User talk:Rboatright
|
|
/archive Discussions prior to April 2005
| Contents |
Nitram0002 etc
Just in case you thought that incrementing the username really did work for avoiding the Three revert rule, it doesn't. Although I never normally block for excessive reverts, Martin has made so many in the past day or so that I'm blocking his main account for 24 hours for that. I'm adding 3 days for 3 sock puppets (though I think there may have been 4), 1 day for foul personal attacks and 1 for using open proxies. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
yeah, but he just keeps incrementing.
Now that they've closed off open proxies, what can we do to stop his nitro00xx series? Rick Boatright 20:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Block on sight. I think it's close to arbcom level now, but I don't want to take on the case myself. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:24, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If you want it to be reverted, just ask on the talk page and somebody else will probably do it. The more people join in and revert the better. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If you want it protected, I can do that, but I'm reluctant to do so because then nobody would be able to edit the article at all. Ask on WP:RFPP if you want it done anyhow. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For arbitration, go to WP:RFAR. Copy the template on that page and fill it out, and add it to the list of arbitration requests. Then write a message on his talk page with a wikilink pointint to WP:RFAR. If you do this I will unblock him so that he can respond to the case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:42, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Abdu'l-Baha photo
I have no opinion on the photo (more correctly I don't care enough to form one)I'm simply reverting/banning those socks on sightGeni 22:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
New anon user
Just to fill you in the guy has a bit of a bee in his bonnet about the Baha'is for some reason (24.6.117.96 contribs (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=24.6.117.96) and 67.188.7.127 contribs (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=67.188.7.127)). I suspect he may well be a Bayani which is interesting. I think he got quite annoyed because I reverted his NPOV edits within 10-15 mins of him submitting them. One or two edits were reasonable though (such as the deleting the bit that said Subh-i Azal "allowed the idea of religious power to pursue his own personal gain").
You'll also notice the start of the article Baha'i election. -- Tomhab 15:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh great - you've NPOVed it. I've just started the page Bahá'í administration and made it nice, including critisisms. I'd like to migrate the elections page over as its a bit of a "spare limb" page. Bahá'í administration can be built into a generally useful article. -- Tomhab 16:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why Ringo
Well, it's because I done very little edits on Eric Flint's page, and (long ago) I did more to Ringo (IIRC because Ringo had a homepage I could search for bio-info and such). The list is supposed to be only those articles I contributed to in some major way. I added 1632 series to it now. It does seem as the page is not much edited, though :( I expected more barflies would edit it... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome
It's appreciated ChristianEdwardGruber 15:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Outdated Talk Pages
What's the purpose of keeping outdated talk pages? I can understand keeping them if information/questions on them hasn't been answered/fulfilled, but once all questions/requests have been answered by the article there isn't really a useful purpose to keep the old messages around. If someone wants to see the old talk page, he/she can simply go to the history. The page in question I'm specifically referring to is Talk:U.S._five-dollar_bill.
DieYuppieScum June 15, 2005
Duplicate Citation in Aurangzeb
The citation was not an insertion, it was copied from further down the article and put in a out of context manner. Please check the article, you'd see the citation appropriately done in a later section in the existing version. thanks. --Ragib 18:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You added inserted the duplicate comment quite some time ago, would you mind removing the duplicated comment by Richards? The comment can be found in a later section of the article in the appropriate context. I do not want to touch your edit, without violating the 3RR, so can please you take a look at the article and undo the duplication your edit added? Thanks. --Ragib 21:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)