User talk:Rehpotsirhc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Wiki-proofers

Hey! It's Scalene here. If you recall your post about the wiki-proofers project, I was wondering if you would check out my talk page User:Scalene and give comments on the project!

[edit] Welcome!

Hi, Rehpotsirhc, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you enjoy the encyclopaedia and want to stay. Before getting too in-depth, you may want to read about the simplified ruleset. If you need help on how to title new articles check out the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and the FAQ, plus if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my user talk page.

[edit] Additional tips

Here are some extra tips to help you get around in Wikipedia:

  • If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
  • You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • You may want to add yourself to the new user log.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
  • If you're still entirely confused, or would like to get a better grasp of your wikipedia skills, and you have an IRC client (or don't mind getting one), check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.

[edit] Current open tasks

[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:

Good luck.

haz (user talk)e 08:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for doing newpage patrol. Just so you know, copyvios can be speedy-deleted, just put {{db-copyvio|url=http://www.whatevertheactualurlis.com}} at the top. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. You might also find the Recent pages patrol page useful. Cheers, Mak (talk) 06:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. rehpotsirhc 17:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Issues in social nudity

Hi, thanks for contributing to the article, can you make any specific recommendations to help editors? Thanks. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 01:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

Thanks for the support. It's good that some people can see through all the convoluted B.S. RJII 05:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem--I posted what I feel is an accurate description of the dispute. But you should really try to be more patient--I'm sure a lot of people have looked at some of the angrier things you've said and decided the case then and there without looking carefully at the facts. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 05:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pat8722 RFC

A request for comment has been filed in response to User:Pat8722's behavior on libertarianism. You are encouraged to certify or add your opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pat8722. Rhobite 14:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 9/11

Why don't you try and be a bit more co-operative eh? The article is inaccurate and riddled with POV. There is no excuse for removing the dispute tag - that is out of order. -- max rspct leave a message 18:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any innacuracies or POV, nor do I see any highlighted out on the talk page. All I see to justify the tag are references to various conspiracy theories. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 18:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah.. you done see it, you don't source it. It's disputed many ways including those conspiracy theories. If folk can't be bothered or is tired because they can't engage with discussion they should go elsewhere instead of dominating the article an keeping in POV definitions, emotive section, catch-all phrases and skewed portrayal and balance. The article is very controversial and disputed for majority of it's existance. -- max rspct leave a message 18:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you please point out the POV/inaccurate sections on the article's talk page rather than just mindlessly slapping a disupted tag on it? --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 21:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks

Can you explain why you removed my link to corporate libertarianism, if not because you're a partisan? I believe your removal of that link indicates clear bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panem (talk • contribs)

Try the talk page of the article. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 19:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Americanism

Watch the page, my friend. Taming the POV is one of the biggest wiki-headaches I've had in a while. I agree the pic doesn't belong--I had re-inserted it as a compromise with other editors, who actually wanted it in the lead. Marskell 15:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you actually prefer their intro to the long-standing one? My concern is that by editing it you're giving it approval. This isn't to say "don't compromise", but in this case we either accept one intro or the other. Anyhow, I have reverted back. This is awful but I don't know what else to do: accepting that it's about GWB policies overturns a year's worth of consensus. This may well wind up in dispute resolution. Marskell 06:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I think both intros have their problems; to be honest I'm not sure whether or not I prefer the original one or Christina's one plus my edits. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 04:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
What do you dislike about the one as it stands? Particularly, given that you seem to agree it shouldn't be about GWB. Marskell 17:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unity08 Interest?

Hi! You're one of about a dozen wikipedians who have edited Unity08 (which puts you in pretty rarified company :-)) and it occured to me that you might be interested in something in that vein. I don't want to clutter up your talk page but I wanted to let you know about my user page being used to talk about the intersection of wikis and the Unity Movement. Sorry to be a bother, but "a dozen out of hundreds of millions" seemed like a small enough group to think there might be some common interests :-)

- JenniferForUnity 02:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)