User talk:Deskana

Contacting Deskana

• Contact me on IRC. I'm usually in #wikipedia-en and #wikipedia-en-admins. Just say "Deskana" in a message to get my attention, since I use a wide variety of nicks.
• Add a note on my Talk Page. Please read the rules below.
• Email me

Deskana's Talk Page If you wish to comment here, please sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~. Please add new comments to the bottom of the page. If I leave you a note on your talk page, you can reply either here or there, as you prefer. I tend to watchlist talk pages I comment on, but you can reply here if you prefer. If you comment on my talk page, I could reply either here or on yours, depending on how important the reply is. Be civil, don't attack me or anyone else, and I will do the same. I reserve the right to ignore/remove comments without prejudice, especially insults/uncivil comments per the above. I may or may not give a reason for the removal.

User:Tyar

First of all, User:Tyar has repeatedly attacked me on my own talk page see here and here. He then attacked me a third time under another account, (see here) called DBZROCKS-SUCKS. Though it is a link to that users page the revision history for my talk page clearly shows that his account made the comment. The user also admits to the deed [here. I really don't know exactally what to do here, could you help? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC) also this user: User:Stopdroproll has reverted the edits I have made and made attacking comments on my talk page, I suspect he may be a sockpuppet of Tyar. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 17:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been handled by other admins, it seems. --Deskana (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This user has threatened me not too long ago on here about DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! edits on the saga pages. I actually agree and support the change, but I still don't appreciate being threatened. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 17:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Permissions request on Commons Image:Delta Goodrem in Concert.jpg

Image:Delta Goodrem in Concert.jpg

I have sent an email, but there has been no response yet. If I do not get one by today, this image will probably be deleted. The author has released it under the GFDL. Here is a link to my talk page if you are interested in reading other stuff pertaining to this image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheKillerAngel

"I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of farm2.static.flickr.com/1220/1122609640_a92e9dc995_o.jpg.

I agree to publish that work under the free license GNU Free Documentation License.

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen.

Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the image may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

[25.10.07], [Shelton Muller]"

If you want a screenshot as proof, that's fine with me. 151.200.40.60 17:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I could not find the ticket you were talking about on OTRS. --Deskana (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Resending it. TheKillerAngel 21:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for checkuser

Hey Deskana, would you mind telling me why you reverted here, it was emerely just a note with a brief summary of information for the checkuser, I have yet to see anywhere which says clerks are not allowed to say this, can you point me in the right direction? Cheers, Qst 16:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, sorry about that, I'm new to checkuser clerking :) Qst 16:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to clerk, that's fine. But you should read the procedures. Clerks are really there just to assist us, not to make judgements. In some ways, clerks have less power than normal users since they can't comment on cases. Clerks are there to sort things and move things to make it easier on the checkusers so we can do more cases, and quicker. --Deskana (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously sorry about that though :) Qst 18:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it's no problem, Qst! So no need to fret ;) just be sure to be careful, especially when clerking, eh? Anthøny 19:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Question/help otrs stuff and an editor

Hi Deskana, if you have time and are able to (without too much trouble) could you look into this question I originally asked Riana here. I noticed from the user page he/she might be busy right now, but I would like to contact someone with access to the English otrs. Or. . .if there is somewhere else I should ask this instead, could you let me know that instead? Thanks, R. Baley 18:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I searched for all tickets containing "Lennon" and the earliest one I could find was 46 days old. I don't really trust the search function on OTRS though. --Deskana (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Deskana, I appreciate it. Is this something that eventually will come out in the wash, so to speak. For me, the difference is. . . that if he sent it, as I suggested, I would consider him a temperamental editor, but somewhat trying to edit in good faith, but as of right now, it looks like he was just gaming the system and abusing AGF from the beginning. In the 1st case I might "go to bat" for him and try to get back a knowledgeable editor (and monitor for a while), but for the 2nd, I'll wash my hands of it. Am I wasting my time with this? R. Baley 18:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Question with editing

Hi there! Thanks for changing my name. :) Yes it is a Grey Anatomy's reference. A great show.

I'm fairly new on wikipedia, and while trying to edit some pages, I got to 'edit this page' tab at the toolbar on top. Then when I click on it, it says pops up a download, asking me if I want to save a file call "index.php". It says the file is from en.wikipedia.org. If I click no, nothing happens, and I can't edit the page. Do I need to download it to edit pages on wikipedia? McSteamy 19:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I jsut logged off my account and try editing a page and everything went smoothly, no file popped up. Then I logged back on and try editing the same page and a file pop up as described above. McSteamy 19:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jimbo Wales

I agree that there isn't much point in this RFC, not mainly because it was already mentioned on the noticeboard, but because of whom the RfC is for. So, out of curiosity, will it get deleted?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully. --Deskana (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That was fast.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

A fan of yours

[1]. Acalamari 02:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

How ... nice. — Thomas H. Larsen 04:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Oversight, now?

I just noticed that you now have oversight privileges. Congratulations ... — Thomas H. Larsen 04:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

How many flags are you going to get man? Kwsn (Ni!) 16:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

He actually has the whole lot - not including bot (obviously) and things like steward and developer which are now depreciated. Majorly (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 43	22 October 2007	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens, budget released	Biographies of living people grow into "status symbol"
WikiWorld comic: "George Stroumboulopoulos"	News and notes: Wikipedian Robert Braunwart dies
WikiProject Report: League of Copyeditors	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Excuse me I'm new in Wikipedia.., please can you tell me wath's wrong in this page, or if now does it satisfy the notability guideline? [2] Please tell me it with simple words, I'm not very able in Wikipedia. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlons (talk • contribs) 21:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My (KWSN's) RFA

Thank you for supporting my recent (and successful!) RfA. It passed at at 55/17/6. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

question about IP block

I see that you blocked the IP 66.174.93.0 recently for some sort of username violation. This is the IP assigned to my cell phone, which I use to browse and occasionally edit Wikipedia with, and only then when I'm logged on under Ataricom. What did I do? ataricom 15:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hi Deskana, thanks for offering to mess around with AWB to fix those links. Could you do me a favour and check if User:Jack and User:Jeandré du Toit are the same person? If they are, (without sounding like a dick here), please do not inform Jeandré of his username Jack being requested for usurping, as if he doesn't use it often enough to notice that, then in my opinion, he does not need the username. — jacĸrм (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 44	29 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Florence Devouard interview
Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled	WikiWorld comic: "Human billboard"
News and notes: Treasurer search, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Agriculture
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Random fun thing

I have to confess: I wanted to re-reply to your oversight reply with "banana" but I figured I'd do it here instead of clogging up both your mailbox and "teh tubes." :P Either way, it looks like that you've changed your signature since the old one, so other people looking at this page are probably going, "huh?" :D Anyway, cheers, and keep up the good work =) --slakr^\ talk / 23:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:USURP

Thanks for removing the photo it's dreadful :( Secretlondon 02:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's alright, I tend to think we should ask before we post photos of people. :-) --Deskana (talk) 02:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I wasn't aware it was good form to ask before linking. I shall do so dutifully before posting that picture of Deskana from commons ;) But sorry Secretlondon if it was a problem. i ^(talk) 03:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe my photo has been deleted. --Deskana (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that. But I'll ask before posting again. Thanks. i ^(talk) 03:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA Closure

Thanks very much for closing out my RfA and making me a sysop. If you ever have any reason to regret your action in the slightest, please feel free to let me know and I promise to do something about it. Accounting4Taste 13:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for your recent comments and vote at my Request for Adminship. It was not successful. I don't believe this is unfortunate as it leaves me with much to ponder and a fresh slate from which I can better myself as an editor in order to be more compliant with the policies that are expected by Wikipedia.

If you feel that there is anything that was not covered by the RfA that I need improvement in, I would implore your input and feedback as I hope and intend to improve as best I'm guided.

All the best in your own endeavours in the real world, and also when you're not on Wikipedia. lincalinca 14:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

Do you mind watching my talk page? There is a user who keeps trolling in it. I'm not online that often to keep an eye on it myself so I would really appreciate it if you could help keep an eye on it for me. Thanks.-- bulletproof ^3:16 05:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It is on my watchlist, but I'm missing the vandalism. I'll try to keep my eye out for it. --Deskana (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your RFA was successful

Hi, Thanks for that!. Just one question; when replying to messages, do you think that it would be better to reply on my page, the other persons talk page or both? Thanks!. --The-G-Unit-Boss 10:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That's really your choice. I tend to respond here when it's less urgent (like this) or on someone else's talk page when I want them to get the new messages bar so they see my message straight away. --Deskana (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

A "hello" from Celestianpower

Hello! As I was looking down the list of ArbCom applicants this year, you were one of only two I recognised. Ho hum. I guess I've not been around much lately ;). Anyway, how is life treating our dearest Deskana? (On closer inspection, you're actually a guy (so much for "knowing you" - I always thought you were a girl :P. Oh well.), which renders that wording socially unacceptable. I'll rephrase it to "How's it goin', mate?") Has anything exciting happened with you recently? It's lovely to see you still live-and-kicking. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 14:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

PS, Good luck with the voting. You'll ace it, I'm sure, what with being such a great guy and all. I'm rootin' for ya'! —Celestianpower ^háblame 14:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, they are quite a collection of hats. Should I bow? :P. And Computer Science? Gosh, you really have turned into a geek, haven't you? ;). Are you enjoying it?

I'm not too bad actually. Working hard at my German to get it up to the same standard as the rest of my class (who have studied it for 5 years :P). And I'm 18 in two weeks! Woo! Party! Kind regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 20:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and about being back permenantly, probably not, sorry. I love Wikipedia, but I can't stand the way the community is at the moment. —Celestianpower ^háblame 22:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Asking for some advice

Hey, I think we might have a second wave of attacks by sockpuppets of Wiki En Wiki, I know you are not familiar with this case but this user was indef blocked for persistent sockpuppetry and massive inter-wiki spamming, I detailed the case with a new user that appears to be a obvious sock with more detail here, and it appears that there are more socks seeing that Lar has informed me of another account, do you think a checkuser is appropiate here considering that we are dealing with a user that has engaged in sockpuppetry in the past? - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Lar seems to have answered your question. I'm not sure quite sure how I can help you further. --Deskana (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin IRC channel

Hello Deskana! My request for adminship just closed successfully, and I was wondering how I would go about gaining access to the admin channel. I'm already registered on FreeNode; I sit in the #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, and #wikipedia-en-help channels if you need to find me. Thanks! GlassCobra 03:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins for details. Mr.Z-man 03:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

I have been told by some admins that applying a consensus in a article does not violate my 1RR parole (like the consensus of WP:PW is to list future PPV matches in the order that they are announced). My question though is how far does this extend? Am I still bound by the normal 3RR rules when it comes to enforcing the consensuses? TJ Spyke 05:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I know that part of the conditions of my return was that I be put on indefinite 1RR parole, but is it possible that that condition could be reduced in the future or even removed? TJ Spyke 06:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Where are these conditions documented? I would need to see the original discussion before I could offer advice. --Deskana (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Here: Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive12#User:TJ Spyke and not an admin, but the user who helped me get unblocked (Moe Epsilon) User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive 12#Revert parole. TJ Spyke 21:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want my advice, I say limit yourself to 1RR regardless. "A consensus" is sometimes not clear, and if you get the wrong idea, then you could find yourself banned again. I say be on your best behaviour and just limit yourself to 1RR. Secondly, it is possible that eventually you may be able to get your paroles removed, but given that you've not been unbanned for that long, asking to have them removed so soon is probably not a good idea. --Deskana (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ellis Raimbault

Could you confirm here [3] that the abover girl stated her age was below the age of consent. Thanks. Giano 00:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, sir. Ellis Raimbault did indeed state her age was under the age of consent. For the record, I do not believe that this person was actually a fourteen year old girl, as she evidently had knowledge of setting up anonymising proxies. But that is what she claimed, yes. And we must act on the assumption that that is fact, if it is what she stated. --Deskana (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect. I checked the girl's log, and she stated that she was fourteen. She did not state that she was under the age of consent. Fourteen year old girls with a taste for the polemic are probably among the most adept at using proxies. Why else would every other proxy channel advertise itself with some kind of appeal to unblocking school filters? digitalemotion 11:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Since when has 14 not been under the age of consent? And she wasn't using a standard web based open anonymising proxy, it looked more like a closed anonymising one. --Deskana (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said that 14 was not under the age of consent. I was just implying that it varies from state to state. I also wonder why you are even considering it, when Czyborra was only requesting photographs. Is this not rather sick and prurient of you?

I have no idea of what you're talking about when it comes to proxies. But I hardly think age comes into play, especially considering that teens need this technology to play as they like. digitalemotion 18:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot flag

Deskana, I recently approved Chris G Bot 3 to run with a bot flag, and it looks like you intended to flag it [4], but it is not showing as flagged [5] yet. Would you please check on this, note that this user name actually has a "3" in it, it is not 'task 3' of Chris_G_Bot. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC) (For the Bot Approvals Group)

I think I just forgot to flag it. Flagged now :-) --Deskana (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! — xaosflux ^Talk 00:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:Comments

I've already stopped. I've never done anything like this before, and I won't do it again. I'm not sorry, but I have stopped, so please let it die. Thank you, and cheers. The Hybrid T/C 16:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as you don't do it again, there's no problem. --Deskana (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Then we don't have a problem ;). Peace, The Hybrid T/C

My RfA

I didn't expect it to pass after the first few days. Fortunately, most of the oppose votes were combined with advice for improvement. We'll see what happens over the next few months. Thanks. Michaelbusch 17:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Melefire COBALT sock

Thank you so much for this! - CobaltBlueTony 18:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comedy

That was pure class.... !! Pedro :  Chat  22:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

CU

Sorry, you're too quick. I was retreating my request, but you already answered. What I would like to know is: how does it work if someone wants to check 2 users on 2 different edtions of wp? Thanks. Snowdog 00:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well you seem to what to corroborate evidence with the Italian checkusers. Have they requested this data? If they have, ask them to contact me on the checkuser-l mailing list. All checkusers on all projects have access to the list, and I can contact them through that for private collaboration. This is exactly what the mailing list was made for. --Deskana (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

RFCU

Re: this RFCU [6]

Is the result of a "possible on a technical level" that we assume in good faith that they aren't sockpuppets? I.e., no consequences? This isn't the only page that these two have tag teamed on. Is the issue that they have closely ranged IPs? Anothersliceofhistory stated:

Louisiana politics is not a very big area so I assume Araphel is another individual who desires to have the complete story told about LFF and David Vitter

which means he claims not to know Araphel. Doesn't it seem, therefore, less likely their IPs would be so close? Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 01:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible means that by IP comparison, it is entirely possible that the accounts are owned by the same person, but that it is not possible to prove it definitively, nor is it possible to definitiviely prove they are not owned by the same person. That's all it means. --Deskana (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Usurpation

Hi. Not carping here, but this piece of advice is a bit vague:

Please do not request usurpation if your user account is less than several months old, or barely used. In order to ensure that usurped usernames be put to good use, we prefer only to grant requests from reasonably well-established users.

I have over 3000 edits in exactly 3 months, most of them in mainspace, while the proposed name has precisely one edit 14 months ago. I hope you'll forgive me if it doesn't quite make sense when I assume that this user doesn't appear to be bothered about using the name. Perhaps the above wording could be a little more specific. Meanwhile, I will come back to this tomorrow as it's late here. Thanks anyway. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please peruse WP:CHUG, namely...

Target username has edits. If the target username has good faith edits which were not immediately reverted, and the account owner has not explicitly consented to the rename, then usurping could cause GFDL copyright issues.

Three months is borderline in terms of newness I think, but either way, you cannot have the account you want. Accounts with any edits to the encylopedia cannot be usurped. --Deskana (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I had missed the GFDL issue. My bad. Sleep well. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

Don't know if anyone asked you before, but you should think of running in the upcoming Arbcom elections. SashaCall 06:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Look at the nominations page. I am running :-) --Deskana (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Luck then. I totally missed your name on that list. SashaCall 19:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration? Could you explain this to me? Atomic Religione 19:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Read this, this and this, if you're interested. --Deskana (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Email

You should have one from me. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 19:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Advice

Hi,

This is a suggestion that you may "take or leave", but you may find it helpful. In the course of your ArbCom questioning, you disagreed with the statement "Wikipedia is fair to all users", or some similar wording. I found your answer distressing for the lack of one element: NPOV. NPOV is a core policy, and a type of "fairness"; it is in this sense that WP is policy-bound to be "fair" in the presentation of articles. WP:V and WP:RS, with their demands for accuracy, might also enforce a species of fairness. Fairness in the content of the encyclopedia is a paramount goal of the project; for this reason, actions against users must sometimes be taken that might considered "unfair" from a certain point of view. The encyclopedia simply places its priority in a different kind of fairness.

In short, by policy, Wikipedia is always fair (though, of course, WP is imperfect, and doesn't live up to its ideal in every article.) It just takes some thinking to understand the kind of fairness that is enforced.

I offer this bit of advice because you're a gentle fellow, and you'll take it well. :)

Also, my apologies, but I will be voting against your candidacy, notwithstanding that I like you. As you may recall from various RfBs, I consider concentration of power/wiki-functions a danger to be avoided. As you are a bureaucrat, I do not wish to see you occupy ArbCom as well. I understand that your view on this matter is obviously different (I read your response to a question, also). I wish to convey that my opposition is from principle only, and not a reflection on my regard for you, or on your fitness for ArbCom, even. In my view, holding bureaucratship is simply an automatic disqualification for ArbCom.

I will be regretfully opposing Raul for the same reason, even though I think he is a fine Arbitrator. (In Raul's case, I do think his performance as a bureaucrat has suffered, adding weight to my belief that concentration of power is detrimental.) Best wishes, Xoloz 15:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Xoloz, thank you for your comments. I have amended my answer to the question to note that I only believe that Wikipedia is not intended to be fair in the context of the users that edit, not in the context of your articles. I only hope that I have not confused too many people in my answers. On a side note, were I to resign my bureaucrat rights, would you support the candidacy? Please note that I will not be resigning my bureaucrat rights regardless of your answer to my question... I am simply curious. --Deskana (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you'd be a bit silly to resign them so soon after gaining them... but, I think I would support your candidacy in that case (barring a "shocking revelation" during the election!) I wouldn't expect you to resign, however; ideally, I'd like a candidate to choose only one high office, and to be content in performing it. (This includes CheckUser and Oversight, by the way, although I understand that my desired system is far from reality in that aspect.) With nearly 1400 admins, and approx. 20 ex-ArbCom'ers, I do think it is at this point practically feasible to spread official functions widely. For a wiki, I think diffusion of power is more than a principle of good governance, it's a survival strategy: WP can never rely too much on one individual. As you're aware, Arb-Commers tend to suffer "burn-out" -- why should they have any extra duties to attend to, when one is so taxing? Anyway, you get my point. Best wishes, Xoloz 13:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

closed RfA

ay, thank you for taking care of that. I really appreciate it, enjoy your day : ) Matthew Brandon Yeager 05:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

account on dewiki

Hi, today I blocked a newly created account de:User:Deskana for this edit. I suppose, it was not you ;). If there is anything I can do to help, don't hesitate to ask. --Complex (de) 14:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

DerHexer mentioned it to me. Given that the account used to speak some English, and I think I can vaguely remember making some of the earlier edits, I think that may have been my account at one point. Obviously it's not now... I've changed my password on this account to something I've never used before, so hopefully everything's fine. My password is really secure too. Hmph. Thanks, anyway. --Deskana (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well - that account was new, the other edits you see here are edits imported from Wikipedia:Five pillars --Complex (de) 14:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ohh right, that explains why I remember making those edits and seem to have used admin rollback. I guess I'll have to wait for single user login to get that back, I don't feel like pestering a bureaucrat over it :-) --Deskana (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Agenda against Pro Wrestling having FA status

Possibly have a look at this. It seems like two users are seriously against professional wrestling and seemingly want to de-list Montreal Screwjob from FA status. Also see the conversation at in WP:PW's talk page. Could you give your opinion at Talk:Montreal Screwjob? Seeing as how you are an admin/bureau/checkuser, your comments would certainly be appreciated. Thank you. -- bulletproof ^3:16 17:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the example

I hope the new format for Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Riprowan is suitable. Thanks, Evinatea 19:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That's perfect, thank you. I will look at it now. Spending those few extra minutes formatting it gets your request answered much easier, and it's much easier on us checkusers. :-) --Deskana (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom question

Hey Deskana. I added another question to my section a few days ago, and as it is unreplied to and everything else is, I think you may have missed it. User:Veesicle 07:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my bad, I'll be sure to check it out later. --Deskana (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sonicrules sock

User:Jeremy the hedgehog , seems to be a sock of User:Sonicrules. I make this assumption since he went to one of the users ( User:Luigifan ) that Sonicrules is well aqquianted with, and his manner of speaking "I will save Wikipedia" are reminiscent of Sonicrules. I suppose further investigation could be done, but it's in your hands. Atomic Religione 16:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep my eye on it. --Deskana (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, he's been blocked for being disruptive, death threats, and all that rot. You can take him off your wachlist. Atomic Religione (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Pallida Mors account --Usurpation rejected.

Greetings, Deskana!

I hope you don't mind for my having requested a reconsideration of the usurp' rejection (Nov 4).

As far as I understand, the conditions for usurpation my case has are, except for account seniority, unbeatable.

As I wrote in the page, in any case it will be just a matter of time.

Thank you in advance for reconsidering it and my apologies for the stolen time. Pallida Mors 76 20:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

User:24.186.101.182

He has made NUMEROUS attacks, in my opinion, warranting a Indef Block. Please deal with him as soon as possible. Atomic Religione 21:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"You are incredibly lame" was a rather good way to get the person more angry and be more uncivil. You should really consider what you say to users that are being uncivil to you, as often being uncivil back will just provoke them. That said, Chaser's already blocked the IP. --Deskana (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, we all get hot under the collar, one person can only take so much. Atomic Religione 21:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

LbUT

Hello, Deskana! Could you please explain to me what "stale" means? Thanks. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser data is only stored for a limited time. An account is said to be stale when its checkuser data no longer exists. --Deskana (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

You have been sent one. Acalamari 00:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to check it tonight. --Deskana (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser request posted

I notice that you ran a checkuser on user:SqueakBox the last time, and confirmed that he was using sockpuppets. He's at it again, using the user:Pol64 screen name, and trolling on both. I've posted supporting diffs here and here. I recommend a permablock. -HolokittyNX 01:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

He confirmed no such thing, indeed he confirmed Pol was using sockpuppets but none related to me. Please pay attention to the content of the RCU before making inaccurate comments. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed - instead recommend permablocks on both for their own trolling. -HolokittyNX 01:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I can see you are here to try to get me blocked but admins won't block without good reason and you aren't even giving a bad reason. Making false claims, such as me using socks on pedophile articles, and trivialising the crime of child sexual abuse, eg here strikes me as the trolling going on around here, and lets face it it is not the first time I have been trolled for daring to oppose pro-pedophile activism supporters on the pedophile articles, and because I get blamed for the multiple blocks of both users and their socks on these articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Further RFCUs will get rejected. Then both using British spellings is irrelevant. I use British spellings. Is SqueakBox my sock? Oh, and they both occasionally hit the key next to one they want. I've done that about twice so far in this message, I've just corrected it. It'd be nice if you didn't keep making accusations that in the past have been proven to be baseless. I'm sorry you have to put up with this kind of stuff, SqueakBox. --Deskana (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 45	5 November 2007	About the Signpost

Wikimedia avoids liability in French lawsuit	WikiWorld comic: "Fall Out Boy"
News and notes: Grant money, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Lists of basic topics
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 3, Issue 46	12 November 2007	About the Signpost

Unregistered page creation remains on hold so far	WikiWorld comic: "Exploding whale"
News and notes: Fundraiser, elections galore, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Missing encyclopedic articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for promoting my first nominee, Nightscream. Bearian 14:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well. I hope to make all of you proud. Nightscream 15:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

Can you tell me how to get the userbox to show how long i've been on wiki? Please respond on my talk page Ctjf83 00:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Email

Hey Deskana, I emailed you a couple of days ago about a user rename. Did you get my mail? The Rambling Man 10:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did, I'm sorry I've taken so long, I've been getting an abnormally large amount of mail recently. I'll get to it soon :-) --Deskana (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry! When you're ready. Cheers! The Rambling Man 11:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA

My thanks - I'll try and be good! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox

Hello Deskana. I have posted a comment after yours on my RfB regarding the relatedness of Squeakbox's oppose and the disruption for which he was blocked. I thought I should provide some background in case you'd be willing to analyze the situation and tell me whether you think I'm right or wrong. I suggest checking yesterday's history of Talk:Burma, my comment on SqueakBox's talk page, and his comments on mine. The nature of SqueakBox's oppose becomes clear, at least in my humble opinion. Thank you. Regards, Húsönd 17:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Group membership

In addition to a run at arbcom, what about a position as a Board vote admin? -- Jreferee t/c 23:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know boardvote isn't even used anymore, given the last WMF Board of Trustees elections were held on independantly controlled servers. Either way, I have nothing I can add to the team that handles the elections. I only put myself up for a position if I think I have something to add. They function just fine as it is. --Deskana (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Confusing request

Please check this one Sotnik (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Moldopodo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Requests for Checkuser is that way. You don't get around having to provide evidence just because you ask me directly. :-)--Deskana (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor Mistake

Just a friendly notice. I'm not sure if it matters, but at a recent Rfa closing you forgot to change "scheduled to end" to "ended". Happy editing! Icestorm815 (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not at my best today. --Deskana (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Icestorm815 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hope your day gets better! Icestorm815 (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for removing the spaces from my username. New York Dreams (talk)

Thanks!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for letting me know about that box, i will fix it in a few minutes ;) ACBestDog and Bone 14:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be OK now. If there is anything else wrong with it, i have put a view talk edit thingy on it now ;) ACBestDog and Bone 15:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it OK?

...if you review this? Thanks. -Goodshoped 03:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I work through cases in order, so next time I give RFCU a go, I'll get to it in due course :-) --Deskana (talk) 08:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:ArbCom question

Glad to hear that, Deskana! Let me know how that pans out. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Nothing florid, nothing fancy. Just thanks for the kindly good wishes. I'll try to wield the Mop-and-Bucket with grace and humility. --Orange Mike 04:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom application

All the best with your request, and I hope you pass the elections. Best wishes in the name of open source and running code, — Thomas H. Larsen 08:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 47	19 November 2007	About the Signpost

An interview with Florence Devouard	Author borrows from Wikipedia article without attribution
WikiWorld comic: "Raining animals"	News and notes: Page patrolling, ArbCom age requirement, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: History
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fred Phelps and attacksites

Dan,

I recieved your message. The ruling I was referring to:

Links to attack site 3) Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking.

Does apply, in my humble opinion. First the langauge of the ruling doesn't indicate that those attack sites are those that are attacking a wikipedian by name, it just states that links to attack sites may be removed by any user.... The sites I removed are, in fact, just that, attack sites. They attack gay wikipedians {GODHATESF*GS}, American wikipedians {GODHATESAMERICA}, CAnadian, Irish, Swedish & Mexican Wikipedians. Also fails WP:SOAPBOX and these sites are nothing more than Mr Phelp's personal Soapbox, further adds nothing to the article, is also not germain nor needed in the article. However, that's a long list. It's simpler to state the obvious, that all of the above websites are attacksites and per the above arbcom ruling, can be removed.
Don't worry, I haven't removed them from the page, they're still there. I won't start a war about it, it's not necessary. I've explained why I belive they're violations of the above ruling, if my interpretation is incorrect, please feel free to tell me so.
Happy Thanksgiving KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 18:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

4. In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

5. Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Moldopodo

Thank you for the answer. What I meant is can someone review the block that was done by user Nat and review why user TSO1D was not blocked? I know I am unblocked by now, the proof is that I can write and edit this message. Thank you in advance to enlighten me if this review is possible at all. For my sources, please check any talk page where I edited (Balti and Moldova in particular) as well as my user page. Moldopodo (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Please reconsider checkuser for editing at:

The users are disrupting a vote, and nominating articles in tandem at:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5W Public Relations
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronn Torossian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 18:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

NAS plug

Hi Deskana. In your posts to the new admins, would you consider giving the New Admin School a plug, such as with the sentence "To learn a little about how to work your new tools, check out the New admin school." I've been trying to do that but such a message should be posted with a few days of them becoming an admin and I don't always make that window. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 05:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hornetman16

A new user is currently suspected to be a new sock of Hornetman16. This time it's User:HDman. Just thought you should know. The Chronic 06:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. --Deskana (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh

Glad to see that I'm not the only one who finds multiple edit conflicts within a short space of time annoying. :) Acalamari 19:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Every time it edit conflicted I wrote a sillier and sillier summary. I wasn't really sure what would come next if that one conflicted :-p --Deskana (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going over slowly

I figure over the next month or so I'll work through and amends refs and links to my old user name, and then retire the Steve block in hiding from this sig when that's done. It'll save confusing people who suddenly see Hiding chipping into debates Steve block was in. Hiding T 21:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• And thank you by the way, both for the name change and the comment at WP:CHU. I was surprised this name was going, I was going to try usurping, which reminds me... Hiding T 21:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. Someone actually registered it after you requested it, but I just renamed the account out of the way. Username stealers do show up occasionally, unfortunately. --Deskana (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Well thank you again then. And good luck for the arbcom elections. Hiding T 22:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Boink! (you've got mail!)

...in the words of a great friend. Cheers, ( arky ) 02:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

CHU

That's what I mean. The comment was to other clerks, of which there are now many due to the (IMO) RFB for WJB. Best, Rudget.talk 18:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

:( I'll refrain, but that's not what I meant. I would never advise a bureaucrat to not perform a rename! It was on the basis of edits like this. Hopefully, you'll see what I mean. :S Rudget.talk 18:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose. God, I've been a pain in the arse for you. :S Rudget.talk 19:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to leave a message of thanks for your speedy response and for dealing with the matter I brought up on the Adminstrators Noticeboard so promptly (and for understanding it all!!). Much appreciated. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi sorry to invade your talk page for a second time. However, the same user is now adding messages to the Football hooliganism article talk page (six edits so far since you protected the main page. Most of the comments are again odd and just seem to be added because they can't edit the article. Am I ok reverting all the messages or do they have to remain? I am unsure of which is the correct way forward. Thank you for any advice. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll watch it. You enjoy writing the article :-) --Deskana (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, just they are now up to something like 13 edits on the talk page since the main page protection, mostly with just nonsense comments. They also seem to have at least three registered accounts. I edit on the article to try and keep it as much as I possibly can NPOV as it is a topic that can see very strong POV edits. It still needs a lot of work doing on it though. This IP user has been around for a long time with these edits on the article; they pop up every now and then with them. DFor a while they haven't done much. They just seem to have gone into overdrive the last couple of days!♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Just ignore them if they're not being productive. That's the easiest thing to do. --Deskana (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup you are of course right, at least on the talk page they can't do any harm!♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been nominated for deletion

User:R/EFD/Nomination -Goodshoped 00:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your request for checkuser

Thanks alot. I'm new to checkuser so sorry about that. By the way, the user: Dilbar Jan has already been blocked indef, so you ignore that one. Sorry about that.

But I do have a more recent case that I just added. -- Behnam (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Just to let you know incase you missed it, I provied a diff link of the Admin user: Khoikhoi writing on my talk and telling me that IP. Hopefully this is good, because Khoikhoi hasn't been active since Oct. 26. -- Behnam (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA Closure

Hi. Thanks for closing my RfA and granting me my sysop access. I know you do this alot and it is greatly appreciated. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 16:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Renames

There's currently some backlog both at WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U. Secretlondon has pretty much said she doesn't want to do them. So do you think you could clear it when you sign on? WJB will almost certainly be promoted, so it's only a little longer :) I (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at this later... for now, I must do my Software Engineering assignment. --Deskana (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Changing username (Posted Last Thursday)

Deskana i've recently posted last Thursday for my username to be changed, is there any chance if it could be changed to the requested username on the Changing username article, please if you're available.... Fire Monkey (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You should just register a new account, given you have zero edits. --Deskana (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really want to register again, is there any chance if the name could be changed to the requested username on Changing username article, please.............. Fire Monkey (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll register a new account using the name which i want to use? Fire Monkey (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Fire Monkey

It would take you two seconds to register again. You can just go to Special:Userlogin and create a new account. We only rename people who have non-trivial contributions to the encyclopedia, which I am afraid you do not. Takes two seconds to regstier the new account. Seriously :-) --Deskana (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Already done, i've registered my new account SKYNET X1000, the old account is obsolete now. Also i've erased my e-mail address and saved the preferences on the old account..... If i create my SKYNET user page on Thursday or Friday i might have Fire Monkey mentioned as the predeccesor and this new account as the successor although i've never created a user page before, this would be my first time..... SKYNET X1000 (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You can just put "#REDIRECT [[User:SKYNET X1000]]" on User:Fire Monkey to redirect people to your new userpage (though there needs to be something there for it to redirect to). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've done as you requested for the old account, if i done it incorrect please tell, although there isn't anything on the SKYNET user page yet i have placed a notice on the talk page. SKYNET X1000 (talk)

I'm confused although i've been a member of wikipedia for a while, i've been noticing these on the watchlist (-1,212) and (+2,123) what do these actually mean..... SKYNET X1000 (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the amount of bytes added (or removed) in the change. By the way, you might get quicker responses to these sorts of questions if you post on the help desk. --Deskana (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Understood, next time i'll go directly to the Help Desk if i'm confused SKYNET X1000 (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Deskana I've created my user page for the first time, and did as EVula ask and added user boxes, the redirect link works... SKYNET X1000 (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I know your job can be thankless sometimes but thanks for the name change. I do appreciate it. spryde | talk 22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Deskana (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

HIYO-Blue Laser

Yes, im sure about this name. HIYO (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 48	26 November 2007	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles	WikiWorld comic: "Cursive"
News and notes: Ombudsman commission, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Education in Australia	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone's been harassing me...

...there's this person that's been harassing me and trolling on my talkpage. StopTaoSpam (talk · contribs) has been harassing me since I reverted his removal of content, and he's been very uncivil to me and attacking me on his userpage, and he has been trolling on my talk page. I have the diff links if you want them, plus a warning that's still fresh on my talkpage. I would recommend you get rid of this message before he makes a big deal of this again on his userpage. -Goodshoped 02:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom table with portfolio links

Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.

My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian 05:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and ping me.)

Protection for SKYNET X1000

Deskana, although my userpage is new and operational is there a chance if the userpage could be protected from editing by any known user, part from me, because i wouldn't editing my own userpage it's just as a precaution. SKYNET X1000 (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no way to protect your userpage from being edited by anyone but you. At most, it can be semi-protected, do that new and anonymous editors can't make any changes, but such a preventative measure isn't exactly necessary, and doesn't fully comply with out protection policy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but what does the semi-protection do, could i still update it and change things. SKYNET X1000 (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Uvula

"For identification and critical commentary." It fits the "identification" role. Meanwhile, it is not wikipedians place to be writing "critical commentary". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Aha. And since critical commentary is expressly forbidden by the NPOV policy, a non-free photo can NEVER be used. That explains everything. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I could move the illustration to the article on the cartoon, which is already linked in the uvula article, so they would simply have to go to that cartoon's article to see the illustration. Right? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Request

I'd like to create a userbox similar to the one I did for NYB (It's on my talk page). But to do so, I'd like a.) to know if you're opposed to it; and b.) your suggestion of an appropriate image.

(Note for anyone else reading this, there are only two bureaucrats running, and I think both are at least decent choices (smile), so I'm asking them both.)

Thanks in advance : ) - jc37 20:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to create a userbox, feel free. I do not have an image to suggest. :-) --Deskana (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I'll look through commons and see if I can find something : ) - jc37 04:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's commons:Image:Banana.arp.750pix.jpg. (based on the "deskbanana" name at the top of this page), or just one of these Desks. - jc37 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's gotta be Image:Rolltop_desk.JPG. I looove the humour :-) --Deskana (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Jc37/Userboxes/Deskana4Arbcom - Though, as I mentioned to others when working on NYB's - I'm on the lookout for alternate "bottom-line" comments. (It's configurable for that and for floating left/right.) - jc37 04:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorryguy's RfA

I'd just like to register my disagreement with your closing of SorryGuy's RfA as a no consensus. He had, I believe, 70% on the nose... And, two of the opposes were 'very weak oppose' (one said 'leaning toward support') and two or three more were 'Weak oppose'. Additionally, at least one neutral said 'leaning toward support.' I think the fact that the !voters lent their own opinions less weight should have caused you to lend them less weight as well. Avruch^Talk 02:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Deskana. I just wanted to let you know that I agree there wasn't great consensus at this time and accept this RfA's failure. I will continue to work on the criticism, though. Cheers. SorryGuy 03:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Avruch, thank you for your comments. First, I'd like to point out that you were a supporter of this RFA, which means you are obviously going to want the candidate to be promoted, by definition. There is nothing wrong with this, of course, but it does mean you will not see things objectively. I do not think there is a clear consensus to promote, there. I did consider promoting, but I did not think it was wise given the opposition. Given that the first comment I received was many hours after the close, I can only assume many people have either concurred with the close, or not taken issue with it. Were I to close something badly, people would swoop on me quickly (and I would hope so, too!). I would also note that you mentioned 70%. Were it at 69%, would you have also asked me to reconsider? :-)

SorryGuy, I'm glad to hear you are looking to improve and learn. I am confident that if you take the criticism on board, your next RFA will be successful.

--Deskana (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I supported and agree no consensus to promotoe. Although a lot of the opposition made their comments "weak" I suspect this was due to the promising nature of the candidate's contributions so far, and not wanting to deter a valuable editor. However I think that they still felt the time was not right. The Neutrals also seemed to indicate this feeling as well. Pedro :  Chat  08:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The large number of neutrals, relatively few supports (in the context of WP:RFA's history), and a lack of extraordinary circumstances make this a good close, in my opinion. Daniel 11:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Voice-of-All 04:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll defer to the experience of the other commenters (and Deskana) of course on the no consensus close. Perhaps you are right. On the objectivity point above, not to be argumentative, but I haven't encountered SorryGuy anywhere else and I have no other interest except that it seemed to me that I, in Deskana's place, might've swung the other way. Avruch^Talk 23:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Flaminglawyer's Signature

Thank you for the comment about my username. I will change it as soon as possible (right now). ~~~~ 23:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is my new-and-improved signature: Busted, Busted, Busted

If that is also against the rules, leave another note on [User talk:Flaminglawyer|my talk page]]. Thanks! Busted, Busted, Busted 23:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Email

Hi. Can you check your email. Thanks very much. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 00:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to your last email. Thanks very much. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 00:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Fork substitution

As a previously interested party, I draw your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rhodesia&oldid=175026836#More_irrational_reverts and I seek your acquiescence in the edit I propose.

You may also wish to comment here, if you choose: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alice.S&oldid=175027524#Edit_war Alice.S 10:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Question about my RfA

I have a link on my userpage to my successful RfA that you closed. Someone with a misunderstanding with me edited it (diff) after it was closed complaining about something that isn't even true (edit in question). Is it fair to remove the complaint, placed several days after closure, especially since no one had a chance to refute/discuss it? Are RfA's generally protected/semi-protected since they should not be edited but instead preserved as record of what was commented? They are a great target for vandals/complainers/critics. Please respond on my talk page. Royalbroil 03:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say it is fair to remove it. The page clearly says "Please do not modify". However, it would be best to address the concerns of the person in question, if possible. Them putting it in the wrong place is not a license to ignore it if it's valid, no matter how tempting that may be :-) --Deskana (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an anon user. I left two messages on their talk page, one about the problem and one about the comment on my RfA. I doubt the correct person was able to get the message. The address is apparently being used by multiple people, as both the overuse of the citation tag edit and the incorrect complaint that I added the citation tags were from this same IP address. The criticism that I had anything to do with complaining about the lack citations is completely wrong and unfounded. I merely pruned down the overdue overuse of the citation template. I'm going to remove the comment, and take the link to my RfA off of my user page so this won't happen again. There is no way to address the concern raised, as I didn't cause it. Royalbroil 13:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts...

Hi,

Your activity level as a b'crat isn't what concerns me. Raul also greatly reduced his RfA role once he was at ArbCom. The rarity of his participation may have been part of the problem, helping to inspire his few very poor (IMO) promotions. Hence, your argument doesn't sway me... however...

I've been thinking about the upcoming elections. The fact is that there are several candidates who frighten me, so great is their unfitness to the task. While my principled position opposing the concentration of power is genuine and logically sound, I don't wish to "cut off the nose to spite the face". If voting against you and Raul helped lead to the appointment of gravely unfit arbitrators, I'm afraid I'd feel guilty for the next three years.

Despite the one qualm, I have decided it is right to support the both of you. :) The small price you'll have to pay for this is that -- if you later make a decision at RfA that I feel conflicts with your ArbCom role, I'll send you an exasperated (though civil) email expressing my disapproval, which you will be expected to ignore politely. :) May that never come to pass...

Best wishes, Xoloz 14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Will you delete my talk archive?

Will you delete my talk archive 1? The reason for my request is that its history contains my real name, which I want shielded, hence my change in username. Also, the contents has been used for slander off-Wiki. --Law Lord 19:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Many thanks! --Law Lord 20:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I Use Your Template?

Deskana, I would like to use your template, {{Uesr:Deskana/Header}}. Is that OK if I just put it on my userpage like you did yours? Please answer me at my talk page, as I tend to not check other users pages for answers to questions that I asked. Thank you. ♠♦♣♥ 04:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, feel free. But you should perhaps make your own copy in your userspace, and remove the "Floating Buttons" transclusion (which is those buttons at the top right of my userpage, which aren't really applicable to you). --Deskana (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom voting

Yes, it was the wrong section (bad paste after an edit conflict). I've already fixed it, but thanks for pointing it out anyway. Angela. 11:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Cranes Software

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Cranes Software, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Cranes Software. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 49	3 December 2007	About the Signpost

Template:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-s

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions for answer

3 5 4 (+1) questions. Premise: An arbitrator candidate says in response to a question: "I apologise I have taken so long to respond to this- I have had two coursework deadlines, as well as being busy doing other stuff, as well as having forgotten. I promise I will respond to this ASAP :-)."

Q1) What is the date on that promise?

Q2) What is the date today?

Q3) What is the natural corrolary, in terms of being responsive as an arbitrator?

Q4) What is the airspeed of an unladen swallow?

Q5) Extra credit: What is the actual answer to the actual question? :-)

Inquiring minds ... want to know! :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 03:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

1. There wasn't one :-)
2. {{CURRENTDAY}}-{{CURRENTMONTH}}-{{CURRENTYEAR}}  ;-)
3. Nobody is perfect, including ArbCom candidates and the Committee themselves. As a result I totally forgot about that question. I did not take an excessive amount of time to respond to questions, I simply totally forgot about that one and was never reminded about it. (big orange new-message bars work wonders)
4. The distance it has travelled divided by the time took to travel said distance. Curiously this is also the speed of any object that travels at a constant velocity.
5. I will answer if you desire, but not tonight. It's now 3:45am and my recent inactivity has been because my grandfather has been hospitalised.

-Deskana (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Deepest condolences. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 03:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

my oppose.

To be clear, you said: "The round earth theory is now widely accepted as truth, so we can say as such. "

This means you place our ability to state it on the contingency that is is widely accepted as truth. YOu're stating that it's a mutable truth, like 'jesus saves', instead of an absolute truth, like '1+1=2'. Even at the height of the (fairly fictional) ignorance of the masses in the dark ages, that a majority thought the earth was flat didn't actually alter the laws of physics, or the shape of the planet. Consensus doesn't negate objective factual truth. I don't' care how many contrarians you find, 1+1=2, always. It's that straightforward. Your answer hung truth on contingent acquiescence of the masses, which is unacceptable to me.

I replied here so as to not clog up the vote page, and to be courteous to you for taking the time to answer me. You deserve a clear explanation. It looks like you're way ahead in supports anyways, so I suppose it is moot. ThuranX (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Range blocks

I've asked User:Daniel about this, and he said that you were the person to ask. (looks around and asks: "Is it Thursday?" : )

Anyway please see User:Jc37/Tracking/Pastorwayne. And the recent related discussion at User talk:Roundhouse0#PW-alikes. There have also been a few checkusers: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pastorwayne.

I simply don't feel comfortable enough about range blocking to do it yet (I don't even know if I can as an admin : )

Anyway, thanks in advance for your thoughts/help. - jc37 05:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom candidacy - your conduct on my talk page

I find your canvassing/harassing to be in extremely poor taste. I should be able to vote without being questioned about it, and you should be able to accept it. You're exhibiting the worst of wikiculture and entirely justifying my oppose vote. And yes, I am referring to that "let's kick him when he's down" response that Endlessdan's question seems to have elicited from you. Very disappointed. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

B'crat

Could you please give this bot a bot flag, as it has been approved. <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 14:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's had a bot flag since 24th November. See this. --Deskana (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Bah

[7] Damn edit conflicts. Just because you're a 'crat and it's your job, grumble grumble... :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Navnløs

Oh, yes. I realised that after a little while. I contacted an admin who blocked the sock account and gave a warning to the puppet master. Sorry for the confusion! Thanks anyway! :-) Scarian^Talk 10:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

לערי ריינהארט

Hi Deskana! You are a « bureaucrat» at « WP:en: » . Can you please rename my account clicking here. Thanks in advance! Best regards Gangleri
‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 21:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 50	10 December 2007	About the Signpost

Template:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-s

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

RfD nomination of User:Emmaneul

I have nominated User:Emmaneul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Kameejl ^(Talk) 18:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

File:Pie.jpeg

FL^{Happy Holidays!} is wishing you a Happy Holidays! This greeting promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing a Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{subst:GivePie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 51	17 December 2007	About the Signpost

Template:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-s

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think I'd use that one one day

User:Lucasbfr has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

There are good days, and crappy days. May the next day shine on you :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How?

After reading your user page, HOW did you become an admin on the Navajo wikipedia without speaking Navajoan(?) I have never heard of what I guess is a language ;) Tiddly-Tom 19:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There was some work I wanted to do there, so I requested it on m:RFP. In the end a steward did the work so I'm not really active there at all... --Deskana (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your request for Checkuser

No sweat. I have a law degree, I know what legal limits can be. I am still personnally uncertain as to whether an IP is a personal data or not, but I guess (I haven't checked US law) law or case law may say so. Whether or not it is the case in the US, if Mike Godwin says you cannot disclose an IP, I will not argue. But it was worth trying, and I am particularly happy about Anthere's support. At the end of the day I received the information I needed in negative form  ;-)

Whether I am scared or not, I do not know, but I am not the only person involved here: my wife and kids are suddenly part of it. I feel like I do not have the right to dismiss as Standard Internet Bullshit a threat upon them. It is up to me to decide to do something now. Bradipus (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It was my only concern Deskana. Abruptness. Not the fact of giving or not given private data. I have no memory of having ever heard of anything wrong on this side. Okay, you tend to be abrupt, I tend to be abrupt as well. Sigh. Best. Anthere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.4.208.201 (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Blessed editing, and...

Happy Holidays from Marlith ^T/C Please feel free to contribute to Wikipedia:Song/The Twelve Days of Christmas

Credits: This card was inspired by Macy's123, assistant of V's Shop

Marlith ^T/C 05:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays Deskana. Have a Happy New Year !

^{Rlevse:) (T/C)}

Bureaucrat

Can You change my name in user:Úrvágaðen? :) --Brískelly (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please use Wikipedia:Changing username; if you follow the instructions there, it makes it much easier for bureaucrats to fulfill your request. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It is official

Welcome aboard. :-) FloNight (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on your new appointment as Arbitrator! Good luck, and don't wear yourself out :) Majorly (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, both. --Deskana (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!!! I'm sure you will do well, serving on arbcom. --Aude (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Kirill 23:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As per what I wrote on NYB's talk page, well done. I'm sure we'll see the great results soon. Best regards, Rt. 23:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on your success and good luck on the ArbCom Alexfusco⁵ 00:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Deskana. Take it slow and easy, and hope you can bring back some much needed harmony. Best wishes! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, congratulations Deskana! No doubt you'll make a great arb.--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 12:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats :-) WjBscribe 14:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats, Deskana! I guess you need another of your timer userboxes! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Deskana! I hope you will do well in the Arbitration Committee. :-) All the best, Greg Jones II 21:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

From me as well, congratulations. :D Maser ^(Talk!) 09:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Public-substitute congratulations :) Daniel 01:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats :) --Charitwo ^talk 19:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Adoptee ANNAfoxlover

Do you expect her to return? Special:Contributions/ANNAfoxlover doesn't exactly look like it (and I can't say I'm sad about it in any way whatsoever). [[User:Dorftrottel]] (talk)

It's impossible to say. I never did speak to her offwiki. --Deskana (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, just wondered because you have that adoption userbox. [[User:Dorftrottel]] (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

On a more or less unrelated note (I noticed both things while taking a look at your freshly appointed arbcom-member userpage (not congratulating right now, may do so if your work there impresses me)): I remember you once "whacked" me on IRC for a comment regarding KOTOR 2 (something along the lines of "it's shit compared to the original", which is still my opinion). However, seeing as you are citing Kreia, I felt like making a belated restriction to my comment and agreeing that the character of Kreia had a lot of potential, like a few other aspects of the game. I dorftrottel I talk I 10:11, December 28, 2007

Unfortunately the bit of the game which included her redemption (where Atris took the title of Darth Treya) was unfortunately cut. That would have fleshed out the game considerably, as I always felt it was a bit silly that you get so close for Kreia only to have her turn on you. --Deskana (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I hate the way Kreia becaomes a traitor. The game is crap compared to the original — KOTOR: You get declared a hero of the galaxy and praised by everyone, including yoda's grand daddy or become evil overlord of the whole galaxy and rule with a fist of steel. KOTOR II: A planet blows up and you escape or you stay on a planet and your friends escape. Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 20:17, 28 December 2007

Oy vey, I have to agree with everything said here. :) The engine was great (I like the breaking down useless items for components and whatnot), but the story was horribly, horribly rushed so that it'd come out before Christmas. On the final level, the map even has links to two areas (and displays door sprites at those locations), but the rooms got cut. Stupid, stupid, stupid... EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Plus, the HK50 thing wasn't even explained properly, and repairing HK47 doesn't do much. There was supposed to be a level where you destroy a HK50 factory or something but that got cut too.--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 21:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

btw, I assume you have this page watchlisted? ;-)--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 21:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 52	26 December 2007	About the Signpost

Template:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-s

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Bring on the '08

Happy New Year Deskana! Long time no see my friend! Have a good one! Cheers!

-- bulletproof ^3:16 08:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for CheckUser of user User:Gohdeilocks.

Deskana, I would like to request CheckUser of user User:Gohdeilocks. I believe the user is Sockpuppet (Internet) and trying to Bait me into an irrelevant discussion that is unproductive for WikiPedia. Please read at the talk he or she started om my talk page, after I requested arbitration Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#ST47. User_talk:Igorberger#Your_arbitration_statement The editor has no editing history Special:Contributions/Gohdeilocks and no relevency to bring up my activities outside WikiPedia. As a Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam WikiPedia patrolman I see this problematic, as with the policy of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam#How_to_identify_spam_and_spammers Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Who do you think he's a sockpuppet of? ST47? I know ST47 from IRC, and while he can be a bit "short", as Edit Centric put it, he's a respnsible user. Anyway, the correct place for requesting checkuser is Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, not here. And if there is no reasonable evidence that the user is a sockpuppet, the request will be denied as it is an invasion of privacy.--Phoenix-wiki 15:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, please no! I do not belive he is a sockpuppet of ST47. I think ST47 and I had a miscommunication nothing more! When I tried to talk to ST47, he kept calling me a Troll, which is not appropriate for WikiPedia to call other editors with derogative names! Can you imagine how we would look if we started refering to each other with Labels??? IMHO Igor Berger (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want a checkuser on that guy then?--Phoenix-wiki 15:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As a forensic Malware expert I have an idea who he is and what is his alternative motive at WikiPedia. I am not the first one he has targeted. I prefer to withdraw the request at this time, and hope he will go on his way and respect our community. But if he does not I will show evidence to the effect who I believe the anon is. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[Sigh] I'm not a sock, I'm a long time lurker and new user. I had no history with Igor Berger before today, when I asked him on his talk page why, if he felt being described as a "troll" (by a Wikipedia admin) was so offensive, why he styled himself "Igor the Troll" throughout his other internet postings, linked to from his own user page. Given that he has already escalated his earlier dispute to RfAr, I felt it was an important issue. The history on my own talk page tells its own sad story since then. [/Sigh] Gohdeilocks (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to request a ban of Gohdeilocks for tempering with Spam template flag that I have placed as a precotion to worn of possible vandalism following the WikiPEdia Spam project guidelines. Please check this users history http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gohdeilocks&action=history I tried to revert to previous version to correct the temparing of the Spam template but the user keeps reverting my revert. User_talk:Gohdeilocks Please check and act acordingly. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't really done anything bannable. Anyway, the correct place for ban proposals is WP:ANI.--Phoenix-wiki 18:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes he does but I am giving him a chance to deescalate the matter and to stop his harasment to me presonally. I have asked him not to come to my talk page. And not to talk about me personally on other user pages with refernce to my activities outside WikiPedia. If he does not stop the haresment, I will institute the ban by escalating infringments. It is really up to the user to walk a way from me, and to stop playing social engineering games with my authority! I am not hapopy to do this, but as you can check to the refences I am making he does not seem to want to stop the personal attack. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

He is not harrasing you. You made up some petition against google knol, and it was reverted. You requested an arbitration case and Gohdeilocks made a comment on your talk page concerning your statement there. You want him banned because of it, which is frankly, ridiculous. And what do you mean by "your authority"?--Phoenix-wiki 18:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And he isn't a spammer. I don't see him linking to anything.--Phoenix-wiki 18:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Point of interest, throwing the word "ban" around when you're not an administrator and don't have the ability to execute such an action is a very, very bad idea, as it only serves to escalate the situation. If you'd like wider consensus on this matter, post it to ANI; community bans are never instituted based strictly on a small conversation on an uninvolved editor's talk page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

EVula, I am trying to deescalate the matter in all situations conserned in a calm respectable matter. I was doing the job of Spam patrolman and with this authority I have been deligating the matters at hand. I am not interested in fighting, argueeng, or banning anyone. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The best way of deescalating the matter would be to simply walk away and forget it ever happened. You say you're not intereested in banning anyone, yet you requested that a user be banned with your last post. Spam patrolling isn't a formal postition — you just do it to help the 'pedia and it gives you no authority to ban or block people. I often keep an eye out for spam myself, yet I have no extra authority.--Phoenix-wiki 19:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Phoenix-wiki, I am trying to calm the situation. I do not know if I went at it the right way or the worng way, but based on my experience with SEO community and understanding Black Hat SEO`s and how they behave I make judgment calls proactive often than reactive when it comes to Baitting and social engineering. You have to understand how desruptive these two to WikiPedia. I have no personal interest or malfeelings to any person I engage in my investigations to find a Black Hat! Am I right all the time?* I would say fighting Spam for about 5 years now for my business and non for profit projects I tend to be correcrt very very often. But in other people`s eyes I amy not seem to be. I hope we can all come down and continue with pur work instead of having to defend ourself against aqusations on all sides. Thank you for your guidenes, Igor Berger (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have a request for checkuser, please put it on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. Given you don't seem to really know who the sockmaster is, it's unlikely a check would be performed for you. I suggest you heed Phoenix's and EVula's advice. --Deskana (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

The Chronic has given you a bottle of Cristal! Cristal costs $350, and hopefully this bottle has made your New Year's Day better. Spread the spirit of the New Year by giving a bottle of Cristal to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Give a bottle of Cristal to someone else by adding {{subst:User:The Hybrid/Finger}} to their talk page with a friendly... wait...

E-mail

I sent you an e-mail, in case you haven't checked yet. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear friend, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Eve, and that 2008 is your best year yet! ~ Riana ⁂ 02:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Deskana

Wishing you the best for 2008! Acalamari 18:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful ArbCom candidacy as well. Acalamari 18:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

Just dropping by, but I would like to congratulate you on becoming an Arbitrator. Cheers! — Thomas H. Larsen 02:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!!!

Yayyy!!! Áthbhliain Faoi Shona Dhuit! :) - Alison ^❤ 09:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (just emailed ya)

Meetup

Hi there, I noticed you expressed interest in the Birmingham meetup last October. Just letting you know, another UK meetup is in planning stages, here. We need input on where and when we will meet so comments would be much appreciated. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Special:Blockip/67.86.43.59

This appears to be the ip used by an indef blocked user and your 3m block has now expired. The ip is now seeking the unprotecting of the page. Since this was a checkuser block I'm simply going to post this message and ask you for advice on how to proceed. I have reblocked for a week to allow discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Conditions

As I am unblocked will I be allowed to edit or create an account without being blocked. Thanks --67.86.43.59 (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't guarantee the actions of other administrator. As I see it, you are free to create an account but you should know I'll be watching, that's all. --Deskana (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, have a great new year, and congratulations on your own ArbCom bid! --Elonka 05:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page

Can my talk page be deleted. Also several of the sock puppets that I am accused of are not mine. A check user could establish that. If you do not want to that is fine. Thanks --67.86.43.59 (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

You probably don't get many thank you notes for a withdrawn RfA. It clearly wasn't going to succeed with people looking at myopic details on summaries without looking at concrete contributions, but I wass interested to hear opinions. Personally, I think it didn't go well because of WP:SNOWBALL and a misunderstanding of WP:CANVASS. I'll continue to edit and reapply in the future. Thanks for the help. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

John Gohde 2 RfAr

Hi. You voted in favor of the principles and the findings, but not the remedy. Was this intentional? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

For now, yes. I've not had time thoroughly review it all. Thanks for the heads up. --Deskana (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for checkuser (?)

Hi, I've recently discovered that (quite) an edit [8] was made by someone else using my account, and I'd like to request, if I may, your help in discovering the IP that was used to make it, in order to know if my account was hacked or if I simply forgot to log off. Thanks --goncalopp (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You wish me to disclose the results publically? I need explicit permission from you to do so. --Deskana (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for the results to be published, so could you please just mail them to me? If that's not possible, however (I'm not familiar with the process), I do give my permission for you to disclose the results publically. Thank you for your time --goncalopp (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

Can a checkuser be done on me so it can prove my innocence in several cases I have been falsely accused of. --67.86.43.59 (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really. You've edited nothing since user talk pages since being unblocked. Try doing something productive and then we can consider your requests. --Deskana (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

question

was this oversight done? 62.78.158.150 (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems like it. --Deskana (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Need help with an attack account

Hi, I have a problem I've been discussing with User:Rlevse. User_talk:Rlevse#Is_that_necessary.3F has a pretty good description of what's going on. Basically a sockpuppet account has been created whose name slanders me. The account has been disabled and well meaning admins have twice created the user page noting it as a sockpuppet. Unfortunately, this perpetuates the attack. User:Rlevse thought you might be able to help me as a bureaucrat. Thanks Toddst1 (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)