User talk:203.112.19.195

By, the way, welcome to Wikipedia, Mr. Anonymous User! Good to have you aboard. I was thinking that maybe you should sign up for an account, which would make it slightly easier to follow your contributions in Talk: pages. It's really easy and takes about a minute. Looks like you could be User:Chuck if you are so inclined. - Nat Krause 07:49, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

VfD

• We'd like your input at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Market libertarianism; we are (or at least I am) confused as to the reason for the nomination. --Ardonik.talk() 19:44, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Can you please not alter other people's votes at votes for deletion? Either sign in or create an account if you wish to take part. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 19:07, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you are editing your own vote then please log in to do it - any anon changes of votes are coinsidered suspicious. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 19:15, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see you've been asked not to change people's votes before yet have ingnored the request. I am watching your contributions from now on. If you alter anyone elses comments in anyway whatsoever, (even putting their keep vote in bold for emphasis) i will block you from editing Wikipedia for a week (in order to allow the vfd process to work without interference). I hope you take heed of this warning because I don't like having to block people but we cannot allow you to change other people's words. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 13:18, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Exxon

I'm sorry that you don't think Wikipedia is a "real encyclopedia." If you want to help the project achieve its goal, please be constructive. It's not productive to delete factual information from articles in order to present a subject in a certain light, as you have done on Exxon Mobil.

I'm also wondering about your strange VFD behavior - why did you write FahrenHYPE 9/11, then nominate it for deletion? Rhobite 05:15, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Three revert rule

You've now violated the three revert rule on Exxon Mobil. Please don't do it again. Rhobite 18:14, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

No I haven't, I've only reverted the page three times today.

User:210.142.29.125 is clearly another IP address of yours. Counting that IP, this is your fourth revert in approximately 14 hours. I would like to request mediation, is that OK with you? Rhobite 18:21, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Now with your edit as User:Chuck F, you have reverted five times in less than 24 hours. Rhobite 19:36, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Exxon Mobil again

If you remove content from this article again without joining the discussion on Talk:Exxon Mobil, you're going to be blocked from editing. —Stormie 06:25, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion - what I hope we can do is work through the problems you have with the article, one by one, and sort them out. There are certainly some POV problems with it, please don't take my reversions as a sign that I think the article is perfect and you're wrong - it's just that we can never make any progress by deleting blocks of text without discussing it. So thanks again for coming to the table. —Stormie 09:59, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Describing CPD

How is describing CPD as a "private entity" POV? How do you propose we describe them? The sentence you deleted served to balance the neutrality of the whole paragraph, so you can't simply remove it. If you think CPD should be characterized in some other way, that's ok, but don't remove a vital part of the paragraph. In the mean time, I have reverted you. The commission is by all means private, and "entity" is a rather neutral word IMHO. What side's POV do you believe it reflects? — David Remahl 12:27, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The inclusion of Badnarik's views in his book, with Badnark's response recent discussion of these views is not vandalism. Rather, the removal of such a section constitutes vandalism. Just because you love Badnarik is no reason to vandalise the article. If you're not satisfied with my presentation of Badnarik's political views (and what I write is well sourced and document from Badnarik's own writings), then I invite you to include a section on libertarian arguments which would lead one to embrace Badnarik's views. Thank you.

Request for comment

Chuck,

I want to let you know that I've listed you on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Please read the listing at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chuck F. I encourage you to respond to it and present your side of the story. It's your opportunity to be heard by a larger portion of the Wikipedia community. I think you have made good contributions here but sometimes you are unable to follow the rules. Rhobite 01:06, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

The Wrong Version

m:The Wrong Version

Badnarik

Chuck, you're continuing to violate the three revert rule on Michael Badnarik. In addition to your disputed paragraphs, you also reverted legitimate style and grammar corrections. I would like to propose mediation. If you do not agree to this, I'm going to request arbitration against you. Rhobite 19:13, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Okay... but keep Reithy out of it. 203.112.19.195 19:19, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Posted at WP:RFM. Thanks for agreeing to mediation. Rhobite 19:53, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Reverting

While Rhobite is congratulated for proposing mediation, I wonder whether ChuckF's reverting without justification highlights structural problems in Wikipedia. I have seen him blindly delete material that while conforming with his personal POV were useful additions to Wikipedia. Look at the history of Exxon-Mobil to name one of maybe twenty examples. It's a real shame. PockyChoc 21:27, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hi., just letting you know I listed your on requests for Arbitration, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Current_requests_for_Arbitration

with the following complaint

Chuck_F has repeatedly broken the 3 revert rule, engaged in repeated personal attacks, multiple edit wars, unjustified, unexplained reverts, large-scale deletions of relevant material, inappropriate language etc. He has refused to negotiate, or use Talk productively even when given the opportunity from others keen to engage him. There is currently a request for comment on Chuck_F. Comments to Reithy 00:30, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Reithy 00:37, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Temp injunction

Chuck, you are already violating your temporary injunction. This isn't going to look good on your arbitration. Rhobite 01:19, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

---