User talk:Rroser167

Nanjing photos

I've placed notice that I am thinking of changing the caption on the first Rape of Nanjing photo. I would be grateful if you would respond.

Bathrobe 23:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

amen

[1] -- Viajero 17:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, I have opened an RfC on Kapil: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KapilTagore. It would be most helpful if you could certify sign it. Thanks. -- Viajero 00:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

It has now been certified. -- Viajero 12:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

TDC

Thanks for your comment on Talk:Paul Robeson. I had a good laugh because of it. This might be of interest if you haven't seen it already: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/TDC-2. Gamaliel 00:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, but

I appreciate your comments, Viajero and Gamaliel, but I'm not ready to become involved in administrative actions against these users.

I don't actually want to see them banned - I want to see them behave like adults. I fear a left-leaning Wikipedia as much as a right-leaning one. Wikipedia could become a great thing, a trusted source of the cold, hard truth of all human knowledge, but its already shaky credibility is not being helped by the appearance that its articles are tilted towards personal viewpoints.

They have valuable opinions that could be used to make good articles, if they didn't have the mentality of Young Republicans on cocaine. It's funny to watch them overreact to people that disagree with them. However, I ain't ready to help boot them yet, though I'm keeping a close eye on them. I give them three to two odds of getting booted soon anyway.--Rroser167 16:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

A few comments on this little "we hate TDC" pow wow you are all having here. For every Trey Stone or TDC on wiki there are 20 Commandante (agent provocateur in the Fidel Castro article) and Ruy Lopezs, so please dont give me this tired bullshit that we are somehow driving Wikipedia to a right wing bias. If anything, I provide a great deal of balance when faced with dozens of editors slugging through community college in their parents basement. As I pointed out in the Robeson article's talk page for every “noble” and “principled” admin who is willing to crack down on myself and other similar users, there are virtually none to do likewise in the virtual playground that the militant left has here. So please, take your sanctimonious self righteousness and put it some good use. You want to help on the Castro article? Look at the validity of my argument, look at the comments from the Castroites, and then tell me who is POV pushing and being uncivil.

And as far as your odds go, I give myself 100% chance of remaining here long after my detractors have given up in frustrations. You are, after all, talking to a SERE’s graduate, I know pain and I love to administer it when called for. TDC 04:51, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

OK, TDC, your quote: "so please dont give me this tired bullshit that we are somehow driving Wikipedia to a right wing bias" - read what I wrote, again. I told the other two what I'm afraid of is Wikipedia being at either extreme. What I worry about is people coming here on one day and seeing your horseshit, and the next day seeing horseshit of the opposite color; and credibility is already a big problem at wikipedia. I also ain't pow-wowing with anyone; I won't join their agenda to get rid of you, at least not until I think that you're a hopeless case.

"faced with dozens of editors slugging through community college in their parents basement" - Geez, you're a shitty asshole. Nice thing to say about people who didn't have the sense to choose the right balls to get shot out of.

"there are virtually none to do likewise in the virtual playground that the militant left has here...Look at the validity of my argument, look at the comments from the Castroites, and then tell me who is POV pushing and being uncivil" - TDC, that's exactly the problem with you - you can't even tell why people get mad at you. What I'm seeing happen consistently is that you make an extreme edit to an article, and then you whine when a leftist reverts your entire edit. And, boy, you get offensive about it, much more offensive than anyone else, and you're always the initiator of the shit-slinging.

I understand your "shoot for the stars to get the moon argument" (sorry if I misquote you), but you'd probably get more results by making edits that you actually think will stick. And then you have to lash out like a two-year-old when your edits are reverted - whatdahelldidjaexpect? Stop taking the reverts so personally.

I know that you think that the admins are against you for political reasons, but you're flat-out wrong. You'd get more support from the WikiGods if they hadn't first noticed you giving up the higher terrain by being the most insulting person you can be. It's amazing that this isn't obvious to you.

"I give myself 100% chance of remaining here long..." - I do hope you that are here for a long time, just hopefully with a completely different personality. I know, fat chance.

A graduate of SERE - normally I'd be impressed, but since you pulled this out of your wide-open asshole at a time when it had no relevance to the topic at hand (unless they're now teaching political debate after insect-eating), your comment only clarifies the kind of person you are - an infantile braggart. You see yourself as some kind of one-man, wrongy persecuted, rebel/hero/patriot, but you actually just made yourself look like the bully in a kid's afteroon special, or about as credible as a gansta rapper who sells his ass on the street when his homies aren't around. You're just frontin' like you're hard, but your reactions to anyone disagreeing with you are like that of a thin-skinned, self-concious, 12 year old girl. --Rroser167 13:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

First let me state that in no way do I feel “persecuted” by the WikiGods. I feel that almost all admins have been more than fair with me, probably more fair than I would be in a similar situations. A few have taken my style a touch too personally, and yes, have a mission to see me go bye-bye. Secondly, this is no personal “crusade”, just a work-a-day pastime when things slack off for me. Also, unlike yourself, I am glad that you know what SERE’s is, most people have no idea. I did not mention it to “front” my “hardness” (did you read this little gem from the back of a Too Short CD?), it was just a illustration of my resilience.

Some editors can only be dealt with by using my “special” communication techniques. Its sad, but true, as I am sure you have run across here. Many editors will take it talk first, and allow me to justify it there, some are not so polite, and have to be treated “specialy”. If I rub people the wrong way, so be it. It is often a good indication of how to deal with an edit by who drops by to throw the monkey wrench in it. And let’s be honest, it fun.

c.TDC 06:17, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

I apologize, then, for overstating your problems with admins. I took your struggles with Gamaliel and your "commiepedia" statements and blew them out of proportion.

I know that people should not be taking your "touch too seriously", but since this is Wikipedia, and not a debate forum, I'd rather that contributing here was a pleasant experience for everyone involved, including overly-sensitive people.

As far as Too Short, I'm about as white as you can get, and I was writing in that style for comic (or maybe pathetically non-comical) effect. If I plagiarized him or any other "urban poet", I sure didn't mean to, and probably couldn't if I had wanted to.

Yeah, being a jerk is fun, especially with the no-consequence Internet. However, read what I wrote three sentences ago. What do you think that Wikipedia should be like?

However, I do have admit that I've been far too harsh on you, TDC (probably because, like you said, it was just too fun), and like some others that I see have posted on discussions concerning you, I think that dealing with you can be a really positive experience, provided that one has patience and a thick skin. See you around. --Rroser167 14:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. TDC 00:31, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

---

Rroser, you wrote above:

I appreciate your comments, Viajero and Gamaliel, but I'm not ready to become involved in administrative actions against these users. I don't actually want to see them banned - I want to see them behave like adults.

An Request for Comment is not an adminstrative action, that is to say, it is not something undertaken by the management of Wikipedia. As you may know, Wikipedia is largely self-managed; the only formal authority, the Foundation board, does not involve itself in day-to-day running of the site. A RfC is simply a mechanism for one or more editors to seek feedback from other editors. It has no teeth; one can't ban another editor with an RfC; only the Arbitration Commitee can ban people. As you would see if you looked at it, the current RfC on TDC studiously avoids politics; the issue is behaviour. It is just one approach to encouraging TDC to "behave like an adult", to use your own words.

I've heard lefties complain that Wikipedia is dominated by conservatives and I've heard rightwingers complain that it is dominated by pinkos. At this point, I have no strong feeling one way or another; simply that some articles tilt slightly more one way than the other. But one things stands out: the rightwingers, such as TDC, behave immeasurably worse; they are the ones that trumpet their politics the loudest, complain about bias, bray and curse on talk pages, revert ad nauseum, and worst of all don't do their homework. When it comes to citing their sources, they have gone fishing.

TDC wrote above:

I never make edits when I don’t feel that the bulk of the content will stay. Surely, some ancillary, details might get tossed, but the meat stays. You should also know that even with my more “controversial” edits, nearly all have withstood a level of scrutiny that if applied to other articles would make this a much more reliable resource.

This is a shameless boast and at best debatable. TDC's erratic and unscholarly use of sources has been well documented and he gets reverted constantly. He also wrote above: Secondly, this is no personal “crusade”. How does this square with comments like: I have been quite consumed with destroying the “noble” and “romantic” image of undercover Stalinist Pablo Neruda. [2] If that isn't a crusade, what is it? TDC is a zealot, and like all zealots he is out of place here. -- Viajero | Talk 21:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

True - I should have called TDC on the floor for claiming that his edits stick.

And yes, my own experience agrees with part of what you have said: the right-wing tend to act like animals when it comes to civilized debate - but I can't say that they're not doing they're homework as much as the left.

As far as zealotry is concerned - well, yes he's a zealot. And he would have been far more effective at getting his changes done if he wasn't so foolish as to have made his zealotry so obvious. That's the nice thing about dealing with zealots - you always know when they're coming at you.

However, even zealots have useful input. Don't forget about the blind squirrel finding the nut. People like you will always be on the lookout to make sure his most outrageous edits don't stick. Maybe someday he'll confine himself to making only useful edits. --Rroser167 15:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)