User talk:Rambone
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Signature question
- Thanks for the tips. I created an account with the user name "Rambone". I understand your point about new people still getting used to Wikipedia. I've been using it for a few months now and I'm just now taking editing articles seriously. BTW, how do I get it to say "(talk)" next to my name. Rambone 10:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi again !. To get the (talk) after your name
- Go to "My preferences" at the top right
- Paste [[User:Rambone|Rambone]] [[User talk:Rambone|(Talk)]] into the Nickname field
- Check the Raw signiture box and Press save
- - Happy editing - Peripitus (Talk) 00:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 50 Cent
Hi, in response to your query. This is a common issue on wikipedia. Articles like this that have editors with strong opinions are often the site of battles over content. I've readded the section, left a note on the article talk page and on the removing editors talk page. If he removes it again the place to talk this out is on the article talk page where all editors can participate and (hopefully) reach Consensus. We need to avoid edit wars as they just annoy everyone and don't result in a better article. The trick is to use the Talk pages to convince other editors of your position as soon as it's clear there's a conflict- Peripitus (Talk) 07:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
--I removed this Political Views once again User:Rambone/ User:24.35.15.107. You have continued to post weasel words in the article. We are trying to keep neutral in this article. You choice to add your opinion and your support of the GOP to every article and vandalize other articles that feature those you don't agree with. Your recent history includes: Reparations for slavery, Elvis Presley, John Murtha, Betty Williams, and also many others.[1][2]. Your actions will be not tolerated. This will also appear on your 50 Cent talk page also. Remember you have to keep a to keep articles neutral, you are not to attack others and myself, and need to provide accurate and present sources. Please try to work creatively when working edits on Wikipedia. Please do not show your bias towards any article. Therefore, if you choose to continue the behavior, you will be reported to administrators for your actions and therefore be blocked from editing Wikipedia. LILVOKA 18:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- You keep on saying that I'm using weasel words yet you never articulate what those words are. You also keep giving me crap about presenting sources yet I provide 3 credible and independent links to back the text. Thirdly, there is a immense precedent for citing the political views of non-politicians and even musicians/rappers. I placed it in the "controversy" section because it is obviously controversial. Your argument just doesn't hold water. As I've siad before...the only reason that you keep deleting it is because you hate Bush and you CHOOSE to be denial about 50 Cent's comments. --Rambone (Talk) 18:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LILVOKA"
--Please stay neutral when addressing the article. LILVOKA 18:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- How about explaining how the article is not neutral? I will not take you seriously until you give me ONE example. --Rambone (Talk) 18:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
50 Cent has expressed !!consistent!! support for U.S. President George W. Bush. If the rapper's felony conviction didn't prevent him from voting, 50 Cent said he would have voted for Bush. !!50 Cent supported the President!! when he was being criticised for his slow response in helping the victims of Hurricane Katrina, and also in response to the controversy over perceived racial bias after the hurricane.[11] 50 Cent was reported by MTV as telling GQ magazine that Bush is:
!!incredible ... a gangsta.!! I wanna meet George Bush, just shake his hand and tell him how much of me I see in him
Words like consistent and many others also create opinion and affect neutrality of the article. LILVOKA 18:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK...I'll fix it. --Rambone (Talk) 18:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks LILVOKA 18:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- I changed it...let me know what you think. I think that it's neutral. --Rambone (Talk) 18:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
It's perfect. All I do is watch the pages for spamming, open opinion and neutrality and other things that follow that WP:NOT. Thanks again LILVOKA 01:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bush
You've recently re-added the Bush statements again. Please let a consensus be reached on the talk page first- the last thing we want is an edit war. Oh and just in case, watch out for the WP:3RR ;). Thanks. Spellcast 19:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't fully against the inclusion of that info, but what I thought was not very NPOV was to dedicate a whole section solely to his political views as it gives the false impression that it's a much bigger issue than it really is. There was a Personal life section proposed for the article, and I've added his Bush support because that seems to be the most relevant place to put it rather than in its own heading. Spellcast 03:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dimebag's killer
It's an exaggeration to say Nathan Gale became "a very notable figure". He's nothing, and is only notable because of the murder. Looking through his article, all paragraphs are about the murder, with 1 paragraph about his non-notable background and 1 paragraph at the end with some non-notable speculation about him. He doesn't merit an article. Here's an illustration of why: in Dimebag's article, a line says he "was shot and killed onstage by Nathan Gale." So the reader says: Hm, the guy was notable enough to have a blue underline, let's check it out. Checking out, the reader gets zero additional information, because, guess what, there's absolutely nothing notable about him that doesn't already belong in Dimebag's article. A difference with Mark David Chapman is that other details came out during and after his trial that generated some interest in his psychological state, blah blah blah. Chapman wouldn't deserve an article either if his name hadn't been a household word. Tempshill 05:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- What you're conveniently ignoring is that Gale's case IS unique. He was a mentally disturbed, former Marine who was kicked out of the Marines for a Section 8. He also supposedly killed Darrell because he blamed him for Pantera's break-up. You also can't ignore the fact that it was also a killing spree that claimed several lives besides Dimebag's. Those are pretty unique circumstances, in my book. I think almost all Pantera fans and heavy metal fans, in general, would agree with me. He's become a huge household name for heavy metal fans, plain and simple. You could ask almost any heavy metal fan who Nathan Gale is and they would say "he's that whacko who killed Dimebag". Whether he deserves it or not is besides the point---HE IS DEFINTELY A NOTABLE FIGURE. I guarantee if we put it to a vote, you would be on the losing side. Rambone (Talk) 13:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- You are confusing "notable figure" and "household name". My point is not whether Nathan Gale is a household name in some circles. He is, undoubtedly. My point is whether the insignificant little bastard deserves his own Wikipedia article. IMO, the way to treat the matter is that the Dimebag article should say something like "Dimebag was killed onstage, blah blah, by Nathan Gale, a mentally disturbed man who had been kicked out of the Marines on a Section 8..." then talk about the details, and maybe add something like "Gale's precise motive is unknown, though during the shooting he was heard shouting that he blamed Dimebag for the breakup of Pantera. Gale was shot dead on the scene by the police." There - you have now summed up 100% of what anyone will ever want to know about Nathan Gale. The Nathan Gale article can be changed into a redirect to the shooting portion of the Dimebag article.
-
- Does an "ordinary" murderer get a Wikipedia article because he kills a father of four? No. Should this murderer get a Wikipedia article because he killed a musical celebrity? I don't think so. Tempshill 15:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Nathan Gale should have his own article, plain and simple. He isn't being idolized or lauded as an important figure...he's just simply a NOTABLE FIGURE. If you think that his bio should be taken down then, on that same basis, you should lobby for every serial killer's and every obsessed psycho's articles taken down as well. The Columbine killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed people, in part, to be remembered and talked about after their deaths...why not take down their bios as well? My point is that your logic for deletion is hollow, at best. -- Rambone (Talk) 05:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Michael Savage
A copy of the tape isn't necessary, but you must at least provide a citation. "He said this the other day" is not sufficient. But the exact date of the program would be. Gamaliel 04:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Answer to question
I'm only asking you because you've been very helpful to me in the past. My question is...where can I find a list of icons that I can place on my homepage. For example...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rambone, I copy and pasted one of them from someone elses page. I have no idea how many different icons there are. I figure there's a list of them somewhere but I can't find it. Thanks. --Rambone (Talk) 14:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi again Rambone. What you've got there is a userbox and, for those who like them, there are a lot to chose from. Have a look through Wikipedia:Userboxes. You can group the userboxes together using {{Userboxtop}} and {{Userboxbottom}} above and below them to get this sort of effect. Good to see you still here and having fun....happy editing - Peripitus (Talk) 01:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mary Jane Kelly
Please stop removing the photo until we have finished discussing it and agreed on a course of action. Just making a comment and going ahead and removing it, is not what I would consider discussing and reaching an agreement. Please try to analyse and respond to my comments, in the same way that I did to yours. All you did was tell me that I was missing the point. Thanks TigerShark 22:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Have you seen the issues surrounding the Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont?
What's your opinion on the situation between Lieberman and Lamont? I did some research on them both and they both seem like they are extremely rich. But the difference is that the media is playing the fiddle of using the tags of "liberal" and "conservative". I'm not too sure on what Lamont is about (other than a cable television mogul), but I have been watching the issue with Lieberman. Lieberman is a rap critic! He's the reason for the black warning signs on the bottom of the DVDs, video games, and music. I don't know what's the deal with Lamont, other than being an anti-war critic. They both faced a bitter campaigning challenge. Will CNN support Lieberman or Lamont? I already see Fox News support Lieberman. Is there any input in the matter? LILVOKA 18:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Your questions are all over the place so I'll just give you my over-arching opinion about the whole thing... My opinion is that Lieberman will win the general election as an independent. I don't agree with him 90% of the time but I like him because he's a honest politician. (one of the few in America) As for Lamont, I see him as Howard Dean II. Sure, the left-wing loves him but when it gets closer to the election, centrist democrats and independents will vote for someone else. I have no idea what CNN will do though I have a strong feeling that they would LIKE to support Lamont. Personally, I can't stand anti-war candidates in this era because most of them don't want to use the military AT ALL. That being said, I'm not blindly pro-war, either. I want to use force when it's neccessary. I supported the reasons for the war in Iraq (and still do) but I'm totally pissed off about how Bush has waged the war. It's as if Bush wants to lose or pass the problem to the next president. Rambone (Talk) 02:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bruce Cockburn
I see you added the ex-atheist / ex-agnostic category to the Bruce Cockburn article. What do you base this on? I don't recall Bruce ever saying he was agnostic or atheist. He didn't have a strong religious upbringing, and he did have a born-again type experience, but I'm not familiar with any statements about him being agnostic or atheist. You may reply on this page; it is on my watchlist, so I will see any response. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 18:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I see that you added the category back, but still have not provided any citation or justification for the addition. Did I miss something? I have reverted your change. If you know something that I don't, then provide a citation for the source. I recommend that you read the talk pages of an article before you add back an edit that has been deleted. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 03:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks! I've added that quote to the article. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 07:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Alex Jones
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please always observe our core policies. Thank you.
[edit] WP:NPA
Please be advised that comments about "Leonard Peltier's worshippers" can be construed as personal attacks, even if you don't mean them that way. Try to stick to the issues, even in edit summaries. Thanks! csloat 01:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Block
--Kbdank71 13:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vick photo
I see your photo got edited back out of the Michael Vick article; I didn't do it. Could you provide some background for context? Maybe we could address the public controversy and advocates' angles in our text, and it might then be appropriate content. I don't think there is would be support to win a discussion about inclusion without that kind of information. Trying to keep the WP articles about this whole situation NPOV is challenging to a lot of us. Vaoverland 13:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:BrianAtene.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:BrianAtene.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG 14:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Duplicate Image:DaveTrembley.JPG
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:DaveTrembley.JPG, by Staeckerbot (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:DaveTrembley.JPG is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:DaveTrembley.JPG, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 09:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your Userpage
Your userpage is in two non-Wikipedian categories, if you like I can fix this for you. -PatPeter 23:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] August 2007
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Please do not add in your picture reference and bit about Dimebag Darrell until you read the talk page for Guitar Hero III - you need to explain what the connection between the pictures and the context of the picture. If you add this information in again without explaining it, you will be violating the Three-revert rule. Masem 21:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:CristinaPerez.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:CristinaPerez.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 07:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:ChristinaPerez.jpg
On the image description page, you claim, "It is not copyrighted. Some dude simply took the photo and posted it online." This would mean that the "some dude" holds the copyright to this image. Who is this person? Did he release the image under the GNU Free Documentation License? Sancho 17:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to :Image:CristinaPerez.jpg. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Sancho 17:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Lives of Others
What's that suppose to mean? Jogers (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your edit to James Oddo
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to James Oddo, you will be blocked from editing. -- Hello, Control Hello, Tony 20:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Your edit to Chad Kroeger has also been reverted. -- Hello, Control Hello, Tony 20:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
-
You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. --rogerd 12:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] More vandalism
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Leisure, you will be blocked from editing. -- Larry Dunn 13:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Al Sharpton
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Al Sharpton, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified. If it has not been already, it may be removed if the category has not been deemed correct for the subject matter. Adding inappropriate categories to articles may be considered vandalism. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Vick_dogs.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Vick_dogs.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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 it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 16:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR violation warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Michael Savage (commentator). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ursasapien (talk) 11:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] April 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Hallelujah (song), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --VinceBowdren (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Edith Bowman. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Northernhenge (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] May 2008
STOP VANDALIZING THE FUCKING WEBSITE 70.80.66.195 (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
upon inspection of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Rambone i have come to the conclusion that you are a political troll on this website and do nothing but add your opinions (most of which have little value) to the pages on wikipedia. i have no power to do anything about this but seriously cut the crap, a few times is funny but you're only causing work for the admins on the site. Bonusbox (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Blocked
This comment just earned you a 2-week block. You may resume constructive editing after the block expires, but any further personal attacks or disruption will lead to longer blocks without further warning. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
