User talk:Rdsmith4/Archive 9

GBYork
Now this I'm curious about. I've had a funny feeling about GBYork and some other accounts starting with 3 initials such as ABSmyth, and NLOleson. All three of them have been on a tagging spree focused on pagan writers, and they started doing this just after Mattisse had gone on a spree doing the same thing, but stopped. Are these users all the same? I've suspected it in the back of my mind but have not seen any slip ups which could be used as evidence. -999 (Talk) 22:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't suspect GBYork and Mattisse to be the same person at all judging from the way they've conducted conversations via my and their talk pages. For example, Mattisse was very upset at the Wikilawyering leveled at her by User:999 and nearly left the project entirely, while GBYork seems very wary of admins in general. If it's all an act, though very unlikely, it's a very elaborate one! 999 is basing his accusations of sockpuppetry mainly on the coincidence that they've both participated in the same AFDs that arose from the User:Rosencomet incident. User:Geogre and myself were less than impressed with this conduct on one AFD. After that incident, I've been keeping an eye out for any further incivility on 999's part and would be quite skeptical of any sockpuppetry claims --  Netsnipe  ►  22:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone pointed me to this page from an e-mail (I can't recall the wiki-name, sorry) I sent when I saw the Mattisse sockpuppet notice. I followed a link from his e-mail to Mattisse's talk page, and noticed that (I think anyway) Mattisse has blanked out both the talk and user pages. I don't know the proper ediquite here, but you might need to re-post those notices, if a revert is a no-go. Maury 19:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Bowser
Hi, could I just ask how the Nintendo guys got you to delete bowser to make way for their preferred article at that location? There is a debate ongoing right now; bowser is listed in dictionaries and other encyclopaedias as a type of tanker (bowser (tanker), used to describe water tankers in most of the former British empiure as well as being a standard term for airport fuel tankers) and is the generic term for fuel pump in Australia and NZ, where the S. F. Bowser Corporation had a very strong presence. The Nintendo guys have decided that an agreement between some Nintendo users and some other Nintendo users on the talk page of a Nintendo article amounts to consensus to override a century of common usage. At least one Nintendo guy has done a quick Google and found much to his surprise that Nintendo is not the most common usage; to his great credit he has supported the status quo as I left it, which is that bowser is a dab page. I fixed the many double and triple redirects that this and past moves had caused, one of the Nintendoids undid some of these, which I found a bit frustrating. Anyway, as one admin to another, can you tell me where they went to ask for this move, since I want to make sure they don't do it again (at least not without the other half of the story being put). Thanks, Just zis Guy you know? 08:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I asked him in the IRC chat room. I told him that there was a consensus to move to Bowser, and that you ignored that. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you editorialised. There is no consensus as is made abundantly clear by the discussions on my Talk page and by Steel's comments at Talk:Bowser (Nintendo).  I hope you did not tell him that I am a vandal, since admins tend to get pissed off when users describe good faith actions by other admins as vandalism. Absent consensus a dab page is acceptable, although as other admins have pointed out to you the century-long usage, to the point of being a genericised trademark, actually argues very strongly for the tanker / fuel pump usage. Just zis Guy you know? 09:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Poll
The poll has already been closed, complete with the green box indicating it was closed, and the page was protected. I've reverted. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  20:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So that the admins can judge the consensus. Unfortunately it is needed since this is a contentious topic. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  21:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Read you message of thanks to 999
I had already composed the closing message on my user page when I read it. But it reinforced why it is hopeless to try to remain here. Mattisse(talk) 08:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I notice did not chide 999 for removing your criticism of him re his uncivil comments to Shravak from his talk page. I guess you felt that it was O.K. to do that. He removed Netsnipe's too. Netsnipe made him put them all back and explained why that was wrong. (So he archived all of your comments.)  That is one of the reasons I don't think you are capable of protecting me. 999 outwits you. Mattisse(talk) 09:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied, hopefully for the last time, by e-mail. &mdash; Dan | talk 21:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
You might like to comment at Talk:Chief Financial Officer as the proposal is to revert some of your previous tidying up. Andrewa 02:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

See this history. OHO! But perhaps this deleted edit explains it. Is the history misleading in this case? Andrewa 20:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

reply to sockpuppetry
Dan, thanks for letting me know about the sockpuppets. I see my suspicions were right about Mattisse, ABSmyth, GBYork and NLOleson. I didn't suspect Dattat of being Mattisse, though, or any of the other 11 socks, though I recognize some of them as having edited some of the articles I work on.

Is there some reason Mattisse has been allowed to remove the puppetmaster tag from her user page? Other users may need to know about this. It appears that she did not stop editing like she claims on here page, having edited several pages after removing the tag.

I will try to be less rude, but I tend to be direct and find it difficult to beat around the bush effectively. It seems no matter how I try to express things, people find some reason to find them offensive. Of course, nearly all the accusations of rudeness on my page besides yours turns out to have been from socks of Mattisse.... -999 (Talk) 16:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for taking the time to change my username. I think that the new one is a lot easier to remember! I really appreciate it! - Mike 20:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ellen Evert Hopman
I'm trying to figure out what happened to this article. It was here before the Labor Day weekend and gone now. There doesn't seem to be an AfD. Did it get inappropriately speedied? -999 (Talk) 21:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * thanks! -999 (Talk) 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

changing username
See Changing_username Thank you --→JMB(Spanish user) (My talk) 13:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely!
Thank you SO much! Yes, I did wish to be reinstated. Jimbo ran it through ArbCom who gave me the thumbs-up. HUGE thanks!! - Lucky 6.9 01:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

changing username usurpation
See Changing_username Thank you --→Rudwolf1(Spanish user) (My talk) 16:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

ISP
ArmedCitizen 22:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. — Dan | talk 22:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for such a rapid response.

63.19.20.47 23:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ooopsie

63.19.20.47 00:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

SleepyAC

 * Current name: ArmedCitizen
 * Requested name: SleepyAC
 * Reason: My nickname has inflamed reactions to those in favor of Gun Control. Thank you.

ArmedCitizen 22:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. &mdash; Dan | talk 22:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for such a rapid response.

63.19.20.47 23:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ooopsie now I've really got a problem.

password didn't work with the old to the new

ArmedCitizen 12:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Email
Hello sir. Could you please check your email at your earliest convenience? Thanks. Jdas07 06:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks
thanks for changing my name :-)

--Dak 17:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: ?
Thanks for the note; I noticed that the problem came after Old TI-89 was blocked per checkuser, and is the identical behavior exhibited by this Lehighan in other incarnations. Surprise, surprise... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c)  18:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Hoopydink
Um, you closed this a day early. Not that it matters... Yank sox  22:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, damn. Thank you for noticing; my watch is wrong. I'll let it stand, of course, as it seems exceedingly unlikely that the outcome will change in a day. If anyone has a strong issue with this, I'll reopen it for a while. &mdash; Dan | talk 22:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The only reason, it mattered to me was because I waiting to be the 100th vote. Oh well, such is life. :) Yank  sox  22:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"small changes" in WP:SNOW
I'm sorry you disagree with my estimation of the situation. When the language of a "guideline" has not stabilized yet, to the point where exceptions/usages are not clear, and yet we've been asked on the talk page to approve the wording as a guideline, I think it's premature to make it an approved guideline as a fait accompli. -- nae'blis 01:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It was tagged as an essay before this morning, however, despite it being "in use" (and briefly, as an "important" page). The discussion on the talk page has only gone on for only about 12 hours, before that it safely existed as an essay for months. I'm not going to revert your change, but I'm not sure you're aware of the changes of wording still ongoing during said discussion. -- nae'blis 01:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the new username!
Thank you so much!--Edtalk c E  02:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Bot approvals
Thanks for taking care of the bot approvals. Could you also take care of User:AP.BOT? Thanks! -- RM 02:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion request
Could you please delete User:Wikitravel Sapphire/Sandbox. Earlier you renamed my username and I moved the sandbox in my old username namespace to the new username namespace. Currently, that page is a redirect and I have no need for a redirect page. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. -- Sapphire 19:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey, so I just wanted to thank you for doing my username change, now per the suggestion on the WP page, I've recreated the User:Pm shef account (the userpage for which i see you've redirected to my new one), could you please indef block that username to prevent it from being used against me? If you could just let me know when that's done, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks a lot! -- Chabuk 02:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Change username
hello. would be so kind as to change my current name into "Kamikaze"? i would be very grateful. Kamikaze 20:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've done this. &mdash; Dan | talk 20:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

thank you very much. Kamikaze 21:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Namechange
Thanks, Dan. A Train take the 22:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

can you please delete everything at User:SuicidalZero account? User:Tenebrae accused me of sockpuppetry. i could use some help in removing the sockpuppet tag on my user talk page. thanks in advance. Kamikaze 22:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

it was all about having my signature set on kamikaze before the username change. User:Tenebrae misunderstood the use of the redirect.Kamikaze 22:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

William H. Kennedy
Hey. Can I ask why you have deleted and protected this article? There appears to be no reason for doing so and you've offered no explanation. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch \ talk 20:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch \ talk 20:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Pope item on "In the news"
Excellent correction, compelling prose, much better than I could have done. Thanks! - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I Don't Mind
I've added the "prod" template to the article I Don't Mind, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:I Don't Mind. If you remove the dated prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Fram 12:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This must be the first time I've given a ProD to an admin ;-) This is not meant as criticism of your contributions (I have a lot of respect for the hard work admins do, and I appreciate if they make articles in the meantime as well), but I feel that this article is not notable and verifiable enough. We ask for bands to have two albums or multiple reviews before they can be included: I think having a song which is only known locally is below those standards. No big deal, it's only one in a long list of ProDs I'm handing out, and there are bound to be mistakes in them, so if you feel I'm too strict here, feel free to remove the notice. Fram 12:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Abreu Move
Dan, why did you move Abreu Camp to Abreu? "Abreu Camp" is the official name of the camp at Philmont. It is also the name of many people, and possibly the name of a town and a noble family in Galicia. I think you should revert it and have dab or a redirect instead. It's easy to be Philcentric, but the family name takes precedence. Less than 40,000 people have ever heard of the camp, but millions have heard of Bobby Abreu, for example. Donbas 22:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Grand Prix racing
This is to inform you that the project page listed above is being considered for deletion. If you wish to participate in the discussion, please follow the appropriate links. Thank you. Badbilltucker 15:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Mattisse
Howdy! I'm not even sure if you will remember, but back on Sept 1 you blocked for several sockpuppet abuses. It was the second time she had been blocked for that, and you gave her one week. Shortly thereafter, you unblocked, and I cannot find any discussion of why. Did you determine that she did not abuse sockpuppets? Just curious because her behavior and use of sockpuppets has come into question once again. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 22:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza
You might be interested to note that Ed is acting like an idiot right now at Esperanza, slow revert-warring with me. Ral315 (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Mattisse again
Hello, I see you blocked and unblocked Mattisse for sockpuppeting. Mattisse sockpuppet Timmy12 has slipped up and identified herself as Mattisse by claiming tags placed by Mattisse as its own. For detail, see the last point in this request for checkuser. Shouldn't this user be indef blocked by now for multiple sockpuppet incidents? Did she agree not to use sockpuppets to get unblocked? She's been using this sockpuppet while blocked for 3RR... Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ritz Hotel London exterior.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ritz Hotel London exterior.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. -- Chowbok   ☠  00:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ritz Hotel London palm court.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ritz Hotel London palm court.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. -- Chowbok   ☠  00:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Lysdexia
An anon has signed a post here as Lysdexia, a user who you blocked exactly one year ago today. Maybe it is a common name, or maybe it is someone avoiding a block. I cannot tell if it is a sincere post or not. I obviously disagree with the NPOV tag, and the description on talk is not helpful, but that isn't enough to cry fowl, so I am asking you (if you have time) to perhaps examine the anon's edit history. Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 04:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I just read the anon's talk page, and it is definately the same user because there is an ad hominem against you.--Andrew c 04:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC on Mattisse/Timmy12
Hello. Just letting you know that an RfC has been opened on Mattisse, here. As it provides strong circumstantial evidence that Timmy12 is a sockpuppet of Mattisse intentionally using two computers to evade checkuser, I thought you might want to comment. I don't really care what side you weigh in on, but I know you've been in a position to observe at least part of the situation and any view would be helpful. &mdash;Hanuman Das 11:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Resyropping
I requested my admin tools removed last month when I was being mass harrassed by some idiots with hundreds of password request forms, in the conflect I lost my main account password for several weeks. I talked to Redux and he said that I should talk to you to regain my syrop tools because you were the steward who desyropped me. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 03:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Dan. This is about a discussion we've been having about log uniformity.  We've been thinking that, in case of voluntary desysoppings where the user requests to be resysopped, a Steward should do it, so as to have both actions (-sysop and +sysop) on the same log, as opposed to having 2 +sysop on the Wikipedia log, and one -sysop on the Meta log.  This is still very much an open discussion, given the prerrogative of local Bureaucrats to set rights.  But in this case, since Jaranda asked you to be desysopped on IRC, and there isn't a record on Meta's Requests for Permissions, I thought it would be even better if you did it using your Steward interface, from the MetaWiki.  Cheers,  Redux 04:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

umm
I was saying "hello" to someone I know. I understand this is still permitted; do correct me if I am in error. &mdash; Dan | talk 03:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I was in the process of typing an inquiry here when you responded on my talk page. Is there any particular reason why you blanked the page (thereby removing helpful advice) and just did so again (via the very administrative rollback tool that I refrained from using out of respect)?  &mdash;David Levy 03:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Because I know the person. I can instruct him as necessary and direct him to the relevant tutorial pages if need be. The labelling of my comment with the "unsigned" template was sanctimonious and unnecessary. Good grief. &mdash; Dan | talk 04:24, 17 November 2006


 * 1. I'm waiting for you to explain why you removed another editor's helpful post (evidently expecting others to somehow divine that the user whose page you blanked is a personal acquaintance) and what you believe gives you the right to do this.
 * 2. I reverted what would ordinarily be deemed vandalism, and I did so via manual means (instead of using the administrative rollback function). You then used said tool to revert my edit (once again blanking the page), apparently under the logic that it's okay for you to remove another user's comprehensive greeting/introduction, but not okay for someone else to remove your unsigned (by the MediaWiki definition), misspelled, one-word post when reverting your page-blanking (which left me scratching my head, attempting to come up with an explanation other than vandalism on your part).
 * Now you're accusing me of engaging in behavior that's "sanctimonious and unnecessary" because I followed standard procedure by adding the unsigned tag (while simultaneously reverting your inexplicable page-blanking for the second time). Good grief, indeed.  &mdash;David Levy 04:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to No. 1, I thought I had done that above, in particular in the part which read "I can instruct him as necessary and direct him to the relevant tutorial pages if need be." If not, here goes again: I can instruct him as necessary and direct him to the relevant tutorial pages if need be.


 * No, that doesn't explain why you believe that it was appropriate or beneficial to deliberately remove another user's helpful message (an act that we usually refer to as "vandalism"), nor does it explain how anyone was supposed to know why you had done this. Given the obvious fact that you aren't a vandal, I was trying to imagine a scenario in which this could have been accidental (despite the fact that you used the edit summary "Replacing page with 'hullo. - rds'").  My best guess was that the edit summary was automatically generated by some sort of script that you use.


 * With regard to No. 2, perhaps you might have asked me what I was doing. I've been around a while; I should hope it's not generally feared that I might turn vandal at any moment, unless my every action not be scrutinized carefully. I apologize, humbly etc., for having 'left you scratching your head', though I maintain that a simple note, giving me the opportunity to clarify, would have been more in order.


 * Again, I was typing one when you responded. The possibility that you actually intended to blank the user's page (an action that I still don't understand) and wanted the page to remain that way didn't cross my mind.


 * I am curious, in any case, how your piercing gaze attenuated itself to this particular talk page. This user has done nothing of significance. There's no reason to think I would pick a new user out of the blue to confuse and harass. I am, as you seem to have been before, thoroughly mystified at your outraged response to my entirely insignificant action. &mdash; Dan | talk 05:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. I checked your contribution history to see if you'd commented on the earlier ITN dispute on a page that I hadn't noticed. The edit summary "Replacing page with 'hullo. - rds'" jumped out at me.
 * 2. I'm not "outraged." I am, however, "thoroughly mystified."  &mdash;David Levy 05:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Though I daren't go as far as to ask that you assume good faith, I would appreciate some degree of decency in questioning or reversing my actions. &mdash; Dan | talk 04:34, 17 November 2006


 * I did assume good faith (simply because of who you are). That's why I reverted your page-blanking manually and intended to post an inquiry here.  You, conversely, responded by treating my reversion as vandalism (using the administrative rollback function to once again blank the page) and posting a sarcastic message on my talk page.  Now you're lecturing me about demonstrating "some degree of decency in questioning or reversing [your] actions"?  &mdash;David Levy 05:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't really concerned about how anyone would know why I'd done it, as I did not expect in the least that anyone would care. I removed the welcome message because it treats the user as a fourth-grader, what with patronizing diction and a photograph of a cupcake. I did not wish my friend, an intelligent adult, to be put off by this impression of Wikipedia. The edit summary is apparently an automatic thing; in fact I left the edit summary box blank.


 * 1. As a general rule, it's improper to simply remove another user's post from someone else's talk page unless said message is clearly inappropriate. You provided no explanation of why you'd done this (and didn't even type an edit summary, as it turns out), and I assumed that it was accidental.
 * 2. I've noticed a number of similar edit summaries today, so I suppose that this must be a new MediaWiki feature.


 * Also, I don't know if you meant to suggest it, but by no means do I deserve the assumption of good faith more than anybody else simply because of who I am. I should hope you treat everyone else with more dignity than you did me. &mdash; Dan | talk 05:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. No, I didn't mean to suggest that you deserve the assumption of good faith more than anybody else. I am, however, inclined to set aside evidence to the contrary when I see that the user in question is a respected member of the community.  If, for example, you had replaced the welcome message with a profane diatribe, I would have surmised that a third party had somehow accessed your account.
 * 2. Your actual edit was perplexing, as it was the sort of behavior typically initiative of a newbie test or a deliberate act of vandalism. I knew that neither applied to you, so I assumed that it was an accident (despite the edit summary, which I didn't realize was generated by MediaWiki).  Therefore, I reverted the edit manually (instead of using the administrative rollback function, as I would with vandalism) and began typing an inquiry on this page.  That's when you rolled back my reversion (as though I had committed an act of vandalism) and posted a sarcastic comment on my talk page.  I'm at a loss when it comes to your "dignity" remark.  &mdash;David Levy 06:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have little regard for the "general rule" and doing what's "proper" when the reasons for doing such are not relevant to the situation; nor do I care about this issue enough to continue arguing about it. I beg pardon for having wasted your time. &mdash; Dan | talk 06:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a strong proponent of WP:IAR. It's important, however, that the reasons behind one's decision to ignore rules are clear.  Blanking someone else's talk page without explanation is likely to result in the type of misunderstanding that occurred.  Instead of concentrating on your rationale, please try to consider how your action appeared to someone not privy to your thought process at the time.  Then scroll up and read the comments that you posted to someone who was merely attempting to correct what he initially perceived as an error and figure out what the heck was going on.  Thank you.  &mdash;David Levy 06:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It can be rather tedious to perform actions in a way such that people monitoring pages will always be given all of the relevant information in order to by %100 sure that nothing possibly confusing to the new user in question was going on. This seems to have been adaquently explained, so no need to drag this out more. Voice -of-  All  22:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A simple edit summary along the lines of "removing unnecessary greeting from my friend's talk page" would have done the trick. Regardless, what bothers me isn't Dan's decision to blank a talk page without explanation.  It's that he attacked me for failing to read his mind and restoring a talk page that was blanked without explanation.  &mdash;David Levy 23:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Username
As I try to create an account under the name Jaber, I'm told that this username already exists. The user has no talk page, no user page and hasn't contributed to wikipedia. I was wondering if you could help me acquire the username. Jaber 10:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for helping me on this. Jaber 19:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Main Page banner
please see Template_talk:Main_Page_banner GameKeeper 00:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Special welativity
Are you still fighting vandals? Somebody keeps changing the name of the special relativity page to "special welativity" and then painstakingly goes through the entire article to make it read like it was written by Elmer Fudd. After I was done LMAO, I became righteously indignant and decided to drop you a note, asking for assistance. PAR 02:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Baptist
That was a sarcastic comment, not a threat, and somebody took it seriously. Their personal information most assuredly SHOULD NOT be listed on this website, precisely because someone might do something stupid. Are we clear on this now? Wahkeenah 22:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll admit my askew sense of humor gets carried away. Something to consider, though: Those loons have gotten away with this on the very dubious grounds of the First Amendment. Unless they study their victims first (which they probably do), one of these times they're going to run into someone who feels like exercising their Second Amendment rights of self-defense against this vile cult. Wahkeenah 00:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Trying to figure something out
I am hoping you will help me here and provide me with reality. I know this is a big thing to ask of you and if you do not want to, I understand. I am asking you because you are quoted and I cannot find the checkuser.

This is said to be the case regarding me:
 * (quote) Rdsmith4 (talk • contribs) ran the CheckUser. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The filings I am aware of:
 * 1) Requests for checkuser/Case/Listerin Filed July 26
 * 2) Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse filed September 6
 * 3) Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (2nd) filed September 6
 * 4) Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (3rd)- filed September 21
 * 5) Requests for checkuser/Case/Mattisse filed October 25
 * 6) Requests for checkuser - Listerin provided by Hanuman Das.

There has also been:
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival filed by User:Salix alba to help me out over the continuing sockpuppet issues and templates being placed on my user page by the editors accusing me.
 * Requests for comment/Mattisse - November 9 - further accusations of being a sockpuppet.

Could you show me where that all CheckUsers are so that I may fully disclose in all cases and not have to speculate and sound wishy-washy? I looked for yours but could not find it.

A new mediator on the Starwood case filed this ANI on me "Mattisse Redux" on December 7 because I unsatisfactorily tried to answer a question about those sockpuppets:

Since these accusations are pursuing me to this day I wish to know which are sockpuppets of mine so I may answer honestly what has been proven as fact. One came up a few days ago: User:LiftWaffen. Is that a sockpuppet if mine? I don't want to take up your time and energy or bother you. If there is another way of going about this, please advise me. Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse 16:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also there is a proposed Arbitration case Requests for arbitration but I think I am peripheral to this although I never can tell as the sockpuppet accusations have come up there also. But I've learned to use diffs and others things through all of this - I'm not so helpless anymore. My edit history is really very good 14,000 edits and working on a FA candidate Hoysala empire. Sincerely, Mattisse 16:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Starwood ArbCom and Mattisse's Sockpuppets
The issues surrounding placement of ACE/Starwood links and related matters is in ArbCom now. See Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence for the project page. Because sockpuppets attributed to Mattisse have been introduced as an issue, I was wondering if you might come by and perhaps make a comment on the talk page or wherever you think appropriate. I have a statement on the talk page because I was trying to trace where and when these socks were discovered and confirmed. Since the information wasn't through an "official" Checkuser request, there's a little confusion and lack of documentation around this point because the various Checkuser pages on suspected sockpuppets for Mattisse only confirm one sock. My understanding is you found these incidental to another investigation and confirmed them to your satisfaction. The specific things we now have is your placement of the list on Mattisse's talk page and the creation of a category of "Sockpuppets of Mattisse". I really don't want to involve you since this has become an incredibly contentious argument. My personal opinion is the issue of the sockpuppets is a rather minor issue in the arbitration but because some people are placing great importance on the subject, your clarification would be helpful. (Without of course compromising privacy concerns.) Um, I'm not even sure what clarification I'm asking for. Asking you was just an idea I had to help make the evidence a little clearer on this point. Even if I think the socks are not central, I believe fuller evidence probably helps ArbCom with their decision. Thanks. --Pigmantalk &bull; contribs 18:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:WesleyanShield.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:WesleyanShield.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. 13:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Dacy69 and User:Rovoam
Hello is there anyway you can find out that these people have any similarities im suspecting they do. But they were blocked long ago and they seem to do the same things claim falsification that urartu and Armenians were alike and hate any relevance about it. Nareklm 11:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

A request for assistance
Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 03:02 3 January 2007 (UTC).

AfD Nomination: Danny Graham
An article that you have been involved in editing, Danny Graham, has been listed by me at Articles for deletion/Danny Graham. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --Jerry lavoie 05:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Jerry lavoie 05:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

CHICOTW
I see your user name listed as a member of the WikiProject_Chicago. I do not know if you are aware that we are attempting to revive the CHICOTW. See our results history. We could use additional input in nominating future articles, voting on nominees and editing winning nominees. Should you contribute you will receive weekly notices like the following:

TonyTheTiger 01:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:WesleyanShield.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:WesleyanShield.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did you call me a sockpuppet?
I have have asked you before and never gotten a satisfactory response. Where is the checkuser? Where is the evidence? The only evidence I ever received was a post on my page

The people that were accusing me (the ones you protected) - User:999 has been banned indefinitely and User:Hanuman Das has been blocked indefinitely. User:Ekajaki has been blocked for two months. She was found to have been  been operating multiple sockpuppets since Spring 2006 for harassing other users. Her sockpuppets included User:999, User:Hanuman Das and multiple others. What they did was so much worse than anything I was ever accused of. And now I know that your results could have been wrong and that you never gave me due process like the above users got before they were banned/blocked. I asked for your help and you protected them. Please resolve this with me. I am going to bring it up in the Starwood Arbitration to get an answer if you continue to ignore me. Please help me. Sincerely, Mattisse 02:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It is an issue in the Starwood Arbitration (not by me in particular as I am staying out of it) but by others. Your findings make no sense. The persons you accommodated and thanked so publically, User:999 and User:Hanuman Das have now been indefinitely banned as socks of User:Ekajati along with several others. There has been ongoing, organised sockpuppetry since at least spring of 2006 on the part of the people you protected. Last spring they admitted they all rode in the same car and using the same laptop for their various accounts, editing the same articles and voting in the same AFD's and that was not counted as sockpuppetry and no one was blocked or banned. In fact they continued that pattern until recently when they were blocked/banned by Arbitration people.

I am constantly on the spot because I cannot explain the sockpuppets or why they have conflicting patterns of edits and hardly any overlapping articles. How can I explain something I do not understand? Since you made that finding I have been harassed by your friends until the Arbitration started and they were stopped. Preoccupation with me and my sockpuppets dominated the Starwood Mediations, caused Salix alba to open an RFC/Mattisse to shut them up, but since they could not, it now is in arbitration. All over sockpuppets, which may or may not have been off my computer that when on for a little while last summer. Your findings have cost many good people an enormous amount of time and embittered many.

User:Salix alba has been trying to get one of the socks you identified as unblocked because your findings strain credibiity and he has questioned others -- not at my request -- quite the opposite. And because you did your checking under the table, everyone is in doubt. That one finding has caused more trouble than any one issue in Starwood. It would have been helpful if you had been above board at the time so that there would be some possibility of finding out what really happened. Sincerely, Mattisse 21:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not being accused anew - the accusers are banned as socks- your unrecorded findings are the evidence
There have been no new sockpuppet findings on me. The accusations all come from your post to me listing the sockpuppets. No one has been able to find any other evidence -- only your postings. Your friends have been obsessed with finding it and have run many people off by accusing them of being me, like User:Timmy12. No serious editor thinks I am a sockpuppet. Your findings are it. In the Starwood Arbitration your findings are the issue. There is no other evidence. Your friends are the only ones who accuse based on your post to me.

Why can 999 and Hanuman Das and Ekijaki and others all use the same computer and edit the same articles exclusively and vote stack on AFD - one listing showed scores, maybe 50 to 100 just last year - and that is O.K.? Maybe some people used my computer, I know one person did and I assumed you were right and my family was trying to do me in. I was naive then about Wikipedia. But I still wonder why bad users are protected - every time 999, Hanuman Das, and Ekijaki asked for help they alway got it, whereas I was always denied. User:Timmy12 was abused from the beginning, pleaded for help from admins, on ANI (where he was told he was posting too much) and got none because he was not slick enough to please you.

You did enormous harm by assessing the situation only superficially. This is the pattern of most administrators so they are very easily manipulated by bad users who know how to play the "admin" game. The Arbitrators seem to be much more in turn with reality. They are the ones that dug up what was really going on -- and I am not the only victim by far. The Starwood debacle is depressing many long time very good users and embittering them. It depresses me because it is exhausting. But the effect is that it is vindicating me. What the people you protected did was so awful in comparison to what I was accused of, even if it were true, that I look like a saint! So, maybe I should thank you for making me look like an angel! Sincerely, Mattisse 22:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Be a better admin, actually check things out & stop hanging around IRC so much.
Try to be better at being an admin. Maybe you are burned out. But if you are going to do a sloppy job then don't do it -- my advice for what it is worth. People more worthy than me are being hurt by this. And answer posts (probably that is part of hanging around IRC.) You cannot undo your horrible damage, but perhaps you can prevent doing more. Sincerely, Mattisse 01:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

RFP
Dear Dan, I confirm the request of removing my sysop rights in the Arabic Wikipedia. I will confirm it in Meta. I only removed it because one of the administrators of the Arabic Wikipedia asked me to remove it until he can talk to me in the local IRC channel. Thank you, sir, for your message. --Meno25 02:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

RFP
Dear Dan, I confirm the request of removing my sysop rights in the Arabic Wikipedia. I will confirm it in Meta. I only removed it because one of the administrators of the Arabic Wikipedia asked me to remove it until he can talk to me in the local IRC channel. Thank you, sir, for your message. --Meno25 02:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Page moves
Not that it matters too much - easy fix - but the user talk page you moved was my main account (Daniel.Bryant), and not my secondary account (Daniel-Bryant, which was the one that was renamed). Sorry for any confusion in my request, and cheers,  Daniel Bryant  02:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what's happened - the redirect from Daniel-Bryant to Daniel.Bryant caused the trouble. Sorry again,  Daniel Bryant  02:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Usurpation renames
Hi! From your rename logs I noticed that the usurpation requests have been made to random entries. The actual target for these old usernames should be "Usurped X", where 'X' is an integer. See Changing username/Usurpations. Would you like to correct the usurpations completed, or should I go ahead? Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't make a difference actually. Infact this system is better as we won't have to keep track of the number. Thanks! =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey! Thanks for fulfilling my usurpation request. Just thought I'd let you know though that somewhere in the process something got messed up and my new talk page (User talk:Yonatan) was made as a redirect to the old renamed user's discussion page (#REDIRECT User talk:Yonatan (renamed)) and my old talk page was left where it was (User talk:Yonatanh). I had an administrator delete the redirect talk page and then I moved my old talk page to the new one (User talk:Yonatanh -> User talk:Yonatan) just thought I'd let you know as this seems to be an automated process so possibly there's a coding error in the usurpation script. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 14:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks....
just wanted to thank you for the name change/usurpation there... thought i'd been blocked, for a moment. couldn't for the life of me figure out why. i guess i'm slow. joseph 22:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Usurpation
Shouldn't you have waited 30 days on those usurpations? Some of them look like they've only been three weeks or so. If that's becoming standard practice, I have no problem with changing the policy description, dates, etc. to match it, but I'm a bit confused on that. Ral315 » 07:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Usurpation and validity of usernames
Hi Dan, well done on filling the breach at WP:CHU/U I have a couple of questions about username issues that have come up in this area: Just wanted to clarify how you wanted these matters addressed in furture. WjBscribe 12:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I assume you rejected Ebola ← AndHab on username grounds. Can the discussion at WT:CHU/U  now be closed?
 * 2) The name presently at the top of the list, Death ← Death666, may also be problematic. I wonder if some editors might be uncomfortable seeing "Death" in sigs and logs all over the place? Do you want to decide the matter youself or should there be a wider discussion? Previous concerns have been addressed by a discussion at WT:CHU/U, linked to from WP:RFCN.
 * Thanks for your answer. Accordingly I've removed the link to the Ebola discussion from WP:RFCN. Given the message below, I see that Death is now a non-issue. WjBscribe 00:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"Death" Usurpation
Thanks for the updates. To be perfectly honest, I had forgotten about it, many apologies. I had a fear that "Death" would be equally shunned and have no desire to have to chnage the name again. That being said "Borameer" works fine for me. Once again thank you for keeping me updated and willing to help me find a username that suits me. It is much appreciated! -- Borameer &trade; 19:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Thanks for carrying out the usurpation for me. My question is, under my username, it stated that my request for usurpation cannot be filed earlier than March 21st. Do you think I will encounter any problems, or was there a change of policy that occurred? Thanks! --Ali 00:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes to CHU's Front matter
Hi Dan. I don't know about this. The "colorful" design and the extensive text were all created because of the repetitive actions by requesters and users passing by, which used to do everything we are recommending against. Equally, we have a heavy amount of people who post clearly without having read the instructions, or at least without reading them all. It makes the page look a little funny, but it cuts back in the neverending small problems that cause requests to be denied and multiply the work of Bureaucrats and those assisting in the forum. It might be a good idea to retain that design. Cheers, Redux 00:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Good enough. Let us wait and see if the silly mistakes will pick up again without the "big red box".  Cheers,  Redux 13:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Usurpation - thanks
Hi &mdash; just a note to say thanks for fulfilling my username usurpation request. talkGiler 13:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Massive page moves
Wow! You scared me with the massive page moves on RC patrol. I thought it was WoW again! :-P Real96 03:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Name change
Thanks for dealing with my (minor) name change! Meaningful Username 07:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Empire Earth / The Negotiator
can you rename the vandal account to (usurp) on the end?--Empire Earth 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * why should you mind? it's my username, i don't mind just but in the unblock summary that the username is being taken by a new owner. or get someone higher up to clear it.--Empire Earth 20:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thx.--The Negotiator 15:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for filling my usurpation request. Lexicon (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

rejected usurpation?
Hello, I did not understand the reason for the usurpation rejection for my username. The reason was: "established users only". Can you please clarify? LeviathanK 17:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks a bunch for fulfilling my usurpation request! – Riana agree to disagree? 08:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ....
... so much for processing my username usurp request!! I love my new username (it's a whole lot better than "Ali-oops" - what was I thinking?? :) Thank you! - Alison ☺ 08:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ditto from me too mate :) Glen 09:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Rklawton
Thanks for closing my RfA. As you noted, I've got a bit of reading to do, and I'll so my best. Rklawton 17:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi Dan. Thank you for closing my RfA. I will use my new tools carefully and responsibly. I'll try not to mess up anything. Xiner (talk, email) 00:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Rfa thanks
Hey, just popping by to say thanks a bunch for supporting (note:crat support should mean double :) ) my sucessfull Rfa, I'm honoured to serve the community, and if you ever want any assisstance, you know where to find me Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Usurp
Thanks for renaming my user account. Could you also move my old talk page (User talk:555pt) to User talk:555? Best regards 555 02:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about usurpation
Dan, a recent usurpation request raises an interesting question- do have a view about how long an account should have existed before can be usurped? One of the accounts that someone is seeking to usurp, User:Vaya, was only created on 14 February 2007. Usurping an account that has only existed for about a month seems a little premature- what do you think? WjBscribe 16:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, in future I'll leave a note when the account to be usurped is recent and the crat who processes the request can make their own judgment in all the circumstances. WjBscribe 21:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Confused info after usurpation
User:Kerlin Gallery has usurped User:Info. They are now editing as User:Info. However, User:Info is shown as indef blocked. Clicking on talk for User:Info redirects to User talk:Info (usurped). Tyrenius 23:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's all working fine now thanks. Nothing needing a block now. Tyrenius 00:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Advice needed on usurpation request
Dan, Pepto gecko (who has over 1500 edits since April 2006) has added a usurpation request for Basil. That account did make one edit, on Jan 4, 2002 which was a question on a talkpage so creates no GDFL issues with article content. Would you be willing to perform the usurpation in these circumstances? WjBscribe 18:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Usurpation
So, can I create an usurpation request for september 24, or I ll forget about it. Just kidding :).--Vaya 08:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW. I'm an established editor on Russian Wikipedia (see confirmation diff), does it make any difference?--Vaya 14:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Minimum number to usurp
As WJBscribe just said on my talk, you just usurped an account with only 70 edits to a common name. We guess this means that 50 edits is enough to qualify? --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@ 01:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say ~100 or 200. (Plese reply below for now on). --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@ 01:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest we just flag up number of edits and time first edit made when less than 200 without further comment, leaving the crat who reviews the request to make the final decision ont he individual merits of each case? WjBscribe 01:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How about: Note:This user only has about edits, and has only been editing since . --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@ 02:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine, but lets leave out the word "only"... WjBscribe 02:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was kind of thinking that also: Note:This user may not be established. They have about  edits, and have been editing since . . --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@ 02:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

stop
Stop sending me messages, I haven't edited anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.188.190.1 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 27 March 2007

Deletion review of Koda Rohan
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Koda Rohan. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Kusunose 08:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Another admin has taken unusual action with regard to this. (See the DRV and the log.)  Please let us know if you agree and we can close the review, or disagree and need to leave it running.  Thanks.  GRBerry 13:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Mornington Crescent
Remember that Wikipedia deals in referenced facts. There have, as yet, been no references to any authority stating that the game Mornington Crescent has no rules. In light of this, could you clarify why you have restored the Mornington Crescent article to a version which makes numerous unsupported claims to this effect? Thanks Hugo P 13:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Usurpation with edits
Hi! I heard you're in favour of usurping accounts with edits. However there may be widespread implications of this, and I firmly believe that this needs to be discussed in detail before actual implementation. These are the parameters that need to be clarified so that we can work within a set framework:


 * 1) A rough figure on the maximum number of edits made
 * 2) Minimum time of inactivity before consideration
 * 3) If contributions are made to the non-article namespace

Without such a framework in place, I am currently against such renames as the current policy does not allow this. If changes are proposed, please could you submit your proposal to Village pump (policy) with a link on WP:BN and WP:CHU/U. Thanks! =Nichalp  «Talk»=  08:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dan, to clarify- Nichalp's comment above is in relation to this request, which I had cleared with you. WjBscribe 21:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dan, Nichalp has reversed an usurption request which you'd already approve. I've since appealed to him personally but would like to petition your help in this matter. As  mentioned in the original request, this user made a single, one-line edit to a talk page 5 years ago and hasn't been active since. I've been an active member with over 1800 edits and have contributed multiple articles and templates as well as monitoring vandals. I would really appreciate your assistance in this matter. Regards, Pepto gecko 22:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick reply. Could you suggest some recourse in this matter, or is it closed, in your estimation? Nichalp suggested this case might be open to a formal policy discussion. How is something like vetted for consideration? I wouldn't ordinarily pursue this type of action, but it's real important to me. Pepto gecko 00:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate your timely and thoughtful reply. I'm afraid convincing Nichalp is unlikely given his firm stance, but I must try. Pepto gecko 15:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

One final question and I promise not to bother you anymore. In light of the status of my request, would it be acceptable to do a simple user name change to Вasil using the Cyrillic character 'B'? I tested this at Special:Listusers and it is not currently in use.
 * Thanks, Dan. You've been very decent and helpful throughout. It warms my heart to see an Admin/Bureaucrat act in such a diplomatic and thoughtful manner. Вasil 15:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Council of Government (Monaco)--possible vandalism?
I'd like to flag this statement for a Wikipedia adminstrator: "If the council gains too much power, the citizens can decide to execute them." Thank you.Carolinacosmina 18:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Promotion of Danny
I do have to say that I find it troubling for a Bureaucrat to promote a user whose RfA he supported. To avoid such an apparent conflict of interest, especially on such a controversial RfA, it likely would have been wise for you to have yielded to another crat. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to have given this appearance, but had I yielded it would have been a purely superficial gesture; Danny is such a high-profile editor that none of the other bureaucrats is truly more disinterested than I in this matter. I believe that I have made an impartial decision; the agreement of several bureaucrats confirms my belief. &mdash; Dan | talk 03:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with AmiDaniel that you should have let somebody else to promote. You should have also waited more until the discussion of bureaucrats moved further.


 * Please receive my apologies for speaking so forcefully in what you should have done, but there are very strong feelings with RfA and it would have been wise to not allow any appearance of misconduct to taint this promotion which was done quite below the usual promotion range.


 * Thank you. I hope you will interpret this comment as a constructive one rather than a criticism. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's important not to underestimate the importance of semantics, of such "superficial gesture[s]"; your position as a bureaucrat is purely a political one, and, as such, the decisions you make while serving in this capacity must not just be impartial, but must also appear impartial. Failing to be politically smart is a good way to turn the entire community against you. Please don't take this as a criticism, just a gentle bit of advice. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dan, kudos on the promotion, though you may want to explain to Wikipedia Review how you were doing it on behalf of the other bureaucrats who were uninvolved. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 04:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dan, just for the record, I read this as more of a "by proxy" promotion on behalf of all of the involved bureaucrats and see no problem with it. Just thought I'd offer my support.John Reaves (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As do I. Requests for adminship/Danny/Bureaucrat chat is pretty transparent, and is a solid backing. It doesn't matter who pressed the bit, as there was deliberation by a significant number of bureaucrats behind it. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 07:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to thank you for taking things into consideration and making a call, that, well can bring lots of flamewars onto this page. All things considered, from what I've read, you took a very independent stand, regardless of your !vote (ok, find a better word than !vote) on the discussion. Consensus was reached as far as it can go, now we can get back to editing and other more important stuff than bickering (I hope :)

So.... to everyone else out there.... a decision has been reached by consensus - now lets get back to building an encyclopedia (if you want drama, turn on a tv or something) -- Tawker 08:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You should have recused yourself, as did Secretlondon. By closing as you did, you compromised the integrity of your position. I am disappointed in you. Even if you think that all the other 'crats were also involved in the situation, your particular situation still unnecessarily created the appearance of impropriety. Please try to show better judgment in the future. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I posted objections to your conduct in promoting Danny at and  Haukur 21:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Twas genuinely an impossible situation for most all concerned.
I think it is fair to say my side bet on the talk page is looking pretty good. All that requires that I will claim it fully eventuated, is for the wise heads on wikipedia to in fact think through how to not have to be in this situation ever again. I think your claim that none of the bureaucrats would be more disinterested than you, is likely right on the money. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 21:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt Britt RfA
Hi Dan. I'm confused. Your comment at WT:RFA that "were the format accepted as valid; I believe I would have promoted him" seems to suggest that you thought the outcome of the discussion was a consensus to promote. I'm not sure why you then decided not to just because a lot of people didn't like the format. You're not usually one to be concerned about form over substance... WjBscribe 02:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually think that Dan was right here, it's important that discussions are made on changing the system before they go live, this method was not really discussed but it is a completely different method of working out consensus, the 'crats need to be involved with the community before they can start promoting candidates using this format to come to an acceptable method of judging who gets promoted (I actually quite like the format and hope it can be adopted).  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  08:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The format was discussed, multiple times ( for just some of the samples). The result? As with everything from the community at WT:RFA, gridlock. RfA has become incapable of evolving, and indeed that is one of the things that is broken about it.
 * I don't have any issue with Dan closing this RfA as incapable of being judged with consensus. I have ample reason to think he is wrong, but I am just one person, just one opinion.
 * If you look at the answers to Q1 in RfBs of the recently active bureaucrats, you will see that the answers given pretty much lock-step with the concept of voting at RfA. This has become ingrained, entrenched. The community expects it. The bureaucrats expect it. To do something other than vote leaves an RfA incapable of being evaluated because any experimental format that is tried at RfA must have a vote. What Dan has exercised has been the big elephant in the room; if there's no vote, there's no consensus. He is no more guilty of any impropriety than all of RfA. --Durin 13:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good grief my question to Dan wasn't meant to suggest I thought there had been "any impropriety". I have a high regard for both for his abilities as a bureaucrat and ability to exercise common sense. I simply asked for clarification of something that has confused me as his statement at WT:RFA wasn't entirely on given my understanding of the role of bureaucrats... WjBscribe 14:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
--ragesoss 06:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ragesoss RfA
I'm sure it was an oversight, but you missed adding Ragesoss' RfA to Successful adminship candidacies. I've added it for you. --Durin 13:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And, you didn't add Requests for adminship/Errabee to Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies/E when you closed it. Was this an oversight? --Durin 12:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong oppose on a vote
Hello, on my RFA. Which can be found Requests for adminship/Retiono Virginian, a particular user, called User:Kelly Martin, has put in an oppose saying. "User has political userboxes" for the reason, and I only had one; but still. I request you remove this vote from my RFA as I removed the userbox and it was an unvalid and unfair reason to oppose anyway. Plus, two users has already agreed on it being unfair. User:Tellyaddict, and User:Cometstyles. The oppose is oppose no. 10. Retiono Virginian 21:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Krimpet's promotion
Hi Rdsmith4. I wonder if you could read the discussion and comment at WP:BN. I am sure you meant well with the promotion, although usually people fail with only 70% support. But explaining why you did what you did could be a good idea I think. I am asking this based on arbitrators' views on bureaucratship, summarized at Requests for arbitration/Giano (it says "[bureaucrats] are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions upon request and in a civil manner"). Thanks, and all the best, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Saw the buttons
a I was reading the email. I'll go slowly. I always wondered how the details worked, but now I'm finding out. DGG 03:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser request from ru.wikipedia.org
I would like to request your assitance in performing a sockpuppet checkuser request for the following user ru:User:Роман Беккер on Russian wikipedia. The reason I am reaching out to you as steward is because we have a situation in ru.wikipedia.org where one of the checkuser sysops ru:User:Wulfson is suspected of falsifying at least on of the checkuser requests results as indicated in one of the cases here, confirmed by another steward (Basically Wulfson claims the he found that several users made changes from the same IP in the previous month, but steward Bastique found that nobody but ru:User:Edward Chernenko made changes from that IP in the last 60 days).

Therefore Wulfson's findings cannot be trusted, as he is friends with ru:User:Роман Беккер. Will you be so kind to also check the following user account ru:User:Mar.

These users (ru:User:Роман Беккер and ru:User:Mar with several other ones that are suspected to be their sockpuppets) tend to come in at the last moment in important polls for admins and rules, and seem to be using similar language and vote together. In other words, do these users have any other user names that they use as sockpuppets? Thank you.--Ram2006 21:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jackson Pollock- Galaxy
Hello My name is ALISON SHAW, I am from England, I have been dreaming of purchasing jackson Pollock's Galaxy. I am truly inspired by it. I have a white wall of which it would look beatiful on. The problem I have is that aside from the fact the original is about fifty million dollars, I have been trying to find a print to no avail. 90x70cm is the size I ideally need. Is there please somehting you would recomend as you seem to be my last hope. With regards and appreciation.

Second opinion...
Greetings,

I submitted a request for usurpation a few weeks ago. Here is a helpful link.

The long and short of it is that User:Secretlondon stated that she would not make this change, but that someone else might. In light of those circumstances, I am asking that you consider my case.

It boils down to the fact that User:Eleos has two edits. I realize that usurpations are not supposed to happen if the user has any edits whatsoever, but shouldn't the edits, at least, be in mainspace? It is my understanding that Ignore all rules is actual policy, not just a guideline. So, in this case, could we ignore the 'no edits whatsoever' rule?

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing your decision.

 EleosPrime  00:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Upload
In this edit you removed the text "(no wizard)" from the upload toolbox item. To answer your question the upload with wizard is located at Upload in interaction and is now the preferred method for many. Some text should be included in the toolbox item to show the difference so could you please restore "no wizard" or some similar alternative. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Rolls Royce logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Rolls Royce logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 08:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Would appreciate your comment on proceeding on Gracenotes, RfA
Hi Dan,

As one of the Bureaucrats recently active on RfA, I would like your opinion on how to handle Gracenotes' rather difficult RfA.

There are a huge number of opinions (over 200 supporting and over 70 opposing) and a great deal of argumentation. I would like to reserve a "Bureaucrat Chat" for the really, really difficult and unique situations, like Danny. My concerns here are that:
 * The bureaucrats should not be put in the position of being "supervoters," evaluating everything the community already hashed over, but at a "higher" level;
 * I would like to see this RfA separated from some very strong and quite valid (to the individuals most involved) emotion, as much as this is possible; and
 * Almost all the detailed opposition revolves around a single issue that I believe has acquired a life of its own separate from the candidate's qualifications, and I think Gracenotes at least deserves a chance to make a coherent presentation on the issue and allow the community to express their opinions anew in that light.

I had earlier posted a way forward that can be found (with some comments) at Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard. I would like to proceed according to the six steps I suggested, which has the assent of both the Candidate, and the first opposer on the BADSITES issues, SlimVirgin.

I would be most grateful if you would contact me at my talk page with your assent, different solution and/or comment and discussion. Thanks! -- Cecropia 21:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dan. I would like the community to decide for itself whenever possible. I don't want to see every disputed nomination go to a "chat." We'll see how this works. Cheers, Cecropia 01:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Change my username
Hello. Please change my username to User:R@y88 because it is a very serious request. Please do not ignore my request. Please change it without a redirect. R@y 11:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:ArbComElection
Template:ArbComElection has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Mike Peel 06:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Scuderia_Ferrari_Logo.png
I have tagged Image:Scuderia_Ferrari_Logo.png as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 20:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jeeves-n-wooster.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Jeeves-n-wooster.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Videmus Omnia Talk  14:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted deletion debate
Hi. A while back you deleted Votes for deletion/SidGames, apparently as an orphaned talk page. While that page was orphaned, it was an archived deletion debate of the page it was attached to; the result of the more primitive archiving process back in the days of "votes for deletion" (VfD). See Archived delete debates/August 2004 for where this page is listed, now red-linked. This comes up as a result of this post at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Anyway, can you restore the page? Thanks. P.S. I see you arent very active right now, but there's no real rush on these, so I trust you'll see this when you see this.Fuhghettaboutit 02:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Jackson_Pollock_Galaxy.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Jackson_Pollock_Galaxy.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  00:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:F1_circuit
Template:F1_circuit has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — (All uses have now been replaced with Motorsport venue. AlexJ 17:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Vector-images.com image warning
Greetings, You are being contacted by BetacommandBot and by Zscout370. The reason for this message is that you have have uploaded Image:Monaco coa.png under the following license Template:Vector-images.com. Recently, a decision was made about images and anything not meeting freedomdefined.org will be considered "unfree" for Wikimedia's purposes. The terms of the website do not allow their images to be used now under our new guidelines. You are being given a chance to relicense the image for about two weeks. If you fail to relicense the image, there is a good chance the image will be deleted from Wikipedia. If you have any questions or concern, please see Zscout370. Thank you. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

merge WikiProject Philmont Scout Ranch
As WikiProject Philmont Scout Ranch seems to have been inactive since the turn of the year, I propose making it a taskforce of WikiProject Scouting, similar to the WikiProject Scouting/Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting task force. That will ensure it won't get deleted (the WP:Council has been cleaning out inactive projects in recent months) and it will standardize that project with our existing MoS and membership base. We invite your suggestions and comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting. Chris 20:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We have now gone ahead and moved this, it can now be found at WikiProject Scouting/Philmont Scout Ranch task force. Chris 07:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wooster.jpg
Hello. I recently tagged an image (Image:Wooster.jpg) as having no source. I was prompted to do so because someone put it on the Hugh Laurie article (which certainly doesn't seem to conform to Wikipedia's fair-use policy for images of living people). It seems you originally uploaded the image, so I thought I'd just mention it! I don't think there's a problem with its being fair use on the Bertie Wooster article, which I suspect is what you uploaded it for, but it probably does need a source. Best wishes, RobertG &#9836; talk 13:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Main page banner
A template you created, Template:Main page banner, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the   tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 02:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of User:Zen./Intro
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on User:Zen./Intro, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because User:Zen./Intro is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting User:Zen./Intro, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 15:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Chavacano Wikipedia
Hello Rdsmith4. Please help with the Chavacano Wikipedia (cbk-zam.wikipedia.org). When I viewed the html source of the main page source from the browser's "view source" (not from the wiki),I saw the following line:

 I want to get edit that line. El Primero Pagina,2000,2001,2003,2005,2007,Afghanistan,Al-Qaeda,Arte Martial,Ayuda:Ayuda,Benigno Aquino... should not be there.

It should be: Chavacano de Zamboanga Wikipedia.

Also, this on this source, the line:



title should be: Chavacano de Zamboanga Wikipedia

I do not know where to edit. I went to the system messages page, but I didnt see anything there. Please help. I am the sysop of the Chavacano Wikipedia. Thanks.

--Weekeejames 08:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your Featured Picture delisting
Hi, your Image has been nominated for delisting from featured picture status. Please feel free to vote at its nomination here. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 22:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

My recent usurp
Thanks a lot for filling my usurp. That being said, I have a question. My talk page currently redirects to the talk page of the account whose name I took. Was this intentional for some reason or just an accident? --Asclepius Quid fit? 23:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bentley logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Bentley logo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Alx 91 20:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

user name change - Fiachra Kearney
I did not creat the name Wildbird30, so someone else must have. Sorry for the delay in my reply but I work in remote Australia and do not have regular access to the net. I still need my name changed or something done - wildbird??? anything will do please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.253.147.201 (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI
On September 2, 2006 you sent me the following message,  which accused me of having sock puppets and vote stacking  against User:999. I had explained that a painful personal incident had occurred in my family involving my daughter and my grand kids temporarily staying with me over the two previous months and that I could not explain your sock puppet accusations. However, I accepted them, and as far as I know there have not been subsequent sock puppets. That was over one year ago.

However, the following was a result of your posting:

After your posting I was relentlessly stalked, harassed, and accused of having sock puppets by User:999, User:Ekajati, and Hanuman Das for six months without relief as exemplified by the following:
 * Requests for comment/Mattisse
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival
 * Requests for arbitration/Starwood
 * Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Workshop
 * Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence

During the arbitration, it was discovered that all of the people involved in stalking harassing me were sock puppets and had been since at least Spring 2006. Later it was discovered that the original mediator in the Starwood Mediation cabal User:Geo.plrd was a sock puppet also. But whole painful incident regarding my daughter and her children, occurring in the Summer of 2006 will always be an element of my involvement with Wikipedia.
 * See: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati
 * See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Defender 911

All this has taken its toll. I have tried to survive and lately have been feeling a little less afraid about interacting with the Wikipedia community. But this was a mistake.

'''Once again the message you, User:Rdsmith4,  sent me on September 2, 2006   which accused me of having sock puppets and vote stacking  against User:999 is being used as the basis for a RFC against me today. See:
 * Requests for comment/Mattisse 2'''

As Wikipedia continues to bring up and remind me of a very painful period in my life and there is no indication that this will ever stop, I choose not to continue on Wikipedia as a member who interacts with others.'''

I am so sorry that your actions have so adversely affected my experience at Wikipedia that after 31,000 edits I am still dogged by your posting although I have done nothing wrong. It has been an extremely painful experience for over one year. I urge you to be more caring about others in the future. My sin was to have problems with my kids. --Mattisse 17:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Template:Allyourbasearebelongtous
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Rocket000 22:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

500 users renamed
Those last few renames mean that you've now renamed over 500 users! Please accept a golden Wikiaward in recognition of your work :-). Best wishes, WjBscribe 18:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Successful RfA - Thank you!
Thank you very much for promoting me to Administrator status. :) I appreciate the opportunity to serve Wikipedia in a greater capacity than I have before, and I look forward to helping make this a better place for everyone, in whatever way I can. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 23:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

On Mikka
Just so you know, he/she started making the pointy votes right after he had been blocked48 by BrownEyedGirl for edit warring. He's pissed that there are actually other admins out there who will hold him accountable, thus his "no professional police" RfA votes, and also thus, the completely inappropriate (esp. for an admin) pointy votes. K. Scott Bailey 22:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Prince Albert of Monaco.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Prince Albert of Monaco.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Congratulations
Thankyou so much! I'm very grateful to all those who participated in my RfA, whatever their views were and to Ryan Postlethwaite for the nom. :-)  Lra drama 18:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Query about one of your closes
Hi. In case you might not happen to notice it on your watchlist, I've posted a question about one of your recent RfA closes (Hdt83 4) on the bureaucrats' noticeboard. I would welcome your insight and comments there. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 13:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiWednesday
Next month: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=13846405533 peace, User:Tedernst —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.207.169.180 (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey. You redirected all of my pages when I got my name changed from Jackrm to Jack, and I don't think I ever thanked you, so here it is:

Why?
Why in the hell did you delete my self-created logo/image from my user pages? I created the entire thing. Noles1984 (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because they are derivative works of copyrighted imagery. Thus, the original copyright holder retains rights and the images are not free, as you do not hold all rights to be released. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Jeeves.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jeeves.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 Non-free content, 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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please delete my account
Hi Rdsmith4. I would like to ask you, if you can delete my user-account Al-Qamar on the English Wikipedia. I am spending enough time in the German and Alemannic Wikipedia, so there is no use to keep the English-account and in the end I would forget my password anyway. Besides, my few contributions here are so much like nothing. Thank you very much for your help. --al-Qamar (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Elonka RfA
Hi Rdsmith4. I was wondering what your rationale was for choosing as an Administrator a rather controversial editor such as User:Elonka (Requests for adminship/Elonka 3). Elonka only received 74% of the votes, and this percentage was decreasing daily as more and more contributors were voicing their concerns (during the last few days of the RfA there were about as many Oppose as Support). I thought Administrators were supposed to be chosen by consensus (and I wonder whether 74% can be considered consensus, especially given the seriousness of the Opposes), although I understand bureaucrats have some latitude in their decisions also. I would appreciate your feedback on this matter. Regards. PHG (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Rdsmith4. Thank you for your comments. I am surprised however when you write: "The objections did not seem to be of terrible concern". Quite the contrary, many editors described at length very precise and troubling issues with Elonka's methods ("she has at various times dealt with content disputes by (a) finding every single bit of "dirt" she could find on her opponent(s), and using that to disparage them (for instance here) and (b) misquoting people, or quoting people out of context, to make it seem they support her position when in fact they did nothing of the sort." per Radiant. "I got abused by her and blocked by her friends because I was trying to clean up OR from her family articles ", per Matt 57. "In particular, I feel Elonka was too aggressive on the recent (and perhaps ongoing?) Franco-Mongol alliance issue" Tariqabjotu. "The aggressiveness, POV pushing etc is firmly etched into the mind. " Twenty years etc... "She behaves in tyranical ways, and I really do not think that she should be given the tools of an Administrator. For some of the details: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive305. For a blatant (and ongoing) corruption of the very concept of consensus to push her point of view, you can check here." per PHG. etc... etc...). These are not petty Opposes. These comments are actually based on documented issues with Elonka's pratices, and come from contributors of good standing. I have strong doubts about nominating as an Administrator someone whose behaviour and integrity are so questionable. Regards. PHG (talk) 05:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Rdsmith4. Please note that I filed a claim for harassment on the part of Elonka (here). Thank you for your vigilance. Regards. PHG (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User rights log summaries
Hello, would you mind putting a link to the RFA in the summary, so it's easier to find if users wish to view it? Thanks.  Red rocket  boy  13:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for the message offering to close my RfA but I do not wish to end it prematurely as I will be unable to find other ways of improving my edits on Wikipedia. Although the is not a snowball's chance in hell I still which to continue as there is a chance, no matter how slim. Thanks anyway, Jh  fireboy  Talk  12:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

Bass Speaker III's Request For Admin
Hello! You've deleted my request for deletion. Is there a way I could have it back. Thank You Bass Speaker III (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Mornington Crescent NPOV Dispute
Hi, you've deleted the NPOV dispute tag, without explaining why on the talk page. I have put quite a lengthy explanation of why the article contradicts Wikipedia NPOV policy on that talk page.

I don't neccessarily disagree with the deletion, but I do think that such an action, under Wikipedia policy, requires an explanation - the tag does say - 'please do not delete until the dispute is settled', or words to that effect. Riversider2008 (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it further, I do disagree with the deletion, there are several good reasons for the POV of this article to be disputed: the article directly contradicts Wikipedia NPOV policy and the very sources it references. Please check the talk page before deleting NPOV tags in future! Riversider2008 (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for renaming my username!
Hi Dan! Thanks for [ renaming] my username! I am not shure how many details you know about UTF-8 signatures which can neither benefit from the full 255 byte (not character) lenght nor from other naturalnesses (German: Selbstverständlichkeiten) but must experienced many other problems as
 * 012225 · "influencing the BiDi algorithm to clearly distinguish between the signature and the date and time"

etc. There is a transcription note at my user page. If there will be more space available in the signature (I am loosing space because of the General Punctuation characters needed to fix basic bidirectional issues) I will add a similar transliteration as you can see at #c1. Best regards

‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 00:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Apology and request for further thinking
Hi Dan, I want to apologise for suggesting you are being 'obtuse' in the Mornington Crescent NPOV dispute. I am absolutely certain you are acting in good faith. I was annoyed when you accused me of obtuseness, when in reality I was acting in good faith too, and making a serious point about the rules of Wikipedia, which require articles to reflect the balance of the published material, regardless of the opinions and beliefs of the author.

I feel a suitable way to resolve this dispute will be to remove the disputed word 'parody' and do as Wikipedia NPOV guidance suggests: Let the facts speak for themselves. I.e. the article on Hitler does not begin 'Hitler was an evil man', but lets the facts about the consequences of Hitlers words and actions speak for themselves. - in a similar way, MC should not be branded a 'parody' - particularly when none of the referenced material even uses this word, but the accretion of facts about MC should allow readers to draw their own conclusions about the reality or otherwise of this most excellent game.

Riversider2008 (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me a chance
Hello Dan, I just wanted to say thank you to you that you are fulfilling to me as a temp. Admin in my community. I will try my best and trying to get per. Admin. Happy Holidays. kyawgyi@my Kyawgyi (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of "as of [date]" Wiki-links
Regarding the one ("as of 2008") in the cigar article, you said in your edit summary that "we do this so that dated statements can be updated using 'what links here'". I've never heard of this, and just thought that these kinds of links were useless wastes of characters (and even discouraged under the WP:MOS guidelines). Can you tell me just how these are used? Do people actually check these to make sure they're not out of date? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bentley logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bentley logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Save_Us  †  14:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Queen_crest.png
I have tagged Image:Queen_crest.png as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:F1 Grand Prix table
A tag has been placed on Template:F1 Grand Prix table requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:F1 quali table
A tag has been placed on Template:F1 quali table requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jackson Pollock Galaxy.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jackson Pollock Galaxy.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Maserati_logo.png
I have tagged Image:Maserati_logo.png as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Use rationale examples. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrat discussion - Requests for bureaucratship/Riana

 * Requests for bureaucratship/Riana/Bureaucrat discussion

Having briefly discussed this request with Deskana and as we did not think this is a case where a lone bureaucrat should determine the outcome of the discussion, I have created a subpage to allow for bureaucrats to discuss the matter. If you have time, I would be grateful if you could review the RfB and express an opinion as to what outcome you believe is appropriate. WjBscribe 02:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

F1 photograhs
Hi, Can the F1 photographs be used from Wikipedia? I would like to put them on my website or are the photographs copyrighted?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohit510 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, much material on Wikipedia is copyrighted, but this does not mean you cannot use it. In particular, I have licensed all of my F1 photographs under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike license, which means you can use them for whatever you like, so long as you credit me by name (R. Daniel Smith), and license all derivative works in the same way. I don't know about anybody else's F1 photos, but if they are on Wikipedia, in all likelihood they are freely available as well; the image's page (found by clicking on the image) should describe its copyright status and license. &mdash; Dan | talk 14:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Cobi 3
Hi, i just noticed you closed Requests for adminship/Cobi 3 with did not succeed. However he had way more support than opposition. I was just wondering how may votes you need to pass a Rfa? I ask because i may go for it myself (in many years) and i just like to know how things work :-) Thanks TheProf | Talk 16:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, I understand how it works now. I feel that for the considerable future i'm better off not attempting RfA. At the end of the day, most of my contribs is vandalism reverting. Infact, with rollback rights and Twinkle, i don't see myself needing adminship at all. Thanks for your help and quick reply. Hope you have a nice day and a nice week! TheProf | Talk 16:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for changing my username!
'Thank you for changing my username in a jif... I appreciate your time. Rosiestep (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow
Im not sure if i understand how or why your policy isn't. I mean that it certainly is in its own special way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguyed (talk • contribs) 21:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you not know and can it work?
Its like, i'm just editing a page and then it happens every time, it just does and i somehow feel that someone is responsible. I try to edit a page with info i find and its there then it happens could you please solve this problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguyed (talk • contribs) 17:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Usurpations
Hi Dan, I'm going to be with minimal (if any) internet access for the next 5-7 days. If you have time, could take a look at WP:CHU/U? There are a lot of SUL-related requests at the moment as one might expect. I haven't been entirely sure how far to stretch the rules for these. My attempt to get community input through SUL/Consultation on renames hasn't had much feedback so I've been proceeding pretty much as usual, though allowing most requests where the target's edits are old and fairly trivial. I've been filing requests that can't be completed due to Bug #13507 or one's I've felt the need to decline for other reasons at Changing username/SUL so they can be done once the bug is fixed/reviewed once there's a clearer idea of how far the community wants bureaucrats to go in renaming the "losing" accounts under SUL. Anyway, as you're familiar with the usurp process, it would be great if you take a look. WjBscribe 06:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

How do i leave pomte a message and frankly im insulted by his ignorance
Needing the correct information is crutial in funny places and this site seems to certrainly be a funny place. Pomte seems to be very unintelligent as his/hers/its words prove things like that fact. If I do not talk to him/her/it about it, who will? Certainly not his/hers/its mother. How can i leave this questionable being a message? Iam considered by many to be an expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguyed (talk • contribs) 21:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't create User:LA
Can you please help me create User:LA? I got this error message when I tried...

Login error:

The name "LA" is very similar to the existing account "1a" (contributions • logs • user creation entry). Please choose another name, or request an administrator to create this account for you either by e-mail or at Wikipedia:Request an account. If you are "1a" and wish to change your username, please log in and request a name change at Wikipedia:Changing username.

Any help would be appreciated. - LA @ 18:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw this, so I've gone ahead and created it for her, and e-mailed her the password. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Usurpation Question
I'm curious as to how you can reconcile this (soon to be) granted request with this denied one. Both were denied by the target username, and both are SUL usurpations, so why is the former permissible when the latter is not? seresin ( ¡? ) 23:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Queen crest.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Queen crest.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 Non-free content, 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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IllaZilla (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

El Palmar de Troya
You deleted El Palmar de Troya, which is a village in Utrera, Seville, Spain, perhaps because the page was a photo gallery. Please consider restoring it, even as a stub. The Spanish Wikipedia article at http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmar_de_Troya may be helpful. --Eastmain (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)