User talk:Rdsmith4
You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)
Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.
Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.
Archive 1 (10/19/04)
Schumacher revert
Hello. What is the reason for your recent revert on the Michael Schumacher article? It seems to me that you removed interesting info. SamH 13:03, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that the last sentence was slightly POV. Your version is much better. SamH 15:54, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
SubGenius is a trademark of SubGenius Networks in addition to the title of a religion. SubGenius is not a registered trademark of anyone. Wikipedia's redirect from SubGenius/Subgenius to 'the chutch of the subgenius' is in error. (24.254.56.98 | talk)
- We're not defining 'SubGenius Networks' nor 'The Church of the SubGenius'. SUBGENIUS ALONE is the subject of this post and SUBGENIUS has a meaning apart from 'The Church of the SubGenius'. SUBGENIUS is a public domain word in use as part of 'SubGenius Networks' own trademark.
- SUBGENIUS ALONE, as it is defined.. has two meanings.
1. A denizen of the underground "subculture", attuned to the obscure.
2. Basis of the Church of the Subgenius.
- SUBGENIUS is a trademark of SubGenius Networks ( subgenius.net) in addition to the title of a religion ( subgenius.com). SubGenius is not a registered trademark of anyone. Wikipedia's redirect from SubGenius/Subgenius to 'the church of the subgenius' is in error. (24.254.56.98 | talk)
It was not nonsense and you should have left it for a vote! If you do not like me deleting your stuff do not delete others without a vote! You are not an administrator! (62.253.64.13 | talk)
Why did you (1) revert without discussing and (2) mark a revert as minor? That's dishonest. I'm reinstating my edits and hope you will discuss before reverting next time.
I admit my change was perhaps a little cheeky, but I gave a reason on the Talk page, and you gave none for the revert, either on the page or in your edit summary. I'm willing to be talked into the revert, but not bullied into it. Bds yahoo 23:56, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Hi, where is your reply on the Talk page? Can't locate it. Bds yahoo 00:17, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If I may ask, what was wrong with 216.27.183.122's edits to FOX News? Are they factually inaccurate? They seem like legitimate edits to me. Anyhow, the sysop revert button is generally reserved for instances for vandalism or bad-faith edits. In cases otherwise, I'd reccomend doing a old-style revert with a detailed edit summary. Thanks. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:14, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I have replied at User talk:Blankfaze. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 23:21, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
ADW Vote
The vote for General Secretary of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians has opened. Please visit the page and vote for who you think would make the best choice. --Slowking Man 03:37, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
International Buttsecks Day should not be recreated. We should be monitoring who's creating the entries and listing on the vandalisation page. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:32, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Previous Problems With Nirvana Article
This regards the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_the_Lights_Out
I came across that article from a link from a Nirvana message baord. I at the time had never been to Wikipedia and did not know what this site was. My dillema is this: This might sound really strange and believe me I've learned my lesson: The tracklisting for the upcoming Nirvana boxset is under lock and key. It has not been released yet at all. Not even one song is known on the listing. I had edited the page just screwing around with test data, because I had never used this site before. I had made a FAKE list of songs to test editing the page. After I had made my edit and figured out how to do it, I had deleted what I had typed. Everything was safe and sound until I came back much later on. People had looked at the history of that page edit and took the FAKE list I made up and reposted it. Vandals had messed with the page, and for some reason an editor of this site had protected the page, and reverted back to my first version with the fake tracklisting. So for awhile the page was protected with the fake tracklisting. I then became frantic. What if someone from the press got ahold of that list and thought it was true while the page was uneditable? I emailed some of he ediors on the page about it. What I ask and beg is that you and others keep an eye on that article for anyone posting that old tracklisting I made. IT IS NOT REAL. I simply used it as test data to practice editing a page. I don't know why anyone reverted back to it without any research, and after I deleted it. The tracklisting as of yet does not exist and won't for a month. Right now the tracklisting is blank is that page, after I talked to some people about it. And I ask of you that it stays like that until an official word is out. Could you even protect the page so that vandals cannot further do it again, at least until nov 23 when the real trackisting will be revealed? Thank you, and again I don't know why this got so out of hand. (128.119.146.183 | Talk)
i would like an apology for your misunderstanding
the facts in my paris hilton edit were correct and rendered in a neutral way, you had no right to alter them. I realize that words like "nigger" are commonly used in vandalous ways but you could simple could have googled "paris hilton" nigger and had your answer in all of two seconds. There is no excuse for academic laziness like that. You call yourself an administrator.
A non black person who uses the word nigger outside of very narrowly defined and still controversial contexts is a racial slurrer. That is the definition. The racial slur was heard in her latest sex tape. Maybe you should preoccupy yourself less with esp truth deducing (which might explain your passionate, factually stingy, defense of zionism. Here's a hint, assume is not the only step before writing something down. You're in for alot of nasty surprises (especially from the female sex) if you keep assuming. (69.197.194.92 | Talk)
Fox to the right revert
Fox is absolutely to the Right by interpretation of their own definition of other players, as they describe (in nasty language) all other media as being to the Left, Far Left, Radical Left, Leftist Media, etc. So what's NNPOV about describing them as to the Right of most media? Leonard G. 17:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
(Message echoed here):
- {FOX contends that it is neutral, and to say without qualification that it lies to the right of other news sources is easily open to misinterpretation. There was already a discussion on the subject, during which time a statement very similar to the one I reverted was added to the opening paragraph of the article (see Talk:FOX News/Archive three#.22relatively_right-wing.22). It was decided that it would best belong in the first paragraph of "Allegations of bias," where a slightly modified version still remains:
- FOX News asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks, and its promotional statements include "fair and balanced" and "we report, you decide." The network thus intends to provide an alternative to such news sources as CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, or CBS, for those who believe that the other networks are dominated by a liberal bias. There is a widespread perception that FOX lies to the political right of most other prominent news sources; there is much dispute, however, as to whether the channel is actually a neutral source, or carries a bias in favor of right-wing, conservative, or Republican interests.
- I think that passage expresses the same idea in a more neutral fashion. (I have cross-posted my reply to Talk:FOX News.) [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 18:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Please see my reply to your latest message at Talk:FOX News. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 18:11, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I got your message, just after putting my oar into the article. Revert if you wish, I don't care about Fox that much, but I think that my statement holds up - that Fox is implicitly self describing itself as right wing. What they publicly claim is that they are in the middle, which is a mater of perception management, especially considering what would be to their right, I think that we all realize that the political spectrum is not a straight line, but more like a color wheel, where really extreme left (Communist dictatorship) meets extreme right (Fascist dictatorship. So placing Fox on this wheel is really a matter of finding where the middle is. Another way of classifying is to use a two or three dimensional descriptive space, with the "middle" in the center of the space, and axis describing qualities. Most people are not single dimensional (although they may be subject to single-issue political methods). Best wishes, Leonard G. 18:19, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
F1
Just a personal preference that a table should have a <caption>. I see you copied the large flag over from the previous style, but I think that 100px is too large for a flag, which is just repeating the title. To be honest I'm not 100% happy with the layout as it is, so keep moving stuff around until it looks good. ed g2s • talk 01:56, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Bush picture -> Kerry campaign logo
Does the pix of the Bush family morfs into the Kerry sign on your computer? if it dose not than I understand why you put back in but , if the pix is still morfing than it needs to be corrected before it gets put back in (152.163.100.14 | Talk)
Yo
Come on, now. Just because the details haven't come out yet doesn't mean Rice's contract with Satan doesn't exist.
Love, A Man Who Grants That Yeah, Okay, Maybe That Was Unnecessary (148.85.198.40 | Talk)
Wiki Junior Project
We are currently in the process of deciding what the first topics will be. We have already decided that the first humanities topic will be Countries of the World:South America. We need to decide what our first science topic will be. We already have plenty of pictures available for Big Cats, The Solar System and Human Flight. We're having a little vote to decide which one we should work on first. Please come to Meta:Wikijunior project first topics. Cheers! Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 08:00, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The List of Danish monarchs is the main page...
Nice to say I'm impolite, when it's not me going around and hunting IP addresses as somehow suspicious of vandalism by default. Learn to think before you accuse! 24.255.40.174 15:46, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Reuters
Done,on the Talk page.--ThomasK 17:45, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
Wesleyan University
Hi Rdsmith4 - I'm confused about what just happened on the Wesleyan University and Wesleyan University (Connecticut) pages. I had been under the impression that the site had just been hit by a sock-puppet of User:Pnikolov (through IP Address look up), who was adding the other "Wesleyan University" and making the original "Wesleyan University" into a disambig page in order to carry on a dirty war he had been waging against Wesleyan and Wesleyan University. If the change had been made by a good-faith user, I would have suggested that, since the Connecticut Wesleyan is far more better known, the other Wsleyan should be disambig'd within WU's own page (least surprise principle).
However, then you came and started finalizing the change. What I'm unsure about is whether this represents an endorsment of the change, or whether you were employing janitorial skills and kindly cleaning up new page additions.
If you were endorsing the change, could you let me know whether it would be better to leave it as it is, or have the other "Wesleyan" dismbig'd within Wesleyan University's own page? If you were being a good soul and cleaning up other people's messes (thanks!), I'm going to try to revert the changes made by User:Pnikolov's sock-puppet. Thanks! --Asbestos 01:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Hi Rdsmith4 - thanks for getting abck to me so soon. I'm afraid I am going to need help on this, if it is at all possible, as I'm not sure how to change page titles without losing the talk pages. The sock-puppets have continued to wreck havoc on the Wesleyan pages even after your efforts, which have caused the talk pages to be lost, including adding some bizzare page named WesUniversity.
- If it isn't asking too much, I'd like to try and get the pages Wesleyan and Wesleyan University back to where they were at abut 00:30 UTC, before any changes by 128.253.117.21 or User:John69 were made. Even if this user were acting in good faith, he would need to discuss his proposed changes in the talk pages before carrying out these edits. As he is clearly User:Pnikolov though, with whom we have been engaged in numerous edit wars, these edits are not in good-faith.
- Thank you very much for your time, and I'm sorry to have brought you into this. --Asbestos 01:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your help. --Asbestos 01:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Woops, sorry to bug you again. Talk:Wesleyan University disappeard during these edits, and I'm not sure how to get it back. Is there any chance you could get it back to what it was earlier (or tell me what to do)? The page history is blank. Thanks again, --Asbestos 02:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your help. --Asbestos 01:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- What can I do to get the Wesleyan University page protected to the version you changed it to? This vandalism has not stopped, and the page is back to where it was before you reverted it. Also, might I ask for recommendations as to what further steps I should take? I don't think that mediation with User:Pnikolov will work, as we have had long, fruit-less discussions, and as his recent vandalisms have shown, but don't know if I can request arbitration without that step. Or is there something else altogether that I should do?
Thanks again for your time, --Asbestos 02:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- What can I do to get the Wesleyan University page protected to the version you changed it to? This vandalism has not stopped, and the page is back to where it was before you reverted it. Also, might I ask for recommendations as to what further steps I should take? I don't think that mediation with User:Pnikolov will work, as we have had long, fruit-less discussions, and as his recent vandalisms have shown, but don't know if I can request arbitration without that step. Or is there something else altogether that I should do?
Could you please please intervene?? Could you please ask the other user to respect the policy of protected pages until a dispute is resolved? Thanks. -John69 (talk)
- Are you taking Asbestos side or does it just seem that your comments on his page are too friendly? Anyway, could I ask you how to call for intervention from an UNBIASED party? Thanks. John69
- Rdsmith4 - "Disambiguation pages serve a single purpose: To let the reader choose between different pages that might reside under the same title." This is directly from the link that you posted. How can you read it? There is clearly need for disambiguation pages on Wesleyan University! John69
- "Primary topic" disambiguation: if one meaning is clearly predominant, it remains at "Mercury", the general title. The top of the article provides a link to the other meanings, or if there are a large number, to a page named "Mercury (disambiguation)". For example: the page Rome has a link at the top to a page named "Rome (disambiguation)" which lists other cities named Rome. The page Cream has a link to the page Cream (band) at the top.
- Creating a "Primary topic" disambiguation can prove controversial due to differing ideas on which is the primary topic. When the discussion on the matter descends into edit wars and wasted time and effort, some editors feel it is better to resort to an "equal" disambiguation page. This opinion is not shared by all.
- Rdsmith4, I would like to point your attention to the second paragraph again:
- "Creating a "Primary topic" disambiguation can prove controversial due to differing ideas on which is the primary topic. When the discussion on the matter descends into edit wars and wasted time and effort, some editors feel it is better to resort to an "equal" disambiguation page. This opinion is not shared by all."
- Also, in mediation cases, at least try to sound impartial. While Connecticut Wesleyan is certainly the better known, that's not true everywhere in the World. The technology advantage of US schools may bias your opinion simply because Wesleyan in the Phillipines is just as known but doesn't have the technology advantage to have as many links and webpages as the one in Connecticut. John69
Hi Rdsmith4 - Much thanks for your help.
In answer to your question, my reasons for stating that User:John69 and User:Pnikolov are one and the same are not rock solid, but I think highly likely:
Pnikolov had been engaged in an argument with us (mainly with me, but also with User:Jmabel) that spanned over several articles, including Wesleyan, Wesleyan University and Methodism. Pnikolov is currently a at Cornell University.
The first time, a post was signed by "John", it was by user 128.253.117.21, stating that WU should be changed into a disambig page. After this, a user named John69 was created, who signed his posts "John" an turned WU into a Disambig page (pretty effectively for a new user).
The IP address 128.253.117.21 can be shown to originate from Cornell University by looking it up on the site ARIN [1]. I would suggest that either "John69" is a friend of User:Pnikolov, or they are the same person.
--Asbestos 02:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nice catch
Thanks for noticing that on George W. Bush. I only got the last edit--I appreciate your keeping my edit. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:37, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Wesleyan disambiguation page
It is still an issue. I just don't have the time that other people do to respond. Thanks.
Thanks for that nice article. If you are planning to do more on Thailand maybe you should put Wikipedia:Thailand-related topics notice board on you watchlist. And if you have more photos don't forget to upload them to commons - I put some of mine there already sorted by province, but there are still lots of place I haven't visited yet. And your version of the outlook tower looks better than mine :-( andy 08:57, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Orthodox Free Reformed Church
This is a real Church. Leave the article alone please.(Dr D. Hughes, Secretary OFRC, Westhoughton, Lancs, UK). (195.92.168.178 | talk; OFRC Article | talk)
- Google Search is no use because the OFRC has no need of a webpage as such. If you do not want the truth in this organ then be up-front about it. (My house has no webpage, but it is real!).
Voter suppression
I understand why you changed it, and I understand why you thought it was POV, and I agree with you. However, I wish you hadn't removed the example of voter suppression without offering another example. --Jon K. 01:56, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
Keeping "In the news" NPOV and credible
Following various attempts to add partisan and fringe stories to Template:In the news, I've proposed a new criterion to keep such stuff out. Could you please take a look at Wikipedia talk:In the news section on the Main Page and let me know what you think? -- ChrisO 19:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pnikolov
Could I prevail upon you to have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pnikolov, especially becuase I had occasion to mention you there? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:16, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
Camera
Hello !
Firstly thanks for all the pictures you are sharing :o) Wich camera do you use to take those pictures ? :o)
Hashar 09:10, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I've used three different digital cameras to take the pictures. For the Japan, Washington DC, Johns Hopkins, and US Naval Academy pics I used a Canon PowerShot G1; for the Thailand pictures I used a Canon PowerShot S110 (the worst camera of the three); and for the remainder I used a Nikon D70 (the best camera by far of the three). I also improved many of the pictures using Adobe Photoshop. Thanks for your compliments. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 15:55, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer, keep taking pictures !! :o) Hashar 18:02, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
VfD vote from Charm
(See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities) Hi. You obviously have been here a lot longer than I have, so perhaps you can help? I'm concerned that the comment you added to an anon vote almost appears to apply to my vote as well because of the indentation. However, if I move the indentation of the anon vote out to match the other votes, then it will get its own number in the numbered list, and will then appear to be counted. Could you help me figure out how to set it apart (horizontal rules, a new section for Anon votes, or some other better idea you come up with) from my vote without adding it to the count? Thanks in advance. Charm 21:46, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
- I've reformatted it a bit so the anonymous vote is numbered the same as the others - it should be quite clear now that my comment does not refer to your vote. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 22:18, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks. I guess it doesn't matter that much that the anon vote is being counted now, because the admins will review the votes? (Not to mention it appears a pretty convincing consensus anyway.) Charm 22:24, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
gig poster adds to "poster" def.
not spamming, not commercially interested. casually rolling through wikipedia and saw the entire subject is ignored. i don't feel the urge to write several articles about "gig poster" "frank kozik" blah blah, so i included a recommendation to an online library of the art form. here, you might like clicking on these thumbnails of pink floyd: http://www.gigposters.com/posters.php?band=870
how the hell am i vandelising the page, if its anything im improving it jackass! (66.181.239.153 | talk)
- no it does not. I cited the website where i got it from.
then if i cant put that on it, then change it, update it, and add more to her page, so i wont have the cause too.
Please don't revert the changes done on Lee Kuan Yew unless you know more facts about this person.