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.

Hi I seem to be having trouble implementing the tlh-1 babel entry into my user page. I can see that you have done it successfully in yours. I am not sure what is going wrong with mine. Could I have some help. Unsigned comment by Klingoncowboy4

Hello. I added comments to your usertalk page and edited your userpage to include the template. Feel free to revert the changes. I hope I helped. Deskana 20:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I got is to work. Turns out I got confuesed between Wikipedia and Wikibooks and had to create a Catagory in Wikibooks. Klingoncowboy4 23:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi! He has been blocked (not by me though, I'm not an admin yet). In the future, you can report someone like him at WP:AIV or the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-vandalism on Freenode. It's no problem that you reported him to me, but I'm not always around :-) Regards, -- JoanneB 18:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I've used the vandalism report page before but was somewhat afraid of using that one. I thought it was for serious emergencies. Thanks for the heads up! -- Deskana 20:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Yeah sure, you can use mine :) - Just plonk this on the user's page: {{subst:User:FireFox/W}} ~~~~ -- Fir e Fo x 11:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Just noticed there's another person here on wikipedia crazy enough to work at Subway. btw, do you know what's really in the chicken teriyaki ? Jcam 03:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Andrew (manager) tells me simply that its a "Japanese style chicken" and I've never asked Tim (owner) before. I might ask him next time I speak to him! I'm in UK by the way... Deskana 18:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply

It was a bit of a joke, Deskana. I think teriyaki is really gross. But 'tis good to see Subway representin' on Wikipedia. Jcam 01:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Call me Dan... and how can Chicken Teriyaki be gross? It's great! I always get one whenever I have Sundays off... sub of the day! Yeah! Deskana 15:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply

I guess maybe it's just me. I'd rather eat haggis. Anyway, good meeting you, and I'll see you around, Dan. BTW, you can call me J. Jcam 23:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC) reply

As far as it's been shown in the show, it's permanent. Rodney was given it in episode 2 and he still works. For example, he flew a jumper in The Defiant One.-- Andromeda 02:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi. I'm trying to stomp out attacks and identify the vandals involved in an orchestrated campaign by a far-Right website aimed at substantially POV'ing several Wiki articles that started on 30 December. The user Namr fits the profile to a T, even in specifically attacking the three specific articles mentioned by FreeRepublic:

-- Namr's vandalism log --

1. 01:59, 31 December 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:George W. Bush (→Free Republic "Action Alert")
2. 01:55, 31 December 2005 (hist) (diff) Abortion
3. 01:53, 31 December 2005 (hist) (diff) Kwanzaa

For more information, please see Talk:Abortion. Thanks — HopeSeekr of xMule

Zergling rush was on the community portal listed for merge into Zerging. It's merely cruft and should be left in the main article on all types of "cheap rushes" from many games.-- Zxcvbnm 20:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Will tilde from now on. 195.153.219.170 09:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Great. Cheers! Deskana (talk page) 18:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry about that. I was trying to just add {{unsigned}} tags for 195.153.219.170 (I guess you already had by the time I saved) and I'm not sure how I ended up overwriting your edit. I don't remember seeing an edit conflict notice, but that's what it must have been since our edits were so close together. Anyway, my apologies. -- Mr. Billion 09:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

No need for apologies, my friend! I thought you reverted my comments. Never mind! Deskana (talk page) 18:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Deskana, I moved this conversation from WP:AIV. I'll also let LtPowers know so he or she can respond to you here. -- D e ath phoenix 20:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Help needed with 81.132.132.3 . This user isn't vandalising but is doing something very weird with Craig Gannon. Appears to have added an (overly) extensive discography and is now proceeding to make dozens of edits that make no changes one after the other. I don't know how to proceed. Administrator assistance required. Thanks. Deskana (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It might be a bot repeatedly uploading the same version so that even if anyone changes it back, it will get automatically uploaded again. I think blocking the IP is a good idea. Nobody in their right mind would spend hours pressing send non-stop! Deskana (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • That seems unlikely. WP doesn't usually record a change as having occurred if the version isn't changed in some way. I looked at a few of the edits. In one, a comma was added. In a couple of others, a paragraph was highlighted as different, but I couldn't see any changes. It's possible this is a human. Powers 20:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Please take this elsewhere, such as WP:AN, WP:ANI, or the village pump. This page is for non-admins to request that admins quickly block blatant vandals for vandalising articles. -- D e ath phoenix 20:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Never mind, seems like the above IP was blocked by another admin. If you want, you can still contact LtPowers, but I don't think you'll need to do that. Thanks for your patience. -- D e ath phoenix 21:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Phew. Glad that's over. I wasn't quite sure what was going on. Thanks! Deskana (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, on the RFR poll, you said "infact, from how Rollback is described, I'd prefer the long way.". Could you explain, I'm not sure what you mean? Thanks, Talrias ( t | e | c) 11:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, there have been several cases where I have had to clean up after an admin. They hit the rollback button and it reverts to the last change not by that user. However, in some cases, the vandalism comes from multiple users. The admin, not realising this, simply reverts to the last version. I have to come and revert further back.

Also, it doesn't seem to have the ability to give customised edit summaries, just the blanket "Reverted edits by USER_A (talk) to last version by USER_B". I prefer to give customised summaries that accurately describe why I reverted the edits, if its not clear vandalism.

Were these problems not problems (such as clicking on a checkbox to select the version to revert to, which is how it might be, I don't know since I've observed it to not be and never had rollback privileges myself, AND giving customised edit summaries) I'd feel less reserved about rollback. I'm not that bothered about loading several pages to revert. I hope that clarifies my viewpoint. Deskana (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Good job on the changes to the Subway article. Jcam 03:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for getting rid of the bold in the titles for categories, but please don't change the entire context of a section (ex: reverting to old version). I'm writing this for a class and have a specific agenda that involves my own writing style. Thanks for the tip about editing though. I'm not sure why I decided to do it the annoying way instead of previewing. - (Dknoll)

P.S. I wasn't ignoring you, I'm just not too familiar with the wikipedia system so it took me a while to realize I had messages.

Your standard for what makes something 'encyclopedic' seems completely random to me. The reason why i prefer MY version is because it offers a THOROUGH ANALYSIS, without offering opinion. The original version is a bare-bones description that is not adequate in conveying the sense of Richard Weaver as a person in general. Perhaps you are thrown off because of the fact that this 'intro' is more than two lines long. That doesn't, however, make it any less encyclopedic. The removal of any of that information would not provide readers with an accurate picture of Weaver in his totality. I see nothing in the tone that suggests anything other than definition and explanation except for, maybe, the question 'Who was Richard Malcolm Weaver?'. For the sheer fun of it I'll change that to a bland statement. Just for you. Please stop changing that summary, the original is hardly satisfactory.

I gave you the link in my edit summary. The introduction I reverted to was preferable because according to the Manual of Style...

If possible, make the title the subject of the first sentence of the article (as opposed to putting it in the predicate). For example, write "This Manual of Style is a style guide" instead of "This style guide is known as the Manual of Style." In any case, the title should appear as early as possible in the article — preferably in the first sentence.

The first time the article mentions the title, put it in bold using three apostrophes — article title produces article title. For example: "This Manual of Style is a style guide."

The article still needs editing to conform to an appropriate tone. This is something I will do myself. It does not change the content of the article- only make it sound more professional. The content is acceptable, however the layout and wording does not sound like an encyclopedia article, as it should since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Deskana (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, i READ that section, and the title of the article is 'Richard M. Weaver' and the first section now starts with 'Richard M. Weaver' and then goes into information. You still haven't explained how the tone is not appropriate. It is all fact based. What in the world are you talking about?

Please remain civil. I feel you are demeaning me somewhat.

"In a nutshell". That was included in the article. I believe you would not find the words "in a nutshell" in another encyclopedia. Replacement of such phrases are what I'm referring to. The content seems perfectly acceptable, not that I can really comment on the content without knowing more about the subject of the article. Deskana (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't feel as if I'm demeaning you when you gave a vague statement insulting my writing. Now that you've pointed it out, I can see your point about the phrase "in a nutshell." Thanks for that suggestion. I have revised your revision yet again and included some of your suggestions. Please leave it alone now. Sorry if I've come across as rude, but if you want people to change something you have to be specific about why it's 'wrong' without completely ruining the intention.

A couple of things. Firstly, check the bottom of the edit page.

If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

Also, please provide an "edit summary" by filling in the box. It makes it easier for people to work with you editing an article and track what changes you have made. It is also unfair of you to ask me to "Please leave it alone now" since it is as much your page as it is mine, and every other user of Wikipedia, and infact, every other person in the world. The article is licensed using GFDL so your contributions can be edited by anyone (you agree to this when you submit your work).

I'm going to keep looking at the article and making changes where I deem necessary. Thanks for your contribution to the article! Deskana (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply

First of all, I realize that people can edit the page. In fact, any random idiot (note: I'm not saying that's you) could go on and say 'meow meow meow'. That doesn't make their contribution valid. Second, 'If you don't want your writing to be edited...do not submit it'--> remember when I said this is for a class? I appreciate editing for actual mistakes, but when you're being as specific as wording that isn't technically incorrect, what's the point? My writing is just as valid as any other. In fact, there are a number of brilliant philosophers, rhetoricians, writers in general that use more colourful language ('in a nutshell') that doesn't descrease the value of the writing. Readers won't learn any less. Third, I acknowledge anyone has the right to change the article. Please acknowledge that changes for the sake of change (when what is written is perfectly acceptable) are not necissarily a good thing.

I am honestly shocked that you are so concerned with minor phrases when I'm still achieving the wikipedia standard of 'information, not opinion,' and the writing is still done professionally. I'll retract my statement of 'Please leave it alone now,' but really, there are a vast number of articles that are poorly written and horribly opinionated. Mine is not one of them, and since you do have generally good suggestions you could put yourself to better use. Sincerely, Dknoll

Unfortunately, regardless of whether the article is for a class or not, it must still conform to wikipedia standards. What I suggest you do is make note of the following link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Richard_M._Weaver&oldid=38723337

That is a permenant link to the article you created. This way, you can show people the article you created without interfering with Wikipedia guidelines. Don't get me wrong, Wikipedia is not a place to do classwork assignments on, but since the article is already there you may as well use it.

Using language like "In a nutshell" is more likely to keep users interested, but Wikipedia is not here to keep users interested, it is an encyclopedia. I feel a bit like a broken record constantly saying that, but I feel the need to. Your writing is perfectly valid with phrases like that in, but it is not appropriate for Wikipedia, nor acceptable in some respects. This is the point I am trying to make.

Regarding your comment about me spending time on minor changes... I do contribute to larger articles, attempting to advise new users on the Wikipedia way of doing things. However, I occasionally also focus on smaller articles such as this, because people tend to focus on the main ones.

I appreciate your co-operative manner in this matter, many new users are not as understanding as you. Thanks for your contributions. Deskana (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I made sure to copy my original for the class, so that won't be an issue. I'll be sure to avoid colloquial phrases in the future to sound more like an encyclopedia. I do like your other changes (title under picture, getting rid of extra spaces). It's hard to stay mad at you. I suppose it's easy for people to get defensive about something they've written themselves, but hopefully the final changes are more appropriate in tone now. Thanks, D.

One thing... please sign comments to talk pages by placing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your comments on talk pages. This makes it easier for users to decide what comments belong to which user.

All's well that ends well, so mission success for both of us, I say! Deskana (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello Deskana,

I am webmaster of www.keyraweboficial.com (Official Web of Agustina Keyra).

First my level of English is not good, I'm sorry, but Agustina and I only spoke Spanish.

I go to tell you the arguments in bennefit of www.keyraweboficial.com:

1. - The information of the article is inexact. Agustina likes modelling, but in another time, before it wants to finish the University.

2. - Publicity in the Web is null, only for paid hosting, also we go to donate certainly cuantity of this money to one ONG, but this is a little irrelevant here.

3. - When Agustina returns of vacations (in Argentina it is summer), we will add to the Web inedit photos (I hope that you create to me then).

4.-Posibility of contacting with her in the Web.

5. - I talk Graemel (another administrator), so that he helped me with the IP that your you have been blocking for days http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GraemeL#Help_the_Official_Web_of_Agustina_Keyra

6. - If you want I can give you the MSN of Agustina Keyra, but as I already said she to you single Spanish speech.

7. - If you eliminate the link www.keyraweboficial.com, you eliminate the possibility of all the Wikipedians to contacting with Agustina Keyra. If this occurs Wikipedia and Wikipedians lose. :)

Visit www.keyraweboficial.com if you like... and comprobate this.

Greetings and thank you. Bye. TDCi 00:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Ever read WP:NOT? Basically, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a way to contact Keyra Agustina. I will not support that link being in the article. The fact that you are the administrator of the website makes it worse, since you're adding the link to generate more hits/revenue and whatnot.

Although I thank and commend you for bringing it to me before you go adding it in, I'm afraid I don't agree with it being there. Sorry. Deskana (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I did a mistake : I wanted to say near-deaf (former minister Bachelot annonced that two years ago, there were a lot of jokes about the fact there were some demonstrations and he wasn't able to hear...) ; but I corrected someone who had written gay politician instead. Sorry for my bad english tonight, I'm quite tired, but I'm not a vandal... ;-) Gangel 02:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I genuinely have no knowledge of a previous afd nomination for Can't Sleep, etc, and my nomiation is not out of malice. All the best. Gretnagod 21:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh, I know, I wouldn't imply it either. Don't worry about it. Putting it through the process again isn't much trouble- if it was kept last time it will probably be kept this time. Don't worry! :-) -- Deskana (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Gretnagod 22:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply

On a number line, zero is a placeholder. When timelines/calendars are created, such as in our reality, the year 1 BC is followed by the year 1 AD. The same goes for BBY / ABY. Although Obi Wan Kenobi did not die more than 1 year before the Battle of Yavin, he did die before it, thus placing his death during the year 1 BBY.

Would that be original research?. Because simply searching for "0 BBY" on Google leads numerous results. There are clear references to 0 BBY. Do you have a source that says this rule applies in the Star Wars universe? Even other people are reverting your changes. Please just accept that this isn't the way it works in Star Wars. Deskana (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Your response is not logical. No one, not in the Star Wars Universe, not in ours, would design a calendar with a year identified as "zero". Zero means nothing, is not actually a number, and you cannot have a year nothing. In order to have a seamless timeline, despite the use of the BBY / ABY classification, there cannot be any gap - which the use of the concept of zero would seem to indicate. In other words, saying something happened in the year zero is like saying it did not happen. It is my hope by bringing this up that the other folks with the other sites - aside from the numerous Wiki hits - on Google will start to correct this illogical inaccuracy. Dmcg 01:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply

see my latest exchange with the wookieepedian on the discussion page of the article itself. I guess I thought we could start making the corrections here, on Wikipedia, and they could reverberate outwards. Obviously, despite my last comment, someone did design a timeline with this inaccuracy, and now we are stuck with it. Oh well. (for the record I think I have cleaned up the few other places where I made my edits regarding O BBY) Dmcg 02:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm glad this problem is solved. And for the record, zero is one of the most important numbers. (Arguably) The five most important numbers are e, i, pi, 1 and 0. Without zero there's no solving factorised polynomials. Zero is a very important number. I'll go take a look at the page now. Thanks! Deskana (talk) 08:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply

cool. Dmcg 17:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Regarding your comment on this article in AFC. An AFD with a delete result doesn't necessarily mean no article should ever be created. It only shows concensus this particular article should not exist, rewriting it with different content in accordance with policy could yield an article which is acceptable. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• or he may pass the guidelines later on. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I realise that, however reinstating the article immidiately after deletion wouldn't be right would it? Since concensus was just reached, it'd be avoiding concensus. There is no official guideline I believe however it seems a common sense application of a rule on concensus. Deskana (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey man, are you interested in joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars? We're looking for exceptional star wars writers, cruft reducers, mergists, people with lots of time on their hands....anyone, really :). Thanks for hearing me out ^_^ Deckiller 22:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I'll talk about it on the talk page for the project. Deskana (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much for your support during my recent Admin election, I appreciate the trust that you have put in me. Please contact me if you have any questions, comments or concerns regarding my work as an admin.

Kind Regards, Elf-friend 07:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC) reply

No problem- I see you used an edit summary when you added this comment to the page. :-p Deskana (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Please explain to Rob that formal warnings are serious (see Jesus talk page). I'm tired having him abuse others and intend to pursue this through formal means if needed.-- CTSWyneken 12:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I shall explain this to him. Thanks. Deskana (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply

And maybe the little "god squad" protecting a POV article could also abide by teh rules of WP. Robsteadman 17:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Rob, remain calm. Remember WP:CIVIL. This is binding for every member of Wikipedia. Deskana (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Well in that case how about the abuse that has been dealt out by those who are now whining? The accusations that SOPHIA was a sockpuppet? The attempts to discredit my edits and to tell others to ignore me? SHould something not be done about them? I am remaining calm - I am just concerned that the behaviour of half a dozen or so "faith" editors is skewing this article into a POV parade and is contrary to the principles of WP. Robsteadman 17:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Well I did explain the methods for reporting user-misconduct on your talk page. You've yet to follow them through. If you believe what you're saying, I strongly suggest you open some Requests for Comment against the users you believe have done wrong. Deskana (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply

As I explained - I am gathering info and evidence to make it a water tight case. I am appalled that behaviour such as theirs is tolerated and not picked up by simple moderation. Each edit in which they make a gratuitous, aggressive comment I am noting and will use in my R4C. Robsteadman 17:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Because you have been involved in the Talk:Jesus conflict, I would humbly request that you view this section on Rob Steadman's talk page concerning the recent war that has transpired. I do ask that you do not edit or add to / add comment to this material for the sake of clarity and conciseness. You are free to leave any comments on my talk page if you so desire. Thank you. -- Avery W. Krouse 00:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply

More abuse from the protectionists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus#Robsteadman.2C_please_go_away Surely such behaviour deserves an immediate block? Robsteadman 12:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Dear Deskana, I have no intention of beginning an edit war. Str1977 11:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply

So why revert a valid edit for teh sake of it? Robsteadman 11:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply

People never intend to start one, I know that. But it happens. I was just trying to prevent one. It's good for neither of you. I know you're both interested in the Jesus article. It just gets people blocked and articles protected against editing, which really is good for neither of you. I'm just trying to help you guys. Deskana (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply

The problem is there is a small group of editors from a pro"christian" POV trying to restrict edits by anyone who require verifiability and fact. They have tried to scupper other articles and are acting beyond the policies and principles of WP. Their edits are unencyclopedic and give a heavily skewed POV rather than actual fact. They have bullied at least one editor from WP and seem intent on getting others blocked or simply to give up. It is shameful. Robsteadman 11:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply

If you ahve time could you look at Jesus-Myth and the behaviour of KHM03 - pushing a POV, reverting accurate and verifiable entries to make their POVseem right - I know I have made more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, but they have done more - and for non_WP purposes! Robsteadman 13:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I have made 3 (and now have stopped). I have also not reported Rob for the obvious violation of WP:3RR, trying to assume good faith that we can resolve this. KHM03 13:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply

In 24 hours you have made more than 3 - and you are pushing a POV by trying to put a slant on these scholars who are known to have published works in the fields I have added. Stop POV pushing - you are breaking one of the basic principles of WP> Robsteadman 13:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I made one revert on Feb 19...then I went to bed! I made 3 on Feb 20 and then made it clear that I was done for the day. The "POV" I'm pushing is accuracy, citing the fields in which specific scholars have expertise...I even conceded a point to Rob regarding one scholar. KHM03 13:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply

You are not being accurate - you are putting a slant and dismissing some areas of scholarship. Stop misrepresenting your position and your edits.

Here are your reverts:

(cur) (last) 12:57, 20 February 2006 KHM03 (restoring accurate, precise version; my third & final revert forn the day here...please see talk page)

(cur) (last) 12:52, 20 February 2006 KHM03 (restored accurate version; see talk page)

(cur) (last) 12:38, 20 February 2006 KHM03 (rv to accurate NPOV version...Rob, why are you afraid to be precise? please discuss on talk page before reverting again...thanks)

(cur) (last) 20:45, 19 February 2006 KHM03 (rv; a person's training & education has EVERYTHING to do with their expertise...please cite actual historians and NT scholars if you want any listed here)

(cur) (last) 20:40, 19 February 2006 KHM03 (→Background - changed Gandy's label to "mystery religions"...his degree is in this specific area, and precisely the pagan elements of these religions, not in "Western religion" in general)

(cur) (last) 20:37, 19 February 2006 KHM03 (rm NT scholar label from Wells...he has no training or expertise in that area...let's be precise)

All reverts - full or partial. All within 24 hours. All pushing a POV. All trying to belittle the scholarship of those you choose not to "beleive". Robsteadman 13:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I feel badly for Deskana, doing all this on his/her talk page. But, if you'll note, there was one revert on Feb 19...the first two were bona fide, legitimate edits. When I hit 3 on Feb 20, I stopped, and made it clear that I did so. Please discuss this on the article talk page, so we can find a resolution. Thanks... KHM03 13:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply

There is an easy resolution - tell teh truth and stop pushing your POV by trying to slant the facts. They were NOT legitimate edits - they were full or part reverts to push a POV. Robsteadman 13:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Deskana: I won't take up any more of your time here. Feel free to join the discussion on Jesus-Myth or contact me on my talk page if you'd like any further clarification. Sorry for all this...and thanks. KHM03 13:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply

No problem... just so you know, the Jesus-Myth page is likely to be protected due to edit-warring. Shall talk about this on the talk page of Jesus-Myth. Deskana (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm still hopeful we can reach a resolution...but do what you think is best. KHM03 13:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Page protection will force a resolution, since nobody can edit the page until the dispute is resolved. It's not that big of a deal, really. At least I don't think so. Deskana (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I see you noticed I put the paragraph in place. Thanks for fixing the typo. I also need wiki links set and it would be helpful to have you chime in on my most recent post to the talk page. (hmmm... that sound like a professor.... )Thanks! -- CTSWyneken 14:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply

No problemo. Shall do. See you there! Deskana (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply

You said: Sorry, but this page cannot be created unless you sign your comment using four tildes. Your IP address is needed to create the article with the text you provide otherwise it does not comply with GFDL standards.

In fact you can search the history page to see who first created an entry. Of course, we should encourage people to sign, but it's not impossible to create an article if they don't. - Mgm| ^(talk) 12:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, yes. I did think about saying that to them... but I wasn't really ready to go searching through the page history considering the article was somewhere in the middle of AfC. Plus it sets a good example for other users who seeing that decide they will sign their comment... but point taken. If someone else wants to go trudging through the page history looking for that IP then they can... I don't want to. :-P Deskana (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I noticed on someone's page you talked about users being "punished" for doing wrong. I don't think we do this, I think we restrain them from continuing to disrupt. Do you agree? Regards, Rich Farmbrough. 12:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, I agree with you, forgive my clumsy wording. Can you remember which user that was? I can't seem to find a record of it. Deskana (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Found it, it was User talk:Robsteadman. Deskana (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I noticed that you added a "welcome" message to the talk page for User talk: Arrowboy 89. I assume you used some kind of template, so I thought you might want to know there is a grammatical error in it. After mentioning the helpme template, it should read "someone should be along to help you" rather than "someone should be a long to help you". wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 19:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oooh yes, nicely spotted. I've changed it now. Thanks! Deskana (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm going to remove the images. Jedi6 22:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply

As long as after being informed about the policy they're removed, there's no harm done whatsoever. Thanks for being co-operative! Deskana (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply

What's the policy on artistic interpetations of logos like the rebel alliance logo? Jedi6 00:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I suggest you take a look at the tag on it. If it's tagged as copyrighted and fair use then you can't use it. If you were to create your own... I don't think it'd really be allowed either... the content would be copyrighted still... I really don't know. I shall inquire. Deskana (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I mean this is allowed, Image:Small NES controller.png. Jedi6 00:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Take a look. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Fair use images. Deskana (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Just a reminder: do not respond to Rob at all if he repeats old arguments or gets abusive. If he changes a consensus paragraph, revert it. Keep track of your reverts and only do it twice. If we can do this, nothing will come of it except frustration for Rob. -- CTSWyneken 20:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply

"I will do what I must" - Qui-Gon Jinn

If he changes against consensus, I will revert of course... I will adhere to the letter (and more importantly, the spirit) of policy on Wikipedia. I will do what I feel I must. Deskana (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Ah, if only the world were as simple as one quick lightsabre sweep to the mid-neck area. I am going to remove Talk:Jesus and all related participles from my watchlist. Would you be so kind as to alert me in the event that either my name is dragged into the mud or Rob is dragged away, kicking and screaming, from Wikipedia once and for all (or at least for an extended time)? I would be much obliged! -- Avery W. Krouse 23:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I shall alert you if any progress worth mentioning is made. See you around! Deskana (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I think we're approaching a resolution of this matter. Please come and vote. -- CTSWyneken 15:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Shall take a look. Deskana (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Someone using an anonymous IP address at your college vandalised Robsteadman's user page twice today placing references to homosexuality and Jesus. What do you think rational minds such as mine would conclude from this fact? SOPHIA 12:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

See [1] if you have anything to say. Gator (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Note that Sophia has concluded you are the vandal and complained. -- CTSWyneken 17:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Sophia has investgated and found enough evidence to make a complaint. SOPHIA 18:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Please respond here when you have a chance...thanks. KHM03 18:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Am attempting to. Am having some problems with saving- I keep getting an error message about "Lost session data" and it is taking a while to load pages. I have had error messages attempting to save to this page too. I have managed to respond on that page but it is frustrating that I can't save messages here! Deskana (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the message on my talk page reminding me to remain civil. I would be interested to know what incivility I have committed that made such a reminder necessary. SOPHIA 23:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I wasn't reminding you, actually. I was reminding Avery W Krouse. Please don't assume. Deskana (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the explanation - it's worth knowing that that isn't how it reads. Written conversations are prone to misunderstandings so it's worth taking the time to re read before you post. SOPHIA 23:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I thought it was clear that I wasn't talking to you since you didn't actually edit. I can see how you interpreted it. In future I will address users by name when reminding of policy. Thanks. Deskana (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Just wanted to say that I felt sorry for you in the recent vandalism allegations. There has been a lot of bad behavior and a lot of suspicion flying around lately; unfortunately the two do not always correlate. BTW, why do you list your height as "not known"? How can you not know how tall you are? I'm 6'4" myself. Arch O. La 10:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I was reassured by AnnH's comments on the vandalism thing... and I don't have a tape measure! Deskana (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply

A yardstick has always worked for me... Arch O. La 10:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I am sat in a Physics lab. I guess I could go and get a few rulers. Hold on! Deskana (talk) 10:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply

My friend's measurements said I was 180cm tall so I guess I'm about 5'10". Perhaps slightly taller. Deskana (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, Deskana, to see the haste with which your use of a public IP address is being seen as proof that you carried out that vandalism. I won't use the phrase "give you the benefit of the doubt", because that would suggest that there was some doubt in my mind — and there isn't. I've never known a case before where people on Wikipedia were calling for blocks against a user with a good record based on such flimsy evidence. Personally, I don't expect that this would make any difference in an RfA, provided you didn't go straight into one tomorrow. Best of luck, anyway. AnnH ♫ 18:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

By the A levels you are taking I assume you may have some interest in a career in computing. Be aware that any activity from the account assigned to you will be attributed to you unless you can show hacking (even then you would have questions to answer regarding the ease with which your account was hacked). Walking away leaving yourself logged on when using a computer in a public place is negligent to say the least and would not be covered by the "it wasn't me my mate did it" clause. Do not be lulled into a false sense of security by the way this incident was dealt with here - in the workplace it would be very different. Whether you actually did it or not you have admitted you were the cause of Rob's vandalism so do owe him an apology whether you feel like it or not. I was hoping someone else would point this out to you or you would work it out for yourself - I'm very surprised that no one else has mentioned this. SOPHIA 19:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not a computer guy, but I agree. Careless mistake...you didn't mean any harm to Robsteadman (of course, feel free to kick your buddy in the behind), but pulling a mea culpa wouldn't hurt, with an apology to Robsteadman. Just some friendly advice. KHM03 19:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree as well. I don't think Deskana was directly guilty for the vandalism, but through carelessness Deskana may be indirectly guilty. It might be wise to apologize for even indirect culpability. Deskana is young, and can consider this a life experience that can help to build wisdom. Arch O. La 19:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

After thinking about it, I've decided I'll apologise. Despite the fact that Robsteadman now refers to "Considering recent vandalism on my page by DESKANA and cabal" all the time whereas he previously referred only to the "cabal", I'll apologise and see what happens. I'm doubtful he'll accept it and move on, but it is worth a try. Deskana (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I can't answer for Rob, but I'm sure that others will appreciate this. Arch O. La 11:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The apology is on his usertalkpage. User talk:Robsteadman#An apology. All I'm expecting as an answer is insults and slander but I am trying, at least. Deskana (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Hopefully the last for this paragraph. -- CTSWyneken 11:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply

You are hereby invited by the Grand Poobah Avery W. Krouse to announce your membership in the Wikipedia Christian Cabal! Please add your name to the members list. If userboxes are your thing, you may add {{User:Averykrouse/Christian Cabal Box}} to your userpage to declare your allegiance! The Grand Poobah salutes you! -- Grand Poobah Avery W. Krouse

Welcome to the Cabal! I have promoted you to the rank of "His Imposingness, the Grand Moff." (A lot of people are getting their undies in a bind over this concept. I, frankly, think it's hilarious, and a welcome break from the seriousness of the past couple of weeks. Don't forget to add your cabal userbox!) -- Avery W. Krouse 16:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I had to laugh at your jibe about neutral votes with no comment. I got two of those on my RFA and they were very frustrating. Of course, I held my tongue at the time, but now I can say it - if you're so unswayed that you don't even have a comment to make, why bother voting? Seems like a waste of time to me. Oh well. -- kingboyk 21:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Exactly! He does occasionally support with a comment... it just makes me laugh. I should start voting neutral to every vote on Wikipedia citing "No comment"! His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I get the impression his "neutral with no comment" means "no opinion - don't know the user, not swayed either way, haven't looked into it". Which, to be honest, isn't very helpful but it's his prerogative. Righto, see you mate, I'm outta here. -- kingboyk 21:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Grand Moff! When you create an article from an AFC submission with a listed source, it's usually best to list that source in the article too. Also, nearly all of Gedalia Schorr appears to be a copyvio from its listed source, but I wanted to check with you before listing it for deletion. These are minor things – keep up the good work, and please, please keep helping-out at AFC. We're swamped. × Meegs 15:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Apologies for not listing the source. Didn't occur to me when I was creating the article. Secondly, the article appears to be a rewording of the source given, written in the editor's own words. I was under the impression this was not a copyvio, as in the Pokémon article at least, Pokédex information could not be directly copied, but if it was reworded into the article it was allowed since it isn't the copyrighted source anymore... -- His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Take a closer look. There are a few reworked sentences, but for the most part it's a straight copyvio. Here are a quick checks I just did:

• last 4 paragraphs – verbatim
• He was the perfect illustration paragraph – verbatim
• When the beloved cook of Bais Medrash Elyon paragraph – verbatim

Really, it looks like the majority of almost every paragraph are straight copies. It's not from a commercial site, so it can't be speedied, but, if it's alright with you, let's get rid of it through WP:CP? × Meegs 17:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I'd prefer to delete the paragraphs that are copyvios and leave the ones that aren't. I think Wikipedia needs an article on the topic... and it would be a shame to delete the bits that aren't copyvios. His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Plagarism is not something to take lightly, and almost everything that's there is copied from the site. The fact that they've moved a few words around just makes it harder to detect and clean-up. It's far safer (and easier) to replace it constructively from scratch. I'm going to list it as a copyvio, but you can start working on a replacement, at Gedalia Schorr/Temp. × Meegs 18:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

(waves hand) You want not to plagiarize. Arch O. La ^Talk TCF 19:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Danavecpurpletiger.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 22:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I've added a tag. Thanks for informing me. -- His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply

When did I impersonate you? I wrote my name! I copied and pasted the format for yours and I accidentally put the link to your name but I edited it out within less than 5 minutes and put the link to my page instead! Why are you being so mean about it? You could have just been nice and edited it so that it linked to my page. You didn't need to threaten to kick me off of here! Good grief! And why did you delete my comment? Everyone has the right to their own opinion-- and it was a discussion page! That was very rude and inconsiderate of you. User:Stephe1987

I deleted your comment since it seemed to be added in impersonation of me. You're welcome to restore it if you wish. I never threatened to permentantly kick you off here, but I did warn you that you could be prevented from editing temporarily (perhaps that was unclear) if the impersonation (which it is clear it wasn't now) continued. I'd say that's fair, considering you (accidentally) added my username to your comment. Due to the way I was looking at the edits you made, I actually missed the fact that you corrected your username... apologies. I suggest you sign comments using four tidles ~~~~ to avoid such confusion in the future. Also, this discussion is simulataneously being held at Talk:Peaches Geldof for reference. I hope you can understand my position here. His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, really need an Advocate urgently in regards to this Rfc [2]. Can you guide or help us? Zmmz 00:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I've got to go out now... but sure, I'll look into it later. Thanks. His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 08:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply

regarding the following: Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the Jacques Chirac page on Wikipedia! Your test worked, and thank you for reverting or removing it yourself. The best way to do tests in the future would be to use the sandbox. You can look at these pages as well: how to edit a page, the tutorial, and how to write a great article. All of these pages are good places to start. Again, thanks, and we hope that you will like Wikipedia. -- His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't test, Jacques Chirac was listed as an monarch while he is a president, so I removed him from that list. I reverted the change when I found out that he actually does have an andorrean monarch title. (been lingering on wikipedia long enough to know what to do) —This unsigned comment was added by 82.217.136.91 ( talk • contribs) .

OK, no worries. :-) --His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Er...is my attempt at humor so uncivil, or does it fall that flat? CTSWyneken invited people to insult him, if it would help resolve the difficulties on the Jesus pages. I didn't see what good insulting him would do, but I obliged him--and obscured the actual obscenities, merely leaving the links to the relevant Wikipedia pages. TrumpetPower! 19:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply

It fell pretty flat. It seemed you were gaming the system to me. And boy have I had enough of that. If you didn't mean it, I suggest you remove it. --His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply

No harm, no foul. (or even fowl!) I took it as intended, a joke. Be glad, that, unlike my theological father, Martin Luther, I'm not given to respond in kind. -- CTSWyneken 21:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Ah, but what makes you think I can't take as well as I can give? My rubber chicken, she may be small, but she's a flying rubber chicken. Just so's you know. TrumpetPower! 22:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I thought it was funny. All I'd say is save it for the RfC! Sophia ^Talk TCF 23:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Perhaps I'm just devoid of having an sense of humour? Hahahaha... ummm... yeah. --His Imposingness Unhumourous, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Imposingness? Perhaps. Unhumorous? Definitely. Ungrammatical and Brittioush? Certa--wow! Look at that! Over there! *poof* —This unsigned comment was added by TrumpetPower! ( talk • contribs) .

As long as we don't go to "you American pig-dog!" ;-) -- CTSWyneken 01:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I got bashed. —This unsigned comment was added by KingingIt ( talk • contribs) .

I take it you're referring to this? --His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Your edit at Jesus ( diff) left a run-on sentence ( comma splice), so I changed it back. Dforest 03:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I would NEVER question whether or not Yoda had any darks side tendencies. I was instead questioning what I thought was a poor "adage" by the author...I think Yoda would NEVER have said "Not Interested in fair am I...Interested in results," as the book had him saying. I was not criticizing Master Yoda...but rather the author, Sean Stuart. Thanks for your reply- Evan

I'll respond on the talk page. -- Deskana (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The user you were sympathising with on Rob's page is a single issue "get Rob" account (check the contributions for your self) who's first edit after a 5 month break was sarcasm on Rob's page. Whatever your personal feelings towards Rob this is not what wikipedia is for. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia ^Talk TCF 22:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

You misunderstand my intentions. Surely you know that Robsteadman would never change his opinion even if there was conclusive evidence that Bakewell Tart wasn't just out to get Robsteadman... I have seen him act irrationally before and anything that can prove him wrong he blames on the "cabal"... so I stand by what I said. I wasn't defending him so much as warning him he'd not get a rational response out of Rob. -- Darth Revert ^{(AKA Deskana)} (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

You think an editor who creates an account to solely to "get at" another editor needs words of wisdom about how the editor he is pursuing reacts in a "non rational" way? Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia ^Talk TCF 17:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I've not been tuned in to the situation recently. I know nothing about this user other than what you've told me now. Had I been told earlier perhaps I would have reacted different. I do stand by what I said though. -- Darth Revert ^{(AKA Deskana)} (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Sophia, your comments are quite inaccurate. Bakewell Tart did leave a message on Rob's page, but only because Rob is using the conventions about talk pages and user pages to make personal attacks on other editors. He has been asked to remove these politely but just deletes the requests. So, to refer to this as 'sarcasm' is a bit misleading. Don't you think that it was quite reasonable to refute an inaccurate statement, placed with the sole intention of causing offence? Count Of The Saxon Shore 00:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Deskana - just check someones contributions to see what they have been editing. It's a good idea if you see some unusual behaviour as it helps put it into context - someone may just have had a bad day or they may have only one interest on wikipedia. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia ^Talk TCF 00:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Aplogies to the Total War franchise (even though, having had over a £100 from me, they owe me an image or two). I wasn't aware of the rules until you gave me a heads up. I was tempted to use one of the images from Wikimedia to replace it, but, to be honest, I'm not that fond of user pages that are more about the user than how they will work within Wikipedia. I'd already removed most of the bio/fan material already. So, no worries. Count Of The Saxon Shore 00:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, Deskana. Rob keeps saying that you admitted doing nothing about the vandalism, when you knew it was there. Can you give me a link to read that. I don't remember you saying that. The vandalism was reverted within minutes, anyway. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 20:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Wait a sec, I saw the comment he's referring to in my contributions list before. Shall pull it up now. -- Darth Revert ^{(AKA Deskana)} (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I think he's referring to the comment I edit in the following diff [3]. "I was browsing Wikipedia during registration, and didn't actually have time to log in as I had a lot of work to do.". Registration is at 10:45am at my college, and the vandalism was performed in the lesson before, which runs 9:00am to 10:45am. The vandalism had actually already been reverted, looking at the page history of his user page. Anyway... I'm going back to playing my game. I'll check back soon. -- Darth Revert ^{(AKA Deskana)} (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, I was writing to Rob while you were writing to me, and my message to him got caught in an edit conflict while he was archiving. So, you probably realize now that I have made that request, quite spontaneously. Maybe hold off the RfC for a little longer, and see how he responds in the meantime. I always feel they shouldn't be filed unless it's clear that all other methods have failed or will fail. But I think in this case it's getting close to the stage when an RfC is called for. See also here. It would be nice if he could acknowledge that you were quite active in helping him yesterday. AnnH ♫ 13:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Deskana, don't accuse me of vandalism for an alteration on the Yoda page. He was listed as unknown, so I said that he was a Dagobite - WITH the stipulation that it was actually unknown, but that this was a fair assumption at least in terms of him being a Dagobite through refugee status. Please remove the sharp wooden rod from your rear. —This unsigned comment was added by Dpjoh2 ( talk • contribs) .

I didn't accuse you of vandalism, I said if you were to repeatedly add the information it would be vandalism. I have now added a source to the article that clearly states that the location of his homeworld is "Unknown". Speculation is not welcome on Wikipedia, only verifiable facts are. And please be civil to other users. Saying I have a "sharp wooden rod" up my "rear" isn't very civil of you. -- Darth Revert ^{(AKA Deskana)} (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Heh, my vandals compliment me. I think vandals' barbs are one of the few things we can don't need to take seriously. On the other hand...;-)(see heading)— WAvegetarian• _{CONTRIBUTIONS} ^TALK• ^EMAIL• 00:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm just wondering what you will do if someone actually finds a citation. I am, however, saddened to see that Deskana has joined the Sith. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La ^Talk TCF 09:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I am not a device that inserts a stream of water into the body for medical reasons. I doubt that anyone will find a citation. Should they, I would be happy to add it to my userpage in the appropriate manner of a DoucheWikipedian.

And it is still not too late to convert me to the light side. -- Darth Revert ^{(AKA Deskana)} (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, you could click the "TCF" link in my sig to see the lighter side of Wikipedia (a synthesized joke), but of course this has nothing to do with the Force. Perhaps I will try to convert you, assuming that Darth Revert has not yet betrayed and murdered Deskana (from a certain point of view). Otherwise, I'll leave it up to your son in twenty years or so.

Regardless of citations, "Darth Douche" sounds pretty Alliterative. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La ^Talk TCF 09:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks Deskana - I really do think you are a good productive wikipedian too. Things will happen but my way of dealing with them is to quickly find out all the facts - learn whatever lessons there are to be learned and then move on. I hate "running sores" with things dragging on and people bearing grudges. I meant what I said about not mentioning the issue again - I may like to get things clear but if they are irrelevant because the problem never happens again (as I'm sure it won't) then I never stitch someone up. I may be a pain sometimes but it will always be in the open and if I'm wrong I hope I'm big enough to say so! If you go into computing it's the best way to be as if you screw up as a system manager everyone knows about it! Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia ^Talk TCF 11:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply