User talk:Rhobite/Archive 1

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

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Here are some links I find useful

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 19:47, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Long-time lurker, short-time contributor. --Rhobite 19:57, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

ACLU Page - Patriot II Act[edit]

I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia, so forgive me if I'm being erroneous. I made a minor edit on the ACLU page concerning the PATRIOT 2 act... deleting the "proposed" portion and shifting it into the definite. Correctly, you changed this. However, I am wondering if there should be yet another edit to this page, as while the entire act has not been passed yet, major portions of it were signed into law December 13th, 2003, the day Saddam Hussein was kidnapped by coalition forces? The San Antonio Current, the Associated Press (through Boston Globe Link), and the President himself. Your thoughts?

--jackferd 22:26, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I'm new here too. I wasn't aware that parts of PATRIOT 2 had been signed into law in another bill. You may want to add this information to Domestic_Security_Enhancement_Act_of_2003 but I don't know if it belongs on the ACLU page. Rhobite 15:24, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Sociobiological theories of rape[edit]

I've started on reworking this. It needs to be fed through the grinder a few more times before anything acceptable comes out the other end. See the talk page, too. -- The Anome 16:56, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Abandonware[edit]

Alright. I see what you mean. Maybe at a later date WinWorld can be referenced in some way, as it continues to grow. Please remember that I don't own WinWorld.--Surfinshell23 04:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re: Commercialism[edit]

Hello,

Although I agree that Commercialism is, as you wrote on my talk page, rather vague and somewhat speculative, I don't think the {{cleanup}} tag was applicable. It's a simple article. It had a good start, but it will take some time to develop into a good article. It was a good idea to post at WP:PNA, hopefully to get the attention of Wiki-veterans knowledgeable in the field.

I don't think we should call for a clean-up on brand new articles, as time should be allowed for an article to grow in length and in depth. IMO, the {{cleanup}} tag should only be used on unattended (no one working on it the past many hours) articles with serious problems, e.g. nonsense, poor organization, atrocious grammar, non-NPOV/bias, unwikified data-dumping, etc. (Judging from what have been listed at WP:CU these days, there are people who disagree with me .... Oh, well .... )

To some extent, I was also trying to be gentle to a newbie. He just started here a few days ago, and apparently, this article on Commercialism was his first major undertaking ......

If you have ideas on how to improve the article, perhaps you can make suggestions at Talk:Commercialism.

Have a nice day.
-- PFHLai 16:00, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm still learning the intricacies of the various "call for help" pages here. Between cleanup, PNA, RFC, VFD, speedy delete there really is a confusing array of choices - too many, in my opinion. Thanks for clearing this up. Unfortunately I don't have too much background in the area but I do think I'll fix the references to "cave men." Rhobite 16:32, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I have to say that I have only been around for a few months, so my opinions should not be taken as any "authority" at any level. I do think PNA was the right route in this case. Wikipedia:Requests for page expansion is a possibility, but things don't really move there... If you don't feel like fixing it, let it be. Someone else may stroll by anytime and fix things to his or her liking.

Yeah, there are Wikipedians who prefer different ways of handling problematic articles, and there are articles that require different handling procedures. It IS confusing. But it's better than having edit wars.

Happy editing. :-)

-- PFHLai 17:54, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)

US Mint copyrights[edit]

Thanks for the notice. I agree that the images are probably Public domain. Not sure who owns the images of the US currency, but it is probably the Government, and hence PD. At Wikipedia, copies of 2D work are assumed to have the same copyright as the original work, (e.g. a painiting by Rubens has expired copyrights even if it is a modern photo thereof) The arrangement of the bills and the labels are probably original work, but very minor. I think we can also claim {{fairuse}} if necessary. -- Chris 73 | Talk 02:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Windows XP[edit]

I don't know what you're talking about removing stuff--I haven't removed a single thing, I promise. As a matter of fact, I created the spyware sections. I also like the fact that the similarites to Mac OS X is gone, but I kind of started to like it, it seemed to bring a little friendship into the mix between the two, which have a history of enmity.--naryathegreat 03:33, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, for a while I was afraid someone might be hijacking my account, i've heard of people changing user names on others, so I got a little worried, anyway, no harm done!

Mises[edit]

What's the dealio on Ludwig von Mises? I spoke directly with Jeff Tucker, the Vice-President of the LvMI and he gave me permission to use that text. It was written for ANB (who the LvMI gave permission to use it) by a fellow (Hullsmann) who up until this month was a resident senior fellow there (he has now gone on to a University in France). Anyways, I stated that in the edit log and at the bottom. Although I appreciate the concern, please contact me next time.

--Tejano 13:48, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Since you posted it anonymously, I had no idea who to contact. If you are User:Tejano you should log in to that account. Anyway, the article says this: "Copyright © 2003 American Council of Learned Societies. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved." Is that wrong? Does Mr. Tucker have the authority to license this under the GFDL? He's not the original author and he doesn't appear to represent the copyright holder. Also, let's move this to Talk:Ludwig von Mises. I'm copying these comments there. Rhobite 22:02, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Windows XP reverts[edit]

Hi Rhobite,

Could we work out a compromise on the Windows XP page? I'm kind of wondering if we could cut down on the spyware/malware bit as it isn't specific to just Windows XP. Please don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that it shouldn't be mentioned, but do we really need to mention the executive from the MSN group saying that half their crashes are caused by malware? That sort of sounds dodgy, even though I know this source is from Microsoft. Sometimes "executives" like to shoot their mouths off. If we could perhaps make the comment on malware/spyware more concise maybe that will appease both sides. It's worth a try before we bring it to the RFC page, anyway (I've kind of already gone there and I think they'll just lock the page for a while so noone will be able to edit it, but it would cool the revert wars that are going on).

What do you say? Sound OK to you?

Ta bu shi da yu 15:56, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hey Rhobite, want to vote in my staw poll? You seem to be involved in the edits on the XP page. See the Talk page for more info. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:36, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

K5 and Windows XP edits[edit]

You're captainsuperboy on K5? Good to see another K5 member here! BTW, I think your compromise on the XP article was actually pretty good. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:36, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that's me. I hate that nick. It's good to see you here too. Rhobite 04:28, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

O'Reilly change[edit]

You reverted a paragraph that I wrote that contained the following sentence: "Despite his self-proclaimed political independence, he has become a controversial figure in American politics."

I did a partial revert and changed it to: "He is a self-proclaimed political independent who has become a controversial figure in American politics."

The original sentence was: "As a self-proclaimed political independent, his social and political views vary widely."

I changed it for the following reason: The phrase, "his social and political views vary widely," is rather meaningnless. How do you measure "widely?" And vary widely from what, exactly? From Stalinism, from Neoliberalism? I can only guess the original author intended to say that he draws from both Conservative and Liberal ideologies. However, this is a judgement call. One man's idea of "liberal" is another man's "conservative" and vice versa. This is a debate best to be avoided in the opening sentences of the article.