User talk:Rory096/Archive12

---

Number of times this page has been vandalized: 0

---

Archive (January 29, 2006 to March 16, 2006)

Archive2 (March 16, 2006 to March 26, 2006)

Archive3 (March 26, 2006 to April 5, 2006)

Archive4 (April 5, 2006 to April 21, 2006)

Archive5 (April 21, 2006 to May 3, 2006)

Archive6 (May 4, 2006 to May 21, 2006)

Archive7 (May 22, 2006 to June 5, 2006)

Eurovan (PSA/Fiat)

Regarding the articles on individual Eurovans - please have a look at the main Eurovan article, you will find that all the information contained in the individual ones is there plus much more. In case of Fiat Ulysse specifically, it is all actually in the introduction. Regards, Bravada, talk - 20:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

See GT's talk page

See GT's talk page. ForestH2

See GT's talk page again. ForestH2

Bypassing Cross-Namespace Redirects

Rory, your bot recently bypassed a cross-namespace redirect on WP:RfD that was being considered for deletion ^[1]. This is probably not a very good idea, and so I was wondering if you could perhaps have your bot skip the WP:RfD page. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot to remove it during that run. My bad. (Totally scared me when I saw it on the greylist in #vandalism-en-wp, though, because I had completely forgotten it was running at all... nearly gave me a heart attack :o) --Rory096 03:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Your bot hit my talk page. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm, ok. --Rory096 08:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Mine too. I would rather have broken links on there than get spurious "New Messages" banners. Can you keep it off userspace? —Chowbok 15:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please alter your bot so it does not alter any more talk pages. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I already did. --Rory096 06:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 5th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 23	5 June 2006	About the Signpost

New revision-hiding feature added	Paper profiles Wales, slams Wikipedia business coverage
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	New external tools
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.

Got a question

Hey, first off, thanks for voting in my Rfa. It probably won't pass, but a man can still hope :D . Anyway, I looked at your user page, and was wondering why you aren't an admin yet? I was wondering if after my Rfa I could nominate you. Shalom, Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 08:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nah, you don't want to nominate me, I'm like a curse. See my previous nom. Anyway, HappyCamper already asked me, though I doubt I'll run again for at least a few months. --Rory096 08:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Just saw it and I have to say that for some reason people don't get elected that aren't here for a while Oh no! That means me!. Well, I think you would be a good admin, as we have worked together in the past and I liked your edits. Anyway, whenever you do decide to run, I will definetly be a Strong Support. Thanks, Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 08:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Rory. You don't have to feel like that. Many of us think that you are an asset to the encyclopedia. Keep up the good work. :) --Nearly Headless Nick 15:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks

Rory096/Archive12, thank you for participating in my RfA. It passed with an amazingly unopposed 77/0/1. Thanks for the support everybody! If you see me doing anything wrong, want to ask me something, or just want to yell in my general direction, leave me a note on my talk page. I promise to try and knock out Wikipedia's problems wherever I may find them!

Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion

Your bot "corrected" Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion again[2]. I've reverted it. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 19:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Grr, I did remember to remove it during the regex run (which wouldn't have found it), but not the straight find and replace run. --Rory096 19:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the work orphaning those links! -- JLaTondre 00:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Tony Atwater.jpg

Hi Rory, I am not really sure what WP is looking for as a rational. If the photo stays, that would be good, if it gets yanked, well ok. But I am not sure what is being asked here, beyond a simple claim of fair use. If I had a better idea of what is being asked, I would be more than happy to comply. Thanks, Brimba 06:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

We just need something like what is done at Image:Webelongtogether.jpg or Image:Starship troopers2.jpg. --Rory096 07:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello, Rory096/Archive12, and thank you for voting on my recent RfA! With a final vote of 84/1/4, I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months, but welcome any and all feedback and suggestions on how I might be able to use them to help the project. Thanks again! Kukini 05:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Image at commons

I think that it should be deleted. FellowWikipedian 22:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Somehow Nonsense

You had stated "Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you" Now it is not considered nonsense if you have the male private part, but not the female's private part in that sentence or that intro paragraph. Was the phrase "inbetween the person's legs" implying female, whoever wrote that can do much better. Though i am a male, women would find that inaccurate information to only say the male's private part. I tried to find the better word, which is why i had changed my input that goldon apparently saw and wrote me. Pretty straight-forward that you and goldon/whoever are males. It is not vandalism, call it what you want. I was not trying to be funny, wonder why you took it like that?

june 10, 2:24 am. majinsnake —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Majinsnake (talk • contribs) .

The article already says "crotch," which is indicative of a general area of a body and can refer to a male or a female. Also, the uterus is inside women, so there isn't hair on it. --Rory096 06:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Barbi.jpg

I pulled the {{db-vand}} tag off of this upload, at least to me this is not obvious vandalism, can you elaborate? — xaosflux ^Talk 11:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It's only being used for vandalism. See the uploader's contribs and User:72.148.43.61's contribs. --Rory096 19:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It's nolnoger being used for vandalism, and is tagged (perhaps falsely) as PD. As such it doesn't appear to meet a speedy deletion criteria. BUt you can always list it on WP:IFD. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well technically, it says that it's only being used with permission (making the tag wrong), so that's speediable... --Rory096 19:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and retag it for CSD as orphaned fairuse. I won't delete it, but will not delist it either, likely some other admin will whack it. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Blake Clarke

Hi there! Even those Blake Clark is misspelled and the fact the article is completely misformatted a quick IMDB search shows, this is not speedy worthy. If you're credited as yourself, that's usually because people know you by that name. Anyway, since the creator said he was often in films with Adam Sandler, I'd say it's a small claim to notability. I'll fix it up and see how you like it, but please be careful where you put those speedies. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Autotagger

Hi Rory096. I noticed you tested out my Image Autotagger, I hope you find it useful. If there are any feature requests you'd like to make, just let me know. I haven't been working on it recently, but I'll get back into development soon enough. Have fun! ~MDD4696 01:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I was just thinking of one improvement, no license and no source at the same time. It shouldn't be hard to code though, as {{subst:nldnsd}} should do the trick. Great tool, btw. --Rory096 05:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

?

Could you explain, in detail, how removing unverifiable dicdefs and their unreliable sources from an article is, to quote your chosen policy, "disruptive", "experimental", "spiteful" and "unencyclopedic"? Particularly given the healthy discussion on the talk page, which you don't seem to have contributed to yet? -Splash - tk 07:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You blanked the entire page. Yes, they may all be unverifiable, but making a page a borderline A3 isn't how to resolve that problem. You should discuss it on the talk page or AfD first, as unilaterally blanking a page because it's unverifiable is clearly a violation of WP:POINT and certainly not following any process. --Rory096 07:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't a terribly detailed response, particularly as it didn't deal with any of the things I asked about. POINT is frequently bandied about when all people are really doing is making some kind of point, without being disruptive, experimental or spiteful. But you didn't say how I have violated POINT, nor really which other processes, other than an unusually bold editing (another policy there) choice. Removing unverifable content can only be dealt with by removing it: it is unverifiable! Anyway, I just added back in a term that is thoroughly referenced, like a good encyclopedia should be. -Splash - tk 07:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You're disrupting Wikipedia by blanking an entire page! The correct way of getting rid of an entire unverifiable page when there's nothing left when you keep the verifiable stuff is by going through AfD. If you just tried to make your point on the talk page that it's not verifiable or encyclopaedic, then you would not be violating WP:POINT. If you blank the entire article, then you're disrupting it. Note also that WP:BOLD says "'be bold in updating pages' does not mean that you should make large changes or deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories." --Rory096 07:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not leave a blank page behind. I left the category, a template and a TOC. Someone added a list-stub tag a bit later. Sometimes, simply starting over is the only way to go. It takes one sweeping edit to get a page back on track, which is where that article now is. The effect of starting over is amazing, see for example List of sexual slurs which got the same treatment (from someone else) a while ago. Removing unverifiable content that is dicdef pubspeak is a good thing, not disruption. -Splash - tk 07:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I can't work out what the 'root' link is for the CNET glossary. http://www.cnet.com/Resources/Info/Glossary/Terms fails, and so does stopping at Glossary. Where do I go? -Splash - tk 07:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to figure out the same, but I can't find it. --Rory096 07:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.cnet.com/Resources/Info/Glossary/index.html. -Splash - tk 07:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, there we go. CNET would be considered a reliable source, right? --Rory096 07:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I would think so. THough ideally a reliable source is one that has itself verified the content before publishing it. So some of these online dictionaries :) are going to be ok, and I guess some aren't. dictionary.com actually references offline, real dictionaries where it can, and they're obviously best. The only print dictionary I have is older than me, though (not old, but too old), and so is no good. -Splash - tk 07:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

So when referencing dictionary.com, you're citing the actual book it came from? --Rory096 07:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, my link for LOL is actually to dictionary.com. A bit of an easter egg link, I guess.

AcronymFinder, I'm not so sure about. They don't cite their sources, they link you quickly to commercial sites and they don't seem to be published by someone I've heard of. Do you know more about them? -Splash - tk 07:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

OTOH(!), this says "NOTE: We don't accept made-up definitions.". -Splash - tk 07:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Tnavbar apologies

Sorry there, User:Larry V actually did correct some of the mispellings but missed the ones you caught... I just didn't realize that. Thanks! :-) Netscott 07:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Caesars Atlantic City

Hi. Sorry for not replying sooner. Yes this one is pretty debatable but, because there was some information in the templates and it looks like it could become a valid article, I decided to err on the side of caution. In the circumstances, I might take it upon myself to expand the article slightly. Cheers TigerShark 10:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Norris Template

What did you mean by "customizability"? I'm the one who originally put the gas fact up... so it's old and I'll have to change it. Do you use the C.N. userbox somewhere? --FairNBalanced 19:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)