User talk:Rory096/Archive12

This is an archive of my talk page. Do NOT add anymore comments to this archive. If you want to talk to me, please add comments to my current talk page. Editing this archive will be considered vandalism and will be reverted and unanswered.

---

Number of times this page has been vandalized: 5

---

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)

No, but see how Kotepho's has {{{text|blah}}} around it? That allows people to put {{user Chuck Norris|text=blah}}, so they can have their own fact. In the future, when changing facts, please only remove the "With the rising cost of gasoline, Chuck Norris is beginning to worry about his drinking habit," and not the {{{text| and }}} around it. --Rory096 19:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see! Thanks for tip --FairNBalanced 19:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Internet slang

Could of just messaged me, I was on. Some of the stuff wasnt't a direct link, I admit it, but stuff like "Multi-User Shared Habitat" is. Also, this is a list of slang, not acronims. I would really, though, like to take all this crap and soft redirect it to wikitonary. Any way you know of doing that?--Rayc 19:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

MUSH says all the supposed meanings for it are just backronyms. Transwikiing it to Wiktionary would be great (though they'd probably hate it as much as we do), but it could only really be accomplished in an AfD, which rejected it last time. --Rory096 20:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about those that redirected back to internet slang... I was checking if they redirected to the list! God, that inital list took an hour to go through --Rayc 20:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

as of links

You caught me in the middle of marking As of April 2006 and As of May 2006, but thanks for the reminder... 66.167.252.27 07:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC).

RfA/Gurch

A big thanks for your beat-the-nominator support. As for your bidding, well... unless it involves deleting the Main Page, blocking Jimbo, protecting the Sandbox, etc. etc., I'm happy to help – Gurch 15:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That sentence was tehre BEFORE i edited

You changed all of my edits. I had changed that sentence which I did not write and did not add, before you simply deleted everything I did.MollyBloom 00:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC) There is NO cut and paste from my edits. I was in the process of trying to reword, in fact, when you reverted ALL of my edits. I had also changed a paragraph that was there previously (I did not add) that was a direct cut and paste from a website.MollyBloom 01:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 12th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 24	12 June 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: RSS returns
English Wikipedia reaches 1,000 Featured Articles	Administrator desysopped after sockpuppeting incident
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	News and Notes: Wikimedia board resolutions, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 01:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Technosphere3.jpg

Thanks for being extremely diligent in tagging images that are orphaned. I just wanted to let you know that those images I uploaded weren't orphaned at all, I had just uploaded them and you must have tagged them in between the time of upload and use in an article. Oh, and I was wondering if you could review my claims of fair use rationale on those three images and let me know if their sufficient or even applicable? I haven't dealt with many fair use images before. Thanks! -Rkitko 02:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's no problem. I just thought it was amusing. Behold, the power of wiki! Thanks again. -Rkitko 04:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

CrazyRussian's RfA

File:Motherussia.jpg

Hello Rory096, and thank you for your support at my request for adminship, which ended with an awe-inspiring 86/1/2 result. I plan to do much with my shiny new tools - but I'll start slow and learn the ropes at first. Please deluge me with assignments and requests - I enjoy helping out. For Mother Russia!! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Rory096, thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for adminship, it passed with a final tally of (65/3/3) - which I find both amazing and humbling. I wish I had time to thank everyone personally, but I'm afraid all I can offer is this token of my gratitude. I hope to live up to your expectations/hopes. If at any stage you need to contact me, for help or a request or to point out a mistake in my conduct, please make sure to tell me on my talk page. --Fir0002 08:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Rory096/Archive12, thank you for voting in my RFA which failed eventually at a result of (91/51/8). I do not plan to run for adminship until a later date. Once again, I would like to thank you for voting. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs)} 14:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Question

Do you know if there is a tag that marks a fair use image as needing to be replaced with one of a lower resolution? --Hetar 01:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, {{fair use reduce}}. --Rory096 02:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Hello. I just wanted to comment that you probably shouldn't be so quick to label things as vandalism, as you did here, here, and here. The user seemed be trying to improve the page, and userpages are allowed to be edited by anybody. Thank you for your time. Chuck^(contrib) 07:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the banned user Dschor. --Rory096 07:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies...I didn't see any notice on their page. Forget what I said. Later, Chuck^(contrib) 07:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

PYT

I found it confusing that PYT directed to the band rather than the song, which I was looking for. therefore, i thought that a disambiguation page was the answer. the page "PYT (band)" should not be deleted as it is the new page for the band. thanks. --Paaerduag 07:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, but when moving the page, you have to use the "move" button at the top of the page, to preserve the history for the GFDL. Anyway, there's now a link to the song on PYT, so nobody should be confused anymore. --Rory096 07:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

PYT again

Just an opinion, but isn't the song by Michael Jackson more famous than the band. I mean, i've never heard of the band, but the song is incredibly famous (on the thriller album), and it is the inspiration for the band. I belive that the song should be the first article that appears, and there should be a link to the band. sound alright? --Paaerduag 07:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you're going to have to wait till PYT (band) is deleted to move it properly (with the move button), then you can create a disambiguation page. --Rory096 07:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, i don't think you understand. I'll show you. just one moment...--Paaerduag 07:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

PYT

There, i'm finished, and as long as PYT (band) is deleted, it'll be alright. the correct way to write the title is "P.Y.T. (band)" anyway, because each letter stands for a different word, as with the song. thanks. --Paaerduag 07:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Vegetable oils

My compliments on the grace with which you handled the recent (most likely clueless) vandalism of Vegetable oils. Well done! Waitak 11:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedied redirect

Hi there. I see you just put the page WikiProject Arthropods up for speedy deletion. It used to redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods. I don't understand why this page should be deleted; if someone does a search for "WikiProject Arthropods" (it doesn't come to every user's mind that a WikiProject is in Wikipedia space, not main space), they will be redirected to the WikiProject. Apparently this was also the idea of the editor who restored the content of the page after it was previously deleted (a process which I did not notice). Could you enlighten me on the reasons of this deletion? Thanks, IronChris | (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

RFD

You added a comment to a closed RFD (Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion#Ckatz.2FWorkspace.2FTemplates .E2.86.92 User:Ckatz.2FWorkspace.2FTemplates) awhile back. Did you mean for that comment to actually be for the preceeding debate (about Shelving filter)? It seems to make more sense there. Thought I'd point it out just in case... -- JLaTondre 23:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for pointing that out. --Rory096 13:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

Hi. I took the liberty to change the target of the cross-namespace redirect Wikipedian from Wikipedia:Wikipedian to Wikipedia. I just realized it has 3000+ incoming links, but none is from the article namespace. Could you please orphan it by changing Wikipedian wikilinks to Wikipedia:Wikipedian? --Zoz (t) 11:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

On it. --Rory096 22:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)

You wrote:

• Endorse deletion. AfD is not a vote and no delete arguments were refuted, as the closing admin said. --Rory096 00:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"no delete arguments were refuted"???

Sigh. So, this is the end – too bad.

I just want you to know; just as the powers that be haven't changed their minds, neither have I. I still insist that this is a wrong decision. I branched the synopsis article from the main film article in an act of good faith. This was the work of many and not any single individual. This user thinks 2001: A Space Odyssey is the best science fiction film ever made; and a 196-word synopsis just does not do the film justice. -- Jason Palpatine 13:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC) ^{speak your mind}

Cats

Re [3], why both Categories, All orphaned fairuse images and Orphaned fairuse images? It would appear fully redundant. --Gmaxwell 04:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow I'm stupid. That was supposed to go into the <includeonly> section, to show all the orphaned fair use images if people want, but to not make it hard to load CAT:ORFU (which is why Mdd4696 took out Category:Orphaned fairuse images from the includeonly section. --Rory096 04:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes and Newpages Patrolling just got easier

Try out these links: User:General Eisenhower/Newpages and User:General Eisenhower/Recent Changes. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) 15:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

How is that easier? It's the same thing in boxes. --Rory096 22:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding the {{WPCD}} template as recommendation for CD

Hi Rory, I added the WPCD template to the hydrochloric acid talk page, thinking that by doing that I'd recommend it for the CD-publications. But you reverted the addition with the comment that the article isn't on the CD. Then, how would I recommend a certain article for the CD-publication? Please help? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC).

Which CD publication? {{WPCD}} is for a specific CD already released. You might want to nominate it for Wikipedia:Version 0.5 or Wikipedia:Version 1.0. 0.5 is currently open for nominations (and hydrochloric acid has already been accepted), but 1.0 won't be ready for some time. --Rory096 19:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I see {{WPCD}} is now being used as a way to make something a candidate for the next CD by Bozmo. I'll put the tag back on. --Rory096 19:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the elucidation of your thought process. And for putting the tag back on. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC).

PUI

Hey - I just saw an IP strike out your PUI nom so I reverted it, but when I went to leave a note about not striking out entries, I realized it appears to be you. If it was you, feel free to revert my edit. (But please sign in first :-)) -SCEhardT 21:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your time

Dear Rory096/Archive12,
Thank you very much for your contributions to my recent RfA. I am pleased to announce that it passed with a tally of 72/11/1, and I am now an administrator. Although you did not choose to support the request, I can assure you that I have taken your advice to heart and will be a better administrator for it. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the tools, but please let me know if there are any admin jobs I can do to help you, now or in the future. —Cuiviénen 02:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

Thanks for voting! Hello Rory096/Archive12, and thank you so much for voting in my recent RfA. I am pleased to inform you that it passed with a final tally of (119/1/3), into the WP:100, so I have now been cleared for adminship and will soon be soaring above the clouds. I was overjoyed, shocked, and humbled by the tally, and, most importantly, all the support. Thank you. If there is ever anything you need, you know where you can find me. Take care.

--Pilot|guy 22:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 19th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 25	19 June 2006	About the Signpost

Foundation hires Brad Patrick as general counsel and interim executive director	NY Times notices semi-protection policy
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	Undeletion of images now made possible
Adam Carr's editing challenged by Australian MPs	News and Notes: Project logo discussions, 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.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello Rory096, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 17:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by 66.252.251.204

Rory, check the doctor who, tenth doctor page. I got blocked for no reason by that admin. No warning, no nothing.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.252.251.204 (talk • contribs) .

That's no excuse to vandalize his userpage. Put a {{unblock}} template on your talk page if you want to be unblocked. --Rory096 07:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Bypassing CNRs

Pay attention, sometimes people are talking about the redirects. Kotepho 07:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, one of the faults of bots, they can't read the surrounding discussion. I'll make it not edit WT:DRV from now on. --Rory096 07:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Raasta

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but you're AFD nomination of Raasta makes it look like you consider 2 singles as a end-all requirement. Remember, there's more guidelines in WP:MUSIC, besides the 2-single suggestion. It helps if you touch upon a few of those other guidelines in your nominations too. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course there are, but based on what I knew at the time, from reading the article and googling it (which basically means just reading the article, since the only google hits were seemingly nonsense), that was the one that seemed to have applied. There was nothing about the single hitting #1 in the article. --Rory096 19:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Don't sweat it. It seems the number 1 thing is irrelevant. The chart in question seems to be from some website instead of a national chart or one backed by a major magazine or music authority. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

List of countries with nuclear weapons

Hi -- I haven't looked closely at the current reverting at the list of countries, but it seems to be more than simple vandalism, and as such you're going to run afoul of 3RR if you keep reverting it. (I've warned the IP anon as well about this.) Perhaps you could leave a note on the article's talk page about why you don't think the text added should be included? Many thanks. --Fastfission 19:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, what? The IP is adding and removing the same section. It's just vandalism. --Rory096 19:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I couldn't tell what was going on exactly. --Fastfission 20:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia  for vandalism. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of our neutrality policy are considered vandalism. Your block will expire in 15 minutes. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OMG VANDALISM IT'S A TARP --Rory096 07:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

=D Thank you Rory. Do you like the warning and the block message? AmiDaniel (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's very... purple. Or blue. I'm not quite sure. --Rory096 07:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I fixed the color. --Cyde↔Weys 17:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)