User talk:Rickyrab

Contents

1 The Early Days 2 Presumptive 3 Arbitration page 4 Do not create nonsense articles or vandalize even in retaliation 5 Malicious Deletion Attempt 6 United States Republican Party 7 Nice convo 8 Rutgers v. Princeton 9 Re: Alberuni 10 See these six categories up for "votes of deletion": 11 Opinion for IZAK 12 Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards 13 Watch Out! 14 Human breast 15 Article Licensing 16 EMD E2 17 Brookie here 18 Jewish and Biblical mythology 19 Possible new POV warrior? 20 Terri Schiavo 21 Subchat 22 Pope John Paul II 23 highway reverts 24 Banner template 25 pope image 26 Nouvelle Theologie 27 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 28 User:Wikipedia is Anarchism! 29 User:Wikipedia is Anarchism! 30 Rabin* 31 Definition of warez group 32 peer_review

The Early Days

Hello there Rickyrab, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page and experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?RichardRabinowitz - This is the new Deleted nonsense/Wops page. Enjoy (or feel repulsed, or both)!

---

1. Sign your talk page entries with ~~~~
2. I was busy reading Wikipedia talk:Always make articles as complete as possible

-- Tim Starling 08:31 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi Ricky, welcome to the 'pedia. One point. Whenever text is written by a user, they have the option of using either American english or British english. Spellings in whichever one is used should always be left in the version originally used. So American english spellings should not be changed to British english, and British english should not be changed to American english. There is no need to put the alternative spelling in brackets, though occasionally in a special case a footnote might be used (in abortion, for example to point out that most of the world spells the word 'fetus' - the American english word used the the abortion article - as foetus). Don't worry about making initial mistakes; everybody does. The whole issue of spelling (US and UK), and capitalisation rules (US and UK) can cause problems. The rule is simply to accept the version the article or comment was originally written in.

Enjoy the wiki. FearÉIREANN 20:29 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

We got more railroads than you can poke a stick at. :) -- Tim Starling 16:05 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Rickyrab, I am a He :-) not a she, but defenetly not a shehe :-s. -fonzy :-)

happy birthday to you. . . happy birthday dear Rickyrab. Happy birthday to yooooooooou. FearÉIREANN 04:27 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

re: Deletion fog - Please stop messing about. Stuff like that is simple vandalism for which you could be banned. Angela 02:40, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

Now, now, it's not like I aimed for repeated reverts or anything like that nonsense - or name calling, for that matter. Rickyrab 02:48, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If you wish to make a comment regarding the deletion log, it may be best in future to use Wikipedia talk:Deletion log. If however, you simply want to attract attention and waste people's time then creating nonsense articles is exactly the thing to do. Angela 03:24, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi, Ricky. I'm Ed Poor, one of the oldest "old hands" around here.

Please do not engage in edit wars with other Wikipedians -- even if they're wrong. In fact, especially if they're wrong. It's better to ask for help and let a sysop (like me or Anthere or mav or Eloquence, etc.) handle the "problem user".

We don't like repeated "reversions" of articles around here. It wastes everyone's time, okay? --Uncle Ed 01:10, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on the list discussion. I was out for a couple days, and just got caught up. Be well. :)戴&#30505sv 01:27, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi, your latest quote du jour was by 205.188.209.78 if you wanted to change the "unknown" attribution. Angela 22:19, Oct 4, 2003 (UTC)

---

Hey, thanks for catching my typo on hara-kiri. Noel 17:46, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Presumptive

Personally I don't think it's necessary to explain the term within the article. It probably the phrase most appropriate, simply meaning that he is not officially the nominee, but because of his victories, it can be presumed that he will be, for all practical purposes. It's what one hears on the news at this point.

By the way, I liked your addition of "due to his victories..." I think that put the entire paragraph in good context. :) -- Decumanus 19:55, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

---

Do you mean the addition of the refernce to Torah Cosmos by Sihan? I removed your comment from the article because is not the proper place for it. Muriel 20:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes one needs to shout. Its protected now. Cheers Muriel 20:08, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I saw your note. I was preparing to protect that page should he add that one more time (which, of course, he did). Should something happen again, you can try Requests for Page Protection as well. RadicalBender 20:10, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

At Talk:Asherah I tried to make the Day of Asherah point more obvious. See if it's clear for you now. Thanks. Wetman 21:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration page

1. Rickyrab 20:03, 4 May 2004 (UTC) I support an ample period of time, anywhere between three months and one-and-a-half years.

1. Rickyrab 20:03, 4 May 2004 (UTC) Enthusiastically agree

Your support is welcome, but I believe that you are not an arbitrator, so you don't get to vote. Sorry! Perhaps you'd like to add your comments to the Talk page? Martin 20:09, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Please note that the above opinions relate to binding arbitration and whether or not to ban an author, if necessary. It does not relate to the nonbinding resolution of a dispute. Rickyrab 04:15, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi. You might want to move your comments on the Paul Vogel arbitration to the "Comments by outside users" section and out of the "Discussions by arbitrators" sections. - Tεxτurε 20:22, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

---

User talk:Rickyrab/Quaggaism

Do not create nonsense articles or vandalize even in retaliation

Please don't create more of a mess than Wik already has. Try to be part of the solution and not make the mess bigger by adding to it. Thank you. - Tεxτurε 01:25, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Malicious Deletion Attempt

Hello. Sorry for the imposition, but I thought you might be interested to note that an article you supported in the past on vfd has been listed again under malicious circumstances - the 3rd such attempt in 7 months. Please feel free to review the discussion and cast your vote as you feel appropriate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Atlantium --Gene_poole 11:04, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

United States Republican Party

Please bear in mind that you should keep an encyclopedic tone when writing; adding that Dan Quayle was a "noted misspeller" doesn't really fit this. Thanks. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 06:35, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Nice convo

I wanted to compliment you on the stimulating conversation, and your interesting user page. I'm not entirely sure if I understand it, but it is intriguing ;) Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 22:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Anytime.... :) Rickyrab 22:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rutgers v. Princeton

When I originally wrote that section of Football, I did a lot of research and couldn't find any evidence that the game played in 1869 was anything like modern American football. The sources I saw all said that it was more like soccer. I appreciate that the rivalry between these two colleges has continued, but it doesn't mean that it has anything to do with American football as we know it. If you can find credible sources which say they were playing a rugby/handling type game in 1869, I will be glad to change it. Regards, Grant65 (Talk) 00:54, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

You may also want to talk to ExplorerCDT, about his writing about college football at Rutgers University. Rickyrab 06:38, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you should do some research, like I did long ago. Being a Rutgers student, you should know well enough where to find things in Alexander. Do you see any mentions of "soccer" as the inspiration for "football" on the Rutgers timeline (check the link on the RU article)? NO. Why? Because "soccer" had nothing to do with the founding of the game. If you read newspapers, histories of the event, all of them point to Rugby, and that the rules were altered from English Rugby rules. You will also see in those sources accounts of the game that to any simpleminded reader would say "Hey, this isn't soccer."

So, before you start talking out of your ass, it would be nice if you did real research instead of basing your bad, unresearched argument on equally bad, unresearched webpages (i.e. the evidence you 'provided'). In the meantime, occupy yourself with your studies at Bloustein and leave the history for the historians (of which I am one) who know how to research. If you are as bad at public policy as you are at research, I fear and tremble for whatever town, county, or government agency hires an incompetent idiot like you. ExplorerCDT 07:22, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Post Script to Rickyrab...The Princeton Rutgers rivalry in football died in 1980. They haven't met on the gridiron since. So you are DEAD WRONG in saying it "continues" in your edit on the Football article.ExplorerCDT 07:31, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ExplorerCDT: I am not an idiot. Nor am I talking out of my ass, and my argument was not unresearched. OK? And, no, there's no gestalt that says to me, "Hey, this isn't soccer", as this description of the game (http://www.scarletknights.com/football/history/first_game.htm) might show. Meanwhile, rugby involves holding a ball and running with it - something that was against the London Football Association rules of 1863, which were the rules the RU-PU game of '69 used. Rickyrab 16:25, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Obviously, you can't read. First class education and you're still functionally illiterate.

Second paragraph from the aforestated link:

The game, which bore little resemblance to its modern-day counterpart, was played with two teams of 25 men each under rugby-like rules, but like modern football, it was “replete with surprise, strategy, prodigies of determination, and physical prowess,” to use the words of one of the Rutgers players.

Hmm..."rugby-like rules" doesn't say "soccer." Hmm. I don't see any mention of the word "soccer" in this article. I try to find it and the dialog box pops up saying "The text you entered could not be found. Could it be, oh, could it be that this isn't soccer?

Quit your damned incessant, nonsensical whining. -- ExplorerCDT 17:57, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Re: Alberuni

Hi Rickyrab: I just wanted to commend you very much for your honest opinions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alberuni. Best wishes, IZAK 08:03, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See these six categories up for "votes of deletion":

See these six categories up for "votes of deletion":

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Palestinian_terrorists and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Palestinian_terrorist_organizations and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Middle_East_terrorists and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Terrorist_organizations and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Islamic_terrorist_organizations and this one too: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Jewish_terrorist_organizations

IZAK 10:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Opinion for IZAK

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence. Thank you. IZAK 06:53, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards

I have drafted a proposal for a new voluntary association on Wikipedia (joining groups like the Wikipedia:The Business and Economics Forum and the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club) to promote discussion of a sort of system of expert review on Wiki. Please take a look and add your ideas. 172 02:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Wonderful idea! I have joined. I will let some others know. Thank you. IZAK 03:14, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Watch Out!

I heard Jaclyn Sharp and Zerna Sharp were kinda related.... oh right, one of the two's not quite famous 'yet'. My bad. Rickyrab 02:55, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Human breast

are you serious? would you mind proposing that first? maybe venus figurine, but I'd say not. dab (T) 07:48, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Sunday, Sunday, Sunday! Come to NYC... +sj +

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new)| talk)

EMD E2

Eleven minutes after I created EMD E2, Hoary voted to delete it as non-notable. With his comment about "a ginormous set of such articles", he might be gunning for the whole Train WikiProject. Please vote as you see fit. Rmeier 08:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Brookie here

Hi Rickyrab - passing Brookie here - didn't like the type on your user page much (girl was ok!) - it looked rather clumpy - have another go?! Brookie 22:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Rickyrab 15:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jewish and Biblical mythology

I don't think it makes sense to have an article on Jewish folklore, aggadah and on Jewish mythology. Indeed, one might fairly say that Judaism has no indigenous mythology distinct from its theology and aggadah. Of course, it is also fair to say that the Hebrew Bible is permeated with stories that have all the characterisitics of what is termed mythology. Yet the study of Biblical studies from the perspective of myth is far from the discussion of Kabbalah as myth. It seems to me that we need to remove this particular article on Jewish mythology altogether, as it attempts to combine far too many distinct topics into one article. As such, I propose that we use this scheme:

Jewish folklore - Studying Judaism's folklore from a historical perspective.

Aggadah - About the non-legal teachings in classical rabbinic literature.

Kabbalah - Our present article on Kabbalah can include scholarly studies of mythological tendencies and themes within Kabbalah. If this section becomes too long, it can be spun off into its own article.

Biblical mythology - A new article that I just created, discussing how scholars analye Biblical themes and stories as myth. RK 02:05, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Why not something like Jewish folklore and mythology, Aggadah, Kabbalah? (on the other hand, separate Jewish folklore and Biblical mythology seem fine and dandy) Rickyrab 05:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Possible new POV warrior?

We have a newcomer who, on his first day here, issued a shot across to bow to all non-Orthodox Jews who dare edit any article on Judaism. His comment on his home page worries me. I hope he learns our NPOV policy, and understands that Wikipedia is not an Orthodox Jewish theological website. RK 02:10, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

See User:Halakhic-Jews-Only

Terri Schiavo

Not funny. RickK 22:58, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. so much for BJAODN, then. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Subchat

Yep, in fact I got some help (http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=68664) on my subway map from there. --SPUI (talk) 12:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, and now I see the other half of this conversation (http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=69109). OK. --SPUI (talk) 12:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II

Why did you vandalize, then revert the article? It wasn't funny, and not needed. Thanks for replying. User:Bratsche/sig 03:52, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting off of a BJAODN high. Sorry. I saw "John Paul Jones" on the disambig page, and besides, if I didn't revert, then it wouldn't be undoing my sin, so.... I reverted. — Rickyrab | Talk 03:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not a problem, since you have confessed you sin :). But I just wanted to know. Thanks, and happy wiki-ing! User:Bratsche/sig 21:17, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

highway reverts

User talk:Gene Nygaard#California State Route 57 has some of the story. --SPUI (talk) 04:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It (the 9XX key that Rickyrab inquired about - — Rickyrab | Talk 04:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)) puts the New York State Reference Routes in their proper place in Category:New York state highways. --SPUI (talk) 04:09, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He (the other guy) claims that it's better to sort by the highway name; I claim that that's what stuff like Category:Parkways in New York City is for. --SPUI (talk) 04:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Banner template

Hey, I've seen that talk page banner before! I didn't know you were using it, but it looks nice. Thanks for the credit, too. Glad I could be of help. Cheers, User:Bratsche/sig 17:25, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

pope image

This image: Image:Popebenedictxvi firsttimeonthrone.jpg is claimed to be from the Vatican, yet there is no information on its source. It could well be from a news agency. I have removed the vatican tag, yet a certain user keeps adding it. —Cantus…☎ 04:23, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

That vandalism was completly and utterly wrong. Don't do it. -- KTC 04:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nouvelle Theologie

Explanation is there now. I'm not instantaneous ya know.--Samuel J. Howard 06:01, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

That was supposed to be lighthearted. Tone is hard in text.--Samuel J. Howard 06:41, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Hi, regarding your inquiry:

You recently wrote: (Unknown title- the document was not made public) Banned transsexuals from entering consecrated life, orders expulsion of all current transsexual consecrates, and orders church workers not to change baptismal records or otherwise accommodate transsexual worshippers., which caused me to look it up elsewhere. I found news reports from late January (Gay.com UK) and January 31/February 1-3, 2003, noting the items about consecrated life, expulsions, and baptismal record changes, but what do you mean by "otherwise accommodate transsexual worshippers"? and where can I find source material on that? — Rickyrab | Talk 17:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The official church policy would be not to recognise the person their their new gender expression. For example, if a male-to-female transsexual had a meeting with her pastor and told them they were transexed, the official church policy would be to never change any documentation regarding this person, nor even to allow the pastor to recognise the woman's new gender expression. Even if she were heterosexual, the church would never allow her to marry. Let me know if you need any more info. --Julie-Anne Driver 22:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Wikipedia is Anarchism!

I have noticed that some blocks are in error. I fully believe this is one of those blocks. This is User:Rickyrab on an AOL address.

• A suggestion: You should grab all the spelling variations of "Wikipedia is Anarchism" just like what Wikipedia is Communism did with all of the spelling variations of that term. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Please forgive BrokenSegue for his vigilante behavior. He has been a victim too many times by our infamous vandal, who once registered a sock, User:Broken Segue, to impersonate him. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Please don't register potentially confusing sockpuppet names. -- Curps 05:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

To be more specific, Wikipedia:Username specifically mentions "No deliberately confusing usernames", and given the vandal using "Wikipedia is communism" and "Wikipedia is nazism", this would definitely be confused with that vandal user. -- Curps 05:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

OK. I'm not sure the strategy of grabbing every variant will work, though, because there's always one more variant (add an exclamation point or two or three or four, vary the capitalization, etc.) -- Curps 05:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

The IP should be unblocked now. -- Curps 05:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, I did a couple more unblocks, that should probably do it. -- Curps 05:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• On second thought, I think Curps has a point. There are so many variants that you cannot possibly think of them all. Time would be better spent on something else. Besides, with the number of users on RC patrol at any given time, it only takes a few minutes to repair the damage done by our infamous vandal. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Wikipedia is Anarchism!

Sorry for the block. I saw the username editing the Vandalism in progress page and clicked the block buttton. I should check contributions first. My fault (for some reason it took a while for the unblock to register). BrokenSegue 19:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Rabin*

Actually, our surnames are not similar, they're identical. Well, maybe not in English. But both -ovitch and -owitz are attempts to Latinize a Russian ending that doesn't have an obvious equivalent in western languages.

I'm sure we're not alone. Not a lot of Rabinovitchs (or variants thereof) where I live in Northern California. But in places where there are a lot of Russian Jews (New York comes to mind), I believe it's as common as "Smith" is in English-speaking countries. Undoubtedly many are on Wikipedia. ----Isaac R 19:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Definition of warez group

As Category:Warez groups puts it: "Warez groups are bodies organized for the purpose of circulating copyrighted material, such as computer software, video games or music and movies". See warez. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 20:30, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

peer_review

Whats that? I sw your recent posts to the mailing list btw, and I very much appreciate your points. You seem to be doing good things everytime I find you! Cheers,

Sam Spade 22:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)