User talk:Rory096/Archiveφ

Other Projects: wikt, meta, commons, news

Number of times this page has been vandalized: 5

Hrm
You may want to avoid doing stuff like this, or you'll get a bad name. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 04:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, this to, should I get out my trusty ? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 04:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a might be in order here. --Rory096 04:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Odd edit
Uhh... not sure what happened here. You seem to be running a bot, but things went a little haywire there. -- Gogo Dodo 04:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, my bot seems to be out of control and I cant stop it. Help! --Rory096 04:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm just kidding, btw, it's an IRC joke. --Rory096 04:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And I wasn't running a bot, not sure where you got that from. --Rory096 04:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope nobody (including Gogo Dodo) holds this against Rory096, ever. Otherwise I'll feel bad too. He's a great Wikipedian. The whole incident was just an IRC joke gone horribly wrong! -- Jasabella 10:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
You were blocked for vandalism to people's userpages, I think.... actually, Teke provided the reason "Shhhh" in the block log, so I have no idea, do you? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 04:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a case of rouge adminning. I suggest makeup remover. --Rory096 04:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was thinking something more like this. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 04:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 11th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

David Blaine Article
yeah you reversed my edits on the david blaine page. you realise you basically have a press release on here for david blaine. i was just removing self-promotional "fluff" from the page. Nick    12 September 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.164.195.56 (talk • contribs).
 * Sorry, I thought it was vandalism, as I didn't look very closely. I have reverted my edit. --Rory096 14:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * cheers matey!   Nick 12 September 2006

Michael Milenski
While the article Michael Milenski does appear to be written by its subject, it clearly asserts the importance of the subject and is thus not subject to speedy deletion under CSD A7. See WP:SPEEDY for the criteria for speedy deletion. Geoffrey Spear 14:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, it's about a director of a seemingly non notable opera (we don't have an article on it, under 1000 ghits) that is full of weasel words that seem to imply notability, but don't directly assert it. It's borderline. --Rory096 14:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Page move
Yes, I agree, that was a typo as I was trying to move it to gas operation but did not know about the discussion on the talk page. Sorry about that. Paliku 16:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning
The so called vandalism you have posted on my disscusion page is bogus. It happened during an editing mistake (you actually reverted it while i was trying to correct it). Now that you know, will you please remove your bogus warning? 150.208.140.13 16:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've struck it. --Rory096 16:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks man150.208.140.13 19:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhhhh
Do I ever get an apology from you? Juppiter 21:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

?
Not sure what that's all about, but everything posted can be verified by 1, researching the Sapulpa Daily Herald and 2, interviewing the parties involved! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.149.42.237 (talk • contribs).
 * I'm not sure what you're talking about, but if half the things can only be verified by interviewing the parties, then it's OR and violates WP:V. --Rory096 04:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Thank you, Rory, for voting on my RFA, which succeeded 95 to 1. I remember the night I was nominated, and how you had a bit much to drink that night. Only made sense that your support vote had "will expand when sober." Anyways, now that I'm an admin, I hope I can live up to the standards of being an admin. Thank you for the support! —   08:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:RfA
Regarding your request on my talk page, perhaps you could first change the RfA template, and then I could fix my bot. The bot should not mind the updated headings, it will only result in the mathbot's line going to the bottom. Doing things in this order will make it easier to update the code of the bot. You can reply here if you have comments, I will keep your talk page on my watchlist. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 18th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Highway drama
I may need some backup at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (U.S. state highways) if Jonathunder decides to revert. Thanks. --SPUI (T - C) 18:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 25th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Miighan-Kurt guy
Rory is grrreat :)) Thanks for your kindness Rory, Sorry if I wasn't supposed to write anything here, just want to say thanks and that you are great :)) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Muhammed Sonny Mercan (talk • contribs).

SRNC being used as a model for other polls
--SPUI (T - C) 12:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 2nd.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Tawker RfA
Must have taken you ages to edit the RfA like that - unfortunately it doesn't seem to have worked - check out WP:BN it's not parsing. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I don't know how the bot's code actually works, but I tried something else and it seems to be working now, at least in the actual toolserver page parse. --Rory096 17:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My Bot
Please note that that oldmfd was on WP:SUBST when I started making the subsution run with my bot, during the run however Centrx notified me that it should not be subsuted and I then stopped my bot revoved that Item from the subst list and Centrx removed it from WP:SUBST Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 14:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 9th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 16th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 23rd.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Bot editing userpage
I fixed it now, but you should be aware of this stupid edit by your bot... --Wolf530 18:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That wasn't a stupid edit. Before it was deleted, wikifying redirected to Glossary, and the bot correctly bypassed the redirect to point the link directly there. --Rory096 18:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's news to me. Last time I checked, wikifying went to the old equivalent of WikiProject_Wikify. --Wolf530 18:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The deletion log entry (08:16, June 9, 2006 Bookofjude (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikifying" (cross namesapce redirect, content was: '#redirect Wikipedia:Glossary')) says otherwise. --Rory096 18:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. Not a big deal anyway... Thanks for bringing the change to my attention. --Wolf530 18:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Halloween 4 edit
Can you please explain the edit you made that removed cited information on the Halloween 4 article here? -- SOADLuver 02:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just as the summary said, the portions of text I removed were copyright violations. --Rory096 02:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't.The text from that website got it's information off of wikipedia.If you look it copies almost exactly every word from Wikipedia's Halloween 4 article.If you don't believe me then please look around the web.Since wikipedia is open to copyright many sites take info exactly and put it on their site.I noticed this my self not to long ago. SOADLuver 02:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you,and yes I agree with you it should be removed.I may someday get back to work on improving that article someday.It seems I quit and never got back on to it.cheers, SOADLuver 02:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait just wondering if you would object if I put most of that info you deleted in a new and better written Reation section?I mean I know they were mentioned in the infobox but if I redo them better it can work.Example-the Halloween 3 article SOADLuver 03:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, just delete the earlier text if you do. --Rory096 16:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 30th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 6th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael Crook deletion
Not trying to beat a dead horse, but this notable character is now being sued by the EFF for sending out fake DMCA notices to other websites that had a screen capture of his FOX NEWS interview... He also ran a project where he was luring men off Craigslist while posing as a girl, only to get their contact information and post it on the web, contact employers, and spouses... now is a real good time to Google this meathead and get information on him, as it is readily available and verifiable.

I am sure it would be a target of heavy vandalism, as he has few friends out there, but it seems to me that it should be a risk wiki should take as he now has more news articles and information available than ever.

Signpost updated for November 13th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Great job
Great job with the replacing page vandals. beating me to those reverts every time. I will stick to the more obscure vandalism. When the vandalism slows down, ill try and remeber to get ya another barnstar,. kepe up the great work. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I just realized the most ridiculous thing... This isnt organized vandalism- every time someone blanks an entire page and puts some text in without an edit summary, MediaWiki is automatically appending that edit summary. Check out the history of User talk:Rory096. I logged out, blanked it, and it used that edit summary. --Rory096 16:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying. Is that new?  I have never seen that before.  I thought it was strange that the vandals were announcing there intentions.  It does help make stupid vandals easier to identify.  Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's brand new, which is why it caught everyone off guard and made a lot of people think it was a vandalbot. You'd think the devs could give us some warning... --Rory096 16:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is some vandal backlog. Where are all the admins?  I do kind of like the new way of doing it.  It sets the blatant vandalism out for quick and easy reversion.  Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey buddy
I noticed that an image I have on my watchlist was tagged as orphaned by you. I've gone ahead and removed the tag, providing this rationale. If there are any further issues with this image, please let me know. Thank you. —Lantoka ( talk 02:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine for now, but beware that it might be tagged again by someone else. The best thing to do would be to allow it to be deleted (or tag it with  yourself, then when the article it would be used in is ready to be moved into the mainspace, then re-upload the image, so Wikipedia doesn't keep an unused copyrighted images on the servers for all the time in between. You don't have to, but it would probably save a few people, including you, some trouble. --Rory096 02:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks
I just noticed your edit on my rfa draft - thanks, I'd never have noticed that :P ST47 Talk 21:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 20th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing importance tags without doing anything useful
I'm talking about edits like this. The compound may be notable, but the article doesn't say a single interesting thing about it. If you really did do some research to decide whether it's worthy of an article, you should be able to add at least one sentence describing why it deserves an article. If not, don't just remove the importance tag, because it's useful for people looking for articles to work on. I'll try to find something interesting to add to these articles, but for any I can't get to right now I'm afraid I'll have to revert you. —Keenan Pepper 06:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about these chemicals, I don't have any information that I could add to these articles. However, I do know about AfD, and scientific topics with thousands of Google hits would not get deleted, and so these articles do not belong in a category created for "topics of unclear importance." If you want to look for articles to work on, use Category:Articles to be expanded, not a category for questioning the notability of articles. Saying I'm not doing anything useful when I'm working to clear a massive backlog at CAT:NN is quite insulting. --Rory096 07:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The first sentence at Category:Articles to be expanded says "This category is for articles that are beyond a stub...". Antimony tribromide (before I just added something) was even less than a stub, because it didn't give any ideas how to expand it. If the importance isn't clear, it's unclear, and it belongs in the "unclear importance" category. Sorry if I offended, but I can't see why a Wikipedia reader would prefer a useless article to the same useless article with a message saying "sorry this is useless". It just doesn't seem to make much difference. —Keenan Pepper 07:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles to be expanded only says that it's for things beyond a stub because stub tags themselves are supposed to be tags to signify that an article needs to be expanded, but we both know that that's not true, so the articles to be expanded cat is used anyway. The importance was clear, which was why I removed it, it just wasnt clear from the article (because I wasn't about to add the amount of Google hits to the article), which is different, and isn't something that requires it be in a category along with things tagged with and its relatives. Yes, it barely makes a difference if there's an importance tag or not, but that's exactly the point. People will probably be just as likely to expand it without the tag than with it than without (of course, that chance is very low anyway), the tag tells readers of the article very little, and so there's no point to having these articles cluttering up CAT:NN when I'm trying to find the articles that really aren't important and should be deleted. --Rory096 07:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I am putting all the importance tags back: the tag says "This article lacks information on the importance of the subject matter." and that is exactly why the tag is there. I will fight AfD's on these compounds as well, the article should be there, but it does not tell, yet, why it should be there.  If you want to remove a large number of articles from CAT:NN, add data to the articles.  Deletion does not make the database smaller, so maybe going through CAT:NN is NOT the way to find articles to delete.  Cheers!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you would like to get the CAT:NN smaller, I'd consider you split the category into smaller chunks, which are handleable by people who do know something about the subject (e.g a scientific-importance for articles with a scientific input, but no notability on them, yet). I think that would be a better solution than deleting importance tags on subjects you don't know anything about, or only based on a Google hit count.  Cheers.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The way to reduce maintenance backlogs is not to split it up into smaller categories and to say that if there aren't enough pages in each category to be a backlog, then the entire thing isn't a backlog. The backlogs should actually be processed. While yes, that particular tag does say something misleading, the purpose of the category, and all of the other templates that put things into the category (such as ) are to question the actual notability of an article. Perhaps, in theory, splitting from the category would be a good thing to do, but in practice, people almost always use it in the same way as  is used, not in the way that it's meant to be used according to the text of the template, so it wouldn't do much good.  --Rory096 03:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is in a way, because e.g. chemists are more likely to go through a small list of articles which require chemical attention, then through a huge list of articles requiring attention (I think music already choose this solution). It may be that the text produced by the importance tag is wrong, the tag is used wrongly, or that those articles are put into the wrong category by the tag (I think it is the last), and that should be fixed, but removing the tag does certainly not decrease the number of articles that lack importance (and it may simply result in the above solution, people writing their own tags and using those instead).  The problem seems to be the difference between importance and notability (which I would guess to be the group of articles that are on the edge of an AfD).  If the backlog on CAT:NN is so big, a solution has to be found.  Hope this helps.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A possibility is to split them up by month. In that way articles that have had a long backlog may get solved earlier (if the master category is sorted by date), or articles with a very old importance or notability tag might be up for deletion, since no one looked at them (I had a chat with User:Alai about this).  Maybe worth a thought.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop deleting youtube links
I took the freedom to revert your tool-assisted mass removal of youtube links. The edit summary was Rm links to "Sites which fail to provide licensing information" for video clips per WP:EL using AWB. This statement is obviously wrong, there is no such guideline on the WP:EL page and the discussion on wikipedia_talk:external links is clearly against removing the links. Therefore I consider your action vandalism and I will report this incident of AWP misuse so that your AWB permission will be removed. If you continue these deletions I will be happy to block you. Cacycle 01:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, there used to be just such a guideline, and it was only removed several days afterwards. I see no consensus at WT:EL that came to the conclusion that linking to copyrighted content was good, and I did not just remove all YouTube links I came across- I individually reviewed each one to see if it was a valid link, and removed those that werent. In addition, I didn't even use AWB. Please actually investigate situations fully before throwing around mass-reverts and threats of blocking. --Rory096 02:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize, see the discussion on my talk page. Cacycle 05:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Urf, IRC?
Can you connect to freenode right now? I keep getting either "connection refused" or "connection time out". Vic226 06:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No. According to people in #freenode on EFNet, everybody just got dropped. --Rory096 06:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 27th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 01:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

CIV ≠ PA
Incivility ≠ Personal attacks. Also, your placement of your "warning" on the RFA itself comes right below the user's support vote which does not contain any such sentence. – Chacor 15:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * They're related. I could use instead, but he was specifically attacking Cyde, not just being generally incivil. And, to the contrary, it does say that: #Strong Support. Sorry to use the over-used clichè, but I thought he already was one. ;)  &mdash;  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 05:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC) --Rory096 15:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I apologise for not checking the edit box. Still, it wasn't really a personal attack as much as a minor jibe at Cyde. It's not like people haven't done so before. Not really worth npa2, but meh. – Chacor 15:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep an eye on me(if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't edit MY PAGE
Excuse me? You didn't even leave a message about WHY you edited my user page. DO NOT edit my page again. If you want me to change something, INFORM ME of the problem and I will change it. Otherwise, if you don't have time to be polite, don't bother editing it at all. &mdash; Chris53516 (Talk) 02:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You didn't even leave the correct link in the damn summary box. What the hell?? &mdash; Chris53516 (Talk) 02:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Weird stuff
Why was my change under DVD-Video's sound capability of 'up to 6.1' reverted to 5.1? This is minor, but I thought Wikipedia's purpose was to provide accurate information.--206.75.130.209 21:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry about that. I wasn't sure if it aws actually true (and if 6.1 actually existed; it seemed odd to me that it would go up a version but still be .1) and a quick glance at surround sound made me think that it was only up to 5.1, but it appears I'm wrong. I've changed it back to your edit. In the future, can you please use an edit summary to help people know that you're adding legitimate information? --Rory096 21:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Will do, I will be tidier next time. Thanks. There is 7.1 and up too, but not on DVD. The .1 is independent of the x in x.1. Normal people don`t usually know or care about these things, just geeks.

Special:BrokenRedirects having problems again
The problem is happening again. Whenever a page that has a broken redirect is deleted, the link is no longer crossed out. Instead, now it is trying to say that Xolile Yawa is the bad redirect. Could you submit another report to get this issue fixed? --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 15:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Flooding bugzilla with bug reports isn't the way to get it fixed, it'll just annoy the devs. I've whined in the #wikimedia-tech channel on IRC, but we're just going to have to deal with it until it gets fixed. --Rory096 02:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know the status of the problem. I wanted to make sure you knew since it sees that you have easy access to contacting them about the problems. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 20:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have any better access to contacting them than anybody else; anybody can use Bugzilla. --Rory096 20:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 11th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 18th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Is a message from me personally any better? Or are you still an unloved, lonely, worthless Wikipedian like I am?  Ral315 (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Template Vandalism
Hinging off your comment on Talk:Main Page... all the templates in the article were protected in advance. However, someone added a new template to the article (now removed), thereby introducing an additional template that could be used for the subtle image vandalism. --  tariq abjotu  03:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That explains why they were all mprotected2ed except that one. Anyway, template:pokemon has now been removed from the article entirely. --Rory096 03:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)