Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Header

message: 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)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Change made. -- Ben TALK/HIST 05:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "These requests are not performed" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Summary letters 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ombudsman commission 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: If you wish I can protect the image on Commons. Please let me know. Siebrand 08:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. I removed the image from this page, though it's still used other places. --MZMcBride 18:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *nod* Only if I see it used on protected pages, I ask for a replacement. CommonsDelinker can only replace in the first 50 hits for a page. Getting rid of uses in templates makes way for fresh pages for the image to be replaced by the bot. Thanks for your help. Siebrand 19:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image replacement request