User talk:Rholton

All New: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Orphaned: 500 1001 1501

For older content, see:

User talk:Rholton\archive01

Random bits

Hi Rholton, I just wanted to thank you for making me laugh. I saw "Medieval warfare - good structure, no meat" on cleanup and thought I'd see what sections the article was weak in. Congratulations on a beautifully succinct description of the page. :) I guess whoever wrote the headings found something better to do than write the article. Fabiform 05:20, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi, there have been some suggestions that we need to start cleaning out the old requests posted to Wikipedia:Peer review. You are receiving this because you have posted one or more requests that have been there a long time. When you have a moment, please check it out and remove the request(s), along with any related material, if you have received adequate feedback. Thanks! -- Wapcaplet 23:25, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the compliment on my disambiguation efforts. It is a tedious and often thankless task but someone has to do it. I saw that you are persuing an MDiv, where do you go to school? I am currently pursuing an MA in Religion at Trevecca Nazarene University. Kevin Rector 14:33, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

I'm attending the Univeristy of Dubuque Theological Seminary, in Dubuque, Iowa. It's run by the Presbyterian Church (USA), though I am not Presbyterian, but United Methodist. I begin my final year of studies this fall. -Rholton 05:55, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Excellent, well, good luck in your studies. Kevin Rector 13:20, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Poll about whether we should keep either Euramerica or Laurussia

I accidently duplicated Laurussia in Euramerica. Since you contributed to these articles, I invite you to a pool on my TalkPage about how to remedy this.

Ŭalabio 19:38, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)

Wiki Junior Project

We are currently in the process of deciding what the first topics will be. We have already decided that the first humanities topic will be Countries of the World:South America. We need to decide what our first science topic will be. We already have plenty of pictures available for Big Cats, The Solar System and Human Flight. We're having a little vote to decide which one we should work on first. Please come to Meta:Wikijunior project first topics. Cheers! Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 07:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Happy birthday, Rich! Best wishes. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 00:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. And, apparently, thanks. ;) Whosyourjudas (talk) 00:36, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hope you're having a great birthday! Jonathunder 03:47, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

The Humungous Image Tagging Project

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

Article Licensing

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

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

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

Option 1

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

OR

Option 2

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

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

categorisation

with AMEB, according to wikipedia:categorization it should be put in the most specific category, and certainly not in the top-level category. the category system should not be used as a system of keywords. thanks.clarkk 20:05, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RfA

You're very welcome! --Ryan! | Talk 10:33, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And the plant is... Ruscus hypoglossum!

Thank you for identifying that plant! I wasn't able to view the link you sent me until I used the wayback machine [1], but it looks like that's the one. How did you ID it? -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 01:46, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

I have cited the sources where ID supporters argue that they are defending theism against materialism from their own keyboards. There is a controversy, I have documented it. If the ID trolls want it censored - and they have repeatedly censored material they don't like, that doesn't make it POV. It means that the POV trolls will not settle for anything other than a cut and paste press release from the Discovery Institute, with the rebutall buried down the page.

There is no good faith on the talk page, and supporting flame warriors - which is what you are doing - will not generate that discussion. As long as screaming "bigot" is acceptable, then I will not accept "consensus" of trolls.

Stirling Newberry 20:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let me repeat myself: the discussion on the talk page has broken down with the slurs hurled by Ungtss and the bad faith of Ed Poor. Until this problem is remedied, I do not regard there as being a conversation from which consensus can be obtained, because consensus requires consent.

While I appreciate well meaning efforts to re-establish equalibrium, there are unaddressed problems on the page which must be dealt with first. Stirling Newberry 20:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies if either my edit summary or post on the talk page has unintentionally caused offense, I will post a clarification later, as I am current making some edits to Gold Standard in response to comments from readers. Stirling Newberry 21:58, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism because

No it, falls under Sneaky vandalism, the minor edits they make makes the article opinion based by editing minor data and accusing an entier Nation or declaring things that are not official and offends one side. For me its annoying but I dont care about reverting a few times it gets annoying after the 5th edit. I make it neutral so everyone supposed to be happy. At least no one gets propoganda material. --Cool Cat 18:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll be more carefull with my using of the word vandalism. Starcraft 07:31, 2005 Feb 18 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=StarCraft&diff=prev&oldid=10383859) The paragraphs in question have been moved to a sub article their return is not necesary, not real vandalism though (it was a repeting set of edits)

  The other issue I accept I was wrong.
--Cool Cat| My Talk 20:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VfD categorization

Hi Rholton.

Although being bold is an important feature and attitude on Wikipedia, I would encourage you to pause in your process of adding all the Votes for Deletion (VfD) subpages to your new category, Category:VFD voting. Those pages can already be readily found via Category:Pages on votes for deletion. If you would like to make changes to the way that VfD works or is reported, feel free to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion.

Also, please be careful when you're editing other VfD entries; you want to be sure that you don't inadvertently delete other editors comments.

Cheers, TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One more thought—if you want to track all past VfD discussions, you might suggest the creation of a category tag that's added to the template admins use when closing out VfD debates. Be warned, there are currently about sixty or seventy new VfD entries per day. That makes for a category that adds about two thousand entries per month; twenty-five thousand per year...it might be a bit unwieldy. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:50, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course, tracking old voting was the intent. I do take your point about the size of the resulting category, and manually adding the category tag was going to be impractical anyway. It looks like Tony Sidaway's list of daily logs is a closer approximation of what I'm looking for. Would it perhaps make more sense to add to each of the daily pages? -Rholton 16:17, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps...but I'm not an expert on all the black magic which surrounds the VfD mechanisms. :) What are you hoping to do with the category? Again, you might raise the issue on the VfD talk page, or with some of the editors who are involved in the technical aspects of VfD. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process or Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Old. Are you aware of Wikipedia:Archived delete debates, which does the same thing as the category? dbenbenn | talk 03:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you.

Mark Richards 02:16, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)