User talk:Rory096/Archive3

This is an archive of my talk page. Do NOT add anymore comments to this archive. If you want to talk to me, please add comments to my current talk page. Editing this archive will be considered vandalism and will be reverted and unanswered.

Number of times this page has been vandalized: 13

Talmud quotes

How is this POV? They are merely quotes from the Talmud. All of the Anti Semetic quotes are posted on the Quran and Christian pages so why should the standard be different for the Talmud? They need to be showed.

Jerry Jones 09:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's POV because you're choosing which quotes to include based on one POV. I'm not saying they shouldn't be added, just discuss it on the talk page first, please. --Rory0 96 09:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rory, aside from the problem of cherry picking, some of those quotes are partial fabrications, while the rest are complete fabrications. Unfortunately, this sort of thing has become a chronic problem on Talmud and related pages. HKT 13:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice user boxes

Hi Rory096, was checking out your profile. Enjoyed your user boxes. Might copy a few of those, if that's okay. Best, Coolmojito 10:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad you liked them. If you click edit, all the userboxes are substed, but I have the names of them in tags <!-like this--> next to them. --Rory0 96 17:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rory096. Best, Coolmojito 01:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (game)

Hehe, you responded to my rant on The Game, early in the morning my time, and got me thinking a little harder. I clicked on your named and saw:

"This user is pro-cannabis, and opposes the prejudice and oppression suffered by cannabis users."

I was pretty stoned when I wrote that. Sort of made me wax on Anne Frank, you know- keep remembering that humanity really is good at heart.

shrug*

Nice to meet you.

Hawkian 11:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey rory

Just testing my sig out, Seems to not want to work on my own talk page.--OrbitOnetalk 17:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Pure Pwnage

Hi, do you mind discussing this revert? I was trying to reduce file size, make the page more organized, get rid of obsolete and non-noteworthy comments, etc.. What was so wrong that it deserved a revert? --70.25.168.90 17:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not supposed to delete comments to make the page more organized, you have to archive it. (That links explains how, but I'm afraid you can't do it unless you're registered, since it involves creating a new page.) This is to preserve old discussions, so they're not just forgotten entirely and then discussed again. --Rory0 96 18:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can archive without moving the content to another page. Copy the location of "Permanent link" in the toolbox at the right of the page. Edit the page and clear out all the old stuff and then add something like Archive 1 to the top of the page before saving. The link I pasted in my example is the permanent link from this page before I added my comment. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rory, I understand that I'm not supposed to delete comments, but in my opinion the comments that I've deleted are not worth archiving. On second thought, maybe we ought to keep Anastasia in “Girls”, but the rest are really not worth keeping. Would you allow me to at least delete those? FPS Doug fearing some unheard guy named "ParaDoX", Headshot=Manshot, and an easter egg that has already been listed don't seem to me as topics that will be discussed again. Do you understand where I'm coming from? And thanks for the help, guys. --70.25.168.90 18:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but I'm afraid it's against Wikipedia policy. You just have to archive it, nobody looks there anyway. --Rory0 96 18:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, then. I guess I'll just move the Message from PP below the "This article was nominated for deletion…" template because there are still some possible discussion on the page. --70.25.168.90 18:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #1

Reach out
Reach out is a program aimed at allowing users to bring issues that they have had in Wikipedia to a listening, sympathetic and caring audience: "No one can know how we feel if we do not say. We cannot expect to get understanding if we do not ask for it. No one will dispute that sometimes life's issues are too much for one person. It is fair to say that sometimes Wikipedia's problems fall under the same heading. This is a place where you can bring the bruises that can sometimes be got on this project for attention."
Stress Alerts
The Stress alerts program aims at identifying users who are stressed, alerting the community of thier stress and works in tandem with the Stressbusters at trying to identify causes of stress and eliminating them.
Note from the editor
Welcome to this new format of the Esperanza Newsletter, which came about during the last Advisory Council meeting - we hope you like it! The major changes are that each month, right after the Council meeting, this will be sent out and will include two featured programs and a sum up of the meeting. Also, it will be signed by all of the Advisory Council members, not just Celestianpower. Have an Esperanzial end of March, everyone!

The last AC meeting (full log)
Future meetings are to be held monthly, not fortnightly as before. Bans and Access level changes (apart from autovoice) in the IRC channel are to be reported at the new log. In the IRC channel, there is going to be only one bot at a time. The charter requires members to have 150 edits and 2 weeks editing. Why this is the case will be clarified. A new Code of Conduct will be drafted by JoanneB and proposed to the Esperanza community. The NPA reform idea is to be dropped officially. Charter ammendments are to be discussed in future, not voted on. The Advisory Council is not going to be proposed to be expanded by the Advisory Council themselves, if others want to propose it, they will listen.
Signed...
Celestianpower, JoanneB, Titoxd, KnowledgeOfSelf and FireFox 17:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why so fast to condemn

I've been working on the Spider article(s) for a couple of years now and we frequently find people concerned about spiders that may be a threat to them or their children. There is nothing subjective about whether a bite by a black widow or by a much larger orb weaver in the garden can produce a fatality. 5% of widow bites, worldwide, are fatal. Orb weaver bites are not fatal. I am trying to get an article started where citable information can be organized precisely because there is so much POV involved every time somebody writes something about some kind of spider that some people think (with or without good reason) is dangerous. Even the experts can take a while to work some things out since, for one thing, spider bites can get infected and the infections can be dangerous but the venom and the infection are hard to sort out. Opinions of scientists may sound "point of view" because they are careful not to let themselves go beyond the limits of their evidence. They know quite well, for instance, that the venom of the six-eyed spiders produces devastating results when injected in lab animals. They do not know what would happen in the case of humans, so they don't say it would be deadly, but nobody is willing to volunteer to be bitten either. If you will give me a few more minutes to produce citations, the article may not look quite so "subjective" to you. P0M 20:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Vandalism of user talk pages may lead to you being blocked from editing Wikipedia! User and user talk pages belongs to the user in question and is intended for communication with that user, who may edit, archive, as well as remove personal attacks and trolling as he wishes. If you vandalize my talk page once more, I will report you. Croatian historian ( ) 21:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: User is removing warnings from his talk page, a violation of WP:VAND, and has already been reported on WP:AIV. --Rory0 96 21:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

My RfA recently closed and it was a success, passing at 84-02-00. I would like to thank you for taking the time to weigh in and on your subsequent support. And I know it's quite cliche, but if you ever need any assistance and/or want another opinion on something, grab a Pepsi and don't hesitate to drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks again and now I can play whack-a-vandal with the rest of the gang. Pepsidrinka 05:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pepsi ftl, mkay? --Rory0 96 05:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. No, it's not ok. Pepsi is in fact ftw. Pepsidrinka 05:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, Coke > Pepsi. --Rory0 96 05:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About my images.

There in an article, sarevok, so they don't have to be deleted.

Pece Kocovski 06:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying they have to be deleted, they just can't be on userpages. --Rory0 96 06:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not?

Pece Kocovski 06:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're copyrighted, and fair use only applies if you're using it in an article. User pages aren't articles, so we can't use fair use images there. --Rory0 96 06:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so if they weren't fair use, then you can add images?

Also, i think those image are screenshot images.

Pece Kocovski 06:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you can use images that aren't fair use. And it's exactly because they are screenshots that they're copyrighted, since the game they're a screenshot of is copyrighted. --Rory0 96 06:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rarelibra

Read my comments on my talk page. Rarelibra 06:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:hi

not much Shadin 14:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting my user page. -- Vary | Talk 15:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting rid of the people who where mistagging a webpage I added, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security --Iceturf

Barnstar!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your continued work against Wikipedia vandalism. Buchanan-H e rmit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 17:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already added to your userpage.

Thanks!!! <3 --Rory0 96 23:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary on frog

Hey man, this is "kungfuadam". I was wondering why your edit summary said reverted redirection by etc., when it was just reverting simple vandalism. Maybe that is some error in the godmode.js. Cheers!--Adam ^(talk) 18:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a feature in my godmode that allows me to make custom edit summaries. I was typing in IRC, so when the box came up to type in, I accidentally put an "r" in there, which made that edit summary. --Rory0 96 19:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance with user talk page vandalism

Lebanese Historian has repeatedly deleted warnings and critical comments from his/her Talk page, despite frequent warnings that tis is vandalism. I wonder if you might consider reviewing the edit history, and if you concur, give a similar warning to the one you gave Fares S. Thank you. --AladdinSE 03:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may trouble you again, Accurate also repeatedly removes warnings and critical comments. See his/her Talk Page edit history.--AladdinSE 23:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users are allowed to remove comments if they're not explicit warnings, so I can't do anything about that one, sorry. --Rory0 96 23:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. When I read the policy:

Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism.

I was warning the user about image copyright and NPOV, I certainly thought that would come under prohibited/discouraged behavior. For my future reference, do I simply have to word it more explicitly as a warning, or do you mean that only template warnings are explicit warnings? Thanks.--AladdinSE 23:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It reads more as a suggestion than a warning, so it could be construed as just something he read and wanted to remove. In the future, try to use templates if possible, because that's more straightforward a process. --Rory0 96 23:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need to contact Wikipedia Admin...

I can't get of hold someone for some reason. You helped me out with ther LPSB IP so I came to you. I have found a wiki article that I believe supports illegal activity. This article gives details on how to circumvent the Windows Genuine Advantage validation tool used by Windows 2000 and Windows XP. To need to circumvent means you have a pirated copy of Windows. Please assist. Kyle 14:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why did u revert my edit on voter turnout

I editted it so factors making up D were clearly visible through bullet point but u just reverted it. WTF, it did make it clearer and easier to look at.--Greg.loutsenko 09:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about, you've never edited Voter turnout. --Rory0 96 09:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did edit it but i wasnt logged in at the time. I am IP: 158.180.192.10. I think it will be best if you would explain why that edit was wrong and not to your likeing. --Greg.loutsenko 09:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean when you bolded all those things? I don't see any reason why they should be both, do you have one? --Rory0 96 15:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but do you agree that it is better for the 5 points to be bulleted?!--Greg.loutsenko 15:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm undecided. Generally, it's better for stuff to be written in prose rather than formatted, but in this case, it was just a list anyway. You're better off just asking on the article's talk page. --Rory0 96 15:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So even though you were not sure about it you still reverted my edit, even though it was clearly beneficial to the article because it made it clearer for people to see the 5 points. that was very american of you, you did it the right way, the american way. well done--Greg.loutsenko 15:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please do not use your personal bias as a basis for reverting factual edits

President Reagan did NOT kick off his general election campaign in 1980 in Philadelphia, MS... he spoke at the Neshoba County Fair in MS in August 1980, but 1)it was not his kick-off (his kick-off was in New Jersey over Labor Day weekend, with the Statue of Liberty as his backdrop) and 2) although Philadelphia is in Neshoba County, the fairgrounds, where Reagan spoke, are several miles away

Reagan won 49 of 50 states in his reelection campaign vs. Mondale... that is a landslide

There is simply not valid evidence to substantiate a claim that Reagan's tax policies resulted in a loss of "huge" amounts of tax revenues (because a left-wing author wrote a book to discredit Reagan, doesn't make the book true)

The fact is that income tax revenues doubled during the Reagan years, from $517 - $1032 billion.

Regarding the claim that Reaganomics was unsuccessful in stimulating the economy, consider:

GNP 1-1-81 3084.1 billion GNP 1-1-89 5390.9

Increase during Reagan administration: 2306.9 74.8%

GNP 1-1-93 6580.0 GNP 1-1-01 10.060.2

Increase during Clinton administration: 3480.2 52.9%

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/GNP.txt

Again, your personal bias is not sufficient to revert valid edits —This unsigned comment was added by 71.147.6.185 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not biased, and I don't appreciate being called such. Hell, I wasn't even alive at the time. It's inserting another POV in the article- which may or may not make the article more NPOV as a whole- so it should be discussed on the talk page BEFORE adding it. --Rory0 96 14:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And just what, exactly, is the pov I'm inserting into the article? It's my point of view that the Neshoba County Fair is not held in Philadelphia? Oh, I know... it's my point of view that winning 49 of 50 states is a landslide... yeah, you caught me

Not even alive at the time? So, you're 17 years old and admitting that you have no clue when it comes to the Reagan presidency, yet you find it appropriate to revert the valid edits of folks who lived through and remember his presidency well.

Please act responsibly in the future.

I'm not 17, I never said I didn't know what was happening; I said I had no bias. I reverted your edits because it's changing the connotation of certain parts of the article- whether it's true or not. I then asked you to please discuss it on the talk page (with other people who "remember his presidency well," if you'd like to be adultist). I also do not appreciate your calling me irresponsible. Please be civil. --Rory0 96 04:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Reagan was president until 1989... do the math... if you were not "even alive at the time" that means you are no older than 17... curious that you are opposed to using facts to change the connotation of an article... clearly others changed the connotation of the article when they added information that was not factual... apparently false information is ok to you as long as the connotation is anti-Reagan...

My edits are legit... your bias and irresponsibility are not 71.147.6.185 11:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bug

Could you be more specific? It works fine for me. --light darkness^(talk) 12:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, will fix after school, just use it from the main talk page without submit for now. --light darkness^(talk) 12:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be working as intended now, found some free time during school. --light darkness^(talk) 15:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to put any more code in my monobook? --Rory0 96 15:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, just do a hard refresh, and the code changes will take effect --light darkness^(talk) 15:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keke --Rory0 96 15:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Croatian historian

This user has removed bad-faith and inappropriate warnings placed on his page by people who are in conflict with him at various articles. Did you have other warnings in mind? If not, then your own warning looks like victimisation of someone who has been under attack. His own actions haven't been perfect, but they've been performed under pressure. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Liptsin

Hi. I have removed the csd tag you placed on Oleg Liptsin as the original editor had {{hangon}}'ed it and has begun cleaning it up. You are of course welcome to afd it, but there at least is some backing for the subject's notability atm in the text. Thanks! --Syrthiss 16:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voter turnout

In this edit with the summary, "replaced vandalized image" you removed the brand new image that I added and reinserted the older one which had been removed. I'm guessing that you didn't see the lenghty talk page discussion on this issue. The new image was a result of a compromise between me and another user, hardly vandalism. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I first saw it the image you added was a redlink, so I looked in the history, found that there was no image immediately before that (but I knew I had seen an image earlier that day), then went back into the history and got the only one, as it's better than having nothing/a redlink. Sorry, I'll replace it. --Rory0 96 20:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It looks like the other one was removed by anon. Although Sherurcij and I both agreed that image was not the best, its certainly not unrelated. It could be inserted later in the article, if you want. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care, just wanted to have some image :) --Rory0 96 20:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centex

Thanks for tagging this page for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. In future, please quote the URL that the page is copied from, using {{db-copyvio|http://www.website.com}}. Also, please don't blank the page. Stifle 22:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that I'm supposed to add the website, but in this particular case I didn't have it on hand, I knew because the article itself said "From their website:" in the beginning. As for blanking the page, you ARE supposed to blank the page, see WP:COPYVIO:

After notifying the uploading editor, blank the page and replace the text with {{db-copyvio|url=url of source}}

--Rory0 96 22:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really need to change that back. We blank the page for regular copyvios, but not for speedies, because it saves the admin time. Stifle 22:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unenrolled

Just letting you know that Political commentary and Party Government, two similar articles, have been created and added to the AfD. Daniel Case 03:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You sure about that second one? --Rory0 96 03:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Ooops. I fixed it. Daniel Case 03:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

		The Minor Barnstar
		For a nice little minor change to Tawkerbot2! Tawker 04:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acharya S Disiples.

You told me to stop vandalising the aritlce. I knwo you asusme Im the bad guy, but can you go tot he tlak page and see the discussion at hand, and how the Disiples tend ot bully and harrass till they get their way. A PErfect example os how Skull sidesteps anythign I said about why I reverted and turns it into an attakc, and insist that all Critism be neutrlaised and promotional material be aded, to Bias the aritle in her faovur. You may think Im the rleigious nut out to desotry Acharya S, andhtey are defneing an unbaised version, but lets look at relaity shall we?

ZAROVE 04:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't even know who that guy is, I've never edited that article in my life, and I don't have any bias towards it at all because of that. I don't know what you want me to do. --Rory0 96 05:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian historian

I noticed you placed a 'wr' warning on his talk page. One thing I would like to note. All the warnings which were there before he was cleared of, so your 'wr' might be a bit oddly timed. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 05:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait what? He blanked warnings, so he got a wr. --Rory0 96 05:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The situation changed a little bit. He was cleared of wrong doing on the first warnings and the following 'wr's. His is a special little case and a little care must be taken by us now. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 05:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was he cleared of this lovely comment too? I doubt it, and my warnings are legitimate. --Rory0 96 06:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC) --Rory0 96 06:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a personal attack though. Like I said, special situation which should be handled by admins. Do like me and pull your hat out of the ring.--OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 06:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a clearly involved party, I'm in it for the long run. And I don't want to see this guy get away with what he did. --Rory0 96 06:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but be warned this can become a very messy issue.--OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 06:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the very first page blanking of his; believe me, I know. --Rory0 96 06:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis (drug)

Done. Computerjoe 's talk 15:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vANDAL POINT

My point was, you called me a vandal and said if I didnt stop vandalising the page Id be banned. You basicllay thought I was soemhow alterign the aritlce as a vandal. Im not. I wanted you to see whats been going on for real. I didnt veen bother with Christainity related artilces much until this mess. The full sotry Ill save for later, but for now, Ill tell you a truncated version.

Basiclaly, you think thst I revert the aritlce ato make he rlook bad. I dont. They revert it to a version that omits data and slants the given text to her favour. THe peopel doign this are form ehr mailign list. Acharya S herslef was banned as she made several personal attakc son Wikipedia in the artilc eitsslef then had her minions come to alter it to read in her faour.

The edit war is absiclaly between those who wan tto promote her ideas nd desotry all opposition, and regular wikipidians who want a netural aritlce. Most have dropped pu fo the fight wiht them, but I remaon, currnetly alone.

Read their version, then read mine. Read also the talk page.

ZAROVE 15:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: My user page (reply)

What the heck is your problem? I created a link to something that is a STUB for someone else to come in and contribute to (isn't that the idea?). I very well plan to populate those pages in the near future - with info and maps. You want me to put in a sentence or two, I will. But those are STUBS that we add onto. Rarelibra 16:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that you are the one who is not being civil. "Please stop" - what is that? You don't ask me or find out first. Don't you "assume good faith"? I am going back to put in a sentence or two. And I am creating it since it is missing (and I have the info to populate it) Rarelibra 16:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking you why you were doing it! I was also politely asking you to stop making pages that clearly violate CSD A3. --Rory0 96 18:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under that same definition CSD A3 it reads "Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion." and stubs are defined as "an article so incomplete that an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial Internet search or a few minutes in a reference library." I was merely creating the stubs so that I could go back in sometime today and start filling in the information, including maps.

I think you were jumping to conclusions too quickly IMHO. But then again, it isn't as if we haven't had discussion before. Rarelibra 19:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Secretaries and Other Boise Bands

The importance of this group and other groups in Boise will show their own significance in time as Boise becomes a more prominate city for art and music in the Lesser North West. Documenting this now will only further allow this seemingly small scene to reconnect to the larger world of American music.

--Thegooddocter 17:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In time" is the key phrase there. They're not notable now, so they shouldn't have articles. Make it when they become notable. --Rory0 96 18:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing my talk archive

Hey, *many* thanks for fixing my botched attempt to archive my talk page. I feel like a complete fool now. Anyway, thanks for fixing it and being diplomatic enough not to point out what a klutz I am :-) Best, Gwernol 00:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it happens all the time. (Look at the deletion log for Archive 1) I actually messed up myself and moved it into your userpage/archive 1, luckily there were some admins online in #vandalism-en-wp :o --Rory0 96 00:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user.nlu

"Looking at your contribs, all you were doing was pushing your POV. Wikipedia is a complete success if we judge by how well we reverted your edits, since all you were doing was violating the WP:NPOV policy, unless a neutral point of view doesn't exist in your ideal wiki encyclopaedia."

I totally agree with this. Nlu constantly violate NPOV, make personal attackz and false interpretation, treat others with hostility, edit others userpage. maybe we should file an arbitration against him. anyway hit me bak on my talk page.--Freestyle.king 06:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to Nlu there, I think he's a good editor. --Rory0 96 04:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Freestyle was being facetious; if not, this is a pretty funny discussion. Joe 04:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My (HereToHelp’s) RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I’m proud to inform you that it passed with 75 support to 1 oppose to 2 neutral. I promise to make some great edits in the future (with edit summaries!) and use these powers to do all that I can to help. After all, that’s what I’m here for! (You didn’t think I could send a thank you note without a bad joke, could I?) --Here T oHelp 13:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EXelement

You recently put a "speedy deletion" tag on EXelement. Because there were objections to that when I tagged it for speedy deletion the first time, the article has been queued for an AfD vote. Do you really want to force speedy deletion at this point? I'd be inclined to let the page be voted off the island in the official way. Or is policy that when someone deletes a deletion tag, they're toast. Thanks. --John Nagle 17:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only admins can object to speedy deletion and force an AfD (and only if they think it doesn't mean WP:CSD). Just because it's been recreated doesn't mean it should be brought to AfD this time, that just clogs up the system. In the future, it should be tagged with {{db-repost}} or just the tag it was had the first time around. --Rory0 96 00:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on DYK

Just a heads-up to let you know that I have replied here. --Gurubrahma 18:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your vote of confidence in my recent request for bureaucratship. Even though it didn't pass, I greatly appreciate your support and hope I will continue to have your respect. Thank you! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ilir pz

Could you please watch this user's talk page? He has removed a warning once and I warned him for it, but I don't have enough time to watch this user's talk page constantly.

Regards. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the warnings from this user are biased. They are false accusations, just because we completely disagree on an issue, thus are irrelevant. Rory096, would appreciate any comments on that. Thanks.Ilir pz 10:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA of ProhibitOnions

Someone just modified one of your comments, I'm not sure if was vandalism or you making an edit while not signed in. JoshuaZ 18:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, that was me. I hate this computer, doesn't keep cookies :-/ --Rory0 96 19:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawkerbot2

Thanks! I appreciate your effort to tell me where I got the message from. Cheers! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hello Rory096/Archive3: Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 77/3/0. I hope I can perform at the standards expected for administrators. If I make any mistakes, or you need anything, please let me know. Prodego ^talk 01:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA/Mdd4696

Hi Rory096. I noticed that an anonymous editor left a support vote on my RfA, so I looked around and I came to the conclusion that it may have been you. If it was, would you mind leaving a little note next to the vote to validate it? Anonymous editors cannot vote on requests for adminship--if it wasn't you, I'd like to move the vote to the comments section. Thanks! ~MDD 46 96 01:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Wellwoodismyhero

You welcome at User talk:Wellwoodismyhero accidentally included the {{helpme}} as a template - can you find out why?--Commander Keane 02:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears, as I wrote to CK here, that the "code" "/code" syntax was inadvertently removed by an editor using AWB for cleanup, resulting in the display of otherwise suppressed templates. Joe 02:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep thanks to Joe we have found the problem. Sorry for the disturbance.--Commander Keane 02:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hi Rory096. Just a quick note to thank you for your support in my RfA, which recently passed 62/13/6. I will do my very best live up to this new responsibility and to serve the community, but please let me know if I make any mistakes or if you have any feedback at all on my actions. Finally, if there is anything that I can assist you with - please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers TigerShark 03:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this RFA, I replied to your comment on Master_Jay's talk page. --light darkness^(talk) 04:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added more on David Humphrey

Fixed the David Humphrey article could you check over and see if it still needs to be wikified? I would really appreciate it. --ShadowSL 04:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frodo (chimpanzee)

I have changed the article Frodo (chimpanzee) into a redirect to Jane Goodall, if you do not agree with that decison, please let me know. Prodego ^talk 20:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Ilir pz

... keeps deleting the warnings. Please, you ought to interviene, as I saw that it's considered vandalism like you said on User:Croatian_historian's case. Please prevent further removal of warnings, administrator.

Thank you. --HolyRomanEmperor 23:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I commented (I knew there was something in my talk I had forgotten to respond to, but I didn't have time to really look in the past few days). BTW, I'm not an admin. --Rory0 96 04:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

transwiki

hi rory, i added some more to face time in hopes that it can be noteable, was looking all over for history of term but to no avail.Spencerk 05:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Woman

You are missing the point of the article. It is to discuss the status and history of Chinese woman so please stop deleting or directing it to wrong places. For more information on what I mean check this article out: Persian Woman. And don't bother to delete such a already well done page. Zachorious 05:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I wouldn't disagree with that article being deleted either. At the very least, it needs to be renamed. I suggest expanding Chinese culture with that content, rather than having a whole new article. --Rory0 96 05:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]