User talk:Rhobite/Archive 2

Talk page archives
User:Rhobite
Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5
Archive 6
Archive 7
Archive 8
Archive 9
Current

Violence

---

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 conceded nothing. I merely refuse to let you drag me into a moral debate. Rhobite 04:15, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Copyvio

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)

That is a discussion, not a rule, and it applies to "presumed" copyright violations. The images I listed are unquestionably copyrighted. You'll notice I didn't list the logos you submitted, which probably fall under fair use, and the scans of public domain artwork. Rhobite 12:32, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

digital photography

apologies for cross edits, didn't realise you were editing too. also for my poor spelling etc. Ohka- 19:10, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's no problem, you're adding good content and I'm just doing a bit of cleanup. Rhobite 19:39, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Fluoride poisoning

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)

• Fine, I'll VFD it if you insist. Rhobite 02:48, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • No problem. Let everybody decide.--AAAAA 02:52, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

MP3

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

This message will self-destruct after being read by Rhobite

I replied. User talk:Nickshanks

vandal/troll

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).

• (66.144.5.25 | talk | contributions) (see [1])
• (210.142.29.125 | talk | contributions) (see [2])
• (Chuck F | talk | contributions) (see 'Hexaform Rotary Surface Compression Unit')

Duk 02:40, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

yeh, i noticed the geographical difference. they may not be the same person- but they are both up to no good. Duk 03:05, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Got you message, will do. Duk 02:06, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chuck F

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)

I appreciate the note. I understand that there is a group of users who feel it's OK to ignore the 3 revert rule, but I'm not one of them. He revert warred several pages, he ignored my request for moderation. Most of the paragraph he removed from Michael Badnarik was based in fact, although POV - I can personally verify Badnarik's extreme statements on his website. I hope you reconsider. Rhobite 01:47, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Like I said, his behaviour was out of order but I hope that it is improving. Don't worry, any more revert-warring from him and I will certainly add my signature to the statement of dispute. —Stormie 06:57, 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)

Thanks for certifying. Yeah, I didn't realize that was a result of a challenge on VfD. Added. Rhobite 02:32, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

That explains a lot, Duk, that whole 'Hexaform Rotary Surface Compression Unit' affair was a complete "WTF?" for me until you pointed out that VfD debate. —Stormie 06:57, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Reithy

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)

Admin nomination

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)

Internet Explorer

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)

RE: PEMFC "what copyright violations are you talking about?"

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)

Adminship?

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)

Thank you, I'm glad to hear that my work is appreciated. You've also helped out a great deal. I would accept a nomination but I'm concerned that I haven't made enough edits, I believe I have about 1500 total. If you think it would fly, I'd be honored if you nominated me. Rhobite 23:45, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Done. You can accept at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Rhobite. Best of luck. RadicalSubversiv E 00:22, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rhobite what can be done about User:ReithySockPuppet and all of his misc accounts? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:144.132.89.151&action=edit.

be specific: what copyright violation?

be specific: what copyright violation are you referring to EXACTLY?

--Proton44 22:43, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

what is your specific reason for removing...

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

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)

Sorry to see you go. You have to understand that nobody here has a duty to accept and clean up your copyright violations and duplicate articles. PEMFC may not be the best example of that, but the NASA one was a dupe and was cut and pasted from another site. I know nothing about fuel cells, and I didn't put any information on the PEM page. If you see anything you'd like to correct, feel free to correct it. If you ever decide that you want to contribute your own knowledge and expertise to this encyclopedia, instead of appropriating the work of others, please come back. It strikes me as very odd that someone who runs a site using Wikimedia software, and champions "open source" ideals, would disrespect Wikipedia by submitting copyright violations as his own work. There is no "you" and "we" here. We're all here voluntarily, you're free to edit here, but please don't expect everyone here to clean up your messes. Rhobite 03:12, Oct 17, 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)

There are many errors in this article

Proton-exchange fuel cell is erroneous

PEMFC and PEM and Proton-exchange fuel cell are NOT synonymous!!

Personal attack removed

Flecainide

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)

• OK then, sorry if I stepped on your toes. AAAAA has been persistent in submitting copyrighted material, and I'm especially concerned about when he admitted to submitting copyvios but said to Matt Kingston "I was hoping that after some time you would forget about watching this page." Rhobite 16:08, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

• • Why are you so IMPATIENT? I did NOT TOUCH the article until Jfdwolff asked me if he could work on it, and JUST THEN, I copied a lot of old information, so he could do a good rewrite. Why was it so important for you to act so quickly? Couldn't you have waited? --AAAAA 17:48, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reithy

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)

I think you both need to clean up your act a little. I'm busy this weekend but I'll add evidence to the RFAr when I get a chance. Rhobite 16:47, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't want to add this under my normal ip but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chuck_F take a look at Reithy's last comments... he's getting very stalkery in his behavior... do you even know if this is within wikipedia rules to do this?

I don't know who you are and I have no way of knowing whether you are Chuck, Reithy, or someone else. Why don't you people pick a user account and stick with it? Rhobite 18:01, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)