RWR8189

Welcome!

Hello, RWR8189, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --StuffOfInterest 12:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop blanking parts of pages

You can't go around blanking parts of pages which you do not like. There is no reason to delete an event if it is relevant. That's the only criteria Dr Debug 05:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

Thanks

Nice catch at NSA - you missed the vandal's "complete bullshit" edit, but I got it. Metarhyme 19:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist Surveillance Program

Thought you might like to know I created Terrorist surveillance program last week after Nareek's argument that the "Warrantless surveillance controversy" page was limited in scope to the controversy itself. My plan is to try to keep this new page limited to verifiable descriptions of the Program, and keep all discussion of the "controversy" at the other page. I'm sure once the others discover it they will try to skew it toward their POV. Any help you can give in expanding it and keeping an eye on it would be great.--WilliamThweatt 21:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing AfD notices

Hey -- please don't remove the AfD notice from a page while the debate is going on. (It's clear that the AfD debate on Democratic Underground will end up dismissing the nomination for being a pointless retaliation, but removing the tag is still disrupting Wikipedia process.) Mangojuice 17:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Help!

I am being attacked by Nescio with a punative RFC regarding Rationales to impeach George W. Bush, which I feel is unwarranted. Please go there right away and comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat. Thanks. Merecat 18:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• oh, and here you are again, I'm trying to ignore the coincidences, but the more I investigate this AFD mess, the more I run into you--205.188.117.6 00:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)

You are invited to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). All this is is ramblings/blog/rants about Bush. Not encyclopedic, should've been deleted long ago. Happy editing! Morton devonshire 20:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

*** Important - Your input requested ASAP ***

Please see this Wikipedia:Deletion review#Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush.

Merecat 00:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

URGENT! Your vote needed

Come vote here please to decide this important matter! i trust that you'll make the right decision--Rictonilpog 17:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

template:unsigned

in the future when copying the content of a template to an article or talk page, please make sure to close any errant html tags, such as </noinclude> otherwise it may add an article page to [[Category:Internal link templates]], ideally the {{subst:unsigned|username}} usage would be prefered, as anything such as the above category that may be contained inbetween the <noinclude> templates won't be copied as well, that is why copy/pasting categorized templates is discouraged, thank you--{anon iso − 8859 − 1janitor} 23:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• see also WP:WS--{anon iso − 8859 − 1janitor} 00:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers

I'm aware there is a debate as to whether the use of a spoiler template is suitable for Wikipedia. I would just like to draw your attention to it, as your edit to the Jimmy Smits spoils the story for any who have not seen it. You could say that its old news in the US, but the election result will not be shown in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland until Thursday and the UK for several weeks. --Mark83 19:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. You a WW fan? It was stupid of me to read the article anyway, the chances of reading something that would spoil the story were pretty high! Although in the back of my mind I always knew Santos was going to win. They would never have put Josh on the losing side. Also the first episode (the "three years later" intro was a bit of a give-away) — when Josh, Bartlet and co. are waiting for "The President" to get out of the car you can just see Josh beaming with pride. --Mark83 21:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually in the origional version Santos lost, when John Spencer died, they re-wrote the election episode--23:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're not interested in having this conversation I won't be offended, it's just I find this really interesting. I have several reasons for not believing Vinick was ever to win.

1. As I said I can't believe they'd put Josh on the losing side – too many viewers would feel like it was a betrayal.
2. Again, as I said, on the first episode of S7 where the new President arrives, Josh appears to be part of his staff and stands on the steps beaming with pride as the limo pulls up.
3. Jimmy Smits is given equal billing with Martin Sheen (WITH Jimmy Smits AND Martin Sheen) while Alan Alda is listed as an ordinary cast member.
4. The show followed Santos' journey to and through the campaign far more thoroughly. We saw Josh leave to run the campaign, the first faltering steps, how he raised his profile and eventually went on to challenge for the nomination. What did we see of Vinick? He told Josh he was running, his annoucment, then winning the nomination. Yes the story was that the Republicans had a consensus nominee but they could have written a story to raise Vinick's profile if they wanted to.
5. The producers invested far more in the Santos character, for example the rock star-esque montage at the start of The Mommy Problem (the campaign images to the music of "Jet Airliner"). Also they showed more Santos moments of brilliance, like the speech to the church.
6. While Vinick was always held up as an honest, honourable man, they associated him more with shady(ish) characters.

Just a few thoughts! Regards --Mark83 22:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

America, American

As you can read on Talk:American and Talk:America and their histories, the order of the first two entries on those disambiguation pages have changed order before and on occasion this results in intense discussion. So far, the U.S.-second position has prevailed. In my opinion it is not worth days of near-constant reverting for the U.S.-first position. -Acjelen 16:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Pitt deletion proposal

I haven't gone through all the edits in detail, but it seems that some anon came along and tried to vote in the closed AfD on William Rivers Pitt. Told he couldn't do that, he ineptly slapped an AfD tag on the current article. You turned it into a full AfD, although you used the wrong template. (The AfD notice on the article should disclose that this is a second nomination. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Renominations.)

In general, we should encourage newbies, and not descend on them with righteous anger every time they commit an infraction of the rules. In this instance, though, I think you carried this valid principle too far. The article isn't even arguably within the renomination criteria of the policy. By my quick count, the legitimate vote (excluding unsigned and anons) was 15-7 in favor of "Keep". Since then, Pitt has only become more notable because of his involvement in the disputed truthout story, which now makes up a significant chunk of the article.

For these reasons, the anon's renomination isn't far from being vandalism. Instead of taking your time to complete the nomination, with the result that several Wikipedians will have to take their time to revisit this issue to no real purpose, you would've been justified in just removing the spurious AfD tag, and sending the anon a polite note explaining that we don't keep revoting on things over and over again.

At this point, I suggest that you might reasonably withdraw the nomination. If you want, I'll take responsibility for the note to the anon (and I'll try to keep it polite!). The anon could still take the time to do a proper renomination, but perhaps the time he'd need to spend looking at the rules would convince him that the renom was merely disruptive and wouldn't accomplish anything. (Note to self: Suggest policy change prohibiting anon AfD nominations entirely.) JamesMLane t c 06:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of the word American

Hello, I made some changes a few moments ago to the article Use of the word American. Please look over them and see if you agree with them. The article I found when I got there was incredibly biased POV and original research, all trying to promote the disuse of American to refer to American citizens. Obviously, an encyclopedia is not a podium to promote social change but rather a reflection of reality and truth. Uris 12:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

3rr (false accusation)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I made edits on Democratic Underground on

14:45, 26 June 2006

01:00, 27 June 2006

10:54, 28 June 2006

I most certaintly did not violate the 3RR rule.

Thank you for being able to count.--RWR8189 16:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

FRiend, you are the one falsely accusing me of vioating WP policy. If anything, you owe me an apology and should be more careful before making accusations at fellow editors--RWR8189 16:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comment above, "Thank you for being able to count," is a violation of our policy against personal attacks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You have my most sincere apologies for criticizing your abilities to count. In the future please perfect these skills before accusing other editors of violating WP policy--RWR8189 16:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite, you accused him wrongly. Its that simple, nothing else needs to be said. RWR8189, people do make mistakes, and it appears Hipocrite has made one. There isnt anything to be gained by pressing him further, I have looked and you certainly did not violate the 3RR rule, and infact didnt exceed 1 revert a day. Neither of you should continue this squabble as there really isnt anything to gain. Rangeley 16:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I accused no one of anything. I notified him that if he continued to revert, he would be blocked. He then began engaging in personal attacks. This is not acceptable behavior. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI -- You can find Hipocrite over on my talk page accusing me of the same thing. It appears to be a technique Hipocrite commonly uses.

Atlant 16:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

RWR8189 is very carefull about the 3RR rule. For quite some time now RWR8189 has been reverting the disambiguation pages America and American back to the user's preferred way, but never more than 3 times a day. -Acjelen 17:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Outside view...please discuss changes on appropriate talk pages of articles, rather than edit warring. The number of reverts is important as that is policy, however, no one is "entitled" to 3 reverts daily as that is gaming the system. Discuss changes on appropriate talk pages to try and reach a concensus. Thanks.--MONGO 19:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Impeachment of George Bush

Saying that something is conservative is not being biased or "non-neutral." FOX news is "conservative" and many Bush supporters watch that channel. The poll results differ because of that reason, and that is why one should specify that FOX News is conservative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Reported_White_House_reaction Shouldn't you then also remove that "conservative"? --TheSun

Three revert warning

Thank you for your comment reminding of Wikipedia's three revert rule. As I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, I am, naturally, well aware of this rule and will certainly respect it, so I won't require any further warnings from you on the matter. Take care, Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem at all.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey there

So, the category on Jewish Politicians....is it based on religon or ethnic background. If it is based on religion then you are totally in the right. However, if it is more an ethnic background issue then the category should stay. What do you think?

Hey, on Debatus

I'm sorry. I thought that I was doing what had been suggested to me, which was to request that an "external link" be made on the discussion page. Indeed, I am trying to encourage someone else to make an "external link" to my site, so I can understand where you are coming from in blocking this. But, please, understand that I'm at an impasse here because I believe very strongly that Debatus would be held very highly among Wikipedia users as an enhancement to many existing controversial topics. Please, take an honest look at Debatus and tell me what you think in this regard. If you believe what I'm saying, is there any way to proceed under Wikipedia rules to "market" the idea to Wikipedia users? How can I talk with someone else at Wikipedia about somekind of an arrangement in this regard? Thanks for reading this, and I'm sorry that I've bee apparently breaking Wikipedia rules.Loudsirens 23:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Real Clear Politics - Do not Vandalize again

You arbitrarily removed sourced information because you did not agree with it, obviously because, judging by your post history and Reagan's picture, you're a right-wing conservative. Real Clear Politics is run by conservative columnists John McIntyre, Jed Babbin and Tom Bevan.

BLP

I believe you have misunderstood BLP. I suggest that you not break the 3rr under the BLP contingency, and instead seek unbiased outside editors to review the situation. Note bolding. JBKramer 21:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Chad Castagana edits

Hi CP and RW,

You guys delelted a TON of sourced, cited, documented content.

'too long' as RW argued is nothing more than an opinion, (and not a very valid one as there are articles 5X-10X as long as this) and not a valid reason to delete content that meets WP, that CptK spent probably hours researching and writing. It was ALL sourced too. I hope you will add much of this back in RW.

All the claims were cited in the earlier version. You (both) took out the citing with your edits. 90% of it can be sourced to the one Daily News article. If you are demanding individual cites, please add links to this article, as it documents almost all of them.

Free Republic is a RS for something about FR, if it is a claim not being disputed. It's not. It can stay.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk • contribs) . - 20:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Killian docs

Hi, I opened an RFC about the use of blogs. Just FYI. Kaisershatner 16:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

SpeakOut page

Hi, just want to make sure I do this right, what would qualify as a correct citation for our recognition items? SpeakOut I'm in the process of maknig it a proper wikipedia article and adding more relevant content and references, perhaps you could give some advice? --GavinZac 19:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Political Bias

Please do not let your political bias influence your editorial judgment. AfD should not be used to circumvent the normal NPOV rules. IrnBru001 21:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I love Schaumburg!

I haven't been there for years but I used to travel to Chicago on business and stay in Schaumburg. I had more luck with women in that town than I've ever had anywhere else. For some reason those mid-western women loved me; and I, them! (sigh) Coincidentally, someone from South Florida (where I'm from) whom I'm quite fond of moved to Lombard (or close to it). I also love the upper-middle class Chicago suburbia portrayed in just about every John Hughes movie (e.g. Uncle Buck, Home Alone, Ferris Beuller, Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, etc.) Ah yes...Schaumburg.  :-) Lawyer2b 05:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"LAME" edit war

Look, I don't see the point in listing the "cat owner" debate as humorous, except as an insult against those who hold one of the positions. You are not supposed to insult other Wikipedians. David Olivier 19:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Free Republic

Please be advised that FAAFA has withdrawn from mediation. As Jossi anticipated, both FAAFA and BenBurch have refused to engage and reserve the right to attack the article after we are done with it. In order to get you completely on board, I've removed the Robinson quotes. Please be prepared for a revert war. -- BryanFromPalatine 13:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)