User talk:Linuxbeak/Archive6

Brandt[edit]

Yeah, Brandt. You unblocked him, I see, which you have been doing alot lately with seemingly hopeless users (commendable all, BTW), which is not a bad thing in most circumstances, but, he is still a disruptive editor who is trying to censor info about himself, he has never had a truly productive edit, and he is still actively violating the privacy of wikipedians (not just on his website [1]), and being creepy and vaguely threatening about it, too [2]. I don't care about his criticisms of The Project (more power to him), I don't care about his websites, I do care about the privacy of our users, and if someone feels threatened by this guy (a legit concern), they may be disinclined to participate. This guy should not have been allowed back. He crossed the last line long before I or anyone else blocked him. You have made your peace, cool. But you are no the only one who has been affected by your actions. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hello[edit]

hello, ive never heard of you could you give me some tips on how to become an admin, on my talk-page --Taco Bell 03:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give it an ironic spin... Special:Contributions/Taco Bell NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 03:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sprotection[edit]

Neutral does not mean controversial. This is true. But means open. This make the credibility of wikipedia, nothing else. It is the largest online cultural event because it is open. It is my opinion that protecting a controversial article like Bush, will put a censorship light on wikipedia. Vandalism are something that wikipedia has to live with. Better vandals than a smell of censorship. Vandal you can correct. Smells not. Be careful with protecting this article.Wikipoet 18:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zulma Aguiar[edit]

Hey Linuxbreak: Whats up? I need you to do me a favor, check out the above sent page and vote on it based on what you think.

Other than that, Happy New Year!!! God bless you!!

Sincerely yours, Your friend always, Antonio Semiautomatic Martin

User:Battlefield[edit]

Don't post anymore of your anti-Semitic crap on my talk page Battlefield 10:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (User is responding to my {{test}} waring)[reply]

This user is giving me a somewhat hard time with comments such as the one above. User has already made a few rather disruptive edits ([3], [4], [5]) and seems to be a newbie hence I ask for you could explain him as he wont listen to me. I also like a temporary protection on Category:Anti-Semitic people during the vote. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archive[edit]

You may want to folow my archive design :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania[edit]

Whats up with the page? We should disciss this one. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year[edit]

(Feliz Año Nuevo)

Happy New Year from Tony the Marine

I wish you all the happiness in the world and remember, if an injustice is ever committed against you or one of your articles, I will always be by your side. Your friend Tony the Marine

Note: Ari Meyers Image Results: 15 "Keep" / 2 "Delete" *However, I, the Marine. decided to replaced the image with one that has a clearer copyright status, thank you because you have shown to be a just person. Tony the Marine 06:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block on Netoholic[edit]

I did post to WP:AN/I and have spent days trying to get Netoholic to discuss changes first. No one is supporting what he is doing. If the block acted as a warning to him, then fine. If he goes right on doing what he was doing, can I ask you to re-instate the block? --Gareth Hughes 20:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is continuing to add a template that only he wants to articles: [6] and [7]. You can see the arrogance of his replies here. Just so you know. --Gareth Hughes 03:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feliz Día de Reyes[edit]

I would like to share with my three best friends in Wikipedia, Linuxbeak, Brookie and David Cannon a Puerto Rican Christian tradition and wish you three a "Happy Dia de Reyes", a celebration that we still celebrate in Puerto Rico every January 6. The night before the children of the island fill a little box with grass for the kings camel and place it under the Christmas tree. When they wake up the following day, they find the box empty and gifts left by the kings. God Bless you all Tony the Marine 05:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage formatting[edit]

Hi, I like the way your userpage is laid out. Can I get your help on this, or directions to help? I want to edit it so there's a column down the right side for userboxes, pics and such. I think I can then figure out divisions and colors by myself. But currently when I add divisions, it stuffs up. The next division goes under the userboxes, leaving a huge space.

Also, I can't make my links (My scratchpad etc) center. I've fiddled around a lot with limited success, but I guess copying sections other people's code with little idea of how it works can have some drawbacks... Thanks --Singkong2005 13:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the directing me. And so quick! Do WP admins never sleep? --Singkong2005 13:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Thanks! --13:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Check out User:Mailer diablo! I've tried to copy parts of his layout that I thought would work well, but the revamp is in process at this moment. Linuxbeak, what do you think? ;-) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA[edit]

Thanks! It might help stop some of these vandals in their tracks, as many times I have to rely on others to come in and stop them. One of my primary goals on wikipedia has been to clean up and improve the SW articles as best they can be, and being an admin would certainly help! I accept the nomination. The Wookieepedian 17:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :) The Wookieepedian 17:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== Template:RfA ==[edit]

"Changing back (not reverting)" — do you really believe that? Sheesh. :-(( It was a revert. Lupo 21:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== Election ==[edit]

Hey Linux! Just wanted to let you know Im running for the January 9 election here.

Hope to see your vote there :) Thanks and God bless you.

Sincerely yours, your friend, Antonio DC-10-15 Martin

Qwertysoup[edit]

Hi there Linuxbeak, Im SWD316. I would like for you to join in of the conversation about the above user at Wikipedia talk:Are You a Wikipediholic Test about his possible fake score on the test. I contacted you because you were one of the top scorers on the test, so you could probably tell if the score is fake or not. We would appriciate your input. SWD316 ^{talk to m}^e 21:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You[edit]

You already pulled this persecution and threatening crap once. I don't care what you say, you're just a thug. Got it? Extc

Alex, do not feed the trolls? Izehar 22:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage pic[edit]

Should you be taking pics or flying the plane? ;) —Ilyan e p (Talk) 22:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, that's actually a backseat photo. I've got a better one of me actually flying a Beechcraft Bonanza somewhere. I'll put it up sometime. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

heh well the above question stands then. —Ilyan e p (Talk) 15:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polling the 31/36 hour block...[edit]

...here. BD2412 T 02:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, that was a fast reply! BD2412 T 02:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prematurely Concluded Nomination[edit]

My dear 'Linuxbeak," the duration of that nomination was not complete, and I had not yet replied to their questions and comments, and accusations(reasons). I believe that I would have received at least one supporting vote and more 'neutral' ones.--Anglius 21:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412's harassment[edit]

BD2412 continues to harass Masssiveego, calling him "the new boothy" (which is itself a personal attack on Boothy) just because Masssiveego voted against the candidate he nominated. He's posted little "notice to closing 'crat" disclaimers on almost every RFA currently up. What he doesnt want you to know is that Masssiveego actually voted in support of another candidate who met his standards. None of this particularly surprises me. Neither will the inaction that will inevitably follow. freestylefrappe 13:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masssiveego voted in opposition to BD2412's candidate. Then BD2412 felt a need to warn beauracrats on nearly every other RFA. Of course he ignored the fact that Masssiveego voted in support of Crna Gora. Or that Masssiveego has been he for over two years. Regardless, not puting an explanation or voting in opposition on every RFA is completely legitimate. There is no policy that that behaviour violates. Characterizing oppose votes as "Boothyism" has become a way to discredit dissension and I am tired of it. freestylefrappe 14:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linusbeak, a clarification of the timeline of events suggested in this statement above: "BD2412 continues to harass Masssiveego,... just because Masssiveego voted against the candidate he nominated." BD2412 did not know he was going to nominate me today until I told him here (he had a standing offer to nominate me, his first offer to do so was last year). His RfA comments on Massiveego's votes were posted on the 14th, he didn't know he was going to nominate me today until today, the 15th, and for that matter, Massiveego did not cast his vote on my RfA until today either. Whatever his motives, BD2412 was not retaliating as a scorned nominator. ;-) NoSeptember ^talk 15:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to "chill out" no matter how much you try and bully me. I'm tired of all the nonsense that goes on. As I stated on the talk page for WP:RFA I've lost my patience. The block of Gustafson was completely warranted. freestylefrappe 18:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"bully" you? Excuse me, Freestylefrappe, but if you consider me giving my personal take on a matter that means nothing in any grand scheme of things, not to mention trying to get you to take a few minutes and calm down and listen to what the hell you were saying, then are you truely fit to be an administrator who needs to make cool, calm and collected decisions? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 20:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dumped out[edit]

I got dumped out of the room. But I'm back if you want to chat. -- Cecropia 18:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Linux![edit]

Hi Linux! Mind to have a look at this and tell me what you think? ;-) Kisses! - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} 23:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's for you, Alex! I've taken the liberty of copying the text to your user page, making use of your kind invitation to enhance it. I'm glad to know you like it, and please, feel free to modify it at will. Kisses! - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} 21:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Douglas[edit]

Looks like you are watching the History Channel program too. :) --rogerd 04:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hi Alex. In the ugliness yesterday, as you know, I screwed up badly by unblocking myself. Even in light of Freestyle's actions, this was the worst thing I or anyone could have ever done, and was the most serious offense an admin could commit. You are the best and coolest-headed wikipedian I know of, and you are familiar with the situation, so I am asking your opinion what should be done next, if anything. Thanks for your time. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 04:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship[edit]

I'm sure you've been watching the heated discussion between myself and one or two other users at the above page, and it just turned nasty. I've refused to answer any further questions from them because it feels like nothing short of harrassment from my point of view. Cecropia has already tried in vain to bring a stop to it; could you possibly step in and try to bring this to a close? Thank you in advance. -- Francs 2000 11:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ikonboard[edit]

There seems to be a reversion war brewing on the Ikonboard article. In particular, a link to a perfectly legitimate interview with a former project worker is being removed (IMO, by the current iB management, as they are intolerant of criticism and will censor their own forum of negative posts against them). If you could keep an eye on it in case things get out of hand, I'd be grateful. Thanks. --^demon 14:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AAP[edit]

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll. I think I'd like to pose those questions to the community. If it needs rewording or if I've missed something, I'd appreciate your opinion. Radiant_>|< 17:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You may say "Duh" but the present ArbCom finds it laudable. FYI. R adiant _>|< 17:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Reform[edit]

Hehe. done. I thought the main page was to be used for new ideas and the discussion for what's good/bad. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 17:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

heh[edit]

"half-donkey". That's funny! -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking a vandal :-([edit]

Sorry, but I had to unblock WoohooDoggy because, unfortunately, that particular t*rd was using AOL and therefore one of the AOL dynamic IP's. When I logged on, I found that I was blocked for sharing his IP. (I use Netscape ISP, but AOL owns Netscape, and so, although I'm not so dirty as to be an AOLer, my IP's are in the AOL ranges.) Geogre 03:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the block on K'urps is hitting AOL IP's. It may need to be unblocked, too. I know what a pest that guy is. Sorry. Geogre 03:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That Nixon guy[edit]

Judging by his behavior and in particular his reference to conflicts with Carbonite and myself, it's probably Zen-master. FYI. R adiant _>|< 13:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC enforcement[edit]

I've created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcement in response to the comments on WP:AAP that RFC may need some kind of enforcement. I'd appreciate your opinion on this. R adiant _>|< 14:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Curry Achievement and the Cadet Oath[edit]

I suppose it may not be required. But it was required of me, and that's all I really have to go by.

Hi![edit]

No reason in particular to be talking to you, I just noticed that you're a lot like me, with the exception that you're an Admin and a 'crat, and I've seen you around a lot. Just thought I'd drop you a note to say hi. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 11:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA reform[edit]

Since your RFA reform subpage is now bogged down in a bureaucratic discussion about how to form a committee that will create guidelines for instating a poll to consider the possibility of revising RFA (or something similarly instruction creepish that will take over a month to do anything), I'm simply posting this to your talk page (and Ilyanep's) for comments. Most of this could be implemented within days if the 'crats are willing. In particular for point three, throwing up an experiment is far more useful than debating it once more. Imho.

1. Strict suffrage limit for voters (in addition to sockchecking if necessary). WP:AAP suggests something near one month and 100 edits. Also, semi-protting all RFA subpages wouldn't hurt.
2. Strict suffrage for the nominees. E.g. two months and 1000 edits. Simply because anything below that is a snowball anyway, and may result in a negative pileup. We have lost editors that way. Technically this is instruction creep though, I realize that.
3. As suggested before, start with a couple of days for only comments. Then allow voting. Reason is, you can't really omit voting because it'll give rise to accusations of cabalism. But, early voters tend to be unaware of later comments. And it's always good to discuss first, as in WP:FAC. Comments should be in the form of concrete, diff-supported arguments why candidate X should or should not be an admin.
4. Strike the standard questions, because they're cliche and haven't been getting meaningful answers in a while.
5. Since many people in the WP:AAP suggested that standards should be higher, the 'crats may want to consider being less lenient about the % support necessary.

R adiant _>|< 12:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- See also Ilyanep's talk page, and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Draft. R adiant _>|< 17:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image you uploaded...[edit]

Regarding Image:Wikiwatchdeletion.PNG, I thought that when you took a screenshot, you were not allowed to capture the browser. The page is fair use (I believe, but do not quote me on that), but the browser may not be. Any ideas? Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

So, out of curiousity, will anything ever be done about this, or is it being ignored? Thanks. McNeight 01:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I bring it up is because he is back, he has yet another sock puppet with T`sitra Yel Darb, and is becoming quite a pest. Next stop, admin noticeboard. McNeight 22:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said to drop you a line...[edit]

Regarding this IP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:72.10.123.177

You asked to be dropped a line, so here you go.

That IP is the one for my school. It seems some dipshit freshman have been screwing around, essentially ruining things for us who are good. (I would've dropped you a line from the school, but lo and behold... blocked! so had to wait until I got home, and forgot about it till now)

Anyways, figured I'd let you know. If you have any ideas, let me know.--Captain Cornflake 02:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Whatcha upto? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POKE* WIKIMANIA THING *POKE* --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Watch what you're doing. You'll take somebody's eye out. Points CC to WP:NPA. ;-) --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... *POKE*

/me runs... :P

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA proposal[edit]

Is that proposal still under consideration? Ilyanep and I discussed a bit more on his talk page but haven't heard back from you. >Radiant< 00:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation[edit]

You are invited to take part in Wikipedia_talk:Changing username#Dropping inactive user names. Ems2 17:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty. I'm coming back from a short break, so it might take a few days to catch up with everything. Thanks. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 21:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA[edit]

Hi, Linuxbeak. Just noticed your note at the top of WP:RFA. I was just wondering where I could read about the new system that is being implemented; I've been watching User:Linuxbeak/RFA Reform but I haven't noticed any actual system hashed out. Thanks! —Cleared as filed. 21:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I've found it. —Cleared as filed. 22:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Raposo[edit]

Hi there... what's the story behind the Greg Raposo entry being deleted and protected? Is there a reason he shouldn't have an article? Queerwiki 22:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Bump. Still no answer. Queerwiki 20:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRC Question[edit]

Hi just a quick question, are you a IRC Operator for Freenode? Mike _{(T C)} 18:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'd really like you to clarify your userpage, are you a IRC operator (as your userpage says) or a channel oper for wikipedia? There is HUGE difference is all. Mike _{(T C)}

18:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing comment on WP:AN[edit]

Sorry about that — I didn't get an edit conflict warning and didn't use preview, so I'm not sure how that happened. —bbatsell ¿? 00:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over on AN[edit]

You said:

Carnildo: minus several thousand for kneejerk reaction and, sorry to say it, stupid call. El_C: minus several thousand for wheel warring. Community: minus several million for letting it become this way.

I agree we need more calmness; I agree Carnildo's blocks were wrong, I agree El_C's block was wrong. I'm scratching my head here about what you are lambasting the "Community" for here. People were having a discussion about what the Wiki's attitude toward pedophiles should be, and one person escalated it outrageously by applying some strange blocks. Do you object to the community having that discussion at all? Or is it something else wrong with the community that you're complaining about? The userbox problems? Really, I'm just trying to figure out what you mean. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly made a terrible mistake in supporting your RfB. Wow, I was way off (!). Well, live & learn. El_C 02:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to ask for you to try to stay calm. Reprinting my comment on WP:AN:

I'd say something has been happening in the last few days. I can't exactly put my finger on it, but I'd say the overall level of civility around here seems to have decreased sharply. I know correlation is not causation, but perhaps the sysops are a bit more stressed than usual due to the current events? --cesarb 01:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something odd is going on, but let's try to not get caught on the flow. A number of administrators have been much more prone to snapping than usual, and have been acting without thinking. Let's avoid getting tangled on it, please. --cesarb 02:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, as far as I can tell, Linuxbreak has remained calm. One of the few, perhaps. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, I'm sorry for misreading the sutble clues of this text-only medium. It's hard to get it right (and perhaps that's a factor of the current problems). --cesarb 03:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Braaad Again[edit]

User:Braaad has posted an unsigned post on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. He claims that User:McNeight is scaring him with obscenities. In looking at the history, it appears that Braaad is something of a flamer and has been warned and blocked from time to time. I see that you have warned him previously, and have worked with User:McNeight on a user conduct RfC against User:McNeight. You might be interested in taking another look to see what is going on. Robert McClenon 18:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:JarlaxleArtemis[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:JarlaxleArtemis [archive —Psy.]. I understand this user is somehow in your care. This user has been using foul language, has reverted comments to his Talk page, and has broken 3RR on Drow (using popups no less). Perhaps you should look into the matter. Thank you. -- Ec5618 10:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also interested in this case. I note that his last ArbCom case was suspended due to his banning. Since he seems to be engaged in similar behavior as led to that case, I am wondering if it should be r-started. Also, I recall that a condition of his return was to write apologies to those he attacked. Do you know if he completed that requirement? -Will Beback 20:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, he has not completed this requirement. He was also required to hand over the accounts on other Wiki projects he was using to impersonate me and other users, and he has not done this either. I was about to bring this up myself, as I want to start contributing to WikiCommons but would rather do it as User:Psychonaut, which is currently a JarlaxleArtemis sock.

Linuxbeak, near the end of JarlaxleArtemis's last arbitration, you intervened and took him up as a sort of personal project of yours. His arbitration hearing (for which voting was in process with the almost certain result of a permanent banning) was suspended, his temporary indefinite banning was revoked, and you made assurances that he would behave himself. I have just reviewed his editing history and seen that not only has he neglected to fulfill the conditions of his "parole", as it were, but he is back to his old pattern of sloppy editing and personal attacks. I see no evidence of you offering any supervision or mentorship, nor of you enforcing the conditions of his unbanning. If you are abdicating responsibility for him then I'm going to request that his arbitration case be reopened (or open a new one—there's certainly enough new incidents since the last) and possibly name you as a co-respondent. —Psychonaut 21:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

Here goes another anon who has no knowlege of how Wiki works and has posted a good article for deletion. It's about Norma Candal, please vote here: [[8]] and help fight this injustice. Thank you Tony the Marine 04:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it has already been dealt with. Sorry I wasn't more of a help; I've been taking a break for a while. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Accounts[edit]

Hi. You have a problem with one of your administrators User:Morven. Will you be able to delete my accounts? I've contacted User:Cecropia before but have not heard anything back from him/her either. In case, one Wiki Bureacrat is indisposed at the moment, I've also left this message on User:llyanep too. I've been attacked, trolled and accused of vandalism by User:Geo Swan and by your administrator User:Morven and User:Fred Bauder. I disagree and was not allowed to formally bring this issue up before the arbitration committee. And my accounts were blocked. By the way, these accounts were created because GEO SWAN hounded me when I was developing the Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority CPA article. Geo Swan's aggressiveness made it very difficult to finish especially the article on the CPA.

Neither of these individuals have just cause for blocking my accounts and for their personal attacks - especially User:Geo Swan who I suspect has Sysop privileges and is a sockpuppet as well. Unless these folks believe adding Wikipedia:Userboxes to a user page is an act of vandalism. I've also pointed out that I do suspect Geo Swan has been using Wikipedia for promotional and advertisement for the Simon & Schuster Clan. And if the Wikipedia Administrators think I am a vandal, then why not delete these accounts?

Again, these are the accounts submitted for deletion:

If there are problems with this request, then leave a message on my talk page User:Ariele.,,,,,Ariele 02:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete my account from Wikipedia as well. Thanks.-Sweeper 14:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please delete my account too. Kittos-Young People 16:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa whoa, time out. I have neither permission nor ability to delete user accounts from the database. I can only rename. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Developers can, but I'll doubt they will be inclined to. The only user accounts that will be uncontroversial to delete is those with no edits; people making even *one* edit are hard to delete even (recalling a conversation with Robchurch) because they leave a hole in the edit historym etc. Generally, there's a policy to free up usernames that don't edit (as some of them are good), but that's as far as it gets. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]