User talk:Rd232

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please add new sections at the bottom of the page

Archive of previous messages (to 19 October 2005)

Contents 1 Coercive monopoly 1.1 blue blistering barnacles 2 Sunday Times 3 RfA 4 Truth in Labeling 5 Lists of companies 6 Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#William_Connolley.27s_parole_-_enforcement 7 Thanks for the move 8 How about this? 9 Charter Comm page 10 Removed your list from MEA 11 Daniel Brandt 12 McK? 13 User talk:195.135.216.1, WP:BITE 14 Dramamine pathway 15 Thanks 16 Moves and history 17 Vivendi / Veolia 18 Important AfD 19 Appeal to Administrator 20 Juan Cole and "Legion of Iran" 21 Deletion tags 22 Fisking 23 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomasine Church 24 RFC against KDRGibby 25 Thanks 26 Fisk 27 Thanks 28 input request 29 East German Leaders 30 Marsden 31 Fifth column 32 [4] 33 Process over product 34 thanks! 35 Generational conflict 36 My actions over Marsden's block duration 37 Responded to you 38 Crystal Clear 39 Need you to look over something 40 Articles For Deletion 41 www.urth.org? 42 BAE Systems 43 Ian Casocot 44 speedy deletion 45 E&E, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick 46 Fair Trade 47 Egyptian Religion 48 re Talk:Privatization 49 Reminder + Suggestion... 50 German Democratic Republic → East Germany 51 TfD nomination of Template:Delete 52 Norm Coleman 53 SMS.ac 54 The Guardian 55 Hasbara 56 Energy portal 57 Image:PrivateEyecover1147-Blair-Cameron-face-transplant.jpg listed for deletion 58 Wiki Project Climate Change 59 Invitation to join WikiProject Environment

[edit] Coercive monopoly

Unfortunately, it seems certain that RJII is not going to abide by Wikipedia policies. It is inevitable that we will have to report him for policy violations, probably including the 3RR. The important thing is that no matter how much he tries to provoke you, or however he insults you, do not respond in kind: stick to the facts, abide by Wikipedia policy, and insist that he do the same. When he doesn't, revert his edits, and explain why you have done so in the edit comments and on the Talk page. That's all we can do, but it's what we have to do if we want Wikipedia to be a source of useful and valid information. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 02:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, you made some good points about that opening paragraph. I am interested to see what you would do with the next section. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 17:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

When you get a chance, please reply to the straw poll at Talk:Coercive_monopoly. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 16:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

"Polite messages"? You've got to be kidding. He knows I've been engaging in voluminous discussion on the talk page. His messages in my talk page are obviously intended to harrass me. Regardless, whether they are polite or not is irrelevant. I told him point blank to stop messaging me. He should respect my desire for privacy. I don't like the guy and I don't want him messaging my private talk page. RJII 16:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

That's the first I've heard of user talk pages being "private". Rd232 16:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I no longer believe that he'll come around, but I am at a loss. I have no idea what else to do. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 16:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Jossi Fresco suggested a survey as the next step to break past the deadlock on coercive monopoly. I am posting this message to all of the editors who have attempted to contribute to this article in the past few months. I hope that you will find the time to participate in the coercive monopoly survey. Thank you for your time. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 23:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Is it just in how prominent the reference to force is? Would something like the wording in my alternative version (second sentence) cover that for you? I am open to just about anything, as long as the reference to the use (or threat) of force is explicit. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 13:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

FYI, RJII appears to be intentionally disrupting discussion of the survey. Any assistance you can provide would be appreciated. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 18:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] blue blistering barnacles

I think it should be "billions of blistering blue barnacles" rather than "billions of blue blistering barnacles". "Blue" modifies "barnacles", and it is these "blue barnacles" that are "blistering". At least, that's how I see it. I could be wrong. Rumour has it that I am a horrible, nasty person, so perhaps you should take my opinion with a grain of salt. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 14:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Mea culpa: I had no idea that was a quote from Adventures of Tintin. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 15:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sunday Times

Hi. I've removed the following from the Sunday Times (UK) article. "Murdoch's firing of editors Harold Evans of The Times (in 1982) and Andrew Neil of the Sunday Times (in 1994) were both widely felt to be over reporting by the papers that angered the Tory governments -- during a period when government decisions were massively enriching the tycoon." (Russ Baker, Columbia Journalism Review, May/June 1998)."

This isn't the correct way to source information, the reference should be at the bottom of the article. Surely quoting exactly should be used to back up a statement already made, not be the sole source of a statement in an article. Secondly I'm not sure about the statement itself. Regarding Andrew Neil, in his autobiography he states the reason Murdoch got rid of him was that he was tiring of the status he was getting. You can argue that it was because Neil was rubbing the government up the wrong way but Murdoch put up with that for years and again I think it is only because he tired of the hassle, not the stories themselves. Mark83 00:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Thank you for your support! I'm withdrawing, but hope someone will nominate me once a bit of time has gone by. The Land 18:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Truth in Labeling

Hey, you were completely correct in putting this article up for speedy deletion, however, I feel that since the subject isn't complete crap that I'd feel better putting it up for AfD and I have. I just wanted to tell you about this in case you were wondering... it just seemed to me to be the safer thing to do. Thanks. gren グレン 09:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of companies

Hi, isn't it interesting that those in the Business & Economics project are all in favour of deletion of the lists - including the person who has spent most time actually editing the lists (and therefore knows how futile it is...) DocendoDiscimus 15:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As you pointed out - the discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere, and getting so long that even you can't find my delete vote.. In case you were wondering who I was referring to, see [1], [2], etc. DocendoDiscimus 07:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not certain this bulk nomination's the best idea. Simply because if a deletion is its result, people are going to have a precedent for all sorts of bulk nominations. I know I'd love to nominate "Every List of _____ entry on Wikipedia, with no exceptions", but that would rightly have loads of people angry at me. I worry that this nomination of yours is a giant step towards the acceptability of such blanket nominations. Just a thought. The Literate Engineer 19:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#William_Connolley.27s_parole_-_enforcement

Hi. Can you check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#William_Connolley.27s_parole_-_enforcement and comment if appropriate. Thanks. William M. Connolley 19:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC).

Hi. Let me mention that WMC has brutally violated the rules of Wikipedia, and if you follow his order, you will be a violator, too. --Lumidek 20:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the move

thanks for your move of Parma F.C.! :) --Monkbel 15:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How about this?

➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charter Comm page

I really appreciate you taking a look at the Charter page.

J\/\/estbrook       05:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem. :) Rd232 ^talk 09:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed your list from MEA

Thanks for you addition to WP:MEA, but I reverted your list of missing company articles. There is already a List of large companies that has already been pruned and includes the Missing articles template. Please do not add "generic" lists (lists not specifically created for the project or lists that are not under a Wikiproject) to the project page. When the AFD or reorganization is resolved please either recreate the list under Wikipedia project page or list it under "See also" if it is under article space. You may want to see the relevant talk page discussion. Considering the number of edits you have I am also surprised that you added your signature in an article. Please do not do that again. Thanks --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I was tired and in a hurry. And anyway, it's not an article, it's a wikiproject page. As for MEA - sorry, won't make the mistake of going anywhere near that again. Rd232 ^talk 00:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Brandt

Thanks Rd232 for helping to clarify the Deletion/PhilWiki issue on the Daniel Brandt talk page. -Philwiki 19:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] McK?

Are you still on break or are you being bad? If you have a moment, look at Ross McKitrick and see what you think. William M. Connolley 19:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC).

[edit] User talk:195.135.216.1, WP:BITE

Thanks...I will keep that in mind. Cheers. PJM 15:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Why has my article about Syntagmaworld been deleted !!, nobody tells me why, and what was wrong with it.

[edit] Dramamine pathway

I suppose that's a rollback gone wrong, not some unwanted side-effects of Dramamine? Lupo 11:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for watching out for my user page. NatusRoma 21:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moves and history

Thanks for your note about Weber's Thesis. I don't understand how the history does get moved in such a case. Could you point me to a brief explanation? I didn't fully get it on the page that explains about renaming and moving. Jeremy J. Shapiro 17:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I think there are still issues with this, although I'm not sure what they are, that need to be taken care of by an admin. Specifically, [the page] from which the content was moved to Weber's theory of the state is still a redirect, but it's to an empty page. Should not that page be reverted to contain the content? Or was it put somewhere else on WP? Uriah923 17:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vivendi / Veolia

"I'm afraid I disagree quite strongly (considering how relatively boring the topic is!) with what you just did with Vivendi SA / Veolia Environnement. Vivendi SA is a defunct name only in use for five years; but the entire history of Veolia is now buried under that name. This is most unhelpful. I do not think Vivendi needs a separate entry at all - redirect to Veolia is sufficient, or disambig with that and Vivendi Universal. Or if it does have an entry, it should be specifically on Vivendi and not on all the company history that preceded "Vivendi"! Rd232 talk 16:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)"

The history you are describing is the history of Compagnie Générale des Eaux which was renamed Vivendi in 1998. The "history" of Vivendi Environnement/Veolia Environnement only began in 2000 with the creation of Vivendi Universal. I can think of numerous instances on Wikipedia where the history of a company only begins with its formation, with the preceding history kept at the original company's page. Mark83 16:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

No, you're making an assumption that is wrong: Veolia is not a new company. The vastly overblown ambitions of Messier failed, and the company returned to its roots. It is CGE under another name. Yes, it's a bit messy, but I had sorted it out (since Veolia is one of the companies I have to know about for work), and you undid it. Please put it back the way it should be. Rd232 talk 17:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Vivendi Environnement/Veolia Environnement is a new company. You have just suggested that CGE is effectively equal to today's Veolia. That is wrong. CGE became Vivendi SA and DEMERGED Vivendi Environnement. Vivendi SA then became Vivendi Universal. From an inital shareholding of 63% VU subsequently sold its interest in that company to the point where the former CGE had absolutely no interest in Veolia. It may have been a disaster for CGE/Vivendi/VU to dump its water, energy, waste management and transport businesses in favour of media interests, but it did! Mark83 17:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Instead of carrying on copying/pasting the entire discussion here, I've decided clutterring my own talk page is enough! Mark83 20:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry about the delays in replying — work etc. got in the way. Mark83 16:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I know, I'm hanging my head in shame. Mark83 22:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Important AfD

Hello again. I'm dealing with a difficult AfD at the moment, and need as many well informed minds as possible. If you have time please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. I'm a bit worried that the main protagonist for the keep side is threatening to reverse the long-established consensus against creating historical categorization schemes on Wikipedia based on editors' original research. Best regards. 172 01:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal to Administrator

Hello Rd232,

I am a 10th grade student at Oak Mountain High School in Birmingham, Alabama. I have some concerns to address to you regarding the article formerly known as Rabee_Kaheel. First of all, I want to thank you for removing it, since it's flagrantly false. One day two weeks ago we were working in the computer lab during seventh period, and I believe that at this time a boy named Rabee Kaheel who has been trying to "sabotage me" for some reason unbeknownst to me created it about himself, and then claimed to the school administration that I created it, thereby offending him. Of course since you removed the article he created I don't think is going to be an issue, but I just wanted to make things clear to you in case he goes as far as to try to get the article undeleted in order to push his agenda. While I don't think it is likely that this will escalate that much, I thank you for going this far to read my plea and for knowing the facts should that scenario arise.

Thank you,

Wade Houston

OK, I've watchlisted it and should therefore (probably) notice if it's recreated. Rd232 ^talk 07:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Juan Cole and "Legion of Iran"

You'll recall our discussion a few weeks ago concerning invasion of privacy/defamation of character issues in connection with Daniel Brandt and Talk:Jens_Stoltenberg#Vandalism_and_media_attention. You might want to look at Talk:Juan_Cole#.22Legion_of_Iran.22 because I believe Juan Cole has been similarly victimized. Someone inserted an unsourced factoid about him receiving "Iran's highest official honor for a foreigner, during a visit to Iran in 2003." The claim was put in the article on October 11 and was included in a Swarthmore College PR on October 18 [3]. I haven't seen any evidence that the claim is true, and it seems highly unlikely that such an award could have been issued without some Googleable press. FRS 19:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC) Wade Houston is a liar. Rabee Kaheel did no such thing about himself. Why would anybody write something about himself in such a way. After writing such a statment about Rabee Kaheel, Wade Houston Realized that what he did was wrong, and was wanting to delete it before any futhur actions against him were taken. In other words, Wade should become a little bit more respectful and stop bullying people.

[edit] Deletion tags

Just something useful: instead of using {{db|[[WP:CSD]] A7}}, you can use {{db-a7}} or {{nn-bio}}. Cheers, Ingoolemo ^talk 17:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Ta. Couldn't think of the right tag! Rd232 ^talk 19:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fisking

Hi! Thanks for your comments. See Talk:Fisking. Kaisershatner 17:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomasine Church

You voted delete. You also said that one page refers to "Nasrani/Thomasine Churches" and you didn't know what to make of that. See Saint Thomas Christians and Nasrani. Its nice when people vote on subjects they know nothing about. Clinkophonist 21:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I said "Delete as content unverifiable." in the same way that several others did, and I did make my own effort at verifying. You've now redirected to Saint Thomas Christians, so unless someone objects to that, there doesn't seem to be anything you actually want from me. Rd232 ^talk 22:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFC against KDRGibby

I've filed a requests for comment against User:KDRGibby at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KDRGibby. As you were a user involved in a dispute with KDRGibby in the marketization article, you may wish to make a statement or insert or discuss evidence pertaining to the requests for comment. -- Natalinasmpf 05:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for deleting Kuolema Tekee Taiteilijan! I already moved the other article over there, so yeah..thanks for the move -- SoothingR^(pour) 19:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fisk

Hi,

The article does not do justice in presenting those who chalange Fisk. He is a VERY conrovsial figure. Zeq 06:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I seem I'm not the first person to come here with a concern. Please see Talk:Robert Fisk and also know that I consider your reversion without the courtesy of a justification on Talk to be discourteous, if not slightly insulting. I will assume good faith and attribute it to you being too busy to explain yourself fully. Certainly, you're entitled to think the blog reference is irrelevant, and I'm entitled to think it's not, but shouldn't NPOV err on the side of inclusion, especially of a critical viewpoint? Kaisershatner 01:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I very much appreciate the tone of your reply on the Talk:Robert Fisk page. I have added comments. Thanks! Kaisershatner 19:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I just looked through my user page history and I realized you reverted a vandal I never even knew about. Thanks a lot for the help and sorry about the delay in response, I just realized it right now! Thanks again, JHMM13 (T | C) 02:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] input request

Would you mind looking in on Talk:Jesus H. Christ#"Bored church attendees"? Thanks for your time. Tomer^talk 00:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] East German Leaders

If you look at different infoboxes, they include most of that information. The example that I gave about the leaders of the USSR is just one of them. I consider that it is really important to include that information. Simplicity is not always better. Messhermit 00:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There are several infoboxes like the one in Honecker, and I'm currently adding them to most of the East German leaders. Please take a look at Afghanistan, the USSR, and several other countries to see that these infoboxes are usefull. Also, they include the succesion lines. I would ask you to not delete that information. Messhermit 00:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Instead of that, we can always put the issue on the WikiCafe, there is plenty of people there that can give us a hand. Messhermit 00:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Done! I put a request on the Village Pump. I would say that none of us modify the article until some external opinions arrive, in order to solve this small dispute. Messhermit 00:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

As you say, let's wait. I personally don't like the RFC because sometimes it may give the impresion that one of us is bulling the other, wich is not the case. Let's wait for another opinion. Messhermit 00:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marsden

I don't really see what I have to add to the discussion, which seems mostly to be Dissident and Grace Note piling on David. Phil Sandifer 01:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has answered that question to my satisfaction. Phil Sandifer 01:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't mean that at all. I mean that SlimVirgin has summed up the reasons for Marsden's block on AN/I - he was a vicious troll who was invested only in conspiracy theories about how Jimbo was packing the arbcom with Zionists. Phil Sandifer 01:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Call me dense, but I believe that's something *really* different from "harassing users by threatening their employment". -- Dissident (Talk) 01:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That characterisation doesn't reflect my (relatively brief) look through Marsden's contributions. Rd232 ^talk 01:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Offhand, I don't know, but I'm somewhat disinclined to go digging through his history to find it during my Christmas break, as it seems suspiciously like work for a block that was announced and not disputed some time ago. Phil Sandifer 01:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's on AN, under the actual Marsden section. Phil Sandifer 02:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

In my experience, these kinds of negative characterizations tend to be oversimplifications. My view on Marsden is: first, try to work out something reasonable with him (I figure this would probably work, since people are, in general, actually fairly reasonable); if that failed, go to arbitration if he genuinely is a problem. And to Phil, let him note that I did dispute his block, so his claim that it was undisputed is simply false. Everyking 06:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Most users have learned not to bother disputing anything with Phil. He's very much a shoot first, invite anyone who questions you to fuck off kind of guy. -- Grace Note.

Hi Rd, thanks for your note. I don't have time to dig out diffs and this has been discussed at some length already. In short, Marsden insulted anyone who crossed him, often in very hurtful ways, and increasingly that appeared to be his main interest in being here. He was blocked for excessive, serious personal attacks eight times by seven admins, before being blocked indefinitely, and there were many, many occasions apart from those blocks where he was warned and a block would have been warranted. In any event, he says he doesn't want to edit Wikipedia anymore, so it's a moot point, and this is a well-supported block. I hope he isn't encouraging you to cause trouble on his behalf, which is what he usually does; if he is, please don't fall for it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

He has not contacted me. My interest in the issue was prompted solely by "Marsden again" on WP:AN, and trying to find out why he'd been blocked. Rd232 ^talk 10:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Since you're reverting SlimVirgin's deletions, you might as well unprotect Marsden's talk page as well. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fifth column

All those examples are very debatable, while the German one is very clear example of such activity. They are several scholary books using the title Fifth column in regards to this organisations.Also the article is very short, so it wouldn't hurt to show an organisatiuon that shows a perfect example without any doubts. --Molobo 15:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I reworked and added four books describing such activites with names "Fifth column". --Molobo 15:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

And another dispute of Molobo? Feel free to comment on it. Sciurinæ 15:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not involved in dispute-provided sources, and engaged in conversion. Please don't drag other people into your conflicts. --Molobo 15:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] [4]

I thought that this was very, well, strange. Anyway, since you reverted the deleted edit, I thought to point you to my little page which talks about what looks to be a similar kind of incident to Marsden's. User:Zordrac/Poetlister. Even seems to involve most of the same people. Strange that. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Process over product

Rd, I wouldn't have mentioned this otherwise, but I saw your note on WP:AN/I implying you prefer to uphold process over product. In light of that, I was surprised to see that you blocked RJII [5] for a 3RR violation regarding the page move of Economics of fascism, even though you had involved yourself in the content dispute by expressing a view on the talk page just before the block [6] and continuing to edit the article directly after the block, [7] which means you blocked in violation of the blocking policy. I didn't say anything at the time, because he had violated 3RR and had it coming (the only reason I didn't do it myself is because I don't like to undo other admins' decisions, and another admin had decided not to block him), but given your defense of process over product, I hope you don't mind that I point out the inconsistency. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

He had clearly earned a block. Other admin decision not to act meant I felt I had too, as other editors were being driven away by RJII's behaviour. I was not involved in the revert war, and although I expressed a view on the Talk page, had not previously edited the page; my only subsequent edit was to undo RJII's excessive reversion. Unlike some other cases I could mention, I notified RJII of the block, explained why, said what I was doing on WP:ANI, and left a helpful comment to RJII as to what he should do in future in such situations. 3RR is about the clearest rule we have, and enforcing sanction for egregious violation means prior involvement for me is less significant, because there's relatively little judgement call. Regards, Rd232 ^talk 13:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The blocking policy is very clear on that point, Rd232. You must not block a user if you are involved in a content dispute with him. You were directly involved in the content dispute and had expressed a view about the very issue at hand on the talk page, arguing against the view of the person you blocked. Therefore you should not have blocked him. In addition, another admin had already dealt with it and had decided not to block. For that reason too, you should not have blocked him. Having said that, I agree he deserved the block, and this was a good example of you putting the product ahead of process. What I'm pointing out to you is your inconsistency in preferring process when it suits you, and product when it suits you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The involvement clause relates essentially to objectivity. In the case of egregious and documented 3RR, objectivity is not an issue. Although I had expressed a view, I had not previously edited the article (still have not done substantively, I only undid a reversion) - minimal involvement, IMO, and irrelevant ITO objectivity re 3RR. (I acted even though other admins had considered the matter because RJII's behaviour was driving other editors away - look at Talk:economics of fascism.) I'm sorry, but I do not consider my actions to be incompatible with Wikipedia policy - quite the opposite. Rd232 ^talk 01:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"I hope you don't mind that I point out the inconsistency. " - I actually laughed out loud! Slim is one the WORST for blocking on issues she is involved in editing. I honestly dont know whether she's in good faith or just a parody. Unbehagen 22:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks!

Greetings Rd232, I wish to offer my gratitude supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with the final tally of 65/4/3. If you would ever desire my assistance in anything, or wish to give me feedback on any actions I take, feel free to let me know. Cheers! Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 08:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Generational conflict

I saw your comment on the RfA talk page. I've been considering writing some thoughts up on a conflict between "idealist" and "realist" perceptions of Wikipedia. I think the generational conflict is one facet of that. But, I don't know that idealist/realist is an apt title for it either. Another aspect of it is there is a subset of users that abide by policy fairly strictly, and expect others to as well. There is another subset that generally ignores policy, adhering to a notional "higher standard" that is ill-defined but has appeal as an idealist stance on what Wikipedia should be. There's merit to both; For idealists, policy is being changed so fast by so many that policy has a hard time being relevant anymore, and few (indeed if any) can claim to be well versed in all policies. For realists, if we can't follow process and policy we're forever at the whim of the "common sense" (which changes person to person) determinations of the person taking a particular action. Your thoughts? --Durin 19:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My actions over Marsden's block duration

Hi, Rd232, I have created an RFC on myself so you can express any comments you have about my actions regarding the block duration of Marsden. I've attempted to fairly summarise the events and I've justified my actions. Based on the outcome of the comments given on the RFC, I'll take appropriate action afterwards. Thanks in advance for any comments you make. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responded to you

I responded to your comments on my talk page, on my talk page. --Durin 03:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crystal Clear

Hey R2D2, I've decided to stay off the Jesus H Christ topic while I ponder my response. In the meantime, I was wondering if you could perhaps weigh in on a tiny change I'm trying to make to the Crystal Pepsi article. I thought it'd be wise to consult you first before diving into a sticky sitch. Thanks, Gabenowicki 00:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem (see Talk:Crystal Pepsi). Rd232 ^talk 08:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

My compliments to the chefGabenowicki 15:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need you to look over something

Hi,

I'm taking steps to lodge a formal complaint against User:Theodore7 due to various reasons that I'm sure that you are aware of, or have experienced by now. Right now I have a rough draft of the complaint that I would like to have some people look over, add to, correct, and sign if they agree with it. I've never had to do anything like this before, so if you would please take some time to take a look at it and give me some feedback, suggestions, support, etc., then I would really appreciate it. It can be found here: [8] Thank you. --Chris Brennan 15:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've endorsed Bishonen's outside view as this fits my existing knowledge of Theo's comments/actions. Rd232 ^talk 00:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles For Deletion

Hi, one or both of the following situations applies to you, and you may therefore be interested in related discussions.

• You expressed an opinion about the proposed deletion of an article concerning one of the first 200 verses of the Gospel of Matthew. Would you therefore like to join a centralised discussion about the other 199 articles at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew
• You expressed an opinion about the proposed deletion of an article concerning one of the first 19 verses of the 20th Chapter of the Gospel of John. Would you therefore like to join a centralised discussion about the other 18 articles at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20

You may also be interested in a discussion of whether or not the entire text of a whole bible chapter should be contained in the 6 articles concerning those specific chapters, and whether or not they should only use the translations favoured by fundamentalists. This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text.

--Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 18:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] www.urth.org?

I saw you added a link to www.urth.org in Gene Wolfe, but I get a 404 for that direct link and a page saying something like "nothing to see here what with the white hole letting in all that flooding" when trying to access the default page at www.urth.org. I just wanted to confirm that you get errors when trying to access it as well before I considered removing the references to it. --Syrthiss 20:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add the link, I only rewrote the sentence containing it. Anyway, I've found a source and updated the article. Rd232 ^talk 21:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BAE Systems

Hi. I've nominated BAE Systems for a peer review and as you've edited the article in the past I just thought I'd let you know in case there was any comment you wished to make. Regards, Mark83 00:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Casocot

I would just like to clarify my intentions here. Although I marked the article as a non-notable speedy deletion, my reason for deletion is the policy (which I'm pretty sure is officially defined somewhere) that contributors are not allowed to create articles about themselves, as a way of preventing vanity articles even by people who think they may be notable. The fact that the user who created the article was named "Icasocot" (and that the person is not particularly notable) leads me to believe that this is what has happened.

Though I do not object to having an Ian Casocot article, I do object to it being self-authored if, as I believe, it violates policy. However, as you have now edited and improved it, and I see no problem with the cleaned-up version, I am happy to let it stay. Once again, I have no problem with your contribution, I'm only reassuring you that I understand WP:CSD -- Gurch 23:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, OK, I understood your reasoning, I just thought a worthwhile article could be developed from the self-authored start, in an area (literature outside US/Europe) where Wikipedia is generally very weak. Rd232 ^talk 08:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] speedy deletion

I just removed and then reinstated the speedy deletion tag on Greattastic, because I noticed that it had been up for speedy deletion for a while, and that there had been a hangon put there by the author. I did this in an effort to get an admin to take notice of it, and it worked, as you deleted the page only a few minutes later. I'm curious about wikipedia and how it works, so my question is this: why did what I did work, and is there a better way to do it? Squigish 08:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It was probably just coincidence. CAT:CSD is backlogged and I was skimming it and happened to click on that one. Rd232 ^talk 08:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E&E, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick

Hi. I notice that you have reverted an edit to the article on McIntyre so that Energy and Environment is now described as "an obscure social science journal". Your edit comment was "it applies social science standards and it is extremely obscure". Do you have a source for the bit about "social science standards"? As indicated here, I'm interested in making Wikipedia's statements about E&E more encyclopedic. (BTW, I've already seen what RealClimate[9] and Richard Monastersky[10] wrote.)

Personally, I would argue that E&E is no longer "obscure", having come into prominence mainly by publishing McIntyre&McKitrick and Castles&Henderson. (Cue discussion of which context "obscure" applies to.) Can we call it "controversial"? It calls itself "interdisciplinary"[11]; is that enough to discredit it ;-) ? I would really like some good cites about E&E, so I'm hoping you have at least one.

Feel free to reply here, in my talk page or in Talk:Ross_McKitrick. Chris Chittleborough 07:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Later note: User:William M. Connolley has found an excellent way to describe E&E: it does not appear in the ISI citation index. (Boom!) WMC has fixed the McKitrick article; I'll fix the McIntyre article in the next day or two. Sorry to bother you. Chris Chittleborough 10:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Trade

The Fair Trade vs. Free trade section appears to be a criticism of Free trade and thus does not qualify as effective criticism of Fair Trade.

I do not see how the section is confusing at all, for that you will need to be more specific. (Gibby 21:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Egyptian Religion

I have the same opinion as you about Egyptian Mythology.... I'm going to create a more accurate article on Egyptian Religion, fusing many parts of that in and then fix the Mythology article. In my opinion, naming an article on the whole religion, well religious trends, "Mythology" is POV anyways. Just letting you know since you commented on it.

KV 03:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Good - I'll be interested to see what you come up with and give you a hand if I have the time. Rd232 ^talk 08:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have also attempted to start Wikiproject: Egyptian Religion to do this sort of thing, you may be interested.

KV 19:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re Talk:Privatization

I did read your comment, and that doesn't change a bit. You should not have done that, period. --Golbez 04:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:IAR. It doesn't - in anything like its present form - belong in the article, period. Rd232 ^talk 04:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I direct you simply to my comment on WP:ANI. --Golbez 04:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder + Suggestion...

Important: This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving.

— Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 02:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German Democratic Republic → East Germany

User:PMA has moved German Democratic Republic to East Germany (and also added a whole lot of POV edits). I read your arguments for the reverse move two years ago. Could not have said it better. -- Petri Krohn 15:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Delete

Template:Delete has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Wisden17 19:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norm Coleman

Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of Norm Coleman article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 03:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SMS.ac

You may want to look at the SMS.ac, Inc. page once more - I noticed you have participated in the past. The article was recently stubbed and is being rebuilt. --Raga 20:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Guardian

You reverted my edit to The Guardian saying it was baseless or something along those lines. I've now added several sources - not third party reporting, just Guardian articles themselves - and I restored my post. I'd appreciate it if you'd comment on the pov of the article as a whole on the talk page, or if you're not deeply committed to this page then please refrain from reverting my edits in the future. You'll notice on the talk page there are multiple complaints from other users about pro-Guardian bias and a misportrayed stance (of The Guardian represented in the article) towards Jews and Israel. Tchadienne 01:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Commented on the article talk page. Rd232 ^talk 07:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've re-added the content you removed and expanded it as a new section under "History". If you revert again I will seek outside intervention. Tchadienne 13:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha I saw your last comment on Talk:The Guardian. It made me laugh. Read my comment on User talk:Daduzi. Tchadienne 17:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked. I laughed. You go to some effort to justify the inclusion of blog sources which... don't even try to prove anything resembling your point. Stop wasting my time. Rd232 ^talk 09:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hasbara

Curious, though I dont expect a serious/rational reply from you, how is Hasbara NGO a questionable source? If you'd like to respond, please do so on Talk:The Guardian, because in the amazing event that you do have evidence proving the NGO unreliable, it will benefit everyone to see it there. Thanks a bunch, Tchadienne 22:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody else has commented on that, maybe it's obvious: look at hasbara article and tell me that a hasbara NGO can be considered a neutral source? Rd232 ^talk 21:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Energy portal

Hi! As a contributor to WikiProject Climate change, I thought you might like to be aware of the opportunity to contribute to the new energy portal, now that there is one... No need to reply. Gralo 17:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:PrivateEyecover1147-Blair-Cameron-face-transplant.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:PrivateEyecover1147-Blair-Cameron-face-transplant.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. Arniep 15:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC) -- Arniep 15:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Project Climate Change

Hi, I saw your name as contributor in wikiproject climate change. I am new to wikipedia and possibly can contribute to climate change related articles. I want to know, how can I get involved in this project? How do you co-ordinate this project? Do I have to put my name somewhere? pruthvi 03:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to join WikiProject Environment

Hi there, I notice your background and interests. I am seeking to expand the membership of Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment to create a more informed vibrant environmental community on wikipedia. Would you be interested in joining? If so please put your name down on the project page Alex 15:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)