Talk page archives |
---|
User:Rhobite |
Archive 1 |
Archive 2 |
Archive 3 |
Archive 4 |
Archive 5 |
Archive 6 |
Archive 7 |
Archive 8 |
Archive 9 |
Current |
Thanks. Move looks very useful. Wish I'd been aware of it sooner. Cheers. Laurel Bush 14:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC).
Rhobite: You made an edit to Libertarian theory which appeared to endorse the revert made by User:Chuck F. This surprised me as I know you're familiar with him. There is no justification for his blanket deletion of those paragraphs. I have shown that his notion, that the term "libertarian capitalism" was invented by Wikipedians/socialists, is wrong (see Libertarian Capitalism versus Libertarian Socialism by Brian Micklethwait & Terry Liddle, 1983, or Nozick's Argument for Libertarian Capitalism by William Terry, 1998 - none of those writers are socialists, indeed they appear to be libertarian capitalists, and the term clearly pre-dates Wikipedia). 195.92.67.76 15:22, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I wrote the entire article, and the material to which you refer was an attempt at compromise with the ideologues (on both sides) who have wasted a great deal of other people's time on this and other pages. Poorly-written, useless, unnecessary, self-referential...all arguable and I defer. Nonsense, however, seems inappropriate (incorrect and nonsensical are not synonyms) and, further, inflammatory. icut4u
Please could you deal with the 3RR breaches of Mrfunkygenius/24.184.199.202 on Medical_analysis_of_circumcision. Thanks. - Robert the Bruce 00:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've always thought of consensus as a feeling shared by most or all participants that a group has reached a decision. This requires participants to have the ability to disagree with the decision, but abide by it. Consensus isn't a specific ratio, nor is it unanimous. On Wikipedia, those who aren't willing to respect consensus eventually leave or get banned. Committed POV pushers, in my opinion, should be quickly banned. About this conversation, it's interesting but I don't know if it has a purpose. Fear has nothing to do with it. Rhobite 03:32, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
I removed similar comments a few days ago, and I see the see-also wasn't there on the 1st, so I think it hasn't been around too long, luckily. Good catch though! --fvw* 06:10, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
Yes I do mean to say that. Please do not revert my edits while I am actively expanding upon them. The owners of QuakeAID once owned a service called YOUVEGOTPOST which falsely claimed to offer 1 terrabyte of email, in competition with Google's own GMAIL. The fact that this person has issued frivolous lawsuits in the past, which have all been thrown out of court by the way, is no reason not to present the information on Wikipedia. If you feel something is POV please bring it to the attention of the talk page for discussion, we should not succumb to fear mongering tactics. GRider\talk 23:32, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Good work on VfD. Your edit was the most important one that could have been done at the time. While more can be done at such a time, you deserve applause (even tho it's probably easier lately to find one's way), since (i think) there is no documentation for the process.
But if you're curious, lk to diffs over two days and note whether
is the right-hand ed-summary. (If not, note the left ed-summary, and find, via the page history, the diff that compares those two versions; at this point i can't give you a URL valid for the long term, w/o adding to clutter of the history.)
Two points need comment:
I mention all this mostly to allay any anxiety you had over the boldness on one hand or the sufficiency on the other of your maint contrib. However, IMO your initiative, caution, & results suggest that your going further in the future, if you chose, would only be a benefit to our collegial efforts -- perhaps even if you didn't have the two hints above.
You posted on my user page: I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours because you reverted an article more than three times in 24 hours. The article is Medical analysis of circumcision, and the applicable rule is Wikipedia:Three revert rule. In the future, please remember that you can be blocked from editing for violating the three revert rule. This is done to prevent revert wars. Rhobite 01:23, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC) I have sonce responded:
I require you to apply a srike-through to your comment on my user page and add a suitable apology. - Robert the Bruce 04:55, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Rhobite, I appreciate you trying to accomplish a NPOV, but if you're not going to make qualified edits, please stay out. Thats not your job either.
sure ok. Ollieplatt 06:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
how so? Ollieplatt 06:59, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A certain someone reverted sexual intercourse three times and made some rather strong statements about the motivations of some of the contributers on talk:sexual intercourse.Ŭalabio 02:14, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
You are notified of the Request for comment on your misuse of administrator blocking
I don't think it was vandalism, though I can definitely say that user needs to work on playing nicely. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Rhobite, you did the wrong thing and got caught out. Misusing your admin powers does little to maintain confidence in Wikipedia. I accept your apology and encourage you to read Wikipedia policies before acting. These include:
Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia:Vandalism Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
The RfC establishes that while my edits were not popular necessarily, they did not in any way justify blocking. You have threatened others with (and maybe have actually blocked) blocking over similar situations where you don't like their edits. It is clear this is an abuse of your power. I accept your apology but will be reviewing your administrative actions to ensure you do not repeat your error.
Ollieplatt 19:10, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi...you've added a couple of "stupid articles are bad" things on my Talk page...it seems as though something odd has happened, because I added the delete tag to those articles. Don't wanna get a bad repuation, y'know! --Coolsi 00:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Rhobite, please explain how you can give an apology and then assert you did not err. Ollieplatt 03:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that uber quick revert while I was reporting a vandalism. It took me the better part of the day to track all that information. Imagine my surprise when I hit the click and saw: Boobs. Now, boobs has an interesting etymology. In all references, it is vernacular and slur. In the plural, it refers to the globular modules on a woman's upper torso. In the singular, a boob can be a rube, a dolt, or a person in a hissy (vernacular for insisting on carrying on when something is better left to drop). However, there can be more than one boob, and the plural is: boobyheads. Anyway, thanks for reverting my boobs. --allie 21:47, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) (littlebuddha, or in this case, littlebooba)
Hi,
Thanks -- it's been a pleasure "working with you," and I too hope we can get the football article featured.
I actually have been contributing a little more widely than just the football, you can browse around my history if you like. I know about registration, and I even did register a username at some point, I guess I just haven't been using it. I don't think I even remember my password any more, and I know I can get it again (or get a new one) but I suppose I never bothered doing that and hence have been posting anonymously. Well, we'll see ... if I continue to contribute to Wikipedia maybe I'll start using my username, or maybe you can tell me whether or why it's really advisable.
ok then, I guess that's it for now. Well, thanks again, and it's been nice collaborating over the internets...
All the Best,
--24.103.207.38 22:19, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Go Colts!
I finf your name offensive. Please change it. Anilingus 06:44, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I find computer games very offensive. Please change your name. Anilingus 06:49, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Radicalsubversiv and Rhobite are the same user. Interesting. Ollieplatt
I'd rather them deny first before revealing all Robert. Ollieplatt 07:49, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've filed an arbitration request against Everyking. Please comment; brickbats for my foolhardiness are more than welcome. Johnleemk | Talk 07:54, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I refer you to arbitration request against Radicalsubversiv and sockpuppets. Ollieplatt 11:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Did you mean to write the info about Olliplatt on the Libertas page? Are you claiming that they are the same person? RickK 23:47, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
RadicalSubversiv didn't mention this in his statement. You know that I am a (gasp) newbie. There was a comment on 12 Jan by User:Schissel regarding "Further rv of an entry that no longer exists. Odd," I have no idea what that means; I just try to edit that page so it doesn't sound like a rap sheet & maintain some clarity. Please review for yourself to see if it is relevant. Best Regards from the (gasp) newbie, --allie 02:01, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
While you're reviewing, take a look at 130blahblah's history. He has 5 credits: 4 to Hillary and one to some civil war battle. His first two edits on Clinton are benign. Not so the last two. I don't know what a sockpuppet is. This doesn't look squeaky clean to me. I used to teach eighth graders. I have the tenacity of a Rottweiler. --allie 02:48, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Heya, the block message and block duration seem to be contradictory on your cheesedreams sockpuppet blocks: According to the block log, you've only blocked them for 24 hours. --fvw* 02:30, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
that was a totally disgusting, insidious manouver. i am terribly sorry you have to deal with such a low level of behaviour, and that anyone would cut and paste a comment to manipulate it in such outlandish fashion. i joined wikipedia for the scholarship and in return i've been rewared by meeting some of the most incredibly talented people who have motivated me to do better work. yours is astounding. speaking of which, your user page is all screwed up again. best regards, --allie 04:51, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hey, you endorsed the RfC on Everyking, and you probably know it's gone to arbitration. Some of us feel that the proposed decision against Everyking is insufficient and too weak for a user who has abused Wikipedia so badly. I hope you can weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking/Proposed decision having read the proposed decision and discussion and share your opinion with us, whether it's that the decision is too strong, just right, or too weak. Johnleemk | Talk 06:11, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, how do you change the spelling on the main title?
How do you delete an entry after changing the name by recreating it?
All the links for short selling stocks were redirected.
The definition you are redirecting to is not the same word. It does not have the correct meaning.
I am moving it back. GT
The short page does not duplicate anything. Look at what is linked to short and what is linked to short selling. They are not the same.
Besides the short selling page is screwed up in content.
It is not the same topic. Short selling is about borrowing stocks. Short is what we are in the futures market. We do not borrow anything, See the dissuasion under short selling. Look at what is linked to each word.
Short selling is too restrictive. It is not the same thing.
That is the point!!! GT
On the other stuff I was in the middle of moving things over to new titles when you came in the middle and redirected back to the page I left behind. GT
The previous definition of short selling is out and out wrong. The definition should be universal and neutral. What you have there is a load of mis-information. It is misleading and untrue. It only applies to one small highly regulated use. Maybe you should change the name to something like “short selling (stocks only),” because it sure does not apply to real estate or normal businesses.
The current page says “In order to sell something short, one must borrow it from someone else.” Bill Gates did not have to borrow something from someone else, and he was selling short. How do you explain that?
I can sell 5,000 bushels of November Corn, I do not have to borrow anything. How can this page be true?
When Bill Gates sold an operating system he “did not have,” to IBM. Gates was selling short. He sold something before he bought it. He did not adhere to all these things this writer says. Short selling futures, real estate, and fungible property is a part of the Speculation business and it does not fit the current limited description used under this heading for selling short. GT
In order to balance the non-universal explanation I will explain shorting futures as it is mis-explained above. GT
Traders who trade spreads do not hope that prices fall. They may in fact own actuals in greater number than the short position. As when a rancher pre-sells part of his herd by shorting futures. Spread traders may be depending on their shorts to continue going up, just at a slower rate than the long side of the spread. The short side may be just to minimize drawdowns, reduce margin requirements and increase return on margin. It may not be expected to move at all, which is quite common. GT
Why is this one sentance?
In finance, short selling is selling something that one does not (yet) own. In futures, short implies an obligation to deliver something before it is bought.
The definition “something that one does not (yet) own.” Does not apply to futures. You may already own it. It is a separate explanation so it should be put on a separate line. If you are an expert in finance, I suggest that you clean up your act. If your have expertise in futures, than you can see the absurdity of the connection. It is too limited for U.S. futures markets, as they exist today.
We don’t trade in ownership as much as we trade "obligations," to deliver or receive. These agreements are called contracts. GT
Funny thing when I wrote the “Trend,” article I hesitated to put in bullets. Someone else came in later to add bullets to make it look like I thought it should.
“In finance, short selling is selling something that one does not (yet) own. In futures, short implies an obligation to deliver something before it is bought.”
The above sentence made by you is incorrect! See above response on this page. I am going to put the bullets back if you do not fix it. GT
Removing the bullets combined two lines of different thought making them appear as one. How else are you planning to separate the two without using the bullets that you removed? GT
Looks great!! Thanks GT
I learn by seeing. There are 35 links to margin a disambiguation page. Why don’t the same rules apply to them?
You wrote on _ (cur) (last) 13:00, 25 Jan 2005 Rhobite (don't link to disambig pages)
_ (cur) (last) 02:27, 27 Jan 2005 -oo0(GoldTrader)0oo- (_See also - How can you spread by "short selling stocks?")
_ (cur) (last) 13:00, 25 Jan 2005 Rhobite (don't link to disambig pages) GT
All this time I thought the only risk was that traders would get a margin call?
Why are two of the four limited to “stock or other index prices,” are these the only things that have what you are calling "market risk?"
What about the risk that the relationship between two contracts might change?
Or carrying charges, or 911, or just the risk that a trendline will break etc.
If you are redirecting “Risk (Futures)” here then you have to include “futures,” in the limited descriptions. GT
Capital, Loss and Risk mean a different thing to futures traders than they do to schoolchildren. For this reason they deserve a separate explanation. GT
What about loss? You were the one who said not to link to Disambiguation pages!!
“You say that all these terms have different, specific meanings with respect to futures, but this isn't true. The concept of capital, for instance, is no different whether we're talking about stocks, futures, private equity, or anything else. Rhobite 04:12, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)”
Almost anything can be an asset and used as capital. Stock certificates, patents, copyrights, even toxic waste dumps in New Jersey, can be used as capital. However, I don’t expect that they can be used as margin in their current form by organized futures exchanges. In other words, unless it is in a specific (highly liquid) form, “the general concept of capital,” may not be used to Speculate in the futures markets.
The concept of capital in stocks is not the same as futures. This is the basic misconception often held by stock people. The stock traders concept does not include unrealized gains. When you buy a stock you cannot spend it until it is sold. You may borrow against it, pay interest on your own gains if you like, but you cannot spend it until it is sold. The concept of capital in futures does not recognize fantasy paper like stocks as capital. Stock certificates are not acceptable as futures margin as far as I know. Futures gains are gains and can be spent instantly to buy anything that you want, whenever you want it. We cannot say cash is required for futures margin, as certain interest earning securities as well as unrealized gains may also be acceptable. GT
Driving a General Motors streetcar may have a lot in common with driving a formula one single seater. Similarly owning the common stock of General Motors may be similar to holding a Soybean futures contract. I would not suggest however, that a driver who may still be alive after driving a Chevy on the limit try to hold a Formula One car on the limit without further training. Similarly, a common investor should not try to apply stock market terms often used to fleece the public, to precise terms used by professionals who make a living in the futures markets.
The terms “acceleration,” “cornering,” “top end,” may have similar meanings to a common streetcar, and a Formula One racer, but they can mean a great deal of difference to drivers of these cars at the limit.
Both acceleration and breaking are forms of acceleration, without emphasizing the distinction you may get opposite results. There is no sense in lumping everything together; the whole point of all of this leads to “precise distinction.” How are they NOT the same. GT
Thanks!
just noticed you reported someone vandilizing wikipedia recently just telling you that this is A NETWORK IP (for a school!) so i can't do much about it --(unsigned)
Censoring documentable and notable information is vandalism. It is always vandalism to censor material you don't like, rather than documenting a particular point of view. Launching a "rule of three" revert war - where numerically superior editors try and force their point of view is vandalism, because it rests on ignoring POV and simply counting noses. I'm going to RFC this one, since after putting up with their first round of infantile tirades, it's pretty clear they aren't, for whatever reason, in any mood to be reasonable about this one. There isn't moral equivalence over what to say, but two editors trying to remove information they don't like. Stirling Newberry 17:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hey. Sorry for jumping the gun with the cut and paste move from "Legal issues of cannabis" to "cannabis (law)". Personally, I don't mind if it keeps the first name and I see your point. Anyway, my bad for acting impulsively. --Howrealisreal 04:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hi, checking some evidence I posted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce/Evidence, I found that I couldn't find any block log information as far back as September 11/12 when I think Robert Brookes was blocked. I did find your statement on User talk:Friends of Robert that "Check your facts. Robert was not banned, he was blocked for 24 hours" ([2]). I can't find any other direct reference to the blocking.
Was it you who blocked Robert, or someone else? If someone else, do you happen to recall who that was? I know it was a long time ago so I don't seriously expect you to remember who it was, but as I think this information may be relevant and we can't just look at the block log I am reduced to this kind of request. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't think I'm getting anywhere. Friends of Robert didn't appear until about 27 hours after Robert Brookes' last edit, so he could have awaited the end of the block and then started up. I'm guessing that his IP would have been blocked so he didn't have much choice unless he went to a different IP or a cybercafe or library. He probably didn't do anything really wrong, just attempt to pretend he was someone else. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I just reverted National League Championship Series because user 209.136.11.20 inserted a line for the 2005 NLCS on Monday (said Alex Gonzalez was the MVP as the Florida Marlins won the series). I noticed that you had issued this non-registered user a vandalism warning earlier, on Michael Moore, and he has another one as well. Is there a way of blocking the domain? Or is that still not necessary? CharlieZeb 14:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thankyou for the kind words on my user-talk page. I am about to write a speech at User talk:Rhobite/Speech of thanks to show my gratitude to you for making me feel so welcome. Please check there ina bout 5 minutes.--212.100.250.213 OK. It's finished now. You can look.--212.100.250.213 09:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for having the courage I lacked, to remove "The Rugrats Movie" from this entry! --Wetman 03:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As you did with Windows XP, would you be willing to team up with me to remove the POV language in the Internet Explorer article? We managed to get the XP article from a highly POV screed to an NPOV article and ultimately (with a lot of help from others like jguk) to featured article status. Interested? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Just a quick "thank you" for voting me for admin. Now all I've got to do is find out how to use these worrying new powers... Grutness|hello? 05:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry about the mistake on my part. I was researching and by mistake I loaded a research article into the Wiki article. I wish there was a quick way to un-do the error with a keystroke or two but it seems that it nees to go through the VFD process Hopefully speedy. I guess this will make me more careful in the future ;-) hydnjo talk 06:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Would you care to provide me a link to the vfd discussion that apparently took place a week ago? I'd like to review it. Thank you. Zantastik 18:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm rather surprised at the reversion you did (17 Feb 2005) on "open standards". I considered that material to be important clarification of reality of the use of the term.
I wasn't sure what to do with those, so I just made a note. For the future, what is the proper action to take with a forged signature? Is there policy/guidelines on this somewhere? – flamurai (t) 07:55, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
marijuana refers to both plant cannabis sativa and drug cannabis (drug). Please leave the redirection as it. If you have an issue with this direct it to either Talk:marijuana or Talk:Cannabis. The decision was made to split cannabis in 2, and it is completely wrong to redirect marijuana to only half the article. That is why there is a disambiguation page. Or do you think marijuana isn't a plant. --SqueakBox 15:19, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
I do not believe in retracting words once they've been said...personal attack or not. I will take your comment into consideration and try to contain my ever-increasing frustration with this bug. You would be vexed too if you were forced to deal with Instantnood after a day or two. —ExplorerCDT 21:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Heads up, he's at it again... see here. Zerbey 21:54, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I would like to get your taken photos in high resolution to use as wallpaper. Thanks. http://jimmysquid.com/
Hi, you're an admin. I was looking at this page last week, and now it's disappeared. It couldn't have been on VfD: it was very long and had lots of info. Reply here please.--62.253.64.17 08:43, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have substantially cleaned up the Truelove Eyre article based on the references that User:DragonflySixtyseven found, and have removed the spurious claims about the Eyre Empire etc. I am changing my vote to keep: can I persuade you to do the same? Thanks! GeorgeStepanek\talk 01:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand how the Image:The City Of Rome.png couldn't be public domain. True, I got it from Encarta, but I thought all pictures on Encarta were public domain because they are not copyrighted.→ JarlaxleArtemis 03:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Good catch. --AStanhope 06:20, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I just wrote a calmer response after the bitchy response here. :) — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 00:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting my user Page. I think it's (a) amazing that someone would bother to deface my home page (b) amazing that someone else would bother to correct it and (c) anyone even reads my user page in the first place!! :-D
Thanks Again. SeanO 21:53, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Rhobite. I didn't know you were a photographer, but that's great. Maybe you won't be inclined to, given your distaste for the picture, but perhaps you could clean Autofellatio.jpg up a bit to make it look nicer (color balance etc.) Just a though. Cheers, TIMBO (T A L K) 08:03, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you were involved in blocking User:Osmanoglou and his socks. I'd be grateful if you could consider contributing what you know to this ongoing case brought by his main victim, User:Tabib against suspected Osmanoglou socks for what looks like pretty extreme harassment. I've recorded some items from the blocking log but the case may benefit from information I may have missed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:05, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi, just so you know... I have just listed Melanie Phillips for protection, after our joint continuous reverting. Thanks, Smoddy (tgec) 17:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hello? Where can I draw attention to the fact that the three-revert rule has let to the creation of revert possies like the Jfdwolff, Jayjg and Josh Cherry revert possy currently preventing progress on the Nazarene page? sorry if this is the wrong place to post please just move my comment to the right place. All I want to do is be sure there is some quality control going on to allow me to sit back and enjoy reading again. Thank you. 193.63.146.184 19:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you and sorry again.193.63.146.184 14:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I'm glad to see you have started User:Rhobite/SamuraiClinton articles. I had thought to do something similar. These things really need a either LOT of TLC or else some tough love. older≠wiser 02:40, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
User:Rhobite/SamuraiClinton articles and User:Android79/SC: There's duplication of tracking effort here. The two of you should communicate. Uncle G 15:30, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I disgusted with the drawing, Jimbo himself removed the old drawing. Now I'm a father and I don't my children looking at that smut. However I'll look at the talk page (I won't break the 3-rr at least for now..)--198 05:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I do think that 198 should be blocked if he actually breaks a rule. I made that remark before he agreed to adhere to the three revert rule. - so all he's saying is that he won't break the 3RR rule. Big whoop. It's still vandalism, violation of consensus, and disruption. And how was I possbly supposed to have found this discussion? There's nothing at the autofellation Talk page or 198's page to indicate that this "dialogue" was occuring. RickK 07:36, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page was slated for deletion with a 3-2 majority in favor of deletion. Why was this not carried out? Did you feel that there wasn't an overwhelming majority to delete this, Rhobite? -- Riffsyphon1024 19:29, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, a fine article - and an excellent start. hydnjo talk 03:55, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My citation request was actually for you or someone to find a citation that actually disputes the accuracy of the raw/leaked exit polls as not being raw unadjusted exit poll data? I believe there are no such citations, Mitofsky and other damage control folks have just focused on claiming that weighting exit polls is a reasonable thing to do, rather than try to dispute the accuracy of the data itself. Everything else in the article is indeed seperately disputed, and you provided valid citations for many things but now it's rather overkill don't you think? Friedman's analysis criticisms of Mitofsky's internal report etc should be included if you are going to cite Mitofsky and NEP that much? Anyway, sorry I wasn't specific enough citation wise (before I edited the article it had used a weasle word to describe the leaked/raw exit poll data which I still think was inaccurate given that no one is actually disputing the fact that the leaked data is unadjusted exit poll raw data). I also think stating in the article that there was a 5.5 or greater than 5 percent discrpepancy between the unadjusted exit poll and election result is a valid thing to say based on the evidence, such a statement does not presume fraud? Why did you change that part too? zen master T 02:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hey there. I've just gone through and re-wiki'd the year part of the dates at Terri Schiavo. Just so you know the whole date, including the year, needs to be wikified in order to allow users to choose from all of the possible date formats, such as 2001-01-15. I agree that the year, when not part of a date, shouldn't be overwiki'd, just that it has to be within dates. Cheers. violet/riga (t) 21:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Rhobite
I do take yr point about people editing the article. However, my point remains: it is inappropriate to suggest that anyone can have access to all human knowledge. It is an absurd goal, methinks. Hence, my persistence.
Might it be that the speed at which my contributions are edited may say more about the 'need' to cling to Wiki's quoted goal?
Tony (WTD)
I don't think you will be successful. Even some people who voted to delete Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome agreed that it should be linked to from masturbation. See the discussion page for Traumatic masturbatory syndrome. Doug22123 02:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I already have followed the Arbcom steps (User:JarlaxleArtemis/Arbcom statement). → JarlaxleArtemis 05:17, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Template:iran You protected the Safavids_article??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 I find it correct but I want to enter the list of Persian dynasties (see the right side) in this article. this list is a overlook about the total Histoy of Iran, and all the persian dynasties-articles contain it. And I find it necessary in this article. I asked your turkish friend (tabib-user) to do it. what he didnt answer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! can you insert it instead of by me???? thank you
Just wanted you to know that I saw the RFC on Northwest you placed. I took a look and basically agree with you. Have placed a comment on the NW Talk page. If you need more backup let me know. I actually cover airlines and aviation policy among other things so one thing I have is facts on these suckers. It is true that Midway has an older fleet, but I don't really consider it in the same class as the other major "legacy" airlines. Northwest is #2 after Midway. Katefan0 21:25, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Hi there! Regarding your comments on VfD crusading, you may want to count the sheer number of merge-votes I've been doing lately. Radiant_* 18:57, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Hello Rhobite. Can you protect shah Ismail I. It is better wenn you blocked the user 83.196.6.103 or rather 83.196.26.146 (they are the same user) wenn he do absordity again in this article thank you (too for previously) :-}
I did move it Irish Hermit 01:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
He moved Massachusetts to The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Without moving the Talk page, by the way. I consider this move vandalism and I reverted it, and left a note on User_talk:IrishHermit. I think I reverted it successfully, I'd appreciate it if you eyeballed the results and made sure I didn't screw up. I left The Commonwealth of Massachusetts in place as a redirect to Massachusetts. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You're right, it's not generally in the spirit of Wikipedia.
Please don't send me any more messages about school VfD's. Thank you. Rhobite 21:20, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about your citing the 'common names' guideline to argue for Flag of Massachusetts and Seal of Massachusetts. "Flag of Massachusetts" gets less than 1,400 hits, while "Massachusetts State Flag" gets almost 8,000. Similarly, "Seal of Massachusetts" gets only 256 hits, while "Seal of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts" gets almost 6,000. The only argument I see for the simple "Flag of statename" and "Seal of statename" names is that those seem to be consistent with other state's flag/seal article names, but since I don't see any specification of that as a standard at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities, I'm not sure that's a solid argument. Niteowlneils 02:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)