User talk:Deskana/Archive 20

Email
Hey Deskana, I emailed you a couple of days ago about a user rename. Did you get my mail? The Rambling Man 10:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I did, I'm sorry I've taken so long, I've been getting an abnormally large amount of mail recently. I'll get to it soon :-) --Deskana (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to worry! When you're ready.  Cheers!  The Rambling Man 11:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA
My thanks - I'll try and be good! -- Herby talk thyme 14:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox
Hello Deskana. I have posted a comment after yours on my RfB regarding the relatedness of Squeakbox's oppose and the disruption for which he was blocked. I thought I should provide some background in case you'd be willing to analyze the situation and tell me whether you think I'm right or wrong. I suggest checking yesterday's history of Talk:Burma, my comment on SqueakBox's talk page, and his comments on mine. The nature of SqueakBox's oppose becomes clear, at least in my humble opinion. Thank you. Regards, Hús  ö  nd  17:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Group membership
In addition to a run at arbcom, what about a position as a Board vote admin? -- Jreferee    t / c  23:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I know boardvote isn't even used anymore, given the last WMF Board of Trustees elections were held on independantly controlled servers. Either way, I have nothing I can add to the team that handles the elections. I only put myself up for a position if I think I have something to add. They function just fine as it is. --Deskana (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Confusing request
Please check this one  and
 * Requests for Checkuser is that way. You don't get around having to provide evidence just because you ask me directly. :-)--Deskana (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor Mistake
Just a friendly notice. I'm not sure if it matters, but at a recent Rfa closing you forgot to change "scheduled to end" to "ended". Happy editing! Icestorm815 (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not at my best today. --Deskana (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)



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. Hope your day gets better! Icestorm815 (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for removing the spaces from my username. New York Dreams (talk)

Thanks!

 * It should be OK now. If there is anything else wrong with it, i have put a view talk edit thingy on it now ;)  ACBest Dog and Bone  15:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it OK?
...if you review this? Thanks. - Go od  sh oped 03:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I work through cases in order, so next time I give RFCU a go, I'll get to it in due course :-) --Deskana (talk) 08:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:ArbCom question
Glad to hear that, Deskana! Let me know how that pans out. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Nothing florid, nothing fancy. Just thanks for the kindly good wishes. I'll try to wield the Mop-and-Bucket with grace and humility. -- Orange Mike 04:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom application
All the best with your request, and I hope you pass the elections. Best wishes in the name of open source and running code, — Thomas H. Larsen 08:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 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 (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fred Phelps and attacksites
Dan,

I recieved your message. The ruling I was referring to:

 Links to attack site   3) Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking. 

Does apply, in my humble opinion. First the langauge of the ruling doesn't indicate that those attack sites are those that are attacking a wikipedian by name, it just states that links to attack sites may be removed by any user.... The sites I removed are, in fact, just that, attack sites. They attack gay wikipedians {GODHATESF*GS}, American wikipedians {GODHATESAMERICA}, CAnadian, Irish, Swedish & Mexican Wikipedians. Also fails WP:SOAPBOX and these sites are nothing more than Mr Phelp's personal Soapbox, further adds nothing to the article, is also not germain nor needed in the article. However, that's a long list. It's simpler to state the obvious, that all of the above websites are attacksites and per the above arbcom ruling, can be removed.

Don't worry, I haven't removed them from the page, they're still there. I won't start a war about it, it's not necessary. I've explained why I belive they're violations of the above ruling, if my interpretation is incorrect, please feel free to tell me so.

 Happy Thanksgiving  KoshVorlon  ".. We are ALL Kosh..."  18:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom questions
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.


 * 1) What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
 * 2) Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
 * 3) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases?  In what capacity?
 * 4) In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well?  Any you think they handled poorly?
 * 5) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * 1) In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well?  Any you think they handled poorly?
 * 2) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * 1) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * 1) Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Moldopodo
Thank you for the answer. What I meant is can someone review the block that was done by user Nat and review why user TSO1D was not blocked? I know I am unblocked by now, the proof is that I can write and edit this message. Thank you in advance to enlighten me if this review is possible at all. For my sources, please check any talk page where I edited (Balti and Moldova in particular) as well as my user page. Moldopodo (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Please reconsider checkuser for editing at:
The users are disrupting a vote, and nominating articles in tandem at:
 * Articles for deletion/5W Public Relations
 * Articles for deletion/Ronn Torossian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 18:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

NAS plug
Hi Deskana. In your posts to the new admins, would you consider giving the New Admin School a plug, such as with the sentence "To learn a little about how to work your new tools, check out the New admin school." I've been trying to do that but such a message should be posted with a few days of them becoming an admin and I don't always make that window. Thanks. -- Jreferee    t / c  05:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hornetman16
A new user is currently suspected to be a new sock of Hornetman16. This time it's User:HDman. Just thought you should know. T he  C hronic  06:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked. --Deskana (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh
Glad to see that I'm not the only one who finds multiple edit conflicts within a short space of time annoying. :) Acalamari 19:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Every time it edit conflicted I wrote a sillier and sillier summary. I wasn't really sure what would come next if that one conflicted :-p --Deskana (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going over slowly
I figure over the next month or so I'll work through and amends refs and links to my old user name, and then retire the Steve block in hiding from this sig when that's done. It'll save confusing people who suddenly see Hiding chipping into debates Steve block was in. Hiding T 21:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And thank you by the way, both for the name change and the comment at WP:CHU. I was surprised this name was going, I was going to try usurping, which reminds me... Hiding T 21:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Someone actually registered it after you requested it, but I just renamed the account out of the way. Username stealers do show up occasionally, unfortunately. --Deskana (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well thank you again then. And good luck for the arbcom elections. Hiding T 22:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Boink! (you've got mail!)
...in the words of a great friend. Cheers, ( ar  ky  ) 02:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

CHU
That's what I mean. The comment was to other clerks, of which there are now many due to the (IMO) RFB for WJB. Best, Rudget . talk  18:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * :( I'll refrain, but that's not what I meant. I would never advise a bureaucrat to not perform a rename! It was on the basis of edits like this. Hopefully, you'll see what I mean. :S Rudget . talk  18:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I suppose. God, I've been a |right pain in the arse for you. :S Rudget . talk  19:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Just wanted to leave a message of thanks for your speedy response and for dealing with the matter I brought up on the Adminstrators Noticeboard so promptly (and for understanding it all!!). Much appreciated. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 21:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi sorry to invade your talk page for a second time. However, the same user is now adding messages to the Football hooliganism article talk page (six edits so far since you protected the main page. Most of the comments are again odd and just seem to be added because they can't edit the article. Am I ok reverting all the messages or do they have to remain? I am unsure of which is the correct way forward. Thank you for any advice. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 22:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll watch it. You enjoy writing the article :-) --Deskana (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheers, just they are now up to something like 13 edits on the talk page since the main page protection, mostly with just nonsense comments. They also seem to have at least three registered accounts. I edit on the article to try and keep it as much as I possibly can NPOV as it is a topic that can see very strong POV edits. It still needs a lot of work doing on it though. This IP user has been around for a long time with these edits on the article; they pop up every now and then with them. DFor a while they haven't done much. They just seem to have gone into overdrive the last couple of days! ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 22:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just ignore them if they're not being productive. That's the easiest thing to do. --Deskana (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup you are of course right, at least on the talk page they can't do any harm! ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 22:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been nominated for deletion
- Go od  sh oped 00:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your request for checkuser
Thanks alot. I'm new to checkuser so sorry about that. By the way, the user: Dilbar Jan has already been blocked indef, so you ignore that one. Sorry about that.

But I do have a more recent case that I just added. -- Behnam (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again. Just to let you know incase you missed it, I provied a diff link of the Admin user: Khoikhoi writing on my talk and telling me that IP. Hopefully this is good, because Khoikhoi hasn't been active since Oct. 26. -- Behnam (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA Closure
Hi. Thanks for closing my RfA and granting me my sysop access. I know you do this alot and it is greatly appreciated. Thanks. Tbo 157  (talk)  16:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Renames
There's currently some backlog both at WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U. Secretlondon has pretty much said she doesn't want to do them. So do you think you could clear it when you sign on? WJB will almost certainly be promoted, so it's only a little longer :) I (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try to take a look at this later... for now, I must do my Software Engineering assignment. --Deskana (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Changing username (Posted Last Thursday)
Deskana i've recently posted last Thursday for my username to be changed, is there any chance if it could be changed to the requested username on the Changing username article, please if you're available.... Fire Monkey (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You should just register a new account, given you have zero edits. --Deskana (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really want to register again, is there any chance if the name could be changed to the requested username on Changing username article, please.............. Fire Monkey (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll register a new account using the name which i want to use? Fire Monkey (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Fire Monkey
 * It would take you two seconds to register again. You can just go to Special:Userlogin and create a new account. We only rename people who have non-trivial contributions to the encyclopedia, which I am afraid you do not. Takes two seconds to regstier the new account. Seriously :-) --Deskana (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Already done, i've registered my new account SKYNET X1000, the old account is obsolete now. Also i've erased my e-mail address and saved the preferences on the old account..... If i create my SKYNET user page on Thursday or Friday i might have Fire Monkey mentioned as the predeccesor and this new account as the successor although i've never created a user page before, this would be my first time..... SKYNET X1000 (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You can just put "#REDIRECT User:SKYNET X1000" on User:Fire Monkey to redirect people to your new userpage (though there needs to be something there for it to redirect to). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've done as you requested for the old account, if i done it incorrect please tell, although there isn't anything on the SKYNET user page yet i have placed a notice on the talk page. SKYNET X1000 (talk)

I'm confused although i've been a member of wikipedia for a while, i've been noticing these on the watchlist (-1,212) and (+2,123) what do these actually mean..... SKYNET X1000 (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the amount of bytes added (or removed) in the change. By the way, you might get quicker responses to these sorts of questions if you post on the help desk. --Deskana (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Understood, next time i'll go directly to the Help Desk if i'm confused SKYNET X1000 (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Deskana I've created my user page for the first time, and did as EVula ask and added user boxes, the redirect link works... SKYNET X1000 (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
I know your job can be thankless sometimes but thanks for the name change. I do appreciate it.  spryde |  talk  22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. --Deskana (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

HIYO-Blue Laser
Yes, im sure about this name. HIYO (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 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 (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone's been harassing me...
...there's this person that's been harassing me and trolling on my talkpage. has been harassing me since I reverted his removal of content, and he's been very uncivil to me and attacking me on his userpage, and he has been trolling on my talk page. I have the diff links if you want them, plus a warning that's still fresh on my talkpage. I would recommend you get rid of this message before he makes a big deal of this again on his userpage. - Go od  sh oped 02:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom table with portfolio links
Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.

My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. &mdash; Sebastian 05:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Protection for SKYNET X1000
Deskana, although my userpage is new and operational is there a chance if the userpage could be protected from editing by any known user, part from me, because i wouldn't editing my own userpage it's just as a precaution. SKYNET X1000 (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no way to protect your userpage from being edited by anyone but you. At most, it can be semi-protected, do that new and anonymous editors can't make any changes, but such a preventative measure isn't exactly necessary, and doesn't fully comply with out protection policy. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but what does the semi-protection do, could i still update it and change things. SKYNET X1000 (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Uvula
"For identification and critical commentary." It fits the "identification" role. Meanwhile, it is not wikipedians place to be writing "critical commentary". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Aha. And since critical commentary is expressly forbidden by the NPOV policy, a non-free photo can NEVER be used. That explains everything. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, so I could move the illustration to the article on the cartoon, which is already linked in the uvula article, so they would simply have to go to that cartoon's article to see the illustration. Right? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Request
I'd like to create a userbox similar to the one I did for NYB (It's on my talk page). But to do so, I'd like a.) to know if you're opposed to it; and b.) your suggestion of an appropriate image.

(Note for anyone else reading this, there are only two bureaucrats running, and I think both are at least decent choices (smile), so I'm asking them both.)

Thanks in advance : ) - jc37 20:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you would like to create a userbox, feel free. I do not have an image to suggest. :-) --Deskana (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. I'll look through commons and see if I can find something : ) - jc37 04:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there's commons:Image:Banana.arp.750pix.jpg. (based on the "deskbanana" name at the top of this page), or just one of these Desks. - jc37 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's gotta be Image:Rolltop_desk.JPG. I looove the humour :-) --Deskana (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Jc37/Userboxes/Deskana4Arbcom - Though, as I mentioned to others when working on NYB's - I'm on the lookout for alternate "bottom-line" comments. (It's configurable for that and for floating left/right.) - jc37 04:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorryguy's RfA
I'd just like to register my disagreement with your closing of SorryGuy's RfA as a no consensus. He had, I believe, 70% on the nose... And, two of the opposes were 'very weak oppose' (one said 'leaning toward support') and two or three more were 'Weak oppose'. Additionally, at least one neutral said 'leaning toward support.' I think the fact that the !voters lent their own opinions less weight should have caused you to lend them less weight as well. Avruch Talk 02:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Deskana. I just wanted to let you know that I agree there wasn't great consensus at this time and accept this RfA's failure. I will continue to work on the criticism, though. Cheers. SorryGuy 03:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Avruch, thank you for your comments. First, I'd like to point out that you were a supporter of this RFA, which means you are obviously going to want the candidate to be promoted, by definition. There is nothing wrong with this, of course, but it does mean you will not see things objectively. I do not think there is a clear consensus to promote, there. I did consider promoting, but I did not think it was wise given the opposition. Given that the first comment I received was many hours after the close, I can only assume many people have either concurred with the close, or not taken issue with it. Were I to close something badly, people would swoop on me quickly (and I would hope so, too!). I would also note that you mentioned 70%. Were it at 69%, would you have also asked me to reconsider? :-)
 * SorryGuy, I'm glad to hear you are looking to improve and learn. I am confident that if you take the criticism on board, your next RFA will be successful.
 * --Deskana (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I supported and agree no consensus to promotoe. Although a lot of the opposition made their comments "weak" I suspect this was due to the promising nature of the candidate's contributions so far, and not wanting to deter a valuable editor. However I think that they still felt the time was not right. The Neutrals also seemed to indicate this feeling as well. Pedro : Chat  08:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The large number of neutrals, relatively few supports (in the context of WP:RFA's history), and a lack of extraordinary circumstances make this a good close, in my opinion.  Daniel  11:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable.  Voice -of- All  04:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll defer to the experience of the other commenters (and Deskana) of course on the no consensus close. Perhaps you are right. On the objectivity point above, not to be argumentative, but I haven't encountered SorryGuy anywhere else and I have no other interest except that it seemed to me that I, in Deskana's place, might've swung the other way. Avruch Talk 23:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Flaminglawyer's Signature
Thank you for the comment about my username. I will change it as soon as possible (right now). ~~~~ 23:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is my new-and-improved signature: Busted, Busted, Busted

If that is also against the rules, leave another note on [User talk:Flaminglawyer|my talk page]]. Thanks! Busted, Busted, Busted 23:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Email
Hi. Can you check your email. Thanks very much. Tbo 157  (talk)  00:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have replied to your last email. Thanks very much.  Tbo 157   (talk)  00:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Fork substitution
As a previously interested party, I draw your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rhodesia&oldid=175026836#More_irrational_reverts and I seek your acquiescence in the edit I propose.

You may also wish to comment here, if you choose: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alice.S&oldid=175027524#Edit_war Alice.S 10:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Question about my RfA
I have a link on my userpage to my successful RfA that you closed. Someone with a misunderstanding with me edited it (diff) after it was closed complaining about something that isn't even true (edit in question). Is it fair to remove the complaint, placed several days after closure, especially since no one had a chance to refute/discuss it? Are RfA's generally protected/semi-protected since they should not be edited but instead preserved as record of what was commented? They are a great target for vandals/complainers/critics. Please respond on my talk page. Royal broil 03:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say it is fair to remove it. The page clearly says "Please do not modify". However, it would be best to address the concerns of the person in question, if possible. Them putting it in the wrong place is not a license to ignore it if it's valid, no matter how tempting that may be :-) --Deskana (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an anon user. I left two messages on their talk page, one about the problem and one about the comment on my RfA. I doubt the correct person was able to get the message. The address is apparently being used by multiple people, as both the overuse of the citation tag edit and the incorrect complaint that I added the citation tags were from this same IP address. The criticism that I had anything to do with complaining about the lack citations is completely wrong and unfounded. I merely pruned down the overdue overuse of the citation template. I'm going to remove the comment, and take the link to my RfA off of my user page so this won't happen again. There is no way to address the concern raised, as I didn't cause it. Royal broil  13:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts...
Hi,

Your activity level as a b'crat isn't what concerns me. Raul also greatly reduced his RfA role once he was at ArbCom. The rarity of his participation may have been part of the problem, helping to inspire his few very poor (IMO) promotions. Hence, your argument doesn't sway me... however...

I've been thinking about the upcoming elections. The fact is that there are several candidates who frighten me, so great is their unfitness to the task. While my principled position opposing the concentration of power is genuine and logically sound, I don't wish to "cut off the nose to spite the face". If voting against you and Raul helped lead to the appointment of gravely unfit arbitrators, I'm afraid I'd feel guilty for the next three years.

Despite the one qualm, I have decided it is right to support the both of you. :) The small price you'll have to pay for this is that -- if you later make a decision at RfA that I feel conflicts with your ArbCom role, I'll send you an exasperated (though civil) email expressing my disapproval, which you will be expected to ignore politely. :)  May that never come to pass...

Best wishes, Xoloz 14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Will you delete my talk archive?
Will you delete my talk archive 1? The reason for my request is that its history contains my real name, which I want shielded, hence my change in username. Also, the contents has been used for slander off-Wiki. --Law Lord 19:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! --Law Lord 20:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I Use Your Template?
Deskana, I would like to use your template,. Is that OK if I just put it on my userpage like you did yours? Please answer me at my talk page, as I tend to not check other users pages for answers to questions that I asked. Thank you. ♠ ♦  ♣  ♥  04:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, feel free. But you should perhaps make your own copy in your userspace, and remove the "Floating Buttons" transclusion (which is those buttons at the top right of my userpage, which aren't really applicable to you). --Deskana (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom voting
Yes, it was the wrong section (bad paste after an edit conflict). I've already fixed it, but thanks for pointing it out anyway. Angela. 11:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Cranes Software
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Cranes Software, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of Cranes Software. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 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 09:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions for answer
3 5 4 (+1) questions. Premise: An arbitrator candidate says in response to a question: "I apologise I have taken so long to respond to this- I have had two coursework deadlines, as well as being busy doing other stuff, as well as having forgotten. I promise I will respond to this ASAP :-)."

Q1) What is the date on that promise?

Q2) What is the date today?

Q3) What is the natural corrolary, in terms of being responsive as an arbitrator?

Q4) What is the airspeed of an unladen swallow?

Q5) Extra credit: What is the actual answer to the actual question? :-)

Inquiring minds ... want to know! :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 03:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

-Deskana (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) There wasn't one :-)
 * 2) 29-July-2024   ;-)
 * 3) Nobody is perfect, including ArbCom candidates and the Committee themselves. As a result I totally forgot about that question. I did not take an excessive amount of time to respond to questions, I simply totally forgot about that one and was never reminded about it. (big orange new-message bars work wonders)
 * 4) The distance it has travelled divided by the time took to travel said distance. Curiously this is also the speed of any object that travels at a constant velocity.
 * 5) I will answer if you desire, but not tonight. It's now 3:45am and my recent inactivity has been because my grandfather has been hospitalised.


 * Deepest condolences. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 03:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

my oppose.
To be clear, you said: "The round earth theory is now widely accepted as truth, so we can say as such. "

This means you place our ability to state it on the contingency that is is widely accepted as truth. YOu're stating that it's a mutable truth, like 'jesus saves', instead of an absolute truth, like '1+1=2'. Even at the height of the (fairly fictional) ignorance of the masses in the dark ages, that a majority thought the earth was flat didn't actually alter the laws of physics, or the shape of the planet. Consensus doesn't negate objective factual truth. I don't' care how many contrarians you find, 1+1=2, always. It's that straightforward. Your answer hung truth on contingent acquiescence of the masses, which is unacceptable to me.

I replied here so as to not clog up the vote page, and to be courteous to you for taking the time to answer me. You deserve a clear explanation. It looks like you're way ahead in supports anyways, so I suppose it is moot. ThuranX (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)