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.

I beg your pardon

My addition of {{Blp}} to Talk:Jesus is perfectly valid. 141.157.82.181 03:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oh no!! - Alison ☺ 04:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• If you have some substantive, concrete evidence to show that the subject is still alive, then we might entertain it. What are the possibilities that the subject may start a lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation? - Alison ☺ 04:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• As someone who is quite certain that he is living, let me say that I am also pretty sure that (a) there's no lawsuit in the making, and (b) he has better things to do than keep his wikipedia page watchlisted. Pastordavid 20:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank goodness for point (a). As for (b), He's omnipresent, so I'd say it's on His watchlist. And you were wondering who was doing all the anon vandal reverts ;) - Alison ☺ 23:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have proof that I'm not King of America

His contributions have Picross DS in it and I never have visited that page before. --Coconutfred73 05:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

pokemon merges

just wanted to ask if there's any reason to prefer merging histories over leaving them on redirect pages in cases of complicated histories (+2). I just moved Eevee evolutionary line out of my userspace and since it was made up of seven different articles, opted to just leave a link to them all on the talk page. Is there a policy or guideline prohibitng this? could you respond on my talk page? it seems yours is very active and i'd prefer to not watchlist it. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 21:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

i'm sorry to bother you, but i just can't find anything that says source info needs to be in the history section of the new article. the only thing i could find regarding redircts and mergers was at WP:MERGE which states what i already thought, that redirects can be used to preserve histories. i tried to do a trivial edit and link everything in the edit summary but ran out of room. i think it would be better to leave the edit histories separate just because they're somewhat complicated... is there a way you can edit my past edit summaries? because then you could put in a permalink for each edit when i originally created the aticle. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 13:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Talkheader

I don't know if this is helpful, do you have a bot that can add the talkheader template to all the article talk pages? I believe it is only for trivial articles anyway, not the policy/guideline-related pages. Lord Sesshomaru

The story that never ends

I confronted the mediator over this, as it's getting ridiculous. If he doesn't respond in the next few weeks after he's due back from his holiday, maybe you should file another arb request. John Smith's 00:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfB

Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.

I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Upside down signature

Hi Deskana. I just saw your signature for the first time. Looks great! Have you received any complaints from stodgy Wikipedians? Are their any copycats? -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ-- ɹɐɟ os sʇuıɐƮdɯoɔ ou ʇnq ‘ʍǝıʌǝɹ ɹoʇıpǝ uɐ uo ‘ʇuǝɯɯoɔ ǝuo ʇoɓ I ¡ʇɐɔʎdoɔ ʎʇɹıp ǝɥʇ sı ɐuɐʞsǝp

So there are two of you! Thanks for the suggested signature, ɐqǝɟ, on my talk page. I may use it on special occasions. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If only April 1 wasn't so far away... EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

Finally someone has the balls to try out for RFB! Would you mind answering the question I posited to your RFB? bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 23:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Busy at the minute but I'll check it out soon. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 23:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I hate it when that happens. :) bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 00:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Need indef block for vandal only

I can't put this at AIV because the bot removes it, this account is blocked for 24 hours, but it has only done vandalism and spamming and needs an indef block. Thanks. Until(1 == 2) 01:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I did consider that (I'm the blocking admin), but I prefer to err on the side of caution. If the user continues spamming after this block, I will block indef. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 01:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it has been taken care of. Thanks. Until(1 == 2) 01:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Duhhh, sorry, I was thinking of a totally different situation. I'm not the blocking admin at all. Apologies. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 01:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The RfA

You may want to read my response to you. :) Acalamari 01:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, heh; don't worry about it! :) You may want to drop the support back down to 100, unless of course someone else supports before you have the chance to change it. Acalamari 02:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Striking that. Acalamari 02:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Font?

Hey Deskana, I was just wondering what font you're are using for your sig. Everytime I see your sig, all I see are squares and I'm wondering if I need to upgrade my fonts. If it's some language other than English, I won't bother... User:SGT Tex 02:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Microsoft Word, it's a mix of Times New Roman and MS Mincho. I'd never even heard of the latter. I copied the characters from some website, I can't remember what now. I'll change it if I find out lots of people can't read it. Are you using Internet Explorer by any chance? It wouldn't surprise me if it didn't work in IE. If you are, get Firefox! It's better :-p --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 02:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Yep, I'm using IE. I know, I know, I'm stuck in the past, but hey, I'm resistent to change. So sue me...--SGT Tex 02:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

LEGAL THREAT!!!! Sound the alarm. And get Firefox :-p --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 02:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it's a matter of font, but of Unicode character support. see [http://www.tlg.uci.edu/help/UnicodeTest.html this test page (scroll down past the font list) --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 02:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

OK...now I (think) I know why it's not showing up on my browser, but what do you recommend I do to make it show up correctly?--SGT Tex 02:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Look up guides on how to make unicode work, maybe check out the computing reference desk. It will depend a lot on your browser, OS, etc. It might be as simple as View -> Character Encoding -> Uunicode, or it might be more complex --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 02:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

How about changing your signature so that all Wikipedians can see it? A•N•N•A hi! 02:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of things on Wikipedia that rely on Unicode support. There is no reason to discriminate against one type. The signature is still usable, even if it's a bunch of boxes, so it's not worth complaining about. --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 02:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to cause a ruckus, I just wasn't seeing the sigs and I thought it would be easy to fix. Sorry to make a big deal about everything. Sheesh, just drop it...--SGT Tex 02:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. You didn't do anything wrong :-) --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 03:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry!

Sorry for voting twice! I got mixed up. --Banana 03:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I forgive you ;-) --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 03:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

RfB question

I've asked an optional question on your RfB, the same as I have asked of all current RfB candidates. Walton^talk 14:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've opposed you, based on your answer to the question. It's nothing personal; I am using the same question as a litmus test for every bureaucrat-candidate. See wikidemocratism for a better explanation of why I am voting this way. Walton^talk 14:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I knew you'd oppose anyway, even before you asked the question. --Deskana (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

How? Walton^talk 14:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

EVula's RfB. You asked the same question there. You should read what Cecropia said on EVula's RfB in response to your question. --Deskana (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I missed Cecropia's comments, and I'm glad you notified me. I've given a response to Cecropia's query here. I understand that it seems unfair to ask a candidate to decide on such a controversial issue - but I don't even understand why it was a controversial issue. Indeed, I don't see why we can't have an automated bot instead of bureaucrats, as I explained on Cecropia's talkpage. Walton^talk 14:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a matter which has been discussed at great lengths on WT:RFA. Were you involved in the discussion? I'm pretty sure someone recommended we switch over to the German system. I asked you a question on my RfB, too. This is the reason RfBs have been failing so much. Anyone that says its a vote gets shot down by people saying "It's NOT a vote!" (Dmcdevit, for instance). Anyone that says it isn't gets shot down by people saying "It should be a vote!". Do you really think I'd be a bad bureaucrat, bsaed on the fact that I thought an RfA so close to the discretionary zone should pass, considering the fact I supported it? I did say I wouldn't involve myself in the bureaucrat chat. If you really think I'd be an awful bureaucrat, then I won't pester you further. --Deskana (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, you're not "pestering me", I'm happy to discuss this at length. And no, I don't think you'd be an "awful" bureaucrat, per se. You're a good admin - a better one than I am - and I do not believe that you would ever act in bad faith, or intentionally abuse your powers. If you were running for ArbCom or the Board, I would support you. However, I believe the current bureaucrat system is a problem. It genuinely worries me that admins and bureaucrats - who ought to be functionaries to carry out the expressed will of the community - are becoming too powerful in their own right. And, in response to your other comment, I know RfB is a fairly unpleasant and wikipolitical process. It's rather like a Senate confirmation hearing for the US Supreme Court - wherever you stand on abortion or affirmative action, you get shot down by either the conservative or liberal camp. But that's how it has to be, given the massive power that bureaucrats currently exercise. Sorry about this lengthy post - I guess what I'm trying to say is, don't be hurt by my Oppose vote. I have confidence in you generally, I just can't support you to be a bureaucrat at this time. Walton^talk 14:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I should also clarify that, although the question was about Danny's RfB, it was just an example - I was using it as a litmus test to see where you stood generally on RfA closures, as I did for all the other candidates. Walton^talk 14:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that despite this (rather large) agreement, we both understand that the other is acting in good faith. In some respects, I wish everyone was like us. Disputes frequently turn into arguments about AGF rather than actually about the dispute. Anyway, I find it a bit puzzling that you find it acceptable that no RfBs are passing. I wonder whether you like this because when there are no bureaucrats available for promotions, you'll propose a bot system and expect it to be accepted? Secondly, Danny's RfB is only "against the consensus of the community" if you assume RfA is a vote, which it isn't. I know you want it to be, but it is a statement of fact that at present, RfA isn't a vote simply because there have been passes with lower support than fails. --Deskana (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am very selective about RfBs. However, I'm not sure it's any longer true to say that "no RfBs are passing", as I think yours may well pass, as may some of the others recently opened. Also note that I have offered Weak Support to A Man in Black on his RfB; he cleverly avoided giving a straight answer to my question, but he has at least accepted the broad numerical thresholds of 70-80%. So this isn't all some devious plan to bring the bureaucrat system crashing down. :-) To your other point, I agree that it's good that we each recognise each other's good faith. I also recognise that the bureaucrats who promoted Danny acted in good faith, it's just that their idea of what improves the encyclopedia is different from mine on one issue - but that doesn't make them, or you, bad editors. Walton^talk 15:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

RfBs have a habit of crashing and burning. Although mine hasn't done that yet, I never did expect it to pass. I apologise if I implied you have a evil master plan, that's not quite what I meant. --Deskana (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hornetman16

Sorry, I'm just really frustrated with him right now. That probably was inappropriate, but he really seemed like he was going to change for the better. I'm more disappointed with him than anything else at this point --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 15:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy

Hi. Did you (or somebody else) unprotect this page? Some bot deleted the protection tag. It has been SO nice and peaceful since you protected it a few weeks ago. -- Elaich ^talk 16:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The protection expired yesterday. --Deskana (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

no

I don't listen to anything Michael mad ans Sonic hog has to saySonicrules3 17:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)