User talk:Rosicrucian

I do not remove personal attacks directed at me from this page. If you spot any, please do not remove them, as they speak more against the attacker than against me.

can i just ask

How exactly do you get your userboxes in a line like that? mine are just kindof thrown out there.the juggreserection 16:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's two nice little templates that help with that, which I've used. Start your userbox section with {{Userboxtop|Userboxes|right}} and finish it with {{Userboxbottom}}. That puts them in the sidebar like that.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 18:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ahh. Thanks man! that was pissin me off for a long time.the juggreserection 16:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Familiar?

Hey you sound familiar and Do I know you? Are you from the Transformers Wiki? Who is user Apostrophe and where is that device that you used to know people easily? Why are you the guy along with SFH and Detour are always talking to me? Why can't you do the Wanted pages list and the UT Series? Hey leave my talk page alone please?(TougHHead 23:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You were removing warnings from an admin. You're free to archive your talkpage, but removing advice from admins is generally frowned upon unless I'm mistaken.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 07:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you from Transformers Wiki?(TougHHead 07:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Can I also ask if you are the same Rosicrucian from Teletraan-1 the Transformers Wiki? This is a question not a harassment.(Optimus the F22 Raptor (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I request that you answer the questions because I need to confirm if it is you or someone else is using the same name.(Optimus the F22 Raptor (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Look, if he's not going to answer it, he's not going to answer it. Your persistent questioning of him is harassment. Metros (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would prefer that you keep your use of my talkpage to questions about Wikipedia, its articles, and the edits I've made to them. If you have any comments or concerns about those, please feel free.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 04:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parsley Massacre

You placed an infobox on the Parsley Massacre. It was removed and i reinserted it. It was removed again, and it up for debate. Would you like to contribute to the debate? thanks [1] Armyguy11 (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Large Debate Continues Here

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Dominican_Republic/RacialSelfIdentification_debate UnclePaco (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fixed for order UnclePaco (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i apologize

i am sorry i didn't think it needed it but now i do i apologize but can you fix the Caste system —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGabriel555 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the Caste System

the Caste System does not need more references and verifications it already has 2 i am taking it out

Undersourced

Why do you think the edit is undersourced when almost every sentence has a citation. [2]. It is as pov as antihaitianismo don't you think? UnclePaco (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Haiti and Arawak Genocide

What was the reason for removal of those sections? UnclePaco (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i fixed a few of the references that seemed to be troublesome . UnclePaco (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The D.R. is upper middle income not lower

alright stop taking it out your reference is from 2006 i have one thats from 2007 alright so stop changing it —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGabriel555 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 7 January 2008

Why i dont like it

I don't like the Dominican economy section you put in becuase it does not say how much it has grown or whats its GDP per capita or how it compares to other Latin American countries that why so please leave it how it is i don't want to make enemies i just want the D.R. page to be good —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGabriel555 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BigGrabriel555

I have endorsed your request and put some comment. I do not know if that is enough. Must I write anything else? --Pepemar2 (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosicrucian, do you think we should report him? SamEV (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that BigGrabriel555 apologized at Talk:Dominican Republic#I apologiza and pledged to work constructively with other editors. Is this dispute on-going, or can we close and archive the BigGabriel555 RFC? --Muchness (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title change

Request for change in consensus: Change title to "Franklin Coverup Incident"

"A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined."

The existing title is, in the opinion of many who have commented (Gyrofrog, Awfultin, Wayne, Tom1976, Conexion, Apostle 12), fatally biased. To start out saying that the subject material is a "hoax" is indefensible, especially when that point of view is hardly universal. A specially called county grand jury used the word "hoax;" that is all. And there is ample reason to believe that those who comprised the jury had a vested interest in protecting local people.

Request for Comment: Change title to more neutral "Franklin Coverup Incident"Apostle12 (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take Two: Request for change in consensus

Take Two: Request for change in consensus. Change title to "Franklin Child Abuse Allegations"

"A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined."

The existing title "Franklin Coverup Hoax" is, in the opinion of many who have commented (Gyrofrog, Awfultin, Wayne, Tom1976, Conexion, Apostle 12), fatally biased. To start out saying that the subject material is a "hoax" is indefensible, especially when that point of view is hardly universal. A specially called county grand jury used the word "hoax;" that is all. And there is ample reason to believe that those who comprised the jury had a vested interest in protecting local people.

In the previous section, various editors commented on their support for, or opposition to, a name change to "Franklin Coverup Incident." Those who commented over the space of several days included Sherurcij, PopeFauveXXIII, Wayne, Orange Mike, Apostle12, and Rosicrucian.

Orange Mike came up with a suggestion: How about "Franklin Child Abuse Allegations"? Neutral, takes no position regarding "hoax" or "coverup" claims.

I support this newly proposed title change and am asking for additional comments at this time from concerned editors. Apostle12 (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am back.

Hi. Guess Who? (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is FortMax here, too? Guess Who? (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is ItsWalky blocked or even banned from Wikipedia? Guess Who? (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should go here. Really, this TF comic is soooooo funny and awesome! Go here! You will love it! It's..... It's Fun-ness on a stick! Really, that's the name. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kremzeek! (talk • contribs) 15:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are cool, too. Not funny, but many users on the TF site this links to have declared this as worthy of being canon. It's Obsidian's Lament and it picks up where Beast Machines left off. [4] Sorry I forgot to sign my last post.Guess Who? (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

npov debate

Hi Rosicrucian, I thank you for your contributions in the 911 NPOV debate in the past, and you may be interested in this ongoing debate: Talk:9/11 You may be able to find some compromise solution.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc on BigGabriel555

You filed an Rfc against the above editor some time ago. Could you please let me know if this has been resolved as indicated by BigGabriel555 on the Rfc? If it has, then I can archive or remove it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip J. Berg

Thanks for your comment and edit on Phillip J. Berg. My prior effort at describing the status of the case was a little bit unclear on this point, and I can see how you'd reach the conclusion from my prior wording that the case is over. I've clarified to explain that his application for injunction was summarily denied, but the cert petition is still pending. Perhaps not for long however, and then we can make the appropriate changes. As far as his notability is concerned, my sense has been that the press coverage has been extensive and has gone beyond just the case (although not as extensively as for Andy Martin (U.S. politician) and we're stuck with it. Given the extent of misstatements found about this subject elsewhere, Wikipedia can do a true public service here by providing an NPOV summary of the noteworthy elements. An alternative would be to collect all the birthplace cases in one article, but I thought I noted that someone tried to do this and it was deleted, although that may have been due to POV problems.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juggalo

It was decided that since the "crimes" section is longer than the rest of the article, and the reports listed were from minor newspapers of minor events involving people who may or may not be Insane Clown Posse fans, it would be better to trim the section down to major events in order to keep the article neutral. (Sugar Bear (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters

Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Template:911ct, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards — Cs32en 08:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Shekar Ramanuja Sidarth for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shekar Ramanuja Sidarth is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shekar Ramanuja Sidarth until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Robofish (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Captain Hook, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Doherty. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]