User talk:Rtrev

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. Again, welcome!

--WillMak050389 00:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leet

Please don't revise edits for no apparent reason with your canned "weak edits" message. Supply some sort of supporting argument for your edits. I did not remove any information, I added information. I was part of the early "leet" scene and am directly relating my experience. I've never once heard the term Christmas Greenie - I'm sure it was used, but it was minor and probably very localized. Whereas Newbie and Christmas Kiddie were the two primary terms on the more popular and larger BBSs. Additionally, the "Mah" comes the written form of the southern dialect for "my." This is not in question, it can be found in literature dating back quite a ways, including comic books which you may be familiar with. Long before Rap and Hip-Hop was on the scene. The same goes for the word "j00." You can find variations of it in literature and comic books dating back to at least the late 70's if not further. Do a simple Google search before revising next time.

BBSs are referred to in the Leet article in regards to 80's and 90's modem variety. They should not be referred to as the online forum variety found on web sites today. Pick one or the other, but don't use the same 3 letter acronym for two entirely different technologies, even if they have a superficial resemblance.

Thanks, Nitrowolf 16:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Baby

Hey Rtrev, i was looking over the Sweet Baby page. I am just wondering about a few details, I looked into Ruby Records but couldn't find anymore info about a Sweet Bady release. I am interested in any info about Sweet Baby releases, also I am wondering (not doubting) about any possible references citing Sweet Baby as a "pop punk" from their beginning. The reason for this is that im working on the pop punk article and trying to reference it's "first use." Do you have any insight? I'm guessing the term came about in the mid 1980s (maybe ealier?) but i dont have proof. Let me know if you have any thoughts or sources concerning this matter. THANX!!! Xsxex 05:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved comment

Andrew, you may disagree with my edits, but they are NOT vandalism, unless you consider true statements as such. More than a few persons do consider that Rush is bombastic and biased. And his news is considered by many not to be "hard" news but "opinion" news. In fact, few serious journalists consider his sort of news to be anything but "opinion news". Respectfully, rogergingles (at) cox (dot) net

Filling summaries

Thank you! I will take care of it! ellol 15:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel of John

Yes, my comment was the sort of thing that should go through Talk. I posted it on the page to see who was paying attention. You, it turns out. Please help me figure out how to include the information about the Jesus Seminar rejecting John almost in its intirety. Jonathan Tweet 02:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drudge/Olbermann

I just find it inappropriate to label a TV news anchor/talking head as a "liberal activist" - unless, of course, we are applying the same standard to right-leaning hosts and anchors. I see the original wording as biased, and my characterization of Olbermann as a "liberal-leaning news anchor" is somewhat hard to argue with - and, I feel, fairly generous to those who'd characterize him as liberal. I have no problem with the two edits made after mine - it's true that Olbermann is more a "commentator" than a "news anchor", and the edit after that is legit, too. I don't understand why you've reverted it back to the single most contentious and clearly biased version. Bill Oaf 04:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Coulter

According to policy fair use images (like Image:Coulter-Silver-dress.jpeg) should be replaced by free images (like Image:Ann Coulter.jpg). --Oden 08:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama

Hi there. Not sure why you removed him from the Grammy winners category. His Grammy is discussed in the article, and if you Google it, you'll find plenty of verifiable sources... Gzkn 07:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response today on Talk:Barack Obama. Tvoz 09:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I just hate seeing the same arguments made over and over... especially when it is a moot point by WP:NOR --Rtrev 15:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, they did it again. Talk:Barack_Obama#Semi-prot --HailFire 16:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi. --HailFire 16:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

You are currently engaged in a revert war over a link that you have not made a single arguement on the talk page to justify or remove. WP:EL does not require the link to contain information not in any other Wikipedia article, but to contain information relevant to the current article that could not be covered in it once it reaches Featured Article status, which CR does. CR provides a more detailed timeline then can ever be provided inside the article, and further that is shown simpyl by the existence of a timeline article. If the information in CR could be included in the article, we would not have a split off article obviously. So I ask you to participate on the talk page and use Wikipedia guidelines and policies to make your arguement as it would be more pursuasive then simply reverting without explanation based on more then personal opinion and feelings. Thank you. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 16:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aunt Nancy

Yeah, I guess Nancy Pelosi isn't directly Gavin Newsom's aunt. While mentioning the relationship on her article might indeed be descending to trivia, it's perhaps notable enough for the rather completist List of United States political families. I thought I'd check my understanding of the relationship meshes with your sources. It's my understanding that Paul Pelosi's brother is supervisor Ronald Pelosi. Ronald married Barbara Newsom, William Newsom's sister. So that, I believe, makes Nancy's kids and Gavin Newsom second cousins (there doesn't seem to be a "second aunt"). Unfortunately I'm having problems accessing Political Graveyard today. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell that is correct. IMHO it is notable that Gavin Newsom is related to Pelosi (a bigger deal for him than her I might guess) but with Pelosi's current position of Speaker of the House her relationship to Newsom isn't that big a deal. However, it is interesting to note that she is part of what appears to be a "political family" if you will. --Rtrev 23:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm becoming convinced that, without resorting to non-notable thirteenth-cousins, that List of United States political families can one day be resolved in to one giant tree. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are most likely correct. Or at least something similar to European royalty. --Rtrev 23:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rush

Just a friendly reminder-- it looks to me like you may have just violated WP:3RR on Rush Limbaugh. I'd suggest you cool it with the reversions until a clear consensus re: the homeopathy quote is reached. Cheers! GertrudeTheTramp 00:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I think I am still ok on that one. That was 3 reverts total 1) the word major 2) the addition of the homeopathy stuff (which I still contend is trivial) 3) lastly the homeopathy stuff again. --Rtrev 00:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Be careful, though! GertrudeTheTramp 00:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyborg

It was not "nonsense" or vandalism I added to the Rush Limbaugh page. He is, in fact, listed as a cyborg on wikipedia (under Individual Cyborgs) due to his cochlear implant. It was not intended as a joke, but as a reference to the rather extraordinary procedure he underwent. --Seatbelt Blue 23:22, 22 January 2007

Either way I think this is going to require some discussion first. Make your case on the talk page before adding something like that. Either way I am sorry if there was a misunderstanding and welcome to the Wikipedia. --Rtrev 05:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Limbaugh BLP

HI Rtrev, wanted to get your input on the current BLP issue in Limbaugh and see whether you believe it violated BLP or should be part of the article. I believe that the edit in question is a BLP problem because by posting the quote from the newspaper into the section talking about his problem with drug addiction and the deal with the prosecutor which dropped all the charges, creates a false comparison and implies that Limbaugh committed a criminal act and got off easy compared to what he said should happen to "drug offenders".

The edit in question "Reporters for the Associated Press contrasted this deal to Limbaugh's previous statements regarding drug offenders' punishments. On October 5, 1995, Limbaugh said on his television program, "Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."

Limbaugh was not found guilty of any crime or of illegally using drugs, but the statement suggests that the two situations "Limbaugh's situation" and "other drug offenders who violated the law" are equivalent, suggesting Limbaugh is a lawbreaker. Again, he was never found guilty, in fact no case ever even went to trial. All charges were dropped. Two years into the case, and six months before all charges were dropped, the state attorney said "I have no idea if Mr. Limbaugh has completed the elements of any offense yet.". Limbaugh certainly developed a problem with the drugs he was taking, a condition not that uncommon with people who are prescribed heavy pain killers for dealing with constant pain, but he was also not found to have obtained any drugs illegally. So, no valid cites that limbaugh made illegal use of drugs exist.

But this quote again, by saying "Reporters for the Associated Press contrasted this deal to Limbaugh's previous statements regarding drug offenders' punishments"...implies Limbaugh is a "Drug offender" and a lawbreaker and no where is it accurately sourced that he is.

It would be like, if we were writing an article on someone (who in the past said that "Horse thieves should be whipped" who was later himself investigated for horse thievery and had all charges dropped and never went to trial...and then we put into the article right after the part about dropping the charges "So and so contrasted this deal to Black Bart's previous statements about how horse thieves should be punished"...would we not be inferring that Black Bart should be considered the equivalent of a horse thief? Caper13 08:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Nancy Pelosi

Hi. I don't think "No woman has been closer to the Presidency" is the same as "the only woman to hold the position", then of course the passage was deleted because it didn't say much. I thought you might want to know. Xiner (talk, email) 15:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for attempting to correct the grammar on the Nancy Pelosi page! However, instead of improving the grammar, this introduced a grammatical error. Please familiarize yourself with English grammar before making such corrections to articles. More information is available on Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Enjoy your time on the internet's fastest growing encyclopædia/encyclopedia.

Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 17:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical error? I didn't think so... but I also can't check. WP seems to be largely down for me right now. I think the wording is awkward and could be stated better and still get the point across that Pelosi holds a historically high position for a woman. --Rtrev 17:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ann Coulter

Please do not revert talk page comments that serve to explain controversial statements by the subject of the article (statements with which unthinking and/or POV-pushing editors might disagree). Further, please be very careful about accusations of trolling and other misbehavior. It is YOU who are misbehaving here, by failing to assume good faith, then reverting good faith edits to a discussion page. Kindly undo your revert. Good Cop 01:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish. However, if you do not consider that kind of comment trolling then it is quite close. But you are correct WP:AGF and all. The only thing I would add is that discussing the benefits of bombing buildings in New York is generally the kind of thing that engenders constructive discussion. --Rtrev 03:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit to Leet [1]

I just wanted to remind you that Wikipedia is not censored for minors. Sorry if you already knew this, but I thought it was necessary to bring this to your attention. Thanks, and happy editing. Iced Kola 03:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah my bad... profanity in full form or not at all is the policy. ~~Thanks for the heads up.~~ ~~Except that according to WP policy there is no reason to include the expletive. It is not integral to the article.~~ I should really form my opinion first then edit eh? I guess in the context it is integral (WTF doesn't stand for much else does it?). I will support the full inclusion as long as it doesn't get gratuitous. --Rtrev 04:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Large majority

Help me understand the revert of the fact that Obama was elected by a large majority in IL. This is not a POV.--Kukini 19:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its just not necessary and POV. It is very clear from the article that Obama has been easily elected. It is POV in that "large" is subjective. What is a "large" majority? 60%? 70%? 80%? I would be fine with was elected with x% of the vote... that is a fact that can be verified. --Rtrev 19:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about with 70% of the votes, using this as verification? [2] --Kukini 19:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I have no problem with that. It is verifiable, notable, NPOV. --Rtrev 19:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a shot, let me know. Oh, just out of curiosity, what would you call a 70% to 30% vote? I thought "large" was a reasonable description, yet you called it weasel language. Anyways...it is on there now as you suggested. --Kukini 22:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on what I would call it. Obama in his district (my district actually) should be getting %70 of the vote so I really don't consider it overly large. In the same way I don't consider it all that large when Richard Lugar wins by even larger margins (he often runs with only Libertarian opposition) or similarly Pelosi winning by >80% every year since she moved to the CA 8th district. If Obama got 70% in some Ohio districts or in Kansas then it would be a much different story. Thats why it is a little subjective and a little weaselly. A very soft form of it to be sure (and not to imply you are a weasel) but it doesn't add much and its better to just give the number. --Rtrev 23:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, although it was 70% of IL votes, which is unusual in a state that has had both Republican and Democrat Senators recently. It was NOT an expected outcome, not until the Republicans chose to put no real competition from within the state up. I too voted in this particular IL election. Peace, --Kukini 01:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Limbaugh Request For Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rush Limbaugh, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rush Limbaugh.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 00:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Obama

Could you cite the specific wikipedia policy that you rerer to here? Thanks. — goethean ॐ 14:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:DAB which discusses in detail the rationale for disambiguation. Specifically the section:

Deciding to disambiguate. Ask yourself: When a reader enters a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result? For example, when someone looks up Joker, would they expect to find information on comedians? On a card? On Batman's nemesis? On the hit song or album by The Steve Miller Band? When there is risk of confusion, the page for an ambiguous term should have a way to take the reader to any of the reasonable possibilities for that term; either the top of the page should have one or more disambiguation links, or the page itself should be a disambiguation page.

If someone just typed "Obama" into the Wikipedia search there is no way to know what they would expect. In the US it is probably Barack Obama or his wife Michelle. Elsewhere it could be different. That is the exact purpose of a DAB page. Obama (disambiguation) gives people a reasonable list of articles containing "Obama" with the most likely listed first. --Rtrev 18:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that reasoning ("there is no way to know what they would expect"), no articles would skip the DAB page. However, thousands of articles do. here is a partial list. — goethean ॐ 19:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, its true however in this case do you think it should go directly to Barack Obama or Michelle Obama or the Obama region in Japan or the city. If you really think that there should not be a DAB page then you would have to make the case for a direct link and put a DAB link at the top of Obama's page. I think it is not worth having a DAB link at the top of the Barack Obama page. The situation as it was was no DAB page or link. That makes it hard to find other Obama usages. The DAB page seems to be the most sensible option but I could be convinced of a redirect to Barack Obama's page with a DAB link at the top of it to other Obama (disambiguation). Does that seem reasonable? --Rtrev 19:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Countdown with Keith Olbermann

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. It appears you have not followed this policy at Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Please always observe our core policies. Thank you. --Statsone 03:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and , "{{Unreferencedsection}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed , (e.g.Photosensitive epilepsy). See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 14:57 27 March 2008 (GMT).

Thanks, that was my bad and done by force of habit. Thanks for the reminder. --Rtrev (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BJPS logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:BJPS logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchfork Media

You have returned a large section of lists to the article which appear to be based on primary, first party sources and are simply random bits of information. Can you explain what policies support the inclusion of the lists? While early discussions on the talk page include comments in favor of including the lists (mostsly aparantly by unsigned IPs) the recent consensus on the talk page does not support the inclusion.

If you choose to reply and explain your rationale rather than simply revert yourself, please feel free to move my statement here to the article page to support a unified discussion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BushOsamasmall.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BushOsamasmall.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]