User talk:Robchurch/November 2005

A meaning. However, I would like to appeal your block of Ghirlandajo here. There was a clear consensus on the page in question and AndriyK was just bullying around with Ghirlandajo simply taking a firm stand. He should have been warned about the possibility of liberal interpretation of the 3RR, at least. While, I am happy to see AndriyK blocked since it would give several users a 24-hr of unobstructed editing free from his bullying, if it takes you to unblock AndriyK in order to restore Ghirlandajo, I am willing to suggest that too. Thanks, --Irpen 17:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you observed, I'm exceptionally firm with those people who think it's okay to revert war. That means, unfortunately that the bystanders sometimes get hurt - Ghirlandajo also violated the policy, instead of asking for administrator intervention. As I'm aware of his good faith, I blocked him for only half the time. I'm sure he can accept it amiably. Rob Church ^Talk 17:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I repsectfully disagree with your decision but I will be happy to remember to contact you in the future regarding the editors who repeatedly undo other people's edits but avoid 3RR by adding/removing brackets or changing the active to passive voice in the grammar. I've seen much of that. I will be probalby contacting you several times about that. --Irpen 17:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And we can get right to business regarding 3RR avoiders. I posted this note Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Andrew_Alexander to which there was no reaction because Andrew Alexander was sneakily avoiding 3RR in the strict sense.

It is not too late to restore justice since after this report he continued the reverts of that article. If you think that the statute of limitation of this violation already expired, you may at least warn that fella for the future.

On the side note, I would co-sign Ghirlandajo's response on his talk. He is the editor with whom I had particularly many disagreements but I quite enjoyed our working together and was one of those he mentions who asked him not leave the WP. AndriyK's and Andrew Alexander ongoing POV attack is on the nerves of the entire Ukrainian and Russian wikicommunities. Just check their talk pages to get a sense of what was going on. --Irpen 17:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the situation for a third time, and have thus unblocked Ghirlandajo. And now I apply your friend's logic to the situation with the other 3RR violation you reported, in which case I am unwilling to intervene. Rob Church ^Talk 17:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't get what you meant. Whose friend's whose logic you applied to what? Are you now saying that the behavoir of Andrew Alexander I reported is allowed and should be tolerated? Did you change your mind towards strict interpretation of 3RR? Thanks, --Irpen 18:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken another look, and have decided that yes; these are petty technicalities. Because I wasn't the one directly dealing with the violation, I won't block, but I have left a note on the user's talk page which effectively warns him not to revert-war again. If this happens, please let me know, and I will consider blocking. Rob Church ^Talk 01:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wish the issue with using small changes to avoid 3RR was more clearly written in the policy. I am glad that people start to interpet the rule as such anyway. Cheers, --Irpen 01:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Andrew_Alexander. Same user, same attempt of avoidance of 3RR based on technicality. The courtesy warning in place of a previous block that should have been applied did him no good. --Irpen 07:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi insurgency

Greetings. You recently edited Iraqi insurgency. I don't know if you realized it or not, but the page is protected from editing. For this reason, I reverted your change. (No offense - it was obviously a good edit. But we have to be consistent.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Keep up the good work! – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural appropriation

Hi, I saw that you blocked Deeceevoice (talk · contribs) for 60 hours for 3RR and personal attacks at Cultural appropriation. Just so you know, I just blocked his main opponent, Chameleon (talk · contribs) for the same length of time for the same offenses on the same page. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput

Could you block Shivraj Singh again? And the anonIP he is using, 203.101.49.28? He has reverted six times in the last 24 hours, I believe. None of the rest of us have done more than a couple of reverts.

He has a pronounced Hindutva POV and believes that other POVs re Rajput identity should not be allowed on Wikipedia. The rest of us are trying to make sure that both arguments (Rajput is a Hindu caste; Rajput is a lineage) are represented. He will not discuss and dismisses anyone who opposes him as a "Muslim". The rest of us are prepared to give his POV full representation, but he does not want to return the favor. Zora 00:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Weird edit summary

Kim Bruning pushed me off the medcab the last time I was on, saying things such as "You're not a good person for the job", and when I said "But I can prove myself," he went "Your reputation precedes you." This time, he's not going to be able to force me off (NicholasTurnbull wants me on), hence the edit summary.

Make a little sense? --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 22:03, 4 November 2005 (CDT)}

It's not...

a barnstar, but it might be of more service to you. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

85.103.23.4

Uh, why did you unblock this IP? [1] It went right back to vandalism and has now been re-blocked. -- Curps 21:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

report on the 3RR violation

Thank you a lot! Can you tell me how I can allert more neutral editors to participate and watch the dreadlocks article? CoYep 22:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked deeceevoice for 60 hours, but she is already back removing informations from the article again. CoYep 13:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proton exchange membrane fuel cell

Hi there! Thanks so much for moving the Proton exchange membrane fuel cell article! Dr. Eclectic ^talk 10:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape cheats/ Cheating in RuneScape

Hello Robchurch. Please note there is an ongoing discussion in RuneScape cheats about whether to move the article to Cheating in RuneScape. If you would like to participate in that discussion please comment on the talk page. Thanks for your interest in the article. In the meantime it would be very appreciated if you would undo what you have done so that the links under the category tabs work properly. Jonathan888 14:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, I note you've commented on the talk page. That means discussion is futile and it's a done deal? I'm disappointed to say the least.Jonathan888 15:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Done deal"

Certainly not. I responded to a request in-channel, and idiotically, forgot to check the talk page. It was completely out of order for me to make the move while there was an active discussion, so I'm reverting it now.

I do apologise. Rob Church ^Talk 15:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robchurch, I'm sorry about my snooty tone in the above and I apologize. I'm a bit touchy about the whole thing because the article is attacked by vandals nearly daily and has been moved before without discussion, again, I apologize I didn't mean to get snippity with you.Jonathan888 15:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Feel free to haul me up if you ever need to. Incidentally; if you can show me evidence of persistent vandalism by any particular users, then I can do something about it. And if the article's undergoing a particularly nasty bout of it, I can temporarily protect it. Rob Church ^Talk 15:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Goethean

Goethean (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Shivraj Singh 18:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: User is clueless about Rajput history and insists on editing. Shivraj Singh 18:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

talk:Rajput

Hi Rob, thanks for the warning. When I arrived at Talk:Rajput it was nothig but a flame war with Shiraj Singh (AKA 203.xxx.xxx) And the Muslim editors engaged in a complete hate-fest. I felt that it was a poor use of Wikipedia resources and asked them to take their conversation elsewhere. I insisted that they follow the rules, and deleted all personal attacks for a few weeks. Things got better for a while. Then Shiraj seemed to lose faith in the process when he realized that his POV verbiage was not going to be included in the article. He won't even respond to simple queries on the talk page, only bait the muslims onto a pissing contest over "bravery", etc. In my opinion, he has no intention to be a constructive member of wikipedia. As you can see, it has returned to its previously uncontrolled status. Someone needs to police Shiraj. — goethean ॐ 15:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rob,

I totally agree with Goethean. Actually Tom, Goethean and Zora, all three of them tried to bring the talk back to logic and authenticity but Shivraj is determined enough to promote the biased opinion of a fenatic religious sect. In doing so he defies every logic and every historical evidence. He engages with the other editors including myself in irrelevant edit wars being insulting to other people and their views sometimes even calling them names. After being involved with this issue for more than a month, I have come to the conclusion that this guy is impossible. I would like to invite you to come to that talk page and see it for yourself.

خرم Khurram 16:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted the article to the disputed version. Is there anything that I am missing?

خرم Khurram 21:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert to Shivraj Singh's Hindutva version? The rest of us are fine with multiple POVs allowed; he insists that his is the only TRUE POV and calls the rest of us Muslims. Even when we aren't. Zora 23:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arvanites etc

Please help REX with Talk:Albanian language. (he tried to archive it, but not the right way). Thanks! +MATIA ☎ 22:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I was wrong about the above. +MATIA ☎ 22:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

REX and Theathenae had agreed on Arvanitic language as a title, so I agreed with them and REX made the redirects. We'll be in touch. +MATIA ☎ 21:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FAHD

Rob - Yesterday I added Game theory to Wikipedia:Featured Article Help Desk/Requests Strangely, despite creating the page Wikipedia:Featured Article Help Desk/Requests/Game theory yesterday it still shows up red on the requests page today. When you click the red link it edits the existing text, proving that the link isn't malformed. Also, when you edit the requests page and preview it the link shows up blue. I don't know the inner workings of wiki very well, but I thought I would tell you in case you thought I just left the red link. Have a good day. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's late, but...

I know this is late as hell, but thank you for the welcome, you really made me feel comfortable when I joined the community.-MegamanZero 20:12 20, November 2005 (UTC)

WP:MIND

Hello. Round four of Wikipedia Mind Benders will open on Thursday, December 1. This round will be drastically different from round three; part one will consist of a creative project, and part two will be developed from there. The full details will be released when the round opens. Time and speed should not be major factors in this round; thus, there is no exact opening time for the round as speed will not factor into the scoring. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please add Wikipedia:Mind Benders/to do to your watchlist to receive further announcements; the NotificationBot is currently down and all notifications will be placed on that page. Sorry for any inconvenience.

Note: This message has been sent by Flcelloguy. If you do not wish to receive further messages regarding WP:MIND, please contact Flcelloguy. Special thanks to Fetofs for helping distribute this message.

thanks for the move

Thanks for Moving Google Sitemaps

J\/\/estbrook 19:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

Hi! I'm in need of a bot for simple replace-A-with-B operations, and your bot is the one I see most on my watchlist, so I thought I'd ask you for a few tips as to how to set such a bot up and how to use it... Would you be so kind? Thanks! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 06:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi, Robchurch. Just a request — would you mind using edit summaries when you remove items from Wikipedia:Requested moves to let others know what the result was? It's handy to know by looking at the history whether an entry was removed because it was no longer needed, whether the page was moved, etc. Thanks in advance. —Cleared as filed. 11:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus_Take_The_Wheel on Wheels!

Just in case you hadn't noticed the wheeler you fixed wasn't actually a wheeler, it was a cut and paste job, so your move back actually deleted the original article and it's edit history. It also colided with me tagging it for deletion, I've fixed the article (removed the on wheels! inserted and the tag) but obviously can't restore the original with edit history, don't know if this is something you can do. Thanks --pgk^(talk) 18:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM

For some reason the requested move for Afrika Korps fell off the WP:RM page without a move taking place although there is a consensus to do so. I have re-installed it under 8 November. Please could you move it before it gathers any more moss. -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pounds Weight and Pounds Sterling

Your "bot" has altered a lot of links from "pound" meaning "pound sterling" (i.e., currency) to "pound weight". Would you like to amend the program and correct the links, please? --Jack 12:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar

➨ ❝**REDVERS**❞ awards this Barnstar to **Robchurch** for being reasonable beyond all reasonableness in the face of the least reasonable user I believe I've ever seen.

Making a startling assumption that Robchurch and #wikipedia nick RobChurch are the same person... ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]