User talk:Rotten

User's neutrality and restraint on US-related issues is controversial (contribs). 217.30.208.210 00:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This from someone who won't even use their real username? Rotten

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is obviously a joke, then. Take a look at this:

8. Bush, George Walker (S&B, 1968); U.S. President 2004- (vote fraud), appointed U.S. President, 2000- (systemic vote fraud, judicial corruption), TX Governor, 1996-2000 (his father got him the job);

Clearly nutcase rantings, like I said. But I get "nailed" for vandalism? What a joke. How can I complain about your sysadministration? You're clearly unqualified.

What, precisely, are the controversial edits by Rotten?

To ≈ jossi ≈: If you're going to lodge a complaint against someone, I would recommend making the complaint specific. I haven't looked into Rotten's edits extremely carefully, but after a quick glance, I see nothing that I would call vandalism. Please enlighten: what made you place the warning on his/her user page? Thanks. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-17 12:17 (UTC)

Citation tag on Atkins Nutritional Approach

You removed the citation tag I added. I don't believe your changes to the sentence removed the necessity of a citation for the claim, so I have re-inserted the tag, and if it is to be removed again without supplying a citation, I request that you justify the removal on the talk page. In fact, IMO it made it more necessary, since if people are claiming this, it should be documented somewhere. Respectfully, --Anchoress 03:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

peta

"knock it off, butthead ;)" What's that supposed to mean? Edit summaries are there to explain your edits, not engage in personal attacks. Jean-Philippe 20:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't dispair, Rotten. But also: try to avoid falling into the trap of being so frustrated that you'll say anything. In my long experience, logic and common sense always win. So just stick to the points and provide reasoning for everything you say. For example, I contend that PETA is radical and I used a dictionary definition to support my argument. Many of these PETA-philes don't like being called radical, even though the definition fits. They can't understand that radical is not necessarily a negative term --- hey, Lech Welesa was a radical!, so was Martin Luther! --- and so the knee-jerk revert is instant. They are a funny lot, having no time for reasoning, logic, common sense or sense of humour. They get all mad when you say that animals have the right to be tasty!DocEss 20:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They did not take kindly to my picture.File:TheyFoundNemo.jpg

PCRM on Astroturfing

Wiki isn't a forum for you to vent your frustrations on groups you disagree with. Find a reliable third party making those accusation of astrosurfings. Until then, you're breaking no original research, reliable sources and obviously, neutral point of view. Jean-Philippe 01:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki isn't a place to vent frustrations with groups you disagree with? Really, take a look at the Antiamericanism page.

Misleading edit summary

You used the edit summary "Reverted vandalism" in this edit. I don't think that link, or the removal of that link, is vandalism, our policy on which states that "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Am I missing something? JBKramer 19:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's aware I removed that link, as per my obvious edit summary "Revert.Petakillsanimals is a website of Center for Consumer Freedom. We already link to CCF". It's his only edit in the last four days, since our revert war on PCRM, so it is only fair for me to assume it was done out of sheer spite. Jean-Philippe 20:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Philippe is a PETA troll and shouldn't be allowed to take over Wikipedia. I am correcting his vandalism.--Rotten 21:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This only confirms what I said, that this user is out of a personal vendetta against me. It's a very, very mild one that might not be worth reporting, but it's there. Jean-Philippe 22:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

I think I should draw your attention to WP:3RR, which says no editor may revert a page more than three times in 24 hours, except for some exceptions like vandalism and whatnot. Of course, you already seem to of gone over that number with United States, but the warning has to happen first I think. Homestarmy 22:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted nothing.--Rotten 22:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AntiAmericanism

Can you please tell me with Wiki rules why my edits to anti-Americanism, which clearly show anti-Americanism, are "unencyclopedic trolling nonsense"? 68.229.201.181 05:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They add nothing to the article and are just put there to antagonize.--Rotten 14:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So is that your opinion opposed to Wiki rules? They show the topic of the article and, in one case in particular, show mindless anti-Americanism which is in no way connected to US 'foreign policy' and shows that when nonAmerican's use the talking point, "We don't hate you. We hate your government's foreign policy," that it's total bull. 68.229.201.181 19:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put them back if you want.--Rotten 21:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation CWAL

A tag has been placed on Operation CWAL, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Pascal.Tesson 07:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waste of time

Do stop wasting my time tolling William M. Connolley 07:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

Ponder, for an hour, WP:CIVIL William M. Connolley 14:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly trolling. It's not incivil at all. "Rail against"? "Fights"?--Rotten 14:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why nobody does, or should, take Wikipedia seriously. YOU WERE CLEARLY TROLLING and you're simply silencing a viewpoint you dislike.--Rotten 15:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think "an irrational troll (you)" is acceptable on wiki, you're wrong William M. Connolley 15:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon William, be honest, you were trolling. "Rails against"?--Rotten 05:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility again

Your comment here seems distinctly uncivil and violates WP:AGF:

I have added some relevent criticism, hopefully his cronies won't delete in 10 seconds.--Rotten 12:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do this again.

Atlant 12:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it uncivil? Just curious. ~ UBeR 20:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. You'll notice that it was indeed reverted within a couple minutes.--Rotten 04:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three Revert Rule violat--Rotten 05:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)ion

You have been blocked for violating the Three Revert Rule The edits in question are:

11:56, 24 April 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=125485882
12:00, 24 April 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=125486560
12:48, 24 April 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=125496530
15:36, 24 April 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=125538889

Atlant 15:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, I'm blocked? I've been editing Wikipedia for 2 years without so much of an incident and suddenly I'm blocked. How about Stephen Schulz? Why didn't he get blocked for breaking the 3RR rule?--Rotten 17:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright alright. I got a little feisty. I think Stephen Schulz should be blocked as well though.--Rotten 17:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's just barely on the right side of the law, but I did caution him. (The additional revert came from Vsmith, a different editor and an administrator, BTW.)

Atlant 17:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will watch myself from now on.--Rotten 17:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Atlant 18:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, any reason why I'm still blocked? I thought it was 24 hours? --Rotten 15:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You had seven minutes to go (I wrote here before I blocked you), but I've unblocked you now.

Atlant 15:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Thanks again.--Rotten 15:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries!

Atlant 15:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. He made three revers, not four. Three is allowed, per WP:3RR. Check the policy again if you don't believe me. You should unblock Rotten immediately and apologize. ~ UBeR 22:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a a fine point, but the rule is usually applied to mean "four applications of the same edit in 24 hours"; that's what we have here. You'll also notice that the rule states "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; ...". Rotten of course has recourse should he choose to pursue it, using the "unblock" template.

Atlant 23:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen it applied as such, and I've seen my fair share of 3RR claims. The rule quite clearly states that no more than three reverts within 24 hours. But if you're banning people for not even doing that (i.e. less than four), perhaps you should rethink Stephan Schulz's three reverts. ~ UBeR 00:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you UBer. I added something, and Stephen deleted it. Because I was the one who added it, Stephen had to have broken the 3RR rule before I did.--Rotten 04:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, one of the removals of the text that you added came from another editor, Vsmith, whom I note is also an administrator here on the English Language Wikipedia. That's why Stephan Schulz didn't notch a WP:3RR violation (even without considering the WP:BLP exception).

Atlant 11:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And neither did Rotten. ~ UBeR 13:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:3RR explicitly does not apply to editors who are removing unsourced material from biographies of living persons. Any such material may be reverted and removed at any time. FCYTravis 03:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't unsourced materiel at all, it's right there in plain view. William Connelly, who is an admin here on Wikipedia, edited his own biography using some terms which cast him in a more favorable light and some which are still there today. I'd call that significant and worthy of being in his biography. But at the very least IT WAS SOURCED. It was IN PLAIN VIEW.--Rotten 04:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR and WP:BLP, so I don't have to waste my time explaining to you why what you're doing is unacceptable. If you continue doing it after the block expires, you will be reblocked. FCYTravis 05:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, that is NOT original research. I cited his own edit which he made on his own biography. That's all I did, no original research whatsoever.--Rotten 05:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it is original research - textbook original research. You can establish the fact that he edits Wikipedia. You can establish the fact that, at times, people editing their own articles on Wikipedia is controversial. What you cannot do is create a causal link between those two facts to create a faux "controversy" where none exists. You have failed to cite any reliable sources which would support your assertion that his editing Wikipedia has caused controversy. In the absence of any evidence at all to suggest that anyone cares, you may not insert it into the biography of a living person. FCYTravis 06:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will "assume good faith" as they say and accept what you say. However, I still take issue with your "faux controversy" comment. Obviously, the admin in question is controversal as are his actions by quite a few editors here. I don't even disagree with him on this issue for the most part, I think that his actions on the whole are extremely arrogant and against the nature and spirit of Wikipedia. I know that JW praised him personally and I find that baffling. Personally I know he is a smart and informed editor, but his methods I take issue with. I'd appreciate your help on this matter if you can give it. If not, then at least you know where I stand. Anyway, thank you.--Rotten 08:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Why are you deleting outright sourced material from articles? Where in WP:Criticism does it recommend this action? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what it said? The proliferation of criticisms sections is the most idiotic thing about Wikipedia. If you want to include it, then integrate it into the articles as it says in WP:Criticism.--Rotten 04:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not say to delete sourced info. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to integrate back into the article properly.--Rotten 05:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can integrate a paragraph into a short article any better than it was already integrated. Please don't delete NPOV, sourced material. "WP:CRITICISM" is not a policy, or even a guideline. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism sections are troll magnets and allow people to use Wikipedia to spout propaganda. That isn't it's purpose is it?--Rotten 06:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, it is generally better to have the criticism incorporated throughout an article, rather than carved out and compiled in a Criticism section. But that doesn't mean—nor does WP:Criticism suggest—that wholesale deletion of Criticism sections is justified. Incorporating the material in the Criticism section is into the rest of article is the way to go: it improves the article, whereas simply deleting the section does not. Yilloslime 06:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of our core policies is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It requires us to include all significant points of view whether they are laudatory or critical. So long as it is verifiable and presented neutrally, criticism belongs in articles. Having it bunched together or spread out is a minor decision, and there isn't universal agreement on which is best or how much it matters. However unsourced criticism, such as you removed from Garfield, is best removed, especially if living people are involved. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:McDonald's re your recent revert LeadSongDog 16:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Userpage

Out of curiosity, where do you get your information? How do you know if Wikipedians are employed or not, for example? --Theunicyclegirl 21:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a guess. The political nature of the edits leads me to believe that these are not useful people.--Rotten 21:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your medicaid edit

Those are the facts. People can come to their own conclusions about whether or not it supports government health care. Nbauman 16:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airline Deregulation Act

Nothing on this page is referenced. If you want to be fair, you should delete everything. Otherwise, your selective deletion strategy appears to be POV pusing. Yilloslime 17:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Where is it referenced then?--Rotten 17:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that there isn't a single reference on the page for anything. The content you deleted wasn't sourced, but neither is anything else on the page. If you were to impartially apply your logic (deleting unsourced sections) then you'd end up deleting the whole page. Your selective deletion stategy appears to violate WP:NPOV.

Also please do not edit my userpage. You are welcome to leave constructive comments on my my talk page, but it is my right to do with my userpage as I please. And anyway, the change you objected to was me simply moving a comment to my talk page, where I should have been put in the first place.Yilloslime 18:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I have the right to delete unsourced POV comments and will continue to do so. --Rotten 21:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2007

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Evil1987 16:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Single-payer_health_care#Polls_section

Wikipedia is frustrating sometimes, but let's not use personal attacks to tell editors when they make a mistake. Kborer 11:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are trying to get concensus to get this article to be less contraversial. Deleting whole sections without discussion first is unhelpful.--Tom 17:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pare that section down, then put it back. I'll add some rebuttal polls after you do so.--Rotten 18:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to avoid being so rude. I did not add the section and I have no intention of pruning it and no intention of tracing who added it or where it came from. If you think it is better pared down, please pare it down yourself and add whatever rebuttals you think are fair and appropriate.--Tom 14:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please try to avoid being so rude. Nbauman 00:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AAA Article

Hi,

I'm somewhat puzzled by your revert of my edit on the American Automobile Association article. The two sections in question appear to have been copied directly from AAA promotional material. (This has been an ongoing problem with the article—the AAA appears to have hired a public relations firm to manage its Wikipedia entry.) Though I have no complaint with the content of the sections, the tone seems to be "AAA promoting its own legislative accomplishments" as opposed to "an encyclopedic description of the AAA's legislative activities".

I invite you to rewrite the two sections in question using neutral language. I don't want to get into an edit war, so I'll leave the article as it is for now. Jim 22:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Universal_health_care

Please use moderate language. I would rather that dicussions were conducted civily and in accordance with WP policies. --Tom 16:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Your sarcasm doesn't convince anyone, and makes it more difficult for the rest of us to have an intelligent discussion about the article. Nbauman 17:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bill White (neo-Nazi)

I removed your comment about Bill White. While your observation may be true, comments about subjects don't belong on article talk pages. Those pages are for discussing articles, not subjects. See WP:TALK. Not a big deal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November 2007

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Cocoa. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Sorry, "it doesn't belong here" doesn't cut it. Need a better explanation for mass deletions! AlphaEta ^{T / C} 04:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation? :D

"9 times out of ten, it is a liberal bias here and most politically charged articles have a distinct left wing bias"

May I delete this un-sourced statement?

Only joking! :D :D F33bs (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

The WP:BLP policy applies even to experts being discussed on talk pages. Remarks like this [1] are inappropriate. Please be more careful in the future. Will Beback talk 06:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Rotten. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]