User talk:Rushyo/Archive1

Welcome from Redwolf24

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24 (Talk) 20:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC) The current date and time is 13 May 2024 T 08:05 UTC.

P.S. I like messages :-P

African-Germans vs Afro-Germans vs Black Africans in Germany

Hello Rushyo. I was wondering if you could expound on your third opinion at Talk:African-Germans. User:CanuckAnthropologist wanted to move the page to Black Africans in Germany, and my reading is that you told him it should rather stay at African-Germans. However, he took the third opinion as meaning that African-Germans should be preferred over Afro-Germans, and that he had consensus to insist on it. I'd like you to tell us whether your opinion was an endorsement of his move from Afro-Germans to African-Germans (which he did prior to asking for a third opinion). I'm asking in good part specifically because of the contribution history of User:CanuckAnthropologist. Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: your comment on my talkpage

I hope youve given this advice to Tennis expert as well. And actually, I think youll find that he is the one who has instigated an edit war; I put through a perfectly legitimate edit, and since then, for some reason, he seems hellbent on reverting it, despite giving no constructive criticism of it - he only says it deletes some information, which, in line with Wikipedia:Be bold, is fine, as long as it improves the article, and I believe it does. And I am certainly not trying to make a point. I believe my edits genuinely improve the article. Sorry is this has sounded rude at all, but I am just thoroughly sick of Tennis expert constantly revrting my edits without giving reasons. 92.3.138.123 (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The reasons should have been self-evident from the diffs. But, in any event, see this. Tennis expert (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Texas A&M University

Everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia (that's what makes it so great). Something of which you may not be aware with regards to Texas A&M is that those who have attended the school do not refer to themselves as "alumni", but as "former students". The reason is twofold:

1. Many students resigned to enlist in WWII and never finished their degrees. Since they never graduated, they weren't "graduates", but were still war heroes in many people's eyes. To not remove this distinction, everyone was basically given the title "former student" to allude to the concept of "Once an Aggie, always an Aggie."
2. Graduates from that overglorified junior college in Austin refer to themselves as "Texas-Exes". Much like Marines, Aggies don't refer to themselves as "ex-Aggies", so to distinguish themselves, they call themselves "former students".

Now, "alumni" includes the definition of "former student" and need not be a graduate, but that is not the popular connotation. That note was left to explain to Aggies. Keep in mind, I am an Aggie and I don't find a simple explanation in comments to be out of line and helps to explain things without cluttering up the intro.

I hope that explains my edits. Welcome to Wikipedia! Gig 'em! — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff, but realize that if you make a change, it becomes "your edit" and you are responsible for the content. I think we're on the same page here. Thanks for your help in trying to keep featured articles up to snuff. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sorry. I guess that came out wrong. While you aren't responsible for the entire page if you make an edit, if you make a change, you are responsible for that change. I never meant to infer you did anything intentionally or negligently. As a matter of fact, I retract anything I said that may have been misconstrued in any way to be negative. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your assistance on Business Plot. I learned some new acroynms and new rules.

Thank you for your time. RWV (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Gender of God

Hello, Rushyo, hope this finds you well. I just wanted to drop you a note here, I have joined the mediation effort over at Gender of God. This is my first attempt at mediation, but I think it's kind of an important topic to me and so I'd like to see it reach a stable state. Note that I'm not an involved party- I've never edited the page. I just think it's a cool article.
Anyway, I think you and I should have our own separate conversation going on so we can co-ordinate our efforts and present a united front. If you'd like, I'll give you my e-mail address, or we can use talk pages. Let me know what you'd like to do- L'Aqùatique[review] 03:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey,

Since you're back in the loop now, I figured I'd give you some of my thoughts on the case so far. Firstly, I'd encourage you to take a gander at the disputed text: [1]. Personally, I find it is indeed too general, however that's not up to me to decide. It seems to me that Alistair has an overly formal, even stuffy style of writing and the other users are objecting to the way he words his contributions and arguments because he has a tendency to come off as patronizing. He also has a tendency to revert first and ask questions later. I'm thinking there's a WP:OWN complex here on both Ilkali and Alistair's parts. Thoughts? L'Aquatique[review] 17:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly agree that judging users is not what we should be doing, and I don't think that's what I was attempting to do. Anyway- I don't know if you have Gender of God on your watchlist, but Ilkali and Alastair are in an extended, slow motion edit war over that paragraph. My spidey sense is telling me eventually one or both of them are going to get on the wrong side of 3RR. I would prefer if we could diffuse this before it escalates to that point. I think the hatnote is a fairly good idea. I'd be interested in reading the discussion that went along with the placement of that on God, I'll have to look that up. For right now, I have a few errands to run. I'll be back latah'. L'Aquatique[review] 21:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Norovirus

Hi, thanks for watching the article. Unfortunately, it has been damaged by some, no doubt, well intentioned editor's pasting an essay into the middle of it, complete with a list of unformatted citations many of which were already there. I was trying to fix the article when you reverted me. I am interested in virus articles, (please see my user page), but I have no time to fix the article at the moment. GrahamColm^Talk 06:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Case

Can I be in the sockpuppet case concerning user 68., etc?--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get others to help if I can.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding User talk:71.116.162.168

My apologies for taking it for granted. ~ Troy (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Metal Gear Online

There is a difference between "native resolution" and what the game is displayed on screen as. All console games are rendered internally at a set resolution, unlike PC games this cannot be changed and is set by the developers of the game. This would be called the games "native resolution". MGO (and MGS4 itself) has, according to many who work this out by literally counting the pixels, a native resolution of 1024x768 (665p equivelent). This, however, is not what is important. The game/console can upscale or downscale this native resolution as required by the display device. On the PS3 this is also controlled by the devs of the game. In the case of MGO, it can scale to all available resolutions, those being 1080p, 1080i, 720p (HDTV), 480p/576p (EDTV) and 480i/576i (SDTV). See my post in the MGO and MGS4 chat for further info.

I do, however, agree that aspect ratio is the incorrect terminology, however it is used on many other game articles so I was simply using it for continuity's sake. It should read "display resolution" or similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinkharder (talk • contribs) 13:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Resignation accepted

You have expressed an opinion on my talk page, without argument, and added a threat.

It is obviously a resignation from engaging the main issue raised in the request for mediation.

I don't hold you responsible for failing to mediate, but I do hold you responsible for both failing to correct an editor whose incivility was demonstrated in the very request for mediation, and for slandering an impeccable editor who was asking for help.

For anyone observing this interaction, please note Rushyo made personal comments while answering my request for mediation, when these were pointed out, he responded soon after with further accusations and a threat.

It appears to me, at this stage, that appeals to alleged majorities determine text on a page, and appeals to other levels of process lead to unilateral action by "responsible" parties without examination of evidence, delay or accountability for their actions.

Regretably I will need to ask time of ArbCom members for assistance.

Alastair Haines (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Any interested parties see Talk:Gender of God, User talk:Alastair Haines and the Mediation Cabal case discussion, which I took on as a neutral party. Please bear in mind timelines and be aware that only made the warning about NPOV after my role as a mediator ended. -Rushyo (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Rushyo. I think we need to be prepared to make statements to Arbcom. This whole thing is getting out of hand and I think Arbcom is the next stop- not by my choice, mind you. L'Aquatique[review] 19:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe not. If Alastair hears from our highest governing body that he's acting inappropriately, he might do an about face. I've never dealt with arbcom before so if you have any suggestions for me that's be wonderful. L'Aquatique[review] 20:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No way, dude, we're in this together. I'm going to dig through the histories and try to get some good diffs of us assuming good faith, showing an intent to help etc. L'Aquatique[review] 20:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to catch up on the reading.Tim (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom will delegate someone to do the hack work and go back to the beginning and Ilkali's first post. I will probably provide them with a spreadsheet of all diffs at namespace, talk page, and user pages showing what Ilkali was doing. Ilkali was just new and seeing how the system worked. It doesn't change the fact that someone needed to challenge him, and he defended against the challenge by counter accusation, seeking to build an apparant case by discrediting the person who challenged him. He successfully deflected attention from himself to me, largely because I restrained myself to following process.

I will not be doing an about face, since I know the facts, having been involved with Ilkali from the beginning. The article is currently much better than it was before Ilkali arrived, and all the new text, except trivial issues with the lead is well within my range of tolerance. No one is proposing any serious new text, nor deletion of anything currently there (except trivial details). There is no serious content issue. Editing can continue as normal.

There is only one issue. Extensive slander. I want that removed. Apologies from various parties would be nice, but they are pointless unless heartfelt. My appeal to ArbCom will be for removal of unfounded personal attacks. Ilkali needs special consideration because he started them, and has been emboldened by support. Others have typically made a quick judgement (often self-confessed as quick) and left, I'm completely uninterested in "tracking them down". I don't want Ilkali banned, I think he will be quite satisfied that his actions rippled all the way to the top. It's apparant that he's been learning all the way through the process. He'll behave in other settings.

I've got a busy week ahead of me. There's no rush in any of this. I'll probably look into how to open an ArbCom request next weekend. It would actually be much easier if I was accused at ArbCom, because then the burden is on others to prove a case against me, which requires material evidence, and there is none, only hearsay, which is actually inadmissable as evidence. That's the whole problem, in fact, ArbCom cannot make a judgement without good evidence, but any editor or other level of the system can. ArbCom process probably prevents slander being passed on in their name, but anyone else can slander. And in this case, several have. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm Sorry.

Listen, Rushyo, I just want to take a moment to really apologize to you for all the shit that's going down. I totally understand how you feel- I too have depression and anxiety and right now it is heightened by the fact that in real life I am in the middle of a full blown family crisis of proportions I would not hesitate to call epic. For obvious reasons, I will not go into it here, but I just want you to know that I am behind you 100% and I think the best thing you can do right now is take a break, seriously. Go have some coffee, tea, whatever it is you like, get a good night's sleep and good luck on your project. I'll hold down the fort, I promise. Good luck, and have some

		Cookies!
		L'Aquatique[review] 22:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a brilliant idea. Just fyi, I'm transferring the Gender of God case to the Mediation Committee, I'm just not experienced enough and frankly not in a place where I can handle it. After I do that, I'm going to pop over and start working on the RFC you started. Have fun- L'Aquatique[review] 23:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ!! Seriously, man, how can one person actually write that stuff about someone? It really makes me sick, you know? It's like when I think of the Holocaust, I just wonder, what in hell did we do? That those fricking Nazi's could kill six million of my people in cold blood? There's just too much hate in this world. I need a drink. L'Aquatique[review] 00:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've finished Alastair's RFC page. Go check it out if you'd like. L'Aquatique[review] 00:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Eh, it was fine. I'm just good at digging through diffs, and you're better at actually writing the statements.

So, the mediation committee is officially in charge of the Gender of God case, thank God. I think it will be a long time before I'm ready to try mediation again. :| L'Aquatique[review] 00:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] LOL! Wanna be let in on a secret? It's really not. Mine is 140, I just thought 141 looked better and I figured, hell, no one cares about IQ, right? Don't tell anyone. L'Aquatique[review] 00:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That never happened. I never admitted that I falsified my IQ. There is no cabal!! L'Aquatique[review] 00:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry, I got distracted!! I've found that IQ tests aren't worth the paper they're written on. The first one I took when I was really little I did poorly on because it was culturally biased, lots of questions about popular culture (i.e. Disney characters) that I knew nothing about. I'm not really sure why I posted my more accurate score, I guess just for fun. L'Aquatique[review] 01:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that makes sense. Especially for a college student, because you often meet friends in class and your intelligence does dictate to some degree which classes you end up in. At least that's the way it happens for me. L'Aquatique[review] 01:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yay! That is great to hear! I myself am feeling better as well. Did you warn the guy that vandalised your userpage? You should keep an eye on his contribs so he can be blocked next time he pulls something like that. L'Aquatique[review] 01:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that makes sense. My page has only been vandalised once (knock on wood) and they just blanked the page. Frankly, it was downright boring. :DL'Aquatique[review] 01:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] I am with you there. But people are fascinating, too. I took a sociology class a while back, and I would have loved it if the professor didn't speak in a total monotone. The subject matter was interesting, but I couldn't get past how listening to her made me fall asleep. L'Aquatique[review] 01:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot you're in the UK and it's nighttime! It's six in the afternoon where I am. Well, good luck with your project! L'Aquatique[review] 01:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Good for you!

Thanks for the barnstar. Nice ironic gesture and I appreciate it. Thanks for this initiative.

I respect you way more than I have communicated. I detected a really great approach to mediating from you and was looking forward to seeing more. It is not you, but the situation that constrained me to challenge you. I actually regret the situation, and the impact on you. As you are well aware, I am familiar with what it feels like to be challenged in public! ;)

Neither you nor I are apologizing here, I won't ramble on. But please understand you do have my respect, despite disagreement.

Keep doing and saying what you think is good, even in opposition to me.

Genuine regards, Alastair Haines (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice, I'm a ray of Sunshine! And my momma always said I wouldn't amount to anything. :D So, how did the project go? L'Aquatique[review] 16:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A.H. RFC

Hey, just thought I'd let you know that the RFC against Alastair has been certified (with three users showing they have tried and failed to resolve the dispute) and is now listed on the main RFC user conduct page. L'Aquatique[review] 03:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Business plot request for mediation

A request for mediation concerning the article Business plot, where you provided a third opinion, has been filed. You might be interested; please have a look. Yours, Huon (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Meep!

I am dandy, as a matter of fact. Had a great day today, in real life.
Onwiki, here's the latest if you didn't know. The Gender of God mediation case was dropped because not all parties agreed to be mediated: in fact, Alastair began making threats against the foundation that they would be held liable for our slander against him, and apparently has been indef blocked. It's kind of sad because he had some good stuff to contribute.
How about you? How'd the project go? L'Aquatique[review] 04:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Gah! That dude is as slippery as a fricking salamander. L'Aquatique[review] 18:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, do you have msn? My e-mail addy has my real name in it so I'd rather not post it here, as this page seems to be frequented by vandals. I'll e-mail it to you. L'Aquatique[review] 23:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, you don't have an e-mail set up. L'Aquatique[review] 23:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done-- e-mail sent... L'Aquatique[review] 23:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And, you have been added! L'Aquatique[review] 23:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: RFC on Alastair Haines

Already done and reopened. ;) Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

arbitrators are distruptive

They have distrupt millions of wikipedia users! They impose their POV against other people's POV and against democracy. Arbitrators and arbitrators supporters should be banned from wikipedia.

WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy. -Rushyo (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia is bullshit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.165.237 (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:No one is making you stay. L'Aquatique[review] 22:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:We should not let recruits uninformed of what wikipedia really is, neither indulge arbitrators' whims —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.165.237 (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:That didn't make any sense L'Aquatique[review] 23:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:Don't stop taking your medication would have been a good one for him ;-)  Channel ®   23:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:How to deal with talk page invasions, a step by step guide involving tar and diesel fuels ;) -Rushyo (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone should actually write WP:Don't Stop Taking Your Meds. L'Aquatique[review] 00:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You're tempting me! -Rushyo (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And me.  Channel ®   00:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] Can you say... collaboratively written essay? L'Aquatique[review] 01:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You people are attacking my talk page with formatting! :p ...and why not? -Rushyo (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I added my 2 cents to your essay. Hope you don't mind.  Channel ®   22:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Illegal immigration to the United States

Contradiction? How so? -198.97.67.57 (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

86.134.54.54

Regarding 86.134.54.54 (talk · contribs), I'm not sure that vandalism revert/warning was appropriate in that situation. It seems to me that they meant well, and their combativeness may well stem from feeling bitten by the harsh reception which unfortunately was their first interaction with any Wikipedian. There may not be a lot you can do, in this particular case, but please be mindful that not all odd edits are vandalism, and that interactions with newcomers can cause very sensitive first impressions. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Middle East

Resolved

 – My mistake, reverted the wrong thing

You have unjustly accused me of OR, POV and "pushing an agenda against Turkey" for simply reverting a mass change one editor made to the Middle East page. How exactly you figured all that out in the two minutes it took you to revert my restoration of the page from the other editor's mass edit, I shall never know. The truth is, Tahmasp, for no apparent reason and with no explanation:
1)de-linked the article's first mention of the "Arab world"
2)replaced a referenced, direct quote stating: the area lying between and including Libya on the west and Pakistan on the east, Syria and Iraq on the North and the Arabian peninsula to the south, plus the Sudan and Ethiopia with the area lying between and including Libya on the west and Pakistan on the east and Turkey on the North and the Arabian peninsula to the south, plus the Sudan and Ethiopia.
3)removed a footnote some other editor left stating: "In Italian, the expression "Vicino Oriente" (Near East) was also widely used to refer to Turkey, and "Estremo Oriente" (Far East or Extreme East) to refer to all of Asia east of Middle East"
4)lowered Yemen's GDP from $52 billion (as confirmed by a visit to the article's source, the CIA's The World Factbook) to $19 billion and its per capita income from $2400 to $1000
5)changed Algeria's coat of arms (it no longer even shows now)
6)changed Morocco's coat of arms
7)removed Somalis and Habesha from the list of ethnic groups in the Middle East but kept Berbers, Greeks and Nubians
8)removed a link through to the "Ethnic groups of the Middle East" page
9)replaced Yemen in the following phrase with Afghanistan and Pakistan: Middle Eastern economies range from nations being very poor (such as Gaza and Yemen) to extremely wealthy nations (such as UAE and Saudi Arabia) versus Middle Eastern economies range from nations being very poor (such as Gaza, Afghanistan, and Pakistan) to extremely wealthy nations (such as UAE and Saudi Arabia).
As you can see, one doesn't have to be by any means against Turkey to worry about the nature of many of the changes made. While some of the editor's additions weren't all that bad and appear to have been properly sourced (and therefore probably should be included), I think even you will agree that the above changes -- particularly the manipulation of Yemen's economic figures -- need to be redressed, as they are unjustified and quite clearly original research. Let me know what you think. Causteau (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Thanks, Causteau (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Nightwatching

I think you have misplaced an "original research" warning on my talk page since my only contribution on the Nightwatching article was a referenced fact. --leandros (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alastair Haines

I have closed this RfC. As you were one of the first two who certified the basis for this dispute, I urge you to read the conclusion listed and proceed accordingly. Wizardman 23:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

PHMC

I do not know how to use this, but you edited my company's page, Philadelphia Health Management Corporation. You removed our company's boilerplate and I don't know why. It may have been promotional in tone, but we are a public health resource in Philadelphia that offers services to people with AIDS, cancer, homelessness, etc. I am the company's spokesperson. Please contact me as to why you removed my comments and please restore them immediately.

Jamie Arehart