User talk:Deskana

I am currently busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. I still check Wikipedia but won't be editing as much. Feel free to contact me, you'll probably get a response within a few days.

Contacting Deskana

• Contact me on IRC. I'm usually in #wikipedia-en and #wikipedia-en-admins. Just say "Deskana" in a message to get my attention, since I use a wide variety of nicks.
• Add a note on my Talk Page. Please read the rules below.
• Email me

Deskana's Talk Page If you wish to comment here, please sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~. Please add new comments to the bottom of the page. If I leave you a note on your talk page, you can reply either here or there, as you prefer. I tend to watchlist talk pages I comment on, but you can reply here if you prefer. If you comment on my talk page, I could reply either here or on yours, depending on how important the reply is. Be civil, don't attack me or anyone else, and I will do the same. I reserve the right to ignore/remove comments without prejudice, especially insults/uncivil comments per the above. I may or may not give a reason for the removal.

Yo

Fix my talk page that you protected for no good reason, I am not a blocked user and I will report you for admin abuse seeing as you are not up to speed and a bit inept in timing issues. Get a move on and do it Bazzajf 09:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Help

You deleted WEXP-AM as a redirect for WEXP. I realize it didn't work, but how can I put it back on the page AND get it to redirect (aka - work)?

RfC on Frater FiatLux

Since I've been asked not to comment on FFL's page, could you please inform FFL of the RfC? I've noticed that you've made some minor edits to it, so I know you are aware of it... Thanks. -999 (Talk) 23:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted

Thanks for the info, ADMINISTRATORS: What happened to 'past versions'?. But how can it be deleted? I mean, can anyone delete past versions or just the user who can delete his/her own past versions? Politis 16:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Administrators can delete page versions. Their deletions must comply with the GFDL though. Such deleted versions can be viewed by all administrators, for example, I can see User:Macedonia's old userpage. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 17:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

We have a problem

Hey Lord Deskana! I just wanted to thank you for your quick and helpful response in my request for semi-protection. I honestly do value your help. Anyways, just wanted to bring to your attention that countless editors including myself are in a bit of a conflict with one vandal who has ignored countless requests to refrain from ignoring the consensus formed. He has been reported countless times for violating the 3RR and has been banned for 48 hours before, yet when he returns no change is seen in his intentions and deliberately continues to vandalize the page. Just check this out- history of the current article in question history of previous article vandalized history of his contributions Talk page of the article in question(note the disrespectful manner in which he refers to other editors) and last but not least his previous and current 3RR reports. If you could comment on the article's talk page or his talk page, or even the current 3RR report and the Admins' noticeboard/Incidents report would be very much appreciated. I contacted you personally because you are the only one I trust that can help in this matter. Once again, I value your help. Thank you.-3bulletproof16 17:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am too busy to look into this at the minute, but I will be able to do so tomorrow. I've got the day off work. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 14:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of my user page

A User:BabaLouis has vandalised my user page by labeling me as a "Satanist". Although I am an open minded individual who does not have a problem with others being Setians or Satanists, I would not really like to be classified as such. Just look at my page's history. Kephera975 14:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted it for you, and warned the user with a {{tpv3}} template. You are capable of reverting vandalism yourself. To learn how to do so, read WP:REVERT. Anyway, if you have any further problems, feel free to contact me. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 14:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Understood. I appreciate your fair mindedness, Dark Lord. Kephera975 14:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 14:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I dislike having to continue bothering you. However, after I admitted that the article was correctly edited by other users back to his version, user:BabaLouis continues to harass me on my user talk page and is being very uncivil. I am not responding to him. Furthermore, he does not need to accuse me of knowing the other editors, as I do not. There is a mediation regarding these articles and these questions should be determined in the mediation.

-Kephera975 16:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty difficult to appreciate that Baba Louis is harassing you. After all, Louis appears to just be asking you about why you keep adding that people are Satanists into articles. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 07:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The Quick Draw, eh?

I think the vandals got the point with the other userpage. I mean, they understand that you value their opinions. :) Yanksox ^(talk) 14:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

Please delete the page First Aid for Asthma. It always redirects.--Sean gorter 06:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with it redirecting? --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 07:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This may be easy to question, but I put up this ARTICLE not to be redirected, but to help Asthma sufferers!--Sean gorter^{the famous Gorter family-contribs-I'm involved}10:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not willing to delete the redirect. Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to get First Aid information. We can't go giving medical advice without saying "We're not medical professionals" otherwise we could get sued. In addition, what you wrote wasn't really an encyclopedia entry. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 07:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Make your move, dude!

Title says it all, really - waiting for you to make your next move! James Random 10:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you'd be a little less cryptic, although I got the meaning eventually. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 11:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism Edit War

Regarding the article Neo-Nazism, specifically the part about Croatia.... I'm involved in an edit war with an IP address. I reverted some of his edits, as what i saw on the talk page convinced me that the article wasn't NPOV. I've read into the matter somewhat, and I'm rather convinced it isn't. I removed the offending paragraphs, but the IP address added them back. I left notes on his talk page, but He doesn't seem to reply. he mentions on my talk page the Concensus and Community are meaningless, and when I tried to meet him half way, by applying an 'unbalanced' tag but leaving the paragraphs in, he removes it. Any suggestions? I think we'd both appreciate your input! HawkerTyphoon 20:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem

I think, as mentioned, that that section should be archived since it is being edited by a blocked editor...oh well, such is life in the big wiki!--MONGO 09:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Note for you...

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Apologies.2C_Reporting_myself_here. Could you just have a read, so you know what's going on? Thankyou:) HawkerTyphoon 03:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing tags

Dear Deskana, sorry to bother you again and sorry about Gio bothering you again this morning. Could you please confirm to me that my following reasoning is right:

an editor who finds an article or a section tagged with the wrong tag (or thinks that it is) may and should change the incorect tag to the correct tag. Only if he thinks that there should be no tag at all (assuming there is no long-standing edit war) should he remove the tag completely and if he does he should so and not hide behind the (alleged) wrongness of the tag. If he doesn't know how to do it he should ask some other editor to do it for him.

Please tell me whether my reasoning is mistaken or sensible. And since you are an admin could you please, if I am right, admonish Giovanni for his bad faith move this morning on Adolf Hitler.

Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Does Giovanni believe that the section is not disputed? Are you implying that him saying he did not know the appropriate tag to replace it with was a smokescreen, to let him remove the tag completely without repercussions? Well, it's all speculation, I'm afraid. I'm not really willing to do anything at this stage. It's only a tag... I personally believe if people were to spend the time they normally spend arguing over the tag on actually debating the disputed content, content disputes would be resolved a lot quicker. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, anyway. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 17:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

New Account Names

I hope that you didn't think me rude. I was trying to be all inclusive and answer future questions so I don't have to keep going round and around. I did have an account. The account is closed and, although I could reopen it as I haven't been blocked, I would rather not. I have been editing anonymously for several months and was quite happy doing so - apart from the odd block to my ISP account but I needed to file an AfD and so I created a new account. I had intended to revert back to my anon account straight away, but I should have realized that I'd be poking an ant's nest with a stick and, now, like the USA in Iraq I'm stuck without an exit strategy.Neuropean 22:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Its your move dude :)

James Random 18:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Take Move

Can you unprotect the Buu page?

Wiki-star has agreed to stop his editing sprees, so it's no longer needed. Nemu 20:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 20:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus article

Thank you for protecting the Jesus article. This will be a really difficult issue to chew through and I'm hoping that the protection will cause people to focus upon the DR more closely. Peace! אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 18:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I was considering it this morning... I eventually got around to it when the past 10 or so edits were reverts. I hope you can get a speedy resolution to this. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 18:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes - good call. When they can't edit the article it forces them to discuss! Sophia 21:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Taracka and Dragon Emperor

How's that for proof... but if you feel that I should still file a WP:RfCU against them, then I'll go ahead and do it. Thanks anyways, though. --3bulletproof16 22:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a RfCU might be good. That comment to your talk page implies impersonation- someone proclaiming they're a sockpuppet to try and get another user's block extended. A RfCU would clear this right up. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 22:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You're move, buddy.

James Random 09:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC) >< Take Move

Closing a few AfDs at the minute, my friend. I'll be there soon. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 09:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Englewood Schools

Could you please reconsider your decision to delete Englewood Schools and the other Colorado school districts? I had added the beginnings of an article to some of those school districts (city name, name of superintendent, name of school board president, URL of school board) and I don't think the other voters all recognized that the articles were no longer just lists of external links. TruthbringerToronto 02:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are unhappy, you can take it to WP:DRV. That's more in-line with current process. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 08:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have done so. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 4. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Anne Frank image

I have asked, on that Anne Frank's cats page why the image is not fair use there. It is a photo of Anne Frank on an article about an important part of her life. It has not been newly uploaded and the reasons given for its fair use fit that article. Robertsteadman 09:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Replied on article talk page. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 09:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection

I add my request for unprotect, of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Disputes have ceased for some time now, and there is to be no mediation.

On another note. When do people make a decision on Frater FiatLux's RfC? 15:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, some how I forgot to sign. Zos 17:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You're move, buddy.

James Random 09:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC) >< Take Move

Me or him?

In the RfA [1]? Viridae^Talk 06:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Him. Sorry! I should have been a bit clearer. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 07:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No probs. Viridae^Talk 07:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

quite inflammatory, right?

I was not discussing that to cause an argument. How could you know? Are you a psychic?
Again, I use IQ (i.e. the value I estimated) as a criterion for assessing the user's ability to be an admin or his ability to produce a valid vote on RfA. It is a nonsense, but I find the criterions for most of the oppose votes equally laughable. And I didn't disrupt wikipedia to make a point, thus I didn't violate WP:POINT. I have the same rights as the other editors, and saying that "he didn't pass my IQ test" is not the same as if I was saying "he is stupid", thus this is no personal attack. Pure logic, if I say a didn't pass my test because it's not bigger than 10, it doesn't mean that a is lower than 5. Thus, a feels offended only if it wants to feel offended. Got that? ackoz 07:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I said If you're here to cause an argument. If. And I never warned you or blocked you or anything so I fail to see the point of the message. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 16:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Professor33's talk page

Hi, Deskana. I just saw your message on User talk:Professor33. Actually, I was thinking this morning of suggesting to you that I, at any rate, would be quite happy to have the talk page unprotected. It can be quite useful, sometimes, to do a temporary protection of the talk page of a blocked user who is abusing the template, just to show that it can happen. He's more likely to take it seriously now. Also, he'll probably realize that there's no need for him to keep putting the unblock template on the page to get admin attention, because the block is being discussed at WP:AN, so admins are aware of it. If he wants to comment, on his own talk page, I see no reason not to let him (as long as he doesn't abuse it). Cheers. AnnH ♫ 18:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your question on Giovanni's talk page, see User talk:Bhadani, bottom of the page, section titled "Emails". AnnH ♫ 19:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Neuropean

Did yoyu get my email? I was glad to get some things off my chest.Neuropean 20:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I replied again. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 21:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that I said that I wouldn't edit here again but I feel quite strongly that an indefinite ban isn't appropriate here.

• Robert isn't a vandal out to disrupt, he is just very opinionated and stubborn. Yes, he can be quite rude at times, but my experiences on Wiki lead me to believe that abruptness is not an uncommon feature. His problem has been that he is looking for cabals and conspiracies and, to a very small extent, he has been justified in this.
• Has he said sorry? Yes he has. Is he likely to do this again soon? No, I don't think so. I know for a fact that he can change for the better.
• He has only really overstepped the mark with me and I suppose I am a red rag to abull to him (although he sees me everywhere, even when it is not me. I have promised never to post on any forum where he is a member, so future suspicion shouldn't be a problem. I feel that if I hadn't AfD'd his article, he would have continued in his 'ways' but not gone OTT, so I would rather not see him blocked.
• I object in the strongest terms to any suggestion that I have stalked him in real life, I don't know exactly what evidence he has presented in his private emails, but whatever it is has got to be wrong. But I suppose that he has found my behaviour annoying - the AFD may have been a WP:Point, but wasn't meant as a 'personal' attack. It went downhill from there.
• It has never been my attention to upset anyone - including Robert and I do not want to see him lose his hobby because of me. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, I'm sure Robert will agree with me.
• I ask all concerned admins to give him one more chance. Blocking him will mean one less contributor and (although I still say that Moortje was an article crying out for a AfD,) he has made many positive contributions.
• His probation wasn't very specific. Instead of blocking him, I ask that he be given more specfic terms and he be held to those in his future actions. Any admin action should be based upon 'future' productivity and not past indiscretions. I think that's the whole point of Wiki.

That's all.Neuropean 23:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand your opinion, but I think an indefblock is appropriate. He's violated policies (namely WP:SOCK, though he still denies it repeatedly), he's argumentative... it's just obvious. We've been here before. You suggest we let him do this all again a THIRD time? No way. You can't claim he was unaware of what he was supposed to not do because of "vague terms of probation"... he was well aware. --Lord Deskana (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting that vandalism left on my user page. BTW, my page is still being vandalized and so is Daishokaioshin's, KojiDude‎'s, and Onikage725's by Dragon Emperor himself, and his newest sockpuppets (including his IP address). If you could look into the problem I would really appreciate it. Thanks. --3bulletproof16 19:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Music Samples

Hi, I see you've responded to the straw poll at Wikipedia_talk:Music_samples. Since your vote, there has been some further discussion here, and I've suggested a slight amendment to the proposed guideline. I'd really appreciate your feedback on the subject. Thanks! --Wine Guy Talk 20:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for finally blocking that Havenstone guy, all that page moving was getting on my nerves. Of course, Curps's bot blocked me for making a joke move to a joke page, but it doesn't do a thing when true pagemove vandalism occurs. Go figure. :) --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hehe. Nice work. Funny how we run into each other twice in totally seperate incidents, both times about pagemoves. :-) --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 19:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn discussion and civility

Lord Deskana, if you have a moment I would like you to check out the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn discussion page. Would it be fair to say that user:Hanuman Das is being quite uncivil? Kephera975 22:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll check this tomorrow. I'm exhausted. --Lord Deskana (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Professor33

I think that to be fair to him, you should have someone else take his request to be unblocked. I am not saying that you can not be neutral and fair, but as you are the one who has taken on all of his requests and were the original admin to block him, so I would appretiate if you gave a fresh mind this duty. I am by no means saying that he should be unblocked, but I read the section on the admin's notice board, and feel that the same few people are participating in the discussion. Thanks False Prophet 02:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of responding to anything he says, least of all responding to unblock requests. He's been quite quiet recently... I think I know why. --Lord Deskana (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page again and Semi-Protecting it. Though I'm glad that the vandalism has subsided for now, it looks like Dragon Emperor is back making threats of vandalizing again. I was wondering if there was some way of blocking IP addresses from making new usernames. Just wondering... --3bulletproof16 17:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)3bulletproof16 19:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I blocked LOADS of sockpuppets of his recently, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dragon Emperor. Are you aware he is a reincarnation of another user? --Lord Deskana (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew he was Taracka all along [2]. I just referred to him as Dragon Emperor because he had used that name to comment on my talk page for the first time... Hey, thanks again for blocking him and hopefully putting a stop to his sockpuppets. (EDIT: look what I just found... [3]) --3bulletproof16 23:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Need advice on Chris Tucker page

I've been keeping my eye on the Chris Tucker page for a while, and have gotten a little tired of what seems to be an ongoing case of vandalism. I would take this to the vandalism notice board, but I'm not certain what category it would fall under, or whether the article really falls under the criteria for semiprotection or whatever other remedies are available. Ordinarily I'd just continue monitoring the article, but some vandalism has gone unnoticed by the Counter-Vandalism Unit and I can't guarantee that I'll be around to catch it. I was hoping that you might be able to look at it and give me some advice on what I should do next. Captainktainer * Talk 12:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

AfC templates

Thank you so much for your hard work on the AfC response templates, and for so promptly improving the one I added! Your efficiency is almost spooky. :) Kickaha Ota 21:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I float around without editing sometimes. That's why I can appear to suddently pounce on something, because in actual fact I've been watching it for a bit! I'm just glad I can be of help. Thanks for contributing to the templates. --Lord Deskana (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat like the way I pounced on this message! Hehe... --Lord Deskana (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello

i recently joined wikipedia with hopes of being an administrator(i know that will take awhile) well I wish you the best Wikipedia95 16:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. Well you're a long way off yet. I suggest avoiding performing edits like [4] this. Try editing and improving the encyclopedia instead. Edit articles you're interested in and have a fair amount of knowledge in. I like editing and maintaining articles on Star Wars and the like. Enjoy! --Lord Deskana (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin?

Actually, yeah. I was wondering if I could write stuff for my website on my user page then copy&paste the preview onto my site. I like Wikipedia's formatting and it helps organize my site a little better. KojiDude 23:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really. It's not really appropriate and doesn't help build the encyclopedia in any way, shape or form. --Lord Deskana (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Just wanted to make sure so I wouldn't have S.W.A.T teams with the wikipedia logo on their jackets busting into my house. KojiDude 23:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That would have been the next stage, yes. --Lord Deskana (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

lol Part of me thinks you aren't kidding. KojiDude 23:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course I'm kidding. Although I do know where you live. --Lord Deskana (talk) 08:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I can take home pictures I took with my camera, edit them on paint, and its still self made, right? KojiDude (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltar: RfC on Gibnews

Hello, Burgas00 has opened a RfC on Gibnews. Please check it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FGibnews

--Panchurret 07:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Administrator

Hello,I currently came across the user page of User:ChrisB and noticed that he used in appropriate language that offended me.It was on the subject Portlander.If you could enforce some sort of punishment or warning it would be greatly appreciated.

AMA Roll Call

There is currently an AMA Roll Call going on. Please visit the page and sign your name to indicate whether or not you're still active. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 18:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The Return of Wiki-Star

Well for once I'm somewhat flattered that he actually addressed me this time. [5] Though I'm not too fond of him saying that he was going to kill me, I do, however, manage to find some comedic relief in all this at the thought of him attempting to kill me. Here's my analysis: He can't write at all so my guess is another Dragon Emperor "Sockpuppet". However, the IPs responsible for the recent vandalism [6]are AOL trolls so there is a slim possibility that Wiki-star could indeed be making himself look like an ass again... --3bulletproof16 21:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I blocked that IP. I'm in a bit of a "non-tolerance" mood today since I come online to find attack pages about me and my userpage vandalised. --Lord Deskana (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

You're the first one, I guess.[7]. Yanksox 22:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I see you've taken care of everything. Hope everything else goes right. Yanksox 22:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. That user exhibited behaviour of a few users that I've indefblocked so I saw no reason not to indefblock again. It was a vandal only account anyway. --Lord Deskana (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I found it sort of odd that he picked you and did something like that so quickly. Yanksox 22:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

152.163.100.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Please use an IP only block, thank you--AOL user 16:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies. I've been less active recently, and hadn't noticed the new feature that they implimented. Changed to block only anonymous users. Thanks for the note... --Lord Deskana (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Your signature

The all-caps of your signature, combined with your signing yourself "Lord Deskana", gives a rather Darth Vader-like impression - "I value your opinion, but if it does not please me, I will use my Sith powers to asphyxiate you!".

Disclaimer: The above comment was intended purely for the purposes of humour. The commentator expressly denies all liability from any action taken which relies thereon. The commentator further denies any and all liability (including, but not limited to, stress, injury, suffering or loss of earnings) resulting from the grave insult against yourself by the above. If you have any questions, please contact my attorney. --David Mestel^(Talk) 19:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You have, of course, been indefinitely blocked for daring to speak to me. Expect the SWAT troops at midday tomorrow, though they do occasionally like to show up early to surprise you and such like. Please note that the power to fight a SWAt team is insignficant compared to the power of the Force. --Lord Deskana (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You killed my father! --David Mestel^(Talk) 06:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If only you knew the power of the Dark Side. --Lord Deskana (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

72.13.168.149 aka Anon64 aka Blue Tie

You tangled with this user (as 72.13.168.149) last month. Now in one (Blue Tie) of his two other guises (the other is Anon64), he's about to scuttle the RfA for Andypandy.UK over the subject of sockpuppetry. (See opposing comment 15). Do you know anything about this person or what's going on with him and Andypandy.UK? --A. B. 06:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I know nothing. I can't even really remember exactly what I said to them. Were they complaining about my conduct? Seems quite a common pastime, aside from creating attack pages about me. --Lord Deskana (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

See User talk:Deskana/Archive 4#Reply on another page. This is the same user that went after SOPHIA fairly viciously(1, 2, 3).--A. B. 14:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

AFD

Hi! I've recently put the article Dub Piece up for deletion, on thr gorunds that it's non-notable, and most probably created by the same people who created the videos. I'd appreciate your vote on the matter, either way (of course), at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dub Piece. Thanks! HawkerTyphoon 02:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for "unblocking" me! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Misza13's pile!

Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on my talk page. Misza13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing! NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated ROT-26 algorithm. Ability to decipher it indicates a properly functioning optical sensor array.

The boxers Davey Moore

_ _ Thanks for your closing & followup on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The boxers Davey Moore. Since i need (below) to ask you about what comes next, it would be artificial to avoid offering two critisms:

1. As is made explicit re speedy deletions, so with all deletions: no deletion can be responsibly effected without at least a minute's attention to the page's What links here. In this case there are 8 (beyond the two created in the AfD process), of which 3 are from talk pages that probably shouldn't concern us, and one is a template of interest only bcz of the two indirect lks it causes. Of the remaining 4 rdlks, each is likely to act as an invitation to create a similar article under the same or a similar title. Leaving them where they are has the potential for requiring another AfD, so that you might well have saved work by other admins & responsibile editors if you had passed on the opportunity to close this one, rather than doing it as you did. (I'll kill them cleanly).
2. Many Del'g AfDs include explicit votes for merging, and such votes are a fine example of where AfD-closing admins should exercise their explicit responsibility to not just to count the votes but to judge the quality of the arguments on each side. An argument for merging goes directly to the concept of AfD being not about the quality of the article's current content, but about whether an article with that title could be encyclopedic. (If only the content is at fault, it should be replaced by a stub rather than placed on AfD in the first place.) An argument was made by the nom'r of this AfD that the nom'd article is redundant in light of the Dab and bios, which should be regarded as the best argument made (even tho it is a better argument for merger than deletion). Merger is implicitly put on the table by the lousy argument "A _very_ unlikely search term, so no point redirecting to the disambig page". (It is a lousy argument bcz

   it is based solely on an off-the-cuff opinion,

   the article or its title appear at 16 places that Google indexes,

   the title appears in two of the extracts of the first three hits on

   "Davey Moore" boxer

   and bcz it will continue to show on the first hit no matter what WP does.

   If you were unwilling to construe the result as "Merge", i think you would have been better to extend (and relist) it with the explanation that no valid arguements had been presented.
   

_ _ I also question whether the dismissal of the mere coincidence (my own opinion) as "another curse myth" (or however worded) is NPoV: not being a curse is unprovable and thus PoV, and, where (unlike the Darwin/Lincoln coincidence debates on WP) discussion of a coincidence doesn't clutter articles of wider interest, the PoV that interest in coincidence is interst in curses. But i've no interest in boxing or coincidences or curses, but only in this case in creating two bios in place of the earlier tandem one, so that's someone else's worry.
_ _ My interest is also far too little to go thru the undeletion process, but i am creating a rdr from the deleted title to the Dab: that is no violation of process nor a basis for speedy deletion (tho RfD, presumably provides a rememdy for the disgruntled). My question to you is whether you object to my undeleting the old revisions of the article (producing the result that a merge call on the AfD would have), which clarify the long history of the title on WP, and avoid making the title appear to be a recent innovation. (You'll notice at CSD R3, (emphasis added)

Redirects as a result of an implausible typo that were recently created....

that long-standing bad names for encyclopedic matter, which get copied and indexed outside WP, are subject to some protection, since they lead new users to good articles. It's only unenc'ic titles that can't be rdr'd to enc'ic material whose existence we want to completely erase.) _ _ Thanks for your attention.
--Jerzy•t 17:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

OK... I'm not quite sure I really understand the point of this message. Can you elabourate a bit on your reasons for leaving it here? (Note that this is an honest question, though I've possibly worded it badly enough to sound like an accusation) --Lord Deskana (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

_ _ I didn't hear any accusation, and i'm afraid i often try so hard to cover all the angles that i leave the air too full of dust to be understood. I think that my plan of creating a redirect The boxers Davey Moore reading

#REDIRECT Davey Moore

is at worst RfD bait, which doesn't worry me.
_ _ On the other hand, someone might object to my also undeleting the history of The boxers Davey Moore in order to merge that history into that of the Rdr: they might call it an out-of-process reversal of the AfD. IMO, you as caller of the AfD, would be the editor whose objection would be most likely and most persuasive. If you don't imagine yourself complaining about my maneuvering those (presently deleted) old revisions into the history of the impending Rdr, i intend to do so and chance the consequences of anyone else raising an objection.
_ _ I suppose i may still be unclear, and if so, please don't hesitate to ask again. Thanks.
--Jerzy•t 01:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the clarification there. If you want to undelete the history and create a redirect you've got no objections from me. Thanks for bringing this my attention, my friend. --Lord Deskana (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

per Neuropean, re Robertsteadman

(this is being sent to Shane, Dan, and Ann as the three who Neuropean contacted with his request as well as Tony)

Assuming you read what Neuropean wrote, do you have any consideration of giving Robert another last chance? I have my own feelings on the matter, but want more feedback. Please reply here, or on my talk page, or email me. Syrthiss 12:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Robertsteadman has already had a second chance, I do not think he should be given another. --Lord Deskana (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) Syrthiss 12:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

AMA Resignation

I'm sorry to see you leave the AMA as you are a Wikipedian with a good head on your shoulders and have always been helpful :-) Good luck with where you journey to from here! אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 14:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

To be frank, it's partially cause of Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser#Temporary hiatus. What is that about? --Lord Deskana (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

3Bulletproof

Thanks I have not been doing editing but I believe you need to keep an eye on him. He has been violating the 3RR on other pages as well. --TheTruth2 16:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Me protecting the page with your warning on was not an endorsment of your warning. I do not know whether or not he has violated 3RR. In future, please reply on one page, either mine or your own, so that the conversation is not repeated. --Lord Deskana (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I will. I am trying to talk to him on his page but he keeps on deleting it. I have nothing but cival to him.--TheTruth2 16:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course. This is the most civil comment in the world. Leave him alone. --Lord Deskana (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel I need a apology from him. That comment was the only one. But HE is in violation of the 3RR on other pages especially the Wrestlemania 17 page. 4 changes in 24 hours. YOu should keep an eye on him.--TheTruth2 16:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm afraid I don't believe people who's stories change. "I have been nothing but civil" changes to "Except that one". I've told you exactly what you should do. Leave him alone. If he violates 3RR, then report him on WP:AN/3RR. --Lord Deskana (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I will report him. but since you are already here Can I report to you> Here is the page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WrestleMania_X-Seven&oldid=66061234--TheTruth2 17:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Put it on the 3RR noticeboard and I will look at it. Make sure you format it properly, I won't look over a malformed report. --Lord Deskana (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you help me format it then> I can't get it to look like the others for some reason.--70.129.186.88 17:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Difflinks on 3RR reports should be given like this...

17:00, 27 July 2006

You can see I have provided the time of the edit. This was copied from the page history. Very few (probably none) administrators will look at reports that do not have the edit time. The code for the above is as follows...

17:00, 27 July 2006

Contact me again when you have formatted teh report correctly. --Lord Deskana (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be fixed now. He has other articles as well that he violated it.--TheTruth2 17:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My Talk Page

I'm not arguing with him at all. I'm just not responding, I much rather not feed the trolls than go through another pointless argument with him again. The other reason I've been reverting my talk page is because I'm in the process of archiving it and every time I'm almost done with that I see I have a new message... and I know you agree with me when I say this... That yellow/orange sign on the top of a page can get really annoying sometimes, especially when you're trying to take care of something else. Just wanted to clear that up, and I apologize if I dragged you into another one of my dilemmas again. --3bulletproof16 16:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Bullet I am trying to clear the air but you will not let it air out.--TheTruth2 16:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If you guys start arguing on my talk page then you're both getting blocked to stop you from doing it. Arguing on each others talk pages is one thing, arguing on someone elses is crossing the line. You can DISCUSS here, dont argue/edit war. --Lord Deskana (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me clear the air on this. Remember that I am not arguing with anyone here. I just want you to be informed so you do not get the wrong impression of me. It all started with TheTruth2 signing up 4 days ago and making a few edits here and there, I notice he was a new member so I welcomed him into Wikipedia. Then he makes this edit [8] to WrestleMania X8. It's an extended summary of the match with a few grammar errors and some peacock terms and weasel words. I know its all done in good faith so leave it there until I see the Wikiproject's guidelines on how to summarize matches [9]. So I quickly revert his change to the previous one. See the talk page. He continues to revert it back with "People need to know what happened" as his argument. TJ Spyke, who is also familiar with the guideline refers TheTruth2 to it. You would think that after he was referred to the guideline and now has 2 other experienced members upholding it, he would stop right? Wrong.... So I warn him for deliberately adding the text while ignoring the consensus formed by other members. His retaliation? He warns me for vandalism...[10]... yes vandalism... So he continues on with his reversions [11] until I report him to intervention against vandalism [12]. His retaliation? You guessed it... he reports me to intervention against vandalism [13]...The result? He gets blocked for a while and then gets his blocked reduced by another admin who also got caught up with the wrong impression. You would thing that after the block he would have stopped right? Wrong... so then I report him for violating the 3RR which I know you saw. His retaliation? He reports me for the 3RR. So we both end up getting blocked because of one Troll who just signs up a few days ago and decides he's going to make the rules now and If anyone has a problem with that then he's going to put his retaliation boots on and stop at nothing to get those people blocked. What I still don't understand is that he had the whole WikiProject Professional wrestling community showing him the rules and guidelines only to spit on their faces and do things his way. Why must I be the one to have to deal with the Wiki-stars and Dragon Emperors of Wikipedia?... Hope you didn't get tired of reading this but it's the only way to clear my name Lord Deskana --3bulletproof16 17:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And now he's going to report me for a so called 3RR violation. Lord Deskana please tell me how this [14] is a 3RR violation. The guy doesn't even know the guidelines to reporting a 3RR. Why do I keep getting reported for stuff I don't do and have no one see that I'm just upholding the policies established by Wikipedia and its members?. I'm telling you Lord Deskana, its only the Wiki-stars and Dragon Emperors. See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-26 WrestleMania X8 [15] --3bulletproof16 17:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• As you could tell on the history my last edit was at 19:49 he made the case at 20:03 told me at 20:05 not even warning me that he was doing it.

Let me clear it up. I stated my reasons to them. It was not deemed vandalism it was deemed a content issue. I followed the guidelines for the wrestling project. It did state any notable points in the match and so I reverted the change back to include that. He got upset over the "peacok terms" and "weasel words" and the grammer errors. So that was fixeed and put it back in. He then took it out. THis is a very long story too long for that matter You would have to go back thru the history pages to find the TRUE STORY. I even stopped and I even apologized to the the wrestling community. I have since done nothing to those sites. I have attempted to clear the air with this person and keeps on deleting it. I would like a apology from him due to the distesss he has caused.--TheTruth2 17:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

One more thing. I am not a part of their community They also don't "own" the wrestling sites. Wikipedia is a site for users to go and look at the things they want to read about. If they feel that they need to change something they should. They are not apart of this "community" so why should they follow their guidelines . If they just want to improve it? I followed their guidelines and it stated notable points which I feel should be added. Those are noteable points to me AND TO OTHERS. They are not part of their group. They do not own those articles--TheTruth2 17:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Howdy, My Lord

Hey, I'm sorry you couldn't support, but the comments you left were really encouraging any ways. Thanks man, and if you need anything from me feel free to contact me. I still owe you. :P Yanksox 16:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

IRC

Is there any chance you could quickly hop onto IRC (#wikipedia-en or #wikipedia) so I could discuss your response to my RFCU? Cheers, Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 12:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just got your message and I'm on now... --Lord Deskana (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

George Bush

Please look at the edits being made about The Decider in George Bush. Can you come to a decision for this section?

I believe that the information about The Decider is important and should be added. It has to do with how he is viewed in society.

Please insert my previous information and inform the other editor not to remove such information.

I do not intend on continuing an editing war, but I do want the correct information to be present in the article

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Playnine9 (talk • contribs) .

It's not my decision to make. I'm just stopping edit warring. Go find a consensus with the other editors on the article talk page rather than asking me to decide. It's not my job to decide. --Lord Deskana (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You are not...the decider? *haha i'm hillarious

Please sign your comments as requested in the talk page header. --Lord Deskana (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Playnine9 (talk • contribs) .

Alert!

Mark ritzchkin has been blocked indefinitely, but can still edit. Please block him. He has been vandalising. He has already been warned twice. El gRiNgO 21:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Crisspy

You might want to tag that name on the RFCU. Yanksox 22:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been processed now anyway. I've no regrets blocking this idiot after all the hassle he has caused me with his abusive sockpuppets. Sometimes I feel like I spend nearly all my time blocking sockpuppets of people that have decided to wage war against me... --Lord Deskana (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again... (again)

Thank you for reverting the PA on my talk page again. Glad you're looking out for Wikipedians. How did you see the PA so quickly, though? Million thanks again Lord Deskana. --3bulletproof16 20:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Your talk page is on my watchlist. I regularly check my watchlist. That's why I appear to pounce on things. At night I'm very rarely "offline"... I'm just normally checking my watchlist every 5 minutes while playing a game or something. You're welcome. --Lord Deskana (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC

Hi there Deskana,

I was wondering if you vcould have a look here [16] and see what you think? It's becoming a point of contention for several people, and could use a firm decision being made either way! Thanks, HawkerTyphoon 22:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

false claims

I noticed you claimed that NPOV77 is a confirmed puppet of mine? Where was this confirmed? I think you will find that this is one of those in the suspected category. YOu know, no evidence, other than the "secret liguistic" evidence presented by ideological opponents who would rather I not be here to make it easier for them to bias articles with their POV. But, confirmed, No, never has been. I also note that you say 'he has many confirmed socket puppets, such as (naming two (one false), so as to suggest there are more than two--which is not true. I suggest you retract your statement, giving you the benefit of the doubt of an honest mistake, since unlike others, I do assume good faith.Giovanni33 09:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

On this occasion, I agree with Giovanni, but I can't really blame Deskana, since when someone has as many puppets as Giovanni, it's hard to keep track of them all. (It's easier for me, because I've been following this from the very beginning, and was editing the same articles.) He has only two confirmed puppets; they are BelindaGong and Freethinker99. (Of course, with the suspected ones, it's not as if there's any doubt; it's just that either a different IP was used, or a user check was not done at the time.) If you're online, I'm sure you'll correct that shortly. If you're not, I'll post something later this morning. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 09:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll change it. I can't even remember the names of all his puppets, never mind what their status is. If Giovanni's only defense is to pick at the semantics of things that I say, then I'm obviously making a good case. --Lord Deskana (talk) 09:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Kayfabe and PW-wrestling templates on Talk:Tony Blair

I added them only because the article is a popular target for sockpuppets of User:Dick Witham. --TheM62Manchester 19:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well please don't. It looks stupid on an article about the prime minister. --Lord Deskana (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, only trying to stop vandals. Thanks for the advice. --TheM62Manchester 19:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. :-) --Lord Deskana (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thus spake the Lord Deskana

I think you need to look at the blocking policy and ask yourself "What would Deskana do?". The answer is block you for 31 hours. One more word of abuse or anthing similar and this page shall be sprotected

That's the funniest block notice I've ever seen. I nearly fell off my chair laughing. Many thanks for bringing some solid-gold hilarity into my day. Best, Gwernol 19:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm honoured. Sometimes I come out with some pretty funny stuff. Other times my jokes make no sense and people don't realise it's a joke. Glad to have made your day. :-) --Lord Deskana (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you are hilarious - you certainly make my life worthwhile.82.25.23.38 15:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Guess who's back...

Taracka's got a whole bunch of new socks. It's pretty obvious they're him (as usual). One of them left me this message. I'm guessing he was referring to either you or 3bulletproof16. You should welcome him back with a nice, long, quiet block, wouldn't you agree?--KojiDude 07:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've checked and he appears to have been silence for two more months. Have you noticed anything in the past few hours? Give me a shout if you see him about and I'll see what I can do for you. --Lord Deskana (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ooh... I have the power to vanquish someone now. Hehehe... I'm flattered. --3bulletproof16 16:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how he came up with this name? Hmm... --3bulletproof16 16:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

File:Danavecpurpletiger.jpg

This user hails the great Lord Deskana

This is what you get when you mix bordem with Userboxes.--KojiDude 07:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Deskana

Have you really left wikipedia? How come you said you woudn't associate yourself with it anymore in your edit summary? I'm anxious to know if this is a joke or this real, because you're a really good user and even an admin. So please tell me what's up.Nerdchomper 02:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Fat Lui

Oh, yeah, could you please show me how to find the thing that determines my wiki-stress level (if you're still on, that is). That'll be all.

I'm still here. I said I felt no need to associate myself with WP:AMA anymore. I'm just around a bit less often recently. I've got to go to work so I'll show you the Wikistress thing later if you'd like. --Lord Deskana (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33 proposal

Hi, Deskana. I know you've been busy lately, so you may have missed some new developments about Giovanni. I have reactivated the discussion, at AN/I. Just in case you missed it, Jayjg has now confirmed through checkuser that Professor33, NeoOne, and CleanSocks are all sockpuppets of Giovanni33.[17] [18] Giovanni has now come as close as I think he can come (without losing face) to admitting sockpuppetry. I see no reason to try to force a more explicit confession. He has agreed here that it doesn't pay, and has asked to be unblocked on certain conditions which, if enforced, would make the use of sockpuppets completely futile. I've made a proposal here, at the Incidents Noticeboard. Also, this section of Danny's talk page gives a summary of this history and contains links to all or nearly all the places where it has been discussed. The blocking admin has indicated that he will consider unblocking early, and I'd be happy with that, but I think we need to work out the conditions that Giovanni agrees to first. Assuming that the sockpuppetry stops, I'd also be happy with removing the puppeteer tag from his own user page, in order to help him to make a clean start, free from any unnecessary humiliation. Don't feel you have to get involved, but if you have time, a comment at the noticeboard would be welcome. I'm hoping to have this sorted out as soon as possible, because I need to go on wiki-break to finish some writing. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 07:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Your name

has been mentioned here, FYI. ×Meegs 13:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. Have responded there. --Lord Deskana (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Got a good laugh

I'm not sure why I got a laugh from this but I did. You always do a great job. Yanksox 15:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :-D --Lord Deskana (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

New user looking for help

Hello Darth. Are you a moderator on this website? Is there a F A Q? Can I use this site on A O L?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arce (talk • contribs) 08:12, 20 August 2006.
Hello are you there? Are you in charge? Please reply.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arce (talk • contribs) 10:01, 20 August 2006.
Why are you ignoring me? What have I done to deserve this? British Gas has better customer service!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arce (talk • contribs) 13:16, 20 August 2006.

Arce, take a look at your talk page. Captainktainer * Talk 20:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Cathytreks

Our friend Cathytreks is back. If you've got a bit of time, you may wish to review her last few months of editing. She hasn't actually "contributed" anything, but she has managed a few rants and a lot of name calling. Is there a process for handling editors who serve only as disruptions to Wikipedia? Rklawton 05:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Boulder Valley School District

• 10:23, 29 June 2006 Deskana deleted Boulder Valley School District (deleting per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Englewood Schools)
• If you are interested in restoring this article and expanding it so that it will be more than a stub, you can find the names of the superintendent of schools and of the president of the board of education of the Boulder Valley School District at http://www.bvsd.org/District/Pages/BVSD%20Organizational%20Chart.aspx I didn't have a chance to expand that article as much as I would have liked before the end of the AfD discussion. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Inapropreit User Name?

Would User:Yuckfoo's name be inapropreit? (Switching the F and Y makes it "Fuckyoo")--KojiDude 19:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say really. "Inappropriate username" is not specifically defined (which is for the best really). Try bringing it up on WP:ANI and seeing what the general concensus is. --Lord Deskana (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding KojiDude's recent block on WP:IAR

I strongly believe this block is not justified and unreasonable. Only two offenses were made and none after being warned. -- bulletproof ^3:16 00:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Becoming a Contactor

Hi! I was thinking about becoming a contactor for vandalism at WP:ABUSE, and I noticed that you are one. I was wondering what sort of work it entails, and how I would go about applying? HawkerTyphoon 04:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Add your name! That's it to join really. I really need to remember to remove myself from that list as I just don't have the time to do it anymore. --Lord Deskana (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! HawkerTyphoon 15:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The Experiment

LOL! Wow, that's amazing. Though, I think that's a crummy present. So, considering you're 18 and in the UK, you can get bombed. :P Here you go! Btw, keep up the good admin stuff. Yanksox 20:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birthday! :P

Vic Grimes

Members from The Professional Wrestling WikiProject and I can't get through to user JB196. He continues to revert the article, reducing its quality claiming that he is not credited as "The Author" in the article itself. The issue is being brought up here [19] help would be greatly appreciated. -- bulletproof ^3:16 04:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please help me. He is harassing me on my own talk page. -- bulletproof ^3:16 04:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Deskana, I liked this edit [20] but just think: if you'd claimed credit you could have joined the rouge admin cabal :o) Guy 09:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

WrestleMania 22

McPhail has reverted the article every time an edit is made. He clearly does not assume good faith in the contributions of editors such as me and TJ Spyke. Every time an edit is made to improve the article, McPhail returns and reverts the article claiming it as being "Cleaned Up" [21]. This is the version that TJ Spyke and I worked on [22]. We based the whole format of the article on these two articles (WrestleMania XX and WrestleMania 21) and this isn't the first time McPhail has reverted the article to his own liking. See the article's history here [23] every single "Clean Up" he has made have only been reverts to his previous version. This is really getting frustrating to users like me and TJ Spyke who have worked so hard to improve the article's quality. He has been referred to WP:OWN several times before but has simply ignored it. Help would certainly be appreciated. Thank you. -- bulletproof ^3:16 23:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As you're the admin who indef blocked JB

Can you post the rounding off of the situation at [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#blanking via {{cite}}]] and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:JB196? Also you will see at the incidents page I listed JB's incidents with DVDVR, wrestling spirit etc. as he is now indefblocked can these be removed from the pages as harrassment? –– Lid^(Talk) 05:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Also JB's page needs the indefblocked template. –– Lid^(Talk) 06:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear on policy but does this require a listing at Wikipedia:List of banned users? –– Lid^(Talk) 05:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a listing. --Lord Deskana (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I added it after I didn't know if you'd get back to me heh. Just covering the bases. –– Lid^(Talk) 16:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Chris Hamrick

Any chance of semi-protecting this page please? Banned user JB196 seems intent on re-adding his "list compiled by Jonathan Barber" credit to the page. Apologies if I should be asking this somewhere else, just you seem to be dealing with several other similar issues. Thanks Sasaki 06:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Also blocked one of the IPs. --Lord Deskana (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure what good blocking the IPs will do, as he's changing them rather quickly [24]. A quick look at the edit history of your discussion page will show he's vandalising here now as well... Sasaki 16:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)