User talk:RucasHost/Archive 1

Edwards political positions

Please discontinue editing the John Edwards political positions article to state that Edwards "supports abortion." Edwards supports legal access to abortions, but that does not necessarily mean that he therefore believes that abortions are "good" on the whole, which your wording implies, meaning that it does not comply with the neutral point of view or verifiability policies. If you like, discuss the change on the article's talk page. If you continue to edit war over the wording, however, you may be blocked. Thanks. · jersyko talk 13:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to make the article more NPOV because the term "abortion rights" is overwhelmingly biased to the pro-choice side of the argument. --RucasHost 18:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your most recent edit is a good way to say it. Good work. · jersyko talk 19:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm glad that we could agree on this. --RucasHost 21:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2007

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Infidels (3rd nomination), you will be blocked for vandalism. ornis (t) 10:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Freedom From Religion Foundation, you will be blocked from editing. ornis (t) 11:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Piltdown Man, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ornis (t) 11:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't introduce any false information into Piltdown Man, nor did I blank Freedom From Religion Foundation (I merely removed an unsourced statement that was blatant advertising). It's obvious that you are reverting my edits and making false accusations against me because of our ideological differences. --RucasHost 11:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Please don't bring content disputes to AN/I with unsupported charges of personal attacks and violations of BITE. This effort to smear those with whom you have disagreements is not helpful. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Sapient

Hi. I'm contacting some people who have worked on the Rational Response Squad article because someone changed my redirect of "Brian Sapient" (which I made to redirect surfers to the RRS article) into an article on Brian Sapient himself. I'm not sure one is merited, particularly given what that editor started off with the article, and have begun a discussion on that new article's Talk Page. Your input would be appreciated. Nightscream 01:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Element 21 (golf company)

A tag has been placed on Element 21 (golf company), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article 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.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. ornis (t) 02:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This notice wasn't just placed in error, it was a bad-faith nomination. You've been following my edits, making false accusations that I am a sock-puppet, and now you're trying to get articles I've worked on deleted. Honestly, you need to get a life. As the article says, the company is notable because they paid the Russian space program to shoot one of their golf-balls off the international space station. It cites 2 references for this, and there are many more that can be easily found.

--RucasHost 02:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RucasHost you need to place the {{hangon}} tag on the Element 21 (golf company) page if you intend to contest the proposed deletion. Your comments to CO here are OK but admins looking through CsD will/might not see them. Moriori 02:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I have now left a comment on the article's talk-page contesting this obvious bad-faith nomination. --RucasHost 03:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you didn't put the tag on the article page. Never mind, I've done it for you (without prejudice). I suggest you concentrate on the merit of the article, and not your opinion of CO or his motivation. . Moriori 03:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did[1]. I just removed it afterwards[2]. You're supposed to remove the {{hangon}} tag once you've made your case on the article's talk page. --RucasHost 03:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it says on the {{hangon}} tag "This template should not be removed from a page still marked with a speedy deletion template". Moriori 04:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article should be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. ornis (t) 02:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Your campaign to expunge atheism from wikipedia, has moved from merely irritating, to being actually disruptive. I suggest you stop, and consider what you are doing very carefully and determine if there might perhaps be some way in which you can actually add to wikipedia, rather than simply tearing up other's work. ornis (t) 07:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You campaign to harass me by creating phony sock-puppet accusations and reverting many of my edits without reason (even when they are well-sourced) is blatantly obvious. I am tired of your behaviour and I will be reporting you to the administration.

--RucasHost 07:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Raëlian beliefs and practices are hitting WP:POINT

You placed this article in the category of atheist and yet I saw no references to atheism in the article. I reverted your edit - I wouldn't know the Raëlian from a hole in the ground and other readers wouldn't too - that is what Wikipedia is about - it is to learn what's what and our trust in the content is predicated on the references. You have since edited the article and spammed in 13 references on one point when only 1 or 2 would do. Please do not disrupt article like that for WP:POINT. Can you please remove the superfluous references ? If not then I will tomorrow when I have time. Ttiotsw 09:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has removed all those dozen references you added. Please add back in the best reference not just a google-worth of duplicates. Please add back in the references and then I'll add back in the category if it seems to hang together. Ttiotsw 21:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The irony of this unfathomable, there are no references so you remove it, then I add 12 references (including Time Magazine, WorldNetDaily, The Tenesse Post, Calgary Herald, and a Raelian website) and one of your friends removes it.

Anyway, I have done as you wish. I have readded the statement and the category tag with only 2 references (Time & WND).

--RucasHost 23:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DC-8

Please do not add trivia information to articles such as you did to the DC-8 page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominionism AfD

Your nomination of the Dominionism article for deletion is inappropriate, disruptive, and counter-productive. Read an article's talk page before taking such a drastic step! There is an ongoing process to seek consensus on just the topics you cited, which you are undercutting. I hope the nomination will be speedily defeated so that constructive discussion can continue. I urge you to withdraw the nomination. --BlueMoonlet 09:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do I withdraw the AFD? --RucasHost 09:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not sure. But if you post your own wish to withdraw the nomination on the AfD page, I'm pretty sure the admins will take care of it. --BlueMoonlet 09:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]