Hey! It's Scalene here. If you recall your post about the wiki-proofers project, I was wondering if you would check out my talk page User:Scalene and give comments on the project!

Hi, Rehpotsirhc, Welcome to Wikipedia!

haz _(user talk)^e 08:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing newpage patrol. Just so you know, copyvios can be speedy-deleted, just put {{db-copyvio|url=http://www.whatevertheactualurlis.com}} at the top. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. You might also find the Recent pages patrol page useful. Cheers, Mak (talk) 06:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks. rehpotsirhc 17:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for contributing to the article, can you make any specific recommendations to help editors? Thanks. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 01:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. It's good that some people can see through all the convoluted B.S. RJII 05:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem--I posted what I feel is an accurate description of the dispute. But you should really try to be more patient--I'm sure a lot of people have looked at some of the angrier things you've said and decided the case then and there without looking carefully at the facts. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 05:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comment has been filed in response to User:Pat8722's behavior on libertarianism. You are encouraged to certify or add your opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pat8722. Rhobite 14:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you try and be a bit more co-operative eh? The article is inaccurate and riddled with POV. There is no excuse for removing the dispute tag - that is out of order. -- max rspct leave a message 18:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any innacuracies or POV, nor do I see any highlighted out on the talk page. All I see to justify the tag are references to various conspiracy theories. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 18:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah.. you done see it, you don't source it. It's disputed many ways including those conspiracy theories. If folk can't be bothered or is tired because they can't engage with discussion they should go elsewhere instead of dominating the article an keeping in POV definitions, emotive section, catch-all phrases and skewed portrayal and balance. The article is very controversial and disputed for majority of it's existance. -- max rspct leave a message 18:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point out the POV/inaccurate sections on the article's talk page rather than just mindlessly slapping a disupted tag on it? --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 21:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you removed my link to corporate libertarianism, if not because you're a partisan? I believe your removal of that link indicates clear bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panem (talk • contribs)

Try the talk page of the article. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 19:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the page, my friend. Taming the POV is one of the biggest wiki-headaches I've had in a while. I agree the pic doesn't belong--I had re-inserted it as a compromise with other editors, who actually wanted it in the lead. Marskell 15:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually prefer their intro to the long-standing one? My concern is that by editing it you're giving it approval. This isn't to say "don't compromise", but in this case we either accept one intro or the other. Anyhow, I have reverted back. This is awful but I don't know what else to do: accepting that it's about GWB policies overturns a year's worth of consensus. This may well wind up in dispute resolution. Marskell 06:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think both intros have their problems; to be honest I'm not sure whether or not I prefer the original one or Christina's one plus my edits. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 04:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you dislike about the one as it stands? Particularly, given that you seem to agree it shouldn't be about GWB. Marskell 17:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You're one of about a dozen wikipedians who have edited Unity08 (which puts you in pretty rarified company :-)) and it occured to me that you might be interested in something in that vein. I don't want to clutter up your talk page but I wanted to let you know about my user page being used to talk about the intersection of wikis and the Unity Movement. Sorry to be a bother, but "a dozen out of hundreds of millions" seemed like a small enough group to think there might be some common interests :-)

- JenniferForUnity 02:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rogerkimball.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:TNC-cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:07, 24 June 2012 (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) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:TNC-cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]