User talk:Deskana/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] user page

aha i see what i did, i thought i was on MY "user page" and not the general user page for the whole site. when someone clicks their own name, it says "Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name" and user page is a link that implies it goes to one's user page, but really it goes to a generic user page for the whole site. that's rather confusing... sorry

OK, responding on your talk page per the notice at the top of this page. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 22:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for Jesus

Odd title..but thanks for doing something to stop the vandalism on the Jesus page. That was getting out of hand. haha Lsjzl 17:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean, my addition of the sprotected tag was reverted to get rid of vandalism. That was just totally out of control. You're welcome for Jesus. :-p --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 17:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Reply on another page

You said: How very nitpicky of you. It's changing the content of an article in a major way, therefore a major edit. Whether or not it was a revert or not is irrelevant. This comment is not an endorsement of any edits to this article. --Lord Deskana

I have replied to you on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SOPHIA. You did not understand the issues. Not sure why you felt the need to attack me... given that I obeyed your rule and did not attack you. Perhaps you felt that I was unkind to Sophia, who has since admitted that her revert had nothing to do with the discussion requiring concensus. --72.13.168.149 21:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a lot of wikilawyering for a "new" user - huh? Sophia 21:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Did I claim to be a new user? Why are you making accusations? Do you think I have been mean to you somehow?--72.13.168.149 21:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exams

Hope the exams are going well. Save this until they are finished then enjoy! Sophia 22:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Hope the exams are going well. Save this until they are finished then enjoy! Sophia 22:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Regarding your recent block...I'm considering speedying those images. What are your thoughts? --HappyCamper 19:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah... go for it. They're so totally unencylopedic that I don't think it's necessary to put them through IfD. We already know what everyone's going to say. Delete. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 19:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
2nds Syrthiss 19:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Done for just the two. I'll go to IFD and tie up the loose ends. --HappyCamper 19:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Great stuff! --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 19:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use Pics

Yea so I took those pictures myself, and I don't know how to fix the problem, especially since I don't see one. Thankyoubaby 22:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I will explain in the morning... I'm exhauted. We have seven days so there's no rush. :-) --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 23:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, I figured it our myself. Thankyoubaby 01:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair huh?

See note at my talk- also, what is "further mathematics"? Staecker 00:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Real maths - not the wimpy everyday stuff but mind boggling integrals/quadratic equations/linear regression/proof by induction etc. He's not a Dark Lord of the Sith for nothing - only the chosen few get 2 A' levels in maths - usually those with no social life! BTW Dan - good luck with the rest of the exams. Sophia 00:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Things like "conjugate complex roots to polynomial equations with real coefficients" and other fancy sounding things. Scarily, I know what that means. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 13:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Once you turn to the Dark Side there is no going back....... Sophia 14:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks- and welcome to the dark side. More on my talk about fair use. Staecker 18:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note

A note. Mackensen (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I lose! :-p --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 13:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Page

Deskana, thanks for your message.

The Page was SmartCode Corp. - there are many articles about them and they ARE Notable according to WP:CORP

RFID Journal (a Very crediable source in the industry):

http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/2296/ https://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/2295/1/2/ http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/2250/1/1/ http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/670/1/1/ http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/1869/1/1/


CNN http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/05/22/rfid.retail.ap/index.html

Information week http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=54201330

Network World http://www.networkworld.com/weblogs/applications/011968.html

DC Velocity http://www.dcvelocity.com/articles/rfidww/rfidww20060503/rfid_5centtags.cfm

RFID Gazzete: http://www.rfidgazette.org/2004/11/index.html

I want to update the page, but someone keeps deleting it.

Thanks, SC Web 17:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but recreation is out of the question. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMARTCODE CORP. (2nd nomination). As the debate has already been carried out, any recreations of the articles will be speedy deleted as recreation of deleted content. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 17:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, how do we argue that the page is indedd Notable? (it is under WP:CORP) I really think it should be brought back. Stx2090 18:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

First, answer me the following questions, please.
  1. Do you have two accounts, perhaps even three (User:SC Web, User:Stx2090, User:SMARTCODE)? Multiple accounts are not prohibited but are discouraged.
  2. What exactly is your affiliation with the company?
--Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 18:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Yes - thought you can have several names 2. I'm a customer of theirs - I saw the RFID page and wanted to add them. They're really one of the biggest in the space. Stx2090 19:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Deskana, please advise. Stx2090 16:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you leave it. I don't think it's really notable enough. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 22:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] confirmation

Thank you for your confirmation on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Raphael1/Evidence. Raphael1 22:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. If I can help further, give me a shout. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 22:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Clever curmudgeon

You have editted my user page to remove an image on two seperate occasions, do not touch my user page again. Clever curmudgeon 22:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

With all respect, abide by policies such as WP:FAIR and I won't need to. The other change I reverted was made by another user, so aside from presuming you wouldn't want them to make that change, it was also a fair use image. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 22:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I can put what images I want on my own user page do not vandalism my user page further. Clever curmudgeon 22:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
No, you cannot. Read WP:USER and WP:FAIR. If you add another fair use image to your userpage, you will be blocked to prevent you from doing it again. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 22:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. If I have placed an image on my user page that violates the rules laid out in WP:FAIR or WP:USER, please do me the courtesy of leaving a message on my Talk Page and ask me to change it, rather than removing them yourself. This way, I learn of the rules (which I was unaware of) and have a chance to correct/replace them myself. Pbfurlong 12:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iodyne

While it may have been obvious that the first instance of adding your picture to User:Clever curmudgeon was a personal attack, you have no evidence as to the second. Explain to me how you can somehow scew a picture with a quote from "Star Wars" as a personal attack just because that picture happens to be one of you that you have uploaded, taking valuable space, to an encyclopedia that prides itself on being informative? Unless your picture adds substance to one or more articles, it should be removed. Last time I checked, a Wikipedia administrator is not a "noteworthy person." If you find that unacceptable, please revert Clever curmudgeons page back to as it was, as it is obvious that the second instance of your picture was not an insult. And please do not threaten to ban me, as I spend plenty of time improving Wikipedia rather than needlessly uploading pictures of myself like some people. Iodyne 20:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This comment illustrates your clear misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of Wikipedia. Most of it is totally wrong. Infact, all of it. Please leave me alone unless you have something constructive to say. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 20:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tatu

I'm sorry, you should have kept the lock on Tatu, someone has redirected it to the soccer player Tatu, an article which ALREADY exists. --Shandris 21:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is that page so bloody popular? I should redirect it to Tatu (STOP CHANGING THIS REDIRECT). Locked it again. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 21:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suspecting User Frater FiatLux of using sock-puppets

[edit] Edit War on the Golden Dawn article (Please protect this page fully and immediately)

Full Immediate protection needed.

A full scale editing war has broken out on this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn_tradition#The_Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn_.28Inc..29

They’re reverting the article incessantly, and arguing over whose order is at top of the links section, furthermore, there is also an editing war being perpetuated rampantly about a non- traditional Golden Dawn order being included in the links section. The article is being edited and reverted now, every couple of minutes.

Help! Can someone please lock this article to stop this vandalism, so that the other editors and myself can work this out. Please lock this article to stop these new, unscrupulous users frivolously editing the links in this article. Please lock the article immediately, so that myself and the established editors on the Golden Dawn article can stop this rampant editing war.

User 999 is making false claims that I am using a so-called sock puppet, I vehemently disapprove of this, and I can state categorically that I am not using a sock-puppet. I am willing to send my IP address into a Wikipedia admin so that they can verify that these other new users, that are frequently editing the page are not operative via my IP address.

User 999 is creating schism and false intrigues against me they should he should rightfully receive a warning or a 24 hour block ,so that myself and other established editors of the Golden Dawn article can put a stop to this edit war. Please lock this page immediately to stop further abuse and editing wars.

A moderator has already blocked new users to the article; however, this is not the problem. It is not new users that are causing the disruptions, it is established users: 999, synergetic maggot and JMAX555. The article needs to be immediately fully protected as the aforementioned users are on one side of a current trademark litigation case and I am on the other. Their trying to get me blocked to that they can vandalise the article to their own biased political agenda. The aforementioned users have in fact had me innocently blocked a few days ago and then vandalised the article to You need to intervene more seriously and put a permanent block on the article, as these problems won’t go away until you take action against the aforementioned users.

These aforementioned users have instigated a full-scale edit war and the problem isn’t due to vandalism by new users. Take a look at the Rosicrucian Order of A+O page that was locked due to these aforementioned users creating an edit war, and now this has spilled over on the main Golden Dawn article.

These users are conspirators and are attempting to get me blocked so that they can go unchecked in an edit war to change the article in a defamatory tone, in an attempt to promote their political agenda over the other orders entries.

Here’s the link to show the aforementioned users last editing war that has now spilled over onto the main Golden Dawn article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn_%28Rosicrucian_Order_of_A%2BO%29

Frater FiatLux 21:04, 11 June

I'd like to add the fact that Frater FiatLux has removed the protected sign that he requested was put onto the page. I'm unsure he can do this. Thanks. Zos 22:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not do this knowingly, I'm a new user to wikipedia and must have done this accidently. User Zos is attempting to exploit the fact that I am new user to Wikipedia Frater FiatLux 23:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you would stop accusing me of things. Thank you. Zos 01:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Empire strikes back 2.jpg

I see that you have asked Mysid for a fair-use rationale for Image:Empire strikes back 2.jpg. Perhaps it would be more fruitful to ask the original uploader, TheCoffee, as the only thing Mysid did was to change the proportions of the image. —Bkell (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, didn't realise. Will do. Thanks. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 13:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Thanks

Thanks for the welcome, it is warmly recieved.


I've already began editing some stuff. Added some technical details to Tantive IV and Krayt Dragon Pearls to Lightsabers, Tried to add some stuff to Daleks, but that's watched very carefully by an elite-force of Saddo's who think they own the site, so that went down the pan very quickly.

Anyway, check out my edits and see what you thinks.


Chers


James Random 15:50 (GMT)

[edit] George R. Binks

At the start of the article, in appearances, it lists that Star Wars Tales #20 is the only apperance of George R. Binks. Does this not count as proper citation, as all of the information in the article comes from this source? Iodyne 16:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see that. You might want to consider adding a references section to the end of every article to ensure people can see references clearly. If you add it as a reference, you can remove those tags. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 16:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well Done!

I hereby award you this vandal whacking stick to say well done for keeping cool, despite being attacked. Keep it up, soldier.
I hereby award you this vandal whacking stick to say well done for keeping cool, despite being attacked. Keep it up, soldier.

Well done for keeping calm in those situations that I probably would have resorted to personal attacks in - You are an inspiration to me! HawkerTyphoon 11:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :-D --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 17:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] response to comment about 3RR

Thanks. This guy is like the energizer bunny. He keeps coming back. -999 (Talk) 20:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding that page to my watchlist. It'll keep me occupied, at least! If he keeps it up with the sockpuppets I'll likely block him indefinitely and see what his reaction is to that. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 21:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter morrell

Besides simply violating WP:3RR, he's used a sock puppet and blanked the article. Most recently, he removed some material that is demonstrably true (and which I restored with added citations). I don't know if a block would be indicated, but something has to change. Should I file a 3RR violation report on ANI? Should I file a vandalism report? What do you want to do about this? Al 20:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll see if I can calm him down. I've been in contact with him a lot, and I think he respects my opinion. He might listen to me. I'll give it a go. I don't intend to go easy on him, he's disrupting the article majorly now. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 21:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can get him to comply with the rules and cooperate, without using a block, I favor this solution. Blocks are typically counterproductive. Al 21:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I have given him a rather stern warning, and given him a little personal note at the bottom. See his talk page. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 21:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No problem!

Actually, I have quite a few of user pages on my watchlist. Vandals like picking it out, I think since people really don't watch them. Yesterday was a great example of the NCV or a copy vat accusing every legit editor of being a sockpuppet. :P I still owe you, though. Yanksox 22:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say we're even. You're the userpage guard! --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 22:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

WOW! Thanks for the shiny! =) Yanksox 22:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem, my friend! :-) --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 22:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
And thank you for adding an aesthetic tint to my userpage. :P Yanksox 22:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected Sock

Lord Deskana, I know that you are on sock watch, and I know that you are familiar with what has been going on on the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn pages. User 999 has been actively recruiting other users for revert edit activity. I have proof to this from the users talk pages. He also keeps coming to you accusing every editor with a POV different from his and his recruited 'colleagues' of being 'socks' of Frater Fiat Lux. He has even accused me of this. Today he accused Opuat of this. Frater Fiat Lux emailed me that he was blocked today for 72 hours for usinig Opuat as a sock. This is non true and I suspect that this was instigated by more games coming from User 999. Let me assure you, oh Dark and terrible one, that each of us are distinct users. Opuat is in Germany. Frater Fiat Lux in in England. I am in California. A simple examination of each of our IP address should clarify any misunderstanding whatsoever. I believe that User 999 is playing disruptive games in violation of Wikipedia policy by the improper recruitment of other users for revert activity. He is also improperly accusing me and Opuat of being socks of Frater Fiat Lux. All of this comes at a most unfortuanate time as Frater Fiat Lux had just prepared a request for mediation which should bring all of this nonsense to an end.

Please assist me. Has Frater Fiat Lux indeed been blocked? Was this done by you? Why? How can this mess be straightened out?

May the force be with you, Darth Deskana!--Zanoni666 02:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you three know each other from outside Wikipedia then? You, Opaput and Frater FiatLux? --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 06:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] homeopathy graph

Any chance of you re-posting that homeopathy graph and adding a caption as per the talk page? much appreciated, if poss. thanks Peter morrell 15:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Bit busy at the minute, I'll get back to you later. :-) --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 15:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Opuaut

I have goten an e-mail from User:Opuaut, and the IP-trace indicates that he is indeed not a sockpuppet and comes from the location as specified. That does not resolves the other questions but those need to be addressed at a different place as far as I am concerned. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well if the edit warring carries on on those articles, they're getting protected. I was wrong about them being sockpuppets, but I stand by my actions and would do the same again, given the evidence. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 19:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with the protecting of the pages, which I think was needed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice userpage

Very nice userpage!! --Cyde↔Weys 21:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Someone gave me the idea, can't remember who it was. ;-) Yours and AVB's are pretty cool too! --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 21:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Dude, that's creepy. And somehow... pleasurable, heehee. Seriously, I thought that was a picture you took yourself! Erik the Appreciator 21:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your user page.

When I checked the article for vandalism, Your page has been changed. Did someone vandalize your page? Because Picture in your page is so strange. I assumed that somebody vandalized your page. Please, Could you reply in my talk-page? *~Daniel~* 02:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Favour requested - busy

Thanks for your message on my talk page. Since you seem to be online, could you take a peep at the history of the user page and talk page of CAYA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). (Also look here.) I'd block indefinitely if it were a very new account, but it isn't, and I'm packing to go to England for the weekend, so haven't time to look through contributions and decide on appropriate length. The anon IP who said "This is my home page" (plus expletive!) in the edit summary on the user page and added to the abuse on the talk page seems to be CAYA. At any rate, CAYA, when he logged on, didn't deny it. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 07:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look, no problem. Where are you going in England? I think it's a nice country here, though perhaps not as nice as Ireland. I've not been to Ireland for ageeees! --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 07:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Evesham, for a little girl's First Communion. Sometime I must ask you to show me how to use {{block-reason}}. I couldn't figure out what you did. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 08:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No fair use rationales

Hi Deskana, can I ask you to remember to check the date at which the image was uploaded to Wikipedia, because I see you are adding the {{nrd}} tag to numerous images when it shouldn't be added at this time. The deadline was May 4th. Thanks. PS: It should also only be added to images that have to tag {{fairuse}} or <`nowiki>Template:Fairuse in</nowiki>, no others. Thanks, Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pussy

why do you have to be such a pussy, seriously?Iwanted that picture on my userpage of a male reprductive organ.

[edit] A block

you recently blocked user CAYA but now he has re-registered as CAYA2. i didn't know how to tell so can u block his I.P address--Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 17:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW The post above, "pussy" was by CAYA2

[edit] Request for bar

Hi Deskana. Thanks for contributing to my recent discussion re anonymous editing on Jimbo Wales's talk page. As a case in point, I have been having trouble with user 86.4.25.40, who has repeatedly vandalised the Charlie Wolf article, and refuses to take part in any discussion. You may see the history here, and other complaints here.

Please, seeing as you are an admin, would you bar 86.4.25.40? This is your punishment for disagreeing with me!—Laurence Boyce 22:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Punishment. Hahaha... I've warned the user they are in danger of violating the 3RR, and if they do it again, drop me a message on my talk page and I'll block them for a few hours. :-) --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 22:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
He's (it's?) done it again. Surprise surprise.—Laurence Boyce 14:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi, did you block him, as you said? Because it's not working. Suppose you just bar all anon editing from the article? --Laurence Boyce 14:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Now 132.241.246.111 is causing problems here. Can I insert the "sprotected" tag off my own bat? Are you reading my comments by the way? --Laurence Boyce 13:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Moved to bottom of page, maybe you'll read it now. This is still the main problem. --Laurence Boyce 11:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
What is the problem. You're being too cryptic for me to do anything. I see no problem. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 14:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that 86.4.25.40 is a complete tosser, and needs to be barred from the Charlie Wolf article. Will you please do something about it and tell me what you are doing? Also, could you please tell me whether I am allowed to insert the "sprotected" tag into an article, and what effect it might have? --Laurence Boyce 15:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Inserting {{sprotected}} into an article will do nothing. The template itself is just a box with a message inside. Regarding my actions, I'm not doing anything at the minute. You need to give me a better reason to block someone than "is a complete tosser". That's a personal attack and a reason to block you. Don't get me wrong, obviously I'm not going to block you, but please, if you can produce a list of the disruptive actions of the user, I'd be happy to block. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 15:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I take that back. He's a vandal, not a tosser. Here is the contributions list for 86.4.25.40. Apart from a few exceptions, they appear to be acts of vandalism. The user in question has not responded to talk. I would very much like this user barred from Wikipedia. --Laurence Boyce 15:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've got no knowledge of the topic. What's so bad about his edits? He's got unexplained removals. Can you explain why they're vandalism? --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

They are clearly acts of vandalism, which have given rise to complaints from seven (7) users (including you and me): here and here. If you are merely going to stall at every turn, then please tell me now and I will give up. --Laurence Boyce 16:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
If you're concerned, I suggest writing a report at WP:ANI. I don't see any major problem at the minute. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 16:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
No, because the whole point is to save time and resource, not waste some more. Thank you for your assistance. --Laurence Boyce 16:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help Me

Someone has been vandalizing many of the sites I've worked on, deleting images. Recently I've even been hacked by someone, who is putting inappropriate comments everywhere. I can't delete them fast enough, and I am getting email from the admins. Can you help me.

Also the comment on the Star Wars Wikiproject was not me. I deleted it, sorry for the trouble. Nezzadar 16:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I need an advocate and help with mediation

Greetings,

I need an advocate who will walk me through the mediation process.

I am trying to get the following added to the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

I am having problem with an editor by the name of Lethe who follows me around Wikipedia reverting all my edits without commentary.

I have tried reasoning with him on discussion pages, but he refuses to read what I write.

Advantages of MWI

If Hugh Everett's theory was just another interpretation of Quantum Mechanics it would have no followers, especially since it proposes the existence of countless other universes which theoretically can never be observed. Because it is not falsifiable it seemingly violates Popper's criteria for a good scientific theory. The reason it has so many adherents is because it offers numerous advantages over the Copenhagen Interpretation, among which are the following:

1. Quantum mechanics becomes a deterministic theory making it more compatible with the theory of relativity and all other physics theory to date which are all deterministic. The Copenhagen Interpretation introduced indeterminacy and randomness into science. Aside from the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics there is no scientific theory that includes indeterminacy or randomness. Einstein particularly objected to this aspect of the Copenhagen Interpretation. In response to it, he said, "God does not play dice with the universe."

2. It eliminates the "measurement problem."

3. It eliminates Von Neumann's "boundary problem": where to draw the line between the micro world where quantum mechanics applies, and the macro world where it does not. Shortly before his death in 1953, Albert Einstein wrote: "Like the moon has a definite position whether or not we look at the moon, the same must also hold for the atomic objects, as there is no sharp distinction possible between these and macroscopic objects."

4. It eliminates the special place for an observer and human consciousness.

5. It restores objective reality of the universe between measurements. Shortly before his death, Albert Einstein also wrote: "Observation cannot CREATE an element of reality like a position, there must be something contained in the complete description of physical reality which corresponds to the possibility of observing a position, already before the observation has been actually made."

6. The wave-particle duality paradox evaporates. It simply and naturally explains the double-slit experiment. Richard Feynman said, "[the double-slit experiment] has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery." David Deutcsh wrote: ". . . the argument for the many worlds was won with the double-slit experiment."

7. Schrodinger's Cat paradox evaporates.

It seems Einstein's main objections with quantum mechanics had more to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation, than with quantum mechanics itself. While MWI does not quite generate the kinds of worlds necessary to justify the anthropic principle, it is a step on the way to Stephen Hawking's No Boundary Proposal and Max Tegmark's All Universe Hypothesis which do justify the anthropic principle.

Michael D. Wolok 18:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Try not pasting the message to about 50 million users. What is this about, exactly? --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 01:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] alicia Alighatti

I am only reverting the page back to its original state. Its the other users who are violating the 3-revert rule, not me.

It doesn't matter what you're reverting to. Revert more, and you can be blocked. Try actually reading WP:3RR. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 01:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anak'sed

Yes, User:Anak'sed was a sockpuppet of 1028, but I did not make any vandalistic edits under his name (or 8201's for that matter). I started a joint account called the breakfast club with USer:Crisspy, USer:MArk Ritchkin, User:Guns'nroseslover (who incidentally was not me) to get revenge on you for blocking me for being a sockpuppet when I was trying to give up my old life and start anew. So can you please unblock Anak'sed or at least 8201?

ps For the record, crisspy started the breakfast club, not me! 'sed 23:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Leave me alone. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 01:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have made an oath not to vandalize Wikipedia anymore. If I made one vandalistic edit, please block me permanently. 'sed

What's wrong with the account you have now then? I want to know exactly how the "amazing co-incidence" of the fact that User:Anak'sed is essentially my username backwards came about. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 19:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Anak'sed spelled backwards is Deskana, but what's so offensive about that? I'm not insulting you . 'sed 19:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you User:1028? --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 19:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but I am trying to start a new account because I want to make good contributions to Wikipedia, but first I would like to get out of the way that I am a sockpuppet, but I am not trying to do any harm, because you have blocked other harmless sockpuppets of mine such as Anak'sed and 8201 despite the fact that they have not done anything wrong. 'sed
Block evasion is a blockable offense. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, use the account you have. I'm not unblocking an account used exclusively to vandalise. Leave me alone. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 20:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My post on WP:ANI

Apologies, I should have used the village pump. --Sunholm(talk) 14:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's alright, I think I was a bit rude to you, apologies. It just really frustrates me when people post on WP:ANI with questions that have absolutely nothing to do with incidents requiring administrator attention. Don't take it personally. :-) --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 14:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I was at fault. And thanks for constructive criticism in my RFA. See the notice on my talk page! --Sunholm(talk) 14:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Your post on WP:ANI is no big deal, really. Relax, there's no reason to assign blame to anyone, least of all yourself. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 14:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
As for my RFA, these are the notices off my talk page:
Notice Notice: This account (when it was User:Sunfazer) has been used by two people before now. The new permanent account holder (me), did not start editing until 11 February, so any comments on the talk page before then do not apply to me. This does not mean the account is a 'stolen' one, rather the original people who used it didn't want it any more - so I have it! They said Wikipedia was boring, and gave it to me, the self-confessed geek instead.
Notice Notice: In Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sunfazer they overlooked the notice above. Note, any contributions pre-February 11 are not mine.
Notice The large amounts of contributions to userspace, were done by the two people who used this account before me!

If I am ever on RFA again, there's something to think about.

As it is I am trying to increase contributions to articles/mainspace! --Sunholm(talk) 14:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. By the way, I would rarely support someone on an RfA after three months, so what the account before that was used for is irrelevant from my perspective, really. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 15:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler

The removed templates were no longer neeeded and just added clutter.

No, they provide essential information. Please leave them there. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 19:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No worries

Don't worry, i have no intention of reverting the content again. Many thanks for dealing with the user Robertsteadman who kept reverting sensible/sourced content with no intention of considering any alterations to the piece that would make the article better. I won't revert the material again. Good luck Wikinorthernireland 20:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As was pointed out - your edits were POV pushing an many of them had been tried nd ismissed by other POV warriors before. Robertsteadman 20:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
This page is not for starting arguments with other users. If you have a problem with them, take it up with them at their talk page. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 20:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I've unblocked Robertsteadman as we reached an understanding. Anyway, enjoy editing Wikipedia! --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 20:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ummm Hi, Distress

Your associate here from the "No Worries" discussion really seems to be blowing a gasket on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thunder Bay Northern Hawks page... a lot of bolded, capital letters. Is there anyway you could ask him to remain civil or stop him from being disruptive? Maybe I'm crazy, but he really seems to be getting a little obsessive over a stub for a Junior B hockey team. DMighton 07:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you ask for help on WP:ANI. I try to avoid interacting with him if at all possible, due to conflicts we have had in the past. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 08:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh Dan - that's hardly true is it? You've ben following me around from article to article and yesterday blocked an accidental/misunderstoidd 3RR - hardly trying to avoid me is it? Please be honest and AGF - if that's possible. Robertsteadman 09:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you should WP:AAGF. We resolved the problem with 3RR, it was nobody's fault. Don't assign blame. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 09:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The Ice Hockey Wikiproject has reported him as a troll... this guy is a little out of control. And by a little, I mean he is obsessive. DMighton 14:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Where is the report? --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 15:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay... here it is: [1]. DMighton 05:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, we finally decided to report it. I don't understand how a guy that has been blocked that many times can still be around to beat up on people. DMighton 07:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just to say hello

Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

--Bhadani 12:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi Deskana, thank you for reverting vandalism on my talk page. :) --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 14:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Award

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For working with me through my hacker problems, and helping me make my account safe, I award you this barnstar of kindness. Nezzadar 17:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 12:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks!

Thanks for voting!
Hello Deskana/Archive 4, and thank you so much for voting in my recent RfA. I am pleased to inform you that it passed with a final tally of (119/1/3), into the WP:100, so I have now been cleared for adminship and will soon be soaring above the clouds. I was overjoyed, shocked, and humbled by the tally, and, most importantly, all the support. Thank you. If there is ever anything you need, you know where you can find me. Take care.

--Pilot|guy 22:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Work on those Help talk: space edits! :-P --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 12:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bromyne Block

You have blocked User: Bromyne from editing articles. I can personally attest to the fact that this user is a "sock-puppet" to no one. In recent months I have gotten many of my friends exciting about Wikipedia and its ability to be edited by anyone. Some of these users include User: Maior, User: Maior1, User: Clever curmudgeon, and, the user in question, User: Bromyne. In these few months that we have been editing Wikipedia each and every one of us has been dragged through the mud by the lumbering bureaucracy you seem to call the "administration." These pompous, self-rightious jackasses that have somehow weaseled their way into positions of power have, from day one, seemingly plotted the downfall of all that I and others found good about Wikipedia. Simple edits and meticulously written articles are laid to waste as the scythe of blunt power that is these "administrators" cuts through any and all benefits my chums and I try to add to Wikipedia. But there is still a glimmer of hope. That glimmer is you, Lord Desanka, Dark Lord of the Sith. I emplore you to unblock all of these users and stop supressing the free flow of ideas throughout Wikipedia. While from your end it may seem like the lot of us are nothing more than mischievious trouble-makers, hell-bent on making your lives a living hell, every waking moment worse than the one before it, until you question your meaningless exisitence as someone who obsessively oversees an online encyclopedia, you look the same, or even worse to us. I beg you to end this madness and once and for all fight for the rights of the common "wiki"-er by unbanning all the previous users. Thank you, you wonderful man.

Also the picture on your user page offends me greatly and I demand that you remove it immediately. Iodyne 06:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No. CheckUser is clear in these matters, it is not possible that all those users are not sockpuppets, otherwise that would have been indicated in the CheckUser report. My user page is a joke, I fail to see what offends you so greatly. Please tell me and I will consider changing my page. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 06:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a man grasping at his crotch. This comes with no warning and, as I looked at the page at work, it is now embedded in my computer internet terminal. Iodyne 10:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meaaagn!

I'd like an award! Don't know for what -0 perhaps outstanding contribution, meh! James Random 11:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

James Random indeed. Well, I'm not in the practice of giving awards to people if they specifically ask for one. I've only ever given one award myself. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 12:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for one, oh wait, yes I was, damn! What's wrong with James Random? :D

Anyway, sunny-boy, speak soon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JamesRandom (talk • contribs).

Umm... right. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 14:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Yep James Random 08:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hello Deskana, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 17:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revenge of the Stub

Someone (not User Defined) is removing descent articles from various pages (Such as Oola from Star Wars) and replacing them with, frankly, rubbish stubs. Wonder if you could do soomething about that? Cheers dude James Random 10:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No more than you can. Take a look in the page history, and revert the article to an earlier state if you want. Be aware of 3RR though. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 20:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Hi, you seem to have been invovled, i.e. keeping an eye, on the activites of User:FraterFiatLux, 99, etc.. Well this has just been created, as was warned on Frater's talk page. My view would be to at least let the mediation be attempted before trying this. I've already had to step in to stop Frater getting a block for 3RR, and the mediation itself if now getting way too long, take a look at all the issues they have to be mediated (12 I think at last count)! Not quite sure what the best way to proceed is. May be a case for going staight to ArbCom, what's your opinion? --Wisden17 20:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration? Hmmm... my gut instinct tells me that that is going too far. Especially due to the fact that recently 999 has been acting out of order as well... I'm not sure. I will have to think. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 20:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Award

I have updated your image good and proper. I hope it is suffienctly worthy of whacking, although I'm not sure what the GNU license says about it? HawkerTyphoon 21:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! What's that about the GNU license? --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 21:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Ohhh... I understand. No, images under GNU licenses are "Free images". There are "terms and conditions" so to speak, but for the most part the images can be used freely. This includes being linked to on userpages. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 21:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)