Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Header

The orange is much less readable against the green than the red was (on my Mac anyway). Softening the red is not a bad idea, but the orange is not an improvement. Thatcher131 13:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"These requests are not performed"

Someone should change the 3rd one to something less strange. "perform[ing] a request" sounds like nonsense. Something like "Checks requested with such a rationale wont work" would be more parseable. 68.39.174.238 05:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. I don't understand ... it makes perfect sense. Requests by a user for a checkuser on themself to 'prove their innocence' will not be performed. Proto ► 20:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, 68--- is right. It's the checkuser, not the request for one, that will-or-won't be performed by the clerks. The request had already been made, or "performed", by the user. Perhaps better would be something like "Such requests are not accepted. Please do not ask." -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 05:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change made. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 05:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary letters

We don't want to see more than one summary letter because we want people who list cases to pick the rationale that fits best and supply the necessary diffs. In nearly all cases where people list more than one summary letter, they don't list the diffs for any of them. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "we" might discuss this; I'd rather see multiple letters than discussion about the fact that multiple letters were used. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, some requests are marked as being A, B, C, F... just because the user that made the request is too busy to make a rationale. So maybe emphasize on the one letter rule, and if someone really needs more than one, well I don't think anyone would bump the request ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 01:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ombudsman commission

Hardly anyone, including more than a few of the checkusers, know about the m:Ombudsman commission, who deal with claims of breach of privacy policy. This is the obvious place to put a link in. The ombudsmans are prepared for a sudden influx of work ;-) - David Gerard 07:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image replacement request

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected project page at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Header. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Please replace Image:Symbol comment vote 2.svg by Image:Symbol comment vote.svg as the former has been marked a duplicate of the latter on Wikimedia Commons. Thank you. Siebrand 23:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Image:Symbol comment vote 2.svg is used in order to be able to protect a version that is used on high-risk templates. Protection on Commons does not apply on the English Wikipedia, and there's a concern that someone could upload a new version to vandalize highly-visible templates. Hope that helps. Cheers. --MZMcBride 04:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish I can protect the image on Commons. Please let me know. Siebrand 08:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC) P.s. I have already protected it. See commons:Image:Symbol comment vote.svg. Cheers. Siebrand 08:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]