User talk:RxS: Difference between revisions

• Archive 1 (March 5 to Nov 21):

• Archive 2 (Nov 21-April 17th):
• Archive 3 (April 30-June 2007):
• Archive 4 (June 2007-June 2008):

On 23 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Suzanne Goin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Nice work! Bencherlite^Talk 08:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other day the stress got to me, I lost it, I ranted publicly on the 9/11ct arbitration evidence page. I ranted, among other things, about you. There's no excuse for that. While I find some of the things you do hard to understand, I don't know what you are really like as a person because I have never met you. Therefore I fully accept that I should, as I have been strictly instructed to do, stick to the facts and not make inferences about people's motives. I am very sorry for being so uncivil towards you. ireneshusband (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you referring to this on Wikback as your new favourite phrase. If you're curious, I've done a bit of research on the expression and have posted it on my user page as a modified "Did you know." It's been around longer than I thought. Risker (talk) 06:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read it, that's great! There's something about that phrase that just kills me. RxS (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to drop by and thank you for having my back in the arbitration case. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What did you mean in your support of EyeSerene's RfA? I think I'm missing something... Tan | 39 00:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Further to this, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The full remedy is located here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 15:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/e 18:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Doc

Long time no see! I submitted a proposal for the structure of the 9/11 article and would appreciate your input.

Sincerely,

GuamIsGood (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm responding here as I have brought this point a few times on the page already, and there is no point bringing it there again, it is getting long enough already :). There is case precedent for running two months post a prior RfB (successfully, and for the THIRD time I might add) IF the issue involved was not one of trust, but of the community wanting to see more RfA involvement. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Redux 3. Thanks -- Avi (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've readded ED to shock site as while the refs never use the word "shock site" (and for that matter, neither do the Rotten.com refs, for example), but they make it clear that the site hosts offensive material. And though this is original research, I would like to point out that the site clearly is a shock site. The images it hosts alone (including many images from other sites that are listed in the article as shock sites) are enough to identify it as such, and this doesn't even touch on the textual content. A shock site (based on the sites that the article lists as shock sites) doesn't have to be a site that is designed in such a way as to trick people to going to it and viewing offensive content. Orgerish.com is an example of such a site. It is designated as a shock site simply because it hosts offensive content, even though it is not designed in any way so as to trick people into viewing it.--Urban Rose 15:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the articles at ED are simply satire but some of them exist solely for the purpose of offending people. For example, there is an article called "Offended" (which I do NOT recommend that ANYONE view by the way) that I had the displeasure of seeing which is essentially just a collection of gross shock images. You mention that there are many sites which feature disturbing content which are not shock sites. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that a site which hosts shocking content becomes exempt from "shock site status" simply because it also contains satire.--Urban Rose 18:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick!...Thanks!--MONGO 16:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RxS.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. As you felt the need to oppose my candidacy, I would appreciate any particular thoughts or advice you may have as to what flaws in my candidacy you perceived and how you feel they may be addressed. Once again, thank you for your participation. -- Avi (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert. I am sure that these are getting stranger. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 12:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the slight modification I did to the 9/11 article, can you explain to me how it is nonsense? It is a legitimate hypothesis that some members of government one way or another carried out the attacks for different legitimate reasons. I think that the constant blaming of Al-Queda for the attacks is nonsense. - Magicman710 —Preceding comment was added at 03:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imre Lakatos is a philosopher of science famous for his discussion of "research programs". There are probably many people who will have trouble remembering that name and search for research program, hoping to find something about it. If it is going to be redirected to "research" it may as well not even be a redirect. ImpIn | (t - c) 03:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for your support! I'm obviously disappointed, but there was lots of good constructive criticism from the process which I'm going to take on board. And who knows, after a few months after I may very well be successful. Cheers! Mark t young (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on the articles talk page, and reverted your revert..no offence meant.

On a personal note, yes they were terrorists, but the same could/should be said of the IRA, and maybe even Nelson Mandela.. what made a lot of sense in the link i gave in the articles talk page were words along the lines of " don't try to lead people, put the facts, and let people make their own minds up, based on the facts." and I think the vast majority already know they were terrorists, and the article will just confirm that Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the articles I comment on are vandalism on wikipedia. Crapscience has no place in public discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatdoesntmakesense (talk • contribs) 05:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really wanted this to remain civil, that is why I put a message on your talk page initially, after checking the edit summaries, I was a little suprised to find your comment regarding my use of the word bullshit. What makes you think I was talking about your edits, when using the term bullshit, I think you will find quite a few edits between your comment and my use of the word bullshit. I honestly find the use of the term bullshit to be acceptable, and if you look at the order of the edits, it seems obvious that it was not directed towards you.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mrs. Love (or Mr. Love). See the talk page of the September 11 article. There are comments there. You just reverted without discussion. Presumptive (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you should be properly notified.[1] Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am shocked to learn you are an admin. I though an admin would act like a great representative, pillar of society, open to discussion, etc.

Why not let us think of 12 different introductory sentences and pick the best one? I am sure we can improve WP! Presumptive (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're demanding a change under false assertions. If you came a long and said, yuck that first sentence is awkward let's fix it that'd be one thing. But you're demanding a change because of a claim that it's original research which is just flat out wrong. RxS (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very subtle OR, not overt OR. It is also bad prose. Either way, it can be improved. I am not suggesting we change it to "those filthy terrorist" or "those freedom fighters". I am just seeking better prose.

But you are an admin, so "yes, sir!". I will endeavor to listen to you now that I know you are an admin. Presumptive (talk) 05:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me being an admin has exactly zero to do with it. I never used nor threatened to use any admin powers here. I never mentioned the fact that I'm an admin, in fact it seems you just found out that I was one so I couldn't have been lording it over you too awfully much. RxS (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knock it off, Presumptive. RxS has not even come close to threatening you with admin action. This attack on his character and his administratorship is completely unwarranted. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[2] —Giggy 01:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, I guess he didn't take too kindly to my block earlier! [3] Thanks for letting me know. RxS (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't take controversial admin actions, so you don't need to worry about that. See my answer to question 18, also my user page for my views on that. Controversial admin actions represent everything I think is wrong with the state of adminship on the project. Everyking (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those attitudes are one reason why I supported in the first place. So, I changed back to support because I believe you. My concern is that although WR is a pretty silly place, you have a enough supporters there that would show up in support of any admin action you might take. Instant blood bath. I've considered posting there but I don't trust their privacy protection further than I could throw my Jeep. Anyway, try and keep it down to a dull roar and we'll be good. RxS (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you oppose a ban, please say so clearly, or else the poor chap is going to get shown the door for good, or at least for a while. Jehochman ^Talk 18:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a really funny expression that cracks me up. :) --Caspian blue 23:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input at my successful Rfa. I'm already thinking about working on my content creation. Hopefully in a few months, I'll have passed the point where you would've !voted Support. If you have any more suggestions on how I can improve myself as an editor, I'd be happy to hear them. Happy editing!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope 2009 is a great year for you!--MONGO 15:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rx StrangeLove,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing an edit on Jimmy's page and when I went back to my watch list i saw you posted just before me but i can't see your edit, did mine cancel yours out ??

Sorry if it did !

cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RxS. You have new messages at Politizer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

What a civil civility warning. Very nicely done. The whole incident was so boring I simply can't stand it. Next time threaten to, well, I don't know, threaten to slap someone if they're not civil. --KP Botany (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased to meet a fellow Minnesotan! See my comments on Norm Coleman as well. 12.203.0.250 (talk) 03:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look on my new post in the Talk:7_World_Trade_Center page ? Thank you - Johninwiki (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]