User talk:Robchurch/January 2006: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:28, 18 January 2006

You're back!

I see you're back - welcome! We need honest users like you, so please don't leave us again :-) Izehar 21:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good man. It's good to see you around again. Blackcap (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

The story looks fine. KittenKlub 23:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sander responded on my talk page. As far as the response speed goes. I do not check a page for replies every time, but it doesn't mean I never planned to check it. And I supplied a reason on the deletion page which is the way most people do it. KittenKlub 11:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is talking about starting a personal feud against him again. I'm backing out of the conversation for now. KittenKlub 21:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jim

Thanks for your note, Rob. I won't block Jim for that remark, though I'll put a note on his talk page. The difference between the two editors is that Ben has been warned countless times, and has been blocked a few times for personal attacks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship nomination

Dear Rob: Because I think it is a true tragedy that you chose to resign from adminship, and because you're so damned indispensable, I've renominated you. I do hope this isn't too impudent of me to do so, but I really would be negligent in my duty as a Wikipedian not to do so. If perhaps you would be so kind as to accept, I would be truly thrilled; on the other hand, if you don't want to, then that's not a problem. The nomination is at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Robchurch 3. All the very best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, I've left a question for you on your RfA. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vicious campaign to remove copyrighted images from user space

I'm not sure exactly what basis is being used in this campaign, but it would be appreciated if some reason for this were given. Fair use is not as narrow as some folks think. --Dschor 20:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this, I'm not personally upset by the removal of the image. If fair use does or doesn't extend that far, is not for me to say, but Wikipedia consensus. What I am upset with is the vandalization of my page. I have always played by the rules here, so all that needed to be done was a note left on my Talk page, and I would have removed the image myself. It's what I would have done had it been your page with the image, because that's the respect and consideration you deserve. You may not have blanked or defaced the page, but, in my opinion, the way you've handled this is even worse. Baryonyx 16:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt reply. I'm also heartened by the fact that you took my comments reasonably... seems things can quickly escalate around here, and I'm also glad to see things handled so well. Thank you, and have a happy new year! Baryonyx 17:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

In case you didn't know, there's also a Request for arbitration that's been accepted on Freestylefrappe. I'm sure he'd appreciate anything you could do to counter the pile-on there, too. If you want my personal opinion -- the problem is not Freestylefrappe making mistakes, but an utter unwillingness to admit to mistakes, or learn from them, combined with a gut-wrenching hostility toward most of those who have tried to help. That said, a lot of the evidence piling on (some my fault too, I'm afraid) is from deep in the past before any mistakes were pointed out.—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes!

Well, thank you for the pleasant surprise! I appreciate it. I am a political animal, not unfamiliar with power and authority in Wp (e.g., the ArbComm) and in actuality. Thus, cognizant of last year's process and (IMO) some of the inherent challenges with the ArbComm and its membership, I took it upon myself to contribute in a small way to organise and improve our efforts this year. These weren't without duress (I can elaborate later), but – as with anything – I hope the proof will be in the pudding.

Separately, I'm disheartened by your recent travails (I do keep an eye on this and that), but I'm sure everything will work out eventually.

Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 07:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not as skeptical: it just needs to be organised and administered effectively (i.e., neutrally). Some would say that of last year's process too – or anything – so we're all dirty pretty things in some way. :) E Pluribus Anthony 08:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Binomials and trinomials

Sorry if I'm addressing this to the wrong person ... hope you can help. I'm a newbie and still haven't found my way around yet. My question concerns the naming of pages dealing with species (or subspecies) of organisms. For example, the scientific name of the blackbird is Turdus merula, but its page has the colloquial name, Blackbird. This leads to ambiguity (see Blackbird for a specimen of necessary but rather inappropriate intrusion). The Linnaean system of classification was designed to be international and (pretty much) unambiguous, and encompasses every species and subspecies known to science. Would it be a good idea to have a guideline suggesting that pages should be so named, with redirects from colloquial names? Just a thought. I know it would involve a lot of work to rename all those pages in existence; maybe a bot could be devised for the job. Puffball 11:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

block 3RR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Ghirlandajo_.28Short_description:_troller.2C_vandal.2C_Anti-Romanian.2C_nazi.29 can you block the vandal? --86.106.51.95 16:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki User Wiki

Are you the guy who hosts the Wiki User Wiki? - Joshua368 13:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really going to let Homsar shut it down? - Joshua368 23:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's good. I'm pretty sure he'll change his mind as well, as I got a forum PM from him saying that he's considering doing so. However, if he doesn't, there are a bunch of users (at least ten, probably more) who really want to keep the WUW, and a few would make good leaders. (Not me though, although I like the WUW, I'm too busy to spend much time on it.) - Joshua368 00:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Intro

is the site for historical interest now? to me it looks like vandalism.

Please respond on my talk page.

happened to see it vie crypto derkEagle (talk) (desk) 00:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the page for reporting vandals, the user is not an admin. (Can you help me here).

Would like to make sure we are not missing vandalism especally to this page. Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am about ready to revert it. (can always be placed back into historical interests)Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie's Hello

Thanks for Your changing Your vote in the AfD to userfy in the AfD. I actually did it before Your first vote. If You want to give Me any feedback on My contributions, all is welcome.
Happy New Year! -- Eddie 00:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're back!!!!!

I see you have returned to us, good job, we really are in need of wikipedians such as yourself. Please don't leave again; I hope you continue to stay. May I inquire why you've returned to us, by the way..? -MegamanZero|Talk 15:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar Barnstar

File:Barnstar Barnstar.png

This is in recognition of your excellent work in awarding Kelly Martin a Barnstar. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the..

Your mom is a wikipedian..?! Geez. -MegamanZero|Talk 23:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Rob Church ^Talk 00:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A joke then...? I'm confused... -MegamanZero|Talk 00:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no affiliation between us. Rob Church ^Talk 00:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, this user is fibbing then..? -MegamanZero|Talk 00:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article survey

Hmm... I thought I already posted this. Stupid timeouts. Anyway, no, of course I don't mind annotation. Zocky 00:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

Hello, I'm afraid your RfA did not reach consensus (at somewhat under 66% support of total support/oppose, it was not greatly under, however). Generally those who opposed you cited concerns about your behavior towards Deeceevoice; my personal suggestion would be waiting a couple months and trying again. -- Pak aran 02:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

Not sure why you're jumping in on a minor disagreement that's already water under the bridge to me... either that, and/or you may not have recognized/appreciated the humor in my last response to the party in question. Unless I did something in my sleep in the last two days... *shrugs* --CJ Marsicano 14:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks [1]. For that alone I'd change my vote on your RFA if it were still open. Guettarda 21:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might add some perspective. Guettarda 21:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Healing Wikipedia

Rob, first off I wanted to say how impressed I've been with your actions in apologizing about the DCV stuff. As I said in my vote, it was a hard choice to vote oppose on your RfA. Since then, I've been even more impressed by how you've handled all of the issues and polemics surrounding you RfA. While I won't change my vote this go around, I will support you in the future (after all of this dies down) and would even nominate you, if you wished.

I wonder if there is a way to heal the issues and differences that DCV's arbitration has brought to the foreground? In some ways, this entire affair has been bad for racial relations here at Wikipedia. Those who don't like how DCV acts have said that their actions are solely in response to DCV not being "nice" (so to speak). Those who don't like what has happened to DCV (like me) see the affair as being driven by racism and bigotry. The funny thing is that there is overlap between the two sides. A number of those pushing to sanction DCV admit that some of actions against her have been wrong and haven't helped racial issues here (and that some of the users pushing the issue against her are doing so for possibly racist reasons). Almost all of us opposed to the actions against DCV admit that she is abrasive and has violated Wikipedia guidelines and should be more civil in her discussions here. What we see, though, is a double-standard at work, with users appearing to gang up against non-minority editors like DCV for being less than civil but not doing the same to white editors. If this subject interest you, I'd encourage you to post you thoughts here on a special talk page I created.--Alabamaboy 21:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what gives?

That user called you a liar, and deeceevoice did several times as well. Yes you pulled an all nighter and fired off a "Jerry Mcguire"....or maybe his evil twin....but guess what? You were honest. There were no lies. There may have been exaggerations but you didn't go out there with the intention of misrepresenting anything. In contrast, I have little doubt that both of those users know exactly what they are doing in calling you a liar, and if pushed would use your statements out of context to "prove" that you are a liar. Till then they'll be satisfied in labeling you a liar...again and again. When I say "Rob is not a liar", I am 1) standing up for your (butt) and 2) telling the truth. Wake up -- it's not harassment. What a day it is; you let others slide on the liar claim but laid into me for saying you're honest. -Justforasecond 21:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asking me to take my lips off your ass is not a way to make amends, and telling folks you aren't a liar is not my way of worshiping you. I endoresed you for adminship and I regret that I was emphatic about it, but there's little I can do about it now. People are calling you a liar. You don't need to come shout me when I point out it isn't true. -Justforasecond 22:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss-on-the-butt thanks to RobChurch!

Rob, you are a great and good Wikipedian, and I'm happy and proud that you supported my nom. I will do my very best to be a good and useful admin, and if I can be of help in anyway please don't hesitate to ask. I'll see you in IRC and on the wiki! Babajobu 00:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tip Jar

You're welcome. I didn't really want it on my talk page. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 07:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no tone of voice in text

And I don't know you very well. Thus I don't know quite how to take this. So I'll just place a bet each way:

If you were being genuine

Thank you. I think that the way we treat people who violate our norms helps to show our collective character. Thinking back to the Brandt business, our sophmoric treatment of his continued antics reflected poorly on us as well as him. It's nice to see that this opinion is not confined to only my fevered brain.

If you were sticking it to me

By saying that he was a troll, didn't deserve help, or something of that nature, I'd point out my statement above. Also note that my offer both explicitly states I'm not taking sides, and tries to give him an opportunity to back out. Having Tommstein "think[ing] more clearly about what happened" would have been a good thing, no matter what the circumstances.

Regards, brenneman ^(t)^(c) 12:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arvanitic language

Someone has requested on WP:RFP that it be unprotected from moves. I noticed that you were involved in the protection back in November, over some sort of naming dispute; is it ready to be unprotected at this point? You might drop by WP:RFP to chime in if you like. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 19:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandertje continues the fight again

Please handle it. KittenKlub 19:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also notice that the images are reuploaded with incorrect licensing again after being deleted. KittenKlub 19:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is clear that you are doing nothing. I have taken the position of deleting all communication between me and Sandertje. If you don't agree than though luck, because you don't seem to do anything or take this seriously. KittenKlub 19:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cabal

Aw, shucks. Thanks! In the meantime, you may be interested in this. Thanks again!--Sean|Black 22:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

got a second?

Can you drop by Category_talk:Wikipedians_by_politics and clarify; Gator thought your edit summary [2] about 'snarkiness' was aimed at him, where as it seemed to be directed at Kbdank71 instead, and he got upset. I have a feeling it's a misunderstanding, but it'd be better coming from you... -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its me

ok it worked i can edit Extc

Revision as of 18:27, 18 January 2006 edit Extc (talk \| contribs) 41 edits →got a second? ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:28, 18 January 2006 edit undo Extc (talk \| contribs) 41 edits →Its me Next edit →
Line 167:		Line 167:

	==Its me==		==Its me==
	~~testing~~ [[User:Extc\|Extc]]		ok it worked i can edit [[User:Extc\|Extc]]