This user may have left Wikipedia. Robchurch has not edited Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
I'm pissed off with Wikimedia, Wikipedia and wikis in general for the moment. Contact me via email if at all, or don't bother.
...
I guess I'll be getting out of the way, then. I'm sorry to have inconvenienced you all so much by trying to be productive and helpful. robchurch | talk 15:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've always been around on Wikipedia, and I've never seen any conflicts between you and others. Please come back! --M@thwiz2020 16:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Rob
I know you may not see this in a while, dear Rob, but in case you do, I want you to know that we care for you, and we wish to see you back with us as soon as possible. Please, take good care and relax in your wikibreak, and hurry back! We miss you, dear Rob! Phaedriel
Seeya
Good luck in your future endeavors. --Cyde↔Weys 15:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You
have been very nice to me, you helped me everytime I had a question, even it when it was a stupid one. You've always had a great sense of humor. We will miss you. Leon¿! 14:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Addendum to "Here is my attack"
Well, I hace confessed to vandalizing for the past several months, and for permanently scarring my reputation. I want to state now that Tex's contention that I haven't left is entirely false, I only came back on the 23rd to voice my opinion against RobChurch, and his RfA.
Well, my attack: I am sorry for being the CIyde vandal and for my attacks on John Reid. I am sorry that I came here, stressing myself, and others out. To further emphasize this, I did create an account with the intention of it being constructive after a three month long meltdown. Hopefully, I will be able to edit constructively, and I am sorry for all the trouble I cause. Yes, people reform, and to be honest, the point of the vandalism was to attract attention to what I see as incivility, and the reasons several of my friends have left here.
But vandalism is vandalism, so I better quit before I get in trouble.
I am sorry I was ever apart of the project. I DONT want to be a Brian Chase. But, at least I did edit here constructively for a year and three months before I went haywire.
Addendum: It is my wish to make it clear that I want to return to the encyclopedia, and I am asking that my block may be lifted so I can continue my work here. I sincerely apologize for my actions.
Rob, without you, we haven't been able to do any more technology reports at the Signpost. Come back soon, or at least leave us some instructions on how to do the technology reports.
We know how to do the technology reports it's just we don't know any changes. The instructions are simple, all we have to do is find some weekly software changes from another updater such as
User:Brion Vibber or User:Tim Starling. He provided us with the changes; actully you can ask him why he left at test.wikipedia.org, (I just did) The publisher, Ral315 doesn't know where the software infromation is at; but we could ask Tim or Brion for instructions. Carmelapple 15:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Please come back
Although I was never a good friend with you (or a friend at all, really), I miss you on Wikipedia. Please consider coming back! 1ne 05:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC) (formerly SushiGeek)[reply]
Alright
Apparently there are users here that like working with you but you have choosen to leave because someone pissed you off?!? Or you like watching people "crying" on your "user's gravestone" or something?!? Either way that's kinda childish. Consider this quote from that Tom Cruise unicorn movie - "What is light without darkness?". When you get mature enough to understand its meaning then feel free to come back. -- Boris 09:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to be too informed on the situation, so don't make assumptions. 86.133.212.163 15:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And are you, random IP? 1ne 08:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Random IP never said they did. I agree with random IP and think that Boris-es words are kinda mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatxiG (talk • contribs) 05:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pleeeasse???
C'mon RobChurch pal! Come baaack! IRC is not the same w/o you! ;_; CableModem --Steve-o 09:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Robchurch. This is Andy123 from the IRC. We are really missing you out there. Please come back. --Nearly Headless Nick 16:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to see you go
Hey Robchurch, I'm really sorry to see that you're leaving Wikipedia, or at least stepping away for a time. I hope it's the latter, and that you will eventually return, as all your contributions here are most appreciated. Whatever has happened, I hope things are able to relax a bit and not stress you out as much, for that's no good at all. Good luck with whatever you decide to do, I'll always remember you "Well, why the fuck not" vote on my RfA, which cracked me up. All the best, -- Natalya 14:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All the best. —Encephalon 13:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fans club
Hey Rob, being serious: I'm into your fan club.
why haven't you ever posted a pic?
Greetings, and come back if that pleases you --83.61.171.95 15:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey
Oh! You're back.
Well, I hope you decide to resume editing. DS 21:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back! It's a pleasant suprise to see you return. Hope that you decide to stick around. Mike (Talk) 04:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess
Dear Rob—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push at [1] to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 14:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An Apology...
Sorry about the matter on #Wikipedia..
I obviosuly shouldn't even attempt to use IRC
when tired.
BTW the string "^ShakespeareFan(..)$" should work :-)
ShakespeareFan00 21:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DEFAULTSORT
This is a great idea! There are cases, however, where in one particular category you want the article sorted differently- will a piped link override the DEFAULTSORT command? --Elipongo(Talk|contribs) 16:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a result of discussion on the village pump and mailing list, bots are now allowed to edit up to 15 times per minute. The following is the new text regarding bot edit rates from
Wikipedia:Bot Policy
:
Until new bots are accepted they should wait 30-60 seconds between edits, so as to not clog the recent changes list and user watchlists. After being accepted and a bureaucrat has marked them as a bot, they can edit at a much faster pace. Bots doing non-urgent tasks should edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots who would benefit from faster editing may edit approximately once every every four seconds.
Also, to eliminate the need to spam the bot talk pages, please add
Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard to your watchlist. Future messages which affect bot owners will be posted there. Thank you. --Mets501 04:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
bugzilla 3311
Hi - Any chance I can interest you in
WT:CFD#Propose tagging with both and expanding use of Cat redirects overall. Redirected categories have sucked for a long time. I think making this one change makes it almost perfect. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply