User talk:RoyBoy

What the heck is this gonna do? RoyBoy 05:03, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RoyBoy       Archives   1. New user, BR, Amorrow   2. New admin, RfA's   3. Signpost, Monobook.js

This user is a Cabal of One.

HeHe sorry

I didn't know that many flags could do that... However I will admit my Ukranian invasion was over the top, even for my monitor. 68.39.174.238 07:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

There, I did it again with some |thumb's so it shouldn't crash you up. I couldn't resist his obnoxious comment/warnings blanking... 68.39.174.238 07:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You owe 66.17.116.148 an apology. Jim16 00:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Janitorial WikiMedal

I hereby award you this WikiMedal for Janitorial Services for your tireless efforts in fixing typos, punctuation, grammar & spaces etc. Doing all the samll but important things KTC 07:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding 66.17.116.148

You owe him/her an apology for blanking his talk page. It was not nice of you to revert his own edits to his talk page. Jim16 01:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Re. User:Jim16 & User:66.17.116.148

Please see my comment on Administrators' noticeboard & User_talk:Jim16. -- KTC 03:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for WikiThanks.

After noting abusive behaviour on top of sock puppetrying (and various charges of vandalism on the anon. history), I've posted on WP:ANI. -- KTC 20:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Rollback priveleges

Please see my entry, and support me if possible!--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 18:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Much appreciation for your barnstars and your formatting of my userpage. --ScienceApologist 21:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm in

I'm watching. I'm approving. Keep counting me "in" until I say otherwise, if you please. "Me too" is weak; but it's me. WAS 4.250 06:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

REV

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page 220.247.253.200 04:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion help

Someone tried to create an AfD but is running into trouble, think you can help us out? - Rudykog 06:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone fixed it, sorry to bother you. - Rudykog 06:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have never vandalised wikipedia

I must say that I found your note to me somewhat offensive as I never vandalised wikipedia or even looked at the article you refer to. It may be that every AOL user comes up the same (as we sem to be classified as multiple users) but rest assured I have not done anything untoward. I havent even read the page on 'cattle' until today and have nothing to add to that. Ben

Reverting

Hello RoyBoy, how are you able to revert as fast as you are? CDVF alone can't be it. Thanks! Cyberevil 04:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that I call elegant! :) Cyberevil 04:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, thanks again. You really made this a science. No wonder you are so fast! :) Cyberevil 04:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll fix myself a coffee now and set me up as an uber-vandalfighter, thanks to you! Cyberevil 04:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

User page vandalism

Yet again I have to thank you, Roy! This time for reverting that vandalism. Cyberevil 03:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

192.195.225.6

Do you think that was a bot or a very fast typist? Are there known 'vandal bots' floating around out there? It appears as if it was grabbing articles via the random article link and blanking them systematically. Ohnoitsjamie_talk^contribs 07:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for supporting me on my Rfa, RoyBoy! I appreciate your trust. I have no idea what "Don't stop... don't stop the funk!" means, but if it means "carry on!" I will endeavor to do so. The puppy is now an Admin (final tally 58/7/2) Please let me know if there is anything I can ever do to assist you. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

LBU entry

Moved to Talk:Louisiana_Baptist_University#LBU entry. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

WarriorScribe's deceit and poor personal research

Moved to Talk:Louisiana Baptist University#An editor's deceit and poor personal research. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Nostalgia for books read long ago

Thanks to you, I now want to go out and read Jaynes's "Origin of Consciousness..." again...haven't read it in years...but I do remember when it came out, and the stir it created. Off to B&N! - WarriorScribe 19:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can pick it up in the library when you get Levicoff's book. --Jason Gastrich 19:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You're not helping your case with these types of comment. David D. (Talk) 19:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, huh...meanwhile, there's a homeless person in Mexico who is waiting for a house... - WarriorScribe 19:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

We'll be building him one in about 2 weeks. Feel free to join us. --Jason Gastrich 19:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoosh! - WarriorScribe 19:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

We're all meeting here at 6:15am on Jan. 28: 620 Dennery Road, Chula Vista, 92154 (Vons parking lot). Wear some clothes you don't mind getting dirty. And you won't need any books. --Jason Gastrich 20:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoosh! - WarriorScribe 20:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Louisiana Baptist University

Why are you editing Louisiana Baptist University while it's protected? -Will Beback 08:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, good luck with it. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Cheers, -Will Beback 18:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You will have no ministry Jason unless you learn how to love other people more than yourself! (John 13:35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”)

--Bible John 17:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Features and admins

Don't worry about it. I've had weeks before where I couldn't do my part- it happens. Ral315 (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar templates

Sorry to be late getting back to you. I haven't really worked with many of the editors listed, so I don't feel qualified in putting my name to the barnstars yet. Let me check some of them out, maybe get (a little) involved in some projects they frequent, and I'll get back to you. Good work on the continuing development of the stars though! -Parallel or Together? 02:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Louisiana_Baptist_University II

My suggestion would be to ask everyone on the talk page if they are ok with the article. If they say they are, I'd make a request on RfP for unprotection. If they aren't, well then, you have more to do. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on User:Wiki alf ;) --Alf ^melmac 20:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

And more thanks

For the revert on Chandler High School. User 207.224.177.252 has been given at least two separate "final warnings" ... I hope this is resolved soon. Cheers! -- Miwa 01:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Question

Should you always do { { subst:test } } instead of { { test } } ? --Mystaker1 04:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, RoyBoy. I have noticed that you have worked a lot to make the LBU entry better. I also noticed that you reduced the diploma mill allegations section from 507 words to 381. For this, I say "thank you". --Jason Gastrich 20:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Personalized Templates

Would you mind giving me some information on where to find templates similar to the ones you use for your user page?

KV 16:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Pile of Barnstars

I hereby award you a pile of barnstars in support of your not-quite-secret agenda. Dragons flight 16:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Email

Guettarda 21:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Succesful RfA!

Thank you for your support during my RfA! The community has decided to make me an administrator, and there's work to be done. I look forward to seeing you around the project in the future, and if you see me do anything dumb, let me know right away! Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Aerial Topdressing

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on this one :-) WW

NewsMax and Christopher Ruddy

I just wanted to bring the NewsMax and Christopher Ruddy articles to your attention. On the NewsMax talk page someone posted that NewsMax objects to the article, on the Ruddy page some asked for an admin., and both articles have been reverted to the point of ads. Arbustoo 21:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Those pages have been blanked twice today by the same person. Arbustoo 01:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and keeping your eye over there. Arbustoo 06:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

NewsMax was vandalized 13 times in the last day and Ruddy was hit 4 times. The articles are fine now though. Arbustoo 03:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

LBU entry

First, thank you for your hard work on the LBU entry. You have doen good.

Next,, there has been some senseless editing on it, lately. In fact, it looks like vandalism. Basically, some are trying to remove everything positive from the entry; even if it's simply encyclopedic. Here is what has been removed, lately:

1. A section called "Contrary to diploma mills" 2. Elaboration on the alumni (as other university sites always do) 3. Elaboration on what is involved in earning credit by using Chuck Missler's book 4. Academic reviews

Those are the main things. Can you help? --Turkmen 22:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"Senseless editting lately," that's funny because you only registered on Jan. 31st. Have you been posting as someone else before? Arbustoo 08:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To be fair it was on the 24th he registered. David D. (Talk) 16:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. His first duty was to attack an administrator who nominated a Jason Gastrich article for deletion on the 24th. His second article edit was on Jan 31. His first statement on Jan 31 was on RoyBoy's talk page. Arbustoo 18:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

My User page

You are welcome to try. Perhaps you could show me a draft of your proposed improvement. Adam 23:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I appreciate it. My only dislike is the white space to the right of the barnstars. Could not they be stacked two-deep on the left, and a photo inserted on the right? Adam 00:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That looks fine. Yes, please crop the photo - I hadn't noticed the white strip on the right. I will find another one to place beside the barnstars. Adam 03:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Guess you don't like the METs so you removed my comments--152.163.100.137 04:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your suggestion on my page. I implemented it. Cheers :)deeptrivia (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Three more vandalisms by 67.191.208.93

I noticed this IP has been warned many times in the past. Since your last final warning to the user they commited three new vandalisms on February 1st. Just thought I'd report it :) Tyciol 07:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

PROOF TURKMEN IS JASON GASTRICH

"Turkmen" just added the webpage http://michaelnewdow.com to Michael Newdow (an atheist)[1]. Who owns http://michaelnewdow.com? Well a quick search at http://www.checkdomain.com/ shows it's registered through www.godaddy.com, which "Domain servers in listed order: NS1.JCSM.ORG, NS2.JCSM.ORG" Yes, Jesus Christ Saves Minsitries ran by Jason Gastrich. Its cyberquatting. On a side note Jason owns the domain until August. Keep in mind this is after the community sanction.

This isn't the first time Jason Gastrich has cyberquatted. Here's evidence from April 2005 at the Wikipedia article Anthony Flew[2]. Jason Gastrich owns anthonyflew.com

The administrators need to take control on this issue. Arbustoo 10:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

different name colors

hey RoyBoy how do i do different signature name colors/links to talk etc... is there a page for wiki tricks? jVirus 19:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

alt rock userbox

Made it: {{user altrock}}. --Urthogie 20:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Blade Runner pic

Nice Blade Runner pic for the userbox. :) --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 21:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

My User Page

Just wanted to recommend tweaking your table width parameters from 800px > 98% and 512px > 100%. This allows it to fix nicely in different resolutions. Keep up the good work! - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) RadioKirk talk to me 17:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Aw gee... I like the star polygon! But, Sparkling prose??
Thanks! Vsmith 02:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Blade Runner

What, in your opinion, is the best version of Blade Runner to buy? I've seen numerous copies on eBay etc but would like guidance from a specialist such as yourself. Much thanks.

- ChuckyDarko

Re: Blade Runner

Thanks a ton. :)

Bit of a problem

Howdy, I noticed you were an admin who is currently online. I am havign a bit of a problem, and not sure where to go with it. Usammey (talk · contribs) ha vandalized a few pages; nothing to serious, but routinely reverts his talk page (with a vandalism counter on it). Although he just moments ago added a blatent vandal warning to my userpage. A little assistance or direction might be helpful. Thanks, --Hansnesse 07:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work. I am not really having connection problems, although at present I am on dialup, so it is slow whether or not there are connection issues. WP was down for editing for a couple of hours this afternoon (something like 12 hours ago); I wonder if it is related. Many thanks for the quick (by dialup standards at least) action; the reverts were getting frustrating more than anything. --Hansnesse 07:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible

There is a revert war going on and a new user with a familiar name just joined in. Arbustoo 02:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiki4christ

FYI, Wiki4Christ is another of Gastrich's sockpuppets. JoshuaZ 03:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Wiki4Christ and User:Wiki4christ. Arbustoo 03:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please find an admin ASAP and block the nuisances? JoshuaZ

Oh wait, you're an admin. Can you please block the new sockpuppets then? JoshuaZ 03:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR has been violated on 2 pages by that user and User:Wiki4Christ (the big C) was blocked a few hours ago for it. Arbustoo 03:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Both are blocked, its all good. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

He had another one JGChristian which just did the same RV to the LBU page again. Thanks, JoshuaZ 03:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

And another JesusChristSaves he must have been saving up a large number to do a blitskrieg. JoshuaZ 04:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This may be a against wiki rules, but maybe someone should go through and do certain word searches and preemptively examine wiki user names with certain sequences Jason is fond of. JoshuaZ 04:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

And another one, sorry: 206.192.194.176 JoshuaZ 05:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Two more. Arbustoo 04:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? JoshuaZ 04:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

1 User:Blair Richardson and 2 User:FredTaylor. Probably another as well. Arbustoo 04:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Block of 71.250.47.143

User:Trosk has possibly suffered some collateral damage from your block of 71.250.47.143, could you take look? Details are at User talk:Trosk.--Commander Keane 16:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

71.116.65.241

Good Evening 'RoyBoy'.

This message is regarding the notice you sent about how I 'deleted' some context from "John Kenneth Galbraith". I would like to inform you that I had no knowledge of any type vandalism that occuered in the said page, or any other for that matter. In plain words, I do not recall changing, or even visiting the page marked as "John Kenneth Galbraith". Thank you for your time. ~71.116.65.241

Image Tagging for Image:Natasha_Lyonne.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Natasha_Lyonne.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 06:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Jamaat-e-Islami

Hello RoyBoy. I see you've protected Jamaat-e-Islami. Obviously the edit war was getting silly. I'm a contibutor to that page. I have tried reasonable discussion with both Siddiqui & Yahya01. More so with Siddiqui as it is he that reverts my contributions without discussion. Yesturday, on the talk page I posted;

User:Siddiqui's edits

Please refrain blanking valid content provided by other editors. If you feel some text is inappropriate, please discuss it here, so we can aim for a consensus. Veej 01:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Siddiqui's comments moved here. Veej 02:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC) :

• I am deleted the Yaya01's addditions on that page. Please check the history of that page. I have never seen your contribution or participitation in that page. Please back up your allegations of vandalism. I am reverting your changes until you proved the proof. Siddiqui 01:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• rather than becoming involved in an edit war, perhaps we can discuss this. One of the sections that you removed is; "Jamaat publishes hardline demands of the Pakistan Government". This section is quoted directly from Jamaat's website & referenced. It provides a much needed insight into the agenda of Jamaat. 1) What is your objection to this? Veej 02:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

2) You also removed this link, Asian Tribune - Militancy in Pakistan. The Asian Tribune is a quality newspaper published by World Institute for Asian Studies. The article was by Mohammed Yousuf, a notable analyst & Lawyer. He has written extensively on current affairs, with reference to South and Central Asia. The article is intelligently written, insightful & relevent. What is your objection to this? Veej 02:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I've yet to recieve a response. I was about to continue working on the article, but it's blocked. What do you recommend I do? Veej 04:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

communication problems with User:Siddiqui

I tried Siddiqui again & he did respond, sort of. I became involved in the most bizarre exchange I've ever experienced;

Jamaat-e-Islami now BLOCKED because of EDIT WAR

I have posted comment / questions at Talk:Jamaat-e-Islami#User:Siddiqui.27s_edits for you. Are you interested in a discussion? Veej 04:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion ?

What do you want to discuss ? Should we discuss Jamaat Islami page ? Should we discuss your daily addition to anti-Muslim propaganda in Wikipedia ? Or should we discuss 2002 Gujarat violence ? Siddiqui 04:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure what you're refering to. I don't see what riots in gujarat have to do with me. I live in London. I am critical of some Islamic/Islamist institutions. I'm sorry if this offends you but I don't want to get involved in personal attacks. Please can we focus on the issues on the Jamaat talk page? Veej 05:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack. I asked basically to know your motives. Are you motivated by hate or love. Are you interested in peace and justice or just propaganda. That is the basis of my question. If you are motivated by hate of Muslims then we don't have anything to discuss since you have already made up your mind. If you are motivated by peace and justice then you should also add links about violence in Gujarat at all Wikipedia related pages. Do you understand my reasoning. Siddiqui 05:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• I am neither motivated by hate nor love. However, I am interested intellectual criticism of individuals, organisations & concepts. I spend a lot of time searching the net looking for intellectual criticisms. We're drifting off the point. I'm not asking for personal information about you & I'm disappointed that you'd ask me. Please can we focus on the issues on the Jamaat talk page? Veej 05:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are ... interested intellectual critism of individuals, organisations & concepts. then may be you can also take some time and have some "intellectual" criticism of "individuals, organisations & concepts" involved in 2002 Gujarat violence. I just want you to judge your own motives. Clearly you are only motivated by anti-Muslim propaganda. Siddiqui 05:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• This discussion is becoming frustrating. Why do you keep bringing the Gujarat riots into this? It has nothing to do with me. I was thousands of miles away when it occured. I don't know anyone involved in it. I hope you're not insinuating I had any involvement in this violence. Also, however you may want me to judge myself is irrelevent. Please can we focus on the issues on the Jamaat talk page? Veej 05:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You said: I am interested intellectual critism of individuals, organisations & concepts. So my question is why Jamaat Islami fits this mold but not 2002 Gujarat violence ? Why are you so much interested in Jamaat Islami ? Your Page says that you like Gujarati food that is why I brought up the issue of 2002 Gujarat violence. But you are avoiding the issue. I am ready and willing to discuss all issue with you including Jamaat Islami. But may be you explain you real motives then we can proceed. Siddiqui 05:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• It seems you want me to jump through some hoops for you, before you're willing to discuss the issues on the Jamaat talk page. What exactly should I say for you? Veej 05:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Why are you interested in Jamaat Islami? Why are you not interested in discussing 2002 Gujarat violence? Siddiqui 05:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm interested in Jamaat merely because I stumbled across some interesting articles refering to it whilst researching another article. You may decide that I'm motivated by some evil agenda. That's your choice, but I'm not interested in your theories. I know nothing about the Gujarat riots. For the last time, please can we focus on the issues on the Jamaat talk page? Veej 05:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You said I spend a lot of time searching the net looking for intellectual critisms. Why do you think that genocide in your Gujarat state does not interest you ? Is that not intellectual ? Why is Jamaat Islami seems very intellectual for your taste ? Your motives are clearly spreading anti-Mulim propaganda. May be you should read each line of 2002 Gujarat violence before you discuss Jamaat Islami with me. Siddiqui 05:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• You’ve reached the end of my patience. I’ve answered your unwarranted personal questions about me, yet you’ve not answered a single one of my legitimate questions regarding your censorship of the Jamaat-e-Islami article. I won’t be subject to your bullying interrogation any further. If you decide you want to be part of focussed discussion regarding Jamaat, then you know how to contact me. Veej 06:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You said I know nothing about the Gujarat riots Why is that ? Is Jamaat Islami a sexy babe compared to ugly Gujarat genocide ? This subject is not intellectual for you ? Siddiqui 05:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC) Clearly, your motives are even clear to yourself. You have never contributed Jamaat Islami page before yesterday and now just want eager to add some propaganda. But you say that you are not interested in genocide in your own state ! You don't know anything about it or care to tell me your thoughts on this subject. Siddiqui 06:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Roy, I've never had a discussion like this before. He's made rash judgements about me that are incorrect & is impossible to communicate with. How do I deal with this guy? Veej 06:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC) By the way, I was born in Britain & have lived in Britain all my life. The Gujarat riots really have nothing to do with me. Veej 06:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Features and admins

I actually already have it done at User:Ral315/Features and admins. Ral315 (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek episode naming convention

Please comment on my proposed change to the episode naming convention at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek#Naming Convention III. Cburnett 01:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

List of minor characters in Blade Runner

Heh. Yeah, I thought it was about time for one. :) The Wookieepedian 03:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Abortion history

Back from vacation. In short, yes, I think coverage should be split along thematic lines (medical, legal, moral), although I don't know if seperate articles are warranted for each. See History of abortion Talk for my extended proposal. :) -Kyd 23:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Mercedes-Benz_logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Mercedes-Benz_logo.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: ABC

I'm sorry, I've mostly been ignoring the POV issies which are the current subject of debate on Talk:Abortion.

I would gladly support the addition of something along the lines of what you've suggested. The current text, which we worked on together, is sufficient, although there is certainly grounds to support the accusation that in an effort to uphold NPOV we're giving undue weight to a theory unestablished in scientific consensus.

As for the NPOV tag, I only consider them appropriate when debate between multiple users has failed to reach a consensus -- then the NPOV tag serves as an invitation to bring in fresh users to help resolve the issue. On the other hand, when a lone user throws it up just because the "cabal" isn't toeing his or her line, it's obtrusive, argumentative, and inappropriate. Pro-Lick has thrown up at least three NPOV tags. Definitely remove it unless debate fails to reach a common ground. -Kyd 06:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it should be noted that "unestablished in scientific consensus" is merely my personal assessment of the scientific consensus. I added "widely disputed" after "controversial" as a stopgap solution to Pro-Lick's continued complaints. Are you going to remove the tag? -Kyd 06:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"Xe"? Now there's a gender neutral pronoun I haven't encountered before. Oh, and I find that the good old, "Let someone else revert it" usually works. :) -Kyd 07:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Features and admins

It looks like User:HereToHelp got it already this week...anything else you want to write on for the week? Ral315 (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar: thanks

Hi, this is to thank you (slightly belatedly) for the wonderful shiny cluster barnstar and the words on it. I'm very happy to have it William M. Connolley 11:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Episode list screenshots not fair use?

Talk:List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes#Fair use has a discussion (well kinda right now, I'm still waiting for the initiator to actually explain himself) about the fair use strength of images on episode lists (why there and not on WP:FAIR's talk page is beyond me. Care to chime in? Cburnett 04:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:ChandraCrawford (Gold 2006).jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:ChandraCrawford (Gold 2006).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Reply: Block

Funny enough, when i tried editing today I was no longer blocked. So if you did unblock me thanks for that. Although maybe its just my dynamic IP has changed again. I'm not really sure why I can edit again. I realise you were only trying to prevent a vandal, and that collatoral damage like this occurs. I just got a shock when I tried editing only to be told I was blocked, because from all my editing on wikipedia I dont recall ever doing anything wrong (except maybe a few spelling mistakes here and there :P). Thanks again. Kyle sb 07:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I just logged out and made an edit, my IP address has changed again obviously that was the reason why I got caught up in the first place. Thanks for replying. Kyle sb 07:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Cabal

Seems to work for me, just use User:Freakofnurture/Cabal pseudo-template. — Apr. 5, '06 [02:23] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Thanks

Thanks for making the quick spell-o fix in Tawkerbot2's FAQ page. I hope the page explains enough, I've been trying to read it from the viewpoint of a confused user but its kind of hard to :) -- Tawker 07:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It normally won't revert twice, thats why it didn't fix it the second time (a built in safety measure) -- Tawker 07:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Blade Runner picture

I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand what you mean. I didn't make that image, I just ran it through a PNG optimiser.--Drat (Talk) 05:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Reversions

Eh... There are worse things in this world than revert wars, it's true. You're doing good work on the abortion article; please don't think I don't notice. After Raul's protection yesterday, maybe I'm just jumpy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: History of Abortion

Thanks so much! You've made my day. I'm suprised you'd consider the article to be of any notable quality, at this time, because I still see so much which remains to be done. Recognition is due to Kaldari, too. -Severa | !!! 14:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Causality & Referencing. Why the revert?

I have two points:

• Causality - I think the causality article has serious short comings.
• Referencing - the title tells you something about the content.

The changes I made to the ABC hypothesis are based on my understanding of causality. Causality differs quite significantly from correlation-- and I have the impression you don't see it that way. I read the causality article-- and I think it has serious short comings. It is easy to make a robust correlation-- I could should surely make a great correlation with shoe size and intelligence ('cause newborns aren't that bright)-- that doesn't mean the relationship is causal.

I don't think you've read Bradford Hill's article[3] (The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?)-- which I will add has been very influential. If you had read it, I don't think you'd have deleted the reference, dismissed it and replaced it with the much weaker discussion in the causality article (which isn't a direct reference--i.e. it isn't very well supported (Wikipedia referencing itself isn't a good way to support something)). This brings me to the second point.

The title of a reference tells you something about its content. The political debate about the ABC hypothesis is almost non-existent outside of the US and the debate on the science is little more serious than the debate about global warming (i.e. few respected scientists dispute it and only a small minority of scientists find fault with the evidence). The reference does not support the sentence (The subject continues to be one of political and scientific contention.) it is attached to. Title vs. content -- I've read the article... it is about the US-- it doesn't make the case that the ABC hypothesis has become a serious political matter outside of the US. A google search[4] on the topic leads mostly to US sites-- no large new media outside of the US gives it significant coverage. The fact that the Wikipedia article is first-- on google I think also tells you something. I think the argument that it is international is tough to make and not adequately supported by the article that was referenced--that's why I changed it. Nephron  T|C 03:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You wrote:

Again, the results of studies done on ABC are all over the place; that does not translate to the ABC hypothesis itself.

The ABC hypothesis posits that there is a causal relationship between elective abortions and breast cancer. The ABC hypothesis article discusses correlation ad nauseum and in doing so I think entirely misses the point. Correlation is only a small part in establishing causality.

I fail to see how my edits could be interpreted as POV. The changes I made address what it is that makes people conclude a relationship is causal. I suggest you read Bradford Hill's paper.[5] You didn't understand my argument and just dismissed it for that reason.

You wrote:

...also your shoe size analogy neglects the fact experienced scientists conduct ABC studies, not you or I

This is a non sequitur. I used the example as a way of saying that if one chooses the variables right one can find correlations that are not causal. (Take that a bit further and it is a no brainer that a smart researcher can cook the results by choosing which variables he or she controls for.) I think the ABC article does not make clear that correlations are only one part in proving causality. As another example-- many correlations show that people of lower SES smoke.[6][7] That said, I think it would be a leap to conclude that smoking (which people typically start in their teens) causes low SES in adulthood.

Please read the rest of my earlier comment. Also, consider that the reference was inserted for a reason-- see WP:When to cite sources. Hill's article explains in detail what criteria are typically used to establish causality and is relatively easy to understand. If you read it I think you'll agree it is a classic. Nephron  T|C 23:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Your Bad Example

I realize that it is only fair to address this concern directly with you, since I am mentioning it on other talk pages. When you radically changed the opening paragraph of the abortion page immediately after the page was frozen, you let your own POV overtake your neutrality in exercising your admin priveleges. Everyone noticed it. If you apologized already, I must have missed it (for which I apologize). I have tended to see you as fair-minded, but this move was pretty lame considering you are a "respected admin" here. I have modified my own editing behavior substantially and enjoy wikipedia much more having done so. Good examples do inspire me to imitate them. So I guess what I am saying is that the way an established admin edits has an effect beyond - perhaps - what you think. It is very difficult to feel good about following the rules and etiquette here if people like you ignore those rules and etiquette. I hope you recieve this understanding that my intent in posting this note is pure. ____G_o_o_d____ 08:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

He is Risen

Jesus Christ is risen today, Alleluia!
our triumphant holy day, Alleluia!
who did once upon the cross, Alleluia!
suffer to redeem our loss. Alleluia!

Hymns of praise then let us sing, Alleluia!
unto Christ, our heavenly King, Alleluia!
who endured the cross and grave, Alleluia!
sinners to redeem and save. Alleluia!

But the pains which he endured, Alleluia!
our salvation have procured, Alleluia!
now above the sky he's King, Alleluia!

where the angels ever sing. Alleluia!

-- Psy guy ^Talk 05:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Features and admins.

Another user did Features and admins this week, so don't worry about it. Happy Easter. Ral315 (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CreationWiki

As a contributor to the page CreationWiki, I feel it fair to warn you that it has been nominated for deletion. Please make your opinion known. PrometheusX303 21:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CreationWiki

As a contributor to the page CreationWiki, I feel it fair to warn you that it has been nominated for deletion. Please make your opinion known. PrometheusX303 21:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Lesser evils

Like I said, I haven't thought of a truly elegant way to put it. SlimVirgin's solution - "expulsion or removal of the products of conception, caused by or resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus" - dodges the problem nicely, but I guess the POC doesn't go over well with some of us?

You're doing good work, by the way - thanks for that. It's quite a puzzle, coming up with sentences that can navigate the obstacle course of NPOV we've managed to set ourselves. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

signa\tures

Can you tell me please how I can have a clean signature without the clutter that usually appears. I move the script from signing box in preferences? where should i put it roy? -- max rspct leave a message 00:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

when u sign you have thick type on yer sig,,.. but loooking on the edit space there is no html. When i sign with that gaudy brown sig... like everyone else it leaves lots of HTML on edit page. I can't make it any clearer than that. (maybe i should ask Pris??) -- max rspct leave a message 10:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Blade Runner lead

Purge was impulsive mainly due to poor writing; I've since made improvements to what you've restored. Despite the article being overlong, it lacks information on the film's legendary run at the Nuart Theatre in Los Angeles. I'd gladly add this, but would prefer to do so "as space permits", i.e. after more fat has been trimmed from the article. Jonathan F 09:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing my edit and for your comment. I further tweaked the lead so BR is characterized as a high mark in film noir interpretation seeing as its 1940s-50s forerunners continue to be the standard bearers for the genre. Jonathan F 04:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Abortion 1st paragraph

Just to let you know that Alienus is under a one week ban so won't be able to comment unless you e-mail him. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 13:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikia for Blade Runner?

I added a link to the Wikia Blade Runner thing. Is the plan to haul the BR-only content over there someday? Surely a fork of the content is not the best solution and surely it is a tangled mess for things that are mostly-but-not-completely BR things that should stay here at Wikipedia. What is the plan?

BTW: Your reference on your userpage to Essay having quit W is sorely out-of-date. AWM -- 71.141.33.208 02:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No as Wikia is seperate from Wikipedia, so unsure how that would be considered a fork, and thanks... forgot about Essjay being there. But it kind of serves as a reminder to me of several things. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

New article section

Greetings RoyBoy!

As an established Wikipedian, I was wondering if you give an opinion regards a proposed new section for the NPA Personality Theory article. The creator of the theory, and the author of the article has created a draft of the proposed section complete with diagram, located at his talk page. The diagram will likely be in .jpeg form, the current HTML code can be disregarded. Is is too technical? Is the diagram difficult to understand? Or do you believe its interesting and should be added to the article as soon as possible? If you could leave your opinion/suggestion on the talk page then we'd be really grateful. Its important as we are considering nominating the article for featured status, so naturally it should be in as good a state as possible. Thanks a lot for your assistance!! -- D-Katana 19:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Smile

Sophia 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!

Spanish Armada

The caption to the PBS Spanish Armada Isle of Wight image refers to the British, when it should be the English. Not sure how to fix it. Thanks.--shtove 20:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, done.--shtove 21:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Juan Cole protected

Hi! Did you notice that Juan Cole is protected pending the resolution of an editing dispute? Thanks, --William Pietri 17:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Given the tension over the article, I'd appreciate it if you said in the talk page that you're just doing a little copyediting while the debate continues. --William Pietri 17:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Blade Runner Original Cut

Thanks for the heads-up. I've often thought about purchasing a boot -- but now that there are fresh rumors of an official re-release, I think for now I'll go back to patiently waiting... ~CS 23:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

RoyBoy and Royboycrashfan

It seems that both you and User:Royboycrashfan exists as admins. With such closely similar names, do you think this will create any confusion among the Wikipedian community?--☆TBC☆ 02:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiLove!

Here's a pizza for you! Pizzas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others using Template:smile! Happy editing! ~Linuxerist (talk · contribs)

Blade Runner

Personally, i think the fact that the article is so long is part of the problem. Encyclopedic entries should be concise and give a full but simple overview of the subject. But I'll leave the intro for the time being.

Much of those edits was just deleting, and I didn't look through them all, but one problem those edits may have identified: I think the introduction is far too long. I think it needs to be reduced to maybe half its size, sufficient to introduce the topic. -- Centrx 03:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Saying half its size was probably excessive. However, for example, there is no need to list 10 actors, and the art and soundtrack persons in the introduction (especially when they are listed in the infobox on the right). The whole last paragraph of the introduction could be moved somewhere else. Same for the last sentence of the second paragraph -- Centrx 03:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Manitoba (band)

Hi, I see you left a link re Caribou (musician) on the Manitoba disambiguation page a while back. When I came across the page someone had reoved your entry. I added it back but it's been removed again. I'm going to keep a watch on the page and invite you to do the same. I'm not sure why someone repeatedly removes our entry but ? Take care Hu Gadarn 02:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

why did you merge without consensus?

I'm thinking of going ahead with the merge with Anti-abortion movement soon. If there are any outstanding issues let me know. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 13:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The outstanding issues were on the pro-life activism talk page, which is now gone. There was no consensus to merge to the name "anti-abortion movement", and you should have contributed on the appropriate talk page before "merging" to the "wrong" name. Please epxlain why you did what you did, and undo it.pat8722 14:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It also appears to me that you did not do a merge, but an effective delete, in as far as I can tell you deleted all the content that was in the pro-life activism article as well as on it's talk page, without attempting any kind of merge to the article you redirected to. What is the procedure to bringing back the content you deleted, both what was in the pro-life activism article, and the content on the pro-life activism talk page? Hopefully by next Sunday you will have the pages restored so they can be properly merged.) pat8722 17:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing has been deleted (see Talk:Pro-life_activism and if you check the history, here is the article before my merge); and the material was merged. The merge can be undone quite easily... but I don't see a compelling reason to do so. I'm really tired right now, but if this is just about merging/moving it to a more accurate/neutral article title; nothing is stopping you from pursuing that while the material remains in Anti-abortion movement... you can even use that talk page and/or move comments from Talk:Pro-life_activism. When I get the time I'll look at the issue myself, ask for a second opinion and implement your suggestions. I just want the material organized better and wanted something done; I have no opinion on the article title at this time. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Merges that involve a rename require consensus, and you did not have it. Please read the Talk:Pro-life_activism page regarding the outstanding merge issues, and then undo what you did until you have achieved consensus. As the arguments for merging to "pro-life activism" were quite strong, I suggest you start with a merge proposal on the anti-abortion movement page to merge to "pro-life activism", with reference to the arguments on the Talk:Pro-life_activism page, and see if anyone is able to counter those arguments. If not, you would be free to merge to the "pro-life activism" page. pat8722 21:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for voting in my recently unsuccessful RfA. I plan on working harder in the coming months so that I have a better chance of becoming an admin in the future. I hope you will consider supporting my if I have another RfA. Thank you for your comments. --digital_me^(t/c) 16:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User page refactoring

Thank's for fixing the formatting on my user page. I couldn't figure out what was wrong with it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

SideKick

I saw your message, I have replied on my talk page as well.

Thank you. Would you mind saving the discussions and talk page on your user pages? If you could help me with that, we could probably form a stronger and coherent argument for the mainstay of the article.

-- ^Evanx(tag?) 19:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have saved the page at User:Evanx/Backup. Let me know if you would liek to push for a deletion review. Do update the article there. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 22:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Religious versus abrahamic

Sure, but there are more religions than the Abrehamic ones, and there are differtent ideas in for example hinduism, and such. And such, religious concervatives is to wide. Maybe my change was to narrow, but something in between would be better. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Marvin_(HHGG).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Marvin_(HHGG).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Bladerunner

Agreed, the in depth analysis is already to be found in the sub-article, but if the unicorn dream is significant enough beyond that to warrant mention in the main, then surely the apparently deliberate red-eye is equally significant and merits equal prominence? Cain Mosni 15:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see the reasoning, and I almost suggested that it makes greater sense to excise the evidentiary discussion altogether, and refer readers to the sub-article. Cain Mosni 19:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Pages.

Hello, I suddenly have questions about Wikipedia Pages. I'm curious about something that is about title of page Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB2 and Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Everyone would consider these are same. But what are differences between Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB2 and Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Could you explain to me differences between these in my talk page? *~Daniel~* ☎ 02:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

but I know that Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is using for report blocking but Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB2 is also using for report vandal? *~Daniel~* ☎ 02:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation about TB2. *~Daniel~* ☎ 02:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Help

Can you deliever the Wikipedia Signpost starting at Number 44 on the spamlist. I started but don't have time. Also include the e-mail. If you haven't done it by 14:00 (UTC) I'll do it. Treebark (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. I just started at 02:30 and then ran out of time. Thanks for helping. Treebark (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea

I have no idea either. Sorry. --Randy Johnston (‽) 06:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

For e-mails which I expect this section is about, I'll tell Ral that that's the only thing we haven't done and he could do it. And isn't this talkpage getting a bit long? Treebark (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Will the archive come in November or December? Treebark (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I see. But it's much easier for you because if vandal's come back every day you can block them because your an admin. Treebark (talk)

Signpost

Could you start spamming this week's signpost at 72? I've done 1-71 because I've been called upon to do spamming, but I can't finish. Can you keep spamming starting at 72? Treebark (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael's Snow done them. Thanks. Treebark (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:BladeRunner Deckard and Rachael.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Durin 16:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use of episode images

I'm not sure if you are aware but all the images for star trek episode lists (and much much more) are up for debate at Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists as not fair use and thus require deleting. The crux of the "anti-image" argument is that they are both non-encyclopedic and purely decorative, something which is an entirely subjective set of criteria (much more so than the legal concept of fair use). Either way please drop your 2 cents on the respective talk page because it seems the only way this will be settled is by shear numbers which is quite sad. Cburnett 04:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

FLs on the Signpost

I believe you forgot to mention Featured Lists on the latest edition of the Signpost (July 17) although to be honest I don't remember promoting any lists the week before that. Regards -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar Award

I saw your Barnstar award on ScienceApologist's user page, and I have a couple of questions regarding your methodology. Firstly, was your evaluation of the edits blind, so that you could not tell whether the edit was by SE or another user? Secondly, what method did you use to select the edits to be reviewed, to ensure that your sample was truly random? Lastly, were your findings peer-reviewed - that is, did someone not involved in the study review your methodology? --David Mestel^(Talk) 06:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The comment was not intended to be entirely serious. --David Mestel^(Talk) 14:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer review for Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis

I passed the part of the peer review you requested on to your fellow collaborators. Yes, hopefully it will help to encourage them to come back. I didn't read through any of the detail of their leavings, but they seem to have had a difficult time; I suppose that's the risk when editing highly emotive subjects like abortion, but ironically we should to be attracting editors with that kind of courage rather than driving them away :-(

Kudos to you, though, for sticking with it. If I can do anything else to help the situation, please drop me a line.

I'll respond to your article specific questions on the peer review page shortly. --jwanders^Talk 20:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

800x600

We were discussing whether the portal being nominated for featured status here could be made to fit a smaller monitor. Please offer your suggestions.

Best wishes,

Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Features and admins section on WP:SIGN

Is it commonplace to also have de-featured pictures in the "features and admins" section? (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tawaret). I'll put a sentence in about it with <!-- --> surrounding it, and you can make the call.

I hope you don't mind that I added one more article that got de-featured from last week.

Thoughts and criticisms welcome at my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 04:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps consider archiving your talk page? It's currently at 66K. Just a thought.

Yeah, I also added a note about Phaedriel's RfA breaking CSCWEM's record of support votes (precedent set with the April 10 features and admins column). Sorry if I invaded your turf a little bit. :/ Ian Manka Talk to me! 04:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. If I can add anything in future F&A pages, I will, but I doubt Phaedriel's record will be toppled any time soon :P Ian Manka Talk to me! 05:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiality

My report on Colbert is done- anything I missed? I wasn't online at the time, so I didn't see any of it happen. If you get a chance, please double-check this for me. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Features and admins

Many people are complaning "Features and admins" in the Signpost is cut and dry; very boring. Maybe we should add a list of users who are currently requesting adminship, and are in the middle of there request so when people read the signpost they can click the "nom" button, and go to the request and support/oppose/or neutral them. Carmelapple 23:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you say as your the writer though many people do think it is cut and dry. Carmelapple 03:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment moved

<moved my comment to IanManka's talk page, as he wrote the item in question> NoSeptember 08:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

AntiIntegrity

Apparently these days removing rogue internet satires is a compromise to integrity here at Wikipedia. If you enjoy Maddox so much, why is it that you don't place a reference to him in every article that contains a topic he's criticised? Furthermore, why is it that everyone who has criticised Loose Change doesn't get a reference in the article?

Your logic simply holds no water, and no amount of unchecked power is ever going to change that. How you got to be an administrator anywhere on the net is beyond me. And to think-- the founder of Wikipedia is calling on people like you to make a real encyclopedia.

P.S. Read the article on vandalism; it was hardly an edit of bad faith. Don't hide behind rules and regulations to justify your bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sophia Demiurge (talk • contribs) .

Fair-use images removed from your user page

Hello, RoyBoy. I've removed Image:Blade Runner poster.jpg and Image:Jon Stewart in 2000 and 2005.jpg from your user page, as they are copyrighted images that are being used under claims of fair use. Unfortunately, by Wikipedia policies, no fair-use images can be used on user pages; please see the ninth item of the Wikipedia fair-use policy and Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images. These images have not been deleted from any articles. If you have any questions, please let me know. —Bkell (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please undelete my entry under Saipan (Education)

Hi, RoyBoy. This is my first time posting here on Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed (as spam) my "Steve Nguyen Online" under Saipan. I live and work as a Behavior Specialist in Saipan. I am the only Behavior Specialist on island and am well-respected here. I have set up my website Steve Nguyen Online to better serve the teachers and school staff here. There is nothing for sale on my site. It's a classroom management resource for teachers on Saipan. I serve all 20 public schools across 3 islands and this website is a great way to assist teachers on the other islands as well. Please undelete my entry. Thank you.

RoyBoy, thank you for clarifying the policies and guidelines. I was not aware of those. Apologies and request for undeletion withdrawn. (Soundsticks 01:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC));

I've almost finished the F&A article

I probably should have put the inuse tag. All we need is the main page articles, and pictures of the day. Would you mind if I uploaded them? Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Looks like we only need pictures of day (+ formatting for FA status nominations). Sorry about that! (Hopefully you didn't put too much work into it before I added my work). Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice job...

... on the abortion-breast cancer page. I saw the request for peer review. I'll probably make a few suggestions, but I'll keep them in small bites and leave a meaningful edit summary for anything I edit. I accidentally edited a little while not logged in just now, but left a comment at the talk page. Again, just wanted to say nice work. MastCell 22:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC) (aka 140.107.57.188)

Advertising?

Can you check this user? I feel his contributions are only advertising to get wikipedia editors to praticipate in a web survey of his? Do you think this is advertising? That's the only thing he's done with contributions. ForestH2 t/c 03:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

800x600 for Concerto delle donne

Is a current FAC. See its nomination Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Concerto delle donne. Again, you may have a better idea how the elements can fit on the page more comfortably. Cheers, Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Input request

Hello, RoyBoy. I have become involved in a dispute with User:Cindery. The disagreement begun as a misunderstanding on Talk:Mifepristone. However, it evolved into hostility on both our User talk pages, User talk:Severa and User_talk:Cindery. I am willing to admit fault but discussion has reached a critical impasse. [8] I have looked through WP:Resolving disputes for an hour but I have been unable to find a third-party mediation process which would fit this situation. Given your history as an administrator, and our success in overcoming the ABC summary dispute in January, I would appreciate if you could lend outside input or help direct me to the most appropriate process by which this could be achieved. Please note that I have been experiencing internet difficulties which may slow my response. Thanks in advance. -Severa (!!!) 11:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I find personal attacks of level demonstrated in Cindery's last post on my Talk page highly unacceptable. Posting with a level of venom capable of drawing tears flies in the face of WP:NPA. It's the sort of behavior that will only become more problematic in the future if it isn't addressed now. -Severa (!!!) 17:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Cindery is also involved in a dispute with Andrew c and does not seem inclined toward resolution there either. [9] My faith in Wikipedia has been seriously shaken and I'm honestly considering throwing in the towel. I have been involved with content disputes before. I frequent contentious articles so it's to be expected given the territory. However, I've never encountered such resistence to conflict resolution before. I'm really scratching my head over this one, because, honestly, I can't see what either Andrew c or I have done to have provoked Cindery's upset so much. Moreover, my past experience on Wikipedia has taught me that it is worth seeing dispute resolutions through. I don't want to make things worse, but Cindery seems to have a lot to offer to Wikipedia, but I don't the imagine the process running very smoothly if there's a lingering animus running between she and I, or she and Andrew c, because we're bound to run in to each other and have to work together if we're manning the same articles.

Anyway, I just want to thank you again for your guidance. You've been such a mainstay during my time at Wikipedia. -Severa (!!!) 18:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey puppet

I will put it back. You can take it out all you want. 146.115.123.152 20:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

About the Abortion-Breast Cancer article...

... I don't mean to give you a hard time or nitpick you. I feel like it's too easy for comments to come off as harsh or argumentative on the computer, and I'm afraid maybe some of mine have done so. I appreciate the work and passion you've put into the abortion-breast cancer article, and given how inflammatory some of these issues can be, I think you do a very good job of keeping your cool. Although we obviously have different viewpoints on a few things, I respect your work, and my comments/edits are made in the spirit of trying to improve the article further. I hope that comes through. MastCell 03:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations and punctuation

I don't understand why you changed the punctuation (not spelling) of the references I altered. Rererences attach to statements which may be sub-ordinate segments of a sentence^{like this}, and hence belong inside the bounding punctuation. In the changes you've made you've actually made the sentences structurally incorrect, by moving the citations one subordinate onward. Cain Mosni 19:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, we've been taught differently... Cain Mosni 19:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

08/28 F&A section

So, am I to assume that we should not include admins who have been promoted before deadline? For example, Teke was closed earlier today, before deadline. Should we include, or leave for next issue? Also, sorry about messing up the Today's Featured Article... I was just continuing where the last issue left off. I had no idea the policy was to start Sunday and end Sunday. Thanks for your help this week. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 22:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

So, what's the call? Do we include Teke in the issue or not? And, furthermore, what should be the policy in the future? Should I freeze the article as of Monday 00:01 UTC? That is, should I not add any more updates, such as User:Teke's promotion? If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 22:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Blade Runner Icon.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Blade Runner Icon.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Liftarn 15:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Loose_Change_(video)#Criticism

I'd have to disagree. I'll sleep on it and let you respond before proceeding. Although it's certainly an interesting point, it implies there is something significant to hide. Not only do I disagree with that (generally speaking regarding conspiracies), but its bad form to imply something; Loose Change does that a lot and I don't want to follow their example. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I mainly included it because Loose Change has caught criticism from conspiracy theorists and supporters of the official research alike.--Rosicrucian 04:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi there

Thought I'd give wiki one more go trying to keep away from all the bureaucratic nonsense and edit quietly somewhere in the safe world of physics, avoiding all controversy - hence the no show on the abortion related articles. I ended up in non-standard cosmology which is a hot bed of conflicting opinions - so my lie low approach isn't working! Therefore I give up and will get up to speed when I have time and throw my tuppence in about any changes since I was last there. Glad the peer review of ABC went well. Sophia 07:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi, RoyBoy, thank you for applying for VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now authorized for use, so if you haven't already, simply download VandalProof from our main page and install it, and you're all set!

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either: {{User VandalProof}} (which will add this user box) or [[Category:Wikipedians using VandalProof]] to your user page.

If you have any queries, please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Welcome to our team! —Xyrael / 16:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)