Since you conceded that your statement "circumcision is not violence" is wrong, ¿why do you continue to revert violence?
Ŭalabio 04:08, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)
I guess you are "legally" right by removing images that apparently violated copyrights. However, do you think the world is now better after you "fought for the rights" of the owners of the pictures? Do you think for example that the owner of the website promoting travel to Mousa is happier now that you "saved" him from the "monster" that copied one of his pictures? Why is it so important for you to "protect" the rights of these people? In summary: I did wrong, but why is it so important for YOU to remove the pictures? Just asking. --AAAAA 17:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Please read Avoid Copyright Paranoia --AAAAA 12:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
apologies for cross edits, didn't realise you were editing too. also for my poor spelling etc. Ohka- 19:10, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I will keep reverting your redirects as many times as necessary. I firmly believe THERE SHOULD BE AN ARTICLE about Fluoride Poisoning. I will include both sides of the discussion. If you don't agree with me, then start a discussion in the "Fluoride poisoning" page.--AAAAA 02:32, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for completing my line of thought in the "design limitations" paragraph of MP3 :-). — David Remahl 23:04, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I disagree with you on most of what you are stating about it. Proven scientific facts are never up for discussion. Furthermore, if one states that MP3 has 'flaws' one really needs to clarify that these so-called 'flaws' aren't of much importance to the general audience (which needs to be the target for a wiki-page if I'm correct!). Plus, David's "line of thought" is simply stubborn nonsense we can do nothing with. ~Julius
I replied. User talk:Nickshanks
Rhobite, I read your comment on the village pump about the Exxon Mobil page. this user or users have been causing trouble for about a month. I listed the accounts on the Vandalism in progress page a while back, and two admin pages recently (User_talk:Silsor,User_talk:Stormie).
Duk 02:40, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hiya,
I had a look over your statement of dispute.
First, I suggest you remove the first link ([3]) from point 4 ("Changed other people's comments on several VfD pages"), since it involves User:210.142.29.125 adding to User:Chuck F's vote, and you're asserting that they're same person. The other three links on that point are damning enough.
p.s. Chuck confirmed on the Village Pump that User:210.142.29.125 is him, but stated that User:66.144.5.25 is not.[4]
Secondly, I feel that some progress is being made on the ExxonMobil article. User:203.112.19.195 is now at least starting to discuss things on the talk page, and has not deleted the content which I re-inserted with a proper attributing link. Also, I notice that he has been engaging in discussion on Talk:Michael Badnarik and Talk:Stop Esso campaign since his last reverts to the associated articles.
Basically, while I certainly agree that this guy's behaviour has been out of order, I think it does seem to be improving. And frankly, while he's been going about things the wrong way, the articles he's been hitting do have some genuine NPOV problems, I think, what with Exxon Mobil baldly stating that they bribed the President of Angola, and Michael Badnarik featuring another anon making some pretty extreme-sounding claims about Badnarik, attributing them to a book of his.. which hasn't been released yet!
All up, I'd like to see how things progress for a few days before joining this RFC. —Stormie 01:40, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
Rhobite, should we ammend the RFC to include 'Hexaform Rotary Surface Compression Unit' and susequent revisions and reverts of the Nut (hardware) page? He did not break the three reverts rule here (assuming the 66... IP is not him). But in my mind he used pure vandalism to make a point (see [5] near the end). Duk 02:17, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
While I agree with you that Reithy should've been blocked by now, I've put up an RFC in the hopes of getting some kind of action on this. Please take a look when you get the chance. RadicalSubversiv E 18:36, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the support of the admin nomination! I'm flattered that you were thinking of nominating me :) - Ta bu shi da yu 02:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thanks! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:36, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hey, good work on getting Frank Vorck involved in the Wikipedia discussion. Now we have clearly attributable statements and people, and we can NPOV and remove some weasel terms. I was thinking - would you be able to keep in contact with Frank and encourage him to create an account? Also, would you be able to email him explaining that Wikipedia has not been created for original research? I think he totally misunderstands some common wikipedia concepts. However, he might like to add his tutorial on how to remove Internet to WikiBooks! I know this might be a bit much, but would you like to give it a shot? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:44, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think you are mistaken- RE: PEMFC "copyright violations"
Also.. there was no page entitled PEMFC prior to my creating it. Also, the info on the page you forwarded to is very much outdated and the PLUG for Ballard is commercial and inacurate.
Also the info you put up on PEM page was blatantly incorrect.
I will no longer waste my time with wikipedia. You are a gang of wannabe librarians and clerics and do little to insure that updated and accurate USEFUL information reaches the public.
This whole thing has become a sham and it is plain to see why so many wiki veterans are leaving your ranks.
My experience with your org has been most disappointing... All you people do is chop and thrash. This is not editing. You are the equivilent of "slash and burn farmers" as opposed to "cooperative bio-dynamic farming."
What will you power your computers with when the oil runs dry...?
--Proton44 23:12, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
You've been doing great work dealing with these ongoing Libertarianism edit wars. func's suggestion that you'd make a good admin is dead on. Would you accept a nomination? RadicalSubversiv E 20:57, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
be specific: what copyright violation are you referring to EXACTLY?
--Proton44 22:43, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)
what is your specific reason for removing the NASA photo on the Solar Tower page?
--Proton44 22:44, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)
Copyvios and dupes????
The below, by Rhobite, which is posted on my "talk page" is patent rubbish. I will leave it here so that history and proper investigation might one day serve justice on Rhobite and his/her ilk. I won't waste another keystroke wih this so-called "community" of nit pickers. You all spent much effort at finding fault. Not a single one of you actually made an effort to "assist, coach or teach". Rhobite, in case you didn't know it... there is nothing new under the sun, all knowledge is second hand; and by your own actions and methods you have very clearly setup a "you" and "me/we" environment. My condolences on what must be your countless losses to date. I can't begin to imagine how many would be contributors have been turned away by your collective pettiness. You needent worry about vanity pages in future, as this entire project seems to have become vanity central. The vanity of the so-called admins is pervasive. You can confidently rename the whole thing WikiVanity! No need to reply, I will not be back. I will consult a real encyclopedia in future managed by people who genuinely know what they are doing! User:Proton44
Hi, you have submitted several copyright violations to Wikipedia, as well as duplicates of articles we already have. PEMFC and NASA Ames Research Park were both copyright violations, and duplicates of pre-existing articles. In the future, could you please a) not submit copyrighted material without permission and b) check if an article already exists on the topic you are contributing to?
On a related note, you must stop adding links to your solar tower project in articles. They are not relevant to most of the articles you added them to. What you are doing is borderline spamming - I consider it "astroturfing," and I believe you're doing it to drum up support for your project and to increase its Google rank. Thanks. Rhobite 01:30, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
Welcome back. The NASA photo is not encyclopedic. It's just a group of people, in a meeting I believe is only marginally relevant to solar towers. Photos in this article should be relevant to the subject, in this case they should illustrate the appearance, structure, or concept of solar towers. That image is more suited to a press release. Please read Wikipedia:Choosing appropriate illustrations for more info.
The copyright violations you submitted are as follows: HOPE Curriculum, Cookson Boats. I think Reversible Fuel Cell is also a copyvio. In addition you copied content from US government sites without attribution on PEMFC, NASA Ames Research Park, Hydrogen fuel. Although government content is sometimes public domain, you need to attribute it and also make sure there is no duplicate article, as there was for PEMFC and NASA. Rhobite 22:59, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
P.S. I just noticed your little diatribe. I'm sorry that you feel you should be able to violate copyright laws and use Wikipedia as a marketing tool, but if you want to continue here at Wikipedia you should prepare to follow the rules. I am at this moment making an effort to assist you, and I don't really enjoy being treated rudely. If you'd like me to continue to help you, drop the attitude. Rhobite 23:03, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
Proton-exchange fuel cell is erroneous
PEMFC and PEM and Proton-exchange fuel cell are NOT synonymous!!
Personal attack removed
Having seen User:AAAAAs work on Flecainide, I am now condensing it and making it somewhat like the other medication articles on Wikipedia (compare ximelagatran and acetaminophen). I have temporarily restored the sections you removed, but the copyvio text is gradually being replaced with my version.
Copyvio aside, the info gathered is quite complete, so the editing will not take much longer now. JFW | T@lk 16:03, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Reithy has come out and admitted that all of thoese sockpuppets were his: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reithy
Could you please help me out in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reithy, you are bit more netural and also have better articulation
Thanks Chuck F 06:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Rhobite, I would welcome your assistance, I have certainly tried to clean up my act and believe Chuck_F is pursuing a very unhealthy vendetta. Reithy 09:02, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)