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)

I have already changed user name two times because they were considered "innapropriate". I'm not going to change again. 666 20:42, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with BSDL? 666 20:51, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's not GFDL, which is what Wikipedia lives by. RickK | Talk 20:53, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Are you a lawyer? 666 20:57, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, I'm not, which is why I asked a question on your talk page and did not make a flat statement. RickK | Talk 20:59, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Did Juror Number Four at the Tyco trial really "flash the 'OK' sign to the defense"? The post didn't report that part. (Or I missed it.) Isn't that collussion or at least some form of improper action by a juror? - Texture 17:18, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I moved your question about user:666 from the village pump to his talk page. Angela. 21:06, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

I just saw your note on my IP Talk[4] page from 3/26. Around that time I was having a lot of problems getting logged out, and since that hadn't previously ever happened, I often didn't notice because I didn't think to check. Hmmm, I finally found the edit you referred to--I was trying to remove my vote on List of cities in Niue, because I had accidentally put it under Wyatt_Halliwell (I vaguely remember wondering why it seemed like I had to delete it twice). I prefer to do all my edits logged in, and would only change what others have written in the articles (IE not VfD, not User pages, Not Talk pages, etc.). I'm up to 12-1300 edits in the 3 or 4 weeks since I got active here, and have only had my changes reverted or challenged 2 or 3 times. Niteowlneils 04:02, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why do you continue making inaccurate, confusing or misleading statements as regards these subjects and ducking my requests for clarification on them while continuing to vote against them? --Daniel C. Boyer 15:23, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Rick, I find your accusations of the Ian Hamilton QC article being inspired by vanity absolutely staggering. First off, as the original author of the article I cannot see how this stands up to scrutiny. I am NOT Ian Hamilton myself, so how in any way, shape or form is it vain to write an article about the man?

I do not know how much you know about Scotland, but Ian Hamilton is famous enough as a significant figure in the history of Scottish nationalism and for his activities as one of the country's leading QCs to merit an article in my mind. Thankfully so far everyone at the VfD page had agreed with that and it seems unlikely the article will be deleted.

I was just interested to know a bit more about your rationale for suggesting we delete an article that has been up since December of last year without complaint thus far? You didn't really give any detailed reasons for your suggestion that we do so, so I would be interested in hearing your arguments.

Anyway, I have posted most of this on the VfD page as well to add my voice to the debate there. So far it is a pretty one-sided affair, no one seems to have agreed with you, but perhaps if you could offer a more detailed justification then we might be persuaded (although I doubt you will persuade me). As it stands I can see NO REASON WHAT SO EVER for deleting the article.

Cheers, Big Jim Fae Scotland, 12:08, 2 Apr, 2004

As you've expressed strong opinions regards arbitration in the past, I thought you might want to vote at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy ratification vote. Martin 17:40, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dear Rick: Hi, how are you? I have been accidentally blocked by you. I need to be de-blocked.

Thanks, and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, Antonio Blocked Shot Martin

I see Levzur is up to his usual tricks on Zviad Gamsakhurdia yet again. Hephaestos has suggested mediation followed by arbitration, which I'm sure Levzur will decline, but it's a step which clearly needs to be taken. Otherwise I see no end in sight to the edit war, given that even a temp ban hasn't deterred Levzur. Do you agree with this and given your involvement with the article, would you wish to be one of the parties requesting mediation? -- ChrisO 10:42, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hey Rick: Dont worry about it, I know blocks ocassionally are accidental, such as mine. I'm not blocked anymore, actually, last night I was finally abole to make the List of female boxers I had in mind for so long.

Thanks for your concern and God bless you!

DSincerely yours, your friend, Antonio Weekend Man Martin

No!<G> It's an amusing thought, but I just edited his page to suggest a Berlin attraction that it'd be a shame for him to miss. (His page does say it's ok to edit for such reasons!) - Nunh-huh 03:16, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not Nunh-huh. I do sometimes quietly edit under a pseudonym, but not anyone who would ever be noticed, just a low key quiet worker bee, that's me. Jimbo Wales 03:35, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• I hope he didn't get an edit conflict! Bad news for me! -- Nunh-huh 03:33, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

yes, I'm aware of Wikipedia's need to be careful about copyright violations.

I found the photo at [5]. I could find no specific copyright notice for that specific image. --blankfaze 05:11, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am not vandalizing U.S. presidential election, 2008! There are two z's in the name Condoleezza Rice. If you don't believe me, go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ricebio.html to see. 128.12.53.90 05:23, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ignore if you're not interested in tackling the subject, but I left a message for you at Talk:East Los Angeles. Moncrief 05:50, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Hey Rick, do you know about Wikipedia:Revert#bot_rollback? I myself have never remembered to do it :) and it is a bit cumbersome, but just thought I'd mention it in case you didn't know about it. Dori | Talk 04:10, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

From 65.73.0.137

I am very sorry for deleting those images on Ivan V and Paul I. I didn't know what I was doing. It was like vandalism. I was driven by madness that minor Russian rulers are not special enough to have images, but Ivan V is of importance because he was joint czar with Peter the Great, and Paul I was known for his tyrannical actions. Please accept my apologies.