User talk:Deskana/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ramdrake

Hello. What about the checkuser for Ramdrake and Jeeny based on this: [1] ? I note it wasnt listed in the checkuser request so do I have to submit another checkuser request? KarenAER 02:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you do. --Deskana (apples) 13:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

See MP search. Thanks. P.S. I like your user name. It says to me that you are always at your desk working hard for Wikipedia. -- Jreferee (Talk) 21:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll check in the morning (see thread below) --Deskana (apples) 01:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

It's what you have :) — Moe ε 01:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll read your e-mail more thouroughly in the morning... it's 2:30am here, and I'm very sleepy :-) --Deskana (apples) 01:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
That would probably be better as it is lengthy :) — Moe ε 02:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 35 27 August 2007 About the Signpost
WikiWorld comic: "Helicopter parent" News and notes: Court case, BJAODN, milestones
Wikipedia in the news Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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 05:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tinsley Viaduct

Hello, can you have a look at this page please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinsley_Viaduct as the references are not showing. Ta. Chump Manbear 08:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference No. 7 ended with <ref/>. I corrected it to </ref>. Wikipedia:Help desk usually is a better place for these kinds of questions. -- Jreferee (Talk) 13:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind taking questions, but considering I've been a lot more busy recently, the Help Desk might give you a quicker answer. --Deskana (apples) 16:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
ta Chump Manbear 18:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] chu

since when am i a troll HIYO 01:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said you were. Nor did I imply it, actually. --Deskana (apples) 01:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
well im not making playing HIYO 01:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
You've got tons of edits to the sandbox. That's a textbook definition of playing. --Deskana (apples) 01:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

i do that when im bored. plus i clean it. HIYO 01:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protocol and "Islam and antisemitism" mediation

I was witness to the long running dispute regarding the Islam and antisemitism article, I tried to help settle it by looking for a compromise, and failing that, I was the one who suggested that they should seek mediation. I just happened to notice that they went ahead with mediation and I wanted to make a comment in Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Islam and antisemitism, but I wasn't sure of the protocol. I see two other people who are not specifically named in the mediation have made comments, but I didn't want to assume that that meant it was OK, so I thought I'd check with you before adding my comments. So, can I add comments there? If so, should I do it in any specific way (other than the obvious "be polite, etc..." stuff)? As you may have noticed I tend to be a bit long-winded, but if it's OK for me to comment there I will try to keep my comments brief.  ;-) Thanks. -- HiEv 03:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to comment, avoid commenting on other parties. Please only make suggestions that you think will be constructive, and help with the mediation. --Deskana (apples) 12:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uhhh

What did you do here? Respond on my talk page please SLSB talk • contrib 21:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Your an admin and I believe a 'crat and your vandalizing? PS: Always respond on my talk page please. SLSB talk • contrib 21:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't mean to jump on you. Please forgive me. I thought someone broke into your account is all. SLSB talk • contrib 21:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Offensive username

Hi I believe User:Turkeyslap is an offensive expression and the account should probably be blocked. I am not sure if you have heard the expressin before, but it is something of a sexual nature, I cannot go into to much detail though. Thanks--AJWC123 05:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Theres a wiki article about the expression that redirects to teabagging Turkeyslap --AJWC123 05:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
This is the kind of thing that WP:UAA is for. --Deskana (apples) 12:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this technical enough for you?

:p also, why are you not on MSN? --lucid 10:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coolguy10101111

He is repeatedly putting attacking words on his page and on other pages. Agwin 13:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FallenAngelII

He keeps reverting the edit about the Fourth Hokage being Naruto's father and he revert more than 3 times. In the lastest chapter, it was the first time they mentioned him by name and first time they mentioned Naruto's mother.

[2]

[3]

[4]

These three links are proof of this. Tsunade and Jiraiya were talking about them and referred to the Fourth as Naruto's father. Anyways, can you do something about FallenAngelII? Please and thank you.

Ryu-chan 16:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tajik, his ban, and a possible conspiracy

Thatcher131 had banned User:Tajik with no reason. Now, he is accusing me of being Tajik, while I am not. User:Tajik lives in Hamburg. He has even used various IPs from the University of Hamburg; the same IP was also used by the Wikipedia admin known as User:Future Perfect at Sunrise who is also German and works at the University of Hamburg. In fact, he and Tajik know each other in person (ask him if you do not believe me). I am writing to you from Kassel in Hessia (if you check my IP, you'll see that I am right) - I know Tajik from various forums (I am also from Afghanistan, just like him). Thatcher's claim that Tajik is the same person as User:Tajik-Professor is more than rediculous. Thatcher simply needed a reason to ban Tajik in order to support his favourite Wikipedian: User:Atabek. And because Thatcher did not have ANY proofs, he simply took the similar name to accuse Tajik. Everyone who had followed Tajik's edits knows that User:Tajik-Professor was a sockpuppet of User:NisarKand. His edits are totally contradictory to those of Tajik, and various socks of NisarKand had already vandalized Tajik's page. Tajik has requested twice an unblock in order to explain his situation, but Thatcher has refused to give him a chance. Instead, he is continuing to further expand his pointless accusations. Interestingly, last week, User:DerDoc was also banned as a suspected sockpuppet of Tajik. The funny part is that DerDoc is a medical doctor from Vienna in Austria, using 193.xxx IPs. Any checkuser file would prove this simple fact. But like in the case of Tajik, DerDoc, too, was banned without any checkuser file. Not even NisarKand (this time in the shape of User:Rabeenaz) claims that DerDoc is Tajik, although he has (with the active support of Atabek, as one can see in his contributions' history) tagged various accounts without any permission, claiming that all of them are socks of Tajik - just like Atabek. Prior to DerDoc's case, another user, namely User:German-Orientalist, a German Iranologist from Dortmund, was also banned because of the same reason. The only proof against him was a weak checkuser result, saying that a link to Tajik would be possible. Interestingly, Thatcher - the one who has banned Tajik because of false accusations and whose wrongs have been exposed - was enganged in almost all of the cases mentioned above. I've talked to User:E104421 who was part of the ArbCom which endorsed Tajik's ban, and he was shcked as well, because it was very clear from the beginning on that he and the ArbCom were used by certain admins to get Tajik banned. In order to muzzle Tajik, admin Thatcher131 used a wrong accusation against him and got him banned. In the following process, Tajik was prevented (by Thatcher) from defending himself in the ArbCom, and was banned indef. The same Thatcher131 did not mind to ban known vandals of the Azerbaijan-Armenia ArbCom for only 1 year, even though many of them used sockpuppets. However, in case of Tajik, only one wrong accusation of Thatcher was enough to get him banned forever. This is very very very very very suspicious and does very much look like a conspiracy against User:Tajik. And everything points to admin Thatcher:

  • Thatcher131 initiated an ArbCom along with a few others
  • Thatcher131 made up wrong accusations against Tajik (i.e. that Tajik is Tajik-Professor, a claim that has been proven wrong twice since then!)
  • With this accusation, Thatcher got Tajik banned and prevented him from defending himself in the ArbCom
  • Thatcher's accusations also forced the judges to endorse Tajik's ban (the same ban that was initiated by Thatcher)
  • 7 checkuser files were requested against Tajik, and 90% either proved that the accusations were wrong, or did not have clear results (... possible ..., ... likely ...', ...unlikely ...), the other 10% were rejected anyway
  • Thatcher refuses to request a checkuser file in case of DerDoc, German-Orientalist, and Tajik-Professor. The reason is very simple: since these 3 people are NOT the same person, they CANNOT be Tajik's socks at the same time. That means that Thatcher's accusations are wrong, and that he abused his admin rights to get a user banned whom he did not like (or maybe what he had to say).

Thatcher's edits seem to be coordinated with those of Atabek. And Atabek's edits are certainly coordinated with those of User:Rabeenaz. Anyway, this case needs to be investigated. Other admins need to take a look at this, and many other Wikipedians need to urge neutral admins to have a look at Tajik's case, and Thatcher's admin rights. --84.58.177.136 01:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rein Lang, again...

Could you please look at Rein Lang (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) once again? I am afraid things are getting out of hand again, with edit summaries such as "I feel for fragile state of your brain, but either explain your reverts or seek professional help." [5]. It might be best to revert to the version from this morning and fullprotect the article for a while. Thank you in advance. Sander Säde 15:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for pointing that out to me. AR Argon 23:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And actually, the only reason I bothered Mr. Bryant (yeah, I know his old username) is the fact that he is the head of the Mediation Commitee. I've always found it hard to understand certain policies and community projects, and I find it easier to ask about things when I'm uncertain about them. Sorry for bothering you and Daniel, though. I understand my talk page edits may make someone who is a very important member of the Wikipedia community (like you or Daniel) assume that the messages they receive are rather important. You see, I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia and, as a result, will not understand certain policies and guidelines quite yet. But I am a fast learner, and I have already contributed a good number of constructive edits, as well as a failed AfD nomination (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danish Music Awards). It's nice to meet you, Deskana, and I look forward to collaborating further with you and Daniel in the future. AR Argon 23:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm busy at the moment with checkuser responsibilities, but thanks for the post. I'll be sure to see how you come along. --Deskana (apples) 23:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand. It's just that I don't seem to have tremendous amounts of interest in editing articles so much as working with the AfDs and RfAs, and getting to know the editors here. The reasons behind that is that I don't know what to add to articles, and I don't have a clear understanding of certain Wikipedia projects and things.
However, you are absolutely right. Wikipedia's goal is to build an online encyclopedia that gives people accurate, descriptive, unbiased, and verified information on topics of interest, and not an MMORPG or a social networking site. But I feel I am getting to know people here well, and I think I can collaborate effectively in the future. If there are any other issues and concerns, please contact me at my talk page. Thank you. AR Argon 00:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Interesting you brought that up, I just reverted several edits identified as vandalism to the article +44. I'm going to add that article to my watchlist to monitor it. And thanks for the advice. May I ask, as long as I don't totally overdue it, is it okay if I welcome new users occasionally? AR Argon 00:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Da Vinci Barnstar

The da Vinci Barnstar
Well, c'mon. High time you're awarded one for all the stuff you do for Wikipedia as an Administrator and Bureaucrat. You practically define what it was made for, Da Vinci, err, I mean, Deskana. AR Argon 07:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Euriboring

According to him, this website doesn't work. We're all editing in vain :-) Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 13:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

He means the link on my userpage. I've not used chmod u+rX on the folder, so nobody has read permissions. Oh well. --Deskana (apples) 14:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry :-P --Boricuaeddie 14:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Award

The Bronze Wiki
It's about time you gaot an award. Only about 5 people have got one of these (gold and silver included!) and you deserve one Phoenix 14:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ping

Zing? -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Pong. Thanks for the heads up. Some people need to lighten up sometimes, I think. --Deskana (apples) 15:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another Award

The Legendary Gold Wiki
Captain Deskana I award you with this GoldWiki on the grounds of you being the best admin I have ever seen. You know when there needs to be humor, and when the there needs to be seriousness. Keep up the good work, good job Deskana :) Atomic Religione 16:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of where do you put your awards? I only see one on your userpage. Atomic Religione 16:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realise there was one on my userpage. I have User:Deskana/Awards, but I don't tend to get many. Thanks for the award. --Deskana (apples) 16:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smile!

Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 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 {{Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[edit] ~*Giggle*~

[6] I have to say, I thought otherwise at first, maybe it is the name ending in "a" that got me, lol. At least I never actually wrote my impressions! Ariel♥Gold 22:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing Islam and antisemitism revert war

Can you please help put a stop to the Islam and antisemitism revert war that is going on right now? Sefringle's side needs to stop reverting any edits by Bless sins, and Bless sins needs to stop making large controversial additions and changes to the article until more progress has been made in the mediation. This is just my opinion, but I think anyone reverting Bless Sins' material should be asked to stop reverting and instead look for a compromise on the text, Bless Sins should be asked to stop adding these kinds of changes until the mediation is settled, and the material being reverted should be discussed in the mediation as to whether to keep, edit, or delete it. If you have a better plan feel free to ignore that suggestion. Thanks for helping out in this dispute.  :-) -- HiEv 23:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering why the mediation had gone quiet. --Deskana (talky) 23:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm currently putting together my response. It will be on the talk shortly.Bless sins 23:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Please post it to the mediation talk, rather than the article talk page. --Deskana (talky) 23:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I intend to do. :-)Bless sins 23:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage

You are one MALE dude. My hopes to be as MALE as you one-day are merely dreams. You are all MALE. Atomic Religione 23:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser results for Cholga?

I notice you left the comment "Unrelated" with a symbol on that page. Does this mean you did the checkuser and determined that the two users aren't related, and therefore that there's no sockpuppet here? Pardon my ignorance; haven't gone thoughh this procedure yet. (I'll watch this page for replies.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It means exactly that, yes. --Deskana (talky) 00:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WikipedianProlific

On this RFA, it was extended for an extra 48 hours. I was just curious why. Thanks! Politics rule 03:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus, basically. Note to Deskana: Sorry, Deskana. I am bored, and I like to answer questions. Thanks for understanding. Feel free to expand. Miranda 09:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
To generate a more thorough consensus. --Deskana (talky) 12:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Politics rule 15:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd recommend this again for other users RfAs that are in my position having been through it myself. By day 4 or 5 the main views had established themselves in there respective proportions and by day 7 they were stablised. All the extension did was increase the number of contributors but it didn't adjust the proportion of commenters or the views they put forward, most of what it did was just add more X per user:X. So the RfA then lasted 9 days instead of 7, and its already a painfully stressful experience being put in the spotlight for critical analysis as it is. Thats okay in itself but it seems like it was unessessarily stressful given the ambiguously negative outcome.

Equally, I think it may have been prudent to talk to me before extending it, as many users carefully time their RfA so they can respond the questions and comments, by extending it over monday I was largely unable to answer emails and keep on top of goings on, though I don't think it would have changed the outcome but had you spoken to me on saturday evening I may have declined it.

I'm not going to get into debating it as you've made a decision but I don't really concur with the logic of the lack of consensus (though of course I wouldn't :P). I think though around half the neutrals tended towards oppose they were none the less neutral, and at the same time in oppose there were some odd views and equally some users who were opposing more for neutral reasons such as insufficient amount of admin related editing history in their opinion. No one opposing editor was able to provide a solid reason or example that I would act irresponsibly with the tolls. Those who supported tended (except maybe 2 that I can see) to be offering fairly steady support. It just seems tedious to me as clearly I now have to go away, jump through the hoops (i.e. change my editing patterns to suit an edit count) for 3 months, take another RfA hopefully with a different outcome and come out the other end no different and no more capable an editor than I am now.

Anyway, please take all this construtively as its not a criticism of yourself in the slightest but more a criticism of the RfA process.WikipedianProlific(Talk) 09:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with WikpedianProlific. Extension did no good whatsoever and counting neutrals as oppose was a mistake. He had 74.75% support, which is well over 2/3 supporting. Just how what % of supporting does a candidate need? I have noticed that those with over 80% are made admins, but below that down to 70% or so is rather vague.Rlevse 10:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not done by % and numbers, it's done by consensus. Majorly (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) First, I note that both of you are inherently biased, as you're the candidate and a supporter. but that's okay. When I read through RfAs, it's normally obvious what the consensus is. I read through pages of support and it's obvious that its a promote. I see a few supports and tons of opposes, it's obvious it's an oppose. I read through yours several times before extending it, and each time I came to the same conclusion: "Who the hell knows?!". I didn't know what to do. I wasn't sure whether there was a consensus to promote you or not. That's why I extended it. Rlevse, you're mistaking the RfA process for a vote, which it isn't. There is no percentage where a candidate is certain to fail. I mean, in practicality if you have 80% plus it's almost certainly a pass, and 70% minus is almost certainly a fail. When I read through that RfA, there is no consensus to promote him. That does not mean there is a consensus not to promote him, please understand that. --Deskana (talky) 11:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Consensus is defacto percentages, regardless of what people say. You yourself just said over 80% vice under 70% and that inbetween is a gray area.Rlevse 11:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
He said that it's almost certainly, not the shortened version you say. Under 80% or over 70% could still have a very clear consensus either way. --lucid 11:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
If we have 30 supports, and 20 opposes that are primarily opposing because "a user has self nommed", it's pretty obvious what will happen. --—DarkFalls talk 11:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
True, but that's an unlikely scenario, though it could happen. It's still a defacto numbers game, but I see no reason to belabor the issue further. Rlevse 11:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there are two parallel lines of discussion here. The first is the business of the 48 hour extension. While there was nothing wrong with it I do think it would have been prudent to have discussed it with me first, I can’t see any good reason why not to contact me about it anyway. Its not a complaint but just next time you do it, perhaps it would pay to talk it through first.

Secondly is the discussion about how consensus was decided on. I realise I am inherently biased although I do by best to stay neutral. Personally when I see that discussion I see a consensus to promote, based on a few neutrals who are neutral (i.e. they are not concerned either way) a few opposes but a clear majority of fairly strong support. But this isn’t a criticism of deskana at all, but rather a criticism of the RfA process. Because on the one hand it isn’t a vote, yet on the other hand we conduct it exactly like a vote. We tally up comments, we count them, we calculate percentages etc. I feel strongly that it isn’t a vote, but rather a debate. Since no one voiced a serious reason for concern about me using the tools then I personally would see that as consensus given the strength of the support, that’s my view on it at least. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 11:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to criticize RFA, go to WT:RFA. This page is for bitching at Deskana! --lucid 11:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't aim to debate or complain, Deskana, and I have no especial interest in the outcome of this RfA beyond having voted to support. However, I would like help understanding your rationale. Why is it kosher to count neutral votes as opposes? Perhaps I misunderstand the point of a neutral vote, but it seems to me you have chosen to count a nominally neutral voter's comments as a de facto oppose vote. Wouldn't those who voted neutral (i.e., no opinion one way or the other) have voted to oppose if that's what they'd intended? This strikes me as being tantamount to coöpting votes, and given that the difference between discarding the neutrals and counting them as opposes is the difference between 68% and 75% support, I would like to better understand this aspect of the consensus doctrine. Thanks in advance. --Scheinwerfermann 23:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but you've got a fundamental misunderstanding of the process. Many of the comments in the neutral section were to the effect of "This user is not ready to be an administrator yet". The idea of "counting them as opposes" is a simplified explanation of what I did, since I didn't just close it based on the percentage support. I read through the RfA, and given that all of the opposers (by definition) did not want him to be an administrator, and many of the neutrals, I do not believe there was a consensus to promote. The difference between 67% and 75% is nothing... I didn't close it based on the percentage. --Deskana (talky) 16:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Highly unfortunate

I regret to say that it is very unfortunate to name me as the sockpuppet of User:Tejam. It is clear that Tejam has similar interests as mine and most of his/her contributions/input coincide with mine, which might have prompted you to take this unfair decision. You may also please check the IP addresses. I work in a massive research institute near New Delhi, where there is a common server providing internet services. Please consider various factors into consideration before reaching a decision.

I complained many times against a group of users User:Gnanapiti, User:Dineshkannambadi, User:Sarvagnya, User:Amarrg, User:Blnguyen, User:KNM who act in unison and threaten and silence other users. You can see these instances on the talk pages of Telugu script, Chalukya dynasty, Origin of Vijayanagar empire, Brahmic family etc. My complaints to the administrators went either ignored or unanswered. For instance, I complained on:

September 1, 2007 (6.47); September 1, 2007 (5.55); 18 July, 2007 (5.42); July 4, 2007 (9.51); July 4, 2007 (9.31).

Some of the above users use highly uncivil and uncouth language. So far, no action has been taken against them. They do exactly what they ask others not to do. Something which is WP:RSfor them becomes non-reliable source for others. If I cite a book by an authentic historian it becomes WP:UNDUE simply because it is inconvenient for them. Personal webpages and websites run by regional and unofficial organizations are RS for them. If a professor of engineering in the University of Newfoundland created a webpage on Telugu literature with good deal of research and literature collection, it not reliable for them because the author is an engineer. They get vicarious pleasure in branding the guy as an engneering 'student'. Ther are many such things which they play and which you can read in the above-mentioned talk pages. I hope you have patience to read the whole stuff. Can you imagine an edit done by you is reverted in a matter of few minutes by three different users? I ponted this out but no action was taken.

At the end, my appeal is to see the contributions of these Users, the way they behave in talk pages, the language they use etc. I also request you relook into the matter of sockpuppetry and take an appropriate decision.Kumarrao 13:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're editing from the same IP, and editing the same topics, that is inappropriate. I'm surprised you're not blocked already. --Deskana (talky) 01:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me. I was trying to say I am not at all a sock puppet for User:Tejam. Please look into my concerns and absolve me of this charge.Kumarrao 05:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I understood you perfectly. I know a few admins who have other people on their IPs, but since they don't edit the same topics, it's not a problem. Same IP + same topics = inappropriate. --Deskana (talky) 11:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smile (and sorry)

♠TomasBat 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.

Sorry for the revert... ♠TomasBat 20:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restore

Restore Oakland Cemetery (St. Paul, Minnesota)? --Louis Alberto Guel 19:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted as a copyvio. Nobody should restore it. That doesn't mean you can't create another page that isn't a copyvio, though. --Deskana (talky) 21:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

One has been sent. Acalamari 22:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Per our email conversation

Rename, please. If someone else reads this, please also read my rename request comment for more info. — Giggy 07:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Secretlondon's done it for you. --Deskana (talky) 16:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recoome trolls my talk page

He is persistent in his way of blaming others of sockpuppetry when he himself abuses accounts, see 219.89.162.247 and 219.89.168.21. Now he's just being disruptive for the heck of it. I'm not expecting for you to block him since he'd just use another ip. I'd like for my talk and user page to be semi-protected if that's the case, or do you suggest otehrwise? And now that I have your undivided attention, there were several requests I asked you back here and it'd be appreciated if you can respond to them here also. Thanks. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I won't sprotect your userpage, as there has been no vandalism from non-autoconfirmed users to it. I do not protect userpages indiscriminately, on principle. I won't sprotect your user talk, either, since protection is always a last resort, and even more so on userpages. The principle I speak of is because if you read any sort of article on Wikipedia, one of the first things always mentioned about Wikipedia is the fact that anyone can edit it, and I think indiscriminately protecting userpages violates that principle. I'm sure you can find some other administrator who just adheres to the protection policy blindly though, who will protect your userpage for you. And I'm really sorry but I'm so busy nowadays with my many hats that I really don't have time to answer random questions. :-) --Deskana (talky) 16:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Islam and antisemitism

The mediation talk page seems quiet. I was wondering what I should be done next.Bless sins 02:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is time someone should suggest a compromise; discussing the problems has been done over the past few months, and hasn't reached consensus yet. I doubt continued discussion alone will if no compromise is suggested.--SefringleTalk 03:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Committee nomination

It is my pleasure to announce that your nomination to become a member of the Mediation Committee has been closed as successful. I encourage you to place the Mediation Committee page and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation on your watchlist, as well as the open tasks template, which will be updated as new cases are accepted. You are also encouraged to join the Committee's internal mailing list; please email me directly so I can confirm your email before subscribing it. If you have any questions about how the Committee functions, please feel free to ask me. Congratulations!

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New user name

Thanks for doing that I appreciate it. It took about 10 minuts for the systen to change my history as I'm in the top 20 contributors! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 21:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 36 3 September 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
WikiScanner tool expands, poses public relations problems for Dutch royal family WikiWorld comic: "George P. Burdell"
News and notes: Fundraiser, Wikimania 2008, milestones Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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. R Delivery Bot 03:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pavarotti as Rodolfo.jpg

You removed Image:Pavarotti as Rodolfo.jpg from the article Luciano Pavarotti. You might be interested in this discussion Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 September 6#Image:Pavarotti as Rodolfo.jpg. – Ilse@ 11:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the free image on Commons that is now used in the article was only uploaded today. I, for one, had previously searched Commons for a free pic, and failing to find one, was happy to leave that picture there. Carcharoth 12:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No image on commons doesn't mean it's not replaceable. --Deskana (talky) 12:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Obviously. I never said that. The normal standard that applies is whether the person is still living. Once a person is dead and you can't ask someone to go and get a picture, you have to scour various free sources to try and find a free photo. I tend to stop after searching Commons. What is the normal standard? How extensively do you have to search before you conclude that there are no free pictures? Carcharoth 14:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I wouldn't delete anything

And I don't think the admins or mods on WR would either. Your contributions would be valued. In fact, consider this an invitation to sign up! Gets a bit boring watching conspiracy theorists and political extremists fight, but there's plenty of genuine criticism as well and I think you'll be given plenty of respect by the more thoughtful users. 81.132.78.69 19:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As would your contributions to the encyclopedia here, of course. Given your other edits, I find it hard to take you seriously. Criticims given with no backing evidence are not valued here, as Jimbo states on his userpage. The same is true of Wikipedia Review, and I think that is absolutely fair. And I do have account on Wikipedia Review, I just don't use it much. --Deskana (talky) 19:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's reasonable to use those edits as evidence of my seriousness on Wikipedia Review one way or the other, although they may well be symptomatic about my attitude towards Wikipedia. We both know, of course, that there are plenty of criticisms both valid and serious that I could make here that would nevertheless be immediately reverted as outing/stalking or such, possibly even oversighted. This is where the Review comes in useful. 81.132.78.69 19:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting endless complaints

Hi. Which policies did those posts violate? A.Z. 19:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Which policy states that users are allowed to baselessly disparage the website that we work on? There was nothing wrong with the last one, but it makes no sense to keep it there if you remove the one before it, since it makes it look like ACBest is talking to himself. I realised afterwards that "endless complaints" was the wrong phrase to use to describe what I reverted, but the reason is still the same. --Deskana (talky) 20:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
But the criticisms are not baseless (well, most of them aren't). But it would be against Wikipedia policy for them to be put on Wikipedia. 81.132.78.69 20:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, baseless was the wrong word too. I meant "without supporting evidence". If you write words to the effect of "Wikipedia sucks" on a talk page, there is no reason to keep it there. --Deskana (talky) 20:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
What is the reason to remove it? I thought criticism was welcome, and silly criticism (without supporting evidence) should just be ignored. Actively removing content about Wikipedia that doesn't have any personal attack nor violates any other policies doesn't seem helpful. A.Z. 20:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Then revert me, but that's throwing all your common sense out of the window as far as I'm concerned. Maybe you believe there's no reason for me to remove it, but there's absolutely no reason why it's worth readding. --Deskana (talky) 20:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Agreed re. the 'readding' point. However, "Wikipedia 5ux0rz" comments are just inflammatory pagerot and far too much energy is already expended dealing with baseless nonsense on here. Delete or ignore works for me either way - Alison ☺ 20:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm with User:A.Z. on this one. Removing someone else's comments from a Talk page should be limited to reverting vandalism and personal attacks. I don't care what they do on WR, here we don't stifle criticism, silly as it may be. Owen× ☎ 20:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I personally don't see why we should let User:Coastusual, a user who made death threats, evade his block so he can vandalise and add criticism with no evidence onto Wikipedia. But hey, that's just me. --Deskana (talky) 20:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Criticism with no evidence, you say? May I get you interested in Occupations of Latvia, where a gang of evidence-less opinion-ful editors is holding the article hostage based on a fake dispute of the form of "WP:IDONTLIKEIT. So, I dispute it. Oh, see! There's a dispute going on! This justifies my dislike!"? Digwuren 21:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
How bizzare. I commit loads of vandalism, you're a checkuser, and yet you connect me with someone else! 81.132.78.69 20:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
You have Checkuser rights; if this is really a sock of a blocked user, by all means, revert and block on sight. That's a different issue from that of disputed comments on Talk pages. Owen× ☎ 20:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
User(s) blocked - blocked, so - Alison ☺ 20:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Me suspecting he was a sock was half the reason I removed it. --Deskana (talky) 20:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ordinarilly I would agree with you, but when it would be a violation of Wikipedia to provide supporting evidence on Wikipedia itself, then all that is left is to provide a link to an external site. 81.132.78.69 20:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
When is it a violation of Wikipedia to provide supporting evidence on Wikipedia itself? A.Z. 20:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cannot login with new Username

My previous Username was Kathleen.wright5 which I had to change because it is part of an ISP Address.My new Username is Romana 3 which I cannot login with.I am a new user.I have also moved my associated pages.My email address is kathleen.wright5@bigpond.com User:Romana 3 01:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You've not changed your username, all you did was move your userpage and talk page. In order to be renamed, you need to go to WP:CHU and leave a request. Your username is still Kathleen.wright5. --Deskana (talky) 09:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If I don`t change my username I may not be able to do editing at Doctor Who sites because my edits were reverted by an automated bot(VoABotII).Please see my Talk Page for further details. User:Kathleen.wright5 13:20,8 September 2007 (UTC)

That's because you're a new user, it has nothing to do with your username. Are those your websites? --Deskana (talky) 13:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant articles at Wikipedia.User:Kathleen.wright5 13:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I know what you meant, but VoABotII reverted your edits because linking to Geocities normally isn't a good idea. Are those your websites? --Deskana (talky) 13:39, 8

September 2007 (UTC) No they are not my websites. User:Kathleen.wright5 13:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Take name off Change Username List

Would you please take my name off the Change Username List User:Kathleen.wright5 06:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please look into user:Tajik

Hello. A while ago user:Tajik was banned on the allegation that he was user:German-Orientalist and user:Tajik-Professor. Previously, both user:German-Orientalist and user:Tajik-Professor were proven by CheckUser to be two different users, so how can user:Tajik be both of them? That is not possible obviously. I've asked a few admins to look into this but they were busy I guess. Since you deal with CheckUser, can you please look into this? user:Tajik was one the finest editor that I knew of and it would a be a major loss to Wikipedia if he is banned on another admin not checking properly. I am sure that whoever banned him did not even bother to check thoroughly. Please, try to look into this. Thanks. -- Behnam 02:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't help you, I'm afraid. The checkuser evidence for Tajik and Tajik-Professor is stale, meaning I have no way of checking anything. --Deskana (talky) 09:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The proper way to appeal an ArbCom-imposed ban is to appeal to them, not to shop for CheckUsers and accuse people of not checking before banning, or to make bizarre claims about what CheckUser proved. Dmcdevit·t 10:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

An impersonator of it:Utente:AnnaLety vandalised several pages on en tonight including your user page, I've blocked the nick indef but not sure if anything further needs to be done as I don't normally handle these :) Do I need to make a report anywhere regarding the action? Orderinchaos 16:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons OTRS

Hey Deskana, could I please see the OTRS ticket for Image:Vivian Hsu portrait.jpg (Commons image)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandacomics (talk • contribs) 16:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WJBscribe's RfB

Please see my response on WJBscribe's talk page. Newyorkbrad has told me that I should have asked WJBscribe before even creating the subpage and I'll know that for the future, but I still nominated him in good faith.--Wikipedier is now U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Pavarotti image confusion

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Image history confusion. I was looking through the page history at Luciano Pavarotti, and I think the reason the non-free image was being put in the lead section was because people were removing the Stade Velodrome performance because they incorrectly thought this was a waxwork model, when in fact it was the Venetian Hotel (Las Vegas) image that was the waxwork model, but someone on Commons deleted that and uploaded a copy of the Stade Velodrome performance over it, leading to Wax museum showing the Stade Velodrome performance instead of the waxwork model. I'm explaining this at length, because you said here on 9 September that you would delete the Rodolfo image to stop the image being re-added, when my investigation has shown that there was more going on than might have been obvious at first glance. I hope you agree that this was a matter of confusion, with people getting confused into incorrectly thinking that the Stade Velodrome performance free image was the waxwork picture, and incorrectly thinking that there were no free images available. Obviously (to avoid misunderstandings), I realise that the Rodolfo image is non-free and should only be used in the appropriate places with a strong non-free use rationale. Carcharoth 08:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

More at User:Carcharoth/Luciano Pavarotti images confusion. Carcharoth 13:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

The vandals attacking this page originate from 91.108.244.105/24 Raul654 23:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

91.108.203.0/24 as well, it seems. I've semiprotected this page. Thanks Raul. --Deskana (talky) 23:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Just thought I'd abuse my admin tools by editing a protected page! You seem to be out of luck, using semi-protection against sleeper accounts. By the way, have you noticed that a friend of ours is active at Simple? ElinorD (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... he sure has a lot of time to waste. He suggested I "get a life" in an e-mail. I find this funny since I'm currently preparing to move back to university and have tons planned for freshers week (I'm not a fresher but I can use it as an excuse!). By the way, Gatorfan16 is a sock, he admitted it in the same e-mail. :-) --Deskana (talky) 23:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
May as well let these children keep using up those sleeper accounts. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Digwuren followup

Hey, Deskana, I hope you've been well. Can I ask you for a brief followup of User:Digwuren? Problemaic conduct appears to ensue. Regards, El_C 01:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll check this out later. --Deskana (talky) 16:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Editors matter

You may be interested in this essay that I've recently started. It relates directly to some discussions we've had in the past. WaltonOne 17:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recreated article

Hey Deskana, I was just asking if you could delete This redirect. It was already porposed for articles for deletion and unanimously deleted but was created again. Could you delete it again as it has already gone through a AFD? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)