User talk:Rdsmith4/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 GBYork 2 Bowser 3 Poll 4 Read you message of thanks to 999 5 Requested move 6 reply to sockpuppetry 7 Thanks! 8 Ellen Evert Hopman 9 changing username 10 Absolutely! 11 changing username usurpation 12 ISP 12.1 SleepyAC 13 Wikipedia Email 14 thanks 15 Re: ? 16 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hoopydink 17 "small changes" in WP:SNOW 18 Thanks for the new username! 19 Bot approvals 20 Deletion request 21 Thanks! 22 Change username 23 Namechange 24 William H. Kennedy 25 Pope item on "In the news" 26 I Don't Mind 27 Abreu Move 28 Wikipedia:WikiProject Grand Prix racing 29 Mattisse 30 Esperanza 31 Mattisse again 32 Image:Ritz Hotel London exterior.jpg 33 Image:Ritz Hotel London palm court.jpg 34 User:Lysdexia 35 RfC on Mattisse/Timmy12 36 Resyropping 37 umm 38 Username 39 Template:Main Page banner 40 Special welativity 41 Baptist 42 Trying to figure something out 43 Starwood ArbCom and Mattisse's Sockpuppets 44 Image copyright problem with Image:WesleyanShield.gif 45 User:Dacy69 and User:Rovoam 46 A request for assistance 47 AfD Nomination: Danny Graham 48 CHICOTW 49 Orphaned fair use image (Image:WesleyanShield.gif) 50 Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can 51 Why did you call me a sockpuppet? 52 I am not being accused anew - the accusers are banned as socks- your unrecorded findings are the evidence 53 Be a better admin, actually check things out & stop hanging around IRC so much. 54 RFP

[edit] GBYork

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

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

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

[edit] Bowser

Hi, could I just ask how the Nintendo guys got you to delete bowser to make way for their preferred article at that location? There is a debate ongoing right now; bowser is listed in dictionaries and other encyclopaedias as a type of tanker (bowser (tanker), used to describe water tankers in most of the former British empiure as well as being a standard term for airport fuel tankers) and is the generic term for fuel pump in Australia and NZ, where the S. F. Bowser Corporation had a very strong presence. The Nintendo guys have decided that an agreement between some Nintendo users and some other Nintendo users on the talk page of a Nintendo article amounts to consensus to override a century of common usage. At least one Nintendo guy has done a quick Google and found much to his surprise that Nintendo is not the most common usage; to his great credit he has supported the status quo as I left it, which is that bowser is a dab page. I fixed the many double and triple redirects that this and past moves had caused, one of the Nintendoids undid some of these, which I found a bit frustrating. Anyway, as one admin to another, can you tell me where they went to ask for this move, since I want to make sure they don't do it again (at least not without the other half of the story being put). Thanks, Just zis Guy you know? 08:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I asked him in the IRC chat room. I told him that there was a consensus to move to Bowser, and that you ignored that. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so you editorialised. There is no consensus as is made abundantly clear by the discussions on my Talk page and by Steel's comments at Talk:Bowser (Nintendo). I hope you did not tell him that I am a vandal, since admins tend to get pissed off when users describe good faith actions by other admins as vandalism. Absent consensus a dab page is acceptable, although as other admins have pointed out to you the century-long usage, to the point of being a genericised trademark, actually argues very strongly for the tanker / fuel pump usage. Just zis Guy you know? 09:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

The poll has already been closed, complete with the green box indicating it was closed, and the page was protected. I've reverted. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

So that the admins can judge the consensus. Unfortunately it is needed since this is a contentious topic. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Read you message of thanks to 999

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

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

Replied, hopefully for the last time, by e-mail. — Dan | talk 21:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

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

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

[edit] reply to sockpuppetry

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

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

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

[edit] Thanks!

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

[edit] Ellen Evert Hopman

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

thanks! -999 (Talk) 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] changing username

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

[edit] Absolutely!

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

[edit] changing username usurpation

See Wikipedia:Changing_username#Rudwolf Thank you --→Rudwolf1(Spanish user) (My talk) 16:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISP

ArmedCitizen 22:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Thank you for such a rapid response.

63.19.20.47 23:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ooopsie

63.19.20.47 00:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SleepyAC

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

ArmedCitizen 22:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Thank you for such a rapid response.

63.19.20.47 23:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ooopsie now I've really got a problem.

password didn't work with the old to the new

ArmedCitizen 12:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Email

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

[edit] thanks

thanks for changing my name :-)

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

[edit] Re: ?

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

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hoopydink

Um, you closed this a day early. Not that it matters... Yanksox 22:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, damn. Thank you for noticing; my watch is wrong. I'll let it stand, of course, as it seems exceedingly unlikely that the outcome will change in a day. If anyone has a strong issue with this, I'll reopen it for a while. — Dan | talk 22:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The only reason, it mattered to me was because I waiting to be the 100th vote. Oh well, such is life. :) Yanksox 22:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "small changes" in WP:SNOW

I'm sorry you disagree with my estimation of the situation. When the language of a "guideline" has not stabilized yet, to the point where exceptions/usages are not clear, and yet we've been asked on the talk page to approve the wording as a guideline, I think it's premature to make it an approved guideline as a fait accompli. -- nae'blis 01:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It was tagged as an essay before this morning, however, despite it being "in use" (and briefly, as an "important" page). The discussion on the talk page has only gone on for only about 12 hours, before that it safely existed as an essay for months. I'm not going to revert your change, but I'm not sure you're aware of the changes of wording still ongoing during said discussion. -- nae'blis 01:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the new username!

Thank you so much!--Ed^{talk c E} 02:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bot approvals

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

[edit] Deletion request

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

[edit] Thanks!

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

[edit] Change username

hello. would be so kind as to change my current name into "Kamikaze"? i would be very grateful. Kamikaze 20:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've done this. — Dan | talk 20:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Namechange

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

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

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

[edit] William H. Kennedy

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

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

[edit] Pope item on "In the news"

Excellent correction, compelling prose, much better than I could have done. Thanks! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I Don't Mind

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

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

[edit] Abreu Move

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

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Grand Prix racing

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

[edit] Mattisse

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

[edit] Esperanza

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

[edit] Mattisse again

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

[edit] Image:Ritz Hotel London exterior.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ritz Hotel London exterior.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok ☠ 00:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ritz Hotel London palm court.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ritz Hotel London palm court.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok ☠ 00:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lysdexia

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

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

[edit] RfC on Mattisse/Timmy12

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

[edit] Resyropping

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

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

[edit] umm

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

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

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

1. I'm waiting for you to explain why you removed another editor's helpful post (evidently expecting others to somehow divine that the user whose page you blanked is a personal acquaintance) and what you believe gives you the right to do this.

2. I reverted what would ordinarily be deemed vandalism, and I did so via manual means (instead of using the administrative rollback function). You then used said tool to revert my edit (once again blanking the page), apparently under the logic that it's okay for you to remove another user's comprehensive greeting/introduction, but not okay for someone else to remove your unsigned (by the MediaWiki definition), misspelled, one-word post when reverting your page-blanking (which left me scratching my head, attempting to come up with an explanation other than vandalism on your part).

Now you're accusing me of engaging in behavior that's "sanctimonious and unnecessary" because I followed standard procedure by adding the {{unsigned}} tag (while simultaneously reverting your inexplicable page-blanking for the second time). Good grief, indeed. —David Levy 04:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

1. I checked your contribution history to see if you'd commented on the earlier ITN dispute on a page that I hadn't noticed. The edit summary "Replacing page with 'hullo. - rds'" jumped out at me.

2. I'm not "outraged." I am, however, "thoroughly mystified." —David Levy 05:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

1. As a general rule, it's improper to simply remove another user's post from someone else's talk page unless said message is clearly inappropriate. You provided no explanation of why you'd done this (and didn't even type an edit summary, as it turns out), and I assumed that it was accidental.

2. I've noticed a number of similar edit summaries today, so I suppose that this must be a new MediaWiki feature.

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

1. No, I didn't mean to suggest that you deserve the assumption of good faith more than anybody else. I am, however, inclined to set aside evidence to the contrary when I see that the user in question is a respected member of the community. If, for example, you had replaced the welcome message with a profane diatribe, I would have surmised that a third party had somehow accessed your account.

2. Your actual edit was perplexing, as it was the sort of behavior typically initiative of a newbie test or a deliberate act of vandalism. I knew that neither applied to you, so I assumed that it was an accident (despite the edit summary, which I didn't realize was generated by MediaWiki). Therefore, I reverted the edit manually (instead of using the administrative rollback function, as I would with vandalism) and began typing an inquiry on this page. That's when you rolled back my reversion (as though I had committed an act of vandalism) and posted a sarcastic comment on my talk page. I'm at a loss when it comes to your "dignity" remark. —David Levy 06:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] Username

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

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

[edit] Template:Main Page banner

please see Template_talk:Main_Page_banner#Article GameKeeper 00:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Special welativity

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

[edit] Baptist

That was a sarcastic comment, not a threat, and somebody took it seriously. Their personal information most assuredly SHOULD NOT be listed on this website, precisely because someone might do something stupid. Are we clear on this now? Wahkeenah 22:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'll admit my askew sense of humor gets carried away. Something to consider, though: Those loons have gotten away with this on the very dubious grounds of the First Amendment. Unless they study their victims first (which they probably do), one of these times they're going to run into someone who feels like exercising their Second Amendment rights of self-defense against this vile cult. Wahkeenah 00:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to figure something out

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

This is said to be the case regarding me:

(quote) Rdsmith4 (talk • contribs) ran the CheckUser. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The filings I am aware of:

1. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Listerin Filed July 26
2. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse filed September 6
3. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (2nd) filed September 6
4. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (3rd)- filed September 21
5. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mattisse filed October 25
6. [1]Requests for checkuser - Listerin provided by Hanuman Das.

There has also been:

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

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

A new mediator on the Starwood case filed this ANI on me "Mattisse Redux" on December 7 because I unsatisfactorily tried to answer a question about those sockpuppets: [2]

Since these accusations are pursuing me to this day I wish to know which are sockpuppets of mine so I may answer honestly what has been proven as fact. One came up a few days ago: User:LiftWaffen.[3] Is that a sockpuppet if mine? I don't want to take up your time and energy or bother you. If there is another way of going about this, please advise me. Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse 16:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Starwood ArbCom and Mattisse's Sockpuppets

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

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:WesleyanShield.gif

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

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dacy69 and User:Rovoam

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

[edit] A request for assistance

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

[edit] AfD Nomination: Danny Graham

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

Jerry lavoie 05:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CHICOTW

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

	Chicago Collaboration of the Week
Last week you voted for the Chicago COTW. Thank you! This week Rich Melman has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list.
	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago

TonyTheTiger 01:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:WesleyanShield.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:WesleyanShield.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

[edit] Why did you call me a sockpuppet?

I have have asked you before and never gotten a satisfactory response. Where is the checkuser? Where is the evidence? The only evidence I ever received was a post on my page [4]

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

---

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

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

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

[edit] I am not being accused anew - the accusers are banned as socks- your unrecorded findings are the evidence

There have been no new sockpuppet findings on me. The accusations all come from your post to me listing the sockpuppets. No one has been able to find any other evidence -- only your postings. Your friends have been obsessed with finding it and have run many people off by accusing them of being me, like User:Timmy12. No serious editor thinks I am a sockpuppet. Your findings are it. In the Starwood Arbitration your findings are the issue. There is no other evidence. Your friends are the only ones who accuse based on your post to me.

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

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

[edit] Be a better admin, actually check things out & stop hanging around IRC so much.

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

[edit] RFP

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