User talk:Rory096/Archive2

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: 4

Pornography

Hi. Umm, just wondering why the revert on Pornography? The anon-added information seemed pretty good. Hbackman 23:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The users and anons before him had vandalized. The anon who had edited just previous to my revert was trying to revert, but apparently didn't know how to use the history. I reverted back a few edits, not just that anon, which is why it didn't have the God-mode light message in the edit summary. --Rory0 96 23:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, got it. Thanks. Hbackman 00:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't 'get it'. First of all, I'm not an anonymous user. My contribution was signed, and I indicated in the general discussion page what I had done, and proposed to do.

I have never vandalised anything on wikipedia, and my contribution was measured and scholarly (since I am an academic with a passing interest in these matters). Moreover, I have never tried to 'revert' anything. All I did was add my material and save it.

The history section was almost non-existant, and I thought that I could add to it.

Please do me the courtesy of explaining why you think my contribution should not stand.

Dr. Barry Worthington, otherwise --Train guard 10:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rory,

Firstly, thank you for reverting my material.

I did do some editing in the prehistory/Pompei sections, since some of the paragraphs were out of place in the chronological sequence. However, it is now back where I started with it, and is still a mess. I propose to repeat the edit, and restore the chronological order again, as you will see from the comparison.

I will further add a section on the Victorians.

Dr. Barry Worthington, otherwise

--Train guard 15:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HUH????

Why on earth would you mark the Miss Ohio USA page I just created with a nonsense tag???? Just so you know I got rid of it quickly. CarlyPalmer 01:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I marked the Miss New Hampshire USA with it, since it was Miss Ohio USA. --Rory0 96 01:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Tisdale

You suggested that my edits to Ashley Tisdale were a copyvio of this page. In fact, I had never seen that page before, and that page may well have been copied from Wikipedia. Anyway, there is a grand total of one sentence on that page that is identical to anything I added to the article. (The external page includes other material that has appeared or does appear on the Wikipedia page, but wasn't added by me.) Please assume good faith.

In addition, by reverting the article, you managed to reinstate the self-contradictory information which appears on the external page and which I had deleted, namely, that "Ashley wanted the part of either Maddie or London because she wanted to work with Brenda Song and Dylan and Cole, the Sprouse twins." Since Brenda Song is the actress who was eventually cast as London, Ashley couldn't have been motivated to try out for the part of London in order to work with someone who hadn't been cast yet and was up for the same role. See Talk:Ashley Tisdale. --Metropolitan90 04:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if that page copied it from us, I'll revert back. Sorry about that. --Rory0 96 05:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eternals

Maybe if you drank less and smoked less pot, you'd be able to think clearly again. I can only wonder that this is your problem with the Eternals article. —This unsigned comment was added by 64.231.13.94 (talk • contribs) .

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: That warning was directed at the anon, not me. --Rory0 96 06:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was directed at the anon, sorry, thought that was obvious. ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem here is that wasn't a personal attack. The guy admits in his numerous userboxes to being a drugged up alky. —This unsigned comment was added by 64.231.12.17 (talk • contribs) .

Stop with the personal attacks anon!⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about?! I'm repeating shit he said in his own fucking userboxes you fucking twit! —This unsigned comment was added by 64.231.12.205 (talk • contribs) .

...in a disrespectful and insulting manner. Plus you're swearing unnecessarily and calling another editor a twit. Hbackman 07:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Marcyu

Just give it a rest with this one. android 79 15:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you reverting my talk page? Policeman of the Control Freak Wikipedia Editors 01:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC) —This unsigned comment was added by Marcyu (talk • contribs) .

Your talk page is not your property. It is against Wikipedia policy to remove warnings. --Rory0 96 01:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been archived with a link. Why do you keep reverting it? Policeman of the Control Freak Wikipedia Editors 01:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC) —This unsigned comment was added by Marcyu (talk • contribs) .

You didn't archive it, you blanked the page, put in about 300 s, then added tiny link to a diff. Big difference there. --Rory0 96 01:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That link is the archive. -Policeman of the Control Freak Wikipedia Editors 01:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC) —This unsigned comment was added by Marcyu (talk • contribs) .

Your revert on Talk:Greeks

Hi, you just reverted a talk page deletion by NikoSilver (talk · contribs) on Talk:Greeks. In fact, this deletion was well argued ("Just like it was proposed by User:Politis, and agreed by me and hopefully by all other editors, this section has been deleted for the reasons of 1.Main discussion continuity, 2.Some things are better left behind."), and it corresponded to a previous suggestion by the preceding poster ("perhaps we can delete these exchages since they do not concern the main article"). From your own contribution history, I take it you were just engaged in routine vandalism reverting. Did you have a particular reason to object to this deletion, or was it just an anti-vandalism reflex? Thanks, Lukas ^(T.|@) 16:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lukas. I will not re-revert, please reconsider. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was an automatic reflex. Feel free to revert. --Rory0 96 16:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas already did it. Thanks. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New caction tool

I'm pleased to inform you that my caction tool v2 is now released. To update to the new version, replace the link to the old version in your monobook.js with

The reason I can't simply replace the old version is that the new one doesn't quite work for admins, and I'm still waiting for assistance before I completely roll it out.

Tell me what you think of it. If there are any bugs, then let me know, including your browser version in the report. Thanks, and I hope you like the new version! haz _(user talk)^e 16:13, 17 March 2006

Sorry for replying all the way up here! I've configured an option which allows users to choose whether or not the history, move and watch tabs get removed and placed in the menu. Simply add

var keepOriginalTabs = 1;

anywhere in your monobook.js and the script will keep the tabs exactly where they are. I've also fixed the edit conflict problem (use ctrl-f5 to purge the script and load the new version) haz (us e r talk) 21:51, 19 March 2006

Vandalism

The IP address 69.155.178.3 is a school IP address, and that means that several hundered students access the web each day and I find it unfair and unproductive to keep blocking this IP. If I could please ask you, could you not block this IP in the future? Or, if at all possible (as I don't know the limits of the security controls on Wiki) could you only block editing while not signed in on this IP address? That in itself would solve most, if not all, problems. Thanks, -Damien Vryce 18:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't block, you'd be better off leaving a note on the IP's talk, or on the blocking admin's talk. Blocking only anon edits on an IP is a good idea, I'll go ask the devs if it would be possible to implement that. --Rory0 96 18:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, blocking admin is User:Vsmith for a period of 3 hours. --Rory0 96 18:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An IP block that allows registered users to edit is a request already in the pipeline for the devs to look at, IIRC. android 79 18:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. --Rory0 96 18:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well I had seen your name on the page as a sig so I just went to you. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction! -Damien Vryce 18:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) --Rory0 96 18:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Electric

Why did you revert the edits made on the Joy Electric page? Did you even read the section you reinstated? squeemu

No, I didn't read the section, I just saw an alert by the bot in the vandalism channel, one of many, that there was a large blanking by an IP and reflexively reverted. Sorry. --Rory0 96 22:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA.

Sadly, my RfA failed (on my birthday out of all days!), mainly due to it's closeness to the previous one. I hope that in any future RfAs I'll have your support!

Nonetheless, if I can do anything for you don't hesitate to ask me.

Have a nice St Patrick's Day!

Computerjoe 's talk 22:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

It's not vandalism... if it's TRUE.

...alright, I'm done. —This unsigned comment was added by 68.85.164.99 (talk • contribs) .

Actually, it is. :) --Rory0 96 00:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE?

BIG MISTAKE DELETING GUIDO ANTONUCCI'S ARTICLE. you dont live in argentina, cant know if he is significant or NOT! he should be in wikipedia's encyclopedia, for sure. talk tome, im fran loyd —This unsigned comment was added by Fran loyd (talk • contribs) .

WTF?

Who the hell are you to come onto my user:talk page and revert changes made by me? Mind your own business, yes? Shane 06:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage is not your property. Removing warnings is against policy. --Rory0 96 06:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am free to remove old discussions if I so wish. It is apparent by all the above discussions that you are a high level vandal, and so, consider this my warning before I report you as being a vandal.

Shane 06:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may remove old discussions if you archive them. You cannot just blank the page. --Rory0 96 06:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA withdrawal :(

Hello Rory096, it is my apologies to bring you that I've withdrawn my RFA. Due to the lack of experience, I would go under admin coaching first before trying again later. I would thank you for your vote in this RFA whether you voted support, oppose or neutral for me. I appericiate your comments (if you do have) you made and I hope to see you here in future. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argh!

Hello, please do not revert my talk page. I have just had a discussion about how I deal with it, and it is explained at the top of my page. If you do not like it, we have to agree to differ. ROGNNTUDJUU! 18:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed warnings. That's against Wikipedia policy. Your user talk is not your property, and so you can't decide you don't want to follow policy on it. Sorry. --Rory0 96 18:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave it, he was bullied, and the discussion is over. De mortuis... 19:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict at Debbie Schlussel

Hey, since you seem to have interest and I know I've seen you around before, you think you might be able to give an opinion one way or the other on the mess we seem to be in over there? A third opinion might not hurt. Thanks either way. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad job from you

Well, about my "attention call" if you would just take two seconds to see you'll notice that I am deleting information that has no way to be proved and must not be in an enciclopedia, however you and the other people just see something missing and want to take someone's head! People agreed to took that down and you revert it as crazy. —This unsigned comment was added by Numbuh 201 (talk • contribs) .

Then use edit summaries. If you just remove content, it looks a lot like vandalism. BTW, Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. Happy editing! --Rory0 96 00:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

While I generally agree with you as to the propriety of one's welcoming another user on his/her talk page and not his/her user page, I have apprehended of late a trend toward the latter and, I suppose, fell into that; primarily, though, I think the oversight happened because I was trying a new welcome message that I found on another's page and was so occupied with making the relevant changes that I didn't pay attention to where I was posting the message. Thanks for the heads-up. Joe 04:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My contributions at User:MarkGallagher

How can you support the Libertarian Party and be a recent changes patroller? Aren't the two mutually exclusive? And we have planets in the solar system, not 'worlds'. —This unsigned comment was added by 80.255.61.34 (talk • contribs) .

04:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Please don't insult me in the section heading. It is against Wikipedia policy. Consider this your first warning. If you seriously think the solar system consists of 'worlds' rather than 'planets' I'm happy to debate the matter. —This unsigned comment was added by 80.255.61.34 (talk • contribs) .

80.255.61.34 05:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Again, please don't insult me in the section heading. This is your second warning. If you do it again, I'll complain at Jimbo Wales' page. I've changed it to something more in keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV.[reply]

And as a show of good faith, I've awarded you the following Barnstar. —This unsigned comment was added by 80.255.61.34 (talk • contribs) .

		The Original Barnstar
		For attempted good work on User:MarkGallagher 04:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)—This unsigned comment was added by 80.255.61.34 (talk • contribs) .[reply]

80.255.61.34 05:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC) I've reverted the section heading again, because it unfairly and personally attacks me. If there is another avenue within Wikipedia for dealing with your behaviour (other than bringing it to Jimbo's attention), please let me know and I'll adopt that. Otherwise, I'll be asking for a JimboRuling on this matter. Thanks. (talk • contribs) .}}[reply]

Actually, you did vandalize MarkGallagher's talk page, and so the heading is perfectly appropriate. You could go through the dispute resolution process, but if you feel that contacting Jimbo is what you want to do, then I'm not stopping you. --Rory0 96 05:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

80.255.61.34 06:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC) I just checked that dispute resolution process page, and saw that it says this: 'The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place. Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.' And also: 'Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise.' Is it not the case that I have done this by changing 'My blatant vandalism' to 'My edits'? Is it not the case that even NASA refers to the Mercury, Venus, Earth, etc as 'planets' and not 'worlds'? Is it not the case that Mark Gallagher does sign off as Galldy? Is it not the case that he has amassed 7 welcomes and not 6?[reply]

Thank you for not reverting the subject heading. Here's an olive branch for you. Cyberfuddle 01:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olive branch withdrawn.

You're right, we should compromise. Therefore, this time, I'm only going to make it "vandalism," rather than "blatant vandalism." I think that's pretty fair. You did edit MarkGallagher's user page without reverts. Yes, NASA refers to the planets as planets, but that doesn't give you permission to edit his user page. If you are so bothered by this, ask him to change it on his talk page. --Rory0 96 02:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that 'vandalism' is fair. And I have asked him to change it on his talk page. And is it true that you're 14 years old? It would explain a lot Cyberfuddle 02:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's better than "blatant vandalism," isn't it? Just making it "edits" wouldn't be a compromise, it would be just doing it your way. As for your blatant adultism, you've got new messages. --Rory0 96 02:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Edits' is a neutral term. Were I to describe my edits as 'contributions' you would have a point. You love the word 'blatant', don't you? Incidentally, I note that the adultism article was edited by you (and the neutrality of which is disputed -- surpise, surprise). Your 'blatant' ipsedixitism does you no favours. Cyberfuddle 02:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is a neutral term. However, the situation doesn't call for a neutral term, since you vandalized the page. While adultism has been edited by me, my edits have all been very minor, not that I see any reason why an article being edited by someone has anything to do with whether you fall under the scope of it. Also, if you were to read the talk, you'd know that it's only disputed because it doesn't convey the adultist POV enough, which has nothing to do with giving a basic explanation of the term, which is why I wikilinked it in the first place. My statement was not ipsedixitist because it was sourced; by wikilinking you to the adultism article, where there is an explanation of why your sentiments are adultist. Nice try, though. -Rory0 96 02:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you'll find I contributed to the page. Also, would you care to explain how your behaviour comports with Wikipedia's Assume Good Faith guideline? I've tried telephoning Danny Wool about this, but there's no answer (however, I don't know what time it is over in the US, or even where the 727 area code is). I'll try him again later. Cyberfuddle 03:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, editing an editor's user page without his permission is vandalism. I did assume good faith until you started attacking my personal beliefs rather than discussing my actions- your very first edit to my page. BTW, 727 is in Florida, where it is 10:08 PM. --Rory0 96 03:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely your contention that "editing an editor's user page without his permission is vandalism" is overbroad? Is awarding someone a barnstar vandalism? No. In fact, it's encouraged. Is correcting a spelling error on someone's user page vandalism? No (though it may be against Wikipedia's guidelines, it's certainly not 'vandalism'). I did not attack your personal beliefs. I made no mention of your personal beliefs. I mentioned your 'support' of the Libertarian Party (which is ridiculous, anyway. How can a 14 year old support a political party? You're not old enough to vote. Do you donate the earnings from your newspaper delivery route?) Thank you for the 727/Florida information. I'll try him later. Cyberfuddle 03:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For reverting my sandbox page. Whopper 05:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Rory0 96 05:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Warning is Baseless, Take it Back

Excuse me that was clearly not a personal attack. Read the conversation. I merely told the administrator I believe that through his ineptness he is not doing is job. He has allowed demeaning comments to be said unpunished and even when the desecration of articles is proven to him in a manner where he cannot deny it he allows the culprit to get off scot-free. You have no right or legitimate reason to give me a warning on my totally legitimate statement. Everything that he does not like can not just be categorized as a personal attack that is abuse of power on your part. He criticized me and in essence said that the disruptive editor was constructive while I on the hand am not. I have merely criticized him back not even as retaliation but on his ineptness. I can not be censored for making a legitimate observation and complaint. You have no authority to make such a statement. Take your warning back, before the situation escalates. Fully understand the situation and the context of this conversation. Manik666 05:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling InShaneee incompetent is a personal attack against him, and saying that the behavior is "disgusting" is a personal attack against User:Diyako. I will not take my warning back, because, as the template says, personal attacks are inexcusable under ANY circumstance. --Rory0 96 05:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

80.255.61.34 05:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Look, I've been on the receiving end of your personal attacks as well, Rory, and I can fully understand understand where Manik666 is coming from. You are the biggest hypocrite I've encountered here to be lecturing others on personal attacks when you use these very pages to personally attack me. (talk • contribs) .}}[reply]

Can you quote the words incompetent? Any words I used were descriptive of situations and never directly of any individual(s). As for the word “disgusting’ in connotation with a user’s behaviour it is totally acceptable as a descriptive term for racially demeaning comments and injecting and/or falsifying information in specific articles. It is not ideal and model behaviour, now is it? Furthermore, when the user, user:Diyako, has been caught red handed after he was antagonizing other users with demeaning and derogatory terms nothing was been done by this administrator and he also comments him for it calling him a model/productive editor and myself the opposite. How ironic and erroneous. I told him that he is obliged to act on blatant abuse of editing. Your warning is totally compounded and uncalled for and we are totally allowed to make constructive criticism that benefits Wikepedia. Kindly, take your uncalled warning back, before the situation escalates. I will under no circumstances tolerate an illegitimate and illicit warning that is baseless. Manik666 05:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I paraphrased the incompetent part. To be honest, saying he's a "bad administrator who abuses his powers" is probably worse. --Rory0 96 05:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, well. Is not the kettle calling the tea pot black! I have never made any personal attacks, but now some things have been brought to my attention, Rory. As I said before take your illicit warning back before the situation escalates for violation of administrative privileges and powers. Manik666 05:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Please do not make threats. It is not conducive to a cooperative community environment. Thanks. Hbackman 06:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am completely innocent of any accusations against me. You, however, certainly did make a personal attack, as described above. I will not take my warning back, and I am not even an administrator, so how could I abuse adminstrative privileges and powers? --Rory0 96 06:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to cite quotes please do them correctly and in full. Here is what I wrote; “Lastly I see on your user page and other pages you have been basically called a bad administrator who abuses his powers.” You are being self-defeating, my friend. My statement was based on what is actually and manifestly written on his talk page. That is what was observed myself on his talk page and it does not, in any shape, form, or manner, constitute a personal attack or correspond with the definition of personal attack you have given me. So again for the third time I will civilly ask you to take back the illegitimate warning you have issued me. Manik666 06:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're not quoting the entire thing either. It looks to me like the next sentence reads "I would have to agree with the authors of such statements and I will ensue on a course of having you told about your reasonability’s and obligations as an administrator," (emphasis added) no? I will not retract my warning. --Rory0 96 06:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manik666, surely there are more productive things you could be doing with your time than engaging Rory on this, like, actually working on the encyclopedia. This thread isn't going to accomplish anything useful... let it go. Warrens 06:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you user:Warrens, but I have principles. Like I said user:Rory096, I made constructive criticism and I was entirely illustrating to him previous statements made. I agreed with the nature of the statements and the generic nature of the statements on his user talk page and that does not in any, way, shape, form or manner constitute incivility on my part or a blatant direct personal attack that justifies a warning. As you or any other reader can see my conduct was collected, cool, and civil. As I said before if a editor does not like something said it does not define the statement as a personal attack. In fact I do not even see you making any warnings to him for turning the tables on an innocent editor in the place of a problematic one which again he said, was a productive/model editor. This statement correlates unenthusiastically between the two. I have a full right to question another member or editors editing and behaviour. 'For the forth time I am asking you civilly to remove this baseless and uncalled warning before the situation goes beyond you and is moved by others. I do not want to create a state of affairs that is unconstructive for you as an administrator.PLease take the warning back, I ask you to do this with good faith. Manik666 06:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no opinion on what you said. I don't like it or dislike it, I just saw that it was a personal attack and warned you for it. I have not said that anybody is a productive or model editor. I will not retract my warning, and cannot in good faith do so, as it was a personal attack. Also, again, I'm not an administrator. --Rory0 96 06:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on my statements is what has resulted in the fact that you have issued a warning to me. You are contradicting yourself now. The question is, are my statements blatant personal attacks on individual users. The ascription of individual actions such as labelling disgusting or unwanted behaviour does not constitute a personal attack in any way, shape, and/or form. It is okay to admit that you are wrong. It does not say anywhere that Wiki Admin are always right. I am most interested to know how are conversation was brought to your attention. The user in question did not e-mail did he? Because if he did that makes his correspondence with you private or personal, which vanguards other questions. My critical statements were just that, critical, not personal attacks. They were critical of other editors’ actions or lack of action when it came to obligations and responsibilities. They do not constitute a personal attack and yet, again forth the fifth time I will ask you to retract your baseless warning. Manik666 06:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My attacks were neither personal in nature nor direct towards the individual(s)’ person. Mere ascription of actions and soft quilative terminology is no shape or form constitute or define personal attacks. Not agreeing with someone is not a personal attack either. Manik666 06:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sig.

Ok, so you have this neat little signature that you use, right? Well is there an article that I could possibly see that could teach me the basics of creating my own? Thanks. -Damien Vryce 14:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I found it! Damien Vryce 14:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I found it, but I can't work it. What's wrong with this....you get the idea of what I want....... [[User:Damien Vryce|Damien[[User Talk:Damien Vryce|Vryce]]]]

OK, what you need to do is this: [[User:Damien Vryce|Damien]][[User talk:Damien Vryce|Vryce]], which will come out as Damien Vryce. --Rory0 96 05:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cactions bugfix

Hi Rory096. I think you reported the "whitespace" bug in the caction tool, whereby a large blank area was added at the end of every page. I'm glad to inform you that the bug has been fixed. If you find any more bugs, please report them. It may help to check the buglist at User:Haza-w/Caction tool. Thanks again. haz (us e r talk) 16:43, 20 March 2006

Stephen Harper

I am confused about your reversion on Stephen Harper of anon user 70's addition of a comment about the ethics commissioner clearing Harper and Emerson. Not only did this actually happen (it was in the Globe and Mail this morning), but the anon user had provided a link to a canada.com article as a reference. Ground Zero | t 21:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He added the source after I had begun the process of reverting it, so I didn't see it. My bad. --Rory0 96 21:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy IP

Could you, please, add the following proxy IP address 65.19.174.35 to the Wikipedia banned IP list? According to http://cqcounter.com/whois/, this IP is that of the email anonymizing company Primedius (http://www.primedius.com). It's not an open proxy, true, but still a proxy. People can hide behind such proxy IPs, vandalize Wikipedia, act irresponsibly under cover of anonimity. —This unsigned comment was added by Stefanp (talk • contribs) .

I'm not an admin, but I'll forward your message to one. --Rory0 96 05:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you, please, warn or ask an administrator to warn Bernardbblois about his/her vandalism of a link webaddress: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_I_of_Romania&action=history Thank you! Stefanp 00:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and I added him to the CVU's blacklist so we can monitor edits he makes. --Rory0 96 19:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Rory096. The anonymous user 65.19.174.35 has since his/her ban registered as "male" Bernardbblois. He/she (65.19.174.35 last signed his/her post as "female" "Marina Cummings") does the exact same kind of vandalisms to the King Michael articles/discussions under his/her new alias as the old banned user used to do. Moreover, Bernardbblois has just forged a piece of BBC news I posted, by diminishing the 500,000 Swiss francs Communist payment to King Michael down to 50,000. Would you, please, be so kind as to warn him/her for vandalism and correct his/her forgery? Stefanp 07:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THey are destructing the structure of a poll

I do assume good faith. But the editor destructing the page without any discussion Resid Gulerdem 08:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the editor did was move the poll upwards on the page. He even gave a reason. Why did you accuse that editor of vandalism, twice, for that matter? --Rory0 96 08:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My user page

Thanks for the revert on my page. They're like mosquitoes tonight. tv316 08:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Rory0 96 18:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thanks. Much appreciated. tv316 04:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi

Shadin 15:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What's up? --Rory0 96 19:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. --Nlu (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Rory0 96 06:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation

Ulu's bits have been vaporized. Your bits are new. See my post at Admin Dbachmann. This really is not my fault. Leave me alone. I will destroy my site, or Dbachmann will destroy and protect. Leave me alone. I'm gone. All I want is privacy now. --FourthAve 07:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Horsley

I am not attempting to remove the comments on deletion--they remain on the page. The only thing I removed was any commentary that is apparently being considered 'inflammatory' (and probably only by the people who are at fault). The commentary on discussing deletion is fine and I already made my remarks in defense of it. What I was reverting that you keep allowing is the truly inflammatory and insulting remarks that have recently been made to vandalize the article. If you really want to regress the page back to a less-problematic version, take it back to before ANYONE edited or vandalized it, not to just the last edit that makes insult of the whole situation anonymously. That's the real abuse of Wiki, not my article in the first place. User:Zeppelin85

Perhaps, but in the process, you were removing the AfD notice. Your most recent edit is ok, though, thanks for fixing the problem. --Rory0 96 08:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring nonsense

Thank you for restoring the nonsense sentence to the Wikipedia article. Our department is watching this article and that unintelligible sentence in particular. Your contribution of nonsense will be featured in our April English Department newsletter. 172.195.67.195 20:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly honored. Will I be able to obtain a copy of this newsletter? --Rory0 96 20:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my user page. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rcc105

Hello you put a note on my page, however, you did not tell me what page or pages your were talking about. I can only assume it was in relation to the GIS pages. Was it? I assume you may by the admin that deleted an article as I was working on it in an outside editor. Why can you show a little patience and wait to see if the article is improved? I had only created the article and it was gone in five mins. You may a little remark about how it was my experiment but it wasn’t How you became and continue to be allowed an admin is beyond me. --Ray 00:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to this edit, where you removed a significant portion of text without explaining why at all in an edit summary. As for your article, I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, I'm not even an admin, and I cannot delete articles. Also, warned for personal attacks. --Rory0 96 00:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had put up a question on the GIS Talk page mor than a day earlier asking folks if anyone opposed removing the giant list of links on the GIS page. Maybe you should have checked the talk page before chastising me. --Ray 01:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You made an inappropriate revert

Hi, Rory096. You restored a critical review that was clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia. I assume it was an oversight. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks. --Mercurio 03:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

You're not reverting to the correct version in the article lolicon. The status quota version of the image is the picture you wanted removed. Go past february in the history. The other picture was here, since, oh about, last year of July/August. --Jqiz 03:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, I apologize. I thought this was a more recent edit war, I didn't know it started back in December. --Rory0 96 03:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

I didngt vandalise the Acharya S page. I reverted it, because James and El Lobo vandalise it, then throw a fit if its changed back, because they want it to read in ehr favour. Their veiw is Baised as their her followers.

They have me before arbitration, for supposeldy attakcign her privacy and criminal conduct, and even their they do nohtign btu take cheap shots at me base don bad internet expences form intenret stalkers nad qupte me saying thigns baotu her htey disagree with. ( SUch as callign ehr a conspriacy theorist. CHeck her websoite. SHe is.)

How is this Vandalism? By revertign to an actual page with real content? THey omit the critism, omit links, and omit all rlevant informaiton to make it read liek a back cover flap.Yet Im a vandal?

As for the othe rpage, look it over very carefully. You may prefer ot think Im biased nad out to zealosuly defned my faith. ( It show Im protrayed ont he Acharya S article) btu Im not.

Did you even read the reverts I made?

Or did you just rpesume I was int he wrong?

Please try to acutlaly look into this. THe current "Persecution" page has fals einformaiton, and omits some additiosn I made ofr clarity. Im nto just their to hide Wrogns doen under the name of HCirst, and ma not zealoted here.

But when oen says things like "JEsus says not to judge" your commitign a common falalcy. This sint what the text says. Its even been refuted by Atheist schoalrs.

Or when one points otthings peopel disagree with but that arent rellay eprsecution, then this is harldy worthy of palcement in an article.

Before just presumign Im a vandal, try to really look into it.

I revetted the persecution aritcle back. Im int he proccess of reaDING soem info that was lost. PLet me finish my revision, then look it over carefully. DO not just presume Im a fundy CHristain otu to dfend my faith. Acharya S and her follwors are tryign to destory CHristianity, but this doesnt eman Im out to just bindly defend it.

Look over carefully. And give me a revert here. As wsell as time to finish the job.

ZAROVE 04:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guarana

I think there are many of us who know what is really going on at the Guarana article. There wasn't any vandalism. User:Jayjg reverted the article to the way he liked it and then locked the page. As I'm sure you know, an administrator is supposed to lock the page to avoid a revert war the way he finds it, without giving preference to one definition or the other.

First, I didn't see any revert war going on. I saw people trying to talk this out on the discussion page and User:Jayjg exceeding his authority to lock the version he liked without letting discussion of a compromise take place;
Second, in the case of a revert war, an administrator is specifically forbidden to show preference for one version or the other;
Third, looking through the history, it appears that three of the people who support the version Jayjg did not pick have been banned with notes claiming that they are sockpuppets by this same User:Jayjg, a blatant conflict of interest accusation to make for someone who has edited and locked the same article.

I think that Starways Common makes a good argument and that links to relevant new research should not be deleted. I have to ask myself why User:Jayjg would delete these links, accuse editors who disagree of being "sockpuppets," and then lock the article. Regardless of his reasons, he has blatantly exceeded his authority and also appears to be hiding that fact by banning people. I'm concerned about the ramifications that this type of heavy-handedness will have on the future of Wikipedia and I want to take action to stop it. Since I do not have the experience or editing clout that you have, could you please help me start an investigation into these matters? I will support any action you take and work as hard as I can to let others know about this situation as well. Thank you for your consideration. --Osteodentine M. Spooner 05:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South African SAIX IP

Hi, thank you for the feedback. I know it is not User:Gregorydavid who is blocked, but the IP SAIX at regular intervals. I am still finding out how to resolve this permanently. Regards, Gregorydavid 05:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what the IP is? --Rory0 96 06:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the following is one of the IP addresses blocked before: 196.25.255.210. I have started listing them at the top of my user page. I do not know a lot about how addresses are allocated by ISP's. Thanks, Gregorydavid 06:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are Trigger Happy

Please, if you do not know what you are doing, please don't get involved. I am re-editing out a trolls remarks. Thank you. 172.163.130.117 16:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, making libelous statements is real productive. --Rory0 96 16:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the current version with this version and any preceeding versions: 06:21, 24 March 2006 Vilerage m (Reverted edit of 71.125.43.236, changed back to last version by Naconkantari)

Obviously, 11:07, 24 March 2006 172.184.140.170 (→Radio enemies) was when the troll inserted this into the article.

Opie_and_Anthony Next time check out what your program tells you. And read this from the talk page:

"The gag order happened before Jingle Ball, note that the New York Post article about the gag order was written in July 2000 and the Jingle Ball was in December 2000. in fact, not even the news coverage post-Jingle Ball disclosed her by name because she was a minor and there are legalities preventing the identities of minors being disclosed in news stories without the parents' approval. O&A brought up the story on the air and only hinted that she was the daughter of a major radio personality because A) the gag order was in place and B) it was - at the time - a rumor circulating through the radio industry at the time, since the media couldn't mention Emily by name. i'm sure they had their inside sources on the matter, since they did work for the same company, so they were fairly certain it was her. if anything, it was the Stern fans who admitted that it was, in fact, her on their message board. thanks boys! 172.163.130.117 16:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)"

It isn't libel if it true. 16:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if I was too harsh with you but I guess reading edits by IPs instead of wiki user names all day has desensitized you alittle. In the future, I will try to explain myself better to those who are reasonable.

Keep up the good work. 172.163.130.117 17:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the future please don't judge me by my book cover!172.131.171.168 02:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't. How could a statement saying what a person thought be verifiable? --Rory0 96 02:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - are any of use really verifiable? but we're still on the internet anyway, try and think about that for now on--172.157.113.128 02:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - What are you talking about? Of course some things are verifiable. And we're trying to build an encyclopaedia here, we can't just make possibly libelous statements- we'd be ridiculed (not to mention under US law, Wikimedia wouldn't be liable, you would be). --Rory0 96 02:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - in what ways would i be liable? i'm not even talking about things the way you seem to be about them. could you clarify?--172.165.58.95 02:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        If someone makes libelous statements on Wikipedia, they can be sued for libel. --Rory0 96 02:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't understand when? who is making libel about what?--172.170.137.171 02:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Something like this, where you're saying he wanted to silence competition, can be construed as libelous. It's definitely unverifiable, since you can't know what he wants. --Rory0 96 03:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        you're talking all in riddles. how can i tell what you're trying to talk?--172.150.55.33 03:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        What? --Rory0 96 03:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        When? i have never what you're talking?--172.136.109.70 03:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I told you not to judge my book cover, for if you hadn't done so, you might'd realize that im an entirely different person and never said otherwise, and in fact, have no idea what we are arguing about--172.137.75.5 03:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK... --Rory0 96 03:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, not really, you just blindly assumed that two people with entirely different ip addys, posting hours apart were the same person, this kind of presumption is inappropraite in a wikipidian adminsitrator like yourself--172.155.142.121 03:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're also using the same range, and posting in the same section, saying "also" when you first came. Anyway, if you're not the same person, please do not fill my talk page with spam. Oh, and I'm not an administrator. --Rory0 96 03:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List of viruses

Thanks for the helping hand. You're just in time, as I'm heading off to bed. Please be aware that User:Yoggga has been vandalizing this and associated articles using a number of different sockpuppets; User:Erin Elizabeth and User:68.11.236.86 have both been having fun with that article, as well as HIV, Adenovirus infection, and Adenoviridae. If he/she persists, semiprotection may become necessary for those articles. Thanks again! :) --Ashenai 22:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, his last sock his blocked. I'll put those pages on the CVU watchlist. --Rory0 96 22:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For helping answer Tawkerbot2 questions and more, thanks! Tawker 08:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preview is your friend

Noticing your current struggles :P --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to do it in different sections, so I'm too lazy to do the whole article, and I have to check the references every time, so I can't really use preview. BTW, how'd you add the new page to the template so fast? --Rory0 96 19:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, might be better to experiment in a sandbox 1st to get the syntax sorted out. I have the page on my watchlist and noticed you doing the split and decided to help out. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I didn't foresee these problems, considering the "experienced" help I was supposed to be getting in #wikipedia :-/ I think I have it under control now. Thanks for the help! --Rory0 96 19:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to subst and sign!

Oops, sorry. I've just come back from a break and forgot the syntax. Tearlach 19:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Would you, please, be so kind as to remind newcomer Morgandy Aithne to not edit other people's talk and to revert/reorganize his/her edits to Talk:Michael I of Romania? Such edits are considered vandalism. Thank you in advance! Stefanp 22:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't look like he's editing other people's comments there, it looks like he's making comments of his own. What do you mean? --Rory0 96 22:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant: is it ok for a user to insert his/her comments within others' comments? It disrupts the initial message and appears like editing. Wouldn't it be better if he/she added the answer after the message to which he/she replies, not insert it within? Stefanp 23:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Just to give you a heads up, one more revert of my work on cannabis will be a WP:3RR violation. 172 | Talk 23:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm giving you a heads up because I do not want to see you get blocked. 172 | Talk 23:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No texts on wikipedia

Please support your assertion that a wikified version of a presidential speech does not belong on wikipedia. Pedant 02:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gettysburg Address

See Gettysburg Address. At worst, the article you are proposing to censor by moving to wikisource is a stub. How do you propose an article about a speech be written if it cannot include the speech? I propose that Bush's post 9/11 speech is far more important than Lincoln's Gettysburg address.

Thnaks for reverting vandalism on my user page

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Much appreciated. Best, Gwernol 05:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) --Rory0 96 05:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?

What are you talking about? I was trying to leave a "welcome5" message ona user page and all of a sudden found myself editing a template. How that happened, I don't know. Is that what you are talking about?

Merecat 08:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I was talking about. I'll retract my warning. --Rory0 96 08:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you are being harsh to me needlessly, please stop. Merecat 08:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being harsh? You're the one who deleted a warning without the person who gave it's consent(a violation of WP:VAND), with the edit summary " this erroneous and information deprived snide comment replied to on author's talk page." Whatever, let's just drop it. --Rory0 96 08:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sorry for any mix-up. Please look at that history of the welcome5 I left. If I went to edit the talk page after leaving the welcome5, it entered the edit mode for the template itself. The top of page edit link worked, but the section title link gave the error. I am unable to explain this more clearly, but that is what happened. I was trying to format my signature down one more line - that's why I tried to edit and that's where the problem came in. I am going to go with welcome4 instead from now on. Merecat 09:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...

Erm... "Unconstructive Edit?" I set the WikiDefcon to something more factual... is that vandalism? I don't think so - I'm part of the CVU! Davidpk212 08:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, sorry, it looked a bit suspicious, so I reverted... Why don't people use normal English in WikiDefCon anymore? :( --Rory0 96 08:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, sorry... I'll use normal english from now. Davidpk212 08:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --Rory0 96 08:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]