User talk:Deskana/Archive 9

I think the page will need to be locked for sometime until all the parties agree on what is to be done - this problem occured because it was lifted too quickly. John Smith's 00:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the citation requests you made, would it help if we added examples of people who have supported/criticised the book? John Smith's 00:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with references to the book/article that supported/criticsed the book. --Deskana (ya rly) 00:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your protecting the page again is unnecessary. There is only one editor who is edit waring with everyone else, and he has been blocked. During the last page protection we discussed the issue at lenght, and there is not much more to discuss. We are only repeating ourselves. He simply thinks that edit waring is an acceptable way to get what he wants. Everone else on both sides of the fence have agreed to include this passage and only John Smith persists in edit waring over it--one person.

I think the correct method is for him to be told he must abide by consensus, or seek a Rfc, etc--not to edit war. Its not fair to keep the whole article hostage with a protection just because of one user, getting his way by breaking the 3RR rule. So, in light of his block, there will be no more edit warring now--and if he comes back and continues he can be warned and blocked again. Edit waring is not allowed. I understand protecting a when there are two groups of people and there needs to be discussion taking place, but this is not one of those situations. The discussion has taken place over and over and its just this one user.Giovanni33 00:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will think about this tonight. --Deskana (ya rly) 01:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not lift the block. Giovanni is pushing his POV. He has also been blocked many times. I have made a compromise and tried to discuss the matter with him, but he is the one that is refusing to consider something different. Under such circumstances he is the one that needs to change his attitude, not myself. It is very easy for the article to move on if Giovanni talks to me rather than focus his attention on witch-hunts - his refusal to accept the anon-IP was not mine is an example of this.

Also there has been no discussion over the current reversion. To say that there is consensus because 1 or 2 users agree with him is ridiculous - they agreed with him that content should be used, not that his version was the best possible. After the last lock I made a raft of changes that have mostly stayed - the only problem is that Giovanni insists on one paragraph replacing my new edit despite the fact it is inaccurate and confusion - it doesn't even bother to explain what the "Struggles Over Representation of History" is, where it happened, etc. Wikipedia should not be held hostage by people who cannot appreciate a fluid reading of English. John Smith's 09:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, after I started a discussion on the new edit I proposed, another user came along and supported it. So currently it is actually only Giovanni that believes he is right. John Smith's 18:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I have some serious concerns about the unblocking and the article protection. What happens if John Smith's violates 3RR again? All he needs to do is keep reverting numerous times and another admin will go and protect the article, right? This actually encourages 3RR violations. I don't care if the article remains protected or not, and there are other editors that are raising the same concerns that John Smith's did, so we're in discussion. But the 3RR policy is there to precisely prevent behaviour like John Smith's behaviour. Ideally we should not be edit warring at all, but realistically, it happens, and 3RR gets violated. Everybody else on the article, however, adhered to the 3RR policy, except for John Smith's. So what happens if he violates it again? Will 3RR blocks ever be applied? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where on earth have people got the impression that protecting the page in this instance means that all further 3RR violations will result in page protections rather than blocks? That's just nonsense, of course they won't. I'm still trying to decide what further actions I will take. Complaining about it on ANI before telling me your concerns makes me wonder what your intentions are.

--Deskana (ya rly) 20:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My intention, naturally, is to get John Smith's blocked for violating 3RR. I "complained" about it on ANI in order to get third-party admin opinions. Article protection is perfectly applicable to edit wars, but so are blocks for 3RR violations. In fact, I agree that the article in question ought to be protected. I think my concerns are valid. Will further 3RR violations on the article be treated with article protection instead of blocks? And if not, isn't giving exception to John Smith's a form of showing preference to him? Will you be blocking other editors if they violate 3RR on the article? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hong, you do realise that specifically wikipedia doesn't recognise a "right" to revert a page 3 times in 24 hours - people can be blocked for edit warring with three reverts. Maybe the page should be unlocked and I should be blocked. But maybe you and Giovanni should be blocked too, along with that anon-IP. Then maybe those who didn't edit-war like Sumple and Bgaulke could make some changes. John Smith's 21:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if an admin chooses to block everybody in the edit war, I may not agree with it, but so be it. However, the 3RR policy is specific. It sets a specific threshold for admins to consider blocking, that is to say, a threshold of more than 3 reverts, so we have some semblance of a standard circumstance under which an editor may be blocked. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you can unlock the page now. Giovanni is now the only editor refusing to agree to current proposals, so according to his own logic he should not be a reason to stop the page freeze being lifted. John Smith's 11:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel warring claim retracted with apologies

Refractored El_C 01:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to undo my actions if you really disagree with my actions that much. I won't undo you twice. --Deskana (ya rly) 00:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's okay, I'm confident in your abilities to handle the matter without further involvement from myself at this stage. I retract some of my prior statements with apologies, although I trust that you will note my concerns. Best wishes, El_C 00:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no worries. --Deskana (ya rly) 01:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deskana , thanks for your kind support in my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate the support, and your faith in me, and I do intend to run again eventually. See you around! Majorly _{(o rly?)} 03:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deskana!

I sent you an email the other day requesting your advice, and on my user page I have posted this statement:

My recent submission was removed by Nixdorf who stated that my submission did not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV), and have been reverted. He further stated that in the question of Gnosticism I most certainly take sides with the established Christian church, and the problem is that Wikipedia is not the place to carry out such debates, and further recommended that my additions would do under some other sub-heading.

In my response to him I indicated that no matter what he thinks my religious belief systems may be, accurate comparative truths are important to the understanding of any description of Gnostic belief systems. I would hope that Wikipedia’s Editors might eventually understand that conforming to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy can not be interpreted so as to only allow the modern points of view, but rather a truly “Neutral” view would be that of an objective viewpoint which would offer a more realistic and accurate sample of comparative truths which are important to the understanding of any description of Gnostic belief systems. I am not saying that Wikipedia’s Editors have not presented some rather excellent examples of a variety of Gnostic Groups, because in that context what has been presented is excellent. But, consider, for example, the book “Rethinking ‘Gnosticism’: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category” by Michael Allen Williams and Paul-Hubert Poirier’s statement that Michael Williams’ “questioning the very definition and description of this phenomenon”, and his “detailed analysis of the clichés”… “shows convincingly how they have contributed to a distorted and biased approach to the sources.”

The real problem is this distorted and biased approach to the sources results in encyclopedias and dictionaries which unwittingly thereby misinform their readers, such that people are led to believe that the Gnostic belief systems are associated with knowledge acquired through experience with the Divine rather than the true process whereby experience with the Divine overcomes or burns away the sin/karma associated with Gnostic belief systems thereby allowing a more fuller integration of both lower and higher unconscious such that Heaven, the Angels etc. and all of the powers of Heaven, are experienced as Innate Knowledge in association with Being. And, for encyclopedias and dictionaries to misinform their readers about this is … well, to put it very mildly, it is a hypocrisy which contributes to mankind’s tendency to maintain its Gnostic belief systems at the very least. So, yes, I’m biased and out of my bias I’m also asking that Wikipedia’s Editors at least evaluate what I’m offering and if they find it to be junk, well at least I tried.

However, I must say that even I can’t figure out how to organize my working draft on the subject of Gnostic belief systems so that it will pass their Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy in terms of objective and accurate comparative truths because I am obviously very biased in my opinions, such that, although I believe that Wikipedia’s Editors are not presenting an accurate review of the subject, I am ultimately looking at my own stated weaknesses in terms of my ability to express myself and I do think that is important as well.

Differentiating the soul from the mind as they appear in ancient and modern religious philosophies, modern psychology and string or M-theory and the relationships between the topic of gnosis and the subjects of sin, karma and neurosis is a task that may well be beyond my ability, but unlike people who think only in concrete operational terms my tendency is to place a subject/reference that I know to be related and to then work to somehow communicate to others the relationships between subjects as I perceive them. In any event, at this time I would like to submit under the title of “Gnostic” which is apparently currently used only to redirect to Nixdorf’s work. Of course I do not know how to undo the redirect command to make my submission. I know I will need to offer much in support of my submission, and at this time I do have permission from two of the three internet sites I have quoted, but before I put too much into my submission I offer the following as an example of my initial submission:

And the example of my initial submission on the subject follows that, but my question is how should I proceed, or not?

Blessings, Bill--Wmgreene 05:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for repeatedly bugging you, but how do I upload pictures to wikipedia? The Serene Silver Star 15:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, see that button in the toolbox that says Upload file? Click it and be amazed. A•N•N•A hi! 23:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(S)He keeps adding spam links, and (s)he has been given very many last warnings. (see here) Please block this user. A•N•N•A hi! 02:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. It's already happened just now. :-0 That was fast! A•N•N•A hi! 02:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, your talk page is starting to slow down my computer. Time to archive it? I use Werdnabot. A•N•N•A hi! 02:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Recentchangestext (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Copied from

Nice idea... but where on the page? I suggest you get the source for that page, edit it to what you want, stick it on a page somwhere (usersubpage) then I'll save it for you. --Deskana (ya rly) 22:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking something like User:Mr.Z-man/Recentchanges (note, that does not include the interwiki links). I would put it into the "Utilities" row, but that would make it too long. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A•N•N•A hi! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

A•N•N•A hi! 00:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user talk page should probably be semi protected. The blocked user continues to return and post personal attacks against another editor (and to a lesser degree myself) as an anon IP. He's already shown he's going to create IP addresses regardless of how many are blocked and continue these attacks. It's your call, but I think limited the key places where he can be abusive might help the situation. Quartet 04:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are a complete waste of time. We already have the Wikipedia:Sandbox, and we don't need anymore. How would we start an AfD or MfD for user subpage sandboxes? I first got this idea from User:Goldfritter/Sandbox and User:Domthedude001/Sandbox2. A•N•N•A hi! 14:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of a user sandbox is usually to experiment with page ideas (though they're not always used for that purpose). It would be sort of hard to do that on the main sandbox because it would constantly be erased, and be impossible to do freely. You should probably think of that before randomly nominating all sandboxes. Nemu 14:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That MfD isn't going to go anywhere, it'll end as keep, as user sandboxes are specifically allowed per

WP:USER, and there is no room for ambiguity. You were acting in good faith however, so it's no big deal really. --Deskana (ya rly) 15:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

[1] This one appears legit. NoSeptember 22:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine then, I'll revert myself. I still did the right thing by reverting in the first place though. --Deskana (ya rly) 22:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and sorry for not finding it. I was the original author of the Wikipedia article on him, and I'm certainly shocked for his death. RIP.

Talk, Editor review 22:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• I agree, this sort of thing should be sourced when added. NoSeptember 22:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

(Re: page protection for Solar System) I didn't realise that we don't normally semi-protect FA-of the day. I guess it's a case of WP:BITE, as inexperienced editors will most likely be drawn to articles that they first encounter, which will most likely be mainpage articles. And we don't want to scare off new users. I don't find reversion to be too onerous. Cheers, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 17:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:64.107.78.194 needs to be blocked. He has heavily vandalised many articles related to Cars, including a vandalism to a chart on the List of Cars characters article, which was very hard to revert. Please block this user. A•N•N•A hi! 20:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ... your semi-protection of Collis Potter Huntington has been ineffective (see the edit history with their hallmark "im sick and tired of these lies..." edit summaries) ... user Toa Mario has created two new sockpuppets since then, in spite of having been blocked for a week ... I think that it needs to be fully protected for a while. —68.239.79.97 (talk · contribs) 21:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not necessary now. It's not been edited for about 20 hours. --Deskana (ya rly) 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for nominating and supporting me for adminship. Please let me know if I can help with something or if I make a mistake. Cheers! --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first question

What should be done about Nemu's disruptive edits to the Pixar articles? He has removed most and/or all of the articles' information. He has taken a large article such as the Cars: Radiator Springs Adventures article and the Cars (video game) article, removing everything after the first paragraph, saying that the articles were "game guides". A game guide has tips on how to win the game, which the article did not have. What can and/or should be done?

Try listening to TTN.

WP:NOT a gameguide. Perhaps removing that much wasn't the smartest idea, but it wasn't really disruptive. --Deskana (ya rly) 23:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Did I mention he didn't mention any of these things on the talk page first? A•N•N•A hi! 14:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My second question

About all the users I've been asking you to block; I should report them to

Yes, I'd say so, I'm not always available to deal with your requests. --Deskana (ya rly) 23:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my questions. ;-) A•N•N•A hi! 21:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way that you can show other users if you are online or offline on your user talk page? A•N•N•A hi! 22:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some users have code that displays a little box in the top right hand side of the page (near where my admin symbol is). I don't know the code, I've never worried about that, since my activity on Wikipedia can never really be described by "online" or "offline". --Deskana (ya rly) 23:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to know, since my computer has been shutting down quite often, most irritating when it shuts down right before I tell on a vandal. :-S A•N•N•A hi! 14:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Deskana you may know me from Wikiproject:Dragon Ball. I was recentally making a prototype of a powerlevel article on my sandbox and was wondering if you could put the original version of it on there so I could build on it instead of stating from scratch. Its Ok if you can't. DBZROCKS 22:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not, doing so would violate

GFDL. --Deskana (ya rly) 23:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh I didn't know that. So what your saying is that unless the page has a complete history of who wrote it it can't be put anywhere else on wikipedia? DBZROCKS 00:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be put anywhere else full stop. Without a history, it can't be put on other websites, in books or anything. There are other conditions for copying from Wikipedia too, but that is one. To do otherwise is a copyright violation. --Deskana (ya rly) 00:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok now I get it. DBZROCKS 00:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man. There seems to be a bit of a problem with

I'll try to keep an eye on the situation .--Deskana (fry that thing!) 03:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're having trouble on the Mao: The Unknown Story page again. I'd appreciate it if you could lock the page and not lift it until we've resolved our differences. Thanks, John Smith's 16:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um. This is clearly an attempt to lock the article in his preferred version. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, what - we have to wait until your prefered version has been edited? John Smith's 17:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the edit warring is continuing. John Smith's 22:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So stop reverting. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one reverting, if you haven't noticed. Or have you still got your Witch-hunter's hat on? John Smith's 23:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the one reverting? That is very funny! heheGiovanni33 04:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't argue on my talk page, either of you. That page is staying protected until you agree on something. I won't unprotect it any earlier. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 03:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if Giovanni refuses to change his position the page stays locked for all eternity? John Smith's 23:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If neither of you agree then I think I'll try to get you both banned from the article. I won't keep a page locked for all eternity because of your arguments. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 00:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is it we're supposed to agree on? Or are you saying I have to agree with him, because it's clear he believes Gao must be mentioned and will not change that. Also Hong has been edit-warring too - why will he stop when Giovanni and I can't edit the page?

Maybe you could think of something else to help the situation? John Smith's 10:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Smith's, that's pretty one-sided. Why is it that Giovanni should change his position? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't he change his position? John Smith's 10:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what HongQiGong is saying is that if you expect Giovanni to change to agree with you, and not expect to meet a compromise, you'll get nowhere. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 13:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but I'm not sure he is going to agree to compromise given he generally repeats himself rather than responds to queries and isn't even attending the talk page any more. John Smith's 14:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Deskana - to be honest, I understand John Smith's frustration. We seem to be disagreeing over a very black-and-white issue (whether or not to include mention of an academic) that doesn't have much room for compromise. It's either to include or to not include. But at the same time, I'm kind of seeing a bigger issue here. John Smith's and Giovanni seem to be just disagreeing with each other across multiple articles. Here are two examples - [4][5]. Not sure what other articles they've been editing against each other. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of starting an arbitration case, but that's a bit premature yet. It may well come to that though. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 17:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to seem like I'm trying to shirk responsibility for myself, but if you would like to request intervention on specifically Mao: The Unknown Story, that seems more like a content dispute and I would gladly participate in a RfC for that. But for an arbitration request, the scope seems to be more on just John Smith's and Giovanni disagreeing with each other across articles. I don't think any other editor involved in Mao: The Unknown Story is also involved in other articles that they are both editing against each other. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like RfCs. They lack the "bite" that an arbitration case has. But there's no harm in trying an RfC. I'd also like to note that there's nothing wrong with doing arbitration on a single article, I've seen it before. Yes, probably on bigger problems than this, but still... We can try an RfC first. I'll think about writing one. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 17:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. But just to note for myself, I honestly don't think I can comment on the disputes in articles other than Mao: The Unknown Story. I may disagree with John Smith's on that article, and I have my reasons, but I don't know if Giovanni is in that dispute because of some bad faith reason toward John Smith's (or vice versa, really), and I haven't been keeping track of their other disputes. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I read over disputes I can rarely see any difference between the content of the two versions that are apparently so unacceptable to the other person! Maybe I'm just quite laid back. We can make an article RfC rather than a user conduct one. That way we avoid accusations that will slow down proceedings. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 17:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I understand what you mean about a lot of content disputes. And honestly, now that I'm seeing the bigger picture between these two editors, I'm tempted to back out from the dispute in Mao: The Unknown Story because it's looking like more than just a simple content dispute between the two. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help in trying to move things towards a resolution. I hope the arbitration request is accepted because at least then there can be some way forward. John Smith's 23:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess that's failed, then. So what's next? I can't ask you to help more than you have done - I'm just not terribly sure what it is one is supposed to do. What does "get more admins involved" actually mean? John Smith's 23:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recently compiled and listed a case at requests for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has requested you supply one or more diffs to justify the use of the checkuser procedure in the case, in accordance with the procedures listed in the table at the top of the requests for checkuser page. For an outcome to be achieved, we require that you provide these diffs as soon as possible. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk.[reply]

The MUD Imperian is a fairly popular game, with -as it goes with immersive games- very vocal and entausiastic players. Therefore, it is no surprise that some of its organisations have found its way to Wikipedia. The problem with MUD's however is that notability is often a problem. After taking a bit of a Wikibreak, I noticed there are a couple of pages still around, kinsarmar for example, yet some key pages are missing. The page Imperian itself doesn't excist (anymore?), nor does Aetherius (the world in which the MUD is set). If these pages were deleted for Notability reasons, then it seems no more then logical that the other pages should be deleted as well. The problem is, I don't know where to find the reason for deletions, or if there is any way to check on what grounds these pages were deleted at all. Could you give me a few pointers on where on these issues. I have no problem in putting in some work to get it all in one line, if I just knew how to proceed. My thanks in advance, Martijn Hoekstra 22:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I blasted that one you just gave me.

WP:NOT you shouldn't have a problem. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 22:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh noes! You blasted my source of links to get to the other pages! Is there still any way to reach the deleted page Imperian and Kinsarmar for the links, so I can get them over with? (and man, you're fast!) Martijn Hoekstra 22:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get all the links out of the articles for you. And I'm fast cause I don't worry about

rules too much! ;-) --Deskana (fry that thing!) 22:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I meant that the reply was fast, but the deletion was fast too. You are a fast, fast man. Martijn Hoekstra 22:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of fast, here are your links. There were none of any relevance in Imperian, just links regarding the company that made the game. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 22:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(resetting indent) Seems there were only two left: Antioch (Imperian) and Caanae. Could you check if I made any mistakes (that I did not correct myself ;) ) as those are my first AFD's. Martijn Hoekstra 22:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, nice job. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 22:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to thank you for your support vote in my RfA, despite the disagreement we've had in the past. I also want to apologise for implying that you did not value DTD's contributions. I wasn't meaning to cause you grief over the whole thing, but user subpage deletions are, sadly, the one area where I find it hard to be objective. But once again, thanks.

^{Vivat Regina!} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile

}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the comment, how do you produce a signature such as the one where you commented my RfA? Brylcreem2 19:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you commented me it says (fry that thing) at the end? Brylcreem2 20:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From your user page: I'd like to think I'm an "Advanced Mathematician," but I'll certainly feel that way when I've finished my degree. From my own experience, this will not happen. The more you learn, the more you will realize how little you know and how much more is out there. I think that's part of the beauty of science, but it can also be a bit frustrating occasionally ;-). Best wishes! --Stephan Schulz 17:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trading Spaces: Undergoing Renovation, please feel free to update the status as it changes. Enjoy! --Andrew Hampe ^Talk 23:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

rotfl, oops, wrong person Lol. --Andrew Hampe ^Talk 16:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my page[6]. Very much appreciated. Thanks!--

3:16 00:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Would like advice

I just want to follow up on my comment earlier by asking for some advice. If I do get adminship, I don't want to end up as an unpopular or controversial admin, so I was hoping for some advice on how the community as a whole interprets policy on userspace-related MfDs. It isn't just my reaction to the DTD issue that's annoyed people; my comments on

^{Vivat Regina!} 16:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Legal Issues

Hello I am a bit concerned about a photo I found on Wikipedia. It shows a group of topless young women who may be aged under 18. There is no

18 USC Section 2257 statement. I raised this initially on the images talk page and then on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#18_USC_Section_2257

. The original image is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Girls_by_the_pool.jpg. Is there some sort of policy about legal compliance with Section 2257, model release forms etc. and where should I address my concerns?

Morrissey

Yup met morrissey many times since '86 do you have AIM, if there is a way to communicate privately I will send you my private page so you can see more of my photos.

nice to meet a fan!

Caligvla

clarifying something at the end of the AFD

Just to clarify, I wasn't referring to whether or not you had a position, but a general remark on the practice itself. FrozenPurpleCube 21:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vegeto and Gogeta

This article seems to be a speedy deletion nomine. Can you delete it? DBZROCKS 22:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry about that. Guess I need to read up on Speedy deletion policey. DBZROCKS 22:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge/delete

I saw your comments about the chess-related AfD you closed. Is there an "Article for Merge" thing, or do you do an AfD to propose a merge? (I've seen notices that a merger has been proposed, but you mention opening an AfD for the purposes of merging.) Bubba73 (talk), 23:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USMC Article

Never delete posts of people who express concerns no matter how little tact they were posted with. It was most definitely not warranted to dismiss that post as simple trolling as it was a concern that was directly related to the article. It does border on vandalism, I know you did not mean it to be vandalism, and really thought you were justified, but it was not justified no matter what your opinion of the poster's contention. Whether or not you think there should be a criticism section is irrelevant, maybe there shouldn't be, but a suggestion of a criticism section is perfectly acceptable on the talk page. It is not acceptable for you to delete that suggestion. (note: it could be argued that my tongue in cheek reply to the concern was innaporpriate, but not in any way the original poster's concern)

And I will report this to other admins if you revert it, which may put your administrator status in question (it appears you have had problems in the past), so I suggest leaving it. This was a clearly innapropriate edit by all standards, and few admins are likely to agree with you on this point.Brentt 01:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're funny, you really are. I agree there should be a criticisms section, but that talk page thread was worded totally inappropriately, and that includes your post, so I removed it again. If you want there to be a criticisms section, then propose it, but if this is your idea of a proposal for a criticms section, then I think you need to get your head straight. And secondly, God knows what "problems" I've had in the past that you're referring to, but you clearly have no clue about the desysopping process, because to think that I could get desysopped for simply removing a comment on a talk page, even if it was a perfectly legit one (which this one isn't) is completely crazy. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 10:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is how you propose a criticism section. I suggest you drop the previous matter before it causes embarassment, and instead comment on the new section on the talk page. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 10:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think?

Do you think a guy that joined Wikipedia on October 15, 2005 could be the sock of a guy that joined on February 11, 2006? For crying out loud! I don't even like Nintendo!--

3:16 03:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Great... and now he's blocked indef. I think that was uncalled for.--

3:16 06:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmmm... interesting. I'll look into this later, but it may take some time to do something about this via the appropriate channels. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 10:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bug you again

Mighty the Armadillo that happened a little while ago. There is no valid reason behind this besides typical ignorant fan arguments, but I assume this would be a considered a content dispute. Nemu 20:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Chi/Ki discussion

Hey Deskana I just wanted to notify you about a disscussion going on on the Wikiproject Dragon Ball page about the ki article. We just wanted to know everyones thoughts so let your voice be heard! DBZROCKS 01:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

article marked as soapbox, need advice

I am the original author of the page for Bobaflex, which recently had some vandalism - but that has been dealt with. It was marked as WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. First time I have seen this for an entertainment entity. Information regarding bands, authors, etc. is always going to be somewhat subjective except for basic biographical information. Can you give me some guidance on what changes need to be made to get this tag removed. I read the WP article and I am not sure that I understand it. Describing the musical style of a band, or comparing them to other bands is NOT propaganda or advertising. It's how you describe a entity whose nature is entertainment...

I can change the sentences to phrasing like "Many consider their music to be a mix of heavy guitar riffs and hip-hop-inspired beats" but I think that would just be resorting to weasel words. Or I can rip everything that isn't biographical, but I can point to MANY instances on other pages about bands, directors, etc. that contain non-biographical information.
SefTarbell 19:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article needs a lot of work. No encyclopedia would say a band is "an odd beast", for example. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 21:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get my e-mail?

Hi, Deskana. I e-mailed you a few days ago. Not getting impatient for an answer, or anything, but just want to check did you get it? On an unrelated matter, I presume you've seen this? Musical Linguist 22:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply, I've just been very busy lately. I did read your e-mail. And I'd not seen that. Ironically, when I clicked that link originally, I got this. I wondered what silly joke you were playing ;-) --Deskana (fry that thing!) 01:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball Z

Hey Deskana. I was wondering if you could protect Dragon Ball Z again. It has been hammered by ISP vandals and reverting it everyday is becoming tiresome for me and other editors. DBZROCKS 00:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's not enough activity. I notice you spend quite a while reverting the same user sometimes, unforunately if you've reported them to AIV there's nothing you can do but wait. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 01:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protections

Hi Deskana! Coupla weeks ago you had issues with some of my page protections - iff you have time, would you like to go over some I did yesterday? Cheers mate, – Riana ^ऋ 02:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not patronising at all, seriously. Thanks for the feedback. – Riana ^ऋ 02:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hello Deskana, thank you for supporting

Vivat Regina!

RfC

Hi, Deskana. Although I wouldn't count you as an editor involved in the disputes, the fact you have been around on the Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story page means I would appreciate any comments you have - I have listed an RfC on two issues here. If you have anything to say on both matters (even though you are new to the first) I would appreciate to hear your comments. The same applies to other RfCs I have started here and here, though if you do not wish to pass comment on those two pages I will understand. Thanks, John Smith's 13:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter? I don't know where to put them and have no idea how to move them, etc. All the other RfC's I've seen listed on those category pages are on the Talk pages of the articles in question. John Smith's 13:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does matter, really, since you're unlikely to get the input of people outside the debate if you make ask for comments on the talk page, essentially defeating the point of the process. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 14:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't see any section to add the RfC entry itself on the RfC page - the only mention on the RfC page are categories to notify people. Can you please show me where they need to go, or move them yourself if you have the time? John Smith's 14:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're really confusing me, now. The RfC page itself says "Create a section for the RfC on the bottom of the article talk page" John Smith's 14:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must have been thinking of something else. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 14:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Manchester???

Live in Fallowfield????? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, city centre! --Deskana (fry that thing!) 00:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright for some! Email me if you fancy a bit of a "wiki-meetup" Ryan Postlethwaite 00:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm that's a good idea actually... a very good idea (I live about 10 miles from the city centre). Majorly (hot!) 13:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An official meetup sounds good to me, is June alright for you? Think up a few dates and we'll get something properly organised. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester 2 :) Majorly (hot!) 00:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anus Image

Deskana, you have warned me about violating the 3RR rule. I'm not quite sure I see what the problem is. I'm attempting to edit/improve the anus article. I've removed an image and replaced it others that do the article more justice. People seem to have a problem with the image being deleted, so they are restoring it and accusing me of censorship. I'm not going to argue about who is reverting who, although I technically made the edits that are being reverted. I guess I'm a little confused about what I am doing that is considered wrong. While I personally could care less about looking at an image of some wikipedia users butthole, it is obvious that the image is crude, amateurish, and really contributes nothing to the article. I have yet to be given a reason as to why the image is appropriate and should stay up and the Gray's Anatomy sketches I attempted to replace them with are unfit. You seem like a fair and impartial admin, so I really would appreciate your input/advice/intervention in this matter. PMHauge 04:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Thanks for suggesting joint mediation, but I think El_C (as I explained on the arbitrator's talk page) has too close a relationship with Giovanni to be truly neutral. I would see if you can find someone who isn't/hasn't been involved with me or him to work with you. There's no chance of consensus on any of the RfCs. Sorry, but I tried to tell the arbitrators it was a waste of time. John Smith's 18:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El C doesnt have any close relationship with me, nor any history of dispute with John Smith. The only time I've seen him with any interaction is in an opinion on the talk page of The Theory of Everthing, in which John Smith followed me there to revert but not explain with any argumements on the talk page. El_C simplyl expressed agreement about the argument I was making on the talk page. He did not have any edit conflicts with John or myself. I'd accept a joint mediation of yourself and El_C in imposing a solution to resolve the content disputes, provied that the views of all the editors feedback from the Rfc are taking into consideration. I'd like this to be as close to a democratic consensus as possible under the guiding principals of WP's policies.Giovanni33 19:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El_C gave you a barnstar, though I was mistaken he had a long relationship with you. But more importantly he refused to discuss my ban (I contacted him in good faith despite the fact Deskana had reinstated the "no action" decision) in private, despite the fact I e-mailed him twice, yet spoke in favour of my ban being reinstated. So I do not believe him to be neutral enough.

Giovanni, you refused a hybrid version of mediation and arbitration with Deskana, so you cannot complain if I refuse mediation with El_C. Mediation requires the consent of both parties as to the identities of the mediators, as well as to the fact whether mediation takes place. So I insist on a neutral 3rd party as the other mediator.

You also misunderstand the point of mediation. It is not to make a decision, but to MEDIATE between the relevant parties or groups. The dispute is primarily between us, so what other people have said is not relevant to the mediation process. John Smith's 19:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help ASAP

My computer is shutting down very frequently and I don't have enough time to edit. Please place this message on my talk page and/or userpage ASAP. I have to go now before my laptop shuts down. Thanks. A•N•N•A hi! 16:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Does it say something about "RPC" or "Remote Procedure Call" when it shuts down? Just a hunch. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 17:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. My laptop might shut down soon. TTYL! ;-) A•N•N•A hi! 19:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler

I noticed you were someone that was highly involved in the Hitler/Stallin discussion, it looks like Zoola may have made a new account (Windmaker999) they are trying to get the same result done, using the same threats about contacting the inventor of Wikipedia to have my account erased (which I know is a bunch of non-sense). Just thought you might have some valuable input to help in the "new" discussion. Inter16 18:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the help!Inter16 19:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coordination

Thank you for your comment on

MoS:DAB (I am an experienced disambiguation editor, having cleaned up roughly 200 marked-for-cleanup-per-MoS:DAB pages) and cleaned up the page leaving the usual rationale and link to MoS:DAB in the edit summary etc., only to find it reverted today without an edit summary. User:Alessiobissoli has been reverting several times since then even though he received several user warnings on his talk page. Some minutes ago, 161.116.158.69 has reverted back to a rough version of User:Alessiobissoli, again without leaving an edit summary just like User:Alessiobissoli always does. Reverting dab pages is extremely rare; they almost always(!) get build-on instead of being reverted to an obviously-in-need-of-cleanup page. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:3RR without ever giving good reasons and ignoring all advice and guidelines. Since you already are an admin, I would want you to take this matter in your hands as you probably know better than me what to do next. :-) Thank you. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]