User talk:Rdsmith4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leave me a message on this page. If it's urgent or private, send an e-mail instead.

Contents 1 RFP 2 Page moves 3 Usurpation renames 4 Thanks 5 thanks.... 6 Usurpation 7 Usurpation and validity of usernames 8 "Death" Usurpation 9 Hi 10 Changes to CHU's Front matter 11 Usurpation - thanks 12 Massive page moves 13 Name change 14 Empire Earth / The Negotiator 15 Thanks 16 rejected usurpation? 17 Thanks! 18 Thank you .... 19 User:Rklawton 20 My RfA 21 Rfa thanks 22 Usurp 23 Question about usurpation 24 Confused info after usurpation 25 Advice needed on usurpation request 26 Usurpation 27 Minimum number to usurp 28 stop 29 Deletion review of Koda Rohan 30 Mornington Crescent 31 Usurpation with edits 32 Council of Government (Monaco)--possible vandalism?

[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)

[edit] Page moves

Not that it matters too much - easy fix - but the user talk page you moved was my main account (Daniel.Bryant), and not my secondary account (Daniel-Bryant, which was the one that was renamed). Sorry for any confusion in my request, and cheers, Daniel Bryant 02:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see what's happened - the redirect from Daniel-Bryant to Daniel.Bryant caused the trouble. Sorry again, Daniel Bryant 02:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usurpation renames

Hi! From your rename logs I noticed that the usurpation requests have been made to random entries. The actual target for these old usernames should be "Usurped X", where 'X' is an integer. See Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations#Process. Would you like to correct the usurpations completed, or should I go ahead? Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't make a difference actually. Infact this system is better as we won't have to keep track of the number. Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

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

[edit] thanks....

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

[edit] Usurpation

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

[edit] Usurpation and validity of usernames

Hi Dan, well done on filling the breach at WP:CHU/U I have a couple of questions about username issues that have come up in this area:

1. I assume you rejected Ebola ← AndHab on username grounds. Can the discussion at WT:CHU/U [1] now be closed?
2. The name presently at the top of the list, Death ← Death666, may also be problematic. I wonder if some editors might be uncomfortable seeing "Death" in sigs and logs all over the place? Do you want to decide the matter youself or should there be a wider discussion? Previous concerns have been addressed by a discussion at WT:CHU/U, linked to from WP:RFCN.

Just wanted to clarify how you wanted these matters addressed in furture. WjBscribe 12:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Accordingly I've removed the link to the Ebola discussion from WP:RFCN. Given the message below, I see that Death is now a non-issue. WjBscribe 00:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Death" Usurpation

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

[edit] Hi

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

[edit] Changes to CHU's Front matter

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

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

[edit] Usurpation - thanks

Hi — just a note to say thanks for fulfilling my username usurpation request. ^talkGiler 13:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Massive page moves

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

[edit] Name change

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

[edit] Empire Earth / The Negotiator

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

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

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

[edit] Thanks

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

[edit] rejected usurpation?

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

[edit] Thanks!

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

[edit] Thank you ....

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

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

[edit] User:Rklawton

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

[edit] My RfA

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

[edit] Rfa thanks

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

[edit] Usurp

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

[edit] Question about usurpation

Dan, a recent usurpation request raises an interesting question- do have a view about how long an account should have existed before can be usurped? One of the accounts that someone is seeking to usurp, User:Vaya, was only created on 14 February 2007. Usurping an account that has only existed for about a month seems a little premature- what do you think? WjBscribe 16:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, in future I'll leave a note when the account to be usurped is recent and the crat who processes the request can make their own judgment in all the circumstances. WjBscribe 21:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confused info after usurpation

User:Kerlin Gallery has usurped User:Info.[2] They are now editing as User:Info.[3] However, User:Info is shown as indef blocked. Clicking on talk for User:Info redirects to User talk:Info (usurped). Tyrenius 23:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Advice needed on usurpation request

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

[edit] Usurpation

So, can I create an usurpation request for september 24, or I ll forget about it. Just kidding :).--Vaya 08:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW. I'm an established editor on Russian Wikipedia (see confirmation diff), does it make any difference?--Vaya 14:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minimum number to usurp

As WJBscribe just said on my talk, you just usurped an account with only 70 edits to a common name. We guess this means that 50 edits is enough to qualify? --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 01:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say ~100 or 200. (Plese reply below for now on). --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 01:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest we just flag up number of edits and time first edit made when less than 200 without further comment, leaving the crat who reviews the request to make the final decision ont he individual merits of each case? WjBscribe 01:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

How about: '''Note''':This user only has about {{{1}}} edits, and has only been editing since {{{2}}}.--TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 02:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but lets leave out the word "only"... WjBscribe 02:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I was kind of thinking that also: '''Note''':This user may not be established. They have about {{{1}}} edits, and have been editing since {{{2}}}.. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 02:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] stop

Stop sending me messages, I haven't edited anything.

[edit] Deletion review of Koda Rohan

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

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

[edit] Mornington Crescent

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

[edit] Usurpation with edits

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

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

Without such a framework in place, I am currently against such renames as the current policy does not allow this. If changes are proposed, please could you submit your proposal to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) with a link on WP:BN and WP:CHU/U. Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Dan, to clarify- Nichalp's comment above is in relation to this request [5], which I had cleared with you. WjBscribe 21:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Dan, Nichalp has reversed an usurption request which you'd already approve. I've since appealed to him personally but would like to petition your help in this matter. As WJBscribe (talk • contribs) mentioned in the original request, this user made a single, one-line edit to a talk page 5 years ago and hasn't been active since. I've been an active member with over 1800 edits and have contributed multiple articles and templates as well as monitoring vandals. I would really appreciate your assistance in this matter. Regards, Pepto gecko 22:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. Could you suggest some recourse in this matter, or is it closed, in your estimation? Nichalp suggested this case might be open to a formal policy discussion. How is something like vetted for consideration? I wouldn't ordinarily pursue this type of action, but it's real important to me. Pepto gecko 00:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I really appreciate your timely and thoughtful reply. I'm afraid convincing Nichalp is unlikely given his firm stance, but I must try. Pepto gecko 15:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

One final question and I promise not to bother you anymore. In light of the status of my request, would it be acceptable to do a simple user name change to Вasil using the Cyrillic character 'B'? I tested this at Special:Listusers and it is not currently in use.

Thanks, Dan. You've been very decent and helpful throughout. It warms my heart to see an Admin/Bureaucrat act in such a diplomatic and thoughtful manner. Вasil 15:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Council of Government (Monaco)--possible vandalism?

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