User talk:Robchurch/October 2005

Archives: Aug 05 | Sept 05 | Oct 05 | Nov 05 | Dec 05 | Jan 06 | Feb 06 | Mar 06 | Apr 06 || May 06 | Jun 06 | Jul 06 || New Message

IRC Argument

Sorry for blowing up at you on IRC. I'm a little touchy today. Since you appear to have me on ignore on #wikipedia, I decided to say sorry here. WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 16:24, 1 Oct 2005 (CDT)}

Witz

Robchurch, you marked this article for speedy deletion, giving the reason "Advertising". Regrettably, this is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion under WP:CSD, so I removed the notice. If you still wish to present it for deletion, please place an AfD notice so we can present it for discussion. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 00:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on Deryck Chan's RFA

You had voted oppose, based on his signature being transcluded and him campaigning in his sig. Now that he's stopped doing both, I ask you to perhaps reconsider, or at least note that you oppose for other reasons (I changed mine to neutral). Ral 315 W_S 13:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Dominician Music anon...

...you're tracking is now at User:Djbombero. Have to run off myself, but good luck! --Dvyost 14:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot the sig. didn't mean it to be an anonymous tip ;)

WP:CP

Hi, you've reported copyright infringements to WP:CP in the last week, a new measure was recently passed to allow the speedy deltion of new pages that are cut and paste copyvios. Please follow these instructions if you come across this type of copyvio. Thanks. --nixie 00:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant copyright infringements may now be "speedied"

If an article and all its revisions are unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider and there is no assertion of permission, ownership or fair use and none seems likely, and the article is less than 48 hours old, it may be speedily deleted. See CSD A8 for full conditions.

After notifying the uploading editor by using wording similar to:

{{nothanks-sd|pg=page name|url=url of source}} -- ~~~~

Blank the page and replace the text with

{{db-copyvio|url=url of source}}

to the article in question, leaving the content visible. An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to speedily delete it or not.

Our friend

I would like to comment, time permitting. I tend to be a bit busy right now, but as I have time, I'll contribute what you need. He does seem to game the system, stalk, is anti-collaborative, and seems to use WP merely to chat about fan-crufty rap gang related trivia. Not a contributor I expect much of. paul klenk ^talk 23:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My photo

I have listed my image (Image:IM000389.JPG) here for deletion as you requested, and uploaded a new one under a clearer name (Image:AdamKingreyPhoto.jpeg). I tagged the old one with an ifd template as well. The new one is under the GFDL (user created) license. The Wookieepedian 03:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers from a WikiRookie

Thanks for the greeting on my user page. It made me feel warm and fuzzy. Having been a user of Wikipedia for a few months its good to get involved. DanG 12:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my adminship!

Dear Rob: Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. Your kind words about my work on Wikipedia are greatly appreciated; I am most honoured by the trust that has been placed in me by yourself and other members of the Wikipedia community. I promise to only use my administrative privileges to assist the community in doing good work, and also to be calm, considerate and careful in my work in making Wikipedia a better place. It has been an honour working with you on Wikipedia, and in conversing with you via IRC; I am privileged to have you as a friend here on the wiki. I look forward to working with you in the future, both here and on our new project. I'll see you on IRC! Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 01:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Intimidating vandalism warning

reply on the message you have sent can be found here. --.::Imdaking::. ^{Bow | DOWN} 03:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added additional info. Incase you didn't read it, read --.::Imdaking::. ^{Bow | DOWN} 03:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for adminship

Dear Rob: As promised, I have nominated you for adminship; far overdue, my dear fellow, and I think that the community would be quite mad to turn you down. Would you be so good as to go to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Robchurch 2 and do your bit so that I can list it on RfA (new rules, you see). Thanks! --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 00:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nomination; I've now accepted that and answered the questions, so I'll let you finish up. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAD} 00:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialist thinking and the Empire of Japan

I have made a proposal regarding this article on the above AfD. I would value any imput you have on this idea. cheers Youngamerican 02:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on adminship Dlyons493 Talk 06:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Congratulations on getting that mop! --JoanneB 12:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

High horse

You need to get straight off that high horse now.--Son of Paddy's Ego 14:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User posted a complaint about me on WP:AN/I during which time David Gerard discovered he was an Irate sockpuppet. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 12:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bob and Doug McKenzie

Thanks for the move. Everything turned out perfectly. Have a good one. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good

I just got through putting a delete tag on that SPO7 article when you deleted it. File:Smilie.gifMolotov (talk)
20:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also saw you block that vandal, dude you deserve one of these:

Take care, File:Smilie.gifMolotov (talk)
21:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

Why do yu say I am vandalizing it, did you read the changes I made?

Seriously, for the adnan oktar article, what i delete is the list of languages his books are transslated to, that he has prophets seal in front of his books, and so on. Deleting whichof those is considered vandalisim. And i explained my motives in the discussion page.

Why do yu say I am vandalizing it, did you read the changes I made?

Seriously, for the adnan oktar article, what i delete is the list of languages his books are transslated to, that he has prophets seal in front of his books, and so on. Deleting whichof those is considered vandalisim. And i explained my motives in the discussion page.

Impersonation vandal

Thank you for blocking User:Asenai, a vandal account created to impersonate me. Could you please also deal with his numerous sockpuppets? You can find a pretty good list at User:Christoperpharham (impersonator of User:Christopherparham). Just follow the links, instead of looking at the names. Thank you! :) --Ashenai (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Message edited to remove personal attacks.

I edited the page Jacob because the boy called Jacob who is sitting next to me now said he was a magical leprechaun. You schould not let your life be controlled by [...] religion. You [...]. Have a nice day [...]. KTJackson.

If you knew me personally, you'd be well aware that I'm anything but Christian. I merely reverted your rather careless and idiotic behaviour. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 13:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rob Church. I notice you blocked this vandal indefinitely. That seems to be much harsher than warranted by Wikipedia:Block#Vandalism. Is this justifiied? —Michael Z. 2005-10-19 13:58 Z

Block reviewed and reduced to 48 hours. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 18:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester

Rob, as far as I'm concerned consensus has been achieved, bar a couple of stubborn people. I was told by the admin that locked the thread that a simple majority was sufficient. That majority exists so I am carrying out the actions discussed in the City of Manchester discussion. (preceding comment by EarlyBird, moved here from the user page.) --Ashenai (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly Good Show

I knew you'd make admin easily, excellent! :) Kim Bruning 14:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 16:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your Sanity Check on User:NicholasTurnbull

I am not saying that Nicholas Turnbul is, himself, pushing a point of view, but he certainly did make edits that slanted the article in the same direction that the subjects of the article (who are now permanently banned from Wikipedia by an Arbitration Committee ruling) would prefer. If these edits were not factual or accurate, that's fine; but he deleted relevant and factual information that, being factual, was not disputed even by Igor Bogdanov - it's just that Igor didn't think them "balanced", and wanted them removed. Please research things a little better, Rob. The pruning Nicholas did today definitely had the effect of skewing the article to one point of view. r b-j 02:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cite me specific edits (i.e. use the history page's comparison tool, and get the URLs) that Nicholas Turnbull made to the article, and explain to me how they are POV. From the perspective of an outsider, they most assuredly are not. I've no wish to get involved in this despicable mess - all the parties involved are behaving most disgustingly in my view, so please don't leave me messages with these sorts of unsupported claims again; particularly not when there are arbitration judgements against people involved in this. Thank you. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 02:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, at User_talk:NicholasTurnbull, i cited three diffs to Nicholas. there were about 10 separate edits, most of which soften the gravity of the content of the article about what literally is a fraud that these guys have perpetrated on, for the most part, the French-speaking popular science community and the physics community. Don't believe me? there is plenty of web research to do (that I have done).

but specifically, i cited three diffs to Nicholas. read each one. then tell me that the diff to the article is or is not less harsh regarding the Bogdanovs. if it is less harch, it's a POV edit unless it was removing unfactual content. if it is about the veracity of the the content that Nicholas deleted, then let me know. if it isn't already supported, it used to be, and it certainly was supported in the talk page or some archive of it. not one of the facts that Nicholas removed is false nor unsupported. the only thing they had in common was they were not flattering to the subjects of the article.

so don't tell me about unsupported claims, we (YBM, Alain_r, and myself) were supporting every iota of evidence, flattering or not, to the article. please do a better job of researching it before coming to such conclusions.r b-j 03:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't substantiate those claims when making them to me, but that's somewhat besides the point now. If I may suggest it - judging by some of the language you used above, it looks like you are very much in danger of pushing a POV yourself, subconsciously or otherwise. I strongly recommend that you completely ignore the article for a period of time. Incidentally, my task was not to evaluate the content of the article, but to see if specific edits made the article appear to be non-neutral. I also read the entire current revision of the article following that, so yes, I did a considerable amount of research. Please assume good faith in the future. One would think that you would appreciate a pair of neutral eyes. Apparently that is not so, and thus I've no wish to continue with this particular issue. Good day, Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 03:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i can assume good faith with you (and i believe that i have with Nicholas and the other admins, and they also with me), but i cannot with the Bogdanovs nor with their sock-puppets nor with their meat-puppets. that good faith was squandered 6 weeks ago by Igor. he is a profoundly mendacious and malignantly narcissitic human being. that's harch to say, but it is what it is and denying it, for me, would be to lose touch with reality.

also, i know the whole mess is ugly, but, similar to a criminal trial, sometimes for the sake of truth and justice, this ugliness needs to be probed and the ugly truth brought to sunlight. that is all i have been trying to do. not one of my edits brought in any falsehood nor removed a relavant and true fact. it is not POV editing that i have been banned from the article (but not Wikipedia, like the others), but because I am not considered to be NPOV. well, if that is the case, all i can say is that the truth needs an advocate. please don't sacrifice the (supported and factual) truth on the alter of NPOV. r b-j 03:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't begin to see any salient points coming out of this latest message. I've already made it clear that I don't want to be sucked into this damn mess - I was merely performing a check for a friend, to make sure he wasn't about to burn out - and Nick is very close to burning out. One would think that users could be a little understanding.

No new admin needs anything like the measure of hassle he's been getting. Wikipedia is not the place for this controversy and argument by the scientific community to take place. It is merely the place for factual and encyclopedic information about said argument to be recorded. These petty squabbles, arguments and what amounts to whining and bitching at those users who are only trying to keep the damn peace are not helping the community at all.

Back to my original point; I can't see any evidence that Nicholas skewed the article to any particular point of view, and as far as I'm concerned, he's done his level best to keep the various parties in this despicable mess happy whilst keeping the article neutral. Each attempt has been thrown back in his face, and I find that more disgusting than anything else. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 14:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, i don't need the last word on this, but i thought i might say one last thing or two:

1. i don't think there is any daylight between your and my POV of your sentiments such as: "One would think that users could be a little understanding." "No new admin needs anything like the measure of hassle he's been getting." and "...he's done his level best to keep the various parties in this despicable mess happy whilst keeping the article neutral." i fully agree with what you say.

2. about the "damn peace", there is a problem. that's what ArbCom is trying to sort out: how to get some damn peace when one side cannot tolerate the deletion of accurate, relevant, and salient information about the nature of the "affair" and the other side cannot apparently tolerate the inclusion of such information. it would be a mistake to look at this superficially and conclude that there is any moral equivalence to the sides of this editorial struggle. even though they (the B's) complained about it, i used a comparison with such issues as child pornography and pedophilia. there are actually people who, with a straight face, completely defend such practices and, i suppose some argument of theirs should be heard, but according to WP NPOV, equal weight should not be granted to those opinions that are so far from the mainstream that they are considered to be aberrant. in all honesty, it is exactly the role of WP to figure out who the "establishment" is and who is outside of it, in reporting a factual story.

please don't let Nicholas get burned out. and i'll try to watch out for him to. but the facts need an advocate here, also. peace, r b-j 01:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Whirlpool

Just to let you know: I was in the process of writing my closure statement for this while you closed it. I had already put an {{editing}} tag on it for that purpose. Since it is a debate that takes a little care to close, and I had already written my closure I've replaced yours with mine. I mean no offence, and the effect is the same (though I choose no consensus in such cases), but feel free to endorse my closure or something if you like. -Splash^talk 03:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Collateral Damage Block

I received a message that assures me you may have blocked me. If so, please undo the block and don't do it again. If this is just a system hiccup, please accept my apologies. Ricardo the Texan 05:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted image

You deleted "ArtemisSM.jpg" recently for no reason. Look here, and you can specifically see that the {{film-screenshot}} tag was used, and some idiotic anon removed it. Look at his contributions, and he does this to multiple images. What happened here? -- RattleMan 20:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Appleby

I see you blocked this user for 3RR (quite correctly). It is not immediately apparent from his talk page, but this is his 3rd such block in little more than a week, and the second in the space of a few days. Last time I blocked him [1], I warned him that if he continued the blocks would get longer. He removed that and my earlier message from his page (he's allowed to), and so you didn't and couldn't spot them. I'm wanting to mean what I say, and lengthening blocks have enough precedent. Is it ok if I extend the block to 36 hours? I'm gonna be away for a few mins right now, but if I don't hear from you, I'll extend it: if you think I'm wrong to do so, please do reduce it again. -Splash^talk 02:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think I won't, and will just leave it at 24. The diffs are like this, and I think he perhaps has been correcting factually incorrect edits. The website in question doesn't seem to support the anon's claims. That kind of reverting doesn't seem to warrant a punitively extended block. -Splash^talk 02:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Channel Access Removed

Jtkiefer removed access for me. I was later give a 2. Can you please fix this up? -☺Adam1213☺ Talk +|WWW 00:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cool Cat. Just cleaned your talk up a touch at the bottom, but that ain't why I'm here. Like to point out that JTK removed Adam's access because of an inappropriate comment Adam made which, as I understand it, caused JTK to worry about Adam's understanding of IRC precedents and of Freenode's guidelines on keeping things cool.

Incidentally, I'm becoming worried that Adam still isn't getting it. I would love for someone to take him under their wing - hell, I'd do it myself. Can you maybe suggest to him that he needs to read up a few things and get some understanding of the wiki way into his head? If you want, refer him to me for informal mentoring or something; he's a clueless newbie who doesn't need to run into the wrong sort of trouble - we can sort it, no problems. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 01:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joke... and I said that it was one. I never abused the access power that I got. The only time I kicked someone was when you came on with your bot and we were getting double posts and after asking people in the room and they approved I kicked. --☺Adam1213☺ Talk +|WWW 06:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly as Robchurch said. If you would like more clarification on this you know where to find me on IRC :). Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I think: I am not going to get involved directly. I am not going to overule any desicions made as it is not my place. However I will give adam a level 2 access as we know he is definately not a vandal. This will get him auto-voice as well. Objections? --Cool Cat ^Talk 16:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

This IP address belongs to a college; as far as I know the network doesn't give static IP addresses. Therefore, I don't know that there is any way of assuring the person who made the changes (not me) ever sees the message. 141.154.140.63 00:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Dear Rob You don't seem to have read my rejoinder on the RfA page: I have made no legal threats at all. Please point to the text where you think I have done so. Your message is starting to look like a threat itself, although strictly speaking, it's not. Tony 00:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dignity? You talk of dignity?

Again, I have only passed on what someone else said about a legal situation. So your message was largely irrelevant. Please allow me, in my final days/hours, a say in what appears on my talk page. Tony 00:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since my comments keep being blanked from your talk page, I shall respond here, briefly. Clearly you've transcended into that mentality where you think you're above and beyond the rules. I'll take that as a refusal to remove the comments, which will mean a block is in order. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 01:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]