User talk:Rmosler2100/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Dianetics mediation

Rmosler, if there are issues of bias regarding this mediation, I'd like to know your POV on the subject of religion and if you are a mediator. To make it fair I'll let you know I am a Scientologist. I am not a mediator, just helping to keep the discussion within context, in case that position is any problem to the mediation. --JimmyT 12:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the message. I wrote a reply on the board but I felt it was kinda long and didn't want to take up your talk page. rmosler 12:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to your post of 07:41, 12 February 2006 on the Dianetics mediation page: what you suggest sounds like POV forking, and as such is not likely to be accepted by the other editors. Tenebrous 11:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC) The page dealing with forking and POV forking is a guideline, not official follow-it-to-the-letter-(or else!)-policy. I wouldn't go so far as to say that such a thing is wrong, but it's probably simpler to create one NPOV page than two separate NPOV pages.Tenebrous 13:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know if you are interested, but the Dianetics issues continue. Have you seen the poll of "pseudoscience" on Dianetics (Talk) and ChrisO is going after Terryeo now with a Request for Comment. They have a list there of people who endorse what ChrisO says, and a place for outside comments from folks like me and you. Spirit of Man 02:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Censorship

A watered-down version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 13:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of aberrant

I've made a few corrections of "abberant" to aberrant. This is not to detract from your excellent work.--Runcorn10:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:2,2-dimethylbutane.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:2,2-dimethylbutane.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Isilanes 19:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• That is totally fine. Good replacement.rmosler 02:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Fibromyalgia

I think your suggestion is a good one -- go ahead and add the section in! I think you'll find this article useful in your editting as well: http://www.springerlink.com/content/1271314042w8405g/

My only suggestion would be to use the sub-title "Diagnostic Uncertainty" and to refrain from overtly harsh criticsm concerning the diagnosis. In any event, I'll try reviewing some more of the literature myself and will try to help you with editting.

Best regards, Djma12 ^(talk) 15:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Account Creator Permissions

This is confirming that I did request the permissions. Thanks Rmosler | ● 11:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not vandalizing anything, So calm down.

Concerning the WW2 Baltic operations figueres. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 85.164.188.149 (talk)

It helps if you do not blank the page, or a large portion thereof if you are doing an edit. That is what the preview button is for. Otherwise, removing large volumes of cited text and replacing with one differing sentence lacking citations is called vandalism. Rmosler | ● 12:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Schools are not eligable for A7 speedy deletion

Just a quick note to let you know that schools are specifically excluded from speedy deletion under A7. The relevant part of thecriteria states "An article about ... an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools). Therefore your tagging of Delves Lane Junior School was incorrect. I've also redirected to the most relevant page as this is the normal outcome of AfDs for schools below the high school or equivilant level. It is also generally considered good practice to check the edit log of an article before adding a speedy to see whether it's also ready been considered for that speedy as, per thedeletion policy speedy delete tags should not normally be re-added once removed. In this case the page had already been tagged for A7 and then had it removed. Dpmuk (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Rmosler | ● 21:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply [Snake River Conspiracy]

I understand what your saying about notability. I apologize for that. It was just weird because I am the one who added all the comments on the other songs, and lengths. I just recently obtained this song, so i was adding it like i did the other ones. The only other thing that I did not understand was why you deleted the link to Jason Slater's website. Information about SRC can be found on it, and it has some of the unreleased songs on it. 11milleran (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)11milleran

I meant no harm in removing the content. I only came across the entry when it came through the recent changes list. What I noticed was that there were the additions of "Jason has this posted at his site.", "This is also posted at Jason's site." Which appeared to be more commentary than belonging in the article proper. I can help you with in line citations and links which would probably be more appropriate. Rmosler | ● 21:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I just checked the site again and he actually has removed them.. Sorry to be a nuisence. 11milleran (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)11milleran

Hey, not a problem! Rmosler | ● 11:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my userpage.--TheLegendary Sky Attacker 23:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

:) Rmosler | ● 11:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

re: Thanks

Hey, thanks for the reward you gave to my bot :). Tis appreciated -Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my talk page. I appreciate it. HarlandQPitt (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for this andthis! Andrea (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Rmosler | ● 21:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Middle names

Hi,

I have been using US Search (http://www.ussearch.com) to get the full names of poker players and add them on wiki, didn't add my source and got deleted. Before I start doing it again with the source, I'd like to know if it is considered dubious information, I wouldn't want to do it twice for no result.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Kincaid (talk • contribs) 21:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok... It appeared as if you were editing, and even changing middle names when there were nicknames or middle names present. It also looked like you were moving pretty fast. I will revert them back to your edit, but please provide references.Rmosler | ● 21:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother with Bullspeak

The author has allready violated 3 revert rule in removing template 3 times. reported as vandal. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Rmosler | ● 17:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If you don't mind bullspeak, you shout take care of bulletspeak... —Precedingunsigned comment added by 77.12.200.192 (talk) 10:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Account creation system

Someone, probably you, has requested an account on the account creation system citing this username. Please reply here to confirm it was you. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I did request an account on WP:ACC. Thanks. Rmosler | ● 01:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. Your request has been approved. Please read WP:ACCG before you log in and use the system. For the time being, you won't be able to create more than 6 accounts per day or create an account with a name similar to that of an existing account. If you find yourself running into this limit regularly please leave a message at WP:RPE requesting the accountcreator permission. Stifle (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Rmosler | ● 15:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

War on Terrorism

Why did you leave this message on my talk page, and revert my edit? Please do not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to War on Terrorism. Thank you. Rmosler | ● 01:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Please explain, as my edit added information to the article that was relevant, and previously missing. Please consider reverting your edit.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In reading through your edit, it appears that the terminology that you used could be considered perjorative, or not following WP:YESPOV. No matter how heated conflicts are in the real world, we try to maintain Wikipedia in the format of an encyclopedia, utilizing an impartial tone. If you feel that the terminology used is appropriate, complying with WP:NPOV, consider proposing the edit on the talk page PRIOR to making the edit, thus allowing the page's other frequent editors input in order to obtain consensus. I left the message on your talk page as a courtesy so that you would know that your recent edit was reverted. Happy Editing! Rmosler | ● 02:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints". Zionist is not perjorative, and describes the motivation of Irgun and Lehi accurately. It is not "a courtesy" to accuse me of violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, and then refuse to explain yourself. What do you mean "it appears that the terminology that you used could be considered perjorative".93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I simply patrol recent edits. Please speak with the frequent editors of the page to which you submitted your edit via the talk page. Rmosler | ● 03:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you a soldier, or an editor? Please justify your edit, or withdraw your accusation.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I had no intent to insult you with the message left on your talk page, if you did feel insulted, I apologize. That is a standard and automated message when reverting for NPOV, as are many of the other standardized messages for NPOV on your talk page. You stated on the article talk page that this was the second time a revert was made for a similar edit, as such it shows that there may not be a concensus on that edit, and it should be discussed on the talk page with the other editors prior to changing the article. Rmosler | ● 03:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The other editor was kind enough to explain what he was doing, and apologised - User talk:Vicenarian. Please explain how I violated npov, as I still do not understand you. I suggest changing your template, as violated is emotive language.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with your edit. Oftentimes, persons editing under IP addresses have more scrutiny of their edits due to the higher prevalence of non-productive edits under IP addresses. Looking through your past edits it does appear that you have made numerous productive edits. Once again, I apologize if you felt insulted. I would welcome you to start an account with Wikipedia. Rmosler | ● 04:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you- could you please put something on my talk page. Otherwise your message will give a bad impression. Many constructive edits are made by ip users, and I would suggest using a more moderate template not to put them off. I prefer not to open an account.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to. Rmosler | ● 04:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Happy patrolling.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Little better than all wrong

The anybot information is wrong. And, it says it is sourced to AlgaeBase, which it's not. It's sourced to a serious coding error with anybot. It's other articles, 4077 of them, have been deleted. User:Anybot/AfD. I'm going to revert to my version. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I assumed there was a reason for the edit. Go right ahead and revert. :)

PS. Adding a edit summary would help me out a lot in the future to understand your edit. Happy Editing! Rmosler | ● 19:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sloppy with that. The bot kept preventing me from removing most of the article, so I was adding back, redoing the edit summary, then adding back, redoing. Sorry 'bout that. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

		Civility Award
		Thank you for contributing positively to an air of civility on wikipedia by the polite note about the edit you posted on the IP user talk page[1] and by including the note on the article's discussion page. Keeping the conversation on topic in the right place is really civil! Keep editing-wikipedia needs more of you. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You're totally welcome. Try to not forget, as you keep editing, how much easier it is to write when you start with the assumption everyone is here for the same reason you are. People like you make it easier for all of us. --69.226.103.13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC).

Unpaid workers

Hi there - I see you tagged this for speedy deletion as patent nonsense. It looked sensical enough to me, but I've redirected to a better-formed article section we already have on the topic: Exploitation#Theories_of_exploitation. Any thoughts? Gonzonoir (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That may be best. I tagged the article as such because it related to unpaid workers, but then the short content appeared to be related to the exploitation itself. I guess you are right, that it is not "patent nonsense", it just did not seem to be a coherent thought. Thanks for finding that! Rmosler | ● 19:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Gotcher - glad it works for you! Thanks. Gonzonoir (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed speedy deletion tag: Solution .45

Hi Rmosler2100! I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Solution .45- because: A band with notable members is generally notable. At least it is a credible claim of significance, enough to pass A7. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. decltype (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

01C

{{User:21655/.01 Cabal/Accepted}} 21655 ^{ταλκ/01ҁ} 00:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

• T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
• WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
• WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
• WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
• WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on one of my subpages! Much appreciated. Cya around Wikipedia! Netalarm 10:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)