User talk:De mortuis...

Welcome!

Hello, De mortuis..., and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Thanks for the comment by the way. - Eagle^talk 01:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My deletion

That page was a validly deleted template. Moving the identical content to a user page and transcluding it (which is ssentially what a template is) in order to claim that it can't be deleted is appeal to mere technicality. It's the same thing. The proper way to address a disputed deletion is on WP:DRV, where the issue is already being discussed, with a rather strong showing for deletion, and certainly not repeated recreation. I'm deleting it again, and this time I'll be protecting it. Dmcdevit·t 22:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule that allows deletion of user subpages, and it was already unprotected and recreated by an admin before. You violate wikipedia policy. De mortuis... 00:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

However, it seems that Borghunter became angry because you just replaced the old template and not the version without fair use images. I do not blame you for this since you could not find the right version after it had been deleted. He blocked my page when I replaced them with pd ones, must have thought I ignored his notification. ROGNNTUDJUU! 12:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that. For sure they will unblock as it was a misunderstanding. De mortuis... 13:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppeting is bad

Please don't do it. Your use of User:ROGNNTUDJUU! appears to have been to create fake consensus. This is a sockpuppet policy violation and I've blocked you 48 hours - David Gerard 21:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? As I found an article where he apparently made a translation to another language without signing in I assume that he used an IP address that IP check tells me is from the same service provider that I use (cf. [1] and [2]). I am however a bit confused that you could mix us up as I remember some cases where we appeared to be logged in at the same time, so how could we have had the same IP address? (He 17:02, 19 March 2006 then me 17:05, 19 March 2006 and again he 17:07, 19 March 2006.) I wonder what is going on here. De mortuis... 23:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just another example of a group of users that disaprove of userboxes, going after a user with many userboxes - Jamie Battenbo 00:18:, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no user boxes and do not want to have any. De mortuis... 23:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Way to assume good faith. Johnleemk | Talk 12:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How could it be done? Pathetically easily. Please note that Wikipedia is ridiculously tolerant, but not actually stupid - David Gerard 08:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pathetically easy to block someone for alleged sockpuppetry it seems indeed. I have no idea how you come to that conclusion. De mortuis... 09:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU. Johnleemk | Talk 12:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot find anything about either of us there. De mortuis... 14:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard has checkuser access. He doesn't need to request anything, so naturally there's no record of him requesting a checkuser. The point is that that page explains what checkuser is, so now you know how he determined that you are operating a sock. Johnleemk | Talk 16:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only learned that there are some options that allow to determine special information about users. I cannot have learned how he determined that I operate a sock as I do not operate no sock. De mortuis... 01:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the claim is that your IPs match. Of course, we have no way of knowing whether this is actually true, or even if so if this is something that cannot be explained by other factors. Sorry to see what's happened here. Everyking 11:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made the same point with Tony Sidaway on my talk page. JamieBattenbo 23:02, 10 April 2006 (BST)

Had tea with ROGNNTUDJUU!

We live in the same house as long as I need to take care of my friend Henrik's affairs. Seems like the common router of the house has led to some misunderstandings. De mortuis... 02:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have the authority to reverse another admin's block; I have the power, yes, but not the authority. Personally, I don't care whether he is your sock or not. All I know -- from my point of view -- is that one or both of you have been acting disruptively, and that Wikipedia is better off like this. Please don't go behind David Gerard's back and go "forum-shopping". If you want to complain, complain on WP:AN or WP:ANI, in a public forum where others are better-placed to judge the situation. I do not have enough information or interest to overrule a block that appears to be serving a valid purpose. Johnleemk | Talk 14:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROGNNTUDJUU! told me David Gerard and did not reply to his emails. Nor did anyone reply to the unblock request, except by removing it and repeating "yor are sockpuppets", completely ignoring what he wrote. The previous block of ROGNNTUDJUU! was completely out of place: "did not edit enough in the main space" is the most ridiculous pretext for censorship I have heard of. The block had already been undone when a userbox opponent found this new reason. I find it quite annoying that for helping someone who is unfairly attacked others get accused of sockpuppetry, even when it could be easily verified that they are from other countries as in the cases of JamieBattenbo and StabiloBoss. [3] De mortuis... 14:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, don't ask me. Go to a public forum like the admin noticeboard. Johnleemk | Talk 15:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help. De mortuis... 15:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted on admin noticeboard, they started the UserCheck. I hope finally that they should unblock him. --StabiloBoss 15:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq War

As you participated in the previous discussion, you may be interested in Talk:Iraq_War#RFC. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Holguín

Hi, I saw a talk (signed as ROGNNTUDJUU!) where you were talking about a friend in Holguin, Cuba. I actually live in Holguin and I'll be glad to help you to put you in contact w/ your friend again.. just contact me...KatKiller 06:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of "Ulrich Mühe" for DYK

Hi. I've nominated Ulrich Mühe, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created on August 7, where you can improve it if you see fit.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]