User talk:Rhobite/Archive 4

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

Duplicate articles

Thanks. Move looks very useful. Wish I'd been aware of it sooner. Cheers. Laurel Bush 14:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC).

Libertarian theory

Rhobite: You made an edit to Libertarian theory which appeared to endorse the revert made by User:Chuck F. This surprised me as I know you're familiar with him. There is no justification for his blanket deletion of those paragraphs. I have shown that his notion, that the term "libertarian capitalism" was invented by Wikipedians/socialists, is wrong (see Libertarian Capitalism versus Libertarian Socialism by Brian Micklethwait & Terry Liddle, 1983, or Nozick's Argument for Libertarian Capitalism by William Terry, 1998 - none of those writers are socialists, indeed they appear to be libertarian capitalists, and the term clearly pre-dates Wikipedia). 195.92.67.76 15:22, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I endorse that revert. That paragraph (and the one following it) was self-referential, poorly-worded, and useless. Rhobite 19:04, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the entire article, and the material to which you refer was an attempt at compromise with the ideologues (on both sides) who have wasted a great deal of other people's time on this and other pages. Poorly-written, useless, unnecessary, self-referential...all arguable and I defer. Nonsense, however, seems inappropriate (incorrect and nonsensical are not synonyms) and, further, inflammatory. icut4u

3RR Breach

Please could you deal with the 3RR breaches of Mrfunkygenius/24.184.199.202 on Medical_analysis_of_circumcision. Thanks. - Robert the Bruce 00:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention. You said: "... it would be much better if you tried to come to a consensus rather than overwhelming your opponents with tag-team reverts." I recently made a similar complaint when confronted by tag-team reverting by Theresa Knott and Exploding Boy but was told that it was acceptable and only a problem when done by one person. We really need to develop some consistency on policy here on Wikipedia. - Robert the Bruce 01:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, the policy is consistent. Just because the 3RR only punishes individual people who revert, does not mean it endorses tag-team reverting. This kind of behavior is detrimental to articles. It's good that you're against big revert wars, but in this instance you have engaged in them yourself. Rhobite 01:49, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

OK, so the policy is laid down but the enforcement is inconsistent. As the big-man said: "The nice thing about 3RR is that there is really no ambiguity about it." Now no sooner had the ink dried than we had renegade sysops deciding that they would "interpret" the intentions of the editors to see whether a revert was hidden in with an edit or whatever ... so out the window goes JW's supposition about there being no ambiguity. That said until such time as Wikipedians address the challenges as presented by committed POV pushers (see the emails at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robert_the_Bruce) and start to enforce that "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda or advocacy." [1]. Why is it you think that there is a lack of resolve in moving to counter this threat to Wikipedia? - Robert the Bruce 02:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Far more important than the technical details of what constitutes a revert is the idea that we should work towards consensus instead of fighting with each other. This has gotten pretty off topic so maybe we should stop. Rhobite 03:08, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

One should not fear to engage in dialog (even with the enemy). Can we agree on a definition of consensus? - Robert the Bruce 03:17, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've always thought of consensus as a feeling shared by most or all participants that a group has reached a decision. This requires participants to have the ability to disagree with the decision, but abide by it. Consensus isn't a specific ratio, nor is it unanimous. On Wikipedia, those who aren't willing to respect consensus eventually leave or get banned. Committed POV pushers, in my opinion, should be quickly banned. About this conversation, it's interesting but I don't know if it has a purpose. Fear has nothing to do with it. Rhobite 03:32, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Consensus is only possible when all parties are committed to that end. I refer you to the emails I have linked above and state that like with Bin Laden and his supporters there is no chance of reaching consensus with such zealots. Is this the scenario where you believe such people should be banned? If so would you support the necessary administrative procedures to ban the applicable people? - Robert the Bruce 04:01, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Communism

I removed similar comments a few days ago, and I see the see-also wasn't there on the 1st, so I think it hasn't been around too long, luckily. Good catch though! --fvw* 06:10, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. FYI, Eequor did it. I'm not sure why. Rhobite 06:15, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Google is a competitor, yes

Yes I do mean to say that. Please do not revert my edits while I am actively expanding upon them. The owners of QuakeAID once owned a service called YOUVEGOTPOST which falsely claimed to offer 1 terrabyte of email, in competition with Google's own GMAIL. The fact that this person has issued frivolous lawsuits in the past, which have all been thrown out of court by the way, is no reason not to present the information on Wikipedia. If you feel something is POV please bring it to the attention of the talk page for discussion, we should not succumb to fear mongering tactics. GRider\^talk 23:32, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I did bring it up on the talk page, and you have not yet participated there. Rhobite 23:34, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

VfD Maint

Good work on VfD. Your edit was the most important one that could have been done at the time. While more can be done at such a time, you deserve applause (even tho it's probably easier lately to find one's way), since (i think) there is no documentation for the process.

But if you're curious, lk to diffs over two days and note whether

X'n to January 9 (2nd & 3rd to /Old)

is the right-hand ed-summary. (If not, note the left ed-summary, and find, via the page history, the diff that compares those two versions; at this point i can't give you a URL valid for the long term, w/o adding to clutter of the history.)
Two points need comment:

• It was presumably in response to User:Brockert or some other editor having finished, via Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Old, the "calling" of and actions on the last debates of their two respective days' sub-sub-pages, that Brockert trimmed off (and surely discarded)

  ''[[/Old#December 26|26^th]]

  ''[[/Old#December 23|23^rd]]

• I did not discard, but rather cut&pasted to /Old (bcz their debates had each had the routine 5-6 days of discussion time -- actually an exceptional 6-7 in the case of the 2nd), these two entries:

  {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 January 2}}

  {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 January 3}}

I mention all this mostly to allay any anxiety you had over the boldness on one hand or the sufficiency on the other of your maint contrib. However, IMO your initiative, caution, & results suggest that your going further in the future, if you chose, would only be a benefit to our collegial efforts -- perhaps even if you didn't have the two hints above.

Alleged three revert rule violation

You posted on my user page: I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours because you reverted an article more than three times in 24 hours. The article is Medical analysis of circumcision, and the applicable rule is Wikipedia:Three revert rule. In the future, please remember that you can be blocked from editing for violating the three revert rule. This is done to prevent revert wars. Rhobite 01:23, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC) I have sonce responded:

• Well this was clearly not true. I am edits/reverts on 4 Jan, none before that back into December and none on the 5th. Why have you misued your sysop powers in this case? - Robert the Bruce 04:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) (including the typo)

I require you to apply a srike-through to your comment on my user page and add a suitable apology. - Robert the Bruce 04:55, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Rhobite 04:11, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Unqualified edits in QuakeAID

Rhobite, I appreciate you trying to accomplish a NPOV, but if you're not going to make qualified edits, please stay out. Thats not your job either.

I don't understand the term "unqualified edits". Please elaborate. Rhobite 05:50, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

You're obviously not qualified to make the edits you're making if you don't understand the term "fraud".

sure ok. Ollieplatt 06:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

how so? Ollieplatt 06:59, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

3RR-Breach with ad hominid

A certain someone reverted sexual intercourse three times and made some rather strong statements about the motivations of some of the contributers on talk:sexual intercourse.Ŭalabio 02:14, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

• It is good to see you are being kept abreast of developments. Ever thought why they selected you? - Robert the Bruce 02:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know why they, and you, have come to me with questions and requests. I think the whole circumcision POV war is stupid, maybe that makes me neutral? Rhobite 03:49, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• They probably think that you will continue to help their cause ... while I came to you to test whether you would find it in you to act against one of them. - Robert the Bruce 05:20, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Ooh, tricky. So did I pass? What's next, flying blades? Pit of snakes? Rhobite 05:29, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • On this one I failed. I had not noticed that JakeW had also breached the 3RR so there was no test for you ... I in fact gave you the chance to act evenhanded. But you failed the neutrality test on the other issue. Sorry about that. - Robert the Bruce 16:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Rhobite misuse of administration

You are notified of the Request for comment on your misuse of administrator blocking

• Above link was posted by User:Ollieplatt. I checked the article earlier and noticed the tone in the edit summaries. So I'm not going to argue that they can be construed as Personal attacks or incivility, but could you specify what kind of vandalism User:Ollieplatt is guilty of according to you? Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

That block

I don't think it was vandalism, though I can definitely say that user needs to work on playing nicely. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apology Accepted

Rhobite, you did the wrong thing and got caught out. Misusing your admin powers does little to maintain confidence in Wikipedia. I accept your apology and encourage you to read Wikipedia policies before acting. These include:

Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia:Vandalism Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

The RfC establishes that while my edits were not popular necessarily, they did not in any way justify blocking. You have threatened others with (and maybe have actually blocked) blocking over similar situations where you don't like their edits. It is clear this is an abuse of your power. I accept your apology but will be reviewing your administrative actions to ensure you do not repeat your error.

Ollieplatt 19:10, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please feel free to review my actions. It's all out in the open and I'm confident that you'll find nothing objectionable in my behavior. Rhobite 19:19, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

I hope that's the case, for your sake. You will be held accountable now. Ollieplatt 23:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense/Experimentation

Hi...you've added a couple of "stupid articles are bad" things on my Talk page...it seems as though something odd has happened, because I added the delete tag to those articles. Don't wanna get a bad repuation, y'know! --Coolsi 00:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apology given and then effectively withdrawn

Rhobite, please explain how you can give an apology and then assert you did not err. Ollieplatt 03:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey: All I know is I really want to thank you

Thanks for that uber quick revert while I was reporting a vandalism. It took me the better part of the day to track all that information. Imagine my surprise when I hit the click and saw: Boobs. Now, boobs has an interesting etymology. In all references, it is vernacular and slur. In the plural, it refers to the globular modules on a woman's upper torso. In the singular, a boob can be a rube, a dolt, or a person in a hissy (vernacular for insisting on carrying on when something is better left to drop). However, there can be more than one boob, and the plural is: boobyheads. Anyway, thanks for reverting my boobs. --allie 21:47, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) (littlebuddha, or in this case, littlebooba)

Re: football

Hi,

Thanks -- it's been a pleasure "working with you," and I too hope we can get the football article featured.

I actually have been contributing a little more widely than just the football, you can browse around my history if you like. I know about registration, and I even did register a username at some point, I guess I just haven't been using it. I don't think I even remember my password any more, and I know I can get it again (or get a new one) but I suppose I never bothered doing that and hence have been posting anonymously. Well, we'll see ... if I continue to contribute to Wikipedia maybe I'll start using my username, or maybe you can tell me whether or why it's really advisable.

ok then, I guess that's it for now. Well, thanks again, and it's been nice collaborating over the internets...

All the Best,

--24.103.207.38 22:19, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Go Colts!

I finf your name offensive. Please change it. Anilingus 06:44, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I find computer games very offensive. Please change your name. Anilingus 06:49, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Radicalsubversiv and Rhobite are the same user. Interesting. Ollieplatt

• How do you know that? - Robert the Bruce 07:40, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather them deny first before revealing all Robert. Ollieplatt 07:49, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I'll bite. I'm not Rhobite, now where's your evidence? BTW Rhobite, take a look at Ollieplatt's request for arbitration -- it seems our left-wing Wikipedia conspiracy has been exposed. Damn, thwarted again! RadicalSubversiv E 10:51, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everyking arbitration

I've filed an arbitration request against Everyking. Please comment; brickbats for my foolhardiness are more than welcome. Johnleemk | Talk 07:54, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration against you

I refer you to arbitration request against Radicalsubversiv and sockpuppets. Ollieplatt 11:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Libertas/Evidence

Did you mean to write the info about Olliplatt on the Libertas page? Are you claiming that they are the same person? RickK 23:47, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Who knows? I'm not sure if they're the same person, but the arbitration appears to be against both of them, so I'll add my evidence. I think the ArbCom needs to look at Ollieplatt's conduct, it doesn't really matter what the title of the request page is. I'll request arbitration against Ollie if it turns out that the current request doesn't cover him. Rhobite 01:11, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you about Olliplatt. He came in with a bias and has continued that bias, uploading POV pictures and adding them to articles, and making "Keep" votes on obvious VfD candidates (and yes, even though I'm what they call a "deltionist", there's no way that anyone who wasn't a troll would vote to keep.) RickK 01:23, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Screw it. Baninate the both of them, sockpuppets or otherwise. I'm tired of chasing Ollie around. Blair P. Houghton 06:37, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton

RadicalSubversiv didn't mention this in his statement. You know that I am a (gasp) newbie. There was a comment on 12 Jan by User:Schissel regarding "Further rv of an entry that no longer exists. Odd," I have no idea what that means; I just try to edit that page so it doesn't sound like a rap sheet & maintain some clarity. Please review for yourself to see if it is relevant. Best Regards from the (gasp) newbie, --allie 02:01, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course not. Look at January 12th: RadicalSubversiv was on hours earlier & I was on hours later. This is what I can't figure out, nor do I know if it's even relevant. But considering what's going on, it sure is worth spelling out for you:

• 00:20:Salazar (note: First Lady of Arkansas - cattle futures issue)
• 00:23:Salazar (note:
• 01:13:Schissel (note: rv.going around 'bloggers')
• 01:16:Schissel (note: Further rv of a history entry that seems no longer to exist. Odd.)
• 03.12:Salazar (note: Allegations of Financial Impropriety During Term as First Lady) --allie 02:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While you're reviewing, take a look at 130blahblah's history. He has 5 credits: 4 to Hillary and one to some civil war battle. His first two edits on Clinton are benign. Not so the last two. I don't know what a sockpuppet is. This doesn't look squeaky clean to me. I used to teach eighth graders. I have the tenacity of a Rottweiler. --allie 02:48, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cheesedreams blocks

Heya, the block message and block duration seem to be contradictory on your cheesedreams sockpuppet blocks: According to the block log, you've only blocked them for 24 hours. --fvw* 02:30, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I guess I made a mistake the first time around. Rhobite 02:34, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

UGH

that was a totally disgusting, insidious manouver. i am terribly sorry you have to deal with such a low level of behaviour, and that anyone would cut and paste a comment to manipulate it in such outlandish fashion. i joined wikipedia for the scholarship and in return i've been rewared by meeting some of the most incredibly talented people who have motivated me to do better work. yours is astounding. speaking of which, your user page is all screwed up again. best regards, --allie 04:51, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking/Proposed decision

Hey, you endorsed the RfC on Everyking, and you probably know it's gone to arbitration. Some of us feel that the proposed decision against Everyking is insufficient and too weak for a user who has abused Wikipedia so badly. I hope you can weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking/Proposed decision having read the proposed decision and discussion and share your opinion with us, whether it's that the decision is too strong, just right, or too weak. Johnleemk | Talk 06:11, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments from GoldTrader

Thanks, how do you change the spelling on the main title?

How do you delete an entry after changing the name by recreating it?

All the links for short selling stocks were redirected.

The definition you are redirecting to is not the same word. It does not have the correct meaning.

I am moving it back. GT

The short page does not duplicate anything. Look at what is linked to short and what is linked to short selling. They are not the same.

Besides the short selling page is screwed up in content.

It is not the same topic. Short selling is about borrowing stocks. Short is what we are in the futures market. We do not borrow anything, See the dissuasion under short selling. Look at what is linked to each word.

Short selling is too restrictive. It is not the same thing.

That is the point!!! GT

On the other stuff I was in the middle of moving things over to new titles when you came in the middle and redirected back to the page I left behind. GT

The previous definition of short selling is out and out wrong. The definition should be universal and neutral. What you have there is a load of mis-information. It is misleading and untrue. It only applies to one small highly regulated use. Maybe you should change the name to something like “short selling (stocks only),” because it sure does not apply to real estate or normal businesses.

The current page says “In order to sell something short, one must borrow it from someone else.” Bill Gates did not have to borrow something from someone else, and he was selling short. How do you explain that?

I can sell 5,000 bushels of November Corn, I do not have to borrow anything. How can this page be true?

When Bill Gates sold an operating system he “did not have,” to IBM. Gates was selling short. He sold something before he bought it. He did not adhere to all these things this writer says. Short selling futures, real estate, and fungible property is a part of the Speculation business and it does not fit the current limited description used under this heading for selling short. GT

• All I wanted to say was that in futures, short selling is selling a contract “before,” you buy it. That is the essence of the thing.

In order to balance the non-universal explanation I will explain shorting futures as it is mis-explained above. GT

• In futures, shorting brings with it an obligation to deliver in the future. Sellers are not selling something that they do not own yet, they may be selling something that is not even planted yet. In fact a farmer may have to pre-sell his crop to get the funds for seed. There is no borrowing of any securities like with stocks. The clearinghouse only as a good faith deposit, holds margin. There is no interest or dividends to be paid. There is no deterioration of your capital because of time as there may be with options. When there is no fluctuation in price it does not cost anything to maintain a short futures position. New contracts are only created out of open interest increasing transactions involving a new seller and a new buyer. Selling short futures does not mean that you owe a negative amount of anything. The seller may have it offset with actuals or a long position in something else.

Traders who trade spreads do not hope that prices fall. They may in fact own actuals in greater number than the short position. As when a rancher pre-sells part of his herd by shorting futures. Spread traders may be depending on their shorts to continue going up, just at a slower rate than the long side of the spread. The short side may be just to minimize drawdowns, reduce margin requirements and increase return on margin. It may not be expected to move at all, which is quite common. GT

Why is this one sentance?

In finance, short selling is selling something that one does not (yet) own. In futures, short implies an obligation to deliver something before it is bought.

The definition “something that one does not (yet) own.” Does not apply to futures. You may already own it. It is a separate explanation so it should be put on a separate line. If you are an expert in finance, I suggest that you clean up your act. If your have expertise in futures, than you can see the absurdity of the connection. It is too limited for U.S. futures markets, as they exist today.

We don’t trade in ownership as much as we trade "obligations," to deliver or receive. These agreements are called contracts. GT

Funny thing when I wrote the “Trend,” article I hesitated to put in bullets. Someone else came in later to add bullets to make it look like I thought it should.

“In finance, short selling is selling something that one does not (yet) own. In futures, short implies an obligation to deliver something before it is bought.”

The above sentence made by you is incorrect! See above response on this page. I am going to put the bullets back if you do not fix it. GT

I find your responses and explanations incoherent. If you don't like the explanation please rewrite it, but don't reintroduce your nonstandard formatting. And will you please stop accusing me of things? All I did to Short selling was remove the bullet points. I changed no words. Rhobite 18:53, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Removing the bullets combined two lines of different thought making them appear as one. How else are you planning to separate the two without using the bullets that you removed? GT

I'm not planning anything! If you are so concerned about that paragraph, please change it. Rhobite 21:54, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Looks great!! Thanks GT

I learn by seeing. There are 35 links to margin a disambiguation page. Why don’t the same rules apply to them?

You wrote on _ (cur) (last) 13:00, 25 Jan 2005 Rhobite (don't link to disambig pages)

_ (cur) (last) 02:27, 27 Jan 2005 -oo0(GoldTrader)0oo- (_See also - How can you spread by "short selling stocks?")

_ (cur) (last) 13:00, 25 Jan 2005 Rhobite (don't link to disambig pages) GT

You're right, many of those links should be disambiguated. Wikipedia isn't perfect. Rhobite 14:50, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

All this time I thought the only risk was that traders would get a margin call?

Why are two of the four limited to “stock or other index prices,” are these the only things that have what you are calling "market risk?"

What about the risk that the relationship between two contracts might change?

Or carrying charges, or 911, or just the risk that a trendline will break etc.

If you are redirecting “Risk (Futures)” here then you have to include “futures,” in the limited descriptions. GT

Capital, Loss and Risk mean a different thing to futures traders than they do to schoolchildren. For this reason they deserve a separate explanation. GT

I'm sorry, you're wrong. The concepts are the same. Also, read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Rhobite 20:32, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

What about loss? You were the one who said not to link to Disambiguation pages!!

Obviously it's not preferable, but since there's no article about the financial concept of loss, we don't have a choice. Personally I don't think the topic of "loss" justifies its own encyclopedia article, but feel free to prove me wrong. This time, you should write more than a dictionary definition. Rhobite 20:47, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Capital

“You say that all these terms have different, specific meanings with respect to futures, but this isn't true. The concept of capital, for instance, is no different whether we're talking about stocks, futures, private equity, or anything else. Rhobite 04:12, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)”

Almost anything can be an asset and used as capital. Stock certificates, patents, copyrights, even toxic waste dumps in New Jersey, can be used as capital. However, I don’t expect that they can be used as margin in their current form by organized futures exchanges. In other words, unless it is in a specific (highly liquid) form, “the general concept of capital,” may not be used to Speculate in the futures markets.

The concept of capital in stocks is not the same as futures. This is the basic misconception often held by stock people. The stock traders concept does not include unrealized gains. When you buy a stock you cannot spend it until it is sold. You may borrow against it, pay interest on your own gains if you like, but you cannot spend it until it is sold. The concept of capital in futures does not recognize fantasy paper like stocks as capital. Stock certificates are not acceptable as futures margin as far as I know. Futures gains are gains and can be spent instantly to buy anything that you want, whenever you want it. We cannot say cash is required for futures margin, as certain interest earning securities as well as unrealized gains may also be acceptable. GT

Similar but not the same

Driving a General Motors streetcar may have a lot in common with driving a formula one single seater. Similarly owning the common stock of General Motors may be similar to holding a Soybean futures contract. I would not suggest however, that a driver who may still be alive after driving a Chevy on the limit try to hold a Formula One car on the limit without further training. Similarly, a common investor should not try to apply stock market terms often used to fleece the public, to precise terms used by professionals who make a living in the futures markets.

The terms “acceleration,” “cornering,” “top end,” may have similar meanings to a common streetcar, and a Formula One racer, but they can mean a great deal of difference to drivers of these cars at the limit.

Both acceleration and breaking are forms of acceleration, without emphasizing the distinction you may get opposite results. There is no sense in lumping everything together; the whole point of all of this leads to “precise distinction.” How are they NOT the same. GT

It's a wonder that anyone doubts whether you're some sort of professional millionaire investor. Rhobite 22:03, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Nice clean up on rich dad poor dad

Thanks!

this ip is a network ip!

just noticed you reported someone vandilizing wikipedia recently just telling you that this is A NETWORK IP (for a school!) so i can't do much about it --(unsigned)

• Just block the school's IP. Let them figure out who's costing them their Wikipedia editing privs. --Blair P. Houghton 22:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, we should be helpful if they want to determine at what time the vandalism occurred and such, but we shouldn't be afraid to block proxies. --fvw* 23:01, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

Weblog

Censoring documentable and notable information is vandalism. It is always vandalism to censor material you don't like, rather than documenting a particular point of view. Launching a "rule of three" revert war - where numerically superior editors try and force their point of view is vandalism, because it rests on ignoring POV and simply counting noses. I'm going to RFC this one, since after putting up with their first round of infantile tirades, it's pretty clear they aren't, for whatever reason, in any mood to be reasonable about this one. There isn't moral equivalence over what to say, but two editors trying to remove information they don't like. Stirling Newberry 17:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh come on, you're arguing over whether Slashdot is a weblog or not. Calm down, get a cup of coffee, and move along. I think you would get a lot further here if you refrained from accusing people of vandalism, censorship, etc. You misuse these words. Rhobite 17:55, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

I was also wrong to stretch the meaning of "vandalism", but I do know this: Stirling really did not present any substantive documentation for his claim; meanwhile, nowhere on the Slashdot site does it call itself a blog... nowhere. As a Slashdot user for many years, I know that everyone calls it a news site, or rather "News for Nerds." It seems to me that Stirling was simply trying to push content that simply isn't true, and I really don't comprehend why he cares so much to push this. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 02:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stevie has just done his fourth revert. I am formally requesting he be blocked for violation after being warned. Stirling Newberry 02:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Report it here if you want. I'm not blocking anyone, since I've weighed in on the dispute. Rhobite 02:53, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Legal issues of Cannabis

Hey. Sorry for jumping the gun with the cut and paste move from "Legal issues of cannabis" to "cannabis (law)". Personally, I don't mind if it keeps the first name and I see your point. Anyway, my bad for acting impulsively. --Howrealisreal 04:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Robert Brookes

Hi, checking some evidence I posted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce/Evidence, I found that I couldn't find any block log information as far back as September 11/12 when I think Robert Brookes was blocked. I did find your statement on User talk:Friends of Robert that "Check your facts. Robert was not banned, he was blocked for 24 hours" ([2]). I can't find any other direct reference to the blocking.

Was it you who blocked Robert, or someone else? If someone else, do you happen to recall who that was? I know it was a long time ago so I don't seriously expect you to remember who it was, but as I think this information may be relevant and we can't just look at the block log I am reduced to this kind of request. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't block him, I wasn't an admin yet. Maybe Theresa Knott blocked him, she was involved in the dispute at that point. Snowspinner warned him about personal attacks but I don't know if he actually blocked him. I do remember that he was blocked for 24 hours, but "Friends of Robert" took that opportunity to come along and tell the sad tale of the anti-circumcision admins' censorship. Rhobite 15:22, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

No it wasn't me. I remember him being blocked for making personal attacks. I can't remeber who actually blocked him though. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 12:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think I'm getting anywhere. Friends of Robert didn't appear until about 27 hours after Robert Brookes' last edit, so he could have awaited the end of the block and then started up. I'm guessing that his IP would have been blocked so he didn't have much choice unless he went to a different IP or a cybercafe or library. He probably didn't do anything really wrong, just attempt to pretend he was someone else. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Tony have you given it some thought that if you had any real evidence against me you would not have to try and pull this stuff out of your ass? Pathetic really. - Robert the Bruce 01:03, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Look on the bright side. If it was my decision, you'd have been banned for the "Friends of Robert" stunt. Rhobite 02:51, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes it is likely that you would also have played the man and not the ball. Not to mention that it would have left the field clear for your foreskin admirer buddies to stuff their POV into the articles. Did you ever think you were fooling anyone? - Robert the Bruce 06:07, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • If it was my decision I would also have banned the Walabio/DanP crowd long ago. How does that play in your convenient little conspiracy theory? Rhobite 06:11, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • I would say it is mere words. There is no evidence that you were even-handed at any stage so to offer the pretence of being so at a stage so late to render it purely academic further serves to the highlight the disingenuous nature of your actions. Who do you think you are fooling? - Robert the Bruce 07:37, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Page vandalism

I just reverted National League Championship Series because user 209.136.11.20 inserted a line for the 2005 NLCS on Monday (said Alex Gonzalez was the MVP as the Florida Marlins won the series). I noticed that you had issued this non-registered user a vandalism warning earlier, on Michael Moore, and he has another one as well. Is there a way of blocking the domain? Or is that still not necessary? CharlieZeb 14:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou for your kind comments

Thankyou for the kind words on my user-talk page. I am about to write a speech at User talk:Rhobite/Speech of thanks to show my gratitude to you for making me feel so welcome. Please check there ina bout 5 minutes.--212.100.250.213 OK. It's finished now. You can look.--212.100.250.213 09:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've even made you a short web address so you can always lookat it quickly. It's http://masl.to/?L2161677A and it redirects to the speech page.--212.100.250.213 09:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arc de triomphe

Thanks for having the courage I lacked, to remove "The Rugrats Movie" from this entry! --Wetman 03:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Only in Wikipedia could the unknown soldier live two paragraphs above "the giant reptar" from a Rugrats movie. Rhobite 03:11, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Internet Explorer

As you did with Windows XP, would you be willing to team up with me to remove the POV language in the Internet Explorer article? We managed to get the XP article from a highly POV screed to an NPOV article and ultimately (with a lot of help from others like jguk) to featured article status. Interested? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll try and help but school is eating all my time so I can't promise much. I shouldn't even be online right now, I have an exam on Wednesday as well as a project due. Rhobite 03:09, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

Just a quick "thank you" for voting me for admin. Now all I've got to do is find out how to use these worrying new powers... Grutness|^hello? 05:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edward Francis Searles

I'm sorry about the mistake on my part. I was researching and by mistake I loaded a research article into the Wiki article. I wish there was a quick way to un-do the error with a keystroke or two but it seems that it nees to go through the VFD process Hopefully speedy. I guess this will make me more careful in the future ;-) hydnjo talk 06:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

fathers' rights vfd

Would you care to provide me a link to the vfd discussion that apparently took place a week ago? I'd like to review it. Thank you. Zantastik 18:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Open standards reversion

I'm rather surprised at the reversion you did (17 Feb 2005) on "open standards". I considered that material to be important clarification of reality of the use of the term.

Forged signatures

I wasn't sure what to do with those, so I just made a note. For the future, what is the proper action to take with a forged signature? Is there policy/guidelines on this somewhere? – flamurai (t) 07:55, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing. I removed the sig to reduce the chance of confusion when the votes are counted. Rhobite 19:20, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

cannabis

marijuana refers to both plant cannabis sativa and drug cannabis (drug). Please leave the redirection as it. If you have an issue with this direct it to either Talk:marijuana or Talk:Cannabis. The decision was made to split cannabis in 2, and it is completely wrong to redirect marijuana to only half the article. That is why there is a disambiguation page. Or do you think marijuana isn't a plant. --SqueakBox 15:19, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Retracting personal attacks

I do not believe in retracting words once they've been said...personal attack or not. I will take your comment into consideration and try to contain my ever-increasing frustration with this bug. You would be vexed too if you were forced to deal with Instantnood after a day or two. —ExplorerCDT 21:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Lollo

Heads up, he's at it again... see here. Zerbey 21:54, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Photos

I would like to get your taken photos in high resolution to use as wallpaper. Thanks. http://jimmysquid.com/

List of ISO standards

Hi, you're an admin. I was looking at this page last week, and now it's disappeared. It couldn't have been on VfD: it was very long and had lots of info. Reply here please.--62.253.64.17 08:43, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Truelove Eyre

I have substantially cleaned up the Truelove Eyre article based on the references that User:DragonflySixtyseven found, and have removed the spurious claims about the Eyre Empire etc. I am changing my vote to keep: can I persuade you to do the same? Thanks! GeorgeStepanek\^talk 01:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Copyright Question

I don't understand how the Image:The City Of Rome.png couldn't be public domain. True, I got it from Encarta, but I thought all pictures on Encarta were public domain because they are not copyrighted.→ JarlaxleArtemis 03:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What if it's a picture from Encarta that is very common, such as the Mona Lisa or a picture of George Washington?→ JarlaxleArtemis 03:53, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please don't take any content from Encarta at all. Rhobite 05:26, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Blogospheria

Good catch. --AStanhope 06:20, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Rhobite 06:27, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite

Just to let you all know that the user, "Keith-Wigdor" is an imposter harrassing an artist with the name Keith Wigdor. Wikipedia Administrators already know about it. I need to let you know about this because the real artist gave notice to Wikipedia about people harrassing him. I read your post on the Digital Art Talk Page and I needed to let you know what is going on regarding this matter.Classicjupiter2 22:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Biting the experts

I just wrote a calmer response after the bitchy response here.  :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 00:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much...

Thanks for correcting my user Page. I think it's (a) amazing that someone would bother to deface my home page (b) amazing that someone else would bother to correct it and (c) anyone even reads my user page in the first place!! :-D

Thanks Again. SeanO 21:53, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

IfD discussion

Hi Rhobite. I didn't know you were a photographer, but that's great. Maybe you won't be inclined to, given your distaste for the picture, but perhaps you could clean Autofellatio.jpg up a bit to make it look nicer (color balance etc.) Just a though. Cheers, TIMBO (T A L K) 08:03, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the colors could be a little better, but there's not much you can do with a poor starting image. Rhobite 08:20, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the expert input. TIMBO (T A L K) 08:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to mislead you or anything, I've been taking pictures for a while but purely on an amateur level. Just so you know. Rhobite 08:22, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Baku_Ibne,_et_al./Evidence

Hi, I noticed you were involved in blocking User:Osmanoglou and his socks. I'd be grateful if you could consider contributing what you know to this ongoing case brought by his main victim, User:Tabib against suspected Osmanoglou socks for what looks like pretty extreme harassment. I've recorded some items from the blocking log but the case may benefit from information I may have missed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:05, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Hi, just so you know... I have just listed Melanie Phillips for protection, after our joint continuous reverting. Thanks, Smoddy (_t^g_e^c) 17:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Three-Reverts

Hello? Where can I draw attention to the fact that the three-revert rule has let to the creation of revert possies like the Jfdwolff, Jayjg and Josh Cherry revert possy currently preventing progress on the Nazarene page? sorry if this is the wrong place to post please just move my comment to the right place. All I want to do is be sure there is some quality control going on to allow me to sit back and enjoy reading again. Thank you. 193.63.146.184 19:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you and sorry again.193.63.146.184 14:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

articles in need of attention

Hi, I'm glad to see you have started User:Rhobite/SamuraiClinton articles. I had thought to do something similar. These things really need a either LOT of TLC or else some tough love. older≠wiser 02:40, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Feel free to add to that, it's a wiki after all. I thought he was a vandal at first but now it seems he is trying to improve the quality of his contributions. Rhobite 02:44, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

User:Rhobite/SamuraiClinton articles and User:Android79/SC: There's duplication of tracking effort here. The two of you should communicate. Uncle G 15:30, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I'm sorry but I disgusted with the drawing, Jimbo himself removed the old drawing. Now I'm a father and I don't my children looking at that smut. However I'll look at the talk page (I won't break the 3-rr at least for now..)--198 05:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree but I really question the useage of the photo, maybe I was going a bit far by removing the drawing altogether, however I don't think linking the drawing wouldn't be so bad.--198 05:22, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do think that 198 should be blocked if he actually breaks a rule. I made that remark before he agreed to adhere to the three revert rule. - so all he's saying is that he won't break the 3RR rule. Big whoop. It's still vandalism, violation of consensus, and disruption. And how was I possbly supposed to have found this discussion? There's nothing at the autofellation Talk page or 198's page to indicate that this "dialogue" was occuring. RickK 07:36, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Vfd: Philip Huntoon

This page was slated for deletion with a 3-2 majority in favor of deletion. Why was this not carried out? Did you feel that there wasn't an overwhelming majority to delete this, Rhobite? -- Riffsyphon1024 19:29, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Interstate 291 (Massachusetts)

Thanks, a fine article - and an excellent start. hydnjo talk 03:55, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the article. I just hope I'm getting the terms right. Rhobite 03:59, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Just one thing though - What is a "flyover". I can guess that's an "overpass" but I'm not sure; it's not common usage in the Northeast US. hydnjo talk 04:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that a flyover is a specific type of overpass, one that is used as an on- or off-ramp. Another famous flyover goes from I-84E to I-91N in Hartford. That one's actually called "the flyover" by some people. Rhobite 04:16, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Got it! US=Overpass; UK=Flyover or Flypast; (I think, after a Google "Define:overlook flyover" peek). Anyway thanks for your work on these obscure (and I don't mean unimportant) pages. hydnjo talk 04:40, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Threshold of significance

Moved to Talk:George W. Bush -- Rhobite 14:25, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

exit poll raw data citations

My citation request was actually for you or someone to find a citation that actually disputes the accuracy of the raw/leaked exit polls as not being raw unadjusted exit poll data? I believe there are no such citations, Mitofsky and other damage control folks have just focused on claiming that weighting exit polls is a reasonable thing to do, rather than try to dispute the accuracy of the data itself. Everything else in the article is indeed seperately disputed, and you provided valid citations for many things but now it's rather overkill don't you think? Friedman's analysis criticisms of Mitofsky's internal report etc should be included if you are going to cite Mitofsky and NEP that much? Anyway, sorry I wasn't specific enough citation wise (before I edited the article it had used a weasle word to describe the leaked/raw exit poll data which I still think was inaccurate given that no one is actually disputing the fact that the leaked data is unadjusted exit poll raw data). I also think stating in the article that there was a 5.5 or greater than 5 percent discrpepancy between the unadjusted exit poll and election result is a valid thing to say based on the evidence, such a statement does not presume fraud? Why did you change that part too? zen master T 02:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Mystery Pollster article does cast some doubt on whether the CNN numbers were raw exit poll results: [3] So I did cite that. It's only prudent to point out that the CNN figures, although probably accurate, might not be what everyone thinks they are.

Freeman's analysis is included.. feel free to beef it up. If you can cite that 5+ point swing, please do. I removed it because I don't know where that number came from. It's also not helpful to say that the leak results "indicated Kerry would beat Bush". They did not indicate anything of the sort, since even the 3% mid-day lead was within NEP's margin of error using a 95% confidence level. They indicated that Kerry was leading Bush slightly in the exit polls, and nothing more. Rhobite 02:21, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

The swing states had a tighter margin of error. And the probability that kerry would win, more accurately is based on the aggregate of the states, and more accurately is based on the probabilities of the different winning scenarios (in state wins), which is above 95%. Kevin Baas^talk 03:11, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Conversly, the probability that Bush would win, given all possible scenarios, was less than 5%. The probability that Bush would win by 3%... well, if 95% of the bell curve is on the other side of the 0% axis, and it's mean is at 3% Kerry, then 45% of the probability density is between 0% and 3% Kerry, then we can rest assured that much less than 5% of the probability density is anywhere near 3% Bush. Kevin Baas^talk 03:39, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Actually, look at the green curve on the cumulative distribution function [[here. Subtracting the sample mean from an individual (raw) score and then dividing the difference by the sample standard deviation, and doing a simple linear transformation (which preserves the relevant properties), zero is the mean: Kerry by 3%. At about -1.5, the curve is at about .05. That would be the 0% point. Thus, -3 would be the Bush by 3% point. Just so you get a picture of what we're talking about here. Kevin Baas^talk 03:47, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

To find the confidence level that Bush got less than 3% (and Kerry less than 9%), one would translate this raw score of -3 to a z-score and then a confidence level. The probability that Bush got at least 3% is one minus that quantity, divided by two. Is that better?Kevin Baas^talk 19:23, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Please don't give me statistics lectures. I have studied statistics; you obviously have not. Rhobite 04:12, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I have tutored people in statistics. They found my help very helpfull. I actually studied to be an actuary for a while, but stopped when I found out how boring it was. I took a standardized test that ranked me in the top 99.9th percentile in spatial reasoning. In High School, I got the highest score in the school on the AHSME, and was the first one in one of the math teacher's career (which was about ten years) to make it to the AIME. I don't mean to brag, I'm just pointing out that my skills in mathematics are by no means lacking, so don't patronize me. And don't turn this into a battle of egos. I will concede that battle immediately, because I'm really not interested in having it. I guess you owe me one for the "see logic" crap, so now we're even. But understand, Rhobite, that you'd have much better luck patronizing the next guy regarding mathematics. Kevin Baas^talk 05:40, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

I'm sure you're very good at problem solving but without a background in basic statistics this stuff is not easy to pick up. You can't just take a sample proportion and map it onto a normal curve, as you attempted to explain. In order to estimate a population proportion you need to compute your standard error based on the sample proportion: sqrt((p*(1-p))/n), then multiply by a confidence coefficient (z-score) based on your desired confidence level. This gives you the margin of error for your estimate. All of this assumes perfect random sampling, but since NEP's sampling was clustered there is additional error. I'm sorry to be so blunt but I was getting sick of you telling me I should read articles on basic terms such as variance. Rhobite 06:30, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

And I'm sorry for over-simplifying. Kevin Baas^talk 19:00, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

And BTW< if you are interested in the statistical aspects of the exit polls, there are some interesting depositions by statistics professors in Moss v. Bush. Kevin Baas^talk 19:11, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

No one even remotely connected to Mitofsky is disputing the data, are they? I believe that MP's analysis is against Freeman's initial paper, Freeman's later papers state explicityl that Mitofsky is not disputing that data and that the same data as found on CNN was also leaked on like slate or msnbc.com, I will find a citation but I think the article already mentions it somewhere even. The 5.5 figure is easily citable, it's the difference in margin between bush and kerry between the 13047 raw unadjusted exit poll and the adjusted 13660 exit poll. zen master T 02:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Data wikification

Hey there. I've just gone through and re-wiki'd the year part of the dates at Terri Schiavo. Just so you know the whole date, including the year, needs to be wikified in order to allow users to choose from all of the possible date formats, such as 2001-01-15. I agree that the year, when not part of a date, shouldn't be overwiki'd, just that it has to be within dates. Cheers. violet/riga (t) 21:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neat feature! As an ugly American I was not aware of that requirement. I've seen other people unwikify dates too, maybe this should be part of the manual of style. Thanks for letting me know. Rhobite 21:50, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me - I'm new

Rhobite

I do take yr point about people editing the article. However, my point remains: it is inappropriate to suggest that anyone can have access to all human knowledge. It is an absurd goal, methinks. Hence, my persistence.

Might it be that the speed at which my contributions are edited may say more about the 'need' to cling to Wiki's quoted goal?

Tony (WTD)

Dispute resolution

I don't think you will be successful. Even some people who voted to delete Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome agreed that it should be linked to from masturbation. See the discussion page for Traumatic masturbatory syndrome. Doug22123 02:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re:ArbCom ruling

I already have followed the Arbcom steps (User:JarlaxleArtemis/Arbcom statement). → JarlaxleArtemis 05:17, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Safavids

Template:iran You protected the Safavids_article??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 I find it correct but I want to enter the list of Persian dynasties (see the right side) in this article. this list is a overlook about the total Histoy of Iran, and all the persian dynasties-articles contain it. And I find it necessary in this article. I asked your turkish friend (tabib-user) to do it. what he didnt answer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! can you insert it instead of by me???? thank you

Northwest

Just wanted you to know that I saw the RFC on Northwest you placed. I took a look and basically agree with you. Have placed a comment on the NW Talk page. If you need more backup let me know. I actually cover airlines and aviation policy among other things so one thing I have is facts on these suckers. It is true that Midway has an older fleet, but I don't really consider it in the same class as the other major "legacy" airlines. Northwest is #2 after Midway. Katefan0 21:25, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Crusader: No Remorse

Hi there! Regarding your comments on VfD crusading, you may want to count the sheer number of merge-votes I've been doing lately. Radiant_* 18:57, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Shah Ismail

Hello Rhobite. Can you protect shah Ismail I. It is better wenn you blocked the user 83.196.6.103 or rather 83.196.26.146 (they are the same user) wenn he do absordity again in this article thank you (too for previously) :-}

move

I did move it Irish Hermit 01:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, he did.

He moved Massachusetts to The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Without moving the Talk page, by the way. I consider this move vandalism and I reverted it, and left a note on User_talk:IrishHermit. I think I reverted it successfully, I'd appreciate it if you eyeballed the results and made sure I didn't screw up. I left The Commonwealth of Massachusetts in place as a redirect to Massachusetts. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Legal" threat

You're right, it's not generally in the spirit of Wikipedia.

• To be more precise though, it's a disciplinary rather than a legal threat; and one that I may well pursue on my own if there is a repeat. Every two years or so, on my own site, by the way — a very large site with very heavy traffic — I find a search or set of searches that is so ominous that I do report it to the authorities: far, far better to be safe than sorry. The last one was a set of searches that evinced a serious interest in torturing animals: a classic warning sign of Columbine and Red Lake-type stuff that I feel no compunction about alerting people to. Best, Bill 20:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • While I disagree that torturing animals is a "classic warning sign" of school shootings, I don't want to get into that. I recognize that some people believe there is such a thing as a "classic" warning sign, even though school shootings are so rare that it's impossible to link them with any other behavior without huge numbers of false positives. However, it's ludicrous to claim that vandalizing Wikipedia indicates a tendency to murder one's classmates. You're free to pretend that you're a criminologist when reporting behavior on your own site - I can't see how a school would take your complaints seriously - but please don't make these threats on behalf of Wikipedia. Rhobite 20:54, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • I will not; nor have I done so, as you will see if you go back and read what I wrote: nothing on behalf of Wikipedia, specifically the contrary. You have also disappointed me by injecting sarcasm into what had been civil discourse on both our parts; so: you need to learn to read, and your manners seem to be far worse than mine. Bill 21:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Faced with someone who believes that vandalizing Wikipedia is a classic warning sign for murder, I see no response other than sarcasm. Rhobite 20:14, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Spamming talk pages

Please don't send me any more messages about school VfD's. Thank you. Rhobite 21:20, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Please accept my apologies, it will not happen again. --GRider\^talk 21:35, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Massachusetts flag/seal moves

I'm a little confused about your citing the 'common names' guideline to argue for Flag of Massachusetts and Seal of Massachusetts. "Flag of Massachusetts" gets less than 1,400 hits, while "Massachusetts State Flag" gets almost 8,000. Similarly, "Seal of Massachusetts" gets only 256 hits, while "Seal of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts" gets almost 6,000. The only argument I see for the simple "Flag of statename" and "Seal of statename" names is that those seem to be consistent with other state's flag/seal article names, but since I don't see any specification of that as a standard at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities, I'm not sure that's a solid argument. Niteowlneils 02:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)