User talk:Rhooker1236

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hi fellow Wikipedian, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

  • RC Patrol - Keeping a lookout for vandalism.
  • Cleanup - Help make unreadable articles readable.
  • Requests - Wanted on WP, but hasn't been created.
  • Merge - Combining duplicate articles into one.
  • Wikiprojects - So many to join, so many to choose from...Take your pick!

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: (~~~~). This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)- Mailer Diablo 10:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bill of Rights
The topic of this article is a frequent source of heated debate. So please keep a cool head when responding to comments on this talk page.

I strongly disagree with you suggesting that Wikipedians under the age of 21 can delete articles as you mentioned in your first rule in your attempted 'Revolution'. I myself am only 13 years of age and I am a newpage patroller who efficiently deletes crap in Wikipedia and trust me, there is a lot of crap to delete. Bans usually take care of troublesome teens who like to muck around in Wikipedia, so why should the best of us miss out? Just having my say. JRA WestyQld2 09:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry you take offense to the suggestion. I have no problem with young people creating content and encourage it, but your use of the term "crap" troubles me. Please forward me a full record of everything you delete for a month so that I can determine if it is crap or not. Presenly I have your opinion that you are deleting masses of "crap" but without any evidence all I know is you are deleting effort, perhaps it is self serving effort but determining what content is worthy or not is rather complex and I am troubled by the ease of deletions.

If you would note that my Bill of Rights would make deletion far more difficult for reasons other than copy rights violations. I would include copy and paste of marketing materials. Anything that is written in by hand that does not violate any laws should be considered with respect and deleted for excellent reasons. I don't see that happening in Wikipedia.

I also hold that the principle should be editting rather than deleting. If you think an entry is "crap" why not edit it to make it better?--Rhooker1236 12:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

From 15 minutes of Recent Changes patrol, I deleted the following information. None of it is suitable for an encyclopedia. Newpages patrol is similar, only slower-paced -- this represents checking approximately 90 seconds of editing, while new pages only show up at a rate of three or four a minute.
  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
  5. [5]
  6. [6]
  7. [7]
  8. [8]
--Carnildo 00:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
And, from five minutes of newpages patrol:
  1. "Thomas Pszeniczny was born on February 16, 1992 in New Jersey. At this point, he is a very intelligent human being, from his straight-A report cards, to the awards he sweeped at his 6th and 8th grade graduations."
  2. Choice quotes from Povialism "A religion in northern and central Europe as its headquarter with Dan E.A.E Johansson as the lead bishop (which is called Heścievaścietteściemiddaścieuścietteściekoppaściebbaście among povains, no one knows why, it's just that way) , it is said that Povas Barila speaks directly to him, both when he's awake and in his dreams.", "The story of Povas reached Heścievaścietteściemiddaścieuścietteściekoppaściebbaście one day during 2006. Since thes he got followers all over the world. More and more is to come or may not come about povaism. Cause as usual no one really knows in this religion. "To believe is not to know" anyway.", "This is the only known place where you actually can read about this religion."
  3. ""ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXZY" is a common misspelling of the alphabet amoung young people and those that are new to the english language.Image:C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Documents\My Pictures\Sample Pictures\Blue hills.jpg"
  4. Govett's Law: "High technology is self-terminating."
--Carnildo 00:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank God we have you on patrol to insure that these things will never make it in to Wikipedia.
Lets just think of the terror if Wikipedia was the offer all the misspelling of words, all the small religions, all the people, all the ideas that exist. Terrible!!!! Imagine a Wikipedia with everything in it, a Wikipedia that the one person who gets a notice from a remote church in Europe can go to and get information about that church, no matter how crazy. The Wikipedia about the philosophy of every street preacher in the world!!! Terrible!!! Imagine a Wikipedia that everyone could edit, that contained the interest and concepts of an entiire human race. Terrible. Thank God we have you and other admins insuring that if I had some reason to look up Povialism or Thomas Pszeniczny or Govett's Law then I will be stopped by your wisdom and capacity from doing so.
Perhaps some people would want a Wikipedia with everything in it, but I am so glad we have people here to insure such a terrible fate never happens.
Again thank you for removing me and my children and their childrens children from ever learning what Govett's Law says. But why did you post it here? I had to read all this valueless information. I feel my life has been so harmed that Povialism and Govett have been exposed to me. My day is ruined.
But I can't blame you, you were just doing what you think you needed to do to prevent me from reading any more articles about information that is not important enough for me to read about. All HAIL WIKIPEDIA ADMINS!!!!!
I have discovered a new use for Wikipedia. Every day I read the delete discussions. Its actually the most interesting single collection of information in the world.
Maybe I'll blog it and run adsense ads on it--Rhooker1236 18:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


Thank you Carnildo, that is exactly what I delete. Perhaps you should become a newpages/recent changes patroller and see how much has to be deleted, because if you think what I classify as 'crap' is a decent effort to create an article, you obviously haven't seen it enough times. Generally a quarter of articles created are either an autobiography or a biography filled with biased/racist/innappropriate language, an article attempting to make a joke, information copy and pasted, personal attacks, racist attacks or religious attacks. It is very obvious when someone is not trying to make a decent article, obvious enough for an 8 year old, so why not teens? JRA WestyQld2 00:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

First off, it is talk page etiquette to start under the oldest discussion in a section. I don't even think Carnildo is a Wikipedia admin. However, I will hesistate from what I am about to write here because you may find it offensive and as a member of Concordia it would seem slightly hypocritical. I think you have embarrassed yourself enough in this subject, but good luck with your revolution. --JRA WestyQld2 00:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I often wonder about Administrators role playing conduct on this group. Firstly we see a radical conventionalism, were every outsider with an open invite to join Wikipedia and be bold is endlessly responded to with the seemingly infinite number of etiguette rules. A massive amount of conventionalism. And beyond that is the jargon of Wikipedia. The mixture of endless fetish for conventions established by Wiki Admins and jargon means those who have decided to accept the Wikipedia challenge of helping to expand the collection of all human knowledge soon find themselves insulted and deleted by editors obsessed with etiquette only they can understand the meaning of expressed in jargon only they can understand. No one can see what it is that you are saying or why you are saying it.
There is also the endless play of assertions. Someon says that they are a concordian, then they go on to insult you. Actually Wikipedia admin conduct has no consistency and can only be indoctrinated and never learned, so it is what ever you want it to be.
Frankly I could not understand this comment, and once I did further research as to your memebership of Concordia I was a bit shocked you would mention that you were part of a group promoting civility on Wikipedia and then launch a personal attack, the aim of Concordia being to bring these down.
What kind of consciousness leads to this.
Well the bigger issues remains, I have watched Wiki Admins deleting good faith articles for a week now, there seems to be an inability to refrain from insults, even towards some very accomplished people, even by Concordians. This is far worse when you consider the invite on the front of Wikipeida asking the public to contribute and be bold, only to see the subjects of your articles often being insulted.
What is going on here? How did the Concordian movement become so weak? Can't any of you connect this purge with the decreasing scope and quality growth of Wikipedia.

I don't understand why you take it as a personal attack, you can still be civil and strongly address your point :-) Make sure to preview your work before publishing it, doing so prevents typos. --JRA WestyQld2 14:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but that is simply NOPV. I will quote:
"I will hesistate from what I am about to write here because you may find it offensive"
and
"I think you have embarrassed yourself enough in this subject."
Sorry but that is not in keeping with Concordian higher principles.
But I would return to the significant issue. These admin discusses endless digress in to a endless dialogue on ettique, like failing to post under and indented from the comment to which you respond, with etiquette so ill defined and entirely custom based that no one can understand it, one is indoctrinated in to it, one uses it to reference others for the fashion of there posts.
Then they run in to jargon that no one can understand. NOPV, what is an objective point of view? Most philosphers to ontology today could talk for hours and never establish an guideline for judging what is or is not NOPV. The status of objectivity is one of the most difficult questions of post-modern social theory, and when people banter about NOPV I can't help but hear Marxists talking about dialectics and class enemies.
Then there are terms like "sockpuppet" and "meat puppet", what kinds of terms are they? I mean if a exprt in say Astronomy, or the study of Border politics, is deleted for Vanity Page, NON, NOPV, or what ever and then a comment like some I know you are made before delete come, how do you think that person is going to be motivated to fill out some of the hole in Wikipedia's knowledge construct?
The expert has not idea what you are saying. The comment about Condorians made little sense to me. I had to continue my research in to Wiki Culture to come to some understanding of it.
What is going to be the response of established experts who were invited to contribute and be bold.
And signing and sockpuppeting, those are not even rules of Wikipedia. It says when you make your first post that you are need not register and you should be bold.
So somehow the rules on one level contradict the rules on another.
I also have been alarmed by the number of admins with "Vanity Pages" where they entire area of knowledge is video games and unleash delete bots that have been poorly tested and recieve rational complaints. This is not some game.
Knowledge Management is my career. Wikipedia is the most fascinating thing to come along in a long time, and I happen to think that people invited to join and be bold should have some basic set of rights, as long as they followed legal rules, from the power distribution of Wikipedia.
Unlike mySpace, blogs, Flickr, or any other Web 2.0 community you ask people to participate but have no governance for insuring that people feel treated fairly by the group, nothing but the assurance of the Wiki admins that they are doing their best job.
Well I think editors need a set of Rights. The ones I put out were a first draft. There should also be a set of rights for readers as well. And guess what, the Rights of Readers come first, the Rights of Editors come second and the Rights of Admins are limited to the need to assure the rights of the general public.
With a system like this you can govern delete policy rationally and in a way that seems fair. If an editor violates the Rights of Readers her work will be edited. For no other reason should a delete be made but to protect the rights of the public to legal material, to accurate material, to full material, and to their ability to select that what interest them.
And I sign out.--Rhooker1236 20:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't see us reaching a result, so I guess you and the Wikipedia public will have to agree to disagree. --JRA WestyQld2 03:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
1. You have no right to speak for the Wikipedia public, it is a terrible act of bad faith that too many admins engage in assuming that their opinions are somehow representive of everyone. Speak for yourself not the public.
2. Just because you can not see an result in 1 day does not mean it is not possible, perhaps you could try to think about it. This kind of response is indicative of the intellectual laziness which is a disease within Wikipedia admin soviet. --Rhooker1236 18:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Your right, I assume too much about the Wikipedia public, I expect a revolution on Wikipedia in the future as well as Fidel Castro becoming the next president of the United States! Good luck :-D --JRA WestyQld2 05:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you suppose to indent under a response? Frankly I don't see the point to this post, but I don't see the point to most of what admins do these days. I think a discussion of who has what rights in Wikipedia would be excellent, but I now see it won't happen.
--Rhooker1236 10:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Fotki

Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which makes it clear who said what, and when. Thank you.

Especially when you complain about todays wikipedia you might want to sign your messages, as one of the most basic acts of civility on wikipedia. --Fasten 10:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have signed the post with my tag, of which I can have an infinite number and which does not contain my real name or any true information about me.

I would point out that this singing rule is percieved as a bit strange and down right wierd. Rhooker1236 is not my real name and I don't think Taskten is your real name, these are annyomious and most people ignore them because they are nothing more than call signs and vanity tags, what is the civility of tagging a statement with "Fasten" of "MacMan" or "BigBuy" or "Rhooker1236", many people, myself included, see no value to leaving made up names on.

Please expand? Why should I leave a name when I can register for 100 names tommorrow, a name only has value if it connects to a person.

But I will try to remember to sign with the tag more often.--Rhooker1236 12:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry discourages the use of more than one user name while it is not strictly prohibited.
WP:SIG encourages you to sign your messages as a matter of civility but it is not a policy. The point is that without signatures you can't lead sensible discussions because people can't form an understanding about who said what. This is related to having a theory of mind and making assumptions about another's state of mind. --Fasten 09:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Stated wikipedia policy does not require signing, the adminis rule about sock puppetry strikes me as a arbitary rule, since the avitars people select are meaningless. Arbitary rules are the sign of arbitary power.--Rhooker1236 11:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wesneco Torch, The

  • Comment Clearly you are passionate about the AfD discussion, Rhooker1236. Please remember to Wikipedia:Assume good faith and not to jump to conclusions about other contributors' possible motivations. Having that kind of discussion quickly moves away from Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, detracts from the original point, which is discussing the possible deletion of the article. Thanks for participating. -- MrDolomite | Talk 17:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I did assume good faith, that is why I did not call the editors calling for its deletion a group of racists, which is what I would have done if normally confronted with this subject. I don’t think you know precisely how difficult this was.

Wikipedia is full of stuff of interest to young white males and those who are old enough to work do so in IT. I am a white male not young working in IT myself, but I have been in knowledge management for 20+ years and I know that by deleting an African American college paper you are walking blindly in to a whole lot of pain.

I was civily trying to wake some admins up from making an idiotic mistake that could result in a great deal of trouble.

Again as for civil, the day I look to articles for delete and don't see any researchers life work called NON is the day I watch my civility. Wikipedia administrators are involved in daily insults of hundreds of people who made good faith efforts to add people they know, who are of some significance, to Wikipedia to have their articles deleted. I added a number of form classmates of mine who had contributed to social policy, arts and the media and now have Google searchs that turn up some Google adminhole saying they were NON and that it was clearly a Vanity post. This has caused me a few problems with people I know, so lets not lecture on civility. Wikipedia desperately needs to brings in admins in line, I am watching my language as it is, for example I have never used the term "Wikifascist" though the term is becoming popular.--Rhooker1236 11:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about World War II

Please do not take offense that I am supporting the deletion of this list, which you clearly feel passionately about. I do not believe the topic -- about music and WWII -- is worthy of deletion, only the format that it currently occupies. This should be an article about music in WWII. There are ample verifiable references that can be used to discuss the differing roles and themes of music in the US, UK, and Germany. This material is not hard to find; some is even is common-use collegiate-level modern history and culture texts. There has even been research done regarding the use of music to preserve culture in the west coast Japanese-American internment camps.
Be bold. Make that article. If the article grows enough that the list is needed, it can and will be recreated. But expecting the article because of the list puts the cart before the horse, and is not in the spirit of guidelines such as WP:LIST. But in doing so, please be consciencious of your fellow Wikipedians by remembering that articles should be based on documented sources rather than your personal experiences and research, and that (beyond the copyright sense), no one here has ownership of the articles. Also, please try to be civil and avoid personal attacks, even against Jimbo. Most Wikipedians, myself included, are simply volunteer editors like yourself. Very few of the people who make this encyclopedia what it is are admins (only about 1000), or have any direct contact with the people who started it all. There is no cabal. Serpent's Choice 03:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If you will go to the site you will notice I have radically reworked it. I am in the process of negotiating over two jobs. As for personal attacks, once Admins started bantering about NON, NOPV and Vanity pages that went out of the window. Insulting people is an institutional part of present Wikipedia and require CORE reform. Every day dozens of people's live's work are dismissed and insulted by Wikipedia administrators. I even read a down dismissed as a speed trap. I see endless insults in the process of deleting and I think any system which instatutinoalises endless insults and demands civility is a system that needs to be shacken up.

Again I see no reason at this point to delete the article, it is creating no problems for Wikipedia and I know it can be great.

[edit] Role of music in World War II

I dunno if you've been to the previous afd recently but the article is now renamed and the AfD is closed. You have also been awarded the "Rescue from deletion barnstar"--see your user page. Congrats ;-)

-- Phr (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

May I say that the process of dialectic struggle over this article has changed my views, to some extent, on Wikipedia, thank you very much and I promise to be a royal pain continue my radical vision until I am deleted or get even more helicopters with medals. As a devoted anarchist in the areas of knowledge structure I am sure many of you will regret my presence, but I now see that we only have one Wikipedia.

--Rhooker1236 13:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikifascist

I think that the word Wikifascist has been thrown around enough to warrent its own wikipedia article to explain what the term means? Is it Quixotry to try? Perhaps...can you help me write the article so it will stick? In Defense of the Artist 23:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)