User talk:Deskana

Contacting Deskana

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

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

Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 37	10 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
An interview with Jimbo Wales	WikiWorld comic: "Godwin's Law"
News and notes: 2,000,000, Finnish ArbCom, statistics, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 20:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

CHQ

I will come once in a while and bother you if I can't get something to work :) but I got forty-something users that deserve my thanks before I can give the tools a serious try, take care. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Definately a working man....right?

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For finishing up backlogs/due things at Rfa, CHU and probably loads others --Hirohisat Kiwi 04:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Username Change

Hello! I have been changing my username on my 4 other active wikiprojects, and would like to change it here too to keep uniformality. My current username is Ice201, I would like to change it to Girdi please. Thank you. :) --Ice201 14:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Please file a request at WP:CHU :-) --Deskana (talky) 18:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Cross Epoch up for deletion

Hey there, Deskana. I don't know if you have any interest in the article, but I've listed Cross Epoch for deletion mainly per notability reasons. If you can, please check out the AfD page and post your thoughts on the matter. At any rate, that's pretty much it. Just wanted to give you a heads-up.

Also, not that it's any of my business, your talk page is getting rathe long (65+ kilobytes and growing). Might wanna archive it pretty soon. Hope to see you around, and happy editing! // DecaimientoPoético 20:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

Can you please checkuser User:Cowboycaleb1 to see if his IP is User:63.3.10.130. Cowboycaleb1 revert warred on an article and got it protected, then as soon as the protection wore off, he started revert warring, reverting twice [1] [2]. And if I'm correct about User:63.3.10.130, he used his IP to do two more reverts [3] [4]. Is this a violation of 3RR? — Moe ε 00:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

 Unnecessary. Were I to do it, the conclusions would serve no purpose. If it was his sockpuppet, blocking him now would be purely punitive. Can you please leave further requests on WP:RFCU? --Deskana (talky) 10:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Tajik

No, people are using the three confirmed unrelateds, the unlikely, the possible, and the likely to decide that Tajik was run out of here inappropriately when he never was a sock puppet. Not then. Not now. Now that he's been hounded out of Wikipedia, maybe people can retire the witch hunt. I suffered more on Wikipedia from that jerk than anyone else, and I know damn well none of those socks were him. KP Botany 05:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if further messages you left me were less accusatory. --Deskana (talky) 16:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Result of CheckUser

Hello. You have recently closed a CheckUser case that I initiated with the "Stale" result.[5] Since I am not familiar with the meaning of this type of result, would you mind explaining what it means? I guess CheckUser failed to prove a connection between two users. Am I wrong. Thank you in advance. Tankred 16:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Stale means that there is no checkuser data for the main account listed. IP logs are only kept for a certain amount of time, and that account no longer has any checkuser data available on it. --Deskana (talky) 16:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Betacommand 2

Thanks for giving the final word, as a bureaucrat, at WP:BN. In short, from what I understand, you agree with Newyorkbrad that no harm was done, but the better choice in that situation would have been to let a bureaucrat close the nomination. Thanks again.--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 18:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites opened

Hello, Deskana. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your RfA was successful

Thanks. Jogers (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hello again Deskana, I'd like to ask for your assistance in a matter I've been monitoring, that of Charles Linden. I originally went to the page while in Recent Changes patrol, and found it to be extremely POV, with several questionable statements not backed by references or reliable sources, using only self-published sources. (comparison of revisions: [6] - note, not all info in current revision is the way I edited it originally) I did some editing, in the attempt to neutralize the tone, and searched for WP:RS sources, finding very few, and I discussed my edits on the articles talk page. It appears, looking at the history, and the talk page, that there are two very adamant sides warring over the content, with some of these editors shouting on the talk page in what could be considered threatening tone. Earlier today, an anonymous editor who states he is the subject posted, requesting the article be deleted. Please see his post, and my response, here. I directed him to the OTRS system, and told him I would ask about this issue. I have asked one administrator about the issues previously, and the administrator was unable to evaluate the concerns, as I'm sure when you see the talk page, you'll see how messy and controversial this is. I understand that, and so I request that perhaps you, or if you could find someone willing to look into this issue, could take care of it. I honestly feel this is out of my realm of comfort at this time, as I'm not sure if the subject of a biographical article can simply have it deleted because they do not like it. It seems to me there are many biographical articles that contain controversial material, but when backed by reliable, third party sources, the information may remain. I appreciate any assistance that you may be able to provide in the matter. Thanks! ^Ariel♥Gold 10:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I promise I will check this out later. Right now I'm having a lot of trouble trying to get my internet set up. --Deskana (talky) 11:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries, it isn't super urgent or anything, but I'd just feel better if you'd investigate, as I highly respect your opinions. Good luck with your new internet setup! ~*Crosses fingers Deskana doesn't have to smack too much stuff around*~ ^Ariel♥Gold 11:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I got it working (I'm on my PC on wired now, rather than my laptop on wireless) but now it's lunch time. I'll get back to you soon. --Deskana (talky) 11:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hee hee glad you didn't have to beat your computer too much! Enjoy your lunch! ^Ariel♥Gold 11:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

To update you on this issue: The subject of the article has created a username, and is engaged in conversations. However, I'm not fully comfortable handling these issues, as the main one seems to be his wish that all the press reviews of his "method" be referenced, and yet they are not verifiable. His website has compiled them, but I'm just not sure if this is something we can use as reliable sources. I mean, yes, obviously some sources won't be online, but the way this page is presented is not a photocopy, but more of a re-typing. Also things like customer reviews from Amazon.com, I've explained are not reliable sources, and he has this page on his site with BBC recordings of testimonials, which again I don't think would be reliable sources (plus, that page crashes my browser). I would really appreciate some intervention by someone with more experience with these issues, as I'm not really able to address all the concerns and/or questions. I've explained things as best I can, but he's not happy that a publication criticizing the method is included, even though it is cited. I explained that there are many articles with controversy sections, and as long as it is presented neutrally, making it clear that this publication (or person) disagrees, and cites the source, it is valid. I'm trying my best, but I would truly appreciate any input you can give on the talk page and explain things, as he's got a very bad view of Wikipedia right now, saying things like, "the wikipedia editors have managed to root out the only negative material available." And he says "There is a mass of positive material about TLM on-line" but even after requests for the URLs, I've yet to see any. And again the issue is that these are all related to this "method" of his, and not to him, the subject. I don't believe they are the proper focus, nor should his method be given undue weight in the article. I'm going to take a nap, but I'd just really like to be able to turn this issue over to an administrator, or to you, if you're willing to take it on, to assist this person further. Thanks again, ^Ariel♥Gold 20:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Coming from you, I consider that high praise, indeed, thank you so much. I really appreciate you watching my back on this issue, as it had really gotten out of hand prior to Mr. Linden entering the discussion. Gladly, the dissenters and the ardent supporters seem to have respected the process and have not interfered. Absentis is helping greatly as well, and I hope to soon have a much more neutral, factual article (albeit a much shorter one, lol) than a few weeks ago. And again thank you so much for watching over it, and let me know if you can think of anything I've missed. I do have one question, Mr. Linden would like to use the following site as a reference/source: http://searchwarp.com/swa248574.htm I'm unfamiliar with that site, and it does not appear to me, to be a news site, or what I'd call a "reliable source". It was written by what appears to be some sort of networking site, as the reviewer has an "online name" (Giri Anantha). I would classify that along the lines of the customer reviews on Amazon.com, personally. Would you give me your opinion of whether that would be a valid source, pretty please? (Feel free to answer here, I've had your page watchlisted forever, for RC patrol, hee hee) ^Ariel♥Gold 16:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: CLinden is rather adamant that having a sourced, cited "negative" comment in the article is not acceptable, and he again requested that the page be deleted here. I'd be interested to know the policy on this. Could anyone who has negative things in their past that were reported by the media get their article deleted because they don't like it? I mean, could O. J. Simpson for example, request his page deleted? (And note that by no means am I comparing these two subjects, but that is just the most controversial BLP I could come up with as an example). However, regardless, the subject of this article has made some very inappropriate comments and questions towards another editor, asking them if they suffer from phobias or anxiety, and intimating that the other editor is associated with the professor whose opposing review is cited. I personally feel that those kinds of questions and comments are not acceptable, and I've advised Absentis not to reply to them. Please update with what can/should be done. Thanks again! ^Ariel♥Gold 21:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll involve myself a bit more then. --Deskana (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I dig into legal aspects about trademarks online, and end up in an EC with you, and turns out you said it much more succinctly than I would have, hee hee. Thanks. If he were to request deletion from OTRS, would it be done? What about taking this article to AfD? The truth is, both Absentis and I honestly question the notability of him. Apart from the "method", there's nothing notable, and this "method" is not covered much (if at all, it seems) by reliable sources. Would that be an option? ^Ariel♥Gold 22:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting about the OTRS issue. Is there any other avenue for him to go through? If an article adheres to BLP, is it a problem if the subject dislikes it and wants it gone? This is a great learning experience for me, if nothing else, lol. ^Ariel♥Gold 23:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, subjects of articles have no authority on Wikipedia. Subjects can't demand that we delete their articles simply because they're the subject. There's no BLP issue here either. If you think there's a notability problem, then feel free to AFD the article. --Deskana (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, and that's just what I thought, but could not find that stated succinctly anywhere. The funny thing is, he's demanding requesting that any and all mention of his "method" be removed, saying it is not related to his biography. However, the funny thing is, if that were removed, he would definitely fail WP:BIO. I thought about again explaining that biographies write about life, education, career, accomplishments, and obviously as the "creator" of this program, that's worthy of noting in a biography, so his suggestion to remove it is a bit strange. But regardless, I think what I'll do is let the protection run out, and if the problems start up again, then discuss with Absentis and others who were editing it, whether it should go to AfD, does that sound like a good plan? ^Ariel♥Gold 23:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Cross your fingers, it appears the current revision meets with Mr. Linden's approval. His latest post indicates he is satisfied that I added a "counter argument" (Attributed to him directly, the reference is a self-reference, but used as a ref for his quote, so I believe that's acceptable, yes?) and he seems to feel the matter is closed. Let's hope this gets the article under control. And, again I'd like to express my deep gratitude to you, for your continued assistance and your watching over my responses, stepping in when my replies were not enough. Thank you, I really appreciate it. ^Ariel♥Gold 18:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you! I'm so happy..and slightly nervous about all the new, powerful looking buttons....oh my! Thanks for the links and the offer of help...I'll probably be needing it! (well, in a good way..;) Dreadstar † 20:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hey Deskana I wanted to ask a not so quick question. I have preposed a large change to the Dragon Ball Saga pages which would involve the Deletion and moving of lots of articles. Would I Propose this to articles for deletion, merging or all at the same time? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It depends. If you're moving an article, it should not be deleted. Page histories need to be preserved, and all that. Perhaps you could explain a bit more thoroughly what needs doing? --Deskana (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well there are currentally around 20 articles, I was thinking of merging them all into around 8. But seeing as the content is so spread around I just don't know how to go about it. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, eh? Looks like someone has it in for you. What a shame they're talking nonsense. --Deskana (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah so back to my question, would I put this on a proposed merge, move or articles for deletion? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If I understand your brief of the situation correctly, proposed merge would be the best course of action. --Deskana (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 38	17 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Reader survey
Wikimedia treasurer expected to depart soon	WikiWorld comic: "Sarah Vowell"
News and notes: Template standardization, editing patterns, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Mystery of the Druids

The Mystery of the Druids is in need of protection as it's getting hit again. I ask you to do it since I saw you protected it a while ago. Mr.Hotkeys 03:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :D Mr.Hotkeys 19:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. --Deskana (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:CHU/U

This is the right period of time after my usurp-request; is it possible for it to be executed now?--Rambutan (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Secretlondon took care of this for you. Like she said, we try to have lives outside Wikipedia so can't always get to stuff right away :-) --Deskana (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Just A Heads Up

An anon ip has been going around reverting my edits. [7] It seems this account does nothing but vandalize, and hasn't made one constructive edit. I don't know if I'm dealing with this right or not, but I've made my fair share of constructive edits, and have seen people blocked for less than this. Perhaps you have a different take out it, get back to me. Thanks! ^{Erryday I'm} 18:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm, he's not done anything particularly bad recently. Give me a message if he does something silly again. --Deskana (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Request to move my account

I would appreciate it if you could move my account to User:Yahel Guhan. If you can do this, please do. Sefringle^Talk 14:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the reason for your requested renaming? --Deskana (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I like this new name better than my current username, and I am currently in the process of redoing my profile, and I think a new username is the way to go about doing this. Sefringle^Talk 02:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Deskana (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Yahel Guhan 03:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:67.141.27.75

This user made a threat to User:Michael Mad, and is most likely a sock of User:Sonicrules2,please deal with him. Thanks, :). Atomic Religione 03:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

He's now made a death threat to me - - , please take care of this guy. Atomic Religione 18:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. --Deskana (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)`

CU Case

You just declined Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nondistinguished, but I was wondering, could you run a check on the person who requested the check? It's pretty obvious it's a puppet, but it would be hard to pin-point of who at SSP or ANI. Kwsn(Ni!) 22:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not willing to go fishing over some checkuser case, yet. --Deskana (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, your choice and I'll respect that. Any idea on who it would be though without the check? Kwsn(Ni!) 22:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No idea, which is why I didn't want to go fishing. :-) --Deskana (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Former admins

I replied 131.94.145.132 16:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you block the blahblahme account, I obviously used it for bad faith purposes 131.94.145.132 17:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you've not done anything wrong with it. I just didn't realise it was yours. --Deskana (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

See the history of former admins, I used it to provoke an edit war, abusive sock 131.94.145.132 17:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a thought... don't do it again and I don't need to block it. --Deskana (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please block it 131.94.145.132 17:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No. --Deskana (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship - RFA question

Would you, or any other Wikipedia editor, be interested in trying out the procedures at my wiki as suggested at the talk page of WP:RFA. I will give you sysop, bureaucrat, checkuser and steward status, since I'm all of those there.

I don't mind people from here using it as a sandbox for Wikipedia RFA ideas testing.

Thanks, --Solumeiras ^talk 17:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Given you have all of 12 users, I'm not quite sure what you're asking that we test.

• Special:Listusers? I've seen used that before.
• Special:Desysop? The extension is virtually identical to Special:Makesysop which I've used extensively.
• A desysopping procedure? How can we test that with all of 12 users?

I'm not quite sure exactly what you're proposing we test. --Deskana (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Any new ideas for RFA is what I'm suggesting. If new users from here join, then that would be good. It's not for testing technical stuff, but as a sandbox for anything that is not allowed per WP:NOT. --Solumeiras ^talk 17:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what about WP:NOT prohibits us from doing things on Wikipedia. --Deskana (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• If editors create an article that is not permitted on WP:NOT, let them know my wiki is an alternative outlet for such things. --Solumeiras ^talk 18:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So you're advertising your wiki? --Deskana (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Also note that we have http://test.wikipedia.org for tests. Melsaran (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry for advertising that. Yes, I'm aware of the test wiki, but per testwiki:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not I've allowed some stuff that isn't permitted on Wikimedia projects. I'll stop advertising it per WP:EL since I don't really want to spam it.

Apologies for that. If you saw the wikistress level on my talk page... anyway, I'm taking a break now. --Solumeiras ^talk 18:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of disruptive editing of the Rein Lang page

Hello Deskana, You made number of accusations regarding my edits of the Rein Lang page as part of ArbCom Evidence page and I wanted to receive some explanation. You accused me of pushing Russian POV and based your accusations on the following edits:

• [8]
• [9]
• [10]

I would like to see what exactly enraged you in those edits as POV-pushing. From those diffs, it seems to me that my edits were completely devoid of any viewpoint. I did two things:

1. Separated Russian accusations and Estonian reaction, keeping both intact.

2. Provied one-line description of part of Lang's birthday party which had been base of the Russian accusations.

Apparently you have seen something else in my edits, as I can not believe that letting Russian and Estonian statements be presented separately constitute "disruptive dediting". I honestly can not understand what enraged you so much that you administered one-sided ban, as I want to avoid this mistake in the future. I don't want to raise this question on ArbCom page, as I don't see it as part of arbitration in question. Thank you in advance, RJ CG 18:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR resulted in a "one sided ban" since you were the only one that violated it. The content of the reverts in question are irrelevant in the context of a 3RR block. --Deskana (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for misspelling of your nick :( As we established that block was for 3RR, I would like to ask you to remove discussed part from evidence or to rewrite the evidence, as currently it says I blocked RJ_CG for 96 hours with the summary "edit warring on Rein Lang". It doesn't say anything about 3RR violation and creates clear impression that the block was for disruptive edits. I'd like to ask you to change header of this part of your evidence too, as 3RR block does not prove that I edited Rein Lang in a disruptive manner, attempting to push a Russian POV on the article. RJ CG 18:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll change the blocked bit to clarify that the block was also for 3RR, but I'm not changing the rest. I didn't block you for pushing a Russian POV (which I think you're doing, but that's irrelevant in the context of the block). --Deskana (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort. There's one more thing which disturbs me in your Evidence. You state RJ_CG... has edited Rein Lang in a disruptive manner, attempting to push a Russian POV on the article, and using inflammatory edit summaries Then you post three links to prove it. But, as far as I understand, you have no explanation how those edits prove POV pushing or disruptive editing. I would also say that desperate call to allow Russian statements be present as made (not as interpreted by Lang and his allies) hardly constitutes "inflammatory summary", but (1) this is subjective and (2) any member of ArbCom can weigh for him/herself gravity of such a crime. Therefore I would love it if you either (1) make it clear in your evidence statement that "POV pushing and disruptive editing" is opinion of Deskana (which is perfectly fine and acceptable) and it does not supported by links you provided or (2) explain in evidence how those diffs prove "POV pushing and disruptive editing". Thank you again, RJ CG 20:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Trying to convince me that "I feel for fragile state of your brain, but either explain your reverts or seek professional help. WP isn't shrink office." is not an inflammatory edit summary is misguided at best. I'm not changing anything else. --Deskana (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

*shakes fist*

[11] I never get to have any fun. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The score at full time is CheckUser One, Administrator Nil. --Deskana (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you beat me too on that one. Does that make it CU:1, Admin:-1? -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hush Flyguy, you're not helping! EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Flyguy649 goes to unblock and then re-block to even the score. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

91.108.*.*

This jerk is back again, see [12]. Any chance you could work your checkuser magic? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really. CheckUser is for finding the IP ranges, which you obviously know since you've put the range in the header to this thread. --Deskana (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Desysop

Just what is the process to desysop somoeone? I know arbcom can do it, but that is usually a very involved and time-consuming process. Is there another way? I don't want to desysop someone, it's just all the huff and puff on Talk:RFA has me wondering.Rlevse 16:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can convince a steward to emergency desysop someone (which is very hard, rightly so), arbcom is the only way it can be done. --Deskana (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Another sock - -

User:71.28.194.189 , is yet another sock of Sonicrules, do the voodoo that you do Deskana. ;). Atomic Religione 02:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't answer this quicker... since he's not edited from that address for a few days I see no point in blocking it. --Deskana (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your RFA was successful

Thanks, Deskana. I shall do my best to use the tools wisely. Espresso Addict 19:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

redirect woes

sorry to bother you in your time of toothachedness but the redirect at Dodoria redirects it to the section Dodoria at List of extraterrestrials in Dragon Ball but there is no such section. Could you redirect it to the section Freeza instead? I can't because the page was protected due to edit warring. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done - I've gone ahead and made the edit for Deskana (my sympathies on the tooth infection). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks EVula. --Deskana (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 01:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Still here

Still editing, but very slowly ... Hope to be back soon. — Thomas H. Larsen 04:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Great! --Deskana (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding VinceB checkuser

Regarding the tenth checkuser for VinceB that came back stale, does User:Squash Racket edit from the same IP range as previous socks? I expected some indication of that in the checkuser response, though I realize it may have been the privacy policy that prevented you from saying anything (and still does). Please reply here. Thanks.--Chaser - T 07:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Stale means there's no checkuser data, so I can't say whether or not it's true. --Deskana (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My point was that there are IPs (not just accounts) from previous reports, like the fourth RFCU that indicated a 195.56 range, that one could check against.--Chaser - T 16:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still rather ill but I promise I'll check it out as soon as I can. --Deskana (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Get well soon (and not for this little sockpuppetry case, but for the other work you do here). Cheers.--Chaser - T 17:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

How is it that…

How is it that I'm a productive and respected user with a clean block log over 10k edits, and now suddenly I'm a pariah to be insulted (see ANI) and threatened (see your summary) at every turn? This is a serious issue which has had real effects on real peoples' lives: specifically, the lives of Wikipedia contributors.Proabivouac 09:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Trying to play the injured party when you're making edits like that doesn't go down well with me. You're clearly trying to make a point. And there's a difference between a warning and a threat. --Deskana (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Non sequitur: I'm an injured party because of things which are quite independent of anything that occurs on that page.Proabivouac 10:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not of my concern. I have warned you not to try to make a point on policy pages, so please don't. --Deskana (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you at least agree that it should be someone's concern?Proabivouac 10:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really. It was your choice to register under your real name. It's not our fault if there were any consequences due to that. Maybe it's not your fault either, but it's certainly not ours. --Deskana (talk) 10:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is Wikipedia's fault isn't any choice of mine, but the attacks Wikipedia chooses to publish, and the failure of those in authority to honor Wikipedia's own written policies.

Anyhow, what you're saying here, that nothing that happens here, nor any consequences thereof, are Wikipedia's responsibility, and if you ever are stupid enough to edit here under your real name, there probably will be these consequences, is exactly what I'd added to the page. What I want is for Wikipedia to tell potential contributors upfront what you're telling me here: caveat contributor.Proabivouac 10:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And no, I'm not trying to make a point, though I see why you think that, it's based it the cynical assumption that no rational person would care what happens to someone they don't know. False. I defend people all the time, even really really unpopular people. Shock, surprise, even people who can't actually do anything to help or hurt me. It may be too late to spare myself, but warning others what they can expect here is simply the right thing to do.Proabivouac 10:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but not in a way that nobody else approves of. Saying "I'm right and I know I am!!!" will not do anything to convince others that they should not revert your edits, myself included. --Deskana (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User:163.153.27.11

I've just blocked them for a further 3 months and notice that you have them in hand with an abuse report. Please feel free to adjust my block in the light of your report. The 3 months was just a holding period. Thanks, Ian Cairns 19:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That was ages ago. I never did get a reply. Someone else should try I think. --Deskana (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

I've sent you e-mail. — Moe ε 21:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 39	24 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Survey results
Wikimedia announces plans to move office to San Francisco	WikiWorld comic: "Ambigram"
News and notes: Times archives, conferences, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 01:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

CU Question

The way you worded your comment here makes it sound like it's closed. Is that the case, and if so, it's "unnessecary" then? Kwsn(Ni!) 06:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Username change

Thank you! --Fire Star 火星 20:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And again! --Bradeos Graphon 20:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Bearian RfA

Thank you very much. I'll get on that soon, and also change my password ASAP. Bearian 23:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Password changed to more secure one; I will contact you on IRC late or Friday. Bearian 23:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Mentioned

Hi Deskana. Just so you know, an action of your has been mentioned on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's/Evidence. Picaroon (t) 01:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Bearian

Hi, this is Bearian, under my new (legal) sockpuppet account. I don't feel safe editing under non-secure lines, such as an IRC or a library computer, as per advice on my RfA. May I email you next week from the Bearian account? Or email me? Bearian'sBooties 17:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#Cowboycaleb1

I noticed you've moved this case to the "Completed" section, with the statement "Possible." So what does this mean? Surely it can only be either confirmed or not confirmed. Possible tells me nothing. Surely a case can only be closed when there is a result eg. user blocked. Thanks, Davnel03 11:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at liberty to disclose the information that led me to my conclusion. It's possible. It might be the same user, it might not. That's it. Cases are closed when a CheckUser gives their opinion; we can't leave ambiguous cases open for the rest of all time. --Deskana (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

So in other words, I'm never going to find out whether they are related? Davnel03 11:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct. There is no way of telling reliably. --Deskana (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet check

Hey just so you know Davnel03 has now filed a check for sockpuppet case against me see here. It is obvious that he or she is trying to go over your head in your ruling in the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#Cowboycaleb1 case. Cowboycaleb 16:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no I'm not. I just want this whole situation resolved and for all. Davnel03 17:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Deskana...

I just got a message at my talk page with Yankees10 calling me selfish. Just wanted to tell you that it sort of offended me. The discussion was just pure arguments about templates (which the argument was very bad). Sorry. --Louis Alberto Guel 13:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

He continued to change the infobox even though there was no discussion prior to him changing it. You have to have a discussion before you just decide to change a infobox to one that is no longer used for current NFL players--Yankees10 15:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like you're both as bad as each other. --Deskana (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yankees10, just stop sending unnecessary comments and such words like selfish at my talk page. --Louis Alberto Guel 21:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for changing my username. I appreciate it. :) MikeM2010 21:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Legitimate redirects

Are Madara uchiha and Uchiha madara useful redirects? I created Madara Uchiha and Uchiha Madara thinking they would be more proper, hence, the capitalization. I know you're busy with whatever it is you do but please answer this request. Thanks, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it. --Deskana (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

They are potentially unnecessary, but there isn't any harm in doing so. Redirects are cheap. — Thomas H. Larsen 02:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Deskbanana

Someone actually reported this to UAA with the rationale that it was an impersonator. Could you clarify that this is your account with like a signature or something, to prevent this from happening in future? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I chuckled. Thanks, AD. --Deskana (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries. It gave me a laugh too :) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Copyright infringement? Are you sure you don't want the second d capitalised, too?--Deskana (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

yes if necessarysalmo 16:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Remember, Deskbanana is just Deskana with a BAN added. Newyorkbrad 15:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: RfA of AA

He has accepted. See here. Besides, I nominated him upon his explicitly expressed wish. See here and here. He actually prepared his answers even before I nominated him. See here. Goes to show how methodical he is. Please, don't forget to check on his worthiness as an admin. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Explicit acceptance is necessary, but that's not a problem now that he has. I don't typically comment on RfAs as it would affect by ability to close them. --Deskana (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 40	1 October 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"	News and notes: Commons uploaders, Wikimania 2008/2009, milestones
Wikimedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Automatically delivered by COBot 02:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

~*Sigh*~

Here we go again: Talk:Charles_Linden#Innacurate_Content. Mr. Linden is editing the article, and I tend to agree that the information he wishes removed is possibly inaccurate. The material is solely from the source that was a negative review, and the information is used to explain what the "method" is. It seems to me, that a proper description of it, would not come from someone who wrote a negative review, but since that review is not available online, I can't even confirm that the information is correct. Mr. Linden has offered this review as an alternate, could you evaluate that and see if that could be used as a WP:RS? The site is supposedly "The #1 Self Improvement Site Online", and it appears to be an encyclopedia of sorts, but I'm not sure it would pass as an RS. Also, for some reason, Absentis is removing the "response to criticism" section, that we had worked quite hard on getting right, perhaps as a mistake, I don't know. I won't make judgments about a fellow editor who in the past was extremely helpful, but I'd really appreciate it if you could at some point, take a look at the newest talk page comments and perhaps weigh in, as it seems that Mr. Linden and Absentis are not seeing eye to eye anymore. ^Ariel♥Gold 03:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's an opinion page. Opinion pages from some website we've never heard before aren't exactly "reliable sources". --Deskana (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought, but wanted to be sure when I said it isn't usable. Now, the issue is that I do not think that this other source (this Anxious Times newsletter) is a WP:RS, as a members-only newsletter put out by a medical clinic and not a peer-review journal, academic journal, etc., it is not available in public libraries or university libraries. (This is the ref that has been the source of contention, that is not verifiable online). Because Absentis has verified he has a copy, he's been using it to write in a portion of the article. Yet it was a negative review, written by someone Mr. Linden calls a "competitor" and really would not seem to me, something that's neutral to use when explaining this "method" thing. Mr. Linden is now wishing the whole section and reference be removed from the article. I don't want to get involved in an edit war with Absentis, who was really helpful initially with this whole issue, but he feels that this "Anxious Times" newsletter is a reliable source. The thing is, I really have no opinion, I have never heard of Mr. Linden, or his program. I agree with Absentis that Mr. Linden's descriptions on the talk page can't be used unless backed up by a source, but at the same time, I don't agree this other source is valid. But I also know that if I remove it, he's going to place it back, because it has been in the article uncontested for so long. (Granted, I didn't realize this was not a real publication, but still). I'm really at a loss as to what else I'm able to do, without getting in a silly edit war over it, which I refuse to do. ^Ariel♥Gold 00:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Help with problems with image licensing

Hi Deskana, I am a new user here at Wikipedia. I am a big fan of airplanes and I live in Mexico so I decided to make this page and inserted five images, as you can see in the spaces lacking them. I was warned about their delition, so I requested Hydra Technologies (the company that provided the pictures and actually made the airplane captured in them) to send by e-mail the proper OTRS permission form, which I forwarded to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org; in other words, the whole drill required to make the images stick happened. Still, the images have been deleted, can you help me out? Can you check the status on their clearence

If you need additional information to check if the mail arrived, here it is: My e-mail address: eldalieva@hotmail.com. The e-mail address from the contact at Hydra Technologies: daguilar@hydra-technologies.com. I can't remember the heading but it was something like: "Permission form images Hydra Technologies".

Thanks in advance and cheers from Mexico!

Eldalieva 22:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Eldalieva

Hi Deskana. Thanks for the response. As you requested, I send the proper e-mail that you required since Thursday. Do you have any news? If the mail didn't arrive or you need additional information please let me know so I can compensate. Thanks for everything and cheers!

Cheers! 23:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Eldalieva

Closure of MFD

Deskana, typically I would agree with you, but reform talks elsewhere lead nowhere. I figured putting it on a high-profile place such as MFD would help promote discussion and bring a wider audience to the issues. I'm not going to revert, I just wish you would reconsider your early closure. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sensible close. WP:RFC/POLICY is where to take majorly policy reform proposals. Nomination of pages intrinsically linked to policy at MfD is unhelpful and were it not for the respect I have for the nom, I would consider the action rather pointy... WjBscribe 16:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The RFC is much better than the MFD. I have already added some views. I do not plan to revert my close. --Deskana (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

'Crat Question

Per this thread, would it be appropriate to remind users who change their usernames to create a new account under their old name? I just recreated my old account (Pats Sox Princess) to avoid such a problem. Sasha Callahan 21:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, probably a good idea. --Deskana (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tazchook

This was either my first or second RFCU. You declined it. I don't remember if I submitted another RFCU before it but, if I did, it was declined as well. Can you explain to me your reasoning for declining this one so that I can understand better what the criteria are for an RFCU? Thanks. --Richard 06:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

For a start "Code A" clearly states "List in the IP check section" which you didn't do. Secondly, I wasn't convinced by your evidence tying them together at all. --Deskana (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

IRC

First, a belated thank you very much for your most-welcome "your RfA was successful" message...! I'm looking into setting up a cloak and getting access to the admin IRC, but wasn't sure what to choose as a cloak...do we normally just use our Wikipedia usernames or pick something more..well...cloaky...;) Thanks! Dreadstar † 17:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Islam and antisemitism

User: Sefringle (nor User:Yahel Guhan) has responded neither to me nor to User:Hiev (both of us made comments weeks ago). In fact, Yahel Guhan hasn't edited the mediation talk page since 15 September, yet is now indiscriminately reverting others edits, without any explanation at all.[13]

I recommend protecting the article and continuing with meditation. How do you think we should solve this?Bless sins 19:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Heavy Brother

I am not sure why the matter was declined, as the person who was using hte account seemed to be someone I was involved in a contact dispute with, who reported me twice for 3RR violations which I was not guilty of. It fulfills the criteria of harassment. I would very much like to know who a) is stalking my accounts and b) only uses this alternative account to attack me. I am not sure why i am not allowed to know who the primary account owner is. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. --Deskana (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I forgot how manyof these types of issues you must come across on a daily basis.

Order of events:

1 I initiated a checkuser search after the second 3RR was filed by user Heavy Brother, as the account had no other purpose but be used to attack me specifically, as indicated by his account history.

2 Comment by Future Perfect at Sunrise (you might recall him as the admin who was so very polite at the image removal fiasco this summer) erroneously states that the matter is resolved, and that the report was misfiled anyway. FutPerf is also notable for having acted on the first 3RR complaint filed by Heavy Brother, which resulted in a 24-hour block for me.

3 Declination to pursue by user Deskana, without explanation.

4 Checkuser request archived less than a day later.

You declined to process a checkuser request on a user (Heavy Brother) utilizing a single-purpose sock account for over a month to report me repeatedly and erroneously for 3RR. I submitted the report because that qualified as an attack account, and I wanted to know who the original user was, if for no other reason than to allow me to be on my guard with them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Firstly, the request was misplaced. Code A requests are listed in the IP section, which are requests to block the underlying IP of vandals. If you wanted me to check accounts against each other, then it should have been listed in the main section with a different code letter. Secondly, FutPerf's comment was what lead me to decline. The matter seemed resolved. --Deskana (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, and Deskana, please forgive my interruption: The only person still keeping this alive is you, Arcayne. That user did exactly what I told them to: ceased using that account immediately upon finding out that it was not allowed as a single-purpose account. There have been no contributions since 9/25 from that account. This matter is closed. There is no further need for you to keep this alive. - Philippe | Talk 14:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Deskana, thanks for responding. Yes, it was only my second time siling a checkuser, and was unclear as to which code it better applied to. As well, I can see how you would have thought from FutPerf' erroneous comments that the matter had indeed been resolved. Clearly, someone forgot to let me know I was happy with the resolution.

Philippe, thank you for responding on this as well as my Talk page as well. I will say what I did there. I don't care if the person has ceased to use this one single-purpose attack account; who is to say that they cannot just start up another one? It isn't like the primary user account is on your watchlist - you yourself said the matter is resolved, so you certainly don't plan to moniitor to see if this person isn't going to create another sock. On the other hand, if I knew who the primary account was, I could be on my guard with them in the future. I should have a right to know who set the account up in the first place, as it was specifically designed to be an attack account directed solely towards me. I am not really sure why FutPerf said the matter was resolved, but I do not consider the matter resolved; I would like to know who the primary account user is. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

DBZ portal

Can you delete all of those selected articles in the Dragon Ball portal except this one. We only need the main one now (Goku's), the rest aren't appropiate. While some even have fair use images, I really don't see the need for any of them. Ah, if there is anything you can do to update the unfinished portal, by all means, I'd appreciate it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Try tagging them for deletion using {{db}}, you'll probably get a quicker response. --Deskana (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

AA's RFA

Deskana, thank you for closing my RFA and sorry for the late reply - my net connection decided to go AWOL at the crucial time! Cheers. → AA ^(talk) — 13:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Poison the Well, Deadriene16, and Deadriene

Hi I notice you assisted User Deadriene16 in becoming User:Poison the Well. I also notice that in both identities, he made a HUGE number of edits to User:Deadriene, as seen here: [14]. Is this some sort of sock violation, or just bizarre editing pattern? Do you know what's going on here? I ask because after being the first to comment on his user page, it's in my watchlist, and I continue to notice him working on this page. ThuranX 04:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like userspace theft to me. Perhaps you should leave a note on WP:ANI asking an admin to clear it up. --Deskana (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Usurpation

Hey - it's not a huge deal, but there are about five requests waiting to be filled. I asked Secretlondon, but she hasn't signed on since the eighth. I noticed that you are online right now; do you think you could take care of them? Thanks. i ^said 22:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. --Deskana (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Dirty rat

You dirty rat! I had Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RedirectCleanupBot all queued up to go, but I got the edit conflict and user is already an admin message. :) You must have had quick reflexes because I didn't flinch much. Nice work - Taxman ^Talk 01:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on becoming the first crat' to grant adminship to a bot, releasing a blood thirsty binary-runned machine to the world... that is evil! :-) - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Taxman. I had all the tabs open because I wanted to be the one to do it ;-) --Deskana (talk) 08:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

RedirectCleanupBot

Just as a heads up, since you've already given RedirectCleanupBot his sysop flag, you will need to get a steward to grant +bot status. Sysops cannot be given bot status due to how Special:Makebot is set up. I had raised this issue here, but I suppose no Bureaucrats saw it (it reminded you guys that you need to set +bot then +sysop, not the other way around). Just a friendly reminder, as you were the one closing the RFA. Thanks, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I knew, thanks for the reminder. I'll be contacting a steward when the time comes to flag. --Deskana (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This may be early

But... come November 1st, I was thinking about maybe putting in a nomination for you for ArbCom. What you say? Kwsn(Ni!) 12:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite a few people have indicated to me that they'd be happy with me running. I'm still considering it. Thanks for the offer. --Deskana (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

		With thanks!
		Thanks for participating in my RfA, which closed successfuly. Actually, you'd probably noticed tht, you did close it ;-). I leave you with a picture of the real Blood Red Sandman! Note his 'mop' is slightly deadlier than mine! - - Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As for access to the admin channel, as I don't have a client installed right now, and instead use the portal at java.freenode.net, I cannot accept that at the moment. Now I'm an admin, though, I should really get a clent and a cloak. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Asana

Dear Deskana,

I've got a question on the article of asana, where I've got some strange feeling on how edits are going. There have been some edits recently by anonymous users (69.177.114.230, 69.0.51.55, 69.182.29.155, 69.37.154.146, 69.177.190.20, 69.177.191.117, 64.252.196.99) that all are from Richardson, Texas and Sadhaka accuses me of starting an edit war, without editing in the article himself. I have a feeling that I am played with here, and that here is just one and the same person concerned, who is anonymously trying to undermine my integrity and imposing a personal point of view to the article. Since you have a check user, could you please find out whether Sadhaka - who claimes here to not have done two reverts - is the same person as the one that did those edits: edit 1, edit 2? If that is so, it may have something to do with the fact that I asked for protection of the article some week ago, against the edits of Empacher was. It might be important to check of him as well if he comes from Richardson, Texas. Thank you in advance. Davin7 12:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Please file a request on WP:RFCU, laying out your information clearly. I try to work through them in chronological order, when I have time. --Deskana (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Davin7 17:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you free?

Any chance you can take a look at pthis? As you can tell I'm quite annoyed by it. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at this to find that Cecropia had just indicated the user has simply signed up the new account. Not much to do now, really. --Deskana (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Bot flag

Hey Deskana, would you be willing to flag User:NeraBot for me? It has been approved. Thank you, I'd really appreciate it! Love, Neranei (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Done it. --Deskana (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Neranei (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User name change

Hi Deskana, yes, I figured that was obvious - avoid the bot. I'm taking steps to legitimize the new page including joining a project and having others look at the page. Changing my username is just one step. Plus, I really would like my own personal username for making edits to other pages as I can. Thanks for understanding. TDHCAuser 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

thans for thanking from matalababu--> blogeswar thanks again ...--Blogeswar 20:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of User:Sefringle/userboxes

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on User:Sefringle/userboxes, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because User:Sefringle/userboxes is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting User:Sefringle/userboxes, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 09:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 42	15 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Brion Vibber interview
Wikimania 2008 awarded to Alexandria	Board meeting held, budget approved
Wikimedia Commons reaches two million media files	San Francisco job openings published
Community sanction noticeboard closed	Bot is approved to delete redirects
License edits under consideration to accommodate Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Soramimi Kashi"
News and notes: Historian dies, Wiki Wednesdays, milestones	Wikimedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

re: IRC

Not where I can get on IRC atm - got Gtalk? ~ Riana ⁂ 19:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, i'm back, so i thought i better let you know. By the way, why did you protect my old talk page ? i was waiting for Mangojuice to decide if i was going to be unblocked or not, then you just decided to protect the page which meant i couldn't even give my side of the story. look right>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>well done 19:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you know about this but since you just blocked him can you please close that report? - Rjd0060 20:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Deskana (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering how that personal attack page disappeared and then I see you are a b'crat...Thanks for your help! - Rjd0060 20:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And I'm wondering the reason you deleted that info from my page. - Rjd0060 20:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:DENY. He clearly wants attention. He's not going to get any. Revert, block, ignore. --Deskana (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No offense but I am going to restore that information, which will soon be archived. He is blocked so it shouldn't be a problem. I don't necessarily agree 100% with that essay because the vandal's already get attention by being vandals. If I am asked a question, I will answer it, and expect the same from other editors and vandals alike. I never delete content from my talk page and I archive it all. - Rjd0060 20:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Your choice, however please do not reply to any further messages on his talk page. I will handle them if it is necessary :-) --Deskana (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont plan on it, but he just requested unblock - Rjd0060 21:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Please do not add arbitrary requests for a protection expiry time to your request

I'm using WP:TWINKLE and just using its templates. I assume from the fact you are removing all the requested times that this is no longer permitted. You might want to notify the WP:TWINKLE developer that he is doing the wrong thing with his templates. I expect a message from you might motivate a change more than something I say to him. --NrDg 21:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User:AzaToth has modified TWINKLE accordingly, see this. Thanks for the suggestion. --Deskana (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this issue a while ago, but as I consider page protection to be a last-resort, I tended to always choose a rather short protection time. I'm not a coder, so I honestly don't really understand the code change. Does this fix basically mean that if the drop-down box is left on "indefinite", it will omit any "suggestion" of a time from the submission request? Ariel♥Gold 22:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A quick test shows that whenever I try requesting protection, the default is an null string (empty option), rather than indefinite. If they don't click anything, it omits a choice and simply requests "full protection" or "semi protection" as far as I'm aware. --Deskana (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I saw your test, but I just did it and it still defaults to "indefinite" without a null option for me. Odd. Hrmm... Ariel♥Gold 22:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Try a forced refresh. That's Ctrl-F5 in most browsers. Sometimes it helps to refresh your monobook.js too. --Deskana (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Born to be a Beurocrat

This song reminded me of you for some reason,

Hermes: When I was four there was a hurricane in Kingston Town With a foot and a half of water. Everyone was alright, but I cried all night, It blew my alphabet blocks out of order.

And they said, 'This boy's born to be a bureaucrat', Born to be all obsessive and snotty. I made my friends and relations, file long applications To get into my tenth birthday party.

LaBarbara: But something changed when my man turned pro. Hermes: I was sortin', but I wasn't smilin'. LaBarbara: He forgot that it's not about badges and ranks. Hermes: It's supposed to be about the filing.

People, we didn't choose to be bureaucrats, No, that's what almighty Jah made us. We treat people like swine, and make 'em stand in line, Even if nobody paid us.

They say the world looks down on the bureaucrats, They say we're anal, compulsive, and weird. But when push comes to shove, you gotta do what you love Even if it's not a good idea.

Zoidberg: They said I probably shouldn't be a surgeon. Farnsworth: They pooh-poohed my electric frankfurter. Leela: They said I probably shouldn't fly with just one eye. Bender: I am Bender, please insert girder.

Hermes: Everybody sing 'Jamaica'! Everyone: Jamaica!

Hermes: Just the Bureaucrats. Bureaucrats: Jamaica!

Hermes: Sing me Home! When push comes to shove, you gotta do what you love Even if it's not a good idea.

Hahaha, couldnt help it. Later. Atomic Religione 23:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

RFCU on Asad Aleem

• Hi. Sorry to trouble you, but I think I listed the wrong kind of vandalism on the RFCU; it should be G, as most of what the guy does is confined to his and his sock's user spaces. JuJube 00:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hiya

Hi. Just thought I should elaborate. I am objecting to the RFCU because I believe Prester John takes a content issue rather than a policy based "sock puppet" issue with my edits. If Prester wishes to gain an insight into my edits or me as a person he could just approach me. I really really hate confrontation but I will not be passive as someone manipulates the rules for his/her own games. I'm sure you understand, thanks --Danny 17 09:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Damn, that's bad news about the checkuser on the above editor. There is no doubt the behaviour is the same, they all read the same. He must be editing from college now. Thanks for keeping an eye on the situation. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 14:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Deskana - further to your advice. Would it be still acceptable for me to edit List of Mosques? This is my favourite article. --Danny 17 14:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Case closed?

Why did you close the islam and antisemitism mediation? Yahel Guhan 00:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I said why. None of you were contributing to the mediation, none of you could reach a compromise, and (even more unacceptably) you continued edit warring. This is not the basis for a compromise. --Deskana (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Deskana, just to clear up, I had responded and was waiting for Yahel Guhan's response. But regarding the other points you are correct (we did revert and we did not reach compromise). Where do we go form here?Bless sins 00:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This now seems more like a user conduct issue than a conduct issue. I may refer this to the arbitration committee. --Deskana (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

RE:CHU

Apologies, I thought it was the right action. Thanks for correcting it. Rudget _{Contributions} 16:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Recreated again

Hey Deskana, Over 9000 was recreated again, could you delete it, again? Is there anyway to block this from being recreated permenetally? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Would Siddhartha be deemed appropriate by username policy standards? It is a very common name in Asia. Kevin 22:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, a username should not be blocked simply because it is common :). — Thomas H. Larsen 03:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

SNOWed RFA

Hi, I just closed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jason Quinn early per WP:SNOW. If you have some time, could you make sure I did everything right. I added the templates, removed "Voice Your Opinion", took it off the RFA page, and added it to unsuccessful RFAs in the J section. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 02:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

CHU

Good Afternoon, Deskana. I'd like to bring to your attention a user who has been denied a new username by Secretlondon (See:this section) and has now started to add more and more requests. I have come to because of your advice the other day, and seen as you're a bureaucrat I thought you were best placed to carry out the requested action. Could the new section be removed? Regards, Rudget _{Contributions} 15:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Reg. Checkuser for User:Mudaliar

Hi, Per your recommendation, I have made the requested clarification at [15] for Checkuser of User:Mudaliar

thanks, Ramki one 21:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC).

Regarding Kraken7

I was prompted to post this case in association with the sockpuppet case, asking for checkuser investigation to help confirm the wrongdoer. If this case is wrongly posted or premature, I apologize for the good-faith error, but my prompter was an admin who'd reviewed the sockpuppet case evidence before it was opened. BusterD 18:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Haemo has made more specific request on my behalf. Thanks for working the process. BusterD 18:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Usurpations

I was reading WP:CHU/U. You rejected someone's usurpation requests because someone made a mainspace edit. I have an interest in usurpsing Sophia (talk · contribs), who has also made exactly one mainspace edit, except this one was to wikify a word instead of rewrite a sentence. Does this qualify for usurption? hbdragon88 02:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello there! Been a while

Hey Deskana. Been a busy month for me. Finally have some free time to edit now. Think I'll be back on the Wiki in full force again on Monday. I'll be on MSN if you want to talk. Hope you're doing all right man. -- bulletproof ^3:16 17:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)