NOTE: IF YOU ARE ANONYMOUS, AND POST ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE, YOU WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION.

Thanks Rick!andycjp

rick, do you have the ability to visit the IRC area? Kingturtle 06:58, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Rick, email me your email address. I want to send you some information. Kingturtle 07:01, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

RickK, I agree it's definitely questionable stuff, so I think it is good to raise it with the larger community. I'm actually quite surprised it hasn't been brought up before, and that there are only three real edits to that page. Fuzheado 07:00, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please check Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Hcheney so you can make an informed decision on my Request for Adminship --Hcheney 17:37, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

RickK, can you please provide a source to back up the claim that it is illegal to reveal the name of Kobe Bryant's accuser? So far as I know, it is perfectly legal. -- Seth Ilys 03:52, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

IIRC, the name has been broadcast on radio, published in the tabloids, and litters thousand of websites, yet there has been no legal action taken. I looked around extensively before working on the article myself, and found no evidence that it was illegal to divulge the name; just contrary to the custom of the US mass media. I'm restoring the page until someone comes up with substantive evidence that it's illegal. Solid information on this case and her is hard to come by; Wikipedia should be a source for solid facts that are hard to find in other places. We don't delete copyvios without deliberation, and we shouldn't have deleted this so quickly either. - Seth Ilys 04:07, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I believe that we should have the content because it's verifiable facts, and it's a matter of public interest, and because we shouldn't rush to censor ourselves. In short, it's encyclopedic. Many people might consider masturbation or List of sex positions bad taste, but we wouldn't delete them (I hope). -- Seth Ilys 04:12, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Discussion has been moved back to Vfd. -- Seth Ilys 04:20, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Are we sure that's a static IP? There have been multiple starmen.net vandals, operating from different IP numbers--for example, 204.94.152.112. I'm not sure an indefinite ban will do much more good than a temporary ban, but it might prevent other users from using Wikipedia. Please reconsider. Meelar 05:04, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I've been thinking about putting it on Vfd anyway. My only concern is that "if I give in, the terrorists will have won". But you're right, this is out of hand, and it's a site with an Alexa rating of 60,000. Meelar 05:10, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Because if I included her name on my subpage, it would undoubtedly be quickly deleted. I wanted to make the text of the article available in as intact a form as was acceptable so that people could know what they were voting on in Votes for Undeletion. -- Seth Ilys 05:11, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

People are darn well allowed to delete messages on their talk page. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 06:42, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

On a side note, I found the diff I believe that Plato is referring to: [1]. Of course, while your edit summary leaves a bit to be desired, I certainly wouldn't call your deletion vandalism.. I mean it IS your talk page... --Dante Alighieri | Talk 06:48, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Charles Finney
A dispute has arisen between Neilinoz and 140.247.163.28 about the content of Charles Grandison Finney (see talk section and page history to view issues involved).

Unfortunately this is a dispute over Christian Theology. I have contributed to the article information that shows a difference of opinion amongst Evangelical Christians about Finney's theology on 10 Feb 04. 140.247.163.28 deleted my contribution on 1 Mar 04, but this was restored by RickK and Bcorr within 5 minutes. On 6 Mar 04 140.247.163.28 re-deleted my contribution and begun to offer reasons why. On 17 Mar 04 I re-pasted my original Feb article, but this was then re-deleted by 140.247.163.28 on 25 Mar 04. I will not change the current article until the dispute has been settled.

I believe that 140.247.163.28 has deliberately deleted factual information that is necessary for the article to be NPOV. In the process he has accused me of all sorts of things and questioned both my integrity and knowledge. I have not responded in kind.

140.247.163.28 and I take different viewpoints. I am happy for the opposing viewpoint to be explained and defended within the article. 140.247.163.28, however, does not, and has deleted my contribution a number of times. It is my hope that this dispute can be settled and that both our points of view can exist within the article. Neilinoz 10:21, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Deleting troll's post to which jengod is replying

Rick, welcome to the offensive usernames havers club! It's gonna be the funnest club ever! I started it and Hephaestos gonna's be in and Adam's gonna be in it and we're gonna have a clubhouse with a big sign out front: NO TROLZ ALLOWED!!1! jengod 02:13, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

Does that mean that one is allowed (+1 for getting the reference :) Dori | Talk 05:26, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

I see Levzur's been getting at Zviad Gamsakhurdia again. Given his apparent refusal to accept either NPOV requirements or community consensus, I think we need to get the message across some other way. Do you think it's time for a temporary ban - perhaps 2-3 days with a warning of a longer ban if he persists? -- ChrisO 09:47, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Rick. I just wanted to call your attention to the new experimental format for the VfD page. (See [2]) Please use the "Add to this deletion debate" link instead of editing the section directly for those. I have taken the liberty of moving your comments to the correct place. -- Friedo 04:33, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I know all about the PROPOSED VfD change, which has been implemented without discussion or consenus, and I refuse to participate in it. Please revert your changes to MY votes. RickK | Talk 04:36, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rick, the current format is just an experiment and we can go back at any time if it doesn't work out. Everyone has been trying it to see if it is a viable solution, and I simply ask that you help us in that regard. No extra work is required on your part. There has been discussion about the pros/cons of the experiment on VfD's talk page. -- Friedo 04:48, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I took some liberties which I hope you approve of. If so please sign your name where appropriate here [3], if not, feel free to delete or make changes as you see fit. P.S. If at all possible I would like to improve what I see as our strained relations. I don't intend to be difficult, and would just as soon carry on pleasently w all editors, yourself included. Cheers, Sam Spade 17:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)