User talk:RoyBoy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Seadoo history http://www.parkeryamaha.com/68seadoo/sdbirth.htm]

What the heck is this gonna do? RoyBoy 05:03, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RoyBoy       Archives  2004 New user, Abortion, BR, Amorrow  2005 New admin, RC Patrol Barnstar, RfA's  2005 Signpost, BRION, WikiWatch, Monobook  2006 Gastrich, Anon blocks, Feat&Admin

Volume 3, Issue 14 — 2 April 2007 Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable" Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane" News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll Wikipedia in the news Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Archives·Newsroom·Tip line·Single-page·Subscribe

This user is a Cabal of One.

[edit] Courier

Sure :)

But I'm not clear what's the problem, or what you hope for. can you give me some more detail, please? Thanks! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you're after cleanup and making the Courier article more rounded or useful or less dry or something? Sounds fine by me. I'd like a bit longer briefing on it, so I know what I'm walking into? Maybe a description:

• What you feel is lacking or what it should be like compared to what it is
• What (if any) aspects are missing or misrepresented or just badly/boringly described
• If there is any dispute or heated editing to watch out for
• What problems you're having in your attempts to get it into that shape?

That'd help a lot :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you visit the Courier article and start filling stuff in :)

Blank sections arent a good thing. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anons

i'm confused 203.211.118.94 02:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly reccomend you ban this IP address from editing- it's a school library, and nothing good can from it.

[edit] Message from BB

Hey, RoyBoy. This is Big Brother from newspeakdictionary.com. I am interested in becoming a wiki admin, and was wondering if you had any suggestions for me as to how best to go about requesting adminship. - Big Brother 1984 23:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Bout time you showed up around here. I see you've been picking up the pace of editing recently. These days there are plenty of admins, so the requirements are subtly higher than they use to be. Mainly you should do things that admins do, on a consistent basis and in a friendly manner. (by this I mean, janitor tasks like counter vandalism, and/or more boring stuff like categorizing, AfD's and other backlogs) Also invest yourself in some content disputes to understand and apply Wikipolicy in moving an article and discussion forward. Finally, don't seek adminship. If you've done these things for a few months; this not only increases your edit count but shows your commitment to Wikipedia; and someone will nominate you and/or you'll find adminship isn't a big deal.

Oh yeah, did I miss anything interesting at newspeak? - RoyBoy 800 02:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. The main reason I was interested in adminship was so I could have access to all of the extra "goodies" -- the little shortcuts for reverting vandals and want not. But I found a software program called VandalProof which sounds like it will pretty much give me the features I'm looking for. Now I just have to wait for approval to have access to the software. (But this process seems less stringent than requesting full-blown admin rights)

And as for the site, not too much has changed. We're getting more trolls and spammers these days, so I'm about ready to upgrade all of the old board regulars to moderator status to help me deal with them. Apart from that, I think you might be interested to know that I changed my mind about the subject we argued about the most (marriage). Even BB can sometimes change his mind. ^>^ (Although I still think polygamy will be soon to follow... but I don't see that as a bad thing either) - Big Brother 1984 15:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek images

I have started on a mission to boldly go where no one... Wait, plenty of people have.

Today I started on a quest to beef up the image pages of Star Trek and put in necessary fair use rationales to avoid the wrath of the "anti-fair use trolls" (ok, troll is too strong of a word) that remove images from episode lists. Furthermore, the rationales are needed to go to a featured list and I'd like to see some these episode lists get there!

Please see Image:STEncFarpoint.jpg and Image:STNakedNow.jpg for examples. I'd appreciate any help as there are hundreds upon hundreds of episode images to do! Cburnett 21:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reality

Just to let you know, the current protected version of Reality still contains vandalism. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 04:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why was the Talk Page for Reality protected as well? Is that really necessary? The great kawa 05:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There is still vandalism on the Elephant page. It might be best to revert back to "15:39, 27 January 2007 Reboty" This is what was missed "Is believed to have been created by Stephen Tyrone Colbert." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jasonpford (talk • contribs).

Reality has become a commodity? Is that the vandalism that is supposed to happen on this page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.166.126.242 (talk • contribs).

[edit] User you cautioned earlier went on a tear - User talk:Andylu

Andylu vandalized a number of articles prior to your warning. Almost all the edits are vandalizations and have to be reversed. Ronbo76 00:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Burton as LaForge.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Burton as LaForge.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bob 07:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ABC at Abortion

Hi, RoyBoy. You recently brought the "Breast cancer" section at Abortion up to speed with the main ABC article. However, I am concerned by the text "also known as the ABC link." In my opinion, this statement is far too conclusive, and would be like stating that the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis was "also known as the ABC myth." Please let me know what you think. Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 22:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Just realized that I reverted your changes when I was trying to revert an external link added one version before yours. I didn't intend to do that, and I apologize. -Severa (!!!) 23:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What about "the hypothetical ABC link"? As a compromise? MastCell 06:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Good try, but no one refers to it as that. There unfortunately can't be a compromise on what it is known as, and referred to by pro-lifers. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The only alternative I can think of is moving ABC link to the Pro-life bias section; which is certainly an appropriate topic for the section that will be added soon, but listing aka's in the lead is standard for Wiki articles. So I think it should remain. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's referred to as the "ABC link" by pro-lifers, and it is, at this point, hypothetical, but I'll leave it up to you. I generally try to stay as far away from the abortion page as possible, for my own sanity. I can only handle a few controversies at a time. Good thing folks like you and Severa are willing to take on the subject. MastCell 18:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mastcell. RoyBoy has done a great job with the ABC article. It's a stand-out in the abortion series, particularly because it handles a difficult subject fairly (and, more importantly, thoroughly), without shifting weight too much to one side. Perhaps an alternative solution would be to place the reference to the "ABC link" in the introduction within the context of who uses this term: "also refered to by supporters as the ABC link." A reference to pro-lifers would give the impression that acceptance of the ABC hypothesis is dependent upon opposition to abortion, which I don't think is the case, as it's entirely possible that a pro-choicer or a fence-sitter in the abortion debate could accept the ABC hypothesis on the basis of current or future scientific evidence. -Severa (!!!) 14:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Will do. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. Let me know if the GA nom goes through. Thanks! -Severa (!!!) 17:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 03:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

[edit] Christian Feminism "vandalism"

Thanks for the kind advisory about removal of material. I feel very embarrassed, since I had no intent to do that. It was a careless error on my part. Sorry...75.18.97.182 01:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Assistance (BB)

I'm having a little trouble with a rouge admin. I was working on a page, and this admin came along and deleted my work and immediately protected the page. His FIRST action was to protect the page, before even discussing the issue with me. And even after discussing this problem for almost an entire day, he is still refusing to remove the protect. I'm afraid that if I have to talk to this guy any more I'm going to lose my cool. You can view the history of this discussion here:

• User_talk:ChrisGriswold#Copyright_violation.3F
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_Noticeboard/Incidents#Linz_sisters
• Talk:Linz_sisters

In short, I need to get the Linz sisters article unprotected so I can finish working on it, and I can't find anybody to help me. Help me Obi-Wan-RoyBoy, you're my only hope. ^>^ -- Big Brother 1984 01:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for restoring my page, jimfbleak 06:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing mine, too. I'm absolutely sure that the user in question, 64.149.158.94, edited previously under 64.13.35.113 and was blocked for up to a month. You may want to adjust the new ip's block accordingly. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did you reverted my edit? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.91.8.64 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 22 March 2007.

[edit] Help needed at Heather Wilson

A new user is removing material without reason or consensus and making personal attacks. See Talk:Heather Wilson for details. C56C 23:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you give a warning about this new users redirect WPBio (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)C56C 22:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution Controversy

Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Evolution#Controversy (2) and Talk:Evolution/WIP. Thanks! Gnixon 18:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion categorization

Hi, RoyBoy. I saw that you created Category:Abortion debate recently — why didn't I think of that before? D'oh! However, there are still some unresolved issues regarding the categorization system applied to abortion-related articles. I was wondering if you could check out this active CfD debate? It's on the long-ish side, but, this has been going back and forth for a couple of weeks now, in one form or another. I'd like to resolve it and try to pull a workable categorization system from it. Maybe someone else weighing in could help to us to reach a solution. Thanks! -Severa (!!!) 03:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anon feedback

I am concerned. On visiting the English version of Wikipedia and searching, I found a "new message" link. I have never seen this before. After clicking on it, I find that it looks as if I have been accused of changing a Wikipedia article. I think the article I was accused of changing was "Cold Mountain". I have not visited that article, nor have my wife or duaghter. We three are the only ones who have had access to computers in this house for several weeks, so the accusation (and the accuser) are wrong. I have changed pages before, but only on the "talk" pages, where I identify what I think may be grammatical or arithmetic errors, and never the "Cold Mountain" article, or even its talk page. I use sbcglobal as my ISP, and it is likely that I get a different IP address every time I establish a connection, though I have to admit that I don't know exactly how their system works. It could be that I am mistaken and that the message was not for me, though it upsets me that such unfounded accusations are made regarding me or that I or anyone who might know me might see them. While I admire Wikipedia greatly, this practice of making groundless accusations is disappointing and provocative. If Wikipedia or its agents are going to continue to make accusations on the public record that may be considered to be slander or libel, please consider where that might lead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.225.237.78 (talk • contribs).

[edit] My page

Hi. I quite like the semi-random appearance of the userboxes but, just to please you, I have moved the text down a bit so that it doesn't wrap around. Happy wikying.--Anthony.bradbury 23:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Has not been a problem either to any of my previous adoptees, nor to the 108 editors who voted in favour in my recent RfA. But you are entitled to your opinion, just as you are entitled, if you wish to talk, to go to my talk page rather than my user page. A thought - what definition of display are you set at?--Anthony.bradbury 23:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Curiously, on my home screen, and on a few others I have used to look at my user-page, it looks perfectly ok. The boxes are arranged in two rows, with the babel-boxes in a separate block on the right-hand side, and the text wholly clear of the userboxes at the bottom of the screen. Must be some type of OS incompatibility, I guess.--Anthony.bradbury 13:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

OK fine. So long as it stays much the same at my end, I'm happy with anything that makes life easier for the world at large.--Anthony.bradbury 14:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As you guaranteed, no change at my end. Cheers.--Anthony.bradbury 14:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:SpanishArmada_Isle_of_Wight.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SpanishArmada_Isle_of_Wight.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Selket ^Talk 23:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Apprentice UK

Hello, RoyBoy and thank you for your contributions on articles related to The Apprentice UK. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject The Apprentice UK, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of The Apprentice UK and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out and participate, please come over and visit us here for more information. Thanks! Dalejenkins 19:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)