a history of enmity.--naryathegreat 03:33, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, for a while I was afraid someone might be hijacking my account, i've heard of people changing user names on others, so I got a little worried, anyway, no harm done!

Template:ITFS

--naryathegreat 03:59, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Mises

What's the dealio on Ludwig von Mises? I spoke directly with Jeff Tucker, the Vice-President of the LvMI and he gave me permission to use that text. It was written for ANB (who the LvMI gave permission to use it) by a fellow (Hullsmann) who up until this month was a resident senior fellow there (he has now gone on to a University in France). Anyways, I stated that in the edit log and at the bottom. Although I appreciate the concern, please contact me next time.

--Tejano 13:48, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Since you posted it anonymously, I had no idea who to contact. If you are User:Tejano you should log in to that account. Anyway, the article says this: "Copyright © 2003 American Council of Learned Societies. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved." Is that wrong? Does Mr. Tucker have the authority to license this under the GFDL? He's not the original author and he doesn't appear to represent the copyright holder. Also, let's move this to Talk:Ludwig von Mises. I'm copying these comments there. Rhobite 22:02, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Windows XP reverts

Hi Rhobite,

Could we work out a compromise on the Windows XP page? I'm kind of wondering if we could cut down on the spyware/malware bit as it isn't specific to just Windows XP. Please don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that it shouldn't be mentioned, but do we really need to mention the executive from the MSN group saying that half their crashes are caused by malware? That sort of sounds dodgy, even though I know this source is from Microsoft. Sometimes "executives" like to shoot their mouths off. If we could perhaps make the comment on malware/spyware more concise maybe that will appease both sides. It's worth a try before we bring it to the RFC page, anyway (I've kind of already gone there and I think they'll just lock the page for a while so noone will be able to edit it, but it would cool the revert wars that are going on).

What do you say? Sound OK to you?

Ta bu shi da yu 15:56, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hey Rhobite, want to vote in my staw poll? You seem to be involved in the edits on the XP page. See the Talk page for more info. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:36, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

K5 and Windows XP edits

You're captainsuperboy on K5? Good to see another K5 member here! BTW, I think your compromise on the XP article was actually pretty good. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:36, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that's me. I hate that nick. It's good to see you here too. Rhobite 04:28, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

O'Reilly change

You reverted a paragraph that I wrote that contained the following sentence: "Despite his self-proclaimed political independence, he has become a controversial figure in American politics."

I did a partial revert and changed it to: "He is a self-proclaimed political independent who has become a controversial figure in American politics."

The original sentence was: "As a self-proclaimed political independent, his social and political views vary widely."

I changed it for the following reason: The phrase, "his social and political views vary widely," is rather meaningnless. How do you measure "widely?" And vary widely from what, exactly? From Stalinism, from Neoliberalism? I can only guess the original author intended to say that he draws from both Conservative and Liberal ideologies. However, this is a judgement call. One man's idea of "liberal" is another man's "conservative" and vice versa. This is a debate best to be avoided in the opening sentences of the article.

Violence

Since you conceded that your statement "circumcision is not violence" is wrong, ¿why do you continue to revert violence?

Ŭalabio 04:08, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

I conceded nothing. I merely refuse to let you drag me into a moral debate. Rhobite 04:15, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Copyvio

I guess you are "legally" right by removing images that apparently violated copyrights. However, do you think the world is now better after you "fought for the rights" of the owners of the pictures? Do you think for example that the owner of the website promoting travel to Mousa is happier now that you "saved" him from the "monster" that copied one of his pictures? Why is it so important for you to "protect" the rights of these people? In summary: I did wrong, but why is it so important for YOU to remove the pictures? Just asking. --AAAAA 17:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please read Avoid Copyright Paranoia --AAAAA 12:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That is a discussion, not a rule, and it applies to "presumed" copyright violations. The images I listed are unquestionably copyrighted. You'll notice I didn't list the logos you submitted, which probably fall under fair use, and the scans of public domain artwork. Rhobite 12:32, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

digital photography

apologies for cross edits, didn't realise you were editing too. also for my poor spelling etc. Ohka- 19:10, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's no problem, you're adding good content and I'm just doing a bit of cleanup. Rhobite 19:39, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Fluoride poisoning

I will keep reverting your redirects as many times as necessary. I firmly believe THERE SHOULD BE AN ARTICLE about Fluoride Poisoning. I will include both sides of the discussion. If you don't agree with me, then start a discussion in the "Fluoride poisoning" page.--AAAAA 02:32, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fine, I'll VFD it if you insist. Rhobite 02:48, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
- No problem. Let everybody decide.--AAAAA 02:52, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

MP3

Thanks for completing my line of thought in the "design limitations" paragraph of MP3 :-). — David Remahl 23:04, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with you on most of what you are stating about it. Proven scientific facts are never up for discussion. Furthermore, if one states that MP3 has 'flaws' one really needs to clarify that these so-called 'flaws' aren't of much importance to the general audience (which needs to be the target for a wiki-page if I'm correct!). Plus, David's "line of thought" is simply stubborn nonsense we can do nothing with. ~Julius

This message will self-destruct after being read by Rhobite

I replied. User talk:Nickshanks

vandal/troll

Rhobite, I read your comment on the village pump about the Exxon Mobil page. this user or users have been causing trouble for about a month. I listed the accounts on the Vandalism in progress page a while back, and two admin pages recently (User_talk:Silsor,User_talk:Stormie).

(66.144.5.25 | talk | contributions) (see [1])
(210.142.29.125 | talk | contributions) (see [2])
(Chuck F | talk | contributions) (see 'Hexaform Rotary Surface Compression Unit')

Duk 02:40, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

yeh, i noticed the geographical difference. they may not be the same person- but they are both up to no good. Duk 03:05, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Got you message, will do. Duk 02:06, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chuck F

Hiya,

I had a look over your statement of dispute.

First, I suggest you remove the first link ([3]) from point 4 ("Changed other people's comments on several VfD pages"), since it involves User:210.142.29.125 adding to User:Chuck F's vote, and you're asserting that they're same person. The other three links on that point are damning enough.

p.s. Chuck confirmed on the Village Pump that User:210.142.29.125 is him, but stated that User:66.144.5.25 is not.[4]

Secondly, I feel that some progress is being made on the ExxonMobil article. User:203.112.19.195 is now at least starting to discuss things on the talk page, and has not deleted the content which I re-inserted with a proper attributing link. Also, I notice that he has been engaging in discussion on Talk:Michael Badnarik and Talk:Stop Esso campaign since his last reverts to the associated articles.

Basically, while I certainly agree that this guy's behaviour has been out of order, I think it does seem to be improving. And frankly, while he's been going about things the wrong way, the articles he's been hitting do have some genuine NPOV problems, I think, what with Exxon Mobil baldly stating that they bribed the President of Angola, and Michael Badnarik featuring another anon making some pretty extreme-sounding claims about Badnarik, attributing them to a book of his.. which hasn't been released yet!

All up, I'd like to see how things progress for a few days before joining this RFC. —Stormie 01:40, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate the note. I understand that there is a group of users who feel it's OK to ignore the 3 revert rule, but I'm not one of them. He revert warred several pages, he ignored my request for moderation. Most of the paragraph he removed from Michael Badnarik was based in fact, although POV - I can personally verify Badnarik's extreme statements on his website. I hope you reconsider. Rhobite 01:47, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Like I said, his behaviour was out of order but I hope that it is improving. Don't worry, any more revert-warring from him and I will certainly add my signature to the statement of dispute. —Stormie 06:57, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Rhobite, should we ammend the RFC to include 'Hexaform Rotary Surface Compression Unit' and susequent revisions and reverts of the Nut (hardware) page? He did not break the three reverts rule here (assuming the 66... IP is not him). But in my mind he used pure vandalism to make a point (see [5] near the end). Duk 02:17, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for certifying. Yeah, I didn't realize that was a result of a challenge on VfD. Added. Rhobite 02:32, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

That explains a lot, Duk, that whole 'Hexaform Rotary Surface Compression Unit' affair was a complete "WTF?" for me until you pointed out that VfD debate. —Stormie 06:57, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Reithy

While I agree with you that Reithy should've been blocked by now, I've put up an RFC in the hopes of getting some kind of action on this. Please take a look when you get the chance. RadicalSubversiv E 18:36, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Admin nomination

Hey, thanks for the support of the admin nomination! I'm flattered that you were thinking of nominating me :) - Ta bu shi da yu 02:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:36, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Internet Explorer

Hey, good work on getting Frank Vorck involved in the Wikipedia discussion. Now we have clearly attributable statements and people, and we can NPOV and remove some weasel terms. I was thinking - would you be able to keep in contact with Frank and encourage him to create an account? Also, would you be able to email him explaining that Wikipedia has not been created for original research? I think he totally misunderstands some common wikipedia concepts. However, he might like to add his tutorial on how to remove Internet to WikiBooks! I know this might be a bit much, but would you like to give it a shot? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:44, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RE: PEMFC "what copyright violations are you talking about?"

I think you are mistaken- RE: PEMFC "copyright violations"

Also.. there was no page entitled PEMFC prior to my creating it. Also, the info on the page you forwarded to is very much outdated and the PLUG for Ballard is commercial and inacurate.

Also the info you put up on PEM page was blatantly incorrect.

I will no longer waste my time with wikipedia. You are a gang of wannabe librarians and clerics and do little to insure that updated and accurate USEFUL information reaches the public.

This whole thing has become a sham and it is plain to see why so many wiki veterans are leaving your ranks.

My experience with your org has been most disappointing... All you people do is chop and thrash. This is not editing. You are the equivilent of "slash and burn farmers" as opposed to "cooperative bio-dynamic farming."

What will you power your computers with when the oil runs dry...?

--Proton44 23:12, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)