User talk:Deskana/Archive 13

Recoome sockpuppet
I happened to come across this. I do recall you telling me that it is pointless to tag his ips (since his ip hops) but he blanked the userpage of User:Vug. Is that allowed due to WP:SOCK? Lord Sesshomaru
 * No, it's not allowed, but given that was like three weeks ago, blocking would be pointless. --Deskana (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not the blocking I'm worried about, it's the blanking of User:Vug. The account may have been created before Recoome's, but as you said in that block, it was used to nominate an edit to sway consensus for Recoome. I'm thinking about reverting just this, I could care less about the ips since I'm not dealing with those anymore. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru
 * I've indiscriminately rolled-back all the edits of that IP. Nothing to worry about, now. :-) --Deskana (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Alexf (t/c) 23:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoa there, mister. I declined your request. It wasn't blanking. --Deskana (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies. I saw a removal of the deletion request (by another user). The article looks too short and bogus as it talk of "alleged" issues with the group. I did not realize you were an Admin and you were denying request, not blanking until I saw your explanation. Won't happen again. Alexf (t/c) 01:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's okay, it's an easy mistake to make, but you might want to pay attention to the edit summaries users write since I explained what I was doing in my edit summary. --Deskana (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: database lag
Haha, I wonder why renames are so database-intensive. When I renamed mav it must have been crazy.... Andre (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow! It seems like it would make more sense if they stored edits by UID and had that as a symbolic link to the name, or something. But then again, MediaWiki code looks like gibberish to me, so it's probably much more complicated than the way I'm describing it. Andre (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your Babel templates say php-2 and sql-3... figure it out! ;P Andre (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That was a laggy one for some reason, the user only had 42 edits. Andre (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm lost
What is it that I'm doing wrong here? There are two archives, as seen on the Hannibal Lecter talk page but I can't seem to put it in that newly made box. What's missing? Lord Sesshomaru

Deletion of Rimi Dhar
Hi. I was wondering why you deleted the Rimi Dhar article when there was clearly no conclusion reached to whether the article should be deleted or not on it's talk page:. You didn't even provide a final argument/reason for deleting the article on the discussion page or in the summary box. Please restore the article until a final verdict is reached. Thank You - Bhavesh.Chauhan 04:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I was waiting for my first big admin f-up, and there it is! I'll move it (and the 13 I deleted) to the right spot.  Thanks for the tip and the understanding.  --  But | seriously | folks   09:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Block on New England

 * Deskana I have blocked New England for one week for the comments he made about me on TomStar's nomination talk page and my own. He accused me of nominating him for having nominated me.  That was provably false.  He did not nominate me, Stillstudying did, and Tom only formatted the nomination.  Further, the links he placed showed that I never said, as he claimed, that I nominted him in return for nominating me.  I blocked him for 24 hours, and lifted it after telling him I would block him again if he continued false statements. I warned him that continued false statements would result in another blocking, and he made additional false statements last night on the RfA talk page. He stated I have no right to block him for making false statements - but my friend, at some point, I do have to do just that, or give up any pretense of enforcing our policies!  This was so obviously wrong that I felt I had to act this morning when I read it.  I have blocked him for one week for making false accusations.  I did come and make you aware of it, so you will review it. I hope you will support me, and make a stand for our policies on false accusations and wikipedia assume good faith which he has grossly violated. I cannot stay on wikipedia if users are allowed to simply lie about us, repeatedly, without any consequences!  I spent at least 20 hours a week working on articles, and I try to get along with everyone, but I simply cannot stand by and let this person continue to lie about me.  You are a fair person, and I wanted to let you know what I did, and I hope you will support me. old windy bear 09:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Deskana I was away for the weekend and missed all this. I can only say that I nominated oldwindybear, and any person who can read knows that. The lies against him are contemptable. I hope you back his block, what are rules for if no one enforces them? Are we free just to make up things on people? I hope not. Stillstudying 11:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * With respect, Stillstudying, "block the guy forever" is a totally ridiculous statement, and makes me view what you say with suspicion. --Deskana (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Deskana Yes, that was silly, wasn't it? I let my emotions get the best of me sometimes, (sigh).  I posted a small note that it was myself who nominated the bear on TomStar's nomination page, hopefully that clarifies that, without violating your bann.  I am gone from wikipedia except for following up on this matter.  Thanks for your courtesy.Stillstudying 13:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

RFPP
I responded as well, with this. Do you think that was a good action? Acalamari 19:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/TomStar81
Hi, Deskana, regarding this, I took TomStar81's post as meaning that he was withdrawing his candidacy, and wished for it to be closed. I don't know if he has absolutely made up his mind, but I think it's certainly what he meant. Hopefully everyone will calm down now. I thought it was a good idea to close the discussion at the noticeboard. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out, Elinor. Somehow I managed to miss that sentence. I'll close the nomination now. --Deskana (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for closing my rfa. And don't feel to badly about missing the sentence, my spelling sucks, so you proabably couldn't read it. Have a good day. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ping
I have the sinking feeling that talk page messages whose sole purpose is to say "you have email" are redundant and annoying. However, "you have email". --barneca (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a request for check user. It can be found here. Thank you for your suggestions, and sorry it stressed you out. I should have done it myself from the very beginning. --barneca (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment at User_talk:Ali@gwc.org.uk
I'm a little confused at your comment at User talk:Ali@gwc.org.uk regarding the user's name. The user has been here for three years. Email addresses in usernames are perfectly acceptable for older accounts. I'm assuming you just didn't notice it was an older account, considering that you used a cookie-cutter warning message usually reserved for new accounts. --- RockMFR 01:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that e-mail addresses are no longer allowed to be used as usernames means that they are inappropriate, because they could get caught by crawlers and recieve spam. If they choose to ignore my username concern, they're welcome to and I won't think anything more of it, because they're the only one that is potentially harmed by doing so. --Deskana (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Admin request
Well, I would just like to say that at least you take this RfA seriously, unlike some others, and you can see the discussion I posted on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. I was only trying to be nice and friendly, but, yes, looking back on it now it seems very foolish - I was probably just a little too excited. Well done for taking matters seriously, which is better than can be said of others (see that discussion).  Lra drama 08:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to add a comment in that section, but I don't really have anything to add. --Deskana (talk) 10:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile!


SLSB has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. For helping me with my WP:CHU! SLSB 13:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.
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 20:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sockpuppetry
Ah, not a problem. :-)

(In any case, the situation seems to have calmed itself now, with hopefully minimal long-term damage.) Kirill 14:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Re RfC / Mediation case regarding User:Digwuren
Hi FayssalF. I was wondering, if I were to unblock Digwuren on the strict condition that he only used his unblock to participate in an RfC and/or mediation case, would you object? --Deskana (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course not. If it would make Wikipedia a better place, yeah! Which RfC by the way? -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  19:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He suggested it would be an RfC on him, and his conduct, presumably with the end hopes of being unblocked permenantly. Thank you, I just wanted to run this by you. --Deskana (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries Deskana. Could we please announce this at the AN/I? -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  19:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

SLG
Just as a matter of thoroughness, User:R/SL was deleted in addition to the MfD, but this page was not discussed at all. It was just deleted. If you could restore it until a decision is reached, I'd appreciate it. I  (said)  (did) 23:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I've undeleted all the stuff, now. --Deskana (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So quick. Thanks much. I   (said)  (did) 23:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

SLG undelete
Deskana, I appreciate your undeleting and relisting the SLG page at MfD, despite your feeling that the page should be deleted. Would it be possible, though, as well, for you to undelete User:R/SL and ? Thank you. j   talk   23:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you check that comment again. I found it quite funny when I got a big fat SLG posted on my talkpage. ;-) --Deskana (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm slow. My apologies.  And, thank you, again.    j    talk   23:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, again. I believe this would probably render any eventual outcome of the MfD irrelevant.  Would it be appropriate to go ahead and close the MfD (again), then?    j    talk   22:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Campa Cola
Hi, I believe you are wrong about the campa cola article. That page has not been vandalised. The so called owners of that company constantly put there names and numbers into the article infobox. I have had that page protected once before. User Geniac protected the page after I brought it to his attention. As soon as the block was lifted. The spammers returned with a vengance. This has happened a lot, three times yesterday and today once. Before the page was protected, these details were inserted and reverted God knows how many times. The second last ip that did this was blocked for two weeks by user geniac, this happened late last night. After that ip was bocked a new ip came along and put these details back in. Every time these details are put back in it seems to be a new ip address. It was this second last instance where the same ip did it three times row and then a 2 week block by Geniac.

At one stage there was a username called User:Campacola that as now been indef blocked by Geniac as well. I believe this was being used to copy and paste info from the user space to the article infobox. Also see User:Geniac.

As for my signiture, thats to annoy people becuase I could not get a name change. Mindys12345स्वागतम्! এই সভ্যজন অসমৰॐ शान्ति ! शान्ति !! शान्ति !!!
 * Firstly, I am less inclined to listen to what you have to say if you say you have a particular signature to annoy people. Secondly, there is insufficient activity to justify protection at this time. --Deskana (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It has happened once again as we speak. The offender could not format the details properly becuase I removed the infobox and replaced it with a template that shows the same infobox. Would the police not investigate a crime just becuase they did not like the victim.Mindys12345स्वागतम्! এই সভ্যজন অসমৰॐ शान्ति ! शान्ति !! शान्ति !!!
 * The reason for the sig is becuase I work on Indian related articles. Part of it is Bangladeshi and some is Indian. It is basically to impress the people of that region when I sign my post on their talk page. I think part of the sig is a welcome message but I am not sure becuase I don't speak the language. Mindys12345स्वागतम्! এই সভ্যজন অসমৰॐ शान्ति ! शान्ति !! शान्ति !!!

1976 Oakland Raiders season
A section of article 1976 Oakland Raiders season is misplaced. Can placed the section in a right way? -- Louis  Guel  18:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

ConCratulations
Wow! I go away for a few weeks and it looks like you've been 'cratified in the meantime. Congratulations indeed and well deserved, too :) Sorry I didn't get to support you but am delighted by the result. Well done! - A l is o n  ☺ 22:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User:75.89.143.184 AKA Sonicrules
He made a death threat to Michael Mad, please take care of him. --User:Atomic Religione

Can you block him? I mean can you block IP's? Also he has another sock please deal with him also. Sock = User:Shadowtheorge. --User:Atomic Religione

GMT->UTC
Oh that was petty and nitpicking. GMT basically is the same as UTC, and is much more widely used. --Tony Sidaway 12:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

OTRS application
Hi Deskana. I am an OTRS admin and I noticed you didn't send the email as requested on the volunteering page. Could you please fix that? Thanks! Cheers, guillom 20:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Ddffgghh6
He is constantly vandalising the Super Smash Brothers Brawl article. Please do whatever it is that admins do in these situations. --User:Atomic Religione
 * The user hasn't vandalised recently. List at WP:AIV if they vandalise again. --Deskana (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Watch out
See this intimidating message. The ip vandal was just blocked for vandalizing Dragon Ball-related pages and others. It may be possible that (s)he will create an account and continue vandalizing, just letting you know. Lord Sesshomaru
 * Almost all DB vandals have grandiose delusions. WP:RBI is the most appropriate action with them. Put simply, "Revert them, shut them up, then ignore them". --Deskana (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ping!
You have mail.  Mi r a n da   05:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Pong! So do you. --Deskana (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ping...sent it back over the net. Spike and score! :-P  Mi r a n da   03:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Please change this vote
Quote: "Please change this vote. There are a lot of people who would find that offensive. --Deskana"
 * Sorry, but as long as Wikipedia is not censored, I'm not withdrawing that comment. If any offended users want to personally dump their divine anger on me, they are welcome to drop a bomb on my talk page. --Targeman 22:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's some nice wikilawyering. WP:NOT applies to articles, not to people's comments. I asked you to withdraw it because it was unnecessarily confrontational. That you refused says a lot about you. --Deskana
 * If you are personally offended, please say so. Until now I've had only one reaction besides yours, and it was humorous, just like my remark. If you see this kind of lame joke as an aggression, well, sorry but that's your problem. If I were mean, I might even add "it says a lot about you". --Targeman 22:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Mercifully burn the author at the stake? I'm not sure who thought it was "humorous", but it was definitely offensive and incivil to that particular user. -- Dark Falls  talk 06:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for your note. I just got to my hotel room after a long day's travel and am working on the responses. Raymond Arritt 01:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR
Mr. Neutron is not contesting anything. I closed two 3RR reports against him in his favor. He's complaining that I warned him for vandalism. Anyone can close 3RR reports. Dont waste my time if you arent going to look into the situation enough to understand it. Perspicacite 02:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note this edit, which messed up the talk page might have misleaded user Perspicacite that my fixing it might be a vandalism. Mr. Neutron 03:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

MQM
The revert was simply because the user removed several large chunks of text, including "Making of MQM" and a dozen examples of MQM violence. It seemed like whitewashing vandalism to me at a quick glance, wasn't aware of any consensus to change. It's an article that sees a fair bit of POV, even though I admit I don't know the first thing about the subject, I just "babysit" it and watch for POV edits by new users since I first read the article back in June, and gave it a general clean-up, due to the fact it was littered with terms like "terrorists" and such. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 06:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Change
I thank you if you change my name, I explained on the page why I tried so many times.--Tones benefit 15:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please file another case for arbitration
Giovanni wouldn't participate properly so mediation was closed. John Smith&#39;s 20:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats not true. I am willing and only need some elementary directions about how to go about doing so. The last I heard was that it was opened again, and I asked what I need to do on my end to start it. I was told I needed to "affirm" it so they can determine if the issues have changed since the delay. I did what I was told, and affirmed it. Then I waited for instructions on the next step. I looked around and could not figure out what I needed to do next on my own. I'm willing to mediate still, and will make it a priority, putting other page issue on hold. I dont think its right for John Smith to assume I am not sincere in this matter, as he is claiming on my talk page, and reverting my comments on his talk page to discuss the matter.Giovanni33 22:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As AGK said here, the case is closed now. I reverted your comments on my page as I have a right to do - I did not remove them from your own page. AGK has also asked you to stop badgering me on the matter.
 * You've made your point that you thought mediation should not have been closed. I have made my point that I believe you had your chance and cannot complain now you didn't properly exploit it. Just leave it until Deskana responds. John Smith&#39;s 22:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What you call badgering, I call simply responding to your message, you are leaving me about this on my talk page. Am I not supposed to respond back on his own talk page, when he leaves me a message on my talk page? I call this communication, not badgering. Also, please assume good faith about mediation. I see that as the problem, and a lack of communication as the main problems here.Giovanni33 22:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, AGK called it badgering. However I do agree with him in using that term. You kept refusing to accept I might have a legitimate reason to refuse a second round of mediation, implying I would be the source of mediation failing if I didn't agree to another round. That is a form of blackmail. You don't have to agree with my belief that you were the source of failed mediation, but you kept harrassing me to try to get your way, or try to get on the moral high ground and shift the blame on to me when arbitration came around.
 * If I ask you to drop a matter, you don't need to reply at all. I'm also not stupid - if I leave a message on your talk page I can check back to see your response there. John Smith&#39;s 23:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, you were accusing me and failing to assume good faith. You said I was not being sincere, when I was. This is a violation of good faith. Since you said you were not against closing it, then I point out that this contradictions your actions. Your actions are to keep it closed, hence your choice, preference is to close, while mine is to open, and complete it. You can deny it but its pretty clear. You can't have it both ways. Failing to assume good faith is not a valid reason to want to close it, btw.Giovanni33 00:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Deskana, if you do file a case for arbitration I would appreciate it if you could mention all the points under dispute, not just the one on the Mao book. They're listed here, thanks. John Smith&#39;s 23:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Deskana, I've reluctantly protected your talk page, but only for a few minutes. If you look at the history, you'll see why. Giovanni has been making various modifications to John's header. I'm hoping that the protection will put a stop to something that might otherwise lead to a block. Giovanni, when the block expires, please do not tamper with the header (or any other part of John's post) any more. It's quite inappropriate, as it makes it look as if he wrote something different. Only if someone's post is a vicious personal attack or a privacy violation should it be tampered with by another editor. If you want to make a different request, please do so in your own section. The protection will expire in a couple of minutes from now, and I really do not want to see any more of this idiotic edit warring. ElinorD (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been reading, the only problem is that I've messed up my keyboard and loads of keys have swapped around. I'm going to reply once I've fixed this. Deskana (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I apologise to anyone affected by the protection, but I didn't want to have to block, and it was just going on and on. Hopefully, everyone will have cooled down in the next three minutes! ElinorD (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A Note
I would just like to bring this to your attention. User:Perspicacite has changed the header on the 3RR notice board. I am aware that there was some problems with him and the 3RR board, though I don't know the specifics. I thought, since you were a part of that, you would like to know. Take Care.... NeutralHomer T:C 04:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I can't really see any problems with his edits to the header. --Deskana (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't either, but with the earlier situation (for lack of a better term), I thought I should bring it to your attention just to be on the safe side. Have a Good Day and Take Care.... NeutralHomer  T:C 15:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Question for you
(I asked 3bulletproof16 but he told me to ask you.) I believe this user's userpage violates policy. Does it?-- Hornet man  16  05:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably not. It's one of the most stupid userpages I've ever seen, though. --Deskana (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Should I get a second opinion? (just action)-- Hornet man  16  20:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No need. There's nothing anyone could do about it. It's probably just a little kid who really likes wrestling. --Deskana (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I would like to request the block of IP address 195.229.241.181 as s/he is constantly vandalizing SummerSlam (2007) even after I warned him/her.-- Hornet man  16  21:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they've not vandalised in the past 50 or so minutes. It's nice that you're looking out for vandalism. Perhaps you should try WP:AIV next time, you might get a quicker response against vandals there than on my talk page. --Deskana (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.
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 06:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Your changes on Rein Lang - Thanks
I wanted to thank you for the way you shortened out the controversial section. None of the Estonian editors could do that, because then our opponents would have called us nationalist POV pushers and started edit wars all over again. I presume the complaint came from Langs office and from the user that today tried adamantly to delete the whole thing. We could not let that happen for the same reason, that form was stable and result of much balancing of POV, resulting tho in a overly large section. The current status is perfect, lets hope it stays that way. One recommendation tho. in stead of the play being "high point", saying "would feature" would be more accurate and neutral.--Alexia Death 18:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it's good to get an outside view from someone who has absolutely no idea about the subject- myself, in this case. I've edited it a bit, both for neutrality and brevity. It's also probably best that err on the side of caution, and don't discuss the OTRS ticket with you, as tickets are confidential. :-) --Deskana (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, outside view is good. Thanks for the rewording:) It's much better now. If I could ask you just one more thing, an addition of commented out warning to stay away from that section to prevent trouble with the others? No need to comment no the ticket, im pretty sure I'm right and in the end it really does not matter as long as it is understood that our actions in preventing straight out deletion were good faithed ones...--Alexia Death 18:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you from me as well. The section you removed was irrelevant, but - like Alexia explained - we couldn't have removed it without starting a major edit war. Sander Säde  11:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion
Could you tell me how to delete my username and user credentials? So the namespace is free. Thanks. Onnagh 20:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter (subplots)
Allright. If you want to keep destroying my pages please copy the information I spent much time putting on and put it on my talk page. Also, I was willing to put it on the main page, but many people believed it not relevant so I created that page. I beleive it is very relevant but instead of starting an edit war I created that page. I would appreciate it greatly if you would put my page up or at least post the information I had written down on my user talk page, so I can fit it in to its respectable page. Thank You. Rembrant12 00:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a request. You have already been kind put I would also appreciate it if I could put the page back up as "Harry Potter (subplots)" as to make it easier to find, and so people will be more likely to look at it. I also understand that you didn't destroy the page but tried to make Wikipedia better. Rembrant12 00:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you leave the one sentence up as to let people know where the page has been moved to then you can delete the page and I will leave it alone. Rembrant12 00:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't recreating it. I just wanted people to know that it was moved to a name section. I am sorry to disagree with you but if you let people add to it you would see that it was appropriate but you admins. never give a page a chance. Rembrant12 18:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing subjects from the Deathly Hallows talk page.
Some of the things you removed recently were discussions for how the article should be worded, whether or not certain people should be included on the dead characters list, etc. We weren't just discussing the book like we were on a forum, as you claimed we were when you deleted the discussions. Being an admin doesn't give you the right to be delete happy. In fact, you should try to be even more careful of your actions because you have more power than others and it is your responsibility to be fair. So please pay more attention before you start wiping out entire sections of talk pages.--70.212.1.98 00:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What I did had absolutely nothing to do with being an admin. I never used any admin tools to delete sections. I obviously deleted one section in error, you're welcome to revert me without getting accusatory. I'd like to point out though, that if you're debating stuff that much, you're probably heading into OR and the discussion is somewhat pointless anyway. --Deskana (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply that you were doing it because you are an admin, I merely meant that especially since you are an admin you should use better discretion before deleting things. Also, there were at least two sections you deleted, and all could have come to a conclusion without any original research IMO.
 * Feel free to undo it then, but I implore you to leave out the long diatribes that made me mistakenly delete the sections then. There were certainly massive chunks which had nothing to do with the article in those sections, even if the whole section wasn't. --Deskana (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User:87.15.93.130
Is going down my contribs list and undoing all my edits. I've posted a report at WP:AIV, but he's not stopping. Immediate action would be greatly appreciated. Sephiroth BCR ( Converse ) 01:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Never mind, it's been resolved. Thanks in any case. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 01:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC

Desysop question
Hi Deskana, what is the appropriate place to request that a new administrator be desysoped?
 * Whoa man, you've been busy. You can't "request a desysopping" very easily, but if you've orgasnised that much evidence together, posting on the administrator's incidents noticeboard is a good idea. --Deskana (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll do so; thank you.Proabivouac 05:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Rein Lang and vandals
Since the the case got to media, theres a wave of changes/vandalism going over there by IP users. Could you protect it until this dies down?--Alexia Death 13:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have applied for semiprotection, and the application was granted. Digwuren 17:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you kindly review my edit that was reverted and explain why the earlier version ws better? AdaHeidelberg 16:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would submit that this is because the Nochnoy Dozor's demands were primary, and Rahvaliit's ones secondary to these demands. Proper representation of the complicated interrelations is rather tricky to do right, especially in light of the strict WP:RS requirements that apply to biographies of living persons.  But if you think you can achieve that, please, make your proposal on the talk page for further discussion. Digwuren 17:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, your edit introduces a factual error. The play wasn't performed in Vanemuine, not on the birthday nor when it was a regularly scheduled play.  It was always performed in Gunpowder Cellar.  The idea that Adolf should be played at beer pubs when reasonably possible is a part of the play's tradition. Digwuren 20:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I asked for protection this morning and now I ask it again. Please protect the page with version of the passage you created. Mikkalai may be an admin, but he is NOT neutral in this case. There is a obvious conflict of interest due to him being a participant in creation and debates surrounding. Edit war is already fueling up.--Alexia Death 17:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, this is not an appropriate time to protect the page. Don't worry, I'm keeping my eye on it. --Deskana (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have faith In your ability to keep those guys in check :) Knowing that you are looking in calms me. --Alexia Death 17:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Limbeck Page and vandals
A source has been added for the fact that is posted regarding Jon Phillip, a drummer for a band, and his failure to support a child he abandoned in WI. This is not libelous, as it is true and legal notarized documents can be produced. There is no personal attack on Mr. Phillip or his character, nor is it meant to harm. it is simply a fact. The policy regarding threatened legal action has been noted and will be obeyed in the future. Thanks.
 * It's not even relevant to the page. --Deskana (talk) 10:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

User:WhiteyBulger
I think that was a tad harsh. The user brought it to User:Jimbo Wales' attention, to quote, "preemptively, before an administrator complained." I don't think indef blocking someone and leaving a comment like you did is really the best way to welcome a new editor to Wikipedia and I bet you the guy doesn't come back. I would ask you consider this, the next time it happens. - NeutralHomer  T:C 10:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This new user somehow knew about our username policy, despite nobody having mentioned it to him? And for some reason appealed to Jimbo Wales. Rather odd behaviour for a "new" user, don't you think? Jimbo is unlikely to have responded. And I know from personal experience that a CHU request would have been denied. Add in the fact that he clearly knew the username was inappropriate since he was begging to keep it, and I can't see why you have a problem with this. I deal with a lot of sockpuppets, and was recently proven right about another user (even when nobody believed me the first time), so I think you may just need to trust me. --Deskana (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, so a user registers a name that breaks policy, posts a note calling someone "evil", and then asks if his name is an exception to the rules. What in the world is harsh about this? You break the rules, you get banned- you break the user name rules, you make a new account. Do you honestly think we should waste time changing a user name that doesn't even have any mainspace edits to his name? -- L augh! 10:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It could be a person who was making a sockpuppet account, I don't know. It could have been someone who knew the rules, but made it anyway, I don't know.  Or...it could have been a new member.  I am just saying it could have been handled differently, just in cast it was a new member, be it a well-informed on on the WikiRules.


 * ...and honestly L, how long does it take to transfer a name, really? About the same amount of time it takes to move an article...probably.  Would it have killed you to do it?  Probably not.


 * But like I said, be it potential sockpuppet, new member, whatever...I think it could have been handled differently. - NeutralHomer  T:C 11:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I did AGF, otherwise I would have blocked account creation, wouldn't I? He's welcome to come back with an appropriate username, in the eventuality I'm wrong. You're also clearly unaware of the policy at CHU that doesn't allow usernames with no useful contributions to change usernames, which I'm aware of as I handle CHU requests. You're assuming good faith beyond what's necessary. --Deskana (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh-huh, and why does being new exempt him from the rules? And how would a newcomer miraculously stumble into our username policy, without anyone even welcoming him, or making any edits? And have you ever thought that it's not about how long it takes to change a name? There's more to it than that. Deskana assumed good faith perfectly, AGF does not exempt people from policy however. Assuming bad faith would be an IP block -- L augh! 11:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Stockport article
Have a look at the talk page - I've proposed a major change to a section, feel free to discuss! --SunStar Net talk 13:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I may be from Stockport, but it seems you know more about the etymology than I do. I don't think I have much to add, really. --Deskana (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback, this was an attempt to gain WP:CONSENSUS before making a change that could cause a revert war - I think it's happened before on some other articles - people revert-warring over names. See if any other editors who edit at WikiProject Greater Manchester want this change! --SunStar Net talk 14:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration or not?
Hi again. I think the original thread got lost with all the arguing. Could you please get in touch on my talk page at your convenience as to whether you think the next step should be arbitration or another attempt at mediation? Thanks, John Smith&#39;s 16:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem. Though if he causes mediation to fail again through inaction I will definitely ask for arbitration. John Smith&#39;s 16:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Nanking Massacre
We had a long conversation on it last time. I don't know how this will change anything. John Smith&#39;s 16:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. Edit warring is unacceptable. --Deskana (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant more that I didn't see how we could resolve it on the talk page because of the inability to reach any agreement last time we discussed it. I wasn't refering to the page lock. John Smith&#39;s 18:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Geez...
13:36, July 26, 2007 ST47 (Talk | contribs) (9,591 bytes) (approve) 13:42, July 26, 2007 Deskana (Talk | contribs) granted bot status to User:KiloBot

That has to be some sort of record! ~  Wi ki  her mit  18:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * People have always complimented my speed. Ask User:3bulletproof16, for instance :-) --Deskana (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Beat ya to the punch
Sorry about that :P Andre (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)