User talk:Rory096/Archive15

Other Projects: wikt, meta, commons, news

Number of times this page has been vandalized: 1

re: your recent comment on DRV
I'm sorry to sound like a broken record but I really am confused. What rule are you talking about? Where has it been decided that cross-namespace redirects are inherently bad? I've checked every place that I know to look and I am not finding any such conclusion. I see a clear rule that you should not have redirects or even links pointing from the articlespace to the userspace. (I completely agree with that rule, by the way.) I also found a few proposals that they should be prohibited generally but none of those discussions reached a clear consensus. They just petered out without setting a standard that would apply to the whole project. Where and how did you come to the conclusion that cross-namespace redirects are to be eliminated? What discussion am I missing? Rossami (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The "rule" isn't an actual policy (though it is a guideline, see WP:ASR), it's just what everyone citing IAR is referring to. --Rory096 05:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The first full paragraph of that page opens "Such self-references are entirely acceptable on talk pages or in the Wikipedia namespace".  To the best of my knowledge and based on the analysis done by others so far, be bold has been used in the articlespace exactly once - in the article about the Ukranian Wikipedia if I remember correctly.  Every other use has been on Talk pages or user pages.
 * In the section titled Examples of self-references, the second sentence reads "They should at least be acknowledged or marked as self-references but not necessarily be deleted as they serve their purpose here on Wikipedia." The second bullet in the example list immediately following that comment reads "Any article in the article namespace that redirects to one in the Wikipedia namespace".
 * Arguing that the mere existence of the redirect constitutes an impermissible self-reference seems inconsistent with the plain language of this page. The Talk page adds a bit more color and nuance but still doesn't seem to lead to an absolute prohibition or even a strong rule.  Instead, I see a precedent that the old, heavily used were generally left alone.  What am I missing here?
 * By the way, thanks for pointing me to the page and explaining your reasoning. I've asked a number of people where and how they came to this conclusion.  You are the first to take the time to reply.  Rossami (talk) 05:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, it's a guideline, not a policy. RfD then decided that in this circumstance, a redirect to boldness (which has a dablink) was better than having a cross-namespace redirect. ASR also says that they should be marked.  Since you can't mark a redirect, you'd have to make it soft, but that's useless because of the dablink on boldness&mdash; if you were looking for WP:BOLD, you'd get there in the same amount of clicks as a soft redirect, and if you were looking for boldness, you wouldn't be sent to some weird place.  --Rory096 05:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your follow-up. To be technically correct, you can mark a redirect.  The R unprintworthy tag which was on this old version was an example.  Other tags could be added disclosing that the page is a redirect or self-reference.  Thanks again.  Rossami (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but it's not like anyone sees that unless they're in the print version, nobody searching for it would see that they're leaving the encyclopaedia. The only way would be to make it a soft redirect, which is useless, as I said above. --Rory096 13:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. I thought my Wikipedia addiction was serious.  Don't you sleep?  I think you're misinterpreting the guidance on tagging.  That particular example is actually one which suppresses it in the print version.  The tag is only visible online.  It's not visible to a casual reader but neither is a piped link.  I don't think it's true that a soft-redirect is the only way to comply.  Rossami (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I slept from 5:30 to 9:30 EDT. It would have been longer, but there had just been a wave of ceiling cat vandalism, and I thought there was going to be another.  Yes, it won't be in the print versions, but a piped link is visible by hovering, and you're still in the encyclopaedia anyway.  People come to read about encyclopaedic topics- the community works for that goal, but should be kept seperate from the encyclopaedia. With a hard redirect to projectspace, the user doesn't even get a warning that he's leaving the encyclopaedia, and so a category on the redirect he just went through, and he probably doesn't even know how to go to a redirect=no, that sends him to a strange page that isn't part of the encyclopaedia isn't enough.  He should at least get a warning, and so it needs to either be a soft redirect or a dablink at the target. --Rory096 14:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "Such self-references are entirely acceptable on talk pages or in the Wikipedia namespace" And be bold is in article space, not on talk pages or project namespace.  Game set and match.  It's a self-reference and needs to be dealt with appropriately.  -- Cyde↔Weys  13:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * replied on your talk page. we should not carry on disputes on someone else's page.  Rossami (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please keep discussion in one place. Rory doesn't mind.  I don't mind.  It doesn't make sense to fracture discussions all over.  -- Cyde↔Weys  14:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Stuff under redirs
How'd you sniff out those? 

P.S. Nominate yourself for sysop someday, and you'll become the weirdest admin ever to grace Wikipedia. Complete with a big red shutoff button. (If I were you I'd remove it. I ain't editing my ass off and I haven't got blocked yet.) :P

P.P.S. Just adding this section I get an 2 edit conflicts! Is this the most active user talk page on WP? Never mind, I will have my revenge by edit-conflicting your nominator 7 times in your next RfA! :) Kimchi.sg 07:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The redlinks in the text made it get flagged by Special:BrokenRedirects. Rob Church nommed me for adminship, once upon a time, then de-nommed me, and, well, it wasn't quite unanimous support.  Removing the button wouldn't make a difference- my last block wasn't even using the big red button.  The edit conflicts were just a recent flurry of activity in that section (and you should be using the + button to avoid edit conflicts); TB2's talk is much more active. --Rory096 07:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The + thing doesn't eliminate edit conflicts. Tried it when adding a comment to AN/I, still got conflicted (I type slowly. : Kimchi.sg 07:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weird, MediaWiki doesn't conflict if you're editing two different sections, so one would think the + would be the same. Maybe someone else was adding a new section too, or something. I'll annoy robchurch in the morning, if I remember. --Rory096

Tango's RfA
That was not intended to be a serious question :-\ Tintin (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * After that joke died so painfully, I'd lost faith that anyone on Wikipedia had any sense of humor anymore :o --Rory096 07:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio image tagging
Hi again Rory! Since you're the most approachable image tagger I know (actually, the only image tagger I know...), I'd like to ask:

Did I tag this image correctly, given that the source is as listed on the description page, and that the source will not allow usage without written permission? Is just typing " " a suitable parameter for or-cr? Lastly, is there any tag similar to nothanks that I'll need to notify the uploader with? Thanks in advance! Kimchi.sg 08:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I think that tag is more for permission images with fair use rationales, or something (I've actually never seen that particular one in use). It should probably go on PUI, but if it gets deleted that way, it's fine too (though I'm not sure that category is patrolled much). Yes,  is probably the only template to give him, but personalized messages aren't against the rules! Weird that Tdxiang would tag it like that, he's an experienced editor. --Rory096 08:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I decided to go the personalised route . He's been here a long time (probably before me), but he does less-than-brilliant things at times. For instance, better hope Tony Sidaway doesn't catch that signature of his (you can see it on my RfA). Kimchi.sg 09:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Admin?
Do you want to be an admin? Grand master  ka  21:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you mean you're going to get Jimbo to unilaterally +sysop me, then sure. If you want to nom me in an RfA, then no. --Rory096 22:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Why don't you self nom? You'd get my support right away. Ignoring your block record, of course. :P Kimchi.sg 22:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently you didn't see my last one. 3 of those blocks are real. None warranted a block, but they're real anyway. --Rory096 22:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for reverting vandalism to my userpage. Regards, DVD+ R/W 00:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem :) --Rory096 06:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverts
Before you go wholesale reverting people's changes you should actually read them - some deletions may be moved to another section. For instance, your reversions to the nuclear page are clearly uncalled for and rude. If Canada is listed as a nuclear weapons capable country, then so too should Australia. That entire page is biased - since when can you site Australia's nuclear position based on "green left weekly".

Suggest you grow up otherwise I'll complain of your vandalism. Its people on a high horse like you that make wikipedia such a marginal publication controlled by a bunch of socialists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.196.154 (talk • contribs).
 * All I saw was repeated removal of a section, and occasionally what appeared to be a self-revert. There were no edit summaries or anything to help me see that this way not actually vandalism. I have no opinion on what should be on that page, but I saw what appeared to be vandalism, so I reverted.  Please avoid making personal attacks. --Rory096 04:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

My third question
I understand your point. The intention of the question was because a number of people have Admin Criteria that they use to support and oppose other people. In the off-chance that these people themselves do not fit their own criteria, I personally would be inclined to oppose. I've only received one answer for this question so I can't really say whether there's any point. I'm just trying out these questions so every time I use them I've left an inline note in case someone finds there's something wrong with it. If they turn out to be useless I'll remove them. If you wish I remove this question immediately, please reply on my talk page and I will do so for future RFAs.  Noble eagle    (Talk)   06:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't need to remove it if you don't want to, it's just one of many questions contributing to the decline of RfA. --Rory096 06:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll let it stay for a while, perhaps the current few RFAs, if it seems like it's a useless question I'll remove it. Thanks for your opinion.  Noble eagle    (Talk)   06:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:RfA
Are you able to get the "User:" heading to link to the RFA page rather than the user's userpage? No-one's opposed that suggestion before, and it has been raised more than once (not just by me!) but I don't want to go messing around with a high profile template when I'm not 100% on the coding ;) Petros471 21:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it worked fine. See Special:Undelete/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TestRfA 2. --Rory096 21:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So why not just leave it in the 'real' template? Petros471 21:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Tango's tool might need to be changed, so I'll ask him first. --Rory096 21:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Petros471 21:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Tag on User:Super-Magician/Main
Thanks for that! No, I don't want to put my userpage up for deletion (lol)!! It sure looked like it... &mdash; Super-Magician (talk &bull; contribs &bull; count ) &#x2605; 22:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Admin Vote
You need to move your comment on the Admin vote to the Oppose section.--8bitJake 22:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What admin vote? --Rory096 23:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * He's referring to badlydrawnjeff, where you voted support but said he'd make a terrible admin. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

correct--8bitJake 23:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * . I put it in the support section, incremented the support counter, and put "s" as the edit summary. It was on purpose! --Rory096 23:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Changes to RfA
Hey Rory096, thanks for your message. I've updated the bot/tool (RfALib 1.09e) to handle the new format. However, can you just make sure that the two other bots that do RfA stuff - User:Dragons flight's bot and User:Mathbot - can also handle it before changing the template? Thanks, Tangot a ngo 05:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I told Dragons flight. I don't think it'll affect Mathbot, as I believe it just searches for ";Comments" to add its edit summary thing. --Rory096 05:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. :) - Tangot a ngo 06:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of tags on Image:Picture 030.jpg
I don't know how that happened. I didn't intend for it to be done. Roy A.A. 21:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed your prod on Sally Becker
I've explained why I did this on Talk:Sally Becker. Feel free to nominate it for AfD if you still feel it is deletionworthy. BigNate37 00:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 26th.
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.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for RoryBot
Hey, can you handle this? Thanks. -- Cyde↔Weys 15:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Original research. Thanks! -- Cyde↔Weys 19:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks so much for the support on my RfA, which has passed with a consensus of 67 support, 0 opposed and 0 neutral. Let me know at my talk page if I can help you with any admin-related tasks, or just tell me if you have any comments on how I'm doing as an admin any time. Thanks! TheProject 21:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Music Samples
Hi, I see you've responded to the straw poll at Wikipedia_talk:Music_samples. Since your vote, there has been some further discussion here, and I've suggested a slight amendment to the proposed guideline. I'd really appreciate your feedback on the subject. Thanks!-- Wine Guy  Talk  20:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 3rd.
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.

Signpost updated for July 10th
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.

Thank you
Thank you very much for making my time in Wikipedia super. I have decided to leave and I don't think I will be back. Thank you again for helping me and making my time in Wikipedia super. Best Regards, ForestH2  t/c 23:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD on Individual Counter-Strike maps
Just wanted to inform you of Articles_for_deletion/Individual_Counter-Strike_maps (July 17, 2006). I'm alerting everyone who had more than 2 edits in one of the previous AfDs. Kind regards, David Bergan 19:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 17th


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. Treebark ( talk ) 23:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The result of my RfA
The result of my RfA was successful by a margin of 54/6/1, despite your oppose vote. I want to thank you for participating in my RfA, even though you didn't support me. You brought up some valid points that should have been examined more closely by some editors, but I don't think the factors you brought up should have cost me adminship.

You mentioned that I had a "Low number of real projectspace edits." This was indeed true -- I was shocked to find out how many of my projectspace edits were junk edits of Hangman and other related garbage. However, in the past month, I have attempted to increase the amount of projectspace edits by closing AfDs, and help clear out AIAV.

However, I still don't understand the concept of why posting IRC logs is so bad. It was a misstep of mine to not read the topic of the IRC channel, I admit. And it was irresponsible of me to not do so. And cost me dearly, going from what looked like a potential unopposed RfA to one with 6 opposes.

I would appreciate an explanation of why posting IRC logs is such a bad thing, if you have the time, and if you feel like doing so.

You may also wonder why I am contacting you about a month after my RfA closed. There are a few reasons. First, I am hand-typing all of my responses to peoples' votes. I thought this would be an easy task, but it proved to be diffucult. Second, the FIFA World Cup coincided with the closure of my RfA, and distracted me enough to not respond to the people who voted in my RfA. Third, I also had some issues outside of Wikipedia that I needed to deal with. Last, I took my time so that those who opposed me could see what I have done with the admin tools since I got them. You can inspect my records for yourself: IanManka (talk • contribs • [ blocks ] • [ protects ] • [ deletions ] • [ moves ]).

So, once again, thank you for taking the time to vote in my RfA. If you see me doing something I shouldn't as an admin, please feel free to let me know. Ian Manka Talk to me! 09:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 24th


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. --Michael Snow 04:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 31st


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 03:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

State route naming conventions poll
As you've expressed interest in highway naming conventions, you may be interested in this dog and pony show. --SPUI (T - C) 01:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 7th


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 05:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 14th


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 06:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 21st


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 04:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects
Careful with that bot - it may change references to redirects, that should not be changed (see ). — sjorford++ 18:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, good point. I don't see a way around this, though, besides removing RfD from the list, which I already do (and manually reviewing every edit). --Rory096 19:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you do or don't review every edit? Because I've done a bit of CNR work using WP:AWB, and been reviewing every edit before I commit it, and there are quite a few pages outside of RFD where redirects are discussed. You're going to catch quite a few of those if you just let the bot run through, and that would be a Bad Thing. — sjorford++ 19:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never reviewed every edit. I review about 10 to make sure the regexes are working properly, then let the bot do the rest.  I've bypassed over 9,000 CNRs, which would have taken massive amounts of time if I reviewed each one.  --Rory096 20:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well...yeah, it does take time. But that's not a reason not to do it. — sjorford++ 20:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This doesn't just take a couple hours. I have about 20,000 edits in 8 months.  Doing just the redirects I've done would take several months of not doing anything else, not to mention the thousands that have yet to be bypassed.  In that amount of time, I could have annoyed joshbuddy enough to make him write a human-like robot that would check every page and still do it in record time.  It's just infeasible to manually check everything. --Rory096 20:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've made 1400 CNR edits in the last week, so it is possible (although come to think of it, I'm sure I should have been working at the time...) — sjorford++ 20:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no good way (without artificial intelligence) to determine if a redirect is being talked about on a meta-level rather than simply being used. Since there are thousands of such redirects it's infeasible (and a waste of time) to expect anyone to actually go about reviewing every one of them, so what Rory is doing is our best option. Also, once the XNR is deleted the link would've just turned red anyway. The way RoryBot is going it just modified the link target, not the link text, so it will still display as "Welcome, newcomer". And by the way Rory, I have another one for you to tackle: 3RR. Thanks. -- Cyde Weys 20:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3RR? I'm positive I've done that before. And, looking at the deletion log, it's been deleted 3 times already. --Rory096 20:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

QFT Internet Slang
You recently reverted a revision that says "QFT" stands for "Quoted for Truth" on the grounds that the resource was not reliable, suggesting that "QFT" only stands for "Quit Fucking Talking." After following up on the source cited for "QFT = Quit Fucking Talking," I fail to see how the source "Computer Hope" is any more reliable than the one given for "QFT = Quoted for Truth"

It bears mentioning that the disambiguation page for a Wikipedia search for "QFT" returns "Quoted for Truth" as opposed to "Quit Fucking Talking," but the redirected page (i.e. here) has no listing of "Quoted for Truth." Furthermore, a quick search on google using "QFT" returns far more entries of "Quoted for Truth" than "Quit Fucking Talking," in fact I have never heard it used in that context until I looked it up here.

Please don't revert changes that are legitimate and use a source just as reliable as any other "internet dictionary." If you need a "better" source, then go to www.dictionary.com and type in QFT. It immediately redirects you to its "Acronym Finder" and lo and behold, "Quoted for Truth" is in that list whereas "Quit Fucking Talking" is not. QED Haricotvert 19:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at "quit fucking talking," but "quoted for truth" has (among other things that used Acronym Finder as a source) been discussed on the talk page, and noslang (which is actually a mirror of Acronym Finder) has been deemed to not be reliable because it accepts submissions from users. If you disagree with that, say something on the article's talk page. Just because another page redirects to the list doesn't mean the definition needs to be there- articles can't use other articles as a source.  While I have heard of "quoted for truth" but not "quit fucking talking," that doesn't mean quoted for truth should be allowed to be on the list without a reliable source.  --Rory096 20:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My point was not that it should be allowed or justified because "I have heard of it, and it is common knowledge" or "The disambiguation page redirects there." I am aware of Wikipedia's citation guidelines as you say them above.  My argument was that the one "reliable source" ("Computer Hope") for "quit fucking talking," is not necessarily a complete source (and thus how reliable is it?).  In any case, it is confusing for a user who comes to wikipedia and types in "QFT" in the search box, and gets back something saying it means "quoted for truth," and then subsequently the page that it points to makes no mention whatsoever that it means that.  So clearly, there is a conflict between QFT's disambiguation page and the internet acronym page, which was what I was pointing out as a problem and not as a justification (interestingly, it does not list "quit fucking talking" as a redirect. how telling/ironic).
 * For the record, you yourself said in the talk page that acronymfinder.com should be considered a reliable source:
 * "Apparently someone at Acronym Finder independently verifies submissions before adding it to the site. Encarta does the same for its online thing, so since Encarta is considered a reliable source, I'd say this should be. --Rory096 08:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)"
 * Why do you suddenly consider it "unreliable" now? It's still in the "possibly reliable" category of the discussion page.  If you are going to consider only those resources in the list of "reliable sources," then you are working with a very short list indeed, many of which contain acronyms only directly related to live chat (as opposed to forums and messageboards).  No one seems to consider that "reliable sources" may in fact 1. not be updated regularly, 2. not have complete informaion, and 3. may not be reliable in the first place.  Sigh, whatever.  I'll take it to the discussion page.Haricotvert 21:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your bot and RfD
Please tell it not to bypass any redirects on RfD subpages, like here. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 05:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I forgot to do it on that run. --Rory096 05:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion is another page that needs to be checked by hand. Kusma (討論) 07:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

/yourself
I noticed your creation of /yourself, with a redirect to suicide. What's that all about? Are you ok? --Fang Aili talk 21:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm fine, it's an internet meme. I made it sort of as a joke, but there's no real point to it, so I db-authored it when I saw it on RfD. --Rory096 21:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. :) --Fang Aili talk 21:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

State route naming conventions poll/Part1
This is your last warning to stop the nonsense and vandalism to State route naming conventions poll/Part1. Discussions regarding your opinion fall under the State route naming conventions poll/Part1 heading per what you want a conesneus in. Votes fall under State route naming conventions poll/Part1 and per requirement, no additional comment shall be added.

Per consensus and requirement:


 * Add your name and YOUR NAME ONLY using the format #~ below the principle in which you endorse. You cannot vote more than once.
 * DO NOT change and/or otherwise edit votes that are not yours (except for those of confirmed abusive sockpuppets, to be nullified only by one of the six judging admins, and those who have not reached the 100-edit threshold, in which case anyone may strike out).
 * Do not discuss principles or otherwise leave comments here. Please discuss in the relevant sections above.

Also noted within the page when you add your vote:



Violation of these terms may disqualify your vote if you continue your charade per admin decision.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 21:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I agree that there should be nothing in the voting area except for signed votes. All the discussion should be up in the discussion area.  As you say, we are working to establish a consensus so people's comments remain...but they should remain according to the process set forth at the beginning of this.  Will you please move your comment to the discussion section? Syrthiss 22:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have removed it. It was repeated in the discussion section above the votes. Syrthiss 14:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, but I have removed your statement from when you struck your vote. You implied meatpuppeting by the "other side" - do you have any proof of that? Syrthiss 17:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I never said the other side. The entire process is run by meatpuppets, and the admins have to listen to what they say because the meatpuppets who run it decided that everything should be done by a vote, which the meatpuppets win because they're meatpuppets.  Did you notice it took under 4 and a half hours for them to decide that commenting in votes is bad?  They all just follow each other around spouting anti-discussion nonsense. --Rory096 17:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That rule was laid down right before voting began. We didn't wake up one morning and say "how can we be annoying today?" Besides, instead of petitioning properly, you just reverted YOUR comments on your vote, not all the rest of the comments that were deleted as per consensus (or in this case, supermajority), giving your side an unfair advantage. Why should we give you special treatment and why should you be able to disobey the rules while we can't? By the way, that vote against commenting was a direct result of your edit warring that reversed the removal of comments by an Admin. In an attempt to show that we all agreed with that admin's decision (that was proposed by TMF and agreed to by all those who commented), we were polled. Only after numerous reverts on your part did you actually protest on the talk page. I just ask that next time you come into a situation like this that you read the rules and discuss whatever you disagree with before taking matters into your own hands. That's how I see it. --TinMan 12:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Teke's RfA thanks
Thank you for your support of my RfA, which has passed with a final tally of 76/1/1. With this overwhelming show of support and approval I am honored to serve Wikipedia in the task charged to me and as outlined in my nomination. Happy editing to you! Teke ( talk ) 17:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 28th


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 06:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Nogus

 * John Reid 05:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Erm, what? Why are you telling me this? --Rory096 05:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Completing Version 0.5 reviews
Hi Rory, thanks for your help on Version 0.5. We've made it over 1000 articles! Now we only have about four weeks left to review articles for Version 0.5. I was wondering if you could take a look at Version_0.5/To_do and sign up for something? I'd like us to make sure we don't miss anything important. And once the end of the month rolls around we can take a well-deserved break...! Any help you can give would be most welcome. Thanks, Walkerma 21:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhh....
If you're going to accuse me of having socks please do so to my face.... just so you know, you've really offended me here. I will forgive, but not forget. Juppiter 02:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying the socks are necessarily yours, but since they're opposing per you and making the same arguments as you, it should be checked. It's just a precaution. For example, if in an RfA 20 brand new users come and support the candidate for no particular reason, they should be checked against the candidate, though it's most likely not the candidate who created them. --Rory096 03:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I guess there's no polite way of saying, "I think you have sockpuppets...." Thanks for trying, no hard feelings Juppiter 12:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

RFCU request
I moved Requests for checkuser/Case/Canckoi to the bottom of the WP:RFCU page in the Requests for IP check section, substituted it, and marked the subpage you created for deletion, as its now defunct. I hope its not an issue, and the checkusers will notice it better in the place it normally goes now. Kevin_b_er 05:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, that's fine. I still haven't really gotten used to the new RFCU; I'm accustomed to just adding a section and not having it be so damn complicated. --Rory096 05:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the requests for ip check is really new, and may need to be ironed out a little. Leave some suggestions if you have any on the RFCU talk page so ideas can be garnered for how to make it easier. Kevin_b_er 05:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I would have done it but it was already there. Ans e ll  05:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Drewgu111
I noticed you tagged and posted Image:Katie CouricCBSEN.jpg on WP:PUI. I have tried to remove it from the Katie Couric article and replace it with Commons:Katie Couric.jpg, but not surprisingly User:Drewgu111 keeps on reverting me. Now I am trying to find a specific policy or guideline saying that free images are always preferred to unfree, fair use images, or even ones merely posted on PUI, so I can show it to him. Do you know where they might be? Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, Image:KatieCouricCBSEveningNews.jpg has been posted instead. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Found it: WP:FUC item #1. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 5th.


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 06:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Change to Template:RfA
The bot/tool should be okay now. Let me know if something is amiss. Cheers, Tangot a ngo 16:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of sock puppetry on the Ben Best page
As someone who has edited the Ben Best page recently, you may have been aware of the allegations of sock puppetry. As this has continued for six weeks now, I have started the appropriate Wikipedia handling process. If you wish to make a contribution, please go to Suspected sock puppets/CRANdieter and add your views to the Comments section. Nunquam Dormio 13:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Crap
The RFA templete is in transition, right? It keep confusing me. I'm thinking that those stupid things are on the middle all of a sudden, so I completely forget about the ones on top. :P --172.192.248.69 23:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's reeeeeeeeeealy confusing. --172.192.248.69 00:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)