User talk:RodentofDeath

time offset test

posted at 12:30am on tuesday 8/7/2007 RodentofDeath 16:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, RodentofDeath, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV), and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Addhoc 23:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angeles City

Could I suggest that editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

Remain polite per WP:Civility.
Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.
Use {{fact}} and {{check}} tags to highlight sections that either lack sources or have questionable sources.
Revert only when necessary.

Thanks! Addhoc 23:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Killing fields of angeles hoax

With regards to your recent actions, it would be appreciated if you would not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as it appears you did with Killing fields of angeles hoax. The information boxes are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them without a valid reason is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. / edgarde 16:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preda

If someone has been accused of a crime and later all the charges were dismissed, it isn't acceptable to merely say they were charged or accused, we must give balanced coverage in accordance with our policies on neutrality and living persons. Addhoc 09:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angeles City

Your recent edits have introduced original research and neutrality concerns, accordingly I have reverted them. I'm not saying the current version is perfect, however changes of this nature require consensus. Also, describing other good faith editors as vandals is obviously uncivil. Addhoc 11:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Poppy2828 13:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your comments on [1] and [2]. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. / edgarde 21:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RodentofDeath Insults

can u please tell me where i can complain about people making unfounded abuse claims?RodentofDeath 02:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corps of Administrators, but consider using the dispute resolution process first. Good luck. / edgarde 03:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i was joking :P RodentofDeath 04:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider WP:SARCASM. Humor may be misinterpreted by readers. / edgarde 04:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring talk page comments

Sorry to pile on the Talk page warnings here, but I just wanted to let you know refactoring other editors' Talk page comments (as you did here[3]) is generally a bad idea, and contrary to Wikipedia accepted practice. Even if more than half your comments were not variations of "wrong" and "I disagree", it would still not be considered helpful.

As a rule, don't edit others' comments..

I'm not using the standard User warning template for this because technically that's a vandalism warning, and obviously your intentions were good. But it makes the original comments harder to read in context, annoys the other editor (in this case, in an already contentious discussion), and is just generally a bad idea. / edgarde 01:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i thought it was better than copying each sentence she said (thus its in the article twice) and then replying to it. if you wish to revert its ok and then i can just copy what i have done into the discussion again. or we can go back and copy her original post from the archive and put it above it. i wasnt trying to silence her or alter her statement. it just seemed the easiest way to do it since practically every sentence was in error. RodentofDeath 02:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User:RodentofDeath. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. edgarde 13:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what other editor? who am i attacking? i never mentioned anyone with anything to do with wikipedia. RodentofDeath 23:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 2007

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Angeles City. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Specious reasoning aside, it should be clear by now that repeated blanking of this section is not justified. [4] / edgarde 02:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what blanking? i removed a sentence that was clearly in conflict with a different sentence in the same article. you apparently have personal issues with me that are clouding your judgement. RodentofDeath 02:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a well-sourced sentence that is not in contraction with the culinary sentence. This does not seem like a serious argument; it seems like a specious rationale to edit war. / edgarde 02:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

may i remind you that it is only YOUR OPINION that it is well sourced. as discussed before, citations such as the juvida citation have serious errors. in order for the "75% of the prostitutes in angeles are children" statement to be correct then she would need to consider everyone under the age of 35 a child. RodentofDeath 03:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the only person who believes this. There are five (5) reliable sources on this article. You deleted them all. You are continuing an edit war, using the flimiest imaginable excuses. Please stop. / edgarde 03:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you have now reverted an edit that would cover all points of view in this discussion to one that conflicts with other parts of this same article. i would suggest that you stop your revert war as it is unproductive to the article and you have already shown that your knowledge and research of angeles is very limited. yes, there are 5 sources. most even conflict with eachother. if you believe that 75% of the prostitutes in angeles are children then yes, i guess they are reliable!!! RodentofDeath 03:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I reverted an edit that was misleading (per the references). Introducing a biased interpretation does not cover all points of view. Your repetition of specious arguments suggests the misleading nature of this edit may have been deliberate. / edgarde 03:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the edit states angeles has prostitutes. also cities of this size have prostitutes. are you saying that this information is incorrect? how can something as obvious as this statement is be misleading? RodentofDeath 03:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to comment in Talk:Angeles City

I'm sure you have plenty to say here. / edgarde 04:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2007

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Human trafficking in Angeles City. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Please discuss changes of this magnitude on the talk page first... thanks! Gscshoyru 13:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you are joking, right? read the references. it is NOT a problem. it has been discussed before on the human trafficking page. the law is posted there. sex tourism is NOT human trafficking. there is no evidence of child prostitution in angeles despite ONE PERSON's claims to the contrary. i am here in angeles. it isnt a problem. do some research instead of listening to this mentally ill lady editing the encyclopedia.

if you are going to REVERT then you better have a good reason other than my edits "do not appear to be constuctive" when in fact THEY ARE CORRECT!!!

You seem to be the only person arguing your side, and both of your refs have to do with the government's claims about it, which is hardly an outside observer without a stake in this. You can say that the government claims it, but you can't say that because it claims it, it is true. Gscshoyru 14:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, now you are really getting funny. you have an activist that receives compensation to for herself and her organization by making these outrageous claims and you are claiming she is the one that is correct and not the elected government??!!!

go back through the history. go back through the discussion. i am far from being the only person that claims this. you have one whining bitch that claims this and then she claims she is "attacked" when people insert correct information. look at her personal page. she claims she went up to a screaming child and tried pulling that child away from an adult... in all likelyhood the actual parent... resulting in her being stabbed by the person protecting their child from her kidnap attempt. she is completely nuts. she is racist. she thinks all men in angeles city that are white are pedophiles.

go back over her claims that were actually taken out. claims such as 150,000 prostitutes are in Angeles. this despite the population of Angeles being 280,000. she claims children are prostitutes in bars. her proof for this is 3 arrests in the last 25 years. interestingly enough two of the people she makes these claims about are still walking around town and WERE CLEARED OF ALL CHARGES.

you can back any side of the argument you like. i dont care. all i am interesdted in is displaying the facts and the facts are that there is NOT a problem here in Angeles. please read this http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008018256 and this http://www.petitiononline.com/44441212/petition.html before deciding what the facts are.

With regard to your comments on Human trafficking in Angeles City: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. relevant edit / edg ☺ ★ 17:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its not a personal attack. it is documented in the newspaper article i cited. thanks for your concern. RodentofDeath 03:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Human trafficking in Angeles City, you will be blocked from editing. Gscshoyru 17:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i didnt delete or blank out anything. i corrected incorrect information. i'll be checking now to see if you also gave the same warning to the person that actually did delete my corrected information. RodentofDeath 17:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Human trafficking in Angeles City. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Gscshoyru 18:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what is your problem?

why do you insist on replacing well documented information with information that even the philippine government knows is a hoax? susanbryce is a complete nut case. there is no truth to her stories what-so-ever. do some serious research into it before reverting and deleting the correct info. when a Senator from the Philippines tells someone to point out where this is happening and they cant its obvious the hoax has been exposed once again. the entire human trafficking in angeles article is a work of fiction.

as far as consensus, if you are still arguing that point i can tell you have not gone over the discussion page to actually see what the consensus is. the consensus is that susanbryce is a lunatic. the "problem" of human trafficking, pedophiles prowling the streets, children being sold by parents, etc. doesnt exist. RodentofDeath 18:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... it seems to me that have misunderstood the talk page, somewhat. It's more of an argument between two people than many against one. However, the fact that moderate person on the talk page has reverted your edits and the fact that you are not being WP:CIVIL and using personal attacks against other editors (i.e. calling her a lunatic) led me to believe you were a POV-pushing troll, which may be less true than I thought. However, I did a little bit of research and I still think you're somewhat in the wrong here. I suggest you shape up your attitude somewhat and be civil in order to make yourself believable, and have a reasoned discussion rather than the kind that you're having. If you do that, people will listen to you more, rather than disregarding you. believe it or not, shouting actually makes people ignore your message on wikipedia, it doesn't make people listen to it better. Ok? Oh, and please don't revert again, or you will be in violation of the 3RR, and will most likely end up blocked for 24 hours. Discuss nicely on the talk page rather than changing the actual page and your position will improve. Gscshoyru 18:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the advice but i find it a bit frustrating to be told to discuss it on the talk page by someone that doesnt do it themselves.RodentofDeath 18:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

she is actually a lunatic. i dont call people names. check her medical history. check her personal page. she is a former prostitute (i am guessing at the "former" part, actually) with serious delusions. if you find the time go back over the discussion pages and find anyone else that has any knowledge of angeles that supports her position. seriously, can you think of anyplace in this world that has 53% of its population in prostitution? she has thousands of girls serving hundreds of customers a week. thats hundreds of thousands of people at the very least going to prostitutes in one town. RodentofDeath 18:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is exactly why no one really listens to you. Your ideas may have merit, but if continue in this manner you will eventually end up blocked for personal attacks! Additionally, People on wiki tend to associate personal attacks with vandals, so to most people, you already have two counts against you. I won't give you a warning for personal attacks this time, but I will next time. Please keep a civil tongue in your head and people will listen to you. Otherwise, no one will. Gscshoyru 18:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually, i dont see. where is the personal attack? if someone is a former teacher or a former plumber is it a personal attack to call them that? if someone is a diabetic is it a personal attack to call them that? i'm not making stuff up. i'm stating her former occupation and an actual diagnosis she has received. RodentofDeath 19:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which I doubt is really true, and have no proof of. Nor do I want to see any. And besides, you're still making personal attacks, as the policy goes, "Comment on content, not on other contributors or people." The person who you've attacked has already noticed your comments here and is going through channels... please stay WP:CIVIL or face being banned. Gscshoyru 19:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

she is part of the content. read the citations i have given (before you deleted them). she should not be editing that article anyway, as pointed out before on the discussion page. whether you have doubts or not is irrelevant to me. i'm telling you facts and could really care less if you believe it. i'm not trying to insert it in an article where it needs to be well documented.

i find it interesting that you let her slander an entire city with obviously outrageous accusations yet i am not allowed to state her former occupation. dont you find that a bit ironic? RodentofDeath 00:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Because she has nothing to do with the article. Gscshoyru 01:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008018256

http://www.petitiononline.com/44441212/petition.html

not sure how you can say she has nothing to do with it..... RodentofDeath 02:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. A WP:COI

See, rather than calling her a lunatic, it might have been better simply to mention that there's a conflict of interest... And no matter what, calling her a lunatic has nothing to do with the article, even if she does. That's just preposterous. Gscshoyru 02:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

did the conflict of interest thing before. it was completely ignored. perhaps lunatic isnt the correct word. i think delusional would have been better in retrospect.

14,400 women and children raped or killed a day in a city with a population of 280,000. the entire female population is wiped out in 10 days.

150,000 prostitutes in one city (of only 280,000 people) servicing 100 customers a week. thats 15 MILLION customers a week. in one month that is more than the entire male population of the entire country.

if these arent delusions than i dont know what is. i wont even go into detail about her claims that everyone is out to get her.RodentofDeath 02:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, there you go again. You can explain the improbability of something without calling the person crazy, ok? I hate to do this, but...

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User talk:RodentofDeath. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gscshoyru 02:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok. now i am starting to catch on. even if something is true i cant say it. posting things that are false in articles is ok though. i think i got it now!!! RodentofDeath 02:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I give. It seems to be pointless to reason with you, you persist in your personal attacks and refuse to participate in WP:CIVIL discussion. Whatever. Though what you say may be true, unless you actually try to give your words some weight by not attacking other authors or wikipedia with them, then no one will listen to you. Gscshoyru 02:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

I have removed a large article from your userpage, because it was a copyright violation. And before we get into discussions such as show earlier on this page, it does not matter whether the article was true or false, it was still a copyrighted piece and cannot be used. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, but you changed my page to something that someone else apparently had a problem with.... RodentofDeath 03:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion at WP:ANI

WP:ANI#User:RodentofDeath resumes personal attacks.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

huh?

why is it no appropriate to list the lies i have taken out of web pages and also list a press release pertaining to a page i am currently working on?!! RodentofDeath 20:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from WP:USERNAME

You can use your user page to help you to use Wikipedia more effectively: to list "to do" information, works in progress, reminders, useful links, and so forth. It is also good for experimenting with markup (that is, as a personal sandbox).

Another common use is to let people know about your activities on Wikipedia, and your opinions about Wikipedia. So you might include current plans, a journal of recent activities on Wikipedia, and your (constructive) opinions on how certain Wikipedia articles or policies should be changed. RodentofDeath 04:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning. Do not reinstate the copyright violation to your user page; if you do so you will be blocked. Shell ^babelfish 04:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how is it a copyright violation? the article is a press release intended to be re-distributed. RodentofDeath 04:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the courtesy of at least not blanking the entire page. still dont understand that one.

here is more info on why i am able to use the coprighted material:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#What_is_fair_use.3F

Under certain conditions, you may copy a copyrighted work without a license from the original author. One of these limitations on the rights granted to the copyright holder is called "fair use." A more restricted version called fair dealing generally applies outside the United States.

Generally, fair use exceptions are ill-defined, and vary widely from country to country. What is fair use in one country may not be in another country.

Under U.S. copyright law, the primary things to consider when asking if something is fair use (set forth in Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107) are:[5]

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. The nature of the copyrighted work;

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Asking yourself these questions might help you determine if something is fair use:[citation needed]

1. Is it a for profit competitor or not? Is it for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research? Is the use transformative (of a different nature to the original publication)?

2. Is it a highly original creative work with lots of novel ideas or a relatively unoriginal work or listing of facts? Is the work published (to a non-restricted audience)? If not, fair use is much less likely.

3. How much of the original work are you copying? Are you copying more or less than the minimum required for your purpose? The more you exceed this minimum, the less likely the use is to be fair. Are you reducing the quality or originality, perhaps by using a reduced size version?

4. Does this use hurt or help the original author's ability to sell it? Did they intend to or were they trying to make the work widely republished (as with a press release)? Are you making it easy to find and buy the work if a viewer is interested in doing so? RodentofDeath 05:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would help if you read the entire page you're quoting. Items which can only be used under the fair-use provision of copyright law can only be used in the article space. Please see the policy on non-free content for more information on the specific criteria that you must meet to use any non-free text or media. Shell ^babelfish 06:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

very interesting. thanks for pointing that out. i never would have found that on my own. it seems i will need to take the time to summarize the article instead of quoting it directly since the article is very important to the project i am working on. i wouldnt want to forget any of its many points. RodentofDeath 06:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. You can also link to the full article from your userpage if that would help. Shell ^babelfish 13:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]