User talk:Husnock/Archive 6

Marriage
Many congratulations, and best wishes for a long and happy life together. AnnH ♫ 18:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Uhura.jpg
I see you're inactive, but this is just to let you know that I've retagged Image:Uhura.jpg. Publicity photos are, generally speaking, not in the public domain. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Long time, no see
Saw on your user page that you are at the Persian Gulf. Stay safe, cannot wait until you come home. Make us proud. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll be on and off the site until about October. Thanks for the GWOTEM! -Husnock 19:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hostel (film) and Tourism in Slovakia
Hi. I wrote my comment at Talk:Tourism in Slovakia. I really hope that this useless edit war will end soon. Juro has made great contributions to the articles dealing with Slovakia (and Central Europe in general), but his style of communication may be sometimes irritating. In general, talk pages of the Central European articles are far from the standards of civility and even serious editors (including Juro) frequently lose their temper as they must deal with all sorts of nationalist freaks (usually anonymous IPs blanking text or adding their badly written POV). I mention it just to explain you the invisible context of Juro's behavior. I would like also to ask you for your opinion about the "war in Slovakia" mentioned in the Hostel movie. I think it was clearly a reference to an alleged recent conflict (probably the one in former Yugoslavia or an entirely fictious one) and I do not fully understand why you added a reference to WWII. Tankred 15:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I opened up a talk page section on it. I just thought it was WWII becuase thats the only major war I know about in which Slovakia has been involved. -Husnock 19:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:NavCivWarMed.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:NavCivWarMed.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

NFCs
By all means, put it back in. If you can, add some more detail on the topic. Arcimpulse 06:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Starfleet uniforms
Article has recently survived a vfd, so I though you might want to contribute there. -- Cat out 13:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Starfleet rank article
I was removing those referances as you were [senselessly] reverting. See the toal change for yourself. None of that is inaproporate.
 * -- Cat out 14:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I explained it on the talk page. The page version was full of bad info; the revert was anything but senseless.  Looks fine now, though. -Husnock 14:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Durin's RFC
I have rolled your addition back, as shown in the history, as that RfC is in a closed and archived state. You may want to just voice your concern to Durin directly. Hope that helps, happy editing! No answer required, but here is preferred. ++Lar: t/c 19:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Question on Captain Rankinsignia
Hi, are there different Pin-on-Metal-Insignias for Captains of the USMC and e.g. the US Air Force? Or is this just a thing with different graphics and the real insignias are the same? --GrummelJS 20:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek Barnstar
I hereby award you this barnstar for your superb contributions to the Star Trek rank insignia article. -- Cat out 14:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you! -Husnock 02:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of cleanup tag on Reinhard Heydrich
I put a cleanup tag on Reinhard Heydrich a few days ago because some of the text could do with a fair bit of reworking in my opinion. You've since removed the tag on the basis that no reason was given for its inclusion, which I don't understand as I outlined my reasons for doing so at the time here. As I've commented subsequently, I'm not going to risk a reverting battle, but in my opinion the article would still benefit from a fair amount of cleanup both in terms of grammar and writing style.

-- Chris  ( blather  •  contribs )  18:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:VSARM.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:VSARM.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Angr 18:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:StarfleetEnlist1.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:StarfleetEnlist1.gif. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 12:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:CPORand.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:CPORand.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 22:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Badge of Military Merit
Hi Husnock, can I get your opinion on the sources Armycaptain wants to use for his additions? I went ahead and made a temp page, and moved some of Armycaptain's recent changes there. I'll go ahead and format the references, I'm not sure the additions are ready to be moved over to the main article yet though. There's still a touch of POV. Is the Badge of Military Merit/Badge of Merit controversy too WP:OR to even touch? Katr67 02:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Pharaoh and Cleopatra
I've left a comment on Talk:Pharaoh and Cleopatra. The summary is that I'm okay with the merger, but I think the name is problematic. More details are provided at the talk page.

All the best, Ξxtreme Unction |yakkity yak 20:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Colonel General?
As a German speaker and contributor on many military articles I would appreciate and comment (in support or argument) to my comment on Talk:Colonel-General regarding translating Generaloberst as Colonel-General. Thanking you in advance. Dainamo 00:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

YCDTOTV
Keeping sick fetishes off serious articles is just as important to me. Please bear that in mind. I have been here for five years and i should have some respect. PMA 15:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Has nothing to do with "sick fetishes", the article I read about the program brought up some highly interesting things about the way Les Lyle managed the show I was hoping to explore them in the article. No-one disrepected you, rather the reverse since you blanked a talk page discussion, in effect censoring it, because it dealt with a subject you didn't agree with.  This kind of thing is above Admins, time to move on. -Husnock 15:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Pharaoh and Cleopatra
Love the work you have done on Pharaoh and Cleopatra! Great work fleshing out this article!! --Kralizec! (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Do I smell a Barnstar? :-) -Husnock 05:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I just had a look at the article wonderful work, hope all is going well Gnangarra 04:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the Barnstar!

United States presidential line of succession
Thank you for correcting my unintentionally over-eager modification so quickly!. I know that Pelosi is not Speaker until elected by the new Congress. I tried to make that clear in my modification, but had not intended to delete Hastert's name from the table - that was due to my inexperience with the workings of Wikipedia. I do think there should be some reference in this article to the fact that Hastert will not be in this position come January 2007, and it is highly likely his place will be taken by Pelosi. I am not sure how best to do this; I would be grateful for your advice. I respect your position as a far more experienced Wikipedia editor than me! Regards. PHJ 06:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for spotting that (on the Great Pyramid), I didn't notice it myself, glad you did!. --Alf melmac 18:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Check out my work on Pharaoh and Cleopatra.  I'm fishing for a barnstar! -Husnock 03:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Stoop
Hi. Your uploaded is now on deletion requests Scriberius 19:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Deletion request is almost comical since that picture is right out of his SS service record on file with NARA. It appeared that becuase it wasn't available on the internet, people thought the tag was false.  Amazing. -Husnock 03:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It was nominated for speedy deletion (for not having sources). By converting it to regular deletion I managed to delay the process a bit since I trust you. :) I am trying to rescue it not get it deleted.  Would it be possible to somehow source the image to that (maybe a specific number leading to his service record) or better a web reference? My hands are tied by commons policy requiring citation. -- Cat out 12:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks pretty well sourced too me. Its in his SS record that anyone can go see at the NARA building in College Park.  They can also be called at one of several NARA customer service numbers (the only one I have is 314-801-0800 but there are others).  It appeared that someone last year cam to the wrong conclusion that just becuase it wasnt on the internet, it couldnt be verified.  Service record photos number in the millions and they are rarely listed on websites. -Husnock 13:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Pharaoh Houses
This image Image:AllPharHouses.jpg is a derivative work, its licensing can only be game-screenshot inclusion in an article will require a fairuse rationale. If you would like me to look at other images you've uploaded just ask. Gnangarra 01:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

P&C is at FA
Dont forget you have nominated this article for FA, can I suggest that you withdraw the nomination until the image issues are resolved. Gnangarra 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep. Other major issues with the article like no in-line citations lacking and too complex a TOC. -Husnock 16:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah i did notice that, but I suspect that the article wont be the only battlefield. Gnangarra 17:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Enough already
You've now moved into innapropriate territory. Durin is not harrassing you, instead as many people have told you he is correctly following the image policy. I've asked him to step back, but you need to also. The page you've created, User:Husnock/Durinharass, is innapropriate given the facts, especially the title. In order to help resolve the situation in the best way, please move it to a less inflammatory location. - Taxman Talk 20:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur entirely with this. I don't see any problem with Durin's actions in this situation and am disappointed to see your painting this as "harassment". Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 21:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the name of my sub-page sinced, yes, it could easily be seen as too harsh. However, I believe the existence of the page is crucial. I need to keep a record of what this guy is doing. I will always believe he targeted me, looking at his edits, he was spending all this time reviewing my things while others went unnoticed. Also, he keeps on avoiding the issue that I am on a military deployment...in fact he has yet to acknowledge one word about it. He says things like "he must have time to fix these images since he has this other time to defend them and write these pages". I have time now. What I can not simply get through to this user is that I might not have time later. This is Thanksgiving, after these holidays I will probably disappear from Wikipedia for at least three months. Also, again for the record, I have yet to personally attack him (i.e. "Durin is a XXXXX") only expressing my views about what he is doing. My list on the Durin Concerns Page is, in my view exactly what he is doing and has done. The straw that broke the camel's back (funny considering where I am) was when he wanted to talk to my ex-finance and the former girlfriend of my dead grandfather. Contributing was that I took GREAT lengths to contact the headquarters of CNFK and CNFJ to talk to JAG officers about thier images. Durin simply said "they are wrong" and marked the images as such. This was all too much. An understanding user who would have worked with me is one thing, the aggressive, harsh, and edit stalking Durin simply was too much for me to handle. I'm very surprised people don't agree just a little bit with thsi, even though to an outsider perhas I am coming across as the problem user...not a problem one, though, just an angry one. -Husnock 01:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Back already?
Hey, you back to your trek stuff? -- Cat out 20:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Im in the middle of a nasty dispute about image uploads. See User:Husnock/Durinconcerns.  Actually, you have been the underdog on these types of things before...your inputs on the various pages would be MORE than welcome.  I am also still serving abroad, just have better internet than I thought I would over here.  The miracles of the modern age. -Husnock 21:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. I do not want to get involved too much with the dispute since I feel that would be counter-productive. -- Cat out 15:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images Pharaoh and Cleopatra (computer game)
I noticed that you are the primary uploaded of images to the Pharaoh and Cleopatra (computer game), and think that the number of copyrighted images uploaded fail fair use criteria #8: copyrighted images should be uploaded if they add "significantly to the article" and should not be uploaded for the sake of illustrating everything in visual form. Most of the images unfortunately should probably be removed. Also regarding the text, for future reference I would recommend not expanding gameplay to such a detailed point because wikipedia is not a "indiscriminate collection of information". Articles should be written in summary form, example would be the similar genre game Empires: Dawn of the Modern World. Thank you for your understanding. - Tutmosis 23:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your use of the term "indiscriminate collection of information". That article is a finely written essay on the entie computer game and I hope it will day reach Featured Article status. -Husnock 10:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Defend this with your Wiki-Life
User:Durin has indicated his aims of targeting images on Starfleet ranks, again one of the foolish people who believes Paramount has a copyright on three circles in a row or two stripes on top of one another. This guy is very determined and could do SERIOUS damage to the Starfleet ranks article. In fact, I'm sure he would take great pleasure from doing so since I have been so deeply involved with the article. As I am deployed, I may not be here to defend and protect this artcle which we have worked so hard to create. Defend this article with your Wiki-Life! I have sent a request to the Nogri to visit Durin's house but they have not responded (busy doing other things). -Husnock 18:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I sent you an email. -- Cat out 18:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I got it. Some joker also just put up the conjectured ranks article for deletion. I think it might be bad faith...since the "this article's entry" page is completely blank and doesnt give a reason for a VfD (at least, not yet). -Husnock 11:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As we've both seen, the page is now up and running. This is horrifying that people on Wikipedia would do this.  The page is full of "I just don't like this and thats why it should be deleted." comments I seriosly wonder if a couple of users put thier heads togehter to do this since we have seen VfDs on two Star Trek rank articles in the past few days as well as reverts and deletions to other rank articles like Fleet captain; all of this happening in quick succession. -Husnock 12:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not happy with it. I am thinking of rfcs and rfars but I already experienced how useless dispute resolution process is. If only you weren't stuck in the gulf. But in reality, I am not too terribly concerned. Once you return we can sort this mess.
 * -- Cat out 12:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

For all the good it will do me, I asked other Admins to look at this. This really appears like a group of biased people who came together with the goal of getting this article deleted. This reflects the trend of users we have now on this site. We are headed towards the road where one day articles will be censored, I can smell it. I just hope I am not here to see it. -Husnock 12:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for referring to me as a 'joker'. I will choose to see it as a compliment, rather than a mild personal attack - I do pride myself on my sense of humour.   Proto ::  type  13:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It was a tie between joker and chucklehead. And do you did call me a "crufateer"...Anyway, withdrawn as you withdrew yours. -Husnock 13:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Warrant officer rank in starfleet
Are there any references for this you can recall? (Cannon or non cannon) -- Cat out 02:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There are severl. Pocket Books novel of "Emissary" for one, several tech manuals (most notable Klingon Covert Officers Manual) at least a few comic books floating around and I think there was even a novilization of Where no one has gone before where Kosink was called a Warrant officer.  That article should never have been deleted.  Shame on the user who proposed it be so, espeically with zero discussion and in the middle of the night. -Husnock 04:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia AFD
Thank you for giving me a full four minutes to create an AFD nomination before posting a message on my talk page threatening to remove the AFD notice. The AFD is now posted. Proto :: type  11:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Didnt know it was four minutes...just saw a red link AfD. Hey, I went ahead and condensed the opening nomination paragraph.  The way it was appearing on my screen it looked like the nomination was from one person and then you had a delete vote from yourself underneath.  It should be all together to show you are the nominator.  I hope you don't mind, I jsut wanted to avoid a misunderstanding from other voters. -Husnock 11:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Condensing is fine, no problems. Incidentally, if you do what you mention here, going off and recreating deleted content (assuming the article were deleted), to prove a point, I will not be impressed.  As an admin, you ought to know better.   Proto ::  type  13:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am going to try and rebuild this thing into a better article and save at least the images from deletion. If they are orphaned, they will be deleted too and finding those images was a very time consuming process taking months to accomplish. So, you will get your deletion, but dont expect me not to at least try and write a better article in the future that *could* withstand another AfD. -Husnock 13:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If Betacommand's closure is overturned and the article is deleted (as I suspect it will be) your best bet may be making a request to put the article into userspace and working on it there. JoshuaZ 16:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Already started the process, thanks. the rewrite will be untouchable, I can assure that. -Husnock 16:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Nebor
Ooh, I think I might have been rumbled! :)

I'm not trying to nuke anyone's hard work here, and I'm not against Star Trek, or Star-anything else. Or The Tomorrow People for that matter. Apart maybe from Kristian Schmid, he was a bit rubbish in the remake. Anyway, I might be a thawed-out alien Hitler impersonator, but I'm not engaging in some Global War On Error, or "rampant deletionism", or ... whatever the latest en vogue quasi-vandalism pattern is these days. Most importantly, I'm not trying to hurt your feelings (even if I am doing a rather good job of it). I've struck out my reference to your possible motives, as it was clearly inappropriate, and I'm sorry.

As for moving the AfD discussion, for future reference, all you need to do when you move the page that is being discussed is change the in the AfD tag to the name of the AfD sub-page. This happens quite a lot, particularly for nominations en bloc, where all the discussion goes on one page, even with 10-20 articles tagged. The redirect that arises is a Good ThingTM.

If you want to take the page into your userspace and rework it into something a little less speculative, by all means do so. If you find that the page is actually deleted, you can go to Deletion review/Content review and ask for it to be undeleted and moved to your userspace. What you must not do is merely copy/paste the text of the article in full (something to do with GFDL compliance - WP:CPMV - remember, the article lives for perpetuity in the database). Good luck, Chris cheese whine 19:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"dispute which has since been resolved"
I do not wish this to re-erupt. However, I am not comfortable with "dispute which has since been resolved". In particular, you still have not retracted your most egregious accusations against me; Elements of item #9 from User:Husnock/Durinharass, beginning with "quite possibly"; everything in paragraph 3 of beginning from "Rather the opposite". and the last two sentences of paragraph #5 of. You have made a blizzard of accusations against me. Most of this I have tried to overlook in the name of trying to reach an amicable solution. These claims of releasing personal information about you in the real world and stalking your family are unacceptable. I simply can not overlook it. At no time ever have I verbalized your last name, or even typed it. I would never, ever do as you suggest I have done. Yes, you have qualified the statements with with things like "absolutely no evidence". That doesn't matter. If there's no evidence, and I am vigorously denying it, why make the claim at all? I could just as well make a public statement on Wikipedia that X user is a pedophile and regularly hunts down children and qualify it by saying "But, you know, this is just my opinion. I have no evidence". Just speaking an accusation like that is despicable enough, even with a qualifier. I do not expect your opinion about me to change. I know from that you "don't like [me] ". I do think it reasonable that you keep accusations for which you have no evidence (which you freely admit) to yourself. Please, retract these statements against me about releasing personal information about you and stalking you and your family. --Durin 14:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont have much time tonight, but it a nutshell the dispute seems resolved since A) I deleted the page with all the flag iamges and B) I am now complying with all your reuqests for information on images to the best of my ability. The rest of this stuff is past history, not to mention that you were never accused of stalking my family, in fact I said 3 or 4 times it wasn't you.  Someone did though, probably as a result of reading what was going on.  Two cities were contacted about me, someone sent an e-mail to my Navy command, and a harrasing e-mail came into my wife's e-mail account.  But, I never said it was you.  Nevertheless, anyone can see how that can be distrubing especially if one is separated from thier family overseas.  As far as the other matters, i.e. "paragraph 3 of section 4 on this talk page and section 8 of line 10 on this other page", I have to be honest here, I really dont have time to back to what might have been said in a talk page dispute going on a week ago and do line-outs and retract statements.  I work 16-18 hour days and visit this site on my off hours only.  I also have had some pretty horrible things said about me in my time on this site and I usually just let it go after the smoke clears is over and move on to better things.  Also, that Admin noticeboard will be archived in a day or two and the comments buried away, most likely.  With that said, I probably will not be back on the site full time until the New Year it turns out.  See you then. -Husnock 16:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty of removing the content in question from User:Husnock/Durinconcerns. Please see . I hope you agree this helps eliminate these baseless claims against me. --Durin 16:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: . The problem here is that this event is being associated with me due to the nature of the page and its title. Please remove it. I understand your concerns about the incident, I certainly can believe it happen, I agree its very serious, I agree such things can happen due to events here on Wikipedia. But, it has nothing to do with me. Please, remove it. --Durin 16:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Dai-Gensui
Can you please add any sources for the supreme Japanese rank?--Nixer 21:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted photo
Husnock, I have deleted the image that made it possible to identify you in real life. I was becoming increasingly concerned at its continued existence after attention had been brought to it. Of course, it's entirely your decision as to whether or not you feel comfortable with having a photo that gives personal information about you still available on Wikipedia. If you are comfortable with that, then of course you'll be able to undelete the photo. But you seem not to be comfortable with it, and yet you haven't deleted it. And every time its existence is discussed (or every time other aspects of Husnock/Durin image dispute is discussed, and people see the post where you complained), more people might decide to have a look at that image. As you know, Durin made an identical photo for you, having blanked out your surname. Best wishes, AnnH ♫ 02:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll add a new picture shortly. I have yet to post one in camo-gear. -Husnock 05:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia
I do not know how much of your trek material you have with you nor do I know how long you are going to stay deployed. So whats our status? -- Cat out 20:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Whats up with ? There seems to be inconsistency between that sources "official" claim and ours. -- Cat out 20:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Pronouns
Please check your pronouns. i am assuming you are not making any sort of comment. Morwen - Talk 20:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? -Husnock 20:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Starfleet Security
Of extreme interest is that one of the people heavily involved with the deletion votes of both the Warrant Officer and the alternate ranks article showed up within 5 minutes of my working on this article, blanking parts of it and challenging the sources on all of it. I've asked that user to tone it down, I think there might be some personal feeling at work here. Will this never end? Anyway, your help on this new article would be welcome. -Husnock 20:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I recommend arbitration. WP:HA is not tolerated if thats the case. I am sorry but the other guys do not care about what I have to say and frankly I am sick and tired of repeating myself to them. -- Cat out 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is now to the level that I am trying not to laugh. How can one seriously propose deletion of this article? Do these people not like the articles, not like us, or a bit of both? You are so right what you said on the page. It is the same people, the same type of articles, and yes they are making a mess. In this case, however, I am hoping the AfD gets laughed out of court. -Husnock 21:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You know... this series of incidents almost reminds me the nature of my medical emergency (rfar #2). Were these guys following you around or attacking star trek articles randomly? -- Cat out 21:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

BA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!! Thats what I did when I saw that these people have nominated YET ANOTHER article for deletion. Who are they trying to fool? -Husnock 00:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They can nominate the entire star trek franchise as far as I care... If they really want to destroy their own credibility that badly, how can I prevent them?
 * In 15 days from now if this nonsense continues as it is going on now, I will compile it in the form of evidence and let arbcom review it. With my estimate that would mean over two dozens of deletions.
 * -- Cat out 00:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would encourage you not to do so. Rather than ratchet up the heat on a discussion by claiming bad faith, respond to the arguments put forth. Deal with the issue, not the bringer of the issue. Accusations of bad faith do nothing to aid in consensus building and do much to harm it. If a problem is found on Wikipedia, a problem is found. Because someone brings light to that attention, and happens to have been involved in related problems, does not mean it is bad faith. If a long pattern of behavior is seen then their might be a case of bad faith. Use patience, and as noted address the issue not the messenger. --Durin 22:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The whole situation is rather silly and I am trying to keep it cool. On the same note, though, I know there has been some talk about my unfair assertions of personal opinions, but in this case it really looks like there are some people with grudges about some issues.  However, such things solve nothing and, in the real world, who has time for this.  I could be shot and killed tomorrow, for all I know.  Better to move on. -Husnock 22:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I already ordered you not to die. -- Cat out 00:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion
I strongly support (and I guess to some extent suggested) the compromise of a Law in Star Trek article and subject to the content being up to standard once its done will support it should it end up in AfD. I was wondering if a similar idea might be used in relation to the Starfleet Security debate. A topic of the nature of The military in Star Trek would allow you to combine Starfleet Security, Starfleet Intelligence & MACOs into one article and reference discussions of how compatible these have been with Gene Roddenbury's vision for the franchise. They would likely be much stronger in the face of AfD if grouped together, with the comments external sources have made on the topic. -WJBscribe (WJB talk) 09:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:StarfleetSec.jpg
Discussion moved to: Image talk:StarfleetSec.jpg


 * Hello. I noticed you moved this discussion but didn't actually answer the question I asked.  Can you do so?  It's quite a simple one: a or b or you aren't sure.  Morwen - Talk 23:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Question
I notice in a recent edit, you state that you were accused of committing a copyright violation to the text Starfleet Security. Can you please provide evidence that someone accused you of this? Morwen - Talk 20:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh...I conducted a total rewrite of the article and then a copyright violation tag was placed on it. -Husnock 20:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There were still sentences left over that were copyvio. Are you disputing this still?  I posted ample description of the sentences on the talk page because you did not accept this - then someone other than me removed them.  You did not revert the removal of these sentences and instead replaced them with new ones.  This is great.
 * I at no point have said that you personally introduced these copyright violations.   In my very first comment to the talk page about the issue, I said they were the fact of the initial author, User:WehrWolf, who I did not name to save embarrassemnt.   It would be good if you would explicitly acknowledge that the article as "rewritten" by you, did indeed still have some copyright violations left over in it from the old version. Morwen - Talk 20:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The entire point is I made a good faith effort to improve the article and was blasted on the talk page (you yourself said "Why are you actively making the article worse?"). Of course I wasn't, what a mean thing to say after I did such work to improve the article.  Then a copyright vio notice appears, so what can I think.  The Wiki-lawyer stuff that happened after that I dd not follow, there were many users involvoed and I dont have knowledge of the subject enough to contribute, retract, or comment now.  I work 16-18 hours in the real world and come to Wikipedia to have some fun.  Lately, when I arrive, I am finding my edits being challenged in such harsh ways and articles I've worked on for months showing up as AfDs.  So, you will excuse me now.  Off to do other things.  P.S.- I think the picture of you on your user page was vandalized by an anon user, you might want to check it. -Husnock 21:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not complaining about your initial reaction. I am complaining about this edit, not an hour ago, in wish you assert that you were "acccused [...] of making a copyright violation" at Starfleet Security.  If you cannot back that up with any evidence I, or another person, accused you of making a copyright violation, then you should strike that out and apologise.  I am perfectly willing to forgive you for misunderstanding my statements on the talk page, and for failing to spot the sentences were still there.  No problem at all.  We are only human, after all.  But after we've got the record straight, for you to continue to make false statements about what I have said, I do not find helpful and would ask you to withdraw these remarks.  Morwen - Talk 21:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Noone has yet apologized for the harsh comments made to me on the talk page, such as "Why are you actively making the article worse?" and calling mt edits "crap/hogwash". I would have to investigate the full situation to determine if the copyvio tag was directed at me or not before any retractions can be made. -Husnock 21:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) If you have not investigated the matter to your satisfaction then you should not be tossing around such accusations so lightly. 2) In any case, even if i was wrong and there was no material left over, then I still didn't accuse you of anything, I would have just screwed up.  I apologise for my tone regarding your edits.  I hope this is not going to be a one-way apology.  I consider WP:WAF to be important, so I see edits that make articles less in conformance with this to be unhelpful.  I would urge you to consider the importance and implications of this guideline. Morwen - Talk 21:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And I am utterly bemused by the comment about the photo on my userpage being vandalized. It seems to have not been edited or re-uploaded since it was uploaded in 2004.  Can you please clarify what you mean by this?  Morwen - Talk 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone wrote that they wanted to tickle you at the bottom of the description page. Hope you're not ticklish. -Husnock 21:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, that seems a perfectly innocent explanation. Combined with the wrong pronoun before, someone more sensitive than me might have taken it as a personal attack.  - User:Morwen 21:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A personal attack?!? Letting you know that someone had vandalized your user page?  How would that ever be seen as a personal atatck?? -Husnock 21:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you told me that a photo on my userpage which looked perfectly fine to me, may have been vandalised. No, I really do look like that.    Morwen - Talk 22:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding Law in Star Trek
The talk page is a redirect to the talk page of Star Trek in general, rather than a separate entity. Was this intentional or did the move/merge somehow get scrambled by the Wiki software? I ask because there are serious deficiencies within the sourcing structure of the article I would like to comment on at the article for centralized discussion. --Elar a girl  Talk 14:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Now on RfC!
 * Nope, not intetional. Will fix.  Thanks. -Husnock 14:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The wiki software does that to me sometimes when I'm trying to archive my blasted user pages. Anyway, I'll ask my question here since you're doing most of the sourcing.

"In episode of Voyager, Janeway actually demotes Tom Paris to the rank of Ensign: something that a CO in a real world Captain's Mast would not have the authority to do (this is easily explained by Voyager being in the Gamma Quadrant and janeway may have been acting under emergency legal authority) (ST:VOY: 'The Omega Directive')."

Two concerns here. Most people aren't military and may not understand the distinction between the green table and a full courts martial. (Did Star Trek captains mast use a green table? That would be delicously ironic). Anyway, the more important problem is that the section I bolded doesn't seem to be capable of direct sourcing and is speculative, thus needs to be removed. For obvious reasons, I won't be editing any ST article directly, but I think this is the kind of thing people will rightfully claim is OR. --Elar a girl  Talk 14:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Award star
I just came across the article Award star, which you created. (Nice article) I see that it does not contain any references. Is that something you could add to the article? Thanks. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added references. However, anyone in any branch of the US Military can confirm this. --<font color="SteelBlue">Elar a <font color="SteelBlue">girl  Talk 14:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No doubt. Thanks for adding refs.  I am keen on adding references, when missing, to all U.S. Military articles. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Hello Husnock. First off, I wish you success, luck and vitory in your professional life. I do think that there's an easy solution to this shebang, but I'm not an admin, so won't post on their noticeboard. There are two rproblems here, it seems to me. The main problem is the "death threat". This is the easiest. Start over. Tone of voice is notoriously lacking in electronic media. People misinterpret one another very easily. If you assure Morwen nicely that you meant no threat, I'm sure that as a reasonable person she'll graciously accept that. Then there's the underlying "sources" issue. This is also not so hard IMHO. WP is filled with unverified facts waiting to be verified. I'm sure that you'd be happy to agree to unverified facts being tagged. I'm equally sure there are helpful editors out there who'll help find sources while you're overseas. Furthermore, any unverified fact that can be demonstrably disproved with a source or using solid logic can be discussed on a talk page and removed until such a time that you return from overseas. I don't think you'd disapprove of this approach. Now it could be that I'm being an interfering Limey idiot who's not really understood the issues, but it could also be that this can be solved easily. I hope it's the latter. I'm going to post a copy of this to Morwen's talk page. If you two can sort this out, that'd be just dandy. Cheers, --Dweller 12:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Very kind words, thank you! I am going to back off from editing over the holidays, and let others work on these articles.  I'll see whats there over the New Year and proceed accordingly.  Thanks again! -Husnock 12:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Harsh inputs
You said " And I again state I find nothing useful in harsh inputs from the same people who were very vocal and uncivil about my votes on the Star Trek AfDs." on that mess at the admin noticeboard involving Morwen. Does that include me? --<font face="Verdana"><font color="SteelBlue">Elar a <font color="SteelBlue">girl  Talk 14:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, becuase your inputs were never sarcastic, just brutally honest. Thanks also for your kind words about this discussion and how silly it was in comparison to things.  I am having a slight issue with both of the people who started the AfDs now appearing to be against me on this discussion.  Almost as if they were following my edits.  But, this I cannot prove and I seem to be losing this fight.  People don't seem to get that posting on Wikipedia "I am fearful of my life" is extremely serious.  I could have been banned forever and Morwen should never have posted such an untrue thing.  I could take a half a dozen comments from talk pages and say they sound like threats.  But never would I tell another use I was in fear of my life unless it was an honest, real, legitimate threat.  Thanks again for your inputs.  They are actually appreciated -Husnock 14:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll bet money none of the people commenting on the issue are ex-military like I am. Being stationed in Beirut and going ashore in Kuwait was nervewracking enough. Being in the firing line as a line officer is something I have no wish to experience, and certainly I doubt very strongly that denegrating you is going to solve anything. However, if I'm not mistaken there have been more death threats by various users recently and while I can't agree that you made a death threat, the Civility Police will keep at this until you apologize. (Apologize for something you didn't do. sighs). --<font face="Verdana"><font color="SteelBlue">Elar a <font color="SteelBlue">girl  Talk 14:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I am thankfully not in such a dangerous place, although still in the Middle East. I knew a Marine in the first Gulf War that spoke of sleeping in a ditch and choking on oil fire fumes at night. Two people I knew from Virginia Tech also killed in the recent war. I am more of office military, thank God, and salute those who have more field time than I will ever see. -Husnock 14:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I was in Desert Storm, patching together shot up Iraqi's and a very few of our own casualties, and it was really fucking scary, I tell you that. *shudders* --<font face="Verdana"><font color="SteelBlue">Elar a <font color="SteelBlue">girl  Talk 17:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool down warning
Sir, you are becoming quite disruptive in your responses to the situation regarding Morwen. I am especially concerned about your attempt to spread the discussion to a second noticeboard, which risks starting a forest fire. If you do not cease this behavior, you risk being blocked for disruption, and I have already recommended that you be blocked if you do not stop. So please, do stop. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was concerned that someone appeared to block another user who had an opposing viewpoint. That is not disruptive, that is a very valid concern.  I have gotten in big trouble for doing that myself.  I have been very careful to avoid personal atatcks during this debate and have done nothing so far that could justify a block. -Husnock 16:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The IP that was blocked was blocked for threats and vandalism, not because it expressed an opinion which concurred with your own; however, that is not the issue here. I do not believe that you have made any personal attacks.  However, you are on the verge of creating a forest fire, and that would be disruption for which you could be blocked for a reasonable time in order to prevent further disruption of Wikipedia.  I strongly urge you to spend the rest of your off-duty time today doing something other than editing Wikipedia, and not return to this issue until tomorrow, if at all.  Kelly Martin (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I will posting a final statement tomorrow clearing the air. I just wonder this: in my recent situation where I was being Wiki-stalked where someone was e-mailing cities trying to find my address, where my job was e-mailed trying to get me in trouble, and my wife was e-mailed with a threatening e-mail noone came out of the wood work like this for me, indeed when I brought it up another user said I had "no right to make accusations like that". So, now, I am on the other side, and noone has said anything to Morwen. And, to be honest, I am very upset by someone posting to this site that I wish to harm them and that they are in fear of thier life because of me. I am a seasoned editor of this site, have a wife and family in the United States, and serve in the Middle East for my country. Why would I want to go the United Kingdom and harm someone I don't know. How silly is that? Yet, Morwen suggests it. So, yes, I will go away from this now, but it is pretty sad what this site has become. -Husnock 16:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That you have been stalked is unfortunate, and it perhaps explains your uncivil behavior of late, but it does not justify it. I strongly urge you to refrain from trying to make excuses for your own conduct; merely apologize for it, express regret, and move on.  It continues to concern me that you don't see why Morwen would see your words as threatening, and I fear that until you acknowledge that it was reasonable for her to do so, and acknowledge that she felt that way, there can be no closure for this incident.  Kelly Martin (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I posted a full statement. I never saw myself as being uncivil and never was. While you have valid concerns, mine are valid as well. I've laid them out in the statement. -Husnock 16:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The present discussion on WP:ANI
Hello Husnock, I was just wondering if you noticed my messages here and here? I think it would be very much in everyone's best interests if you would be willing to extend the olive branch and say that you are sorry that your comments unintentionally resulted in harm. I'm sure that Morwen would be similarly willing to express regret if her misunderstanding has caused you any hurt. Prolonging the matter by engaging in argument with the other editors in that thread is not helping anyone; indeed, it is getting to the point where it is disruptive.

What do you say? --bainer (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I did read your kind comments and intend to to do exactly that. I was kind of hoping to get some better viewpoints before other than from people who have openly opposed me in the past and have behaved uncivil like on AfDs.  We then had this situation where an anon ip account posted what could be seen as a supporting view, and the account was blocked by one of the other people involved in the discussion.  I'm not going to get involved in that one, since the language of the account was ver harsh.  I am also now concerned that I am being threatened with blocks (see above) if I dn't go away and be quiet.  What is this site coming too.  Thank you, though, for your kind words. -Husnock 16:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I basically agree with Kelly, although I have used less harsh words. It is the prolonging of the matter which is becoming disruptive. I think the best course of action would be to express your regret immediately, that will allow everyone else to move on before what was a simple misunderstanding mushrooms out of control. We can then work from there, calmly and reasonably, if there are further concerns. I heartily suggest you do this as soon as possible. --bainer (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

My main concerns at this point are A) I was openly called a "dick" (a personal attack) B) User:Morwen has been allowed to state that I threatened her and she was in fear of her life without any retraction and C) A covert comment was made about the Lt. Colonel from Dubai "being more concerned about someone on his staff wasting his time on Wikipedia", as if to suggest something about something, if you get my meaning (hard to explain). I will post to the site, most likely tomorrow, after others have had time to comment.  The discussion there has been rather one sided which is rather unsettling with the one comment made in my favor (although it was border-line CIV and NPA violation) blocked on site. -Husnock 16:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, further issues can be addressed once the initial misunderstanding is cleared up. I would heartily suggest that you leave even a small comment today, rather than waiting until tomorrow, because it will allow everyone else to move on, and as a gesture it would also reflect well on you, whereas in the conversation as it stands you come off quite poorly. Waiting can only make things worse, I think. --bainer (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've done exactly as you have suggested. I can only hope the other party in this doesnt in the future make similar statements about other users and start this up again. -Husnock 16:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you've made a very good start but I think it would be much better if you simply offered your regret for any unintentional harm that was caused, and leave it be at that; the way you have expressed it currently seems very petty. I'd suggest you simply offer your regret; then when the community has accepted that, we can move on from there. I'll help out with that in whatever way I can. I think everyone would agree that you were offended by the idea that your comment was a threat, but I think a sincere apology that your comment has caused harm, on its own, would go a long way towards eliciting an apology for the harm that you have suffered. --bainer (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did that, too then. We will see how it is received.  Please read my four points that I stated.  The suggestion of doing harm WAS offensive to me, I WAS called a Dick, and I DO NOT want this to brought up later.  I intend to not edit again until 2007.  Maybe even establish a new account so this will not follow me around, will have to see. -Husnock 16:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Farewell
I'm glad you came back to vote keep. I assume you saw my comment on the AfD. --<font face="Verdana"><font color="SteelBlue">Elar a <font color="SteelBlue">girl  Talk 18:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I had to come out of retirement for that one, but will still be very uninvolved with this site. The whole death threat accusation really upset me and shames the name of Wikipedia and what we stand for here.  Thank you, though, for your kind words! -Husnock 04:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tone
I'm sorry you thought I was being harsh. My post was intended to express the confusion I honestly feel on this topic. I am trying to understand the basis for that article and how it fit into Wikipedia, but am genuinely struggling. Thank you for explaining script error. Perhaps I was too blunt- I certainly meant no personal criticism beyond the fact that I worry those editing this article have become rather presonally involved with it and understandably defensive as a result. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 04:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am very touchy about these things as I was recently accused of making a death threat which has caused me to pretty much stop editing on this site. Thank you for your kind reply. -Husnock 04:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In reply to your further comment. To clarify "you put your own views above the whole basis for these articles" was meant to suggest a general preference by all editors of the article for fan based commentaries on Star Trek over the show itself. It was not meant as an insult, or a personal reference to you. I apologise if you took it that way. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 04:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC) I have striked (struck?) through the offending words and replaced them with something more neutral that better reflects my point anyway. The edit summary includes an apology. For the record, I will not edit the article as I feel it outside my competence- I am familiar only with the show and not its surrounding works. I merely raise points on the talk page that are of concern to me. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 04:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Left Wikipedia?
How is that you've left Wikipedia but manage to edit every day? Isn't that message just a flat out lie? --Charlesknight 10:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I reverted some vandalism and participated in an AfD vote after invited to do so by some respected editors. Other than that, I have ceased all editing on this site.  So, no, its not a "flat out lie". -Husnock 10:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sysop rights
If you are leaving Wikipedia for some time to come, if not for good, you may wish to ask for your sysop privileges to be suspended. Current thinking is that you can request them back again if you ever return to editing Wikipedia. Dormant accounts with sysop privileges seem to me to be a security problem waiting to happen. I imagine a note at WP:BN is all that's needed. Best wishes, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violations?
Hello. I see your notice, but I also see that you are still active editing, so I hope you'll have time to reply.

I recently took pictures of some 43 pilot wings (mostly US Army WWII era). While prepping these images for upload I came across the page Obsolete badges of the United States military which includes a great many drawings of badges. Since it didn't include some of the badges I had photos of, I was keenly interested in finding out if I could find more of these drawings.

Your image pages didn't help much because you claimed PD without comment. By googling around some, and then consulting the wayback machine I was able to determine that these images were created some years ago by "RWD Ploessl" whos website claims no affiliation with the US Government. Although the underlying designs of these images should be public domain, the actual images themselves are copyrighted by their creator.

Are you RWD Ploessl? I looked at some of your other uploads, and you seem to have many copyrighted images from many sources tagged as public domain. I'm very confused. Are you simply disregarding our copyright policy, or am I missing something important? Please reply here or on my commons talk page, I don't make it around to my enwiki talk page often enough these days.--Gmaxwell 08:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not that person, I do not even know him. Those images are all from the image database at NPRC which, in turn, were uploaded from a CD received in 1999 from Randolph Air Force Base.  I've run into that guy before online, and he is usually very upset shouting copyright violation.  However, the very images themselves are of United States military badges which are not copyrightable by anyone, even if you were to redraw them.  An added mystery is all of his pictures, which he claims to have personally created, in one way or the other wound up on a CD at Randolph.  The original contact for that CD was Staff Sergeant Pat Ratzel, long since transferred, and the NPRC customer service number (which can verify those images are public) is 314-801-0800.  They can also verify who Sergeant Ratzel was.  Noone is trying to streal images from that persn you mentioned, in fact he was invited at least twice to establish a full time Wikipedia account so we could work it out.  All I ever saw was temporary red link accounts or anon ip addresses claiming copyright infringement with occasional hit and run tag changes to the images.  I am no longer active on this site, but will check my talk page every so often.  I'd be interested how all of that gets resolved. -Husnock 09:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Your userpage
Husnock, I have removed the section from your userpage which discusses the incident on WP:AN recently. You have repeatedly been advised that this incident was nothing more than a misunderstanding, which no-one would hold against you. You have repeatedly been assured that the community recognises that the other end of the misunderstanding, the suggestion that you would have harmful intent towards someone, caused you personal distress. Morwen has acknowledged that the misunderstanding was only a temporary affair, and that once she calmed down she realised that you of course did not intend any harm. Yet you were the one who raised the issue on WP:AN, and pursued it despite much encouragement from sympathetic individuals like myself that the situation would be best resolved by agreeing to move on. Ultimately you apologised for the unintentional harm that resulted from your comment, and the community was satisfied with a peaceful resolution.

There is only one way for me to interpret this edit to the departure message on your userpage: that you are unwilling to let the issue go. I have removed the section in the hope that this issue may be abandoned permanently. If you continue to pursue the issue, I will have no choice but to take further action. --bainer (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing I'm saying on my user page is untrue. I was stalked, threatening e-mails were sent, and User:Morwen posted for all to see (its still on the talk page of the original article) that she was in fear of her life.  None of that is in dispute.  I have the right to state why I left editing on this site.  Removal of my statement is possibly censorship.  Please just let me speak my mind. -Husnock 03:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I will be blunt: I and many other members of the community consider your inability to let this matter go to be disruptive within the meaning of the blocking policy. You are about to exhaust the community's patience on this matter. If you choose to continue to prolong the dispute, by restoring the message or by any other means, then you will be blocked. --bainer (talk) 04:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

While I can give some understanding to the Morwen thing, and would be willing to remove that stuff of the talk page statement of the original article were also retracted, I cannot under at all your wanting to remove a very true statement that I was Wiki-stalked and threatening e-mails sent out one ot my wife. That doesn't even mention a person, it simply states what happened. And, as stated before, nothing on my user page is untrue. If I were making an attack, that would be one thing, I am not. I am stating what happened without calling anyone a name or anything like that. Removing this info is changing someone else's user page (which you shouldn't do) and censoring Wikpedia, (which you should never do). Also, please understand I appreciate your motives but if you were to block me that too would be something you should not do as you are a party in a dispute about these statements. In the end, the simply fact is that there is nothing on my user page that warrants removal and indeed I cant think of a Wikipedia policy that prevents me from making a statement as to why I left this state. -Husnock 04:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of one month because of your disruptive behaviour. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that disruption and incivility will not be tolerated. --bainer (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That is pure abuse of your admin powers. I stated above my reasons for the statement and how dare you block another user who you are in a dispute with to silence them. I have unblocked myself. Totally uncalled for. -Husnock 05:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See this WP:ANI discussion. --  tariq abjotu  05:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've made my honorable attempts.
I did what I could to act in a noble manner. I wish you hadn't unblocked yourself, because it tainted this whole thing. I think the block was completely inappropate, the way everyone attacked you over the death threat bullshit was completely out of whack, and quite frankly, the way things are headed right now I can't imagine what will happen. If you go to ArbCom, you might as well pick out a WikiVactation ahead of time, since there isn't a chance you'll be exonerated based on recent ArbCom actions against admin misconduct. I'm not experienced enough to know what to say except I think the only thing you did wrong was come back in the first place...and I may go on a long wikibreak myself, this is ... upsetting. --<font face="Verdana"><font color="SteelBlue">Elar a <font color="SteelBlue">girl  Talk 06:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Leaving
If you're going to leave, do so. I wish you luck in your future endeavours. What I don't like is using "leaving" as a free card to exiting any discussion, and injecting it into every conversation. This comes across as attention-seeking. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 11:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am on the way out, have no fear. I was helping a friend post to the site as he's having enourmous problems establishing an account from where he is. -Husnock 11:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You do that by creating him an account and having the system email him a password, not by giving him your own password. A compromised admin account is anathema.

Words fail me, which as anyone who knows will tell you is remarkable. —Phil | Talk 12:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain why he could not just email you his contribution and you could then post it? Why did you need to give him access to an admin-level account to accomplish what a simple cut and paste would have achived? --Charlesknight 12:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you must know, I was on the phone with him and didnt think there was a rule against it if I changed my password right after I gave it to him. In any event...a ban from the site?  Why are people hating me so? -Husnock 12:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The truth
So, Husnock, were you lying on December 13th when you said "I have never heard of this person but I do know there are CENTCOM offices in Dubai", or are you lying now, when you say you are best friends and you gave him your password? Both cannot be true. Proto :: ►  12:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He posted his real name on Wikipedia so I was trying to protect him. If that counts as a lie, then I was trying for the ends to justify the means (i.e., not openly admitting that I knew who that was and confirming his name on Wikipedia).  He since has stated he doesn't care.  He really wanted to post that letter so I helped him.  Shoot me for that.  My only issue is that this block is permament...since when was it discussed banning me from the site?  Am I really so evil?  Then we get to the letter itself.  I thought it was a very nice letter.  And, like I said, he was having all kinds of troubling establishing an account from where he is due to the ip blocks.  I did not know I was breaking the rules to do this, as long as I changed my password.  You can give me some kind of block (that's what a lot of people want), but banning me the site from the is a bit much, I think, for giving my password to someone who was having trouble establishing an account. -Husnock 12:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that does count as a lie. Quite a big lie.   The same IP address had vandalised pages involving you before, and you claimed it was nothing to do with you.   Proto ::  ►  12:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That single ip address is held by God knows how many computers in the Dubai-Fuairah area. It's why it keeps getting blocked nd he couldn't post.  And I don't think it was so terrible to not admit I knew him before talking to him about it, otherwise I'd be confirming his indenity on Wikipedia.  What about the original point?  Do I deserve a BAN?!?  I think not. -Husnock 12:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am frankly amazed that it needs explaining to an admin what is so wrong with such conduct. First of all we have someone from an IP address who interjects into a dispute you have with another user - the type of comments that person makes leads to them being blocked - At the time, you claim not to know the person and query the block stating that they are a netural third-party and that such a block could be seen as trying to shut down discussion of the matter.. Great fine. However it now transpires that you are "good friends" and that you handed over your admin account to this unknown person so that this person could make posts from your account. Whichever way you want to cut it, you lied to the community. According to you, this is due to an IP block - which does not explain why you could not have cut and paste the material from an email or set up an account for the user.

You don't see WHY this type of behaviour is not of the basic standard that we would expect from admin? Honestly? You don't understand why people would be concerned? --Charlesknight 12:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's see, Husnock. You have a) lied, b) refused to apologise for causing a misunderstanding, and then tried to get the upset user punished for daring to be upset c) failed to understand basic wikipedia policy repeatedly around copyright, d) been stupid enough to give your account password to someone else, e) gave access to a sysopped account to somebody else, f) unblocked yourself after being blocked for disruption and f) refused to take responsibility for any of these actions, blaming someone else for everything that has happened.  You're still an administrator.  What do you think the appropriate course of action should be?   Proto ::  ►  12:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I also note that since announcing you had left Wikipedia 5 days ago, you have made almost 100 edits.  Proto ::  ►  13:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Wesley.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Wesley.gif, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Proto ::  ►  16:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom case regarding indefinite block
An arbitration case has been opened here to attempt to resolve the situation surrounding your current indefinite block. Since you are blocked you may wish to write any initial statement here and I or another can copy it to the ArbCom page. Dan Rappaport may also wish to comment as an involved party. --CBD 16:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sysop
I am advising you that because your account has been compromised, your sysop privileges have been suspended, pending further investigation of recent activity in your account. Bastiq ▼ e demandez 16:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As this potential account compromise was the reason for your block I have unblocked you. Note that compromised accounts of non-admin users are usually blocked as well. However, as you have indicated that the password has been changed and presumably will not share it again I am taking it on faith that the problem is resolved so that you may respond to various ongoing discussions. --CBD 16:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:CamelCommodore
Since I am party to the RfAr, I decline to become involved. Reviewing Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, this decision lies with ArbCom anyway. See where it says "Question about a possible sock puppet related to an open arbitration case" the solution being "Request checkuser on the arbitration case pages". The matter is for ArbCom to decide. --Durin 20:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Your bot?
Is this your bot? If so, you should keep in mind that (a) bots need to be approved before use on wikibooks, and (b) you really should take the time to learn project inclusion policies before running bots on projects you're new on.

The account has recieved an indefinite block. -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 15:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not my bot, I have never heard of it or that site. Can you delete that page?  It is false. -Husnock 15:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like another person trying to get you in trouble by impersonating you. Morwen - Talk 15:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

God, will it never end. Can we trace who made that bot? I dont know enough about bots or Wikibooks. -Husnock 15:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We did a checkuser but it wasn't informative (possibly an OP). I'll delete and protect the page if you like. -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 15:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be nice, thank you very much. I am trying to come clean with the site and dont need false identity pages floating around.  Thank you very much. -Husnock 15:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you make sure to keep what info you did get from checkuser safe somewhere in case it is needed for the future? Morwen - Talk 15:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Final statement
I have chosen to leave this site due to some very negative experiances in the past month. The first was a Wiki-stalking incident where parties unknown attempted to find me in the "real world", resulting in two e-mails to city governments (in an attempt to find my address), an e-mail to my job (in an attempt to get me in some kind of trouble), followed by a semi-threatening e-mail sent to my wife. The full details of this incident can be found here.

The second incident which has inspired me to shut down my account was that, on 13 Dec 2006, User:Morwen accussed me of making a death threat against her []. After my years on this site, and my general integrity as a person, to have someone post that I wished to harm them and they were in fear of thier life was greatly upsetting to me. Even more upsetting was the response of the Wikipedia community where the accusser was defended from all angles and I was eventually forced to make an apology. Full details of this incident can be found here.

As a result of these and other statements made by me and others, I was blocked from this site and removed of all admin powers. An Arbitration Committee is now reviewing if I will ever be allowed to return. I have therefore chosen to leave this site for now and wish the best to those who choose to remain. Good-bye. -Husnock 04:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

CamelCommodore
By all means, this user may or may not be you (I can't say so one way or the other), but the edit I cited does seem to prove that CamelCommodore is some sort of sockpuppet. I can't unblock him, but feel free to take it to one of the noticeboards. Ral315 (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw your comment at the RfArb page: "This really does seem to be a real person and I see no harm in unblocking to at least see what the guy does. after all, when you get down to it, what exactly did he do to warrant a permanent ban?". After noting that CamelCommodore only has 30 edits, 29 on one day and 1 on the next day, it would be a lot less hassle for the person behind CamelCommodore to simply register a new account. It would also be a lot less hassle for you, as you would not then have to defend the person behind CamelCommodore. In other words, whoever is behind CamelCommodore should retire the account and start over again afresh. Carcharoth 02:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Husnock
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Husnock. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Husnock/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Husnock/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 04:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:NYPDMOH.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:NYPDMOH.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)