User talk:Deskana/Archive 17
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 37 | 10 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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 20:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] CHQ
I will come once in a while and bother you if I can't get something to work :) but I got forty-something users that deserve my thanks before I can give the tools a serious try, take care. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Definately a working man....right?
 |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
| For finishing up backlogs/due things at Rfa, CHU and probably loads others --Hirohisat Kiwi 04:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC) |
[edit] Username Change
Hello! I have been changing my username on my 4 other active wikiprojects, and would like to change it here too to keep uniformality. My current username is Ice201, I would like to change it to Girdi please. Thank you. :) --Ice201 14:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cross Epoch up for deletion
Hey there, Deskana. I don't know if you have any interest in the article, but I've listed Cross Epoch for deletion mainly per notability reasons. If you can, please check out the AfD page and post your thoughts on the matter. At any rate, that's pretty much it. Just wanted to give you a heads-up.
Also, not that it's any of my business, your talk page is getting rathe long (65+ kilobytes and growing). Might wanna archive it pretty soon. Hope to see you around, and happy editing! // DecaimientoPoético 20:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Checkuser
Can you please checkuser User:Cowboycaleb1 to see if his IP is User:63.3.10.130. Cowboycaleb1 revert warred on an article and got it protected, then as soon as the protection wore off, he started revert warring, reverting twice [1] [2]. And if I'm correct about User:63.3.10.130, he used his IP to do two more reverts [3] [4]. Is this a violation of 3RR? — Moe ε 00:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Unnecessary. Were I to do it, the conclusions would serve no purpose. If it was his sockpuppet, blocking him now would be purely punitive. Can you please leave further requests on WP:RFCU? --Deskana (talky) 10:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User:Tajik
No, people are using the three confirmed unrelateds, the unlikely, the possible, and the likely to decide that Tajik was run out of here inappropriately when he never was a sock puppet. Not then. Not now. Now that he's been hounded out of Wikipedia, maybe people can retire the witch hunt. I suffered more on Wikipedia from that jerk than anyone else, and I know damn well none of those socks were him. KP Botany 05:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'd appreciate it if further messages you left me were less accusatory. --Deskana (talky) 16:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Result of CheckUser
Hello. You have recently closed a CheckUser case that I initiated with the "Stale" result.[5] Since I am not familiar with the meaning of this type of result, would you mind explaining what it means? I guess CheckUser failed to prove a connection between two users. Am I wrong. Thank you in advance. Tankred 16:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Stale means that there is no checkuser data for the main account listed. IP logs are only kept for a certain amount of time, and that account no longer has any checkuser data available on it. --Deskana (talky) 16:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Betacommand 2
Thanks for giving the final word, as a bureaucrat, at WP:BN. In short, from what I understand, you agree with Newyorkbrad that no harm was done, but the better choice in that situation would have been to let a bureaucrat close the nomination. Thanks again.--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 18:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites opened
Hello, Deskana. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.
For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 21:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Your RfA was successful
Thanks. Jogers (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Request for assistance
Hello again Deskana, I'd like to ask for your assistance in a matter I've been monitoring, that of Charles Linden. I originally went to the page while in Recent Changes patrol, and found it to be extremely POV, with several questionable statements not backed by references or reliable sources, using only self-published sources. (comparison of revisions: [6] - note, not all info in current revision is the way I edited it originally) I did some editing, in the attempt to neutralize the tone, and searched for WP:RS sources, finding very few, and I discussed my edits on the articles talk page. It appears, looking at the history, and the talk page, that there are two very adamant sides warring over the content, with some of these editors shouting on the talk page in what could be considered threatening tone. Earlier today, an anonymous editor who states he is the subject posted, requesting the article be deleted. Please see his post, and my response, here. I directed him to the OTRS system, and told him I would ask about this issue. I have asked one administrator about the issues previously, and the administrator was unable to evaluate the concerns, as I'm sure when you see the talk page, you'll see how messy and controversial this is. I understand that, and so I request that perhaps you, or if you could find someone willing to look into this issue, could take care of it. I honestly feel this is out of my realm of comfort at this time, as I'm not sure if the subject of a biographical article can simply have it deleted because they do not like it. It seems to me there are many biographical articles that contain controversial material, but when backed by reliable, third party sources, the information may remain. I appreciate any assistance that you may be able to provide in the matter. Thanks! Ariel♥Gold 10:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I promise I will check this out later. Right now I'm having a lot of trouble trying to get my internet set up. --Deskana (talky) 11:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- No worries, it isn't super urgent or anything, but I'd just feel better if you'd investigate, as I highly respect your opinions. Good luck with your new internet setup! ~*Crosses fingers Deskana doesn't have to smack too much stuff around*~
Ariel♥Gold 11:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- No worries, it isn't super urgent or anything, but I'd just feel better if you'd investigate, as I highly respect your opinions. Good luck with your new internet setup! ~*Crosses fingers Deskana doesn't have to smack too much stuff around*~
To update you on this issue: The subject of the article has created a username, and is engaged in conversations. However, I'm not fully comfortable handling these issues, as the main one seems to be his wish that all the press reviews of his "method" be referenced, and yet they are not verifiable. His website has compiled them, but I'm just not sure if this is something we can use as reliable sources. I mean, yes, obviously some sources won't be online, but the way this page is presented is not a photocopy, but more of a re-typing. Also things like customer reviews from Amazon.com, I've explained are not reliable sources, and he has this page on his site with BBC recordings of testimonials, which again I don't think would be reliable sources (plus, that page crashes my browser). I would really appreciate some intervention by someone with more experience with these issues, as I'm not really able to address all the concerns and/or questions. I've explained things as best I can, but he's not happy that a publication criticizing the method is included, even though it is cited. I explained that there are many articles with controversy sections, and as long as it is presented neutrally, making it clear that this publication (or person) disagrees, and cites the source, it is valid. I'm trying my best, but I would truly appreciate any input you can give on the talk page and explain things, as he's got a very bad view of Wikipedia right now, saying things like, "the wikipedia editors have managed to root out the only negative material available." And he says "There is a mass of positive material about TLM on-line" but even after requests for the URLs, I've yet to see any. And again the issue is that these are all related to this "method" of his, and not to him, the subject. I don't believe they are the proper focus, nor should his method be given undue weight in the article. I'm going to take a nap, but I'd just really like to be able to turn this issue over to an administrator, or to you, if you're willing to take it on, to assist this person further. Thanks again, Ariel♥Gold 20:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Wow,
Coming from you, I consider that high praise, indeed, thank you so much. I really appreciate you watching my back on this issue, as it had really gotten out of hand prior to Mr. Linden entering the discussion. Gladly, the dissenters and the ardent supporters seem to have respected the process and have not interfered. Absentis is helping greatly as well, and I hope to soon have a much more neutral, factual article (albeit a much shorter one, lol) than a few weeks ago. And again thank you so much for watching over it, and let me know if you can think of anything I've missed. I do have one question, Mr. Linden would like to use the following site as a reference/source: http://searchwarp.com/swa248574.htm I'm unfamiliar with that site, and it does not appear to me, to be a news site, or what I'd call a "reliable source". It was written by what appears to be some sort of networking site, as the reviewer has an "online name" (Giri Anantha). I would classify that along the lines of the customer reviews on Amazon.com, personally. Would you give me your opinion of whether that would be a valid source, pretty please? (Feel free to answer here, I've had your page watchlisted forever, for RC patrol, hee hee) Ariel♥Gold 16:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Update: CLinden is rather adamant that having a sourced, cited "negative" comment in the article is not acceptable, and he again requested that the page be deleted here. I'd be interested to know the policy on this. Could anyone who has negative things in their past that were reported by the media get their article deleted because they don't like it? I mean, could O. J. Simpson for example, request his page deleted? (And note that by no means am I comparing these two subjects, but that is just the most controversial BLP I could come up with as an example). However, regardless, the subject of this article has made some very inappropriate comments and questions towards another editor, asking them if they suffer from phobias or anxiety, and intimating that the other editor is associated with the professor whose opposing review is cited. I personally feel that those kinds of questions and comments are not acceptable, and I've advised Absentis not to reply to them. Please update with what can/should be done. Thanks again! Ariel♥Gold 21:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'll involve myself a bit more then. --Deskana (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I dig into legal aspects about trademarks online, and end up in an EC with you, and turns out you said it much more succinctly than I would have, hee hee. Thanks. If he were to request deletion from OTRS, would it be done? What about taking this article to AfD? The truth is, both Absentis and I honestly question the notability of him. Apart from the "method", there's nothing notable, and this "method" is not covered much (if at all, it seems) by reliable sources. Would that be an option? Ariel♥Gold 22:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'll involve myself a bit more then. --Deskana (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Update: CLinden is rather adamant that having a sourced, cited "negative" comment in the article is not acceptable, and he again requested that the page be deleted here. I'd be interested to know the policy on this. Could anyone who has negative things in their past that were reported by the media get their article deleted because they don't like it? I mean, could O. J. Simpson for example, request his page deleted? (And note that by no means am I comparing these two subjects, but that is just the most controversial BLP I could come up with as an example). However, regardless, the subject of this article has made some very inappropriate comments and questions towards another editor, asking them if they suffer from phobias or anxiety, and intimating that the other editor is associated with the professor whose opposing review is cited. I personally feel that those kinds of questions and comments are not acceptable, and I've advised Absentis not to reply to them. Please update with what can/should be done. Thanks again! Ariel♥Gold 21:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Interesting about the OTRS issue. Is there any other avenue for him to go through? If an article adheres to BLP, is it a problem if the subject dislikes it and wants it gone? This is a great learning experience for me, if nothing else, lol. Ariel♥Gold 23:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, subjects of articles have no authority on Wikipedia. Subjects can't demand that we delete their articles simply because they're the subject. There's no BLP issue here either. If you think there's a notability problem, then feel free to AFD the article. --Deskana (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting, and that's just what I thought, but could not find that stated succinctly anywhere. The funny thing is, he's
demandingrequesting that any and all mention of his "method" be removed, saying it is not related to his biography. However, the funny thing is, if that were removed, he would definitely fail WP:BIO. I thought about again explaining that biographies write about life, education, career, accomplishments, and obviously as the "creator" of this program, that's worthy of noting in a biography, so his suggestion to remove it is a bit strange. But regardless, I think what I'll do is let the protection run out, and if the problems start up again, then discuss with Absentis and others who were editing it, whether it should go to AfD, does that sound like a good plan? Ariel♥Gold 23:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting, and that's just what I thought, but could not find that stated succinctly anywhere. The funny thing is, he's
Cross your fingers, it appears the current revision meets with Mr. Linden's approval. His latest post indicates he is satisfied that I added a "counter argument" (Attributed to him directly, the reference is a self-reference, but used as a ref for his quote, so I believe that's acceptable, yes?) and he seems to feel the matter is closed. Let's hope this gets the article under control. And, again I'd like to express my deep gratitude to you, for your continued assistance and your watching over my responses, stepping in when my replies were not enough. Thank you, I really appreciate it. Ariel♥Gold 18:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RfA
Thank you! I'm so happy..and slightly nervous about all the new, powerful looking buttons....oh my! Thanks for the links and the offer of help...I'll probably be needing it! (well, in a good way..;) Dreadstar † 20:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Question
Hey Deskana I wanted to ask a not so quick question. I have preposed a large change to the Dragon Ball Saga pages which would involve the Deletion and moving of lots of articles. Would I Propose this to articles for deletion, merging or all at the same time? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- It depends. If you're moving an article, it should not be deleted. Page histories need to be preserved, and all that. Perhaps you could explain a bit more thoroughly what needs doing? --Deskana (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well there are currentally around 20 articles, I was thinking of merging them all into around 8. But seeing as the content is so spread around I just don't know how to go about it. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting, eh? Looks like someone has it in for you. What a shame they're talking nonsense. --Deskana (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah so back to my question, would I put this on a proposed merge, move or articles for deletion? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting, eh? Looks like someone has it in for you. What a shame they're talking nonsense. --Deskana (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well there are currentally around 20 articles, I was thinking of merging them all into around 8. But seeing as the content is so spread around I just don't know how to go about it. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 38 | 17 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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 02:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Mystery of the Druids
The Mystery of the Druids is in need of protection as it's getting hit again. I ask you to do it since I saw you protected it a while ago. Mr.Hotkeys 03:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks :D Mr.Hotkeys 19:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WP:CHU/U
This is the right period of time after my usurp-request; is it possible for it to be executed now?--Rambutan (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Secretlondon took care of this for you. Like she said, we try to have lives outside Wikipedia so can't always get to stuff right away :-) --Deskana (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Just A Heads Up
An anon ip has been going around reverting my edits. [7] It seems this account does nothing but vandalize, and hasn't made one constructive edit. I don't know if I'm dealing with this right or not, but I've made my fair share of constructive edits, and have seen people blocked for less than this. Perhaps you have a different take out it, get back to me. Thanks! Erryday I'm 18:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hm, he's not done anything particularly bad recently. Give me a message if he does something silly again. --Deskana (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Request to move my account
I would appreciate it if you could move my account to User:Yahel Guhan. If you can do this, please do. SefringleTalk 14:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- What is the reason for your requested renaming? --Deskana (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I like this new name better than my current username, and I am currently in the process of redoing my profile, and I think a new username is the way to go about doing this. SefringleTalk 02:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User:67.141.27.75
This user made a threat to User:Michael Mad, and is most likely a sock of User:Sonicrules2,please deal with him. Thanks, :). Atomic Religione 03:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
He's now made a death threat to me - - , please take care of this guy. Atomic Religione 18:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] CU Case
You just declined Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nondistinguished, but I was wondering, could you run a check on the person who requested the check? It's pretty obvious it's a puppet, but it would be hard to pin-point of who at SSP or ANI. Kwsn(Ni!) 22:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not willing to go fishing over some checkuser case, yet. --Deskana (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Former admins
I replied 131.94.145.132 16:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you block the blahblahme account, I obviously used it for bad faith purposes 131.94.145.132 17:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, you've not done anything wrong with it. I just didn't realise it was yours. --Deskana (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- See the history of former admins, I used it to provoke an edit war, abusive sock 131.94.145.132 17:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship - RFA question
Would you, or any other Wikipedia editor, be interested in trying out the procedures at my wiki as suggested at the talk page of WP:RFA. I will give you sysop, bureaucrat, checkuser and steward status, since I'm all of those there.
I don't mind people from here using it as a sandbox for Wikipedia RFA ideas testing.
Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 17:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Given you have all of 12 users, I'm not quite sure what you're asking that we test.
- Special:Listusers? I've seen used that before.
- Special:Desysop? The extension is virtually identical to Special:Makesysop which I've used extensively.
- A desysopping procedure? How can we test that with all of 12 users?
- I'm not quite sure exactly what you're proposing we test. --Deskana (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Any new ideas for RFA is what I'm suggesting. If new users from here join, then that would be good. It's not for testing technical stuff, but as a sandbox for anything that is not allowed per WP:NOT. --Solumeiras talk 17:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- If editors create an article that is not permitted on WP:NOT, let them know my wiki is an alternative outlet for such things. --Solumeiras talk 18:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- So you're advertising your wiki? --Deskana (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Also note that we have http://test.wikipedia.org for tests. Melsaran (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for advertising that. Yes, I'm aware of the test wiki, but per testwiki:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not I've allowed some stuff that isn't permitted on Wikimedia projects. I'll stop advertising it per WP:EL since I don't really want to spam it.
Apologies for that. If you saw the wikistress level on my talk page... anyway, I'm taking a break now. --Solumeiras talk 18:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Accusations of disruptive editing of the Rein Lang page
Hello Deskana, You made number of accusations regarding my edits of the Rein Lang page as part of ArbCom Evidence page and I wanted to receive some explanation. You accused me of pushing Russian POV and based your accusations on the following edits:
I would like to see what exactly enraged you in those edits as POV-pushing. From those diffs, it seems to me that my edits were completely devoid of any viewpoint. I did two things:
- 1. Separated Russian accusations and Estonian reaction, keeping both intact.
- 2. Provied one-line description of part of Lang's birthday party which had been base of the Russian accusations.
Apparently you have seen something else in my edits, as I can not believe that letting Russian and Estonian statements be presented separately constitute "disruptive dediting". I honestly can not understand what enraged you so much that you administered one-sided ban, as I want to avoid this mistake in the future. I don't want to raise this question on ArbCom page, as I don't see it as part of arbitration in question. Thank you in advance, RJ CG 18:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- WP:3RR resulted in a "one sided ban" since you were the only one that violated it. The content of the reverts in question are irrelevant in the context of a 3RR block. --Deskana (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for misspelling of your nick :( As we established that block was for 3RR, I would like to ask you to remove discussed part from evidence or to rewrite the evidence, as currently it says I blocked RJ_CG for 96 hours with the summary "edit warring on Rein Lang". It doesn't say anything about 3RR violation and creates clear impression that the block was for disruptive edits. I'd like to ask you to change header of this part of your evidence too, as 3RR block does not prove that I edited Rein Lang in a disruptive manner, attempting to push a Russian POV on the article. RJ CG 18:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'll change the blocked bit to clarify that the block was also for 3RR, but I'm not changing the rest. I didn't block you for pushing a Russian POV (which I think you're doing, but that's irrelevant in the context of the block). --Deskana (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your effort. There's one more thing which disturbs me in your Evidence. You state RJ_CG... has edited Rein Lang in a disruptive manner, attempting to push a Russian POV on the article, and using inflammatory edit summaries Then you post three links to prove it. But, as far as I understand, you have no explanation how those edits prove POV pushing or disruptive editing. I would also say that desperate call to allow Russian statements be present as made (not as interpreted by Lang and his allies) hardly constitutes "inflammatory summary", but (1) this is subjective and (2) any member of ArbCom can weigh for him/herself gravity of such a crime. Therefore I would love it if you either (1) make it clear in your evidence statement that "POV pushing and disruptive editing" is opinion of Deskana (which is perfectly fine and acceptable) and it does not supported by links you provided or (2) explain in evidence how those diffs prove "POV pushing and disruptive editing". Thank you again, RJ CG 20:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'll change the blocked bit to clarify that the block was also for 3RR, but I'm not changing the rest. I didn't block you for pushing a Russian POV (which I think you're doing, but that's irrelevant in the context of the block). --Deskana (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for misspelling of your nick :( As we established that block was for 3RR, I would like to ask you to remove discussed part from evidence or to rewrite the evidence, as currently it says I blocked RJ_CG for 96 hours with the summary "edit warring on Rein Lang". It doesn't say anything about 3RR violation and creates clear impression that the block was for disruptive edits. I'd like to ask you to change header of this part of your evidence too, as 3RR block does not prove that I edited Rein Lang in a disruptive manner, attempting to push a Russian POV on the article. RJ CG 18:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] *shakes fist*
[11] I never get to have any fun. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- The score at full time is CheckUser One, Administrator Nil. --Deskana (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 91.108.*.*
This jerk is back again, see [12]. Any chance you could work your checkuser magic? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Not really. CheckUser is for finding the IP ranges, which you obviously know since you've put the range in the header to this thread. --Deskana (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Desysop
Just what is the process to desysop somoeone? I know arbcom can do it, but that is usually a very involved and time-consuming process. Is there another way? I don't want to desysop someone, it's just all the huff and puff on Talk:RFA has me wondering.Rlevse 16:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Unless you can convince a steward to emergency desysop someone (which is very hard, rightly so), arbcom is the only way it can be done. --Deskana (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Another sock - -
User:71.28.194.189 , is yet another sock of Sonicrules, do the voodoo that you do Deskana. ;). Atomic Religione 02:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't answer this quicker... since he's not edited from that address for a few days I see no point in blocking it. --Deskana (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Your RFA was successful
Thanks, Deskana. I shall do my best to use the tools wisely. Espresso Addict 19:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] redirect woes
sorry to bother you in your time of toothachedness but the redirect at Dodoria redirects it to the section Dodoria at List of extraterrestrials in Dragon Ball but there is no such section. Could you redirect it to the section Freeza instead? I can't because the page was protected due to edit warring. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Done - I've gone ahead and made the edit for Deskana (my sympathies on the tooth infection). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 01:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Still here
Still editing, but very slowly ... Hope to be back soon. — Thomas H. Larsen 04:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Question regarding VinceB checkuser
Regarding the tenth checkuser for VinceB that came back stale, does User:Squash Racket edit from the same IP range as previous socks? I expected some indication of that in the checkuser response, though I realize it may have been the privacy policy that prevented you from saying anything (and still does). Please reply here. Thanks.--Chaser - T 07:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Stale means there's no checkuser data, so I can't say whether or not it's true. --Deskana (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- My point was that there are IPs (not just accounts) from previous reports, like the fourth RFCU that indicated a 195.56 range, that one could check against.--Chaser - T 16:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] How is it that…
How is it that I'm a productive and respected user with a clean block log over 10k edits, and now suddenly I'm a pariah to be insulted (see ANI) and threatened (see your summary) at every turn? This is a serious issue which has had real effects on real peoples' lives: specifically, the lives of Wikipedia contributors.Proabivouac 09:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Trying to play the injured party when you're making edits like that doesn't go down well with me. You're clearly trying to make a point. And there's a difference between a warning and a threat. --Deskana (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Non sequitur: I'm an injured party because of things which are quite independent of anything that occurs on that page.Proabivouac 10:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's not of my concern. I have warned you not to try to make a point on policy pages, so please don't. --Deskana (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Would you at least agree that it should be someone's concern?Proabivouac 10:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Not really. It was your choice to register under your real name. It's not our fault if there were any consequences due to that. Maybe it's not your fault either, but it's certainly not ours. --Deskana (talk) 10:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- What I am saying is Wikipedia's fault isn't any choice of mine, but the attacks Wikipedia chooses to publish, and the failure of those in authority to honor Wikipedia's own written policies.
- Anyhow, what you're saying here, that nothing that happens here, nor any consequences thereof, are Wikipedia's responsibility, and if you ever are stupid enough to edit here under your real name, there probably will be these consequences, is exactly what I'd added to the page. What I want is for Wikipedia to tell potential contributors upfront what you're telling me here: caveat contributor.Proabivouac 10:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Not really. It was your choice to register under your real name. It's not our fault if there were any consequences due to that. Maybe it's not your fault either, but it's certainly not ours. --Deskana (talk) 10:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- And no, I'm not trying to make a point, though I see why you think that, it's based it the cynical assumption that no rational person would care what happens to someone they don't know. False. I defend people all the time, even really really unpopular people. Shock, surprise, even people who can't actually do anything to help or hurt me. It may be too late to spare myself, but warning others what they can expect here is simply the right thing to do.Proabivouac 10:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Would you at least agree that it should be someone's concern?Proabivouac 10:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's not of my concern. I have warned you not to try to make a point on policy pages, so please don't. --Deskana (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Non sequitur: I'm an injured party because of things which are quite independent of anything that occurs on that page.Proabivouac 10:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User:163.153.27.11
I've just blocked them for a further 3 months and notice that you have them in hand with an abuse report. Please feel free to adjust my block in the light of your report. The 3 months was just a holding period. Thanks, Ian Cairns 19:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- That was ages ago. I never did get a reply. Someone else should try I think. --Deskana (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] E-mail
I've sent you e-mail. — Moe ε 21:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 39 | 24 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||
| 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 01:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] CU Question
The way you worded your comment here makes it sound like it's closed. Is that the case, and if so, it's "unnessecary" then? Kwsn(Ni!) 06:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Username change
Thank you! --Fire Star 火星 20:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- And again! --Bradeos Graphon 20:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User:Bearian RfA
Thank you very much. I'll get on that soon, and also change my password ASAP. Bearian 23:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Password changed to more secure one; I will contact you on IRC late or Friday. Bearian 23:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mentioned
Hi Deskana. Just so you know, an action of your has been mentioned on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's/Evidence. Picaroon (t) 01:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User:Bearian
Hi, this is Bearian, under my new (legal) sockpuppet account. I don't feel safe editing under non-secure lines, such as an IRC or a library computer, as per advice on my RfA. May I email you next week from the Bearian account? Or email me? Bearian'sBooties 17:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#Cowboycaleb1
I noticed you've moved this case to the "Completed" section, with the statement "Possible." So what does this mean? Surely it can only be either confirmed or not confirmed. Possible tells me nothing. Surely a case can only be closed when there is a result eg. user blocked. Thanks, Davnel03 11:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not at liberty to disclose the information that led me to my conclusion. It's possible. It might be the same user, it might not. That's it. Cases are closed when a CheckUser gives their opinion; we can't leave ambiguous cases open for the rest of all time. --Deskana (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sockpuppet check
Hey just so you know Davnel03 has now filed a check for sockpuppet case against me see here. It is obvious that he or she is trying to go over your head in your ruling in the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#Cowboycaleb1 case. Cowboycaleb 16:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, no I'm not. I just want this whole situation resolved and for all. Davnel03 17:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deskana...
I just got a message at my talk page with Yankees10 calling me selfish. Just wanted to tell you that it sort of offended me. The discussion was just pure arguments about templates (which the argument was very bad). Sorry. --Louis Alberto Guel 13:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- He continued to change the infobox even though there was no discussion prior to him changing it. You have to have a discussion before you just decide to change a infobox to one that is no longer used for current NFL players--Yankees10 15:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thank you for changing my username. I appreciate it. :) MikeM2010 21:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Legitimate redirects
Are Madara uchiha and Uchiha madara useful redirects? I created Madara Uchiha and Uchiha Madara thinking they would be more proper, hence, the capitalization. I know you're busy with whatever it is you do but please answer this request. Thanks, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with it. --Deskana (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- They are potentially unnecessary, but there isn't any harm in doing so. Redirects are cheap. — Thomas H. Larsen 02:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deskbanana
Someone actually reported this to UAA with the rationale that it was an impersonator. Could you clarify that this is your account with like a signature or something, to prevent this from happening in future? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I chuckled. Thanks, AD. --Deskana (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- No worries. It gave me a laugh too :) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Copyright infringement? Are you sure you don't want the second d capitalised, too?--Deskana (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
yes if necessarysalmo 16:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Remember, Deskbanana is just Deskana with a BAN added. Newyorkbrad 15:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: RfA of AA
He has accepted. See here. Besides, I nominated him upon his explicitly expressed wish. See here and here. He actually prepared his answers even before I nominated him. See here. Goes to show how methodical he is. Please, don't forget to check on his worthiness as an admin. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Explicit acceptance is necessary, but that's not a problem now that he has. I don't typically comment on RfAs as it would affect by ability to close them. --Deskana (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for October 03, 2007
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 40 | 1 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST | ||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
