User talk:Ronabop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/Archive October 2003-March 2006

Contents

[edit] Kenny vs. Spenny

Hehe, look at 03:41 on http://youtube.com/watch?v=1j2dLkr2KoU . It is because of your redirect Kenny came to the right article, hehehe. ;-) --212.247.27.164 19:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What should be done about the state of Skull and Bones and U.S. Education?

Interesting, but it still has problems which should be fixed. Could you start by citing some references at the bottom for starters, then work the footnotes in progressively? Please comment at Talk:Skull and Bones and U.S. Education. Also, some reasurances on copyvio wouldn't go amiss, either.

StrangerInParadise 00:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
~~~~

Fasten 09:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Skull and Bones copyright issues

[edit] Please don't add copyrighted text to Wikipedia

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your creation of the article, Skull and Bones origins, but we cannot accept copyrighted text borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems for more information on this topic, or generally, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Please do not [remove the copyright violation notice placed in the article or repost the suspected infringing text. However, if you would like to rewrite the article in your own words, follow the link in the posted notice to create a temporary subpage. If your new article is appropriate, and not a further copyright violation, the reviewing administrator will move that new article into place once the copyright status of the original has been resolved. Happy editing! . This also applies to Skull and Bones historical connections and Skull and Bones and U.S. Education. Best, Alabamaboy 19:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If you had followed through the skull and bones article history, you would have noted that I didn't add new text, I split out other author's existing text into sub-articles. Ronabop 21:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks about the Thetan article edit

Thanks for taking the time to understand the situation and making an appropriate edit. BTW, I've understood why the excellent presentation you created with the Scientology series template can not include the symbol at its top. Hmmm, If you have any advise about how to better communicate with other editors and thereby not get into convoluted discussions (Talk:Thetan#Atack.2C_who_achieved_Operating_Thetan_level...) when trying to simply get a citation, I'm all ears. Terryeo 04:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As noted on followup pages, the best advice I could give would be to express your reasoning, outside of any CoS or WP rules, in simplified english.... oh, and why the heck don't we have a KRC article yet? Can you build that one? Ronabop 05:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for support on AFD

It was beginning to look like everyone was ignoring the matter at hand until you commented. Thanks, this material is most certainly not "speedy keep" worthy, and just because many editors feel it's part of Scottish culture to boast their nation's inventions via an unprecedented page doesn't make it an viable article. Please check out a few other afds that need some additions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of actors who played Marines in movies Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bengali actresses ...And Beyond! 16:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supernatural abilities

Hello.... I noticed that on Talk:Supernatural abilities in Scientology doctrine awhile back, you noted "this article's very premise is unfair" and correctly pointed out that no one is rushing to create a "Supernatural abilities in Christianity" article. With that in mind, I'd like to, at the very least, propose that the phrase "Supernatural abilities" be taken out of the article's title since that phrase does not occur anywhere in Scientology doctrine. Can you visit the talk page and have a look at the discussion going on? Highfructosecornsyrup 00:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cooperative Research timeline at 911 attacks article

Please assent or dissent to mediation in the 911 external timeline link matter. [1] Thanks. Abe Froman 17:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Ronabop

I put a paragraph in the Divorce/Religious/Culture section. I am new to Wikipedia and chose this subject to learn how to do some editing on Wikipedia.

Everybody has to start somewhere. My starting page was less than wonderful. :-) Ronabop 05:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I notice you have a strong data processing background. (I also have a strong data processing background. I have been in it for many, many years working in all kinds of languages and technologies.) I noticed you also have a very strong "Security systems" background working for the NSA, Department of the Army, NASDAQ and so forth.

I've been around, and, well, I'm good at my work, I think. Ronabop 05:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am curious, how did you find me on Wikipedia with so much material to choose from?

In this case, a friend of mine (who is also new to wikipedia) commented on how bad the Divorce page was. I work on some 600+ different pages, with my "Watched Pages" growing every so often as I find new interests. Ronabop 05:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Am I on some kind of NSA hit list? :)

LOL, if you were, *I* wouldn't know. Ronabop 05:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you have edited some Scientology. I read the book once, but I couldn't get a "clear". :)

I have a general interest in religious branches marginalized by the mainstream, regardless of their underpinnings. Ronabop 05:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


You also into Zen? I am just curious about your knowledge of the Talmud, Mishnah, Gemara and so forth? Have you studied these books?

I don't have good reference copies of everything I would like (it would fill acres), but yes, I study religious texts both mainstream and otherwise.Ronabop 05:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I am curious about your knowledge of the Old and New Testaments. Have you studied these also?

I've only done a cover-to-cover read on 7 english versions of various "bibles", and like to dig into ancient languages as needed, simply because modern versions and translations are lacking in accuracy and historical context. Ronabop 05:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I am new on Wikipedia, can you give me some kind of idea how long my paragraph will likely survive? Thanks.

If it's well cited, provides more answers than questions, and is germane to the article, it can last for years. Otherwise, minutes. Ronabop 05:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I have done some research on 9/11 as well. Did Silverstein get hauled in for questioning after he confessed????? to bringing down WTC 7 on PBS? You know, "pull it"?

Not much of a confession, as it can also mean "stop the efforts to save it out, it's a lost cause". Know any demolition team that uses "pull it" as a blast phrase? Ronabop 05:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Was there anyone in the building to ask to leave? (I am not a conspiracy theorist but I like to study this issue. My health and my 401k may be at stake. Your work at NSA might give you an inside track on some of this.)

Again, LOL. There was a semi-secret portion of the building with a massive amount of fuel, and it was just too dangerous to keep firefighters in/around the building once the fires got too far out of control. Ronabop 05:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

However, I am waiting on the latest NIST report about WTC 7 that is due out this year.

Should be a good study. Should also help teach people that placing an emergency crisis center, with a lot of fuel in it, right next to a known target, is a bad move. Ronabop 05:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope NIST comes up with a better story than they have so far. Basically, they said they are still studying the issue.

With all the hoopla and questions about it, they're spending ages tracking down every piece of information. Ronabop 05:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked for info on WTC 7 from FEMA and the 9/11 Commission report and there is none. This peaks my paranoia. Sigh. You mind if I call you Robocop? Christian 18:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC) (I may drop the Christian user id. I just picked it because of the subject matter.)

Well... *shrug*, call me whatever. Ronabop 05:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Late reply

Sorry for the late reply but I had to finish my exams. Let me know when you're ready with the article and I help if needed. NCurse work 20:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Will do, pulled some things off the talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CORP met with Inc. 500, and at least one article in a non PR mag. http://www.promopeddler.com/company/news/ has other links I haven't tracked down yet, most look PR ish, but not all. Ronabop 04:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[2] Alexa, notable in the field, but not general notability. Ronabop 05:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[3]

[edit] WikiProject updates

  • I have done some updating to the WP:SCN, added some new articles, added a "to do" list to the top of the project, and fixed up some categories and assessment stuff. I suggest we should all pick one article at a time, or at most two, to work on bringing up to Featured Article status. You could give input on the project's talk page... Smee 21:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron

Greetings and welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! Please browse Articles for Deletion periodically, and help fix any articles flagged for rescue that you can. If you have any questions please let me know. Fosnez 03:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Soviet/Slavic death

Thank you very much for yor useful comments on the Slavic death toll in the Holocaust Article. The small things that I wanted to clear a bit are the following: in my last comment I pointed out not the fuct of millions of Slavs killed in the concerations camps but rather that death of 4.5 - 8 millions of Slavs was racially motivated (both in the concentration camps, labor camps, their mass murders etc). All the references cited so far agreed on that. So if this fall under the definition of genocide/Holocaust this people should be included as a common group (just like jewish people not by their country of residence). I am not enforcing to the words killed in camps or Soviet people. I think Slavic victims would more correct. Now, the difference between the Jewish and Slavic people, as I see, is that the first froup was planned 2/3 killed and the rest eslaved (not just enslaved ! and most of the references along with a number of people killed stands for that), while the second group was supposed was to be completely eliminated. If you agree on that should we also say Slavic Holocaust and iclude this people in the artilce as a group ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsosin (talk • contribs) 02:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)