User talk:Rise Above the Vile

Hi. You seem to know a lot about Wikipedia already! I use a custom template here: User:Hdt83/Welcome. You can use it if you want. Happy editing! --_{Hdt83 Chat} 01:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to help. Let me know if you ever have any other problems. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in the help desk, using the <big> tag in your signature is not nice. See Wikipedia:Signatures, which states "Markup such as <big> tags (which produce big text), or line breaks (<br /> tags) are to be avoided, since they disrupt the way that surrounding text displays. The limited use of non-breaking spaces to ensure that the signature displays on one line is allowed." -- Kainaw^(what?) 13:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see your comment at the help desk. The font I'm using appears unusually small, at least on my screen, almost to the point of being unreadable and I was trying to make it appear normal sized. My apologies. Does this better suit you? Rise Above The Vile--Rise Above the Vile 13:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you are using a non-standard font. So, on anyone's computer that doesn't have the font you are using installed, the normal text font is used. By making it bigger, you are making the normal font bigger. The text of your sig is twice as big as the rest of the text on the page. I don't even recognize the "rage italic" font. So, I assume that very few people have it installed - meaning that your sig will be in huge plain text. The best thing to do is simply avoid resizing the text. -- Kainaw^(what?) 13:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - thanks for the advice.--Rise Above the Vile 13:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We could use your input on a problem we're having with an editor, who's constantly inserting an item into the lead when we've all decided by consensus that it doesn't belong. Please see the Reagan talk page for my suggestion, and please comment appropriately. Thanks. Info999 01:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a never-ending, low-level revert war, my favorite! Replied at the talk page.--Rise Above The Vile 02:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. My reasoning is that while each edit may not technically be vandalism, he is way beyond claiming that he's "just editing" - not only by his edits against consensus, but by his stated goal of reverting at least once a day. And on a side note, I understand what you mean, and I'm not including you in this observation, but I think the notion of "personal attack" has been inordinately enlarged on wiki to mean just about any sort of criticism, even something (like pointing out clearly disruptive behavior, albeit boldly pointing it out) that isn't an attack, and isn't at all personal. But I hear what you're saying. Thanks. Info999 03:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, as well. I will comment on there. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've come to the conclusion that he's not going to give up, the admins aren't going to block him, and I have to say he makes a good point when he says being against communism was only half of it. So, we've compromised. Check out the talk page now, and if you hate it please say so, but I don't think we're going to get any better. Happyme22 03:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate how rational you're being. I want you to know that it makes a difference to me. I. Pankonin (t/c) 05:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Iraq War, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Daniel 10:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Iraq War. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 11:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that for now I will go with the two spokespeople; however, that does not prevent you from participating in the discussion. The idea behind having spokespeople is simply to keep the page from being cluttered by lots of people editing it, but if you have separate ideas, feel free to participate in your own right. The spokespeople idea is not intended to prevent people who aren't spokespeople from participating, it's really only to channel all of the ideas through a few people. Essentially, what I'm trying to say in my long and slightly incoherent rambling is that you may participate in the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Iraq War. --דניאל - Dantheman531 02:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, now I have to figure out how to use that stuff. I expected the responses I have gotten in my request to becoming an admin. I figured I would give it a try though. michfan2123 01:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. michfan2123 01:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to use twinkle, not quite getting it. michfan2123 01:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I got that and I now see all these new tabs on top, I will figure out how to use them. michfan2123 01:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now understand twinkle but I am having difficulty launching WP:MWT. michfan2123 01:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I installed it and then I extracted it. I then tried to open it, it would open for a second and close right away. It says I have to be on a list to use it and it is not adding me. michfan2123 01:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tried that, it opens for a second, I am trying to read what it says, I think it says that I am not on the log in list or something. michfan2123 01:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't work, I know it says you should not manually add your name to the list but what if I do? michfan2123 01:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is weird, thanks for your efforts. michfan2123 02:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I will need to try again some other time, is there anyway to shut it down right now? No point of letting it go on, I have gotten enough feedback to see what I have to do. michfan2123 02:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew. It is cool, like I said before I did not expect to win the nomination. I got good feedback though and will reapply later on. I will use TW and eventually figure out how to use MWT.I will make my case to become an admin stronger. In your opinion, what do you think I need to do? What would the time frame be....a few months is a long time. michfan2123 02:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the help. michfan2123 03:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that's not how I see it. Happy editing! --Agüeybaná 11:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've accused me of vanadlism, but I haven't done anything wrong. I haven't even visited the article on "Ronald Reagan" lately, much less vandalized it, and while I DID go to the page on "Piracy," I didn't vandalize that either. The only edits I've made have been constructive ones fixing poor grammar, spelling, and obvious POV problems on articles I've visited. I don't know what you're talking about and I don't appreciate being falsely accused.216.153.43.38 03:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the history on those articles and while that IS my IP address next to some of those edits that are clearly vandalism, ("Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum"...how juvenile), I swear I didn't do them. No one else has been on my computer so I don't know how that's possible. The only thing I can think of is that someone is hacking into my wireless network, which is hard to understand since I've got a password on it. At any rate, it's not me. Please don't block me or anything.--216.153.43.38 03:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at user's talk page.--Rise Above The Vile 02:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately that article gets way too much vandalism, and I was just trying to hold it off for a short while (plus, someone requested it at WP:RPP). Either way, I changed it back down to [edit=autoconfirmed: move=sysop].   jj137 ^♠ 00:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully once he is out of office, they will leave his page alone. Actually, they will probably just move on to the next president.   jj137 ^♠ 03:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least let me leave my picture there for now. This all started because of an english project at Purdue University. When I have more time I'll work on a better addition for the U.S. Soldiers (without them sites like this probably wouldn't exist). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmouser (talk • contribs) 02:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are interested, but I could use any of your comments here. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh believe me, it's going to be a long debate! I've drafted a proposal here that needs some work but feel free to contribute whenever. Thanks for your comments, though, and I'm sorry to bother you on vacation. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed around some wording in the proposed text at my sandbox; feel free to take a look and comment on the talk page there or on the Reagan discussion page. The discussion is becoming overshaddowed by other discussions (and users - namely Arcayne - who only seem to want to include negative views of Reagan), and I am trying to keep it alive. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well you are a very good editor, so thanks for the comments and feel free to change/modify anything whenever you are able to. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan

Rise, I'm sorry to bug you if you are still on vacation, but as a fellow dedicated editor I am asking you to watchlist and help me out with some of the discussions going on at Talk:Ronald Reagan. There's an issue of Reagan's nicknames - "The Great Communicator" and "the teflon president" - being mentioned but more specifically the style/tone/prose. That one was over, but has since been re-ignited because there was a blog source and what I feel is some POV writing "in disguise". You can see it in the second paragraph at Ronald Reagan#Popularity. Then there's the Cold War issue, which has gotten pretty rough. Any help is apprecited. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 05:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]