User talk:Reithy

Rhobite is more than welcome to contribute to this page. Love all, serve all.

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Elspeth Monro (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

--86.25.6.111 (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Story of an Abuse of Power: An Administrator with Attitude

Eight Minutes To Midnight: The Dying Days of Rhobite's Administration

So file an RFC against me. I'm done reasoning with you. Rhobite 23:52, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Improper Editing of Protected Pages

Rhobite, in case you missed it:

You are correct in that admins should basically never edit an article when it is protected, even to correct grammar mistakes or other minor things. However, I am pretty sure it was in good faith, and it is really a very minor thing to argue about... — David Remahl 13:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And this is from someone unfamiliar with your term as Admin, marked by:

Personal attacks attacking my integrity and good faith and commitment to the Wikipedia project despite the fact I have made more substantive contributions to articles than you
Threatened use of blocking to resolve personal disputes
Editing and adjusting my comments on your Talk page to suit yourself
Inappropriate editing of the RFA page outside explicit guidelines
Your pledge not to edit Libertarian articles and then editing even protected ones
Your reprimanding of others for conduct you yourself a guilty of.

I suggest you seriously consider whether you can handle your admin duties. They seem beyond you. I suggested previously we disengage and yet you follow me around in the manner of a troll, harassing me. Please leave me alone.Reithy 22:59, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Rhobite the Administrator with Attitude believes he can delete any comment that displeases him. His motives can be questioned. He would do well to consider these wise words:

My understanding and opinion is that a wiki should grow through a process of addition and refinement, never by deletion. The only exception is that information that is clearly wrong is a candidate for deletion. Even in that case it might be preferable to mark the wrong information out in a block, and explain why it is wrong. In any case, this example clearly doesn't live up to that standard. If someone has a problem with something in the wiki because of a lack of context, then the _obvious_ solution is to add context. Removing information because of a lack of partner information is just wrong. People should add the necessary context. Any time you find your finger over the delete key, you should question your motives. User: Geoff Canyon 20:57, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reithy 23:51, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Rhobite Denying Writing on Libertarian Party

You brought up a good point on the LP talk page. It's true that I'm a libertarian, although not a member of the LP. But I don't usually edit libertarian articles around here. I don't want to. Likewise, I don't go and add negative stuff to Communism simply because I disagree with that philosophy. You appear to have much more invested in this than many of the people who have tried to reason with you and fix your edits. Why don't you branch out in Wikipedia? It can be pretty stressful editing controversial articles. Why not work on a more... relaxing topic? Birds, psychology, 1960s sitcoms, whatever you know or want to learn about. It may help you to better understand NPOV, too. Rhobite 23:16, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Deleting comments from talk

Reithy's, it's considered extremely bad form to remove others' comments from Talk Pages, even your own. See Wikipedia:Talk page for information on archiving discussion if and when it becomes necessary. In light of the fact that messages on your talk page are important in an ongoing RFC and arbitration request, I have restored them. RadicalSubversiv E 19:21, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration

Go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reithy#Additional_statement_of_complaint_against_the_main_complainant and set forth your complaint against Chuck F. To avoid confusion you might create a new header ===Counterclaim by Reithy=== Fred Bauder 10:54, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

I reverted your comemnts on the request for arbitration page.. you messed up my section with your comments(not only the format, but the claim).. as I stated please follow the guidelines of arbitration and respond in your own secton.. not in my section.

Your intentions here

I believe you have ill intentions here at Wikipedia. Most of your edits have been for no other purpose than harassing Chuck F and other users. If you feel that my comment violates the personal attack policy, you're free to post an RFC or an RFAr. Rhobite 22:27, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

I have removed my own comment which you objected to on the RFAr page. I will continue to remove instances of harassment by you. If you persist in vandalizing my talk page, I will block you from editing. Rhobite 23:41, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

So now you remove your offensive remarks. And you threaten me with blocking, an outrageous abuse of your powers as administrator. The impropriety of this threat is self-evident. Reithy 23:45, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Now I'm confused, didn't you ask me to retract that comment? What do you want? I believe I am within my rights to block you if you continue to harass me. Rhobite 23:50, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

I invited you initially to remove your remarks. You didn't. I think they were grossly unfair. Now you accuse me of harassment for responding in kind. You threaten blocking, in a situation where most would consider that you have engaged in precisely the same behavior you accuse me of being guilty of. You write something very unpleasant and emotive about me. I respond. You edit my remarks. You delete my remarks from your Talk page. I very much doubt anyone could defend this misconduct. You normally seem even-tempered, I don't know why you went down this path. Time to disengage I suspect. Reithy 23:56, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Talk pages

A person has a right to refactor their own talk page any way they want, so long as they don't try to make it look as if someone said something they didn't. But it's not acceptable to change other people's Talk pages, or article Talk pages. Rick K 07:46, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response to my question. I was following RadicalSubservise's suggestions as above. Reithy 07:48, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Hey look at what I wrote

I told you I'd take a bet that the libertarian party would get more then one percent of the population casting a vote for them. That waas the point, you were talking about how much the libertarian party was going to poll nationaly. Considering some of the steller performances(2 percent), some federal house races of over 40 percent. they've already clinched more then a one percent of the population casting at least one vote for them

no no, it's that at least one percent of people will cast a vote for a libertarian, the most you can get is 100 percent, if someone votes for president and a House seat, it's still only considered one person casting a vote for a libertarian. [[1]] [[2]]. That's what you were putting by saying Libertarians would get less then one percent nationally, that less then one percent of people would cast a vote for at least some type of libertarian candiate

I salute you for trying. I should have known you'd try to squirm out of paying. Reithy 05:06, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Dude, do you understand english? how could "Yes, I'll accept your bet that more then 1 percent of the population will cast a vote for a libertarian this election cycle" somehow mean "one percent will vote for the libertarian candiate for president"?, In that article you put that national polling said it would do less than one percent, you didn't qualify anything as presidential... and evven in that case it wasn't placed in the article properly which already had polling data Chuck F 06:44, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On Chuck_F and libertarianism

Hey, I know Chuck is being unreasonable (and, in my personal opinion, abusive) on some of the pages related to libertarianism. It stinks. It's bad for Wikipedia. I think, though, that you might do well to look at some of the links I posted to Talk:Libertarianism under the heading "Non-US libertarians (of the non-socialist sort)". It really does appear that there are a number of non-US "Libertarian Parties" and libertarian (in the Nozick/Hayek sense) movements. This would suggest that the connection between the term "libertarian" and this political position is not just American. I'd like it if you would review the linked material and respond. Thanks. —FOo 05:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Liberal Party of Australia

It is usual in Wikipedia to have links out like that to disambiguate and so on. Maybe the mention should go in the italicised section at the top of the page. But "libertarian" means something different in Australia to what it means in America, so it isn't appropriate to describe the Liberal Democratics in that way. --212.140.155.19 12:29, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well it isn't totally unknown. I'm not fussed but I can see a case for mentioning it just in case that's what people are looking for. The Commonwealth Liberal Party is pretty much a total unknown but that is mentioned at the top for reasons of disambiguation. --212.140.155.19 12:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it isn't that they're connected, but that Wikipedia has articles on them and people might get confused. I don't think we've got articles on Curtin's fascists, but I see the Country Liberals aren't linked out like that from the Liberal party page, so obviously there isn't a universally followed standard. --212.140.155.19 12:50, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alright, they're on the list of Australian political parties, so I think it's OK to leave them off the Liberal Party page and trust users to find their way using the Politics boilerplate at the bottom. --212.140.155.19 12:55, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't know where to start with the Curtin Labor Alliance. Came out of nowhere in 2001, thankfully went back there straight after. The only thing they succeeded in doing was publicing the nasty views of a long dead Labor Prime Minister. --212.140.155.19 13:11, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User:Chuck F, who I see you have some history with, has reverted the changes to the article on the Liberal Democrats four times. I left some comments on his Talk page. I'm not going to get involved in a revert war with him but if he hasn't responded within 24 hours I will go to the next stage of the dispute process. In the meantime I would ask that you not allow your edit warring with him to spread beyond its current boundaries. Please do not exceed the three revert rule on this or related articles, even if he does. --213.120.56.41 14:47, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) (same as above)

It seems he is already listed on Requests for comment, so I have added the latest incident. But since the RFC has been up for a while I don't think it is likely to do much good. --213.120.56.41 13:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Useful information

Hi Reithy, you seem to be new here so the following is some information that you should read;

From Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks

Be civil
Stick to good Wikiquette
Work towards consensus
Respect the right of others to hold their views. This does not mean that you have to agree with them, but just agree to disagree.

And from Wikiquette

Be polite.
Be prepared to apologize.
Forgive and forget.
If polite discussion fails, take a break if you're arguing or recommend a break if you're mediating.
- Come back after a week or two. If no one is mediating, and you think mediation is needed, enlist someone.
Be Civil.

I'm sure that if you take this advice to heart that you will be an accepted member of this community.

Best wishes, 209.102.125.180 15:45, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rhobite; personal attacks.

Hi.

Please don't make edits like this; also, please avoid making personal attacks in edit summaries, as you did here. I blanked your user page because it was, in essence, nothing more than a tirade regarding User:Rhobite.

Also please note that all talk pages are open for contributions from all participants. Accordingly, I have removed your proscription against Rhobite editing this page.

Please note that you will be asked to leave Wikipedia if you do not respect its policies and its users.

uc 17:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edits to Ron Paul

Phrases like "dubious honor of the nomination", "cynical political reasons", and "an unpopular and lonely figure on Capitol Hill" are textbook POV, and prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Moreover, you've been here long enough to know that. RadicalSubversiv E 20:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you genuinely want to make NPOV additions to Ron Paul, here's what I would suggest: First, read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view over about ten times, Gather citations for information you think belongs in the article, and put it all on the talk page. Then work with other editors to come up with NPOV language before making any edits to the article itself. Or you could continue recklessly adding your own POV as you see fit, and wind up banned from Wikipedia entirely. Suit yourself. RadicalSubversiv E 22:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your statement that you'd be "happy to comply with that process if others do" --

Others, with the exception of Chuck, are respected editors who have made hundreds of perfectly reasonable contributions to Wikipedia in a variety of subjects. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly engaged in vandalism and other violations of policy; the obligation here is on you, not others. That having been said, if you want to try to work through this on talk, then revert the page and move your "contributions" to talk. RadicalSubversiv E 23:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

moved from user_talk:Rhobite

GOod job uc. On the subject of Ron Paul, I require that you cease personal attacks on me immediately ("vandalism") when no such thing occurred. I have proposed a series of bold but worthwhile changes which I am willing to defend in detail. All is sourced, as it should be. If something can be expressed better, and I don't doubt it could be, then that's fine, otherwise your unexplained reverts are particularly inappropriate, particularly in light of your high office as administrator. please seek counsel from others before acting so injudiciously again. Reithy 21:15, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I'm confused. Is your whole statement directed at me? I don't believe I've said anything about you that could be construed as a personal attack, so perhaps not. In any case, adminship is not high office. Regards, uc 21:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry. I am an editor of small mind and confuse easily. uc 22:06, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

and again

LOL, all I can say is Praise the Lord! UC, I promise you Rhobite is beyond hope. Let him ban me so I can him, I wouldn't want to join a club that would have me as a member anyways. Reithy 22:39, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Reithy, why are you heckling him? Wikipedia is not a football game. If you want to participate, try to raise the tone rather than lower it. uc 22:52, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

deleting evidence

I have warned you before about deleting evidence against you from your arbitration case. Since that apparently did not work, I have blocked you for 24 hours. During your absence, I suggest you acquaint yourself with the concept of evidence tampering. —No-One Jones ^(m) 00:39, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Libertarianism

Could I ask you to make sure that you don't engage in an edit war with User:Chuck_F once this has page has been unlocked? I notice you reverted quite a few times. Perhaps you could discuss it more on the talk page? Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:12, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Temporary injunction

Under the terms of the temporary injunction against you, you (and all of your sock puppets) are prohibited from editing wikipedia pages except for pages related to your arbcom case. Should you violate this, you may be banned for a period of time. →Raul654 22:43, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Email received

Thanks not for your advocacy. I do not wish to run cretin. I wish to get banned. Please 
stop talking on my behalf.

Makes no sense to me, you seem a bit unstable. I would strongly advise you get some professional help. Cheers. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:59, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Did you email me?

Hi! I got an email from someone claiming to be you. The subject line was "I am troolll what you gonna do about it loser?" The content was "Hey Jimbo, please ban me. Please. I am troll beyond compare."

If you are requesting that I block your account, I am happy to oblige, but I wanted to make sure this is what you really want first.

--Jimbo Wales 19:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Did you mess with my password? Very Verily 23:57, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What happened? Today, I got the reset password email with a new password, even though I did not ask for it. Is this a bug, or is someone trying to intercept our passwords? pstudier 00:54, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC) The IP address which requested the new password was 144.132.89.151, which is not my IP. pstudier 00:56, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

It appears that Reithy requested new passwords for all of us, for reasons unknown. Since this doesn't wipe our old password if we don't use it, it shouldn't be anything to worry about. Very Verily 02:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Temporary injunction

Both Reithy and Chuck F and any sockpuppets are to edit only on their respective arbcom case [and their own user and user talk pages] and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004. Edits to the mainspace may be reverted on sight. The change to this injunction is supported by the votes of 4 out of 9 arbitrators of whom 2 have abstained, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reithy/Proposed_decision#Proposed_temporary_orders, thus a majority of those voting support the amendment. Fred Bauder 13:40, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Observer.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Observer.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul

Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Reithy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --86.25.6.111 (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]