User talk:Rogue 9

This is your discussion section

Just demonstrating how this works. When people post in your profile discussion page, you get a notification on it. Alyeska 00:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Rogue 9, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! This link is Broken 01:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you. -- Rhobite 22:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Protest Warrior

Thanks for your message. Your help is appreciated. I am watching the article now, and Iwill revert vandalism as I see it. It would certainly be better for everyone though if the vandals would just knock it off. --Canderson7 01:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm now watching Kfir Alfia as well. I reccomend contacting Grazon on his talk page regarding the edits that you believe to be biased. --Canderson7 01:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism/non-NPOV

Please refrain from the blatant non-NPOV edits such as your recent "work" on Lew Rockwell:

"The site also hosts screeds against the United States' participation in the Second World War, hopeful if unrealistic speculations about an end of the United States as a cohesive nation, and accusations of fascism on the part of the free world."(Emphasis added)

How do you justify using these obviously inflammatory terms? I am removing them. Dick Clark 14:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You still have not responded to my above accusations. How do you justify obvious vandalism on a project that you claim to be supporting? Respond please. Dick Clark 15:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I've posted your response below for clarity's sake. Dick Clark 17:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I justify my edits on the following: Inflammatory does not equal non-neutral, as it is an entirely subjective description. If the truth offends, then there is obviously some bias on the part of the one who is offended; and in this case, the truth is that Lew Rockwell is an ideologue who's willing to allow lies about the American/Japanese situation in World War 2 and the matter of the American Civil War to be posted on his website in order to justify his views about it, rather than conforming his views to the facts. Now for your specific objections:

"'The site also hosts screeds against the United States' participation in the Second World War, hopeful if unrealistic speculations about an end of the United States as a cohesive nation, and accusations of fascism on the part of the free world.'(Emphasis added)"

The word "screed" is in no way inflammatory by itself; it is an accurate description of the articles in question. Further, the article I posted on the future breakup of the United States is wildly unrealistic; for starters, even presuming that a breakup did come to pass, there is no way that the states would break up along the lines specified; economic, political, and logistical realities dictate that this is so simply because of the nature of the commercial relationships between several of the states depicted as joining separate factions. California, for instance, would not only never join with decidedly more conservative Arizona and New Mexico; it would experience massive loss of electrical service as energy from Oregon and Nevada is cut off. Secondly, no rational person could expect that to happen any time in the near future; I could have justifiably called it a pipe dream, because that's what it is. As for "free world," it's a common description for the West and liberal democracies in general; I have absolutely no idea how you consider it inappropriate. Rogue 9 16:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

To respond to the following: "I justify my edits on the following: Inflammatory does not equal non-neutral, as it is an entirely subjective description. If the truth offends, then there is obviously some bias on the part of the one who is offended" Your first sentence is true. Your second sentence is true. What is not clear, however, is that your "truth" corresponds with "the truth." You claim that Rockwell posts, or allows posted, "lies." Why don't you substantiate this claim? There are plenty of scholarly endeavors underway to debunk claims on both sides of the historical arguments about the War Between the States, and also about World War II. Modifiying an article to reflect your own personal disbelief in a particular stance is neither scholarly, nor (more importantly for Wikipedia) neutral in its point of view. If Lew Rockwell promoted belief in Rael's explanation of the world, you would still be acting in bad faith by openly dismissing the belief, in the "encyclopedia's" voice (as opposed to in the voice of a source author). I might also add that you are committing this wrong in a rather inelegant way. As for your claim that, "The word "screed" is in no way inflammatory by itself; it is an accurate description of the articles in question," that is clearly a subjective valuation. "Screed" is defined as "A long monotonous speech or piece of writing." To call something monotonous is to color a description with your own, necessarily subjective view of a particular piece of writing. I have a hard time believing that you really want to defend your use of this word as somehow NPOV. Your own evaluation of the ideas presented on Lew Rockwell's website, be it professional or amateur, is not germane to the wikipedia article about him. If you were a notable source, then we might arrive at a different conclusion, assuming, of course, that you did not attempt to co-opt the requisite neutrality of the encyclopedic voice in the article by injecting your own opinion into the body of the article, rather than as a cited outside source. I believe that the term pertinent to this violation is "original research." As for "free world," it is a loaded term, and, given that we are talking about someone (Rockwell) whose article largely deals with how he defines "free," the equivocation could be problematic. Please abstain from such POV vandalism in the future. Dick Clark 17:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

From User talk:Fire Star

From User talk:Fire Star:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Protest_Warrior

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks

132.241.245.132 04:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Cry your eyes out to the admins and then immediately turn around and start calling people brownshirts. How am I supposed to react to that? Rogue 9 15:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Your reaction seemed appropriate in that you had a point that you wanted to make, which is fine IMO except for except for the one little bit I factored out. If the anon had done similarly I would have factored that out as well. They may have somewhere else for all I know, I only looked at the above link. They may have implied that anyone who disagreed with them was a brownshirt, but no one can actually call another user a little Nazi anything without consequences. WP:NPA is clear on this and is a non-negotiable policy. It is part of my job to gently remind users of that. I'm glad you people are discussing things, Rhobite has been around a long time and knows the ropes well enough to provide valuable advice. I don't think you are the bad guy in this and I didn't and won't pass judgment on the actual content of your argument. Regards, --Fire Star 22:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand why you had to take the action you did. I personally disagree that the rule should be absolute, but I don't get to make that decision. I simply object to Grazon's using Wikipedia as a platform to smear his political opponents and then having the gall to complain when called on it, even if he was called forcefully - which anyone who belittles the threat that the Nazis were by comparing lesser "offenses" to Nazism should be, in my opinion. All the best, Rogue 9 22:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wish you the best of luck. Stay calm and the **** should bounce back onto the sender. If you ever think I can be of assistance, let me know. Cheers. --Fire Star 22:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Ripped-up sign

Re: The ripped up sign in my J20 photo set, you're right - it is a remnant from the scuffle. At the time of writing for that photo set, I had not yet learned of that incident (I would learn of it a few weeks later). It seems an update is in order...

BTW, I put up my J20 photo set as quickly as possible after the event in order to make up for having a two-month turnaround on my Million Worker March photo set. As a result, a few things didn't make it by the time I released it, and the scuffle was one of them. Another thing I didn't learn of before the photo set was released was the photo of me on carolmoore.net. [1] I was just tickled to find that.

Again, thanks for pointing that out. As I mentioned, an update is definitely in order.

Also, to satisfy my own curiosity, were you in DC on J20 as well? SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

That works!

That works for me re: the photos. I guess it's the same kind of amused I get when I find a photo of myself at the protest on someone else's Web site. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for going through that bunch of 40K articles and tidying up my spelling a bit. I really appreciate the effort you've put in to clean up after my screwups. Saberwyn 01:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

keep a eye on this guy please (he cites stormfront)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:168.210.90.180

quick note

Hi Rogue -- thank you for you help on the FIRE article. Just a quick note: I am trying to keep discussion on the talk page focused on the mechanics of the article, and hoping that we can avoid more general discussion — just because it can be an explosive subject for people and I think it would be best if we could sort of "cover up" differences of opinion between editors to arrive at a neutral and balanced article. So can I ask that if you get a response to your comments about media bias etc. that you maybe follow up on the user's talk page or perhaps let them slide? Of course you are free to do what you want! Yours, Sdedeo 04:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

No doubt that LTC position on FIRE is strongly influenced by his/her involvement in SAFER. I generally feel that "covering over" differences of opinion is an important thing (it slows the generation of ill-will) — but of course I certaintly don't mean that there should be no disagreement! Only that disagreements should be confined to the question of what to put in the article. Nobody has ever been convinced to change a deeply held political position based on a wikipedia talk page! All the best, Sdedeo 05:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, right now I am hoping that the amount of coverage on the particular Columbia case will stay fixed and not grow. As I've learned from working on the Brainwashing 101 article, campus controversies burn like gasoline, often over very very little of actual substance. Sdedeo 05:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Lion El'Jonson

Where did you get this information from? I'm curious. As far as I know, the official version of El'Jonson's fate parralels that of King Arthur; according to Luther, at the point of death he was taken away by the creatures known as the Watchers in the Dark to be healed, and will be returned for the 'final battle'.

The one at residing in the deepest prison cell in the Rock is actually Luther, waiting for El'Jonson to return and forgive him for his sins.

At least, that's the version I know of. The info about El'Jonson's fate is in the Index Astartes articles, but I'm not entirely sure about where the Luther info came from. I think that's what your source is talking about, but he got his wires crossed. Saberwyn 21:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• I really need to get my hands on this book, just so I can see what all the fuss is about. The impression I get from what articles and books I've read is that he's been taken away, and as such is classified as Missing In Action as far as the Dark Angels Chapter is concerned. If you're 100% sure that's what the book says, I'm not going to stop you rewriting the article, but for the sake of all the Dark Angels players out there who have denounced the novel as heresy and non-canonical, be sure when you do. Saberwyn 02:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

El'Jonson was always going to return. I think it's just the way that the book handles a few of the issues regarding the Chapter in a very poor fashion, and others come out far more negative than previous fiction/history had portrayed. On the issue, my judgements out until I get my hands on the novel, and because I live in Australia, and it's almost impossible to get the books out here, that will be a long time. As I said before, if you're sure, write the article to say so. But I'm not touching this in any way until I'm sure. Saberwyn 09:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments on John Seigenthaler Sr.

I just happened to spot you comments on the John Seigenthaler Sr. debate. It seems that you are picking up on the smell of hipocracy that comes from the "leadership and adminstration", such as the "policy changes" as reported by the AP nearly two days ago that have yet to come into effect. It is a shame, or is it a sham, that this place calls it self an Encylopedia, as the title give off an air of crediablilty that is underserved, it even scarrier that this site hit high on many google searches. What get me is that lack of concern that this incident seems to be generating by the poweres that be, considering that Seigenthaler has every reason to put up a good lible or defimation of character suite aginst the foundation, that could easly put this out of service. Its also really sorry how people make this open-source/free speach argument as well. Would not be supprised to see more of these types of issues coming up in the future. Just figure i chime in with my comments. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi, just a note to say thanks for the Barnstar. --Muchness 04:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem. You deserve it; without your efforts there, the article would honestly probably have remained a stub for a long time. My Forgotten Realms books are at home while I'm away at school. Rogue 9 04:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Paladin user box

Hey, I saw your paladin user box in the sandbox (the edit came up in Lupin's vandal filter, actually), and thought it was hysterical. Just wanted to say kudos. -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 07:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh. Thanks. I am not a geek! I'm a level 12 paladin!  ;) Rogue 9 07:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

lol rock on!

http://forum.protestwarrior.com/viewtopic.php?t=120446

Protest Warrior again

I just got your message. The vandalism seems to have abated, but I've added Protest Warrior to my watchlist and I'll keep an eye on it over the next few days. Canderson7 ^(talk) 14:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

SAFER and FIRE

Hi Rogue -- I really don't have a strong opinion either way on including the SAFER blog reference (I tend to have a wide range of leeway in either direction.) I certaintly won't dispute your removal of it. As for the "SysOp" name, if it bothers you, bring it up to the administrators. Yours, Sdedeo 00:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Source for TIEvsPeregrin.jpg?

I just noticed you adding Image:TIEvsPeregrin.jpg to the Star Trek vs. Star Wars article, and it's very nice, but where is it from? Images uploaded under the claim of fair use should be documented as extensively as possible, including a source and an explanation for why it's fair use. The days of when a claim of fair use was a "get out of copyright free" pass are fading on Wikipedia so it's best to provide those things sooner rather than later. :) Bryan 05:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)