User talk:RWR8189

Welcome!

Hello, RWR8189, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --StuffOfInterest 12:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop blanking parts of pages

You can't go around blanking parts of pages which you do not like. There is no reason to delete an event if it is relevant. That's the only criteria Dr Debug 05:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

Thanks

Nice catch at NSA - you missed the vandal's "complete bullshit" edit, but I got it. Metarhyme 19:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist Surveillance Program

Thought you might like to know I created Terrorist surveillance program last week after Nareek's argument that the "Warrantless surveillance controversy" page was limited in scope to the controversy itself. My plan is to try to keep this new page limited to verifiable descriptions of the Program, and keep all discussion of the "controversy" at the other page. I'm sure once the others discover it they will try to skew it toward their POV. Any help you can give in expanding it and keeping an eye on it would be great.--WilliamThweatt 21:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing AfD notices

Hey -- please don't remove the AfD notice from a page while the debate is going on. (It's clear that the AfD debate on Democratic Underground will end up dismissing the nomination for being a pointless retaliation, but removing the tag is still disrupting Wikipedia process.) Mangojuice 17:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Help!

I am being attacked by Nescio with a punative RFC regarding Rationales to impeach George W. Bush, which I feel is unwarranted. Please go there right away and comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat. Thanks. Merecat 18:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• oh, and here you are again, I'm trying to ignore the coincidences, but the more I investigate this AFD mess, the more I run into you--205.188.117.6 00:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)

You are invited to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). All this is is ramblings/blog/rants about Bush. Not encyclopedic, should've been deleted long ago. Happy editing! Morton devonshire 20:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

*** Important - Your input requested ASAP ***

Please see this Wikipedia:Deletion review#Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush.

Merecat 00:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

URGENT! Your vote needed

Come vote here please to decide this important matter! i trust that you'll make the right decision--Rictonilpog 17:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

template:unsigned

in the future when copying the content of a template to an article or talk page, please make sure to close any errant html tags, such as </noinclude> otherwise it may add an article page to [[Category:Internal link templates]], ideally the {{subst:unsigned|username}} usage would be prefered, as anything such as the above category that may be contained inbetween the <noinclude> templates won't be copied as well, that is why copy/pasting categorized templates is discouraged, thank you--{anon iso − 8859 − 1janitor} 23:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• see also WP:WS--{anon iso − 8859 − 1janitor} 00:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers

I'm aware there is a debate as to whether the use of a spoiler template is suitable for Wikipedia. I would just like to draw your attention to it, as your edit to the Jimmy Smits spoils the story for any who have not seen it. You could say that its old news in the US, but the election result will not be shown in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland until Thursday and the UK for several weeks. --Mark83 19:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. You a WW fan? It was stupid of me to read the article anyway, the chances of reading something that would spoil the story were pretty high! Although in the back of my mind I always knew Santos was going to win. They would never have put Josh on the losing side. Also the first episode (the "three years later" intro was a bit of a give-away) — when Josh, Bartlet and co. are waiting for "The President" to get out of the car you can just see Josh beaming with pride. --Mark83 21:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually in the origional version Santos lost, when John Spencer died, they re-wrote the election episode--23:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're not interested in having this conversation I won't be offended, it's just I find this really interesting. I have several reasons for not believing Vinick was ever to win.

1. As I said I can't believe they'd put Josh on the losing side – too many viewers would feel like it was a betrayal.
2. Again, as I said, on the first episode of S7 where the new President arrives, Josh appears to be part of his staff and stands on the steps beaming with pride as the limo pulls up.
3. Jimmy Smits is given equal billing with Martin Sheen (WITH Jimmy Smits AND Martin Sheen) while Alan Alda is listed as an ordinary cast member.
4. The show followed Santos' journey to and through the campaign far more thoroughly. We saw Josh leave to run the campaign, the first faltering steps, how he raised his profile and eventually went on to challenge for the nomination. What did we see of Vinick? He told Josh he was running, his annoucment, then winning the nomination. Yes the story was that the Republicans had a consensus nominee but they could have written a story to raise Vinick's profile if they wanted to.
5. The producers invested far more in the Santos character, for example the rock star-esque montage at the start of The Mommy Problem (the campaign images to the music of "Jet Airliner"). Also they showed more Santos moments of brilliance, like the speech to the church.
6. While Vinick was always held up as an honest, honourable man, they associated him more with shady(ish) characters.

Just a few thoughts! Regards --Mark83 22:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

America, American

As you can read on Talk:American and Talk:America and their histories, the order of the first two entries on those disambiguation pages have changed order before and on occasion this results in intense discussion. So far, the U.S.-second position has prevailed. In my opinion it is not worth days of near-constant reverting for the U.S.-first position. -Acjelen 16:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Pitt deletion proposal

I haven't gone through all the edits in detail, but it seems that some anon came along and tried to vote in the closed AfD on William Rivers Pitt. Told he couldn't do that, he ineptly slapped an AfD tag on the current article. You turned it into a full AfD, although you used the wrong template. (The AfD notice on the article should disclose that this is a second nomination. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Renominations.)

In general, we should encourage newbies, and not descend on them with righteous anger every time they commit an infraction of the rules. In this instance, though, I think you carried this valid principle too far. The article isn't even arguably within the renomination criteria of the policy. By my quick count, the legitimate vote (excluding unsigned and anons) was 15-7 in favor of "Keep". Since then, Pitt has only become more notable because of his involvement in the disputed truthout story, which now makes up a significant chunk of the article.

For these reasons, the anon's renomination isn't far from being vandalism. Instead of taking your time to complete the nomination, with the result that several Wikipedians will have to take their time to revisit this issue to no real purpose, you would've been justified in just removing the spurious AfD tag, and sending the anon a polite note explaining that we don't keep revoting on things over and over again.

At this point, I suggest that you might reasonably withdraw the nomination. If you want, I'll take responsibility for the note to the anon (and I'll try to keep it polite!). The anon could still take the time to do a proper renomination, but perhaps the time he'd need to spend looking at the rules would convince him that the renom was merely disruptive and wouldn't accomplish anything. (Note to self: Suggest policy change prohibiting anon AfD nominations entirely.) JamesMLane t c 06:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of the word American

Hello, I made some changes a few moments ago to the article Use of the word American. Please look over them and see if you agree with them. The article I found when I got there was incredibly biased POV and original research, all trying to promote the disuse of American to refer to American citizens. Obviously, an encyclopedia is not a podium to promote social change but rather a reflection of reality and truth. Uris 12:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

3rr (false accusation)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I made edits on Democratic Underground on

14:45, 26 June 2006

01:00, 27 June 2006

10:54, 28 June 2006

I most certaintly did not violate the 3RR rule.

Thank you for being able to count.--RWR8189 16:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

FRiend, you are the one falsely accusing me of vioating WP policy. If anything, you owe me an apology and should be more careful before making accusations at fellow editors--RWR8189 16:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comment above, "Thank you for being able to count," is a violation of our policy against personal attacks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You have my most sincere apologies for criticizing your abilities to count. In the future please perfect these skills before accusing other editors of violating WP policy--RWR8189 16:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite, you accused him wrongly. Its that simple, nothing else needs to be said. RWR8189, people do make mistakes, and it appears Hipocrite has made one. There isnt anything to be gained by pressing him further, I have looked and you certainly did not violate the 3RR rule, and infact didnt exceed 1 revert a day. Neither of you should continue this squabble as there really isnt anything to gain. Rangeley 16:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I accused no one of anything. I notified him that if he continued to revert, he would be blocked. He then began engaging in personal attacks. This is not acceptable behavior. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI -- You can find Hipocrite over on my talk page accusing me of the same thing. It appears to be a technique Hipocrite commonly uses.

Atlant 16:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

RWR8189 is very carefull about the 3RR rule. For quite some time now RWR8189 has been reverting the disambiguation pages America and American back to the user's preferred way, but never more than 3 times a day. -Acjelen 17:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Outside view...please discuss changes on appropriate talk pages of articles, rather than edit warring. The number of reverts is important as that is policy, however, no one is "entitled" to 3 reverts daily as that is gaming the system. Discuss changes on appropriate talk pages to try and reach a concensus. Thanks.--MONGO 19:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Impeachment of George Bush

Saying that something is conservative is not being biased or "non-neutral." FOX news is "conservative" and many Bush supporters watch that channel. The poll results differ because of that reason, and that is why one should specify that FOX News is conservative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Reported_White_House_reaction Shouldn't you then also remove that "conservative"? --TheSun

Three revert warning

Thank you for your comment reminding of Wikipedia's three revert rule. As I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, I am, naturally, well aware of this rule and will certainly respect it, so I won't require any further warnings from you on the matter. Take care, Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem at all.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey there

So, the category on Jewish Politicians....is it based on religon or ethnic background. If it is based on religion then you are totally in the right. However, if it is more an ethnic background issue then the category should stay. What do you think?

Hey, on Debatus

I'm sorry. I thought that I was doing what had been suggested to me, which was to request that an "external link" be made on the discussion page. Indeed, I am trying to encourage someone else to make an "external link" to my site, so I can understand where you are coming from in blocking this. But, please, understand that I'm at an impasse here because I believe very strongly that Debatus would be held very highly among Wikipedia users as an enhancement to many existing controversial topics. Please, take an honest look at Debatus and tell me what you think in this regard. If you believe what I'm saying, is there any way to proceed under Wikipedia rules to "market" the idea to Wikipedia users? How can I talk with someone else at Wikipedia about somekind of an arrangement in this regard? Thanks for reading this, and I'm sorry that I've bee apparently breaking Wikipedia rules.Loudsirens 23:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Real Clear Politics - Do not Vandalize again

You arbitrarily removed sourced information because you did not agree with it, obviously because, judging by your post history and Reagan's picture, you're a right-wing conservative. Real Clear Politics is run by conservative columnists John McIntyre, Jed Babbin and Tom Bevan.

BLP

I believe you have misunderstood BLP. I suggest that you not break the 3rr under the BLP contingency, and instead seek unbiased outside editors to review the situation. Note bolding. JBKramer 21:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Chad Castagana edits

Hi CP and RW,

You guys delelted a TON of sourced, cited, documented content.

'too long' as RW argued is nothing more than an opinion, (and not a very valid one as there are articles 5X-10X as long as this) and not a valid reason to delete content that meets WP, that CptK spent probably hours researching and writing. It was ALL sourced too. I hope you will add much of this back in RW.

All the claims were cited in the earlier version. You (both) took out the citing with your edits. 90% of it can be sourced to the one Daily News article. If you are demanding individual cites, please add links to this article, as it documents almost all of them.

Free Republic is a RS for something about FR, if it is a claim not being disputed. It's not. It can stay.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk • contribs) . - 20:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Killian docs

Hi, I opened an RFC about the use of blogs. Just FYI. Kaisershatner 16:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

SpeakOut page

Hi, just want to make sure I do this right, what would qualify as a correct citation for our recognition items? SpeakOut I'm in the process of maknig it a proper wikipedia article and adding more relevant content and references, perhaps you could give some advice? --GavinZac 19:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Political Bias

Please do not let your political bias influence your editorial judgment. AfD should not be used to circumvent the normal NPOV rules. IrnBru001 21:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I love Schaumburg!

I haven't been there for years but I used to travel to Chicago on business and stay in Schaumburg. I had more luck with women in that town than I've ever had anywhere else. For some reason those mid-western women loved me; and I, them! (sigh) Coincidentally, someone from South Florida (where I'm from) whom I'm quite fond of moved to Lombard (or close to it). I also love the upper-middle class Chicago suburbia portrayed in just about every John Hughes movie (e.g. Uncle Buck, Home Alone, Ferris Beuller, Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, etc.) Ah yes...Schaumburg.  :-) Lawyer2b 05:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"LAME" edit war

Look, I don't see the point in listing the "cat owner" debate as humorous, except as an insult against those who hold one of the positions. You are not supposed to insult other Wikipedians. David Olivier 19:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Free Republic

Please be advised that FAAFA has withdrawn from mediation. As Jossi anticipated, both FAAFA and BenBurch have refused to engage and reserve the right to attack the article after we are done with it. In order to get you completely on board, I've removed the Robinson quotes. Please be prepared for a revert war. -- BryanFromPalatine 13:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi RW! I added some complimentary stuff on FR - See talk. ( I just wrote the last paragraph) Maybe you can find some RS V sources for the FR letter writing and gift campaigns for the troops, and other 'activities'? Didn't a bunch of Freepers attend the 04 innaguration and have their own event? I'm surprised at your AfD vote! Cheers! - F.A.A.F.A. 22:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Darn you RW! :-) You got my Santorumloser pic deleted! I was about to offer it to you for you to put on your userpage too! ;-) - F.A.A.F.A. 22:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

TrekBBS

Thank you for your opinions in the TrekBBS AFD. I do not agree with the closing admin's decision and have listed this now under Deletion Review. As you had participated in the AFD, I wished to inform you this in case you wished to voice your opinion on this --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 17:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Chuck E. Chaos

You said "Utter failure of WP:BIO, with 40 unique Google hits this person is just not notable. It doesn't matter if he is more well known than other non-notable persons, the fact stands that he is not notable."

With respect - he IS notable!! Are you ignoring the unique nature of Australian wrestling as well? I'm sorry, but I completely disagree and I would like an exaplanation as exactly how he failed when;

1. He is one of only three Australian wrestlers to participate in a pay per view event EVER!
2. He is the only wrestler in Australia to have broken another wrestler's back (not exactly a positive - but notable nevertheless!)
3. Australian wrestlers would KILL to have 35 to 40 hits on a search engine!
4. And saying he is not notable means that the whole Australian indy scene shouldn't be on Wikipedia! Are you serious? WP:IAR applies in this case.

And did you even see the updated article? CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 11:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If there are not verifiable and reliable sources showing the notability of the subject, as seems to be the case here, then the article should not exist. WP:BIO says: Third-party verification from a non-trivial publication outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized—meeting the first criterion—as performing in a fully professional league or at the highest level. You seem to be suffering from WP:ILIKEIT syndrome. This isn't a case for WP:IAR, its a case of recognizing what Wikipedia is not and dealing with it. --RWR8189 11:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There were no less than FOUR third party verifications on the article post update - and those third parties are not limited to newspapers or magazines. Television coverage also works. And those sources were not sponsors either. Therefore - it passed WP:BIO. If you limit the interpretation like that, I have a case for WP:IAR. And with that interpretation, the whole mention of the Australian independent scene should not exist - and I won't allow that at all because it goes completely against WP's root aims. Again, hence WP:IAR. I know what Wikipedia is - and you have refused to allow a perfectly acceptable article. CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 20:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it seems a strong consensus has emerged that disagrees with you. If the article is repeatedly created claiming WP:IAR, don't be surprised to find the page protected from recreation.--RWR8189 07:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I maintain that consensus was biased towards American wrestling and against the unique Australian media culture to which I referred to above. Chuck E. Chaos is worth a Wikipedia article - and look at Professional wrestling in Australia under History (wrestlers) to see just how notable he is (edit was made at the suggestion of another admin). CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 22:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

And if you have a look at the contributions of User:CDlatch245 you'll see what I mean about bias. This is in all likelihood a sock of banned user JB196. I've alerted the banning admin. CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 08:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant who nominated the article for deletion, each article should be able to stand on its own merits.--RWR8189 09:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So any troublemaker can start an AfD? That's ridiculous! CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 09:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Any editor can nominate any article for deletion. If it is clearly frivolous the result of the discussion might be a speedy keep, however the community comes to consensus about whether an article should be deleted, not the one editor who nominates it.--RWR8189 10:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said - ridiculous. Nominations must be limited to established users, not any Tom, Dick or Harriet (who could well be doing it out of petty spite). That's certainly the case here. CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 11:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand your point. "Petty spite" or not its the community that makes a decision. Like I said, if the nomination has no basis the article will be kept, and if a consensus emerges to delete, it will be deleted.--RWR8189 11:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(deindent)And you let troublemakers who have been banned continue to participate? THAT is my point. And it should be taken into account. CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 11:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note I only became aware of the Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Speedy keep after this discussion. I then applied it to other actions made by this banned editor.--RWR8189 12:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Greg Bownds

Just thought I'd clarify the points I'm trying to make. I'm well aware of problems with verifiability on some of the article, and I'm planning to trim it down to what is verifiable. But before that I'm trying to find out if the editors who have commented to date agree that my comments about his notability make him notable. If they do, great I'll start work tidying up the article. I just didn't want to waste loads of time going to bat for an article I have no real interest in if they were going to still say he wasn't notable. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 12:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Free Republic

RWR8189, there's an article at FAIR.org that FAAFA is using at Free Republic to claim that Tony Snow criticized Bush in a particular way. I cut and pasted the entire FAIR.org article into Microsoft Word and used its Find feature, and the particular quotation from Snow cannot be found in that article. Perhaps you'd like to call him on it. I'm not going to bother. - ClemsonTiger 00:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have also started a meatpuppet case against FAAFA and BenBurch, and I urge you to follow up on it. - ClemsonTiger 01:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not vandalise Free Republic in any way shape or form, I was simply rephrasing for NPOV. You have a great day. (EnglishEfternamn 02:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

I can cite one rule YOU have broken, though, that would be assuming good faith. If you continue to launch unfounded accusations and personal attacks, I'll have no choice but to report you to the proper Wikipedia authorities. (EnglishEfternamn 02:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

Warning against vandalism

Please do not delete sourced content on Wikipedia. This is considered vandalism, if you are experimenting use the sandbox, thank you. (EnglishEfternamn 18:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

To which article do you refer? Surely it is not Michael Savage (commentator), where you have shown utter disregard for WP:BLP?--RWR8189 18:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The words "nonsense" and "utter disregard" have no place in Wikipedia, theses are not neutrality oriented terms.(EnglishEfternamn 19:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. Sometimes nonsense is WP:NONSENSE. The way to not be described in such terms is to not edit in such a manner.--RWR8189 21:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, neutrality is paramount in Wikipedia. The term "nonsense" is subjective. My edits are not "sense" or "nonsense" outside of human opinion, and the projection of human opinion in influence of editing, something you are doing, is in fact, reflective of un-neutrality, a violation of the rules.(EnglishEfternamn 01:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

I can't think of a much better way to describe edits which proclaim the Soviet era environment "pristine." I doubt the politburo would even make such a claim. If you feel my edits are out of line, please do report me to WP:ANI.--RWR8189 20:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A Request for Comment has been filed

I've filed an RfC against BenBurch here. Your experiences have been mentioned and I would appreciate your description of your experiences with BenBurch, FAAFA and Travb. Thank you. Dino 21:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comment solicited

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BenBurch

I have no idea how you will vote, but I respect you and want your comment no matter.

Thanks! --BenBurch 23:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Good edit

Hi RW - good edit to FR. I thought that had already been removed. Somone must have snuck it back in. Didn't even see it in my revert. Please consider becoming more active. I'll try to be extra nice to ya. (extra nice for me, that is ;-) - Fairness & Accuracy For All 06:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Roskam

Good lead change.

Is there anything that I am missing that gives merit to TBeatty's assertion that the material he is reverting fails the BLP Wiillie Horton test? If so, please explain it to me as I am trying to understand him.

Thanks! --BenBurch 05:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well if you do get around to it, I trust your judgement. If you think I am wrong, let me know. I think the significant criticism of ANY politician ought to be in their article. And that includes Roskam's opponent in the last election Tammy Duckworth. A politician's piece should not read like a PR firm created it unless the person is likely to be canonized upon death... --BenBurch 05:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD Progressive Bloggers

You have edited the article Progressive Bloggers. This article is currently being considered for deletion under the wp:afd process. You may contribute to this discussion by commenting here. Thank you.Edivorce 23:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD Blogging Tories

You have edited the article Blogging Tories. This article is currently being considered for deletion under the wp:afd process. You may contribute to this discussion by commenting here. Thank you." Edivorce 01:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Conservapedia

Per lack of knowing any place to ask this (no talk pages for talk pages), perhaps the discussion should be merged with the Eagle Forum talk page? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Zombietime needs help

Hi RWR - if you have any spare time, would you spend a bit of it on the Zombietime article? It's largely OR, and sourced by blogs. I would edit there, but might get charged with 'Wikistalking'. I listed it on RfC/Politics. Thanks. - FaAfA 22:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve Walsh (rugby)

Hi. Could you pop back to the above article and determine whether it still requires the Primarysources tag, as I've spent a bit of time inserting references recently? Thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 01:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia

New sources have been brought up in the DRV. If you could take a second look it would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 19:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to User Page of another editor

You are hereby warned not to vandalise my user page again. Skopp (Talk) 22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, the incident has been reported to WP:BLPN.--RWR8189 22:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• You are engaging in an edit war on my user page based on the opinion of one other editor's interpretation of WP:BLP. Stop this immediately. Let the administrator's decide if it is libellous or not. Skopp (Talk) 23:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edit war now encompasses over 7 reversions in the space of one hour. This is shocking behavior. You should leave the issue to be decided by administrators. Why not do that? Behave like a grown up. You have also asked for my own user page to be blocked from me (good grief, are you insane?). Let's see how that works out. If it is declined, back off please. Skopp (Talk) 23:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Administrators denied your claim of WP:BLP and denied your lock on my user page. I hope you've learned a valuable lesson. Skopp (Talk) 02:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Article to Delete?

I saw your profile and your speciality and think I found an article that could use some deletionist attention.

Joe_Carr

Does this guy really deserve an article? I lean towards no since the sole reason he's in Wikipedia seems to be he witnessed someone being killed. But I have little experience in the matter, so yeah. Teufel 11:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Progressive Bloggers

What's changed is the fact that the equivalent body on the other end of the political spectrum got kept as a result of its AFD. And no, I don't consider it a conflict of interest, because the last time they went up for AFD the exact opposite result occured, with Progressive Bloggers being kept and Blogging Tories being deleted, and when that result went to DRV I still took the exact same position that they can only be viewed as either both notable or both not notable. And, for that matter, there was an overwhelming consensus in agreement with my position. People who voted to keep them agreed with it. People who voted to delete them agreed with it. People on both ends of the political spectrum agreed with it. The only person who didn't agree with it, in fact, was one of the deleters, and he disagreed on the grounds that the connection between the two wasn't obvious to him, not on the larger point that selective inclusion can constitute bias.

So as far as I'm concerned, as there was already an overwhelming consensus that the two need to be treated equivalently, I'm acting in accordance with that consensus. I'll happily put them up for DRV together, but I view it as a WP:SNOWBALL issue to simply put one of them up for review. Bearcat 17:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

*laugh* No, I brought it there after you posted your comment to my talk page... Bearcat 18:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, it isn't the case that valid sources were presented in one case but not in the other. Equivalent sources were presented in both cases, but you evaluated them for quality, while the closer in the other debate took them at face value. The sources themselves, however, were entirely equivalent to each other by every single criterion that exists in Wikipedia policy. Bearcat 19:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Updating Free Republic History

Ok, after I posted the info about Free Republic's anti-war rallies I did a bunch of research and came up with several photos and web sites. Will therefore cite sources that are attributable and verifiable including a few free republic pages from that period they have NOT deleted. (You have to admit its suspicious when they keep a page and photos about a minor rally and leave out the biggest one of the year. I took photos that includes their banner on the stage.) Of course, once I put up the links, they'll probably take what's left off the site. Naughty!! Carol Moore 02:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)carolmooredc (Talk)

America

Hey thanks for supporting my attempt to get America to redirect to the United States. Unfortunately it just closed, with no consensus found. I guess this is site is slowly turning into the "Please-The-World" Wikipedia as opposed to the English Langage one. BH (Talk) 18:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Bureaucrash

Since you were the one who nominated this article for deletion in December, I'd like your opinion on whether the sources I've gathered meet WP:ORG before I recreate it. (If there's a consensus that the group still flunks, I won't recreate it.) Thanks. THF 12:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Pedophilia and Homosexuality

Greetings! Please take a look at those articles. Left-wingers and Nambla members are blatantly trying to censor them. Peer-reviewed, scientific studies have found a clear link between homosexuality and pedophilia. See this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homosexuality#Homosexuality_and_Pedophilia MoritzB 23:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:PortilloLogo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:PortilloLogo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ccm.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Ccm.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Cat

Can I request that you do actually discuss it then, as the lack of discussion was why I removed the entry. Thanks. Miremare 20:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of William Rivers Pitt

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is William Rivers Pitt. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Rivers Pitt (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- --JamboQueen (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Caecar43.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Vienna.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Vienna.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Azores, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, RWR8189. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)