User talk:Robchurch/March 2006

Your userpage
Forgive me for stating the obvious, but did you mean to blank your userpage? I realise you blanked this one to archive February's talk, but userpage as well? -- 217.35.96.167 23:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was intentional. Thanks for asking. Rob Church (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA
Your votes on WP:RfA seem random. Can you explain why you did this? Thumbelina 18:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

RFA votes
It could be beneficial to other users to provide a rationale for your vote. Keep this in mind while voting. ;) M o e   ε  21:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just about to suggest this myself. In situations like Vary's, where you are the only oppose among lots of supporters, it makes me wonder if you've seen something in the user that everyone else has missed. Raven4x4x 06:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The same goes for being the lone neutral with no comment. If your neutral means you don't know the candidate, you're not swayed either way, and you have no opinion on the matter, why vote at all? It's not compulsory. If, on the other hand, you've spotted something others have missed it would be a help to all if you spoke up with a reason. Cheers! --kingboyk 21:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Return?
I'm not sure whether to welcome you back or have you arrested for insanity. I'll go for the former, for now, although I might not be around much longer. What was the spark? Rob Church (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I suggest the latter. Well, I returned because frankly I couldn't stand seeing the medcab in its present state, secondly because I've recovered somewhat from my more bitter state of mind, and thirdly because of some very well placed words from a Wikipedian whom I greatly trust. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

RFA Vote Idea
Just thought I'd throw this your way, when voting on RFA's to stop people form bugging you for a reason just quote your Robchurch/Admin page and that should be enough! Mike (T C) 05:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

My block log
Aye, Rob. Admin R. Koot told me maybe you can give a hand with an issue.

A couple of months ago (Jan 18) I was blocked by administrator Nv8200p. Fortunatelly I asked for administrator Bratsche's help and he managed to prove I had been unfairly blocked -- as you can check on Nv8200p talk page/Revision as of 04:26, 18 January 2006/Blocking of Lesfer.

The day before yesterday, however, I was taking a look at my block log and the block record is still there. Plus: the record makes it look as if I had been blocked and forgiven, which wasn't the case. I would like to ask you to erase that record. Regards, Lesfer (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Here's a userbox for you. -- Cyde   Weys  04:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

VP question follow-up: mystery class
I haven't been able to find it with a quick grep through the skin directories in CVS. Where did you see this class referenced? Rob Church (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The class is used on the Main Page, and the Main Page redesign draft. I'm beginning to think they are code remnants referring to a class that no longer exists.  --Go for it! 05:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your comment on my RfA! Deckiller 05:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to subsection
Do you know if there is a reason a redirect to a subsection in an article will only redirect to the top of the article? (I.e.  as a link will get to this subsection, but as a redirect will get to the top of this page.)  I guess I'm wondering if this is something to ask about getting fixed, or if there is a reason it works the way it does. Thanks, – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 20:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My Rfa
Thanks for participating in my RfA, and I'm sorry you didn't feel I met your support criteria. It passed with a final tally of 62/0/1. I'm touched by all the kind comments it attracted, and hope I'll be of some use with the new tools. You know where I am if you need to shout at me. Flowerparty ■ 17:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Any news?
Any news on my request? Lesfer (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I can state with some conviction that the block log won't be altered for that. I apologise for the inconvenience this might cause. Rob Church 03:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, thank you for your time anyway. Lesfer (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for voting in my recent RfA. I realize that voters aren't required to explain their opinions, but I appreciate your taking the time to do so anyway. If you see any cause for concern in my behavior as an admin, please do let me know. Thanks. -- Vary | Talk 18:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Thank you for your recent vote on my RFA. While the nomination failed, I was rather expecting it due to the big lapse between registration and recent edits. I appreciate the comments you left when you voted, and I will definitely keep them in mind. If you have any other suggestions as to how I could improve as a Wikipedian, so as to hopefully succeed next time, please let me know! Thanks! &mdash;akghetto talk 07:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA Question
Rob, can you please respond to my comments at Requests for adminship/Adrian Buehlmann? Thanks. -- M @  th  wiz  20  20  20:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Stephen Dare
Err... the AfD breaks Wikipedia policy: it stealthily nomniates three articles for AfD without the required notification on the AfD'd pages. I feel drawing attention to blatant violation of Wikipedia policy (stealthy deletion of pages without proper notification) is extremely appropriate. Oh, I used an attempt at humor to draw attention to the violation, is that your objection? Weregerbil 21:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's policies aren't a suicide pact and that attitude is atrocious. Rob Church 21:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not a native English speaker and I am not sure I follow what you mean with "suicide pact". I try to speak to the point: I think Wikipedia policy says when one nominates a page for deletion the page in question must be notified about the pending possible deletion. Is this not true? If it is not please accept my sincerest apologies; I truthfully was under the impression articles under the threat of deletion should notified of the fact in advance. Weregerbil 21:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's ok. My point was, that rules don't immediately equal must-do's around here. And yes, the pages ought to have been tagged, but you could just as easily have copied and pasted the notice in yourself instead of kicking up a minor fuss. No harm done, I think. Rob Church 22:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Thanks for your help with those images. You are a copyright law whiz. -- Andy123  (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not. Rob Church 15:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

bot status
Hi, I contact you because you seem to be in the bot approval business. I like to have your advise. Please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Archive_13 User meta:User:Rschen7754 is requesting the bot-bit for that bot. According him that talk page on archive 13 is a permission of EN Wikipedia to grant that bot bot-status. Do you think that is fine or must he put a new request on Bots/Requests for approvals? Greetings, --Walter 23:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC) (steward) reponds here is fine


 * That was approval for a one-week trial run without a flag. I don't know what objections have been raised since. I'm also not an admin on this wiki at present, but I would guess if no-one's raised any, then it would be okay. Having the user re-list a request for permission might be safer, of course. Rob Church 12:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Oscarthecat signature
''Your signature occupies a number of lines of wiki markup and could be confusing on large discussion pages or where a user is using a custom skin or is otherwise unable to decipher it. Please consider reducing the use of XHTML tags. Thank you. Rob Church 21:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)''


 * Fair comment. A few people have commented on this, so I've now greatly simplified it. Oscarthecat[[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|]] 07:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Rob Church 10:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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. Pepsidrinka 04:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Advice
Since you busted my rfa on commons as well as the endless IRC trolling, I do not value your comments. So I do not want to hear them. -- Cool CatTalk 17:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

My bot
the reason it was blocked was i forgot that i need to get approval. I Lov  E Plankton 02:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. It has already been unblocked by user:Celestianpower

A problem that needs a Toolserver developer&mdash;can you help please?
RobiH has been very active in improving the Wikimedia project lists on Meta, but he's now gone a bit far and changed the pages to redirect to pages on his own site that show adverts. (For an example see List of Wikibooks.) Before this blows up into a huge kerfuffle, can we possibly migrate this stuff onto the Wikimedia Toolserver? The work that he's done is great, but the idea of making money from traffic redirected from wikimedia is dodgy to say the least. Can you help sort this out, please? GeorgeStepanek\talk 08:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't handle accounts, that's Dab's job. See Toolserver for information on obtaining an account. A script to generate a list of projects would not be difficult to write, and a bot could be run on the toolserver every so often which would update the Meta pages. Rob Church 16:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that info. The script has already been written, and has been available for manual copying onto the meta pages for a few weeks now. It looks great. What RobiH has created now is a step beyond that, and it would be even easier to move his sortable HTML tables onto the toolserver. It would just take access. And willingness. I've mentioned to him my concerns about the adverts, but it looks like he's decided not to act until there's a wider response (if there ever is one). It's his choice, and I'm not going to get hardline about it; I'm just a bit worried that the neat stuff he's created will get lost in the backlash. GeorgeStepanek\talk 09:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)