User talk:Conradrock

Welcome to the Wikipedia! We're glad to have you. If you need any help, feel free to check Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers; Wikipedia:NPOV; Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and so on. Or feel free to wander the articles, just learning by doing. We really appreciate your contributions. Yours, Meelar 06:59, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Blaster shooter

The energy-drink-and-booze combo has become reasonably common, all based on the idea of combining uppers and downers, so to speak. Certainly changing brands will change the taste, but does Red Bull have any particular hold on the idea? (Just like a "black cow" is vanilla ice cream and soda, not necessary vanilla ice cream and Coca-Cola.) As encyclopedia-ists (is that a word?) we need to be cautious about giving overly specific credit unless it's really due. - DavidWBrooks 00:10, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello Conrad. Thanks for your note on the New user log. Since you have contributed anonymously, you may be interested in assigning previous edits to your username. Chris Roy 06:23, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi Conrad. Thanks for your note about MoveOn. As I stated on the article's talk page, I didn't know if MoveOn began as a "bipartisan" effort. Now I do. Thanks for letting me know. --Sheldon Rampton 08:16, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OldRight's response

There appears to be a misunderstanding. With regards to the Joe Scarborough article, I'm not trying to be POV or pushing any kind of political agenda. I simply don't think that stuff about an aide who died is relevant. Believe me I realize Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that's what I'm trying to contribute to - a more accurate and specific encyclopedia, that doesn't have what I feel to be useless information. -- OldRight 20:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/OldRight has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/OldRight/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 19:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel

Gamaliel has threatend a revert war on Joe Scarborough. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gamaliel#Joe_Scarbourough 67.18.109.218 18:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simple vandalism

I hate to bring this up, but why do you consider the actions of editors who decide to not login simple vandalism? Several other editors who do not login have edited this article and do not have a history of vandalism, and they removed thesame paragraph. Please, look at the article discussion first. I'm not questioning your motives, I'm just asking for respect of the other editors in kind. Conradrock 07:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous IPs shouldn't be reverting or filing RFCs. Editors with accounts should know better than to revert in a revert war without logging in, because it opens up allegations of sockpuppetry and bad faith. I read both the RFC and the talk page. For someone who demands respect and good faith, you've already violated the very "respect" that you yourself have demanded. Stirling Newberry 07:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Your response is tettering close to bad faith. I made no mention of the RFC, only the edits and discussion that non-anonymous editors have made, and I also wanted to point out not all of the anonymous editors to this article are trying to engage in an edit war. The RFC is otiose, pure and simple, and you shouldn't be taking out your bad feelings on the RFC on editors who aren't even involved. You haven't contributed anything constructive; you just went in and reverted without even looking at the discussion by others. Plus, if you even bothered to read Talk:Joe_Scarborough, you would notice that myself and User:Rhobite have been trying to establish a compromise between the two parties, but we've both been honest and made our views clear. I'm sorry, but you've violated one of the cardinal rules of mediation, and have done nothing but increased the intensity of the situation. Conradrock 08:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your response was uncivil, rude and a violation of wikiquette. Stirling Newberry 08:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You opened the door to being uncivil, Mr. Newberry; then you made assumptions based on a limited basis of facts. You're just like the anonymous IPs that are constantly reverting this article, you're going into the argument blind. I treated you with no disrespect during my initial inquiry, and you fired away like I was attacking you. You attacked first Mr. Newberry, for no other reason other than a simple friendly inquiry. Now, you can either participate in the discussion or leave the article alone. Your decision, and I do not anticipate a response. Conradrock 15:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Conradrock. Many of us are trying to resolve this dispute on the Joe Scarborough talk page. Since you, Stirling Newberry, simply revert without participating in that discussion your actions are exactly the same as those you accuse of vandalism.--Heathcliff 23:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your response was uncivil, dishonest, rude and a violation of wikiquette. Given your tendency to rant and insult, it is no wonder your "mediation" efforts are going poorly. Stirling Newberry 08:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you fail to see the point. For someone who feels "insulted" you do seem to resort to uncivil attacks and accusations at first, as shown by your history. If you bothered to research, you will see that I participated in reverting and bringing action Old_Right due to his lack of discussion, and he opposes the view that you have made strongly. You have shown your bad faith as of now, by resorting to insults and ad hominem attacks from the start of our, for lack of a better term, conversation. I asked you a simple question, and you have resorted to insults and personal attacks in order to avoid the question. No one else, besides the random anonymous trolls, have engaged in such behavior. Perhaps you should step back and review this matter before you engage in your current course. Also, please do not reply with your canned "uncivil" message that you have used on the numerous people whose views you disagree with. Conradrock 00:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stirling Newberry has not responded at this time. Perhaps he has realized that you shouldn't come out swinging just because someone disagrees with you. However, he is more than welcome to respond, even if his response is a repeat of the same random accusations he made in response to a simple inquiry. Conradrock 20:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights Servey on Wikipedia (The final post of I_sterbinski)

Dear all,

Wikipedia was recently a subject of intensive research of an huge international human right organization. A team of people from different nationalities and ages were acting on Wikipedia for 20 days, investigating previously noted anomalities of Wikipedia free editing and forming a final report, which (between the others similar reports) will later be a guide to all future moves of the organization concerning Wikipedia. Acting under an account of a real person, their privacy is to be held private. Therefore, very few private information will be revealed.

Also, this is a result of the lack of final possition of the organization concerning Wikipedia and human rights, which was still not formed.

The team's final post on Wikipedia, where they explain their actions can be found on the following addresses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:I_sterbinski

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia#Human_Rights_Servey_on_Wikipedia_.28The_final_post_of_I_sterbinski.29

The team would like to thank to all the persons who took part in the correspondence with us.

We also want to appologise for keeping our identity secret for a longer period.

Best regards,

Aleksandar, Biljana, Asparuh, Christos, Valjon, Michael and Ana Luiza

I sterbinski 01:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AMA Request for Assistance - An Advocate Needed

Could you please help?

I have been a positively contributing editor of the polygamy article since the end of last year, with numerous amounts of knowledge on the subject. However, I have subsequently been attacked by POV anti-polygamists who have undermined the article with their POV agenda and who now consistently prevent me from editing anything in it since the end of April. I have produced volumes of evidence of the abuse in the TALK pages, which anti-polygamists have even attempted to hide by "archiving."

On July 18, 2005, I made an AMA Request for Assistance - An Advocate Needed, requesting AMA help from Kmweber. They quickly agreed to help, but needed a few days due to a new real world job. As of this writing, I have yet to ever hear from them again (which is starting to concern me at this point). That's why I am now seeking your help, if you are willing. (As you can see, I am a patient person, but recent events of abuse have given me need to speed up the process, if possible.)

Recently, in the ongoing dispute, while we were in the middle of a resolution process, someone else interfered and "offered to help." When I was not willing to accept their interference due to specific concerns, they ignored me and started an entire new set-up. All which had preceded that interference had then become ignored. Instead, I was falsely accused of refusing to seek rsolution. Then a Requests for comment/Researcher99 page was created and I was fully set-up.

I have made a chronology there to bring you up to speed on all of the relevant history of the problem. I know it's a lot to read, but I have really been through a lot! I really do need a sincere and dedicated AMA's help.

Could you please help? If you could, I would really appreciate it.

Thanks.

Researcher 23:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OldRight Arbitration case

The Arbitration case against OldRight has been closed with OldRight placed on Probation for one year.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop

You, or any Wikipedia user, can contribute your suggestions and comments to the /Workshop page of any active arbitration case. Comments on evidence or proposals can help in understanding the import of evidence and in refining proposals. Proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies may be listed on /Proposed decision and form part of the final decision. Fred Bauder 18:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me?

Stirling, please, for the love of God, before you call someone a liar in their edit summary, make sure they're lying. You always seem to be on the ultra defensive because someone disagrees with you. Welcome to life, for someone who seems intelligent, you seem to be lacking in other areas. Conradrock 19:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Reformatted to continue discourse)

Personal attacks, like lying in edit summaries, are against the rules. Thank you for your cooperation. Stirling Newberry 18:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Stirling, how did I lie in any edit summary? In any case, you just contradicted yourself; you called someone a liar in your edit summary, then you tell me that calling someone a liar in an edit summary counts as a personal attack? Yeah, good thing you thought that through before bringing it to my attention. Conradrock 01:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA

Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the Association of Members' Advocates. There is a poll being held at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome. Izehar 22:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New AMA poll

Please have a look at the proposed election parameters under the section entitled An election proposal... and cast a ballot. Wally 23:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA Coordinator Election

Dear AMA Member,

You are entitled to vote in the AMA Coordinator election, set to begin at midnight on 3 February 2006. Please see the pages on the election and its candidates and the procedure and policy and cast a vote by e-mail!

Wally 11:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Can You help sort this out?

I have some trouble with the page Sweden Democrats. I am myself a member (on low level) in this party so I am of course bias. The person writing the page have (to be nice) a completely different view of this than what I do. He I quite to the left, and I am Nationalistic, or in US that would be neocon. Well, that’s not the problem. He seems to be a honest and reasonable person. BUT…

There is another person from Sweden involved with this, and this person is anything but honest. I am quite sure (but cannot prove it) that he belongs to an organizations that is founded by our government fore the sole purpose of stopping us. No – I am not on drugs.

This is Sweden, a lot more extreme than people know of. Well, so if u are interested in helping out – take a look at the page and the discussion page. Right now the fight Is about our right to answer the allegations, or:

“The Sweden Democrat's response to the controversy”

The page have some 30% critic in it –witch is a little more than the normal 5% other parties have. I accept this, BUT we must be given the same space to answer. AND this answer is ours to make.

Right now this Swedish person “liftaren” wants to be the judge about what answer to the allegations he constructed – we are allowed to do and we have a edit war. Myself I am 100% sure he knows that we/me should have this right – but he will just keep pushing and trying to get as much ground as he can regardless of what’s fair and what is not.

Regards, SweHomer 17:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that SweHomer added a lot of unsourced claims, for instance that there is a goverment conspiracy and that teh government secretly funds an organisation working against the Sweden Democrats. // Liftarn 19:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help on Exotic pet page

Hello, On occasion, information is posted to the exotic pet article that I feel is biased and unfair and violates the NPOV. Can you help me maintain a neutral stance on this article?

Regarding Association of Members' Advocates

Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! M a rtinp23 21:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ED

Do you what is going on with ED right now? Why was it being sued, and what's going on with it now?174.26.15.57 (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]