User talk:Deskana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Crystal Clear app kopete.png
Crystal Clear app kopete.png
Contacting Deskana
  • Contact me on IRC. I'm usually in #wikipedia-en and #wikipedia-en-admins. Just say "Deskana" in a message to get my attention, since I use a wide variety of nicks.
  • Add a note on my Talk Page. Please read the rules below.
  • Email me

Deskana's Talk Page

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

Contents


[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] "Rename User Account"

Hi!. I just want to ask for a user name changing, please, by the way, thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MauricioRaiOrtigozaViveros (talk • contribs) 14:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] "Edit War"

Hi. I am already aware of the WP:3RR, and I respect that rule. You may, however, need to take a closer look at User:ܥܝܪܐܩ. He was the one who started removing sourced ([1]) materials from the Iran-Iraq War article. Then, he wrongfully accused me of being a sockpuppet. I think I am being unjustly accused here. With all due respect, I would appreciate if you two stopped harassing me, especially since I have not broken any rules. This type of discriminatory behavior is against the spirit of Wikipedia. 84.23.140.26 (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Responded here. --Deskana (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Totally my fault

Thanks for fixing my mess... it shouldn't have turn out that way but I guess I messed up the whole lot when I clicked on "Save page" before I could checked it out first. Toodles~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 18:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Zealking

Thanks for the blocks, but he's switched IPs - see User:Mayor F Whale. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock Request

This user has requested an unblock, as they are caught in a rangeblock. Are they related to any of the targets of your rangeblocks (possibly Zealking?)? Thanks! TNXMan 20:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The user sent me an e-mail too. I've granted her an IP block exemption. Thanks for the note. --Deskana (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] BlackJack

Can you give me more detail on why you rejected the CheckUser? --88.111.59.103 (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

A combination of factors, including the privacy policy and recommendations from the AUSC, permit the IPs that editors use to be revealed only in exceptional circumstances, and this is not an exceptional circumstance. --Deskana (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
He's previously been indefintely blocked for abusing sockpuppets, and the evidence is very strong that he is doing it again, he is swaying a debate on the use of his personal website as a reliable source by double posting with this IP. Do you not see why it is important for a CheckUser to confirm that this is his IP? --88.111.59.103 (talk) 11:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I see why you requested one. This is the complex nature of checkuser. There are two policies that govern the use of checkuser- the "checkuser policy" that says when you can perform checks, and the "privacy policy" that says when you can reveal information from the checks you've run. In this case, your request appears to meet the checkuser policy, but does not meet the privacy policy. This means that I could probably run a check, but that I wouldn't be able to tell you the results. In that case, there's no point running the check in the first place. I realise this may leave you in a difficult situation, but I'm afraid that that's just one of the downsides of checkuser; sometimes I really just can't say anything. --Deskana (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed response, the point I would make is that this is a dynamic IP that will change the next time he logs in and the previous SPIs have already confirmed IPs of BlackJack which show his ISP is BT. If a CheckUser can't be run is it possible to move the SPI to the non-CheckUser list? --88.111.59.103 (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I can do that for you, sure. --Deskana (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Deskana. I have followed 88.111's posts from the SPI page to here and I would like to assure you that I am not BlackJack but I am a personal friend of his, as I said earlier. Now, I would be prepared to accept that, as a personal friend, there is a conflict of interest in my taking part in the WP:RS discussion but I would make two points about it that justify my action in the interests of fair play.

One is that I have tried to be objective and have mentioned areas in which BJ and I disagree but the differences do not alter the fact that he is a subject expert and that needs to be made clear, and why. Second point is that the discussion is effectively being hijacked by 88.111 and another person who is pursuing an agenda.

It should be a discussion by genuine site members who are interested but it is being prejudiced by 88.111 who has been campaigning on the talk pages of other users to try and gain support for his end, even though he is ignorant of the subject under discussion. I have therefore joined in to strike a balance and ensure that essential points are not lost. It is called ensuring fair play, something that a serial stalker and troublemaker like 88.111 has no interest in.

His use of IP addresses amounts to single purpose usage and I would think that is not something the site would approve of. I have been given the following details of his IP activities and if you check the contribs in every single post he has made, you will see that he has a single purpose which is to discredit someone who has been a major contributor to the cricket and philately projects on this site.

Please study these IP edits and see for yourself:

Frankly, I think it is disgraceful that this site enables people like that to pursue campaigns of invective. I am sure there is a way that IP ranges can be blocked and I certainly believe that should be done in this case. However, that is not your problem and I appreciate the common sense way you have dealt with this matter. I have said my piece and will go now. Thank you. --81.129.117.41 (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry to trouble you again

Surely 88.111 does not have the right to remove evidence from the procedural page? Please accept that he is a serial offender (I believe "troll" is the buzzword used) and take appropriate action. I am sorry that I am not fully clued up on the site's rules and processes other than editing. --81.129.117.41 (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Zepp900

Look what he typed in the edit summary box. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 15:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Need you to take a look at this

Hello, I need you to look trough a SPI. Its very important that you read through everything. From the beginning to the end. [2]

Then, what I would like is a comment from you on the last part of the evidence, where I point out this edit. The fact that after exclusively using the Nefer Tweety account to back Arab Cowboy on several articles for 7-8 months, (considering everything I have pointed out in the evidence) the NT account then contacts ACs sock before it was revealed that AC controlled it and "asks" him to go to the article. How can this have been a coincidence? Can you take a look at the evidence? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, due to time constraints I typically only do checkuser cases. --Deskana (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring pov user

I have noticed you blocked this editor before for constant edit warring. He is doing it again at this page Please look over his edits he is deleting large portions of text and then nominating them for deletion as well as deleting users comments from talk pages Read this Please take care of this disruptive edit warring pov pushing anti-assyrianist agenda user. Likley a banned sock 130.17.218.242 (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Yeah

Good point (at David71) its just he keeps coming back- I suppose we need to just keep a record for the system or his ego... maybe at some point his achievements of multiple socking need to be hidden to deflate his sense of playing the system so well .... SatuSuro 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Followup on your CU

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Go leafs go 3000/Archive

I was looking into an unrelated matter and found what looked like pretty solid evidence of another sock, Can You Prove That You're Human (talk · contribs). This user is currently denying the match (but then, Go leafs go 3000 is still denying your prior established match). Feel free to look into this and opine. I won't at all be offended if you reach a different conclusion. Cool Hand Luke 00:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. The technical data conclusively supports the accounts are run by the same person. --Deskana (talk) 09:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] G8crash3r sockpuppet investigation

while (as I pretty much expected and had stated on the page) there was not a connection between G8crash3r and Puppyph, [3] was there a connection between either of the users and the IP editors; or is that still being investigated? Active Banana (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Checkusers typically do not reveal any information regarding how IP users relate to accounts due to the privacy policy. However, I am monitoring the situation and will take action myself if necessary. --Deskana (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Active Banana SockPuppet Investigation

There has been no comments yet on this case. Has the investigation been started for this User: Active Banana? - G8crash3r (talk) • 15:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will get around to it. I typically only handle the checkuser cases. --Deskana (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] for what it's worth...

For what it's worth, I take it as a one-off kindness to someone bereaved. People's lives. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Extension of a block?

Hello, this is a little old now but you altered the parameters on this user's block because of the case related to User:Soupysoap. The main account for Soupysoap (By78) has been idefinitely blocked and the user in question has been banned from Wikipedia. I am concerned however about the possibility of the IP block on By78 expiring and this user making a new account to engage in more vandalism. I was wondering whether you'd consider extending the block on By78's IP address so as to ensure that the user cannot create a new account and start vandalizing the site again (mainly as a precautionary measure). I do however understand though if you're wary of doing this and think I should wait for the user to re-offend before taking any additional action. Thanks, Vedant (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Naturally, I am not able to disclose my reasons for making this block. However, I do feel that extending it is not necessary. If there is further disruption, we can reapply the block quickly, so there's no harm in letting it expire and seeing what happens. --Deskana (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Deskana. You have new messages at TeleComNasSprVen's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

:| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I do? Where? I don't recall speaking to you. --Deskana (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay... you're talking to me through your talk page. Okay then. --Deskana (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] User:The Oh-So Humble One disputing CU block

As per this AN/I thread, The oh-so humble one is calling your indef of them into question. The reason you gave was that it was a checkuser block, so I'm assuming it was part of a sockpuppet investigation, but it doesn't say which. Would you mind elaborating? Also, it doesn't appear that you put a block template on their talk page, would you mind doing that as well? Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

In short, I can't give a reason. I've placed a block template on their talk page for you. See the ANI thread for more details. --Deskana (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Given that the AN/I thread closed as I posted this, I'll copy it here. I have reservations about transparency and fairness, but I'm with you on this one. Linking an IP to another, currently unknown, account would be a violation of your duties. Let the checkusers sort it out. Having been in Humble's position before, however, it might be considerate to at least email him detailing some of the charges against him. It was a bitch to get my block overturned, and it was only possible because I happened to realize that the person I was accused of being was editting from my university. I had to go to the network administrators and pull IP logs to clear my name. I can see exactly why J.Delanoy made the original block, and it would have been very hard for me to defend myself without the information and access that I had. Having no information at all would make it impossible. Whatever information you might be able to provide to Humble and Humble alone so that he at least knows where he stands would, I'm sure, be greatly appreciated. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
If he wants to e-mail me, he can. Certainly, he can speak to me privately and I'll send him the checkuser data, but there really is no way for him to plausibly explain it away. He's welcome to give it a shot though, and I'll keep an open mind. --Deskana (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Seems fair. Thanks for taking my concerns into consideration. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI - I have just revoked TOSHO's talkpage access and advised him that any further unblocks need to go through arbcom. That was from a combination of your message that essentially normal administrators could not unblock without consulting (so further unblock requests would likely not be met with the desired outcome), and him starting on the anarcho crypto fascists (can't tell if you, me, or FisherQueen is the 'crypt fascist' [sic] in question). Syrthiss (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Users spewing such nonsense rarely get unblocked. Anyway, you handled this matter absolutely correctly. ArbCom may review the block, see the blatantly obvious checkuser evidence, and decline it. Thank you. --Deskana (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I expect that the Committee will make a reminder statement to that effect some time soon, but to make things extra clear: blocks made by a Checkuser in their capacity (in particular, if the block rationale mentions checkuser) can only be overturned by another Checkuser or by the Arbitration Committee. Given that the rationale behind the block necessarily involves information covered by the Foundation privacy policy, community review of those blocks is not appropriate, and any inquiry should be directed to the blocking Checkuser, the AUSC or the Committee only. Administrators who unblock a user who was blocked under those circumstances is misusing their technical ability to do so and may face sanctions up to and including an immediate desysop. — Coren (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Coren and Deskana - would it be reasonable to suggest that the standard operating procedure in these cases is to revoke talk page access for these users? That way you can take an extra step to avoid collateral damage by admins who aren't mindful of this restriction. I know *I* read block notices and know the policy, but taking away the ability of the person blocked under a checkuser block to appeal to people who are unable to service the appeal seems like a good idea. Syrthiss (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
My inclination is to say to use standard rules for revoking talk page access. I've updated the checkuserblock template so it's much clearer that admins undoing checkuserblocks risk having their rights removed, and there are plenty of cases I can think of where a checkuserblocked IP would have something useful to say on their talk page, so I'd prefer to only revoke talk page access as a last resort. Oh, and obviously adjusting the block parameters of a checkuserblock to revoke talk page access (if it's being abused) is perfectly acceptable and no checkuser needs to be consulted for that. I'm sure we all know that, but I felt the need to say it. --Deskana (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Deskana. You have new messages at Juanmelk's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

decltype (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the blocks on TreasuryTag and KnowIG

Hi there. I was wondering whether you'd consider unblocking TreasuryTag and KnowIG and protecting the page instead. Typically, there's very little to be gained from blocking all parties in an edit war, as it does nothing to resolve the conflict. It's likely that they'll just go back to reverting when their blocks expire. I agree that the blocks are valid (both parties were edit warring and it was indeed pretty lame), but I think that what I'm suggesting may be a better solution to the problem. Thoughts? --Deskana (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Blocking all parties in an edit war, especially when for a short time, is better than protecting the page as it doesn't penalize other editors who want to contribute to the article in a constructive manner. I don't see why you believe both parties will continue after the block has expired; realizing the matter is a blockable offense will, in my opinion, discourage further disruption. -- tariqabjotu 14:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Please delete User:Dmartinaus/Sig page

Deskana - Thanks for the info re the signature. I kept the Sig page to keep a back-up copy of my signature code. Thanks for the sugestion. Dmartinaus • Talk 20:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. --Deskana (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
One other thing. I got my instructions for the signature and using a template on the sig page at: User talk:Giftiger wunsch / Your Sig. There apparently is some bad information there if you want to correct it. Dmartinaus • Talk 01:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Wilhelm von Gloeden pictures of naked adolescents

Deskana, just wanted to let you know that someone undid your removal of pictures of naked adolescent boys at Wilhelm von Gloeden. Not sure if it is on your watchlist. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

These images constitute ephebophilia which is prohibited by law and for good reason. Deskana was right to remove it. Wikipedia's becoming far too tolerant of this sort of filth. --86.177.62.231 (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Deskana. You have new messages at Talk:Dmartinaus.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

How is suggesting that she could have a checkuser file an abuse report feeding the trolls? [4]. - Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a person repeatedly vandalising that page, and there were two separate threads talking about the vandalism, reporting them to their ISP, etc. That's the kind of attention they thrive on. It's best just to get rid of it and deny them any kind of attention. --Deskana (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to be helpful and empower her with the ability to fight back against these jerks... filing abuse reports with the related ISPs seems like a much better solution to someone being regularly harassed than playing this game of blocking IPs and removing their trolling and pretending it doesn't happen. The ISPs can revoke their internet access. The harassment and trolling problem is getting worse, not better, and DENY and DNFTT don't seem to be working. We need to do more than just play defense all the time. That's more or less how Byzantium came to an end. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Plenty of people have made plenty of complaints to this guy's ISP before. You can see how that worked out. If you want to make a complaint, then I can give you limited technical data so you know who to complain to and what to say. Until then, we need to continue on as we are doing. --Deskana (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, the ISP is unresponsive. Ok, thanks for explaining. Burpelson AFB (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
If you want to complain to them anyway, feel free. I'll give you some technical evidence for the report. --Deskana (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Yongle the Great

Thanks. I'm sure he'll be back, but at least I don't have to spend an hour every morning cleaning up and blocking. Dougweller (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Deskana (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ACC

Hey :D

Any chance we could spare your checkuser eye for a few minutes over at WP:ACC? We've got quite a few checkuser requests piling up it seems :)

TIA

Stwalkerster [ talk ] 11:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I've handled most of them, now. Thanks for the heads up. --Deskana (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Karmaisking SPI

I was just curious about the Karmaisking sockpuppet case since most of those have been pretty open and shut. BigK HeX (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Amalthea will get back to you shortly, I hope. --Deskana (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


I'm not sure that Amalthea is available. Is there another way to bring attention to this case? BigK HeX (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] BN

See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Rename (on the "SUL unification request"). –xenotalk 12:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Keats page

Hi, you blocked the guy who edited the user, User:The Oh-So Humble One. Im a very active admin on the Life on Mars Wiki and he used our work for it here. Not just for abusing but is that why you also blocked him? Trikster87, (Talk)20:28, July 13, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 19:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC).

I'm afraid I don't understand the question. Are you asking me why I blocked User:The Oh-So Humble One? --Deskana (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Checkuserblock-account

I think there is somthing wrong with the template. Right next to the bold word Administrators, the link to CheckUser just displays Usernames with the word CheckUser in it but not accounts with checkuser privileges. Should it be [[Wikipedia:CheckUser|CheckUsers]] or <span class="plainlinksneverexpand plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=&group=checkuser&limit=50 CheckUsers]</span> instead? wiooiw (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right. I remember quite clearly that I copied the code from Template:Checkuserblock, so it obviously worked at some point. I've made it point to Wikipedia:Checkuser#Users with CheckUser permissions. Thanks! --Deskana (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I fixed the problem on a few other Templates. wiooiw (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

WP:A/R/CL#Request for clarification: User:Betacommand. –xenotalk 17:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. --Deskana (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Deskana .. this may interest you ...

[edit] User:Dwayne

Hi there, i am requesting for rollback rights because i think i wouldn't have an issue with looking over edits people made to articles (making sure it's not vandalism). I already know Wikipedia's vandalism policy. I've had rollback rights already which were revoked because i was forum shopping in IRC, this happened back in April. One of the admins had told me that they lost trust in me so they decided to revoke my rights. I hope the community had forgiven me for what i had done wrong, although i had no idea forum shopping was against Wikipedia's Policies. Before this case i had rollback rights again, but they were revoked because i didn't understand Wikipedia's Vandalism Policy. But i least i do now. So i think i would be an outstanding rollbacker, feel free to speak with another admin about this before granting me rollback rights. If the answer is No, i will not complain and ask other admins for their opinion's like i used to. I will just continue editing like any other user would. Dwayne was here! ♫ 04:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • N Not done. Deskana is active, so you should first approach him on his talk page since he was the admin that removed your rights. Courcelles (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)



Dwayne was here! ♫ 04:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. --Deskana (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi again Deskana, your welcome, i also left a reply directed to you in the discussion. Dwayne was here! ♫ 20:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hello Deskana. I think you may be interested in this User:EyeSerene/Sandbox/RFC draft. Back in April you shared your input on AN regarding the same editor that the RFC is focused on, so I thought you might be interested in sharing your thoughts. Thanks. Caden cool 02:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Scibaby

Hi Deskana. Hate to bother you, but I really can't think of any other active checkusers. Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby? It has been sitting for three weeks or so without any action, and there has been very harsh criticism placed on those admins who mistake new editors for Scibaby and block. A checkuser would be useful. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the required knowledge of Scibaby to handle these cases. That's why I've left it sat there for so long. I guess this is one of those cases where it sucks to have so few active checkusers... --Deskana (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Towit, why we need more and why the community shouldn't have been so hard on the noms in the Spring CU/OS election. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Ack. I suspect that this answer is the case for the other CU's as well, and unless there is some CU who takes the time to get up to speed, then we are in a Catch-22. :-( --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The very real problem right now, with CU kinda stuck, is that false positives are more likely to get blocked unfairly, than before. And that to my eyes is rather bad. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Rlevse: I and other admins could start making judgment call blocks, but the false positive rate will be significantly higher. While we wait for more checkusers to be appointed, is that an acceptable tradeoff? NW (Talk) 22:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Many checkuser cases are cut-and-dry, and the technical link sits right in front of you, screaming "I'm the evidence, I'm here!". Seriously, it can be obvious before you even look at what users are on an IP. My experience with Scibaby cases is that it doesn't work that way, so I avoid them rather than checking and saying "I don't know what I'm looking for". If someone can tell me (privately) what I'm looking for, maybe I can help... --Deskana (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Eeee. Tread carefully though. The whole Scibaby thing is complicated. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I think I know what you're talking about, Rlevse. That won't happen with me, so you don't need to worry about that. Thanks, and I'll be careful. :-) --Deskana (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Deskana, I'll give you some pointers. Check your email shortly. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Ditto :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Foswiki

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foswiki: It was deleted early last year, probably correctly at this time. Can you undelete it in my space, so that I can see whether it can be salvaged? If yes, I will work to make its undeletion possible. If no, then I will just write a new article. Lorem Ip (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It was decided in that AfD that the subject of the article was not notable enough for an article. If something's changed, perhaps you should try deletion review. I quote the deletion review page: "Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article". --Deskana (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I am afraid you were not reading my request carefully (or deliberately chose to ignore it). From deletion review I perused I saw it is not uncommon to restore deleted articles into user space. I am dissapointed with your bureaucratic attitude. (I agree it would be a good defense if you thought I am a foswiki functionary or minion. Well, I am not; I am a twiki user, and came across foswiki out of curiosity.) Fortunately, I have found what looks like an old fork of the wikipedia article (and de:Foswiki) and saw there was no significant third-party information, so it would be basically useless for a new article now. Lorem Ip (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] User:174.36.146.83

Hey there. I just saw that you blocked 174.36.146.83 for one year as a CU block. I just wanted to let you know that I'm pretty sure that this IP is the IP being used for the open proxy found here. At en I've seen some blocks up to 5 years for open proxies, but I'm not certain on the policies here. I just thought I would bring it to your attention. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems you are correct. There is no one defined length, but I've extended the block to five years. Thanks for the info. --Deskana (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Status

I am a bit worried about your current status. Are you angry and/or irritated? Or are you OK? /HeyMid (contributions) 12:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm irritated by you doing things like this, this and this when you clearly have no idea how SPI cases work. Please do not comment on SPI cases until you actually understand the procedure. --Deskana (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Although I find you irritaded at me, I still think everyone has the rights to learn. Newbies always have to learn, obviously. The procedure seems complicated. Can I get a link about the procedure(s)? /HeyMid (contributions) 12:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Please just edit some articles or something else, instead. We do not currently require your assistance at SPI. --Deskana (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mickey Darwin

Hi, is it possible for you to perform the CU at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mickey Darwin as they seem to have recieved a lot of attacks in the past two hours? Thanks. Kevin Dorwin (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] 58.8.212.211

Hopefully a quick question - I know I have seen a name associated with the sockmaster who does the edits I saw at 58.8.212.211 (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser), but I cannot recall who. Does it come easily to mind? I've been blocking the IPs as they emerge (as have others, I'm sure) but its bugging me that I cannot place the editing pattern. I don't want to waste your time if you don't recognize it offhand, though. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I have no idea. --Deskana (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. Syrthiss (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Help

It seems checkuser is in need in this situation here 189.8.52.186 (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it to me. Besides, we don't normally link IPs to accounts anyway. --Deskana (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The solution was so simple....

If you remember from my previous post about the checkuser templates, there was a problem with the link. Apparently, all that was needed was to make the c lowercase to [[Special:ListUsers/checkuser|Checkuser]] :(. wiooiw (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Hi Deskana, I emailed you regarding a possible socking issue. Bejinhan talks 12:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Deskana. You have new messages at Dave1185's talk page.
Message added 10:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

[edit] Re Mal Case etc

I have explained already what is happening with that.

AFL-Cool is needed to be kept seperate due to the size of the watchlist. Same is the case for Metro Footy.

The others are there with the intent of protecting Australian based wrestling articles. IPW is related to Australia due to a Brisbane based promotion. It is representative of a volatile scene where there has been trouble in the past.

I am acting honourably in all respects to make Wikipedia as accurate as possible within the rules (WP:SOCK aside). Matters have been ignored up until now, and thanks to this accurate attention is being drawn. If this results in a ban, Wikipedia will cease to be accurate in important Australian areas. Thank you. !! Justa Punk !! 22:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Note - as an act of good faith, I'll be shutting down the other accounts on the user page and talk pages. I've already withdrawn the AfD at the centre of the dispute, but I would appreciate other advice because the title is definitely not notable. !! Justa Punk !! 22:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
"WP:SOCK aside"? Did you really just say that? Oh my. --Deskana (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes I did say that, and you have destroyed the accuracy of Wikipedia with your actions. I'm leaving for good. Get lost and stay lost. I will be promoting WP as inaccurate as far and wide as I can off site. Goodbye and good riddance. !! Justa Punk !! 01:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Bye. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 08:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Blablaaa

Has this editor made substantial improvements to any article? I have seen no evidence that this situation is a good place to invest our scarce mentorship resources. Jehochman Talk 13:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're asking me this. I'm not advocating for him. --Deskana (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Harassed by anon IP

Hello Desk... Per this edit, if this anon IP editor → 218.186.8.233 (talk · contribs) ← isn't harassing the Admin User:PMDrive1061 or this "Desmond Ying" (as he had mentioned several times), he comes at me instead (see this "threat" dated months ago). Might I suggest an indef range block to solve this problem once and for all? Thoughts? --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 17:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't look into this right now. I'll do it tomorrow. Feel free to remind me if I forget. --Deskana (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • No problem though this problem is not totally solved yet, it has been looked into by Ed, which is currently being discussed here. Appreciate your help whenever and wherever possible. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 03:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Scibaby

Maybe I'm being dense, but could you clarify the meaning of "clear"? Is it "clear that they are Scibaby" or that they're "cleared of any relation to Scibaby"? Thanks - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to do a sleeper check, so my response was in regards to the fact that I did not find any sleepers. --Deskana (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


[edit] About Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mac

Hello Deskana, I’m been suspected of Sockpuppet, I presented what I think are, real proves that I’m not User:Mac. Probes are in [here]. Or in history of same page if someone undo my edit. Thanks for reading this and hope you will read my defense. Would you send a feedback please. Thanks--Bsea (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Thabishop1#Help request

Is it possible you can run a CU and prove that he's User:Thabishop? Duck to me, and I'm leaning toward revoking talk access as he's not asking for unblock anymore. —fetch·comms 19:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no obvious technical tie between Thabishop and Thabishop1, but their IPs geolocate to within about 25 miles of each other in the USA. They are clearly geographically close. I'll leave that up to you to decide. Either way, you may wish to block a confirmed sockpuppet of Thabishop, Dapub12. --Deskana (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] IP address: 178.108.156.50

Thanks for blocking the (what I call freaking) IP address. (Seems to be a middle-of-the-night attacker there!) I know you blocked it for a long time (six months!) - at first it was 31 hours, but I wanted it a long one, so you delivered it. Also, I hope you added that penis image used for vandalism into the bad image list. I even added the file "restricted use" tag on it.

Without any administrators here, Wikipedia would be "dirty"! I was doing in the middle of vandalism until what I saw was quite objectionable (that penis image); I was using Huggle counter-vandalism tool and reverted it, even before I saw the image.

I think I'm going to call it a day of fighting vandals. That was quite interesting, especially when my current stint started with a bit of WP:BLP dispute that seems to be in favor of me, not the other guy (also another anonymous IP user). Bigtop みんな空の下 (トーク) 00:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

Barnstar of Reversion2.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I just happened across some random IP's vandalizing and making personal attacks via fraudulent talk pages, and you just recently dealt with them. And it made me think, sometimes being an awesome Wikipedian must be a tiring and thankless task. Here's to you, for preserving the integrity of this fantastic project. --Hojimachongtalk 00:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! This is the first barnstar I've had in about three years now. :-) --Deskana (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] A Little Request

Hello! I am treated unfairly on Wikipedia, and I need some help from an administrator. Do you think that you will be able to talk with me? Thanks and sorry for any inconvenience caused. Scania N113 (talk) 06:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you please take a look at Talk:Airbus A340 as a third party? I would really like someone to support my reasonable view. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scania N113 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
For reference, this was my response. --Deskana (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I have changed my last sentence there. Anyway, thanks. Scania N113 (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Should we block him?

Hello Desk, per his earlier edits №1, №2, №3, №4, №5, №6, №7, №8, together with his latest edit today, should I report him to ANI or WQA? Note also that he has yet to apologise to us for his previous misdemeanor. --Dave ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 11:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of those were quite some time ago. I've warned him for civility, and if he carries on being incivil, I will block him. As it stands, a block isn't appropriate yet. --Deskana (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Drake&Ciara Fan

Hi there Deskana, you were recently involved in this sockpuppetry case involving Drake&Ciara Fan (talk · contribs). I have to ask, if Drake&Ciara Fan were a sockpuppet of another user that was not named in the case, would that have come up in the CheckUser? I ask this because, after reviewing the user's contributions, they more closely resemble edits by banned user TrEeMaNsHoE (talk · contribs) than they do of CiaraFan4Ever. The fact that the user knows their ways with discographies, columns lengths, etc., in addition to working with the same discographies is fishy. — ξxplicit 19:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

To quote Gabriel Tosh: "Maybe yes, maybe no". It may show up, or it may not. You may wish to file another SPI case. --Deskana (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] undeleting

Hi.. thanks for undeleting, there's some pages missing though, esp my css and .js pages.. →ROUX ₪ 17:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and undeleted them for you. —fetch·comms 03:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Do you have a minute for IRC?

Hi,

Can you come on IRC - I need to discuss a couple of things with you.

Thanks,

The Helpful One 12:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] No need?

[5] Sorry, my mistake...! ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 23:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You didn't make a mistake, so no apology is necessary. In fact, I should probably apologise for being a bit too terse. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


[edit] I haven't done anything

What is wrong with people. TT is pathetic and is always trying to get me banned. So don't even bother doing anything. That would be appricated. KnowIG (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't get angry at the person breaking up the fight. :-) --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad you broke it up :) Cause his always doing that then reporting me. But I see on his talkback him asking you to report me and you apparently agreeing. Explain please. :) KnowIG (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not agreeing with anything. I'm just making sure that if he does decide to make an RFC on you, he knows that he shouldn't be the one to send you the obligatory "You've had an RFC filed against you" message. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok Understood Cheers! :) KnowIG (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Robert Clotworthy

Updated DYK query On 18 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Clotworthy, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Seasons Greetings

[edit] Unprotection of Cuteness

Was it worth it? --78.34.202.185 (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Not in this case, no. Semi-protection was better. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Would you mind re-semiprotecting it? --87.79.181.170 (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Done. Sorry for the delay. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 07:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

np, thanks a bunch. --87.78.37.76 (talk) 09:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

I think I'm OK. An editor is sort of riding me (I feel if I was a horse somebody wudda called the APCA by now--JOKING!) but I think I'm OK. It's all part of collaborating to the best of our ability on Wikipedia. Thanks so much for your excellent response & helpfulness. Ciao!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Autoblock: Soniah

Please see User talk:Soniah (edit|user page|history|links|watch|logs) about a checkuserblock. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] FYI ~ Comment about CU Block

→ in re: Req #53669

I have left a note on MuZemike's regarding a CU Block that came up on WP:ACC Req #: 53669, which you commented on. Your input is welcome, the comment can be found at User_talk:MuZemike
--Wolfnix • Talk • 19:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC) If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} or {{Whisper Back}} message on my talk page.

[edit] Happy 10/10/10

Double Ten Day is, really, unrelated—but we don't appear to have a cool pic for this one

I suppose I should've timed this message at 10:10:10 too, but frankly, I can't be arsed. You know how it is.

Did you know... that tenten in Japaense writing are a little wiggly thing, a bit like a quotation-mark, which makes e.g. "ka" (か) into "ga" (が) or "fu" (ふ) into "bu" (ぶ) ?

So, take time out to have a bit of a giggle.

All the best, and 10-10 'till we do it again.  Chzz  ►  08:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


[edit] Banned user back

I think a banned user has returned and been active for a few months here on Wikipedia and although I had interacted this new user, I didn't really notice until someone reported him on a WikiProject talk page for some editing issue. I don't know what to do because there probably isn't any solid evidence and its been a year since he was banned so I don't know if CheckUser can prove anything (his IP has probably been renewed- or the man could probably have even moved). What are we supposed to do?


P.S. I post it on your talk page because you were the one who blocked User:Hornetman16 and I thought you would be of more help than just any other admin. Feedback ☎ 21:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I can look into this, but I need some evidence (diffs, for example) that show there's reasonable suspicion that he's been evading his ban. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Other than CheckUser, what evidence is there? Surely, minor editing disputes can't just cut it. I've dealt with HM16 in the past and I just feel as if this user, User:Nascarking, is too similar in speech and behavior to not be him. Do I have solid evidence? Not a slight of it. But the truth is that I don't know what constitutes as solid evidence... if there is such a thing in cases like these. Feedback ☎ 00:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


[edit] Re: User:Nascarking

The user in question has agreed to a CheckUser at User talk:Feedback after a discussion about him between other users and I at User talk:3bulletproof16. Could you administer the check? Feedback ☎ 02:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. We pretty much never check people when they ask us to check them. Regarding the evidence needed for a check, it's normally a few diffs from both the suspected account and the old account that show that there are behavioural ties between the accounts. We can't just check every time someone has a suspicion or we'd be checking accounts constantly. Try having a look at a few of the cases on WP:SPI for what sort of evidence is required. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Either way, there's no checkuser evidence stored for Hornetman16 (or whatever his more recent name is) because he's not edited from the account for so long. So checkuser wouldn't be able to tell you anything anyway. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that a banned user can come back and we can't do anything about it? Feedback ☎ 04:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Checkuser data is only kept for a few months. And anyway, no, that's not what I'm saying. You can still find diffs and try to gather enough evidence to prove it's him. Again, I'd recommend looking at WP:SPI. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The editor in question has just been blocked 72 hours for edit warring on a professional wrestling article, something the banned user did a lot before being banned. I think a CheckUser test is very appropriate. Feedback ☎ 01:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I've already said that there's no checkuser data there for Hornetman16 because he's not edited for so long. Nothing can change that as it's a technical restriction enforced by the checkuser tool. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 02:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry I haven't cleared up a few things. If he is in fact Hornetman, I don't suspect he has only used the Nascarking name. And if he is not, I suspect he must be a sockpuppet of User:Deely. I know that's a lot of if's, but you should see my discussion with User:3bulletproof16 and another editor at User talk:3bulletproof16 which I also linked above. Feedback ☎ 04:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ As I said above, you need evidence for these accusations before we can use checkuser. "I suspect he might be a sockpuppet of X" is far from being a good enough basis for a check. Once again, I'm going to encourage you to look at WP:SPI. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

What does WP:SPI have that you keep "encouraging me to look at"? If you find it pretty, then good for you, but it really doesn't help at all as all you're requesting from me is to "provide diffs". Yeah, provide diffs that show what? The user hasn't confessed to anything nor has he inferred it. What are you asking for? You're waiving the words "evidence", "SPI" and "diffs" telling me I should go find them, but I would like to know what you're looking for. The user is BLOCKED for edit warring. That's all I know. I could provide those diffs to you if you want, but what are those going to prove? Do you want me to show you diffs of User:Hornetman16 edit warring? Sure, I could do that. But what else is that going to prove? I come here asking for you to perform a CheckUser test so we can HAVE proof and yet you're asking me to get you proof beforehand. Hell, if I had proof in the form of confessions or anything like that, why would I need CheckUser? Tell me exactly what you want and I'll come up with it for you. Feedback ☎ 23:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
If you're going to take that kind of attitude with me, then I'm not going to spend my time explaining to you exactly what you need. It's all written at WP:SPI anyway. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


"Most SPI cases are decided based uponbehavioral evidence, that is, the behavior of the accounts or IPs concerned. This evidence needs to be explicit; that is, use verifiable evidence in the form of diffs, links to the pages in which the sock puppetry is occurring, and reasonable deductions and impressions drawn from said evidence. - WP:SPI"


┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ That's all SPI says. Provide diffs and links where the guy is editing. Yeah, you already told me that's what you wanted, but what are those specific diffs supposed to have? Evidence? Okay, then. What type of evidence? WP:SPI doesn't say anything other than "behavioral evidence". The guy is blocked for edit warring for the THIRD time and has had many issues with other editors. If I provide those diffs, will that suffice? You misconceive my tone if you believe I have an attitude, I apologize for it, but I just don't UNDERSTAND what you want. If you could help me have a better understanding, I would happily oblige and give you what you want. WP:SPI is too vague and isn't helping at all. Feedback ☎ 19:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest asking an SPI clerk this question. I'm happy to answer it but I'm so busy at the minute that it might be a while before I can get back to you. The SPI clerks can definitely give you what you need. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


[edit] Christmas Card

Christmas Card
Christmas 2010 is over!
Joy to the World.ogg
Wikisanta-no motto.png

Hello my fellow Wikipedians. I wish you all Safe Holidays, a Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year.


Again Safe Holidays and Merry Christmas. -- DQ (t) Merry Chrismasand a Happy New Year! 20:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 20 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Christmas Card

Wikisanta-no motto.png
Merry Christmas
At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Green and Yellow Present.gif
File:Yellow and Red present.gif
Blue and Red Present.gif

[edit] The Signpost: 27 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] MediationBot

First, you might want to watchlist and/or protect your talk page headers[6] :). Second, as a heads up: you've got mail, re: MedBot. Regards, AGK [•] 15:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Random Smiley Award

Smiley.svg
For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award.
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠TomasBat 02:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 31 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Zarboublian

I don't think he has a case on either front. I've seen them reveal solely geographical data before, and from the looks of it that's what Mathsci was told by Kinney.

I agree, but people can make complaints if they want to. Anyone he complains to will tell him that there's no grounds for the complaint, but there you go. People should still be told where the proper avenues are. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 7 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi Deskana! I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE.

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 14 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] IRC chat

Hello, there is an upcoming, very informal discussion on IRC on the freenode channel ##chzzalpha connect (quick webchat link) on the 6th March 2011 at 17:00 UTC concerning ways to improve help over IRC, and other matters relating to Wiki?edia channels in general, but mostly about #wikipedia-en-help.

This is just a friendly, informal chat. Nothing official, no fixed agenda. There is nothing 'secretive' about it - anyone is quite welcome. Some of you had a chat there, the other day. We wanted to invite them to carry on discussions, at a prearranged time - and thought it courteous to ask group contacts and channel founders too. Or if you signed up manually.

If you aren't at all interested, feel free to remove yourself from the names we've spammed this to, which is in User:123Hedgehog456/IRC informal chat users. If you didn't sign up, well, people have been adding loads of names to the list, so someone might have accidentally added your name.

Thank you,  Chzz  ►  and 123Hedgehog456 19:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC).

Message made by Chzz, with help from 123Hedgehog456.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of 123Hedgehog456 (talk) at 22:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC).

[edit] The Signpost: 28 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 7 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Manchester wikimeet - would you be interested?

Hey. I'm proposing a Manchester wikimeet on 24 April - would you be interested in coming along? Mike Peel (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 21 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 28 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 4 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback#User:Socialservice

I've replied to your concerns at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback#User:Socialservice. Please feel free to give the user whatever rights you feel are appropriate. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 10:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Replied. I thought you were basing your entire decision on that single edit, but now that you've explained, I see that you weren't. Thanks for the clarification. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I've left you another message and a proposal. I'm so glad this was just a simple misunderstanding. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 10:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 11 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 18 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 25 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Manchester wikimeet in June

Hello. The next Manchester wikimeet will be sometime in June (date TBD) - would you be interested in coming? See Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester 8 for details. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I should be able to attend. Thanks for the notification! --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 08:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 2 May 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 9 May 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 16 May 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 23 May 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Nice sig

Though I think I found a better 'l' (at least in Arial): --(ʞןɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp. — Edokter (talk) — 17:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't quite work if I do it in the standard font, and I'd rather not change the font of my signature; as much as I like odd looking signatures, I like the fact that it's short and unassuming in wiki-code even more. Changes of colour and font in signatures are not to my taste. Thanks for the suggestion, though. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 30 May 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 6 June 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 13 June 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Meredith Kercher socks

Noted your recent blocks. Have you seen User:Pablo X/spa? If you've any free time ... :) However, IMX a lot of these are meatpuppets, so might be time wasted. Black Kite (t) (c)}~

Was there an SPI or other discussion prior to magic? :) Trying to keep up...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Black Kite: I've probably checked a large chunk of the accounts on that list already. Rest assured that any socks I encounter will be blocked. Berean Hunter: There was no SPI. Checkusers do a lot more behind the scenes than you might realise. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 07:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Excellent! I was hoping someone would do a full sweep of everyone. Face-smile.svg
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You accuse others of meeting outside of Wikipedia to organize against you with absolutely no proof to back up your claims. In reality you are the people that are organizing against others and you are bold enough to do it right in front of everyone. You went "Fishing" in an attempt to label me a sockpuppet. You openly violated Wikipedia's rules when you investigated me and no one said a word. Pablo's hit list is ridiculous and this behavior is bad for Wikipedia. You need to realize that the Meredith Kercher article is highly controversial and that controversy will always bring added attention. People come to Wikipedia that are educated on the subject and are instantly accused of a grand conspiracy. Wikipedia veterans need to lighten up and not be so defensive. No one is trying to steal your Obi-Wan Kenobi NIB action figures so turn off the infrareds. Relax, a majority of new users come to Wikipedia to give, not take. Of course editors with bad intentions will be seen on both sides from time to time, this is inevitable. Your blatant attempts to label every user that you disagree with as a sock is deplorable. I am sure you will succeed in your mission to get rid of the "problems" as the current Wikipedia policies fail to prevent Wikipedia veterans from abusing their power. I bet you haven't felt this powerful since your Dungeons & Dragons days. Oh the memories. BruceFisher (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

  • One other thing, Why isn't GiselleK [7] on Pablo's hit list? The user is clearly a SPA. I bet Pablo left that one off the list because GiselleK shares Pablo's opinions on the case. BruceFisher (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Are you talking to me? I ask because you're using terms like "every user that you disagree with" when I've never even read the Meredith Kercher article. I have no idea what the dispute even is, nor what the sides are or who are on them. How then can I have picked a side? In fact I'm currently in correspondence with PhanuelB about what he (is it a he?) perceives to be abuse of administrator powers. I'm waiting for some evidence from him and if it shows abuse then I'll act on it. However if I keep getting accused of bad faith and taking sides then I might just not bother; I'm a volunteer here and don't need to spend my free time being accused by people that I'm trying to help. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 07:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


Proof? The following are quotes from the site you run showing that you are working together, Bruce:
  • "I can't offer up anything, because they blocked me for being a "meat puppet" after I posted in support of PhanuelB. They say I'm part of a group, which is true. But they only know that because I have told them. Who are they? Nobody knows. They are anonymous. They could be working for anyone or part of any organization. -- Charlie Wilkes on your site Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:58 pm
  • "Perhaps you could prevail on the anonymous mandarins of Wikipedia to make that change. " Charlie Wilkes Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:43 am (same page as previous)
  • "So we fixing wikipedia posts now?...Also i notice a few guilter books that have just been released or are being released in the near future, yet there are clearly a few other books missing from the pro innocence side." Chris C [ Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:51 am ]
  • "RoseMontague, Moodstream - anyone else on the Wiki talk page.
I'm very excited to see you all getting involved in the page. The Wiki article has been a huge source of misinformation in the case and it is consistently a top Google search about the case.
Trying to edit the wiki article has been a thorn in the side of many editors for a long time. This started last fall when Wikipedia unlocked controversial articles to be edited, before that the article was at least okay. When the article was unlocked a group of admins quickly took it over and completely changed it for the worse. An edit would be made and threats of being banned came very quickly from some of the worst Admins - Black Kite and Mlauba. This was especially true if it was a suggestion to create a separate 'Amanda Knox' or 'Amanda Knox Trial' article. They have it set up so searches for Amanda Knox are brought to the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. Black Kite, Mlauba and Bluewave are some of them that have now 'retired' from Wikipedia. Black Kite in particular banned 8-10 editors. Here is a link showing some of the banned editors - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pablo_X/spa
The talk page was filled with tremendous arguments about sources and trying to build a consensus. If an edit was made it was soon enough that the group of Admins who were working together would take a 'vote' to change or revert the edit. Little was being achieved. They simply were not going to allow the article to be out of their hands or the direction they wanted. They would not allow anyone else to edit their article. They would not allow legitimate edits. They at one time wouldn't even allow the 48hrs Mystery series to be allowed in the list of documentaries on the case because it was 'a tabloid American production'. It was filled with biased language and falsehoods also. For instance - the luminol prints made in blood sourced by Barbie Nadeau. They had a source from a paper and it was done. It didn't matter that the source was written before it came out in court that the prints tested negative with TMB. These are just a few examples of what the group of admins working together were doing. Banning and edit blocking as tools.
I'm very grateful for Joseph Bishop for not giving up completely and creating the petition that seems to have finally brought attention to what this group of admins on the page have been doing. Great job Joseph Bishop ! One very opinionated and stubborn man. Thanks be.
No one is asking for an article to say Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. It should have a NPOV though and it should reflect that there IS a controversy in the article. People are turning to the article for understanding and are being failed right now. I hope this will really turn around now and is not just a temporary change.
I would also like to thank Footwarrior for being a good and consistent editor. They stayed in their not letting the group of admins be completely out of line." from Sarah (one of your admins)
  • "More importantly, Wikipedia is a major issue that we should all be interested in. We have made great efforts to get the truth out to the masses. When the top search for Amanda Knox misrepresents the case, we need to care. I want to thank everyone who has helped out with this. We have a good chance of correcting the problems with the Wiki article. We need to stay focussed and get it done." - Bruce Fisher Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:27 pm 1
  • "It is important that Wikipedia knows this case is ongoing. Italy allows 2 appeals. Detractors say that the court ruled, so the page should be slanted to suit the court ruling. The case is ongoing. According to Italian law, guilt has not been determined yet." - Bruce Fisher Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:56 am
  • "I am wondering if I can get some help with a small detail I am thinking of posting about on the WikiTalks page...." Moodstream Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:54 am
....and it goes on & on. How can you say that there is no proof? Bruce, have you ever edited Wikipedia outside of the account that you are using now?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 06:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not really fair to judge people by their behaviour on other sites for various different reasons. Firstly, it may not be them on the other site, and we have no way of checking that. Secondly, we can't go blocking people because they violate our rules on another site (though I'm not saying that's happened here, I'm just speaking generally). It's their behaviour on Wikipedia that counts. I'd suggest that you keep your comments focussed on that, and not on anything else. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 07:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I have never participated on Wikipedia using any other name. I post everywhere online using my real name. Your cut and paste above shows people discussing how inaccurate the Meredith Kercher article is on an online forum. No one is plotting against another Wikipedia user. The conversation you noted is no reason to assume that those people are working to push inaccurate info into the article or vandalize Wikipedia in any way. If you read the entire discussion the posters want to help Wikipedia not hurt it. Does it honestly shock you that people carry on conversations online about Wikipedia, especially about controversial cases? You and others talk openly on Wikipedia about how to deal with "Problems" (SPA's). You make it very clear that you consider SPA's a problem and you and others are currently targeting them. Your behavior is quite different than people discussing a Wikipedia article on an online forum. BruceFisher (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, that's enough about that topic for now. Berean Hunter and BruceFisher, please do not continue it on my talk page. Thank you. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 20:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] AN discussion

You may be interested in this AN discussion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 07:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] PhanuelB

Further to your post at User talk:JamesBWatson#PhanuelB block review, you may like to know that I have received an email from PhanuelB, and my response to it is at User talk:PhanuelB#Further email. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with your comment about this, but I have complied with your suggestion and removed my comment. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I hope we're clear that I agree with every word of your comment there, but it's just that I think it's bad form to leave a message to someone incapable of replying. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I do understand. However, my feeling is that by posting the essentials of their emails to me I was in effect allowing them to reply on their talk page, albeit indirectly, whereas if I only reply via email I am preventing them from making the substance of their reply public, so that (strange though it may seem) my way actually gave them more of a chance to reply. That is why I don't agree. Nevertheless, I can see that your point of view is a reasonable one, and so I have, as I said, removed the comment. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] the user/talk page of banned user jimbo whales.

just curious, can i please see the talk page of the user jimbo whales (if you have access to that deleted page)? i was randomly searching out of curiosity to find if there was any account that tried to pun jimbo wales' name. i entered this name and it came up as a username block. i would just like to see what was said on the talk page about the name since it kinda cracked me up. --Thebestofall007 (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not very interesting. Just some nonsense about "Wikipedia is communism". --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 20 June 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 27 June 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] repeat proxy edit

for PhanuelB at ANI from previously warned editor.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not going to put up with it for much longer. I've placed a notice in the thread itself, and the next person who proxies will get blocked by me. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 07:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Import

Hi,

can you please import the versions from de:389. Infanterie-Division (Wehrmacht) into the English article, since I translated the informations from the German article. Greetings, --Niklas 555 (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You should probably ask someone who's more familiar with import than I. :-) --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Manchester wikimeet

Hi Deskana. It's a shame you couldn't make the Manchester wikimeet last month. The next one's going to be on 17 September, if you're interested in coming - more info at meta:Meetup/Manchester. Please sign up if you're coming, and also please sign up on the notification list if you want me to nag you about future Manchester meets. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd totally forgotten about that and I never got a reminder. Bah! If I recall correctly, 17 September is actually a spectacularly bad day for me, so I probably won't be able to come to the next one. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 4 July 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Have you considered a career as a comedian?

From here: [8] when you were all trying to block me for some trumped up charge: "He's (Giano) now started ranting about David Gerard abusing oversight, and a block from someone on the Ombusdman Commission would likely inflame the situation even more.

Ridiculous, isn't it.

Dan"

I laughed for five minutes when I read that - do younot feel even slightly stupid for saying that? Giacomo Returned 22:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No, mainly because that's now so far in the past that I can't even remember what I was talking about. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 11 July 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Deskana. Check your email—you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

[edit] Thought I might bring this to your attention

150th thread, Score! :P Anyway...Thought I would drag your attention back to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EugeneK with a reply from the user as I don't fully get what he is trying to say (sounds like he's edited under several other peoples accounts and violated WP:NOSHARE). -- DQ (t) (e) 01:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems I might need to archive this soon! Anyway, thanks for the heads up. I've left a closing comment on the SPI case. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 18 July 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Hi Dan. You have email, if you could read and reply when possible it would be most appreciated. Thanks. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 11:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 25 July 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 01 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 08 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use File:Wotsits-ReallyCheesy.jpg

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Wotsits-ReallyCheesy.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 16:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If you actually look at the file page in detail, you'll see that the original fair-use rationale that I provided isn't even valid anymore anyway, as the new image that was uploaded was taken by someone on their phone and has not "been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media". Given that, I'm not entirely clear what the purpose of your message here is. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Well it's a notification issued by Twinkle to the first contributor to the file. Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 21:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Then I would advise more care in your usage of Twinkle and a closer inspection of the pages, as you're tagging pages with notices which are incorrect and do not accurately represent the copyright status of the images. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 15 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation requested for Myrtle Allen article

Another editor has been reverting my edits to the Myrtle Allen article, providing no explanation whatever, leaving a decidedly inferior version, replete with redundant text, cruft, misspellings, etc. If you check the diffs you will see my version is superior in every way: substantively, grammatically and syntactically; the last two probably due to the fact that English is not his first language.

More offensively, this editor has refused at least twice, to explain at all, despite my reaching out to him on his talk page, his reasoning or to try to delineate where he believes I am wrong or where it is simply a dispute between MOS styles. His reverts show he is not looking to improve the article but simply to revert wholesale my edits entirely. He may have an ownership problem with his articles, but, as you well know, no one owns an article on Wikipedia, regardless of how much hard work is put into editing.

I am leaving the article as is due to WP:3RR but I hope you can view the diffs and restore the superior version I crafted. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In fact RMS is just pushing his version. The talkpage of the article is still blank, but my talkpage is full of PA's and insults of this incivil and rude editor. Night of the Big Wind talk 16:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 22 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 29 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 05 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 12 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 19 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Hello.

Hi, I was unblocked on Wikipedia some time ago and use this IP address because I am not at my parents' house. I was wondering what the stance is on this page below, though. Since I was allowed back on and that page was full of trolling, it does not seem that relevant to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Grace_Saunders/Archive#Request_for_deletion.21

Will it be deleted?86.176.72.79 (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 26 September 2011


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Re:SPI

Thanks for leaving that note. Just getting back into work at SPI, and that was indeed a pretty stupid error. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 16:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hey, Deskana! I saw that you were a bureaucrat/administrator here, so I was just wondering if you might be able to answer a question I had. The thing is, I'm an admin on a different wiki, and another admin on the same wiki posted a question to the rest of the admins asking if there was a URL that can be used to show any user their current number of edits on the wiki. On our wiki, there's a page called Special:Editcount that conveys that information (I don't think Wikipedia has a page like this though), so another admin advised him to use this URL: http://_________.com/Special:Editcount/Username. That URL would achieve the desired result, but one would have to constantly put the username of the specific user at the end of the URL when posting it on that user's talk page, so my goal was to come up with a way to avoid that; almost to create something you could post on any user's talk page without changing any part of it and still get the desired result. I came up with this: {{fullurl:Special:Editcount/{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}, this way, one could just post the coding on the talk page of the desired user and the returned URL would automatically direct the user to their respective edit count. This worked successfully for every other user whose talk page I tested the coding on (without saving the page, of course); the only problem is that the user he wanted to do this for has an "*" both at the beginning and the end of their username (the second asterisk isn't a problem, just the first), meaning that instead of being returned as:


http://_________.com/Special:Editcount/*User*


it gets returned as:


{{fullurl:Special:Editcount/

  • User*}}


and doesn't take anyone anywhere, because it's just the raw coding. So I was just wondering if you knew of any way to circumvent this problem (aside from just telling him to post "http://_________.com/Special:Editcount/*User*" on the user's talk page, which isn't the end of the world, but is, of course, what I was trying to get around in the first place), maybe by putting some other form of coding that I'm not aware of somewhere in the existing coding or something. Any light you may be able to shed on this problem would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

69.204.38.3 (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't really offer any advice I'm afraid. The only think I can suggest is that you try looking at Help:Magic words, as that might contain the answer you're looking for. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I was actually able to find a solution that fixed the problem; just had to add {{urlencode:}} to the coding. Thank you for your help and time. Btw, awesome sig!!! :D
69.204.38.3 (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Re-opening a TfD discussion he started

See [9]. User:Scott MacDonald both initiated and re-opened the delete discussion after User:King of Hearts closed it per WP:SNOW. I did question whether this was appropriate [10] ut he has replied [11] that the allotted time had not expired and this wasn't an admin action. Do you think the action appropriate? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In my mind, the amount of delete votes in that discussion suggest that it really shouldn't have been SNOW closed. There's really no harm in letting the discussion run its full course. I agree with you that it's bad form for Scott MacDonald to reopen a discussion that he started in the first place, but if we consider only the reopening itself (and not who did it) then it is not objectionable to me. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Whilst I'd disagree with you about the SNOW close, I don't exactly object to the discussion running its course. However, it was bad form for Scott to do that and equally bad form that he doesn't recognise it. Don't you think? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. However, I must say that if he didn't think that it was bad form to do it at the time then it is not surprising that he also does not think it was bad form after the fact. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 3 October 2011


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 10 October 2011


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] A request

Hi Deskana, I'm writing to ask if you would consider unblocking CandaceDempsey (talk · contribs). She was blocked by you in June after posting on Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher, and a checkuser found she was linked to GeniusApprentice (talk · contribs), who was also posting on that page. Both were indefblocked.

I don't know anything about the multiple-account issue, but if you look at Dempsey's edits (she made just eight edits to the talk page), she arrived here to defend herself (e.g. here) after another editor insulted her work as a journalist, dismissing her as a food blogger. In fact, she's a respected journalist who has written an excellent book about the murder. Perhaps she felt she had to sign in under her own name to defend herself; that would account for the use of a second account, if indeed GeniusApprentice was also hers.

The indefblock and the block notice on her user page may be damaging to her, particularly now that her book is being more widely read, so I was wondering whether the best thing would be to unblock and let the issue rest there. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I spent a little while thinking about this, and have come to the following conclusion.
  • If she believes she is being damaged in real life by what's happened to her on Wikipedia, I would suggest she ask for a rename of her account. She may ask me directly if she wishes, and I will carry it out for her. I have also deleted her userpage which contained the block message. I should note though that I have very little patience for running around after sockpuppeteers trying to clear up after them when it was their behaviour that caused the issue in the first place, and if she refuses the rename and complains about being damaged in real life then those complaints will fall on deaf ears.
  • There is no doubt in my mind that the block was appropriate, and it continues to be so. However, if she promises to stick strictly to one account, I am willing to reduce her block to time served and unblock her account (per standard offer, I suppose). Note that if she agrees to this and then uses multiple accounts anyway, I would block all her accounts indefinitely for violating the unblock agreement, irrespective of the usage of the accounts.
I hope this is satisfactory to you? Let me know if you'd like to discuss it further. Thanks! --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Deskana, that sounds good. In fact, it may be enough that you deleted the user pages and block notices. Whether she would actually want to edit, I have no idea, but I can look for an e-mail address and put forward your offer. I haven't actually been in touch with her about this. Many thanks for your help, SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I got the impression that you were in contact with her. If you're not, then what I've done is probably sufficient, although I will extend the offer of unblocking to her via her talk page. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for leaving that note for her. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 17 October 2011


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Mail

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Deskana. Check your email—you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 03:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 24 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 31 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/99.146.23.208

Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/99.146.23.208, there is a dynamic IP who was given a 24 hour block about 2 days ago for edit warring on several articles. The IP was adding plot summary information that didn't conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, but his edits were being reverted as vandalism. The IP seems to be a bit irritated, because one of the editors who reverted him, also violated the three revert rule and labeled the edits he/she made as vandalism. Today, he asked the admin why he didn't block the other editor, arguing that the issue was a content dispute. The IP changes every 6 or so hours, but it remains on the same IP range. The IP is making no attempt at hiding this fact, and has stated this several times. The editor filing the SPI report (mistakenly) believes that editing from a dynamic IP is socking. The IP isn't really doing anything blockable right now. I am working on explaining the neutral point of view policy to the IP. Hopefully this will help him/her avoid future problems. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 7 November2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 14 November 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 21 November 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 28 November 2011

[edit] WP:BN

[edit] The Signpost: 05 December 2011

[edit] Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Deskana. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx#Suspected sockpuppets.
Message added 06:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Commander (Ping me) 06:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I do? I don't see anything there addressed to me. Can you point out what I need to look at? :-) --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I have pointed out an edit made by the sock which was quite similar to the one made by them in the past. —Commander (Ping me) 11:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's not enough. I also need to see an edit from the sockmaster so that I can compare the two. Anyway, this discussion is moot since AGK has already checked the accounts. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 12 December 2011

[edit] Could you please explain...

Can I ask some questions about the SPI on User:Iqinn?

  1. Will the new IDs User:Birdmight and User:Jrwikieditor be blocked?
  2. I took a look at some of the other recent SPIs. I saw the puppets being permanenty blocked, but I was surprised to see the puppetmasters receiving relatively short blocks. Since Iqinn would be evading an indefinite block, would a determination the individuals behind Iqinn were evading an existing block escalate that block from indefinite to infinite?
  3. It is my impression that the records that allow sockpuppets to be officially confirmed are only accessible for three months. Can I ask if those records can confirm Iqinn used the same range of IP addresses as the two more recent fellows?
  4. Sorry, I am not familiar with the SPI process. I can't tell, has a checkuser been run? If not, and there is a three month limit, I hope one will be done soon, as the last edit Iqinn made to User talk:Iqinn was just under three months ago.

Thanks. I figure that the answers to my technical questions weren't intentionally secret, or obscure. I've written elsewhere about security through obscurity. I am not an expert on computer security, but I have read what real experts say about security through obscurity. They mock it. They think real security does not rely on keeping procedures private, but on using secure algorithms.

If that's true then answering questions about how SPIs work isn't a security risk. If you think its false please trust I asked these questions in good faith.

I think Iqinn devoted well over 1000 hours to wikihounding me, before this well deserved indefinite block. 90 percent of their 20,000 edits were to material I contributed, or about my contributions. I'd really hope to see an escalation in the sanctions against Iqinn, if it can be confrimed they are behind these two more recent fellows.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to answer your questions.
  1. I suspect they will be blocked but that's not for me to decide. It is my practice, and that of many other checkusers, to not block accounts that we have checked through SPI cases. This is to avoid us being judge, jury and executioner on SPI cases. We summarise the results and let another user decide the appropriate action.
  2. There is no technical difference between an indefinite and an infinite block. Someone that's been using sockpuppets isn't likely to get unblocked any time soon, if they even get unblocked at all.
  3. I've already answered this question as well as I can on the SPI case. The technical data shows that it's almost impossible that the Jrwikieditor and Birdmight accounts are not being operated by the same person, and that it is possible (but far from conclusive) that they are both operated by the same person that operated Iqinn.
  4. I did perform a check, and the results are summarised in the case and above.
Let me know if you have any more questions. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt reply. I am still not clear as to how the records used for checkuser go "stale". Does this happen at the 3 month point? If so, are confidential results of the checkuser you ran kept, and could they help identify if suspicious posts that look like Iqinn's come from posting from Iqinn's usual range of IP addresses? Geo Swan (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Their IP records simply don't show up in the checkuser tool anymore. Most checkusers do not keep separate records of IPs except in extenuating circumstances, and I make a point of not keeping any records at all. Despite that, you can rest assured that we can often still confirm a link despite the accounts going stale since sockpuppeteers are normally very sloppy and unaware of how the checkuser tool works. I can't really say more without violating BEANS. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 19 December 2011

[edit] User:Israelite1

Hi, This user you just blocked returned immediately as User:Israelite2 to make the same edits. Can you please semi-protect Israelis for a period? Thanks. Zerotalk 10:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OxfordGeo

I'm not sure what more I can say. There was sock-puppetry around the deleted article Oxford-Georgian Society and the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford-Georgian Society involving a number of editors with surprisingly similar interests and voices, and various identifications were made at the cases now in the archive Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OxfordGeo/Archive. Now the disputed article has been recreated under a new name University of Oxford Georgian Society by another editor with surprisingly similar interests and voice. I have added users Biographyspot (talk · contribs) and Charlie P Ryan (talk · contribs) for comparison as having been involved in the sock-puppetry and vote-stacking results from those previous investigations. Someone, or some group, is very keen to get this article into WP, and to promote a fallacious notion of its history and importance. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional: DQ's diffs show three of the four named users making similar edits to try to establish Tamara Toumanova as being Georgian. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I concur to CD's findings, a number of those new accounts seemed very experienced/knowledgable as to the inner working of Wikipedia for them to be true newbies, my spidey-senses are going off now telling me that they are most likely the same person. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 02:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Dave1185, I'm afraid that that kind of comment has very little use to a checkuser and is part of the problem which I'm noticing occurring more and more at SPI. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Merry X'mas~!

Gerard van Honthorst 001.jpg

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.


Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks! I hope you're having a nice time too. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 26 December 2011

[edit] The Signpost: 02 January 2012


[edit] The Signpost: 09 January 2012

[edit] Advice needed

Hi Deskana. Sorry to bother you with something that's not your concern but I need your expert advice. The situation with mass AfDs of school articles has gone critical and complex. Something needs to be done urgently, but I don't particularly wish for my talk page to become the venue for the inevitable dramafest, and we need to know where best to take it. You'll need to read this thread and this thread. Thanks in advance your advice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 16 January 2012


[edit] The Signpost: 23 January 2012

[edit] The Signpost: 30 January 2012

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deskana&oldid=474149073"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export