User talk:Deskana/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Christmas Card

User:DeltaQuad/Christmas2010

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Card

File:Wikisanta-no motto.png
Merry Christmas
At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Green and Yellow Present.gif
File:Yellow and Red present.gif
File:Blue and Red Present.gif

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MediationBot

First, you might want to watchlist and/or protect your talk page headers[1] :). Second, as a heads up: you've got mail, re: MedBot. Regards, AGK [•] 15:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award.
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠TomasBat 02:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Zarboublian

I don't think he has a case on either front. I've seen them reveal solely geographical data before, and from the looks of it that's what Mathsci was told by Kinney.

I agree, but people can make complaints if they want to. Anyone he complains to will tell him that there's no grounds for the complaint, but there you go. People should still be told where the proper avenues are. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi Deskana! I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE.

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IRC chat

Hello, there is an upcoming, very informal discussion on IRC on the freenode channel ##chzzalpha connect (quick webchat link) on the 6th March 2011 at 17:00 UTC concerning ways to improve help over IRC, and other matters relating to Wiki?edia channels in general, but mostly about #wikipedia-en-help.

This is just a friendly, informal chat. Nothing official, no fixed agenda. There is nothing 'secretive' about it - anyone is quite welcome. Some of you had a chat there, the other day. We wanted to invite them to carry on discussions, at a prearranged time - and thought it courteous to ask group contacts and channel founders too. Or if you signed up manually.

If you aren't at all interested, feel free to remove yourself from the names we've spammed this to, which is in User:123Hedgehog456/IRC informal chat users. If you didn't sign up, well, people have been adding loads of names to the list, so someone might have accidentally added your name.

Thank you,  Chzz  ►  and 123Hedgehog456 19:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Message made by Chzz, with help from 123Hedgehog456.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of 123Hedgehog456 (talk) at 22:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Manchester wikimeet - would you be interested?

Hey. I'm proposing a Manchester wikimeet on 24 April - would you be interested in coming along? Mike Peel (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback#User:Socialservice

I've replied to your concerns at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback#User:Socialservice. Please feel free to give the user whatever rights you feel are appropriate. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 10:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replied. I thought you were basing your entire decision on that single edit, but now that you've explained, I see that you weren't. Thanks for the clarification. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've left you another message and a proposal. I'm so glad this was just a simple misunderstanding. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 10:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

Manchester wikimeet in June

Hello. The next Manchester wikimeet will be sometime in June (date TBD) - would you be interested in coming? See Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester 8 for details. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to attend. Thanks for the notification! --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 08:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

Nice sig

Though I think I found a better 'l' (at least in Arial): --(ʞןɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp. — Edokter (talk) — 17:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't quite work if I do it in the standard font, and I'd rather not change the font of my signature; as much as I like odd looking signatures, I like the fact that it's short and unassuming in wiki-code even more. Changes of colour and font in signatures are not to my taste. Thanks for the suggestion, though. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

Meredith Kercher socks

Noted your recent blocks. Have you seen User:Pablo X/spa? If you've any free time ... :) However, IMX a lot of these are meatpuppets, so might be time wasted. Black Kite (t) (c)}~

Was there an SPI or other discussion prior to magic? :) Trying to keep up...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite: I've probably checked a large chunk of the accounts on that list already. Rest assured that any socks I encounter will be blocked. Berean Hunter: There was no SPI. Checkusers do a lot more behind the scenes than you might realise. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 07:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! I was hoping someone would do a full sweep of everyone.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse others of meeting outside of Wikipedia to organize against you with absolutely no proof to back up your claims. In reality you are the people that are organizing against others and you are bold enough to do it right in front of everyone. You went "Fishing" in an attempt to label me a sockpuppet. You openly violated Wikipedia's rules when you investigated me and no one said a word. Pablo's hit list is ridiculous and this behavior is bad for Wikipedia. You need to realize that the Meredith Kercher article is highly controversial and that controversy will always bring added attention. People come to Wikipedia that are educated on the subject and are instantly accused of a grand conspiracy. Wikipedia veterans need to lighten up and not be so defensive. No one is trying to steal your Obi-Wan Kenobi NIB action figures so turn off the infrareds. Relax, a majority of new users come to Wikipedia to give, not take. Of course editors with bad intentions will be seen on both sides from time to time, this is inevitable. Your blatant attempts to label every user that you disagree with as a sock is deplorable. I am sure you will succeed in your mission to get rid of the "problems" as the current Wikipedia policies fail to prevent Wikipedia veterans from abusing their power. I bet you haven't felt this powerful since your Dungeons & Dragons days. Oh the memories. BruceFisher (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • One other thing, Why isn't GiselleK [2] on Pablo's hit list? The user is clearly a SPA. I bet Pablo left that one off the list because GiselleK shares Pablo's opinions on the case. BruceFisher (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you talking to me? I ask because you're using terms like "every user that you disagree with" when I've never even read the Meredith Kercher article. I have no idea what the dispute even is, nor what the sides are or who are on them. How then can I have picked a side? In fact I'm currently in correspondence with PhanuelB about what he (is it a he?) perceives to be abuse of administrator powers. I'm waiting for some evidence from him and if it shows abuse then I'll act on it. However if I keep getting accused of bad faith and taking sides then I might just not bother; I'm a volunteer here and don't need to spend my free time being accused by people that I'm trying to help. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 07:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Proof? The following are quotes from the site you run showing that you are working together, Bruce:
  • "I can't offer up anything, because they blocked me for being a "meat puppet" after I posted in support of PhanuelB. They say I'm part of a group, which is true. But they only know that because I have told them. Who are they? Nobody knows. They are anonymous. They could be working for anyone or part of any organization. -- Charlie Wilkes on your site Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:58 pm
  • "Perhaps you could prevail on the anonymous mandarins of Wikipedia to make that change. " Charlie Wilkes Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:43 am (same page as previous)
  • "So we fixing wikipedia posts now?...Also i notice a few guilter books that have just been released or are being released in the near future, yet there are clearly a few other books missing from the pro innocence side." Chris C [ Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:51 am ]
  • "RoseMontague, Moodstream - anyone else on the Wiki talk page.
I'm very excited to see you all getting involved in the page. The Wiki article has been a huge source of misinformation in the case and it is consistently a top Google search about the case.
Trying to edit the wiki article has been a thorn in the side of many editors for a long time. This started last fall when Wikipedia unlocked controversial articles to be edited, before that the article was at least okay. When the article was unlocked a group of admins quickly took it over and completely changed it for the worse. An edit would be made and threats of being banned came very quickly from some of the worst Admins - Black Kite and Mlauba. This was especially true if it was a suggestion to create a separate 'Amanda Knox' or 'Amanda Knox Trial' article. They have it set up so searches for Amanda Knox are brought to the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. Black Kite, Mlauba and Bluewave are some of them that have now 'retired' from Wikipedia. Black Kite in particular banned 8-10 editors. Here is a link showing some of the banned editors - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pablo_X/spa
The talk page was filled with tremendous arguments about sources and trying to build a consensus. If an edit was made it was soon enough that the group of Admins who were working together would take a 'vote' to change or revert the edit. Little was being achieved. They simply were not going to allow the article to be out of their hands or the direction they wanted. They would not allow anyone else to edit their article. They would not allow legitimate edits. They at one time wouldn't even allow the 48hrs Mystery series to be allowed in the list of documentaries on the case because it was 'a tabloid American production'. It was filled with biased language and falsehoods also. For instance - the luminol prints made in blood sourced by Barbie Nadeau. They had a source from a paper and it was done. It didn't matter that the source was written before it came out in court that the prints tested negative with TMB. These are just a few examples of what the group of admins working together were doing. Banning and edit blocking as tools.
I'm very grateful for Joseph Bishop for not giving up completely and creating the petition that seems to have finally brought attention to what this group of admins on the page have been doing. Great job Joseph Bishop ! One very opinionated and stubborn man. Thanks be.
No one is asking for an article to say Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. It should have a NPOV though and it should reflect that there IS a controversy in the article. People are turning to the article for understanding and are being failed right now. I hope this will really turn around now and is not just a temporary change.
I would also like to thank Footwarrior for being a good and consistent editor. They stayed in their not letting the group of admins be completely out of line." from Sarah (one of your admins)
  • "More importantly, Wikipedia is a major issue that we should all be interested in. We have made great efforts to get the truth out to the masses. When the top search for Amanda Knox misrepresents the case, we need to care. I want to thank everyone who has helped out with this. We have a good chance of correcting the problems with the Wiki article. We need to stay focussed and get it done." - Bruce Fisher Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:27 pm 1
  • "It is important that Wikipedia knows this case is ongoing. Italy allows 2 appeals. Detractors say that the court ruled, so the page should be slanted to suit the court ruling. The case is ongoing. According to Italian law, guilt has not been determined yet." - Bruce Fisher Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:56 am
  • "I am wondering if I can get some help with a small detail I am thinking of posting about on the WikiTalks page...." Moodstream Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:54 am
....and it goes on & on. How can you say that there is no proof? Bruce, have you ever edited Wikipedia outside of the account that you are using now?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 06:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really fair to judge people by their behaviour on other sites for various different reasons. Firstly, it may not be them on the other site, and we have no way of checking that. Secondly, we can't go blocking people because they violate our rules on another site (though I'm not saying that's happened here, I'm just speaking generally). It's their behaviour on Wikipedia that counts. I'd suggest that you keep your comments focussed on that, and not on anything else. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 07:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have never participated on Wikipedia using any other name. I post everywhere online using my real name. Your cut and paste above shows people discussing how inaccurate the Meredith Kercher article is on an online forum. No one is plotting against another Wikipedia user. The conversation you noted is no reason to assume that those people are working to push inaccurate info into the article or vandalize Wikipedia in any way. If you read the entire discussion the posters want to help Wikipedia not hurt it. Does it honestly shock you that people carry on conversations online about Wikipedia, especially about controversial cases? You and others talk openly on Wikipedia about how to deal with "Problems" (SPA's). You make it very clear that you consider SPA's a problem and you and others are currently targeting them. Your behavior is quite different than people discussing a Wikipedia article on an online forum. BruceFisher (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's enough about that topic for now. Berean Hunter and BruceFisher, please do not continue it on my talk page. Thank you. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 20:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AN discussion

You may be interested in this AN discussion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 07:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PhanuelB

Further to your post at User talk:JamesBWatson#PhanuelB block review, you may like to know that I have received an email from PhanuelB, and my response to it is at User talk:PhanuelB#Further email. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your comment about this, but I have complied with your suggestion and removed my comment. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I hope we're clear that I agree with every word of your comment there, but it's just that I think it's bad form to leave a message to someone incapable of replying. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do understand. However, my feeling is that by posting the essentials of their emails to me I was in effect allowing them to reply on their talk page, albeit indirectly, whereas if I only reply via email I am preventing them from making the substance of their reply public, so that (strange though it may seem) my way actually gave them more of a chance to reply. That is why I don't agree. Nevertheless, I can see that your point of view is a reasonable one, and so I have, as I said, removed the comment. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the user/talk page of banned user jimbo whales.

just curious, can i please see the talk page of the user jimbo whales (if you have access to that deleted page)? i was randomly searching out of curiosity to find if there was any account that tried to pun jimbo wales' name. i entered this name and it came up as a username block. i would just like to see what was said on the talk page about the name since it kinda cracked me up. --Thebestofall007 (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not very interesting. Just some nonsense about "Wikipedia is communism". --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

repeat proxy edit

for PhanuelB at ANI from previously warned editor.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not going to put up with it for much longer. I've placed a notice in the thread itself, and the next person who proxies will get blocked by me. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 07:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Import

Hi,

can you please import the versions from de:389. Infanterie-Division (Wehrmacht) into the English article, since I translated the informations from the German article. Greetings, --Niklas 555 (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably ask someone who's more familiar with import than I. :-) --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester wikimeet

Hi Deskana. It's a shame you couldn't make the Manchester wikimeet last month. The next one's going to be on 17 September, if you're interested in coming - more info at meta:Meetup/Manchester. Please sign up if you're coming, and also please sign up on the notification list if you want me to nag you about future Manchester meets. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd totally forgotten about that and I never got a reminder. Bah! If I recall correctly, 17 September is actually a spectacularly bad day for me, so I probably won't be able to come to the next one. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

Have you considered a career as a comedian?

From here: [3] when you were all trying to block me for some trumped up charge: "He's (Giano) now started ranting about David Gerard abusing oversight, and a block from someone on the Ombusdman Commission would likely inflame the situation even more.

Ridiculous, isn't it.

Dan"

I laughed for five minutes when I read that - do younot feel even slightly stupid for saying that? Giacomo Returned 22:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, mainly because that's now so far in the past that I can't even remember what I was talking about. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

Hello, Deskana. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thought I might bring this to your attention

150th thread, Score! :P Anyway...Thought I would drag your attention back to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EugeneK with a reply from the user as I don't fully get what he is trying to say (sounds like he's edited under several other peoples accounts and violated WP:NOSHARE). -- DQ (t) (e) 01:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I might need to archive this soon! Anyway, thanks for the heads up. I've left a closing comment on the SPI case. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deskana/Archive_31&oldid=1079480435"