User talk:Rory096/Archive9

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: 1

---

AFD on Www.hayaser.net

Hello, you may be interested in an AFD on a page you prodded. The AFD proposal can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Www.hayaser.net. Copysan 10:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 22nd.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 21	22 May 2006	About the Signpost

Project statistics updated, except for Wikipedia	Deletion of metadata icons debated
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	News and Notes: Wikimedia chapters report, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

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.

Merci beaucoup!

Thank you, Rory096/Archive9! Thank you for voting for my recent RfA, which passed (to my extreme surprise and shock) with a total tally of 66/15/2. For that, I would like to thank you and offer a helping hand in any admin-related tasks that may be required -- it's as simple as leaving a message on my talkpage. Thanks again! -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 22:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

EWS23's RfA

Hello Rory! Thank you very much for supporting my request for adminship (with your own trademark, at that!). Hopefully I'll never have to push the red button on your user page. :o) Thanks again, and if you ever see something that I could be doing better, feel free to leave me a message. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Counter-Strike Maps

Might I ask why you added the merge tag to all of the Counter-Strike map articles "per afd?" If the results are counted, there are 23 keep votes to 17 merge. It had also been established quite well that Counter-Strike maps was already too long of an article. --Varco 06:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you read Aaron Brenneman's closing statement? There's clearly consensus to at least merge the articles. Also, it's not a vote. --Rory096 06:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I know it's not a vote, I was just pointing out that there were more people who wanted to keep it. The Counter-Strike maps article is very long, I think that alternative solutions should be explored. I will express these concerns in the merge discussion (which should probably also be confined to one page, in my opinion). --Varco 06:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that they all had one discussion page. --Varco 06:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. *note regular editor hat being worn* I'm here to attempt to pre-empt what I think could be an acrimonious series of exchanges. I'm going to leave an almost identical message on Varco's talk as well.

• A lot of work has been put into this series of articles. Despite the concerns I raised in the close, a lot of it is good work. We can acknowledge that while still disagreeing over other issues.
• There are some structural challenges to the proposed merge. A ruthless application of the reliable source guideline will make some of that go away, but not all.
• Whatever we say, strength of numbers does count for something, and experiance shows that video games are one area where it often counts a lot. This must be taken into consideration.

We all want the same thing: The best encyclopedia we can produce. So let's focus first on the thigs we agree on, and work from there. Happy, harmonius editing will surely follow!

brenneman ^{L} 06:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for helping out in deleting nearly 100 articles! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 07:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging the nearly 100 talk pages created by 68.65.43.49. I had gone through nearly 50 of them before I realized that there was a pattern there, and blocked him. Have a barnstar for your efforts.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 07:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And now for creating User:Rory096/orphanedtalks. However, please check out the articles. Most of them are to-dos or temp pages or archives etc. So please trim them from the list. I will try to get through the first one tomorrow.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 15:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

CorbinSimpson's Request for Adminship

Thanks for voting in my request for administrator rights, even though it failed (13/30/4). Sadly, work has forced me to respond to you all using a substituted message rather than a personalized response. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that administrators, to me, should be chosen and approved by the community, and I will continue working to become a better editor and Wikipedian. No matter what the alignment of your vote was, I will take your comments seriously and use them to improve myself. If you wish to discuss your comments personally with me, I would be more than glad to talk about things since the RfA is now over; just leave your concern on my talk page and we will sort things out. Thanks again for voting, and happy editing! - Corbin ^{Be excellent}

Shutoff button

I have been trying to fix this, but I haven't been able to figure it out...The shutoff button seems to be larger than the page itself...for example, some of the buttons at the top can't be clicked - instead the button is pressed. Maybe something to fix or to leave as is? :-) --HappyCamper 03:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, I noticed that a while ago. Apparently it's because the button is a text character (•), so it is just in the center of a large line that happens to include some of the top buttons. It would probably be better as an image (with template:click), but that would use up more bandwidth for no good reason, and I'm too lazy to make the image anyway. --Rory096 03:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that what that is? Hm, you learn something new everyday. --HappyCamper 03:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

AGF redirect

Hey, I figured since I'm the one who got rid of the assume good faith cross-namespace redirect I could at least help you resolve all of the old redirects. --Cyde↔Weys 17:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You're not actually the one who did it (this time). Somebody restored it, and it just got re-redirected on RfD. I've got it covered though; I'm nearly done. --Rory096 17:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you doing this stuff manually? If you are, you might just want to save some time and let Cydebot finish it up on automatic. No reason to spend a few hours pressing that "Save" button over and over. --Cyde↔Weys 17:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

May userbox policy poll

Hi. You're a supporter of userboxes, and there's currently a policy poll going on about userboxes that might solve the speedy deletion issue. I encourage you to vote if you haven't already. Thank you. Dtm142 21:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I am certainly not a supporter of userboxes, and I've already voted anyway. --Rory096 21:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Brendenhull's RFA

Hi Rory096. I was wondering if you could maybe reword your 3rd optional question to Brendenhull on his RFA? You linked his move log and asked him to explain every move he made. Instead of making come up with a 5-paragraph essay answer to his moves, could you possibly give a more specific question for a move? (such as "can you explain you're move for title X to title Y") It would seem a little bit more fair if you could do this for him. Thanks! DGX 06:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, much better! DGX 06:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not quite sure what the difference is, since he still has to explain every move, but whatever floats your boat. --Rory096 06:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I don't think you readdressed them all, asking a specific question about a move might get a better response than the "explain all of these moves" kind of questions. DGX 06:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comment at Wikipedia:Protected Userpage

If this is a wiki, why do we protect the main page? In fact, why do we protect pages at all? To stop vandalism, and that is what this proposed policy is trying to do. The Gerg 21:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I give up

You guys just are hellbent on deleting my article. Go for it. Obviouslly any articles that aren't admin approved don't deserve to be on Wikipedia. Titwatcher 21:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments in Lar's RfA!

We are here to build an encyclopedia!

Hi Rory, "I could have sworn I thanked you yesterday but my box isn't on the page" thanks... and thank you for your supportive comments in my request for adminship! With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance to see me in action. Please let me know what you think! Thanks again, and I will do everything I can to justify the trust you've placed in me! ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Adverts: Like The Beatles?... Like LEGO?... In a WikiProject that classifies?... Are you an accountable admin?... Got DYK?...

Why subst Template:Tlp?

I don't disagree with your change, I'm just wondering. Λυδαcιτγ^{(TheJabberwock)} 04:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to know that too. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 04:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

{{tl}} and its sister templates are some of the most widely used templates in Wikipedia, using up a lot of bandwidth to transclude them. With substing, the server doesn't have to pull up the template every time the page is viewed, so it uses less bandwidth. It was actually on the list of WP:SUBST already, so I just added it into the usage notes; I didn't change any guidelines or anything. --Rory096 21:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I wanted to thank your bot for fixing a newbie mistake on my userpage. It seems to be working well. Eluchil404 20:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 29th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 22	29 May 2006	About the Signpost

Semi-protection tweaks prompt debate over ideals	Wikipedia administrator investigated after on-wiki dispute
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	News and Notes: Wikimedia board resolutions, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

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.

TfD

While cutting-and-pasting my nom for Template:Legal disclaimer, I truncated my comment such that my reference to the template's being a self-ref and in contravention of Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates was deleted; I've readded but noticed that, in the meanwhile, you cogently raised each of those concerns as well, for which you should be commended... :) Joe 16:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

I went back and studied my RfA. I asked Sabertiger what he wanted a few days ago. He told me in private that he wanted me to help him prove his innocence. It wasn't a sock. I told you this because you seemed the nicest about the sock suspicisions.--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 20:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Portal template

I just wanted to apologize for some of the comments on the TfD discussion. The surge in activity was likely brought on by my change to include the TfD notice in the template itself (as truthfully was my intent) and thus I'm in part responsible for the instances where it then slipped over into a 'mob mentality'. Contrary to some of the comments, I do not think your nomination was in bad faith or without merit - it is certainly possible to view the portal links as impermissible 'self-references', and others have done so before. Obviously, I have a different view of the situation, but I understand the basis for yours and acknowledge that it incorporates some valid concerns (e.g. some mirrors do not copy the portal pages - thus breaking any copied portal links). I set out to 'win' this discussion (both in the wording of my response and increasing awareness) because I think this template important, but I regret and apologize for the unwarranted comments that came as a result. --CBDunkerson 22:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing to apologize for, the tfd notice is supposed to go on the template to invite discussion. Anyway, my argument for deletion was flawed, since portalspace is indeed apparently part of the encyclopedia (which means that links to WikiProjects from portals are self-references, but whatever), so the template probably is valid after all. --Rory096 23:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:DRV

I added the code that was stored on a userpage by Lar. —David618 ^t 03:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. I was just poking around your subpages (sorry for being nosy, but everytime someone comments on my talkpage, I have to find all of their subpages and watch them for some odd reason), and I was poking through the history of your monobook.css, and I saw that you wanted to remove the "New Messages Bar". Well why not just copy the code from User:GeorgeMoney/UsefulCSS#Remove_it. Thanks, --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 07:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Portal

What on earth makes that line of code a GFDL violation??? — sjorford++ 10:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

GFDL image need to be attributed. On Wikipedia, we accomplish this without having a big "made by User:Rory096" on a page by linking to the description page with that information. By making the image clickable to the portal, we don't attribute the image, violating the GFDL. --Rory096 16:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah right, I understand now. I do however think that making the image link go to the Portal is important, and it's something we use elsewhere in Wikipedia (on the main WP logo, for example), so I'm sure there's some other way of attributing authorship. I will investigate. — sjorford++ 16:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The best thing to do is probably to find another image released into the public domain, so it doesn't require attribution. --Rory096 16:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

I'm sorry if I sound overly snappy or preachy on the Elf Only Inn AfD. That was not my intent, but reading it over, I can see how it may look that way. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 21:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For saving me from a fate worse than A/S/L! ~Kylu

~Kylu (u|t) 04:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned talk pages

orphanedtalks/4 is complete. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 05:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, how did you even find these orphaned talks? This is a amazing! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it's not really special. I made Rob Church run a toolserver query for me (now, making Rob do anything is probably special, but...). --Rory096 06:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

TFD of Kerala user templates

Hello there. Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_31#Template:User_Kerala_and_Template:User_KERALA_wiki where you had voted, where the nomination has been changed, and reconsider your vote.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

talk pages

Good job wikifying the page, anyway. :) --Fang Aili ^talk 13:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Gotchi entry at Wikipedia

Could someone please explain to this author of the Wikipedia entry for 'Gotchi' why Wikipedia wizards are against neologisms?

The terms Wiki, Wikipedia, Wikipedians are all neologisms. To delete Gotchi would 'hoist Wikipedia by its own petard.' Look that up your Funk and Wagnells. Sometimes words are born. Gotchi is one. And it is useful and growing in usage.

Please let Gotchis live.

my CV:

http://datatecture.blogspot.com

and for some early early Web 2.0 Mashup (another neologism listed in Wikipedia), check my collabs:

http://www.unmovie.net - 2002

http://www.orbit.zkm.de - 2006 or on a mobile phone http://mobile.orbit.zkm.de

cheers, datatect —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.163.215.232 (talk • contribs) .

We're not against neologisms. We're against non-notable neologisms. Wiki is indeed a neologism (actually it's the Hawaiian word for "fast" or "quick," but in this context it is), but it's a notable one. Many people know the term, and many websites use the software, including Wikipedia, the 16th most popular website in the world, according to Alexa. "Gotchi" is not a popular term, and very few people know what it is. --Rory096 03:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright

There are sample bits of lyric all over the place here. I want to know what your source is for determining when a sample lyric is a copyright violation. Find me the specific wiki policy. Wahkeenah 03:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the Copyright Act of 1976, all creative content, including lyrics, is automatically copyrighted. Using any of it would be considered copyright infringement. Yes, it's possible to assert fair use, but you're not providing a rationale, not even describing the actual content you're using and not abiding by something at the very core of Wikipedia - it is a free encyclopaedia, not just in terms of not charging people to use it, but by having it under a copyleft license, so anybody can use it. --Rory096 03:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Then I assume you are going to devote full time to finding every song on this so-called encyclopedia and delete any lyrics you find, no matter how few lines. Wahkeenah 03:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I will not. I will, however, remove them as I see them, if they aren't asserting fair use correctly. --Rory096 03:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Royal Bardia National Park

If at all, the other one should have been tagged for speedy, but this was a simple create redirect page of the other one. This tagged page was actually under the correct name, the other was not. Just to inform you. (good job with all the empty redirects) -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It may be the correct name, but Bardia National Park is where all the history from creating the article was. --Rory096 04:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that makes sense. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

and done. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Rory096 04:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there

Sorry, I had changed my username because I was getting hassle. I had more than 1 account so all I am doing is deleting my old talk pages. --TKK3 04:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

I was thinking of nominating you for adminship. What do you think? --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 04:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, you don't want to. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rory096. --Rory096 04:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Even despite that, I'd support. I've seen your work with CSD's and vandalism, and I have to say that I'm quite impressed. Sure you're a bit of a hothead, but I think you'd be well suited for the job. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Oooh.... That is pretty bad..... Even the nominator <is this even a word?> bailed </is this even a word?> out on you. But, I think you would make a great admin. It is your choice. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 05:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's a word (wikt:bail out, see #4). I might accept a nom in a few months, but it's too soon since the last one. --Rory096 05:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, when you're ready, tell me, because I don't want you to have to nominate yourself :). --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 05:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually HappyCamper already asked me if I wanted him to nom me (User talk:Rory096/Archive4#Hello), sorry. :O --Rory096 05:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least can I co-nom you? --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 05:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if you still want to (and I haven't made you hate me) in a few months :) --Rory096 05:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be a fitting punishment. Wahkeenah 05:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

*sings "Shot Down in Flames" by AC/DC*

I'd gladly support; however, others wouldn't. And sorry about the song mention :) Master of Puppets ^{FREE BIRD!} 05:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert

Why did you revert? [1] DGX 05:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's his former account, and there's no way to log into a username that has been changed. You can look in the user rename log if you want to verify it, but this is the same user. --Rory096 05:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Then you might want to ask him about his 3rd account User:TKK. DGX 05:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he's a sock of TKK, TKK2 and TKK4, but I don't see how that's relevant to deleting his former userpages. --Rory096 05:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention User:TKE and User:Teke (These aren't him, sorry), but just saying. If it's him for sure, just delete and move on. ;-) DGX 05:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely him, but I can't delete it. :o --Rory096 05:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

... Why does he need to change his name so often? DGX 05:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

He appears to have just changed his name once, but with 4 different accounts. As to why, I don't know. --Rory096 05:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, once with 4 differant accounts. *looks around and walks away* Oh well.. DGX 05:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Youtube article

Hello. You have made this revert recently: [2]

Now, in the past hour, there have been several revert wars going on about this "hacking" incident. Could you just leave it up some kind of notice so that people don't waste their time reverting "OMFG! YOUTUBE BEEN HACKED!" messages, and "no it hasn't" reverts?

--Dragontamer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.138.232.32 (talk • contribs) .

A notice would be a self-reference, and people who just want to read about freenode would be confused and maybe not understand it. It's not too hard for people to revert, so it's fine as it is. --Rory096 06:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It feels as if I'm violating the three revert rule... I'm talking about a notice for about 1 hour, tops? This is obviously an internet fad thing going on, and a few minutes of notice will clear up a lot of confusion, and unnecessary work/unwork on this topic. --69.138.232.32 06:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC) (Dragontamer)

You're not violating 3RR if it's just vandalism, which most of this is. --Rory096 06:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Meh, you can archive/delete this now. Someone just locked the page. I figure thats a better solution. --69.138.232.32 06:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC) (dragontamer). Nice talking with you.

The One on the Right is on the Left

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 09:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:BravoFunny

Thanks for taking the time to clean up the template, however with all the line breaks that you added, the template can not be slipped into a paragraph. I will have to reamove them all, but I will metion within the noinclude that the usage can be found on the Talk page. The template will be ugly on its own page, but will be just a sentence when added elsewhere.
&#151;Lady Aleena talk/contribs 18:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Those line breaks are inside a <noinclude>, though, so they shouldn't come up when transcluding the template. --Rory096 18:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I will check it out. Will revert to your last edit.
&#151;Lady Aleena talk/contribs 18:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I will trust in the Rory from here on out. Sorry for being dense.
&#151;Lady Aleena talk/contribs 18:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks

Rory096/Archive9, thank you for participating in my RfA. Unfortunately, a great number of oppose voters felt that I lacked experience, and a consensus was not reached (the final tally was 30/28/10). Perhaps I will try again in another few months when I have a few more edits under my belt. If I do, I hope I can count on your support. Thanks again! Cool3 talk 20:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

My Image

Hello. You recently left a warning on my page about an image that I have. You say it is orphaned, but it is used on a lot of my user pages. I still don't complety understand the image guidelines, and I don't want to lose that image, so I was wondering if you could help me correct the error. Thank you, Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 23:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason is that it's tagged as {{logo}}, which is a fair use template. If you want to use it on Wikipedia, you need to license it under the GFDL or a similar free license. That will allow other people to reproduce it and alter it, even for commercial purposes, but it has to be free to be on Wikipedia. --Rory096 03:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I uploaded a new version. Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 03:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There we go, I finally understand. I made the changes. How is it? Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 05:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:BravoFunny

Template:BravoFunny has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Mysekurity ^[m!] 05:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm, there's nothing there. --Rory096 05:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I warned you both before saving the changes to the TfD page. It's a shame these deletion discussions get so heated. -Mysekurity ^[m!] 05:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yay for being humble and not taking things on the Interweb too seriously! -Mysekurity ^[m!] 06:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

;) --Rory096 06:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting at my RfA

Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. Thanks for this. - Aksi_great (talk) 07:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. :) --Rory096 07:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

--Bhadani 10:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Cannabis (Drug)

If you think the reversion was funny, you should see my and the ip's talkpages. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 02:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

deletion of talk pages

I do not agree with your assessment that blank talk pages are allright, but think they should be deleted for the following reasons: - It looks like someone has something to say about the subject; instead you find nothing, which in my case would trigger my curiosity, leading to a complete waste of time and irritation. - it is not helpful with RC patrolling, because the next time the talk page is vandalized, a good patroller will also check why the page was blank, which leads to frustration with the patroller if he sees it was blank.

I hope you reconsider. Errabee 02:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser complete

You made a request for a Checkuser to be run, which has now been completed. See Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser#Completed_requests for the results. the wub "?!" 22:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

WHY it's rude.

It's simple. If I were to go in and edit YOUR comments, not your contributions, but YOUR thoughts on a subject, you'd be irritated too. Set your bots to not touch my comments from now on. My link worked just fine when I put it there, so don't mess with it. If things move afterwards, people will bounce there eventually via the redirects, it's what they're there for. Don't touch my commentaries again.ThuranX 13:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC) I moved this from the userpage; such moving oughtn't to be construed as an endorsement of Thuran's comments or the fashion in which they're made. Joe 23:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The redirect is being deleted. That means while you linked to a redirect before, soon it will just be a redlink. I'm not changing your thoughts on anything, I'm just bypassing a soon-to-be-deleted redirect to link to the same place it would have gone before without even changing the visible text! Are you going to yell at Jahiegel now for moving your comment from my userpage to the talk page? I doubt it, because he didn't change anything. Neither have I. --Rory096 03:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Loob afD

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this. I would be grateful if you could read the Note on Speedy Deletion in Loob discussion.Winstonwolfe 01:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

VfD redirect

according to the self ref page, you can avoid selfreference by using the template:selfref

But the VfD redirect already uses it:

1. REDIRECT:

So I don't see why you need to change it.

(My IP changes randomly, so I'll check your page for a response, or you can add this discussion to the VfD talk page) 70.51.9.70 03:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's for use on the tops of articles and disambiguation pages (like the one on top of VFD. WP:ASR says we should avoid self references, and it's completely possible that somebody might be looking for something at VFD but type "VfD" or "vfD" or something. There's no reason to have it point to AfD. If somebody needs to go there, they can just add a "WP:" to the beginning or just click on the link at the top of the disambiguation page. --Rory096 03:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Just wanted to quickly thank you for the barnstar. --Fritz S. (Talk) 10:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)