User talk:Daniel.Bryant/Archive/21

Although most correspondence should, and does, take place on my user talk page, there are situations where it may not be appropriate, or it is better to play it safe and have the conversation privately for whatever reason; use common sense. This is particularly important when dealing with OTRS issues, or in some cases, mediation issues.

There are various ways to contact me privately. These include:-

• Emailing me, at dbwiki [at] gmail [dot] com - replace the [at] with @ and [dot] with . as appropriate. Please include your Wikipedia username in all correspondance. Registered users can email me via the Wikipedia interface, which I generally prefer whenever possible.

• Internet Relay Chat (or IRC), on Freenode, North America. I can be accessed, when online, by the nickname Daniel-Bryant. See Wikipedia's IRC tutorial for more assistance.

I have formatted my talk page archives in groups of 30. If you wish to revisit an archived discussion, please make sure you post a link to the archive which holds the archived discussion when adding a new message to my user talk page, or else I won't know what previous discussion you are referring to.

The main directory for my archive pages is located here. This page contains links to the archives, as well as the history of those archives. It also has a column which details the time span for that archive; if you need to find a previous discussion, identifying the date the discussion was held on and using that column will be the most beneficial option.

A quarterly breakdown of Archives is listed below. For the purpose of this list, Archive 1 (which began on March 11, 2006) will be included in the third quarter (July–September), as it is the only one in the second quarter of 2006.

Third quarter, 2006 (July–September)

1  •  2  •  3  •  4  •  5  •  6  •  7  •  8  •  9  •  10

Fourth quarter, 2006 (October-December)

11  •  12  •  13  •  14  •  15  •  16  •  17  •  18  •  19

First quarter, 2007 (January–March)

20  •  21  •  22  •  23  •  24  •  25  •  26  •  27  •  28  •  29

Second quarter, 2007 (April–June)

30  •  31

In addition, I have a number of "special" archives for various things. Please see the bottom of the main archive directory for details.

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.

Kanowna

I had been worrying there were no new maritime arts anywhere in the last couple of weeks - its excellent - it looks good - its a bass strait wreck (I am a tassie-ophile ) and the quality of the article really shows! Thanks! SatuSuro 12:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheers - I hope I did that ship's extensive history proud. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks you did SatuSuro 10:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK!

On January 13, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beaumont House, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 17:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

And there was much rejoicing *subdued celebration* :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sselvakumar

Hi. You may want to take a look at the list I repared on a user subpage of mine, User:A. B./Sandbox2. It may save you some time. It lists anyone who's ever edited Bharatanatyam and inciudes an analysis of many of their edit patterns. There are some names flagged as possible sockpuppets there that are not on the checkuser case list yet. Also, there was a Vfd for Medha Hari in the past that was influenced by sockpuppets. I prepared this as part of a complex spamming analysis for WP:WPSPAM. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have mentioned this compilation of data to Mackensen, who ran the original check. Thanks for your efforts, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education

Here's a procedural question for whether a post-arbitration situation qualifies for a checkuser. I was the sole admin who shepherded the Waldorf education dispute. Although sockpuppetry wasn't an issue during the case an accusation came up this week and the accused editor has volunteered to undergo checkuser to clear the air.

No actual user block occurred, but a couple of editors were confused about user blocks when this issue came up so there's a plausible (if somewhat convoluted) argument to be made in favor of sockpuppetry.

Does it hold weight that this would be post-arbitration and voluntary? This looks to me like a gray area per checkuser rules. On a human level I'd like to file a request and see it accepted. Some of these editors have entered WP:ADOPT and they're all well educated. Their mentor and I would like to see them work things out without anybody getting topic banned. Durova^Charge 22:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't give an opinion on whether the case has merit/speculate on whether the case will be accepted or not, but post-arbitration shouldn't make any difference, at least in my eyes (it may for the checkusers, though). What I can refer you to is Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Peteris Cedrins, from yesterday; although RFCU doesn't run on precedent, that's the best indication I can give you without speculating. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've thrown this one back in the editors' ballpark. In my experience the suspected sockpuppeters who step forward and say Let's get a checkuser. I'd like to clear the air. have always come up negative. If the complaintant isn't satisfied with that he can follow up at WP:RFCU or WP:SSP himself. Cheers, Durova^Charge 23:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Improvement

Hey Dan, I know how well you've been doing lately with the improvement of Articles, and I was wondering if you could help me. I'm trying to make a more structured effort to build some good articles, I've done one, contributing solely and it's not quire good enough for peer review. So aside from pictures, which will come soon, do you have any recommendations?

This is the one: Rone

Related Articles that I've started: Civilian,Dlux, Meek, Pslam, Sixten, Prism, Sync, Optic, Phibs, Ha-Ha, Vexta. (If you want to see.)

Just whenever you can. Thanks Dan. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 07:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't - my interests lie outside the field of street music, and I can rarely write well (and accurately) when I have no interest or background in the subject. Sorry, but keep up the great works (and, yes, pictures would make the articles better :D), Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No probs Dan; It seems you can't do everything after all. Ah ha! However, your making a damn good effort. Stick to football! Cheers, Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 05:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy Wikipedia Day!

Happy Wikipedia Day!

On January 15, 2007, Wikipedia turned six-years-old. According to statistics, Wikipedia has around 1,500,000 articles and Wikipedians have made 104,000,000 edits. The millionth article was Jordanhill railway station, created on March 2, 2006.

Wikipedia has moved from an Alexa rank of 20 to a rank of 12 having already briefly visited rank 8 (current rank). Happy editing!

—S.D. ¿п? 23:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Primetime

Excuse me, but what parts of "brand-new accounts" , "uses open proxies", and "In the future these can be listed in the IP check section. Mackensen (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)" WAS UNCLEAR?)

Don't yell. And what part of "Use === Subsections ===, do not create subpages." wasn't clear, on that matter

You mean the part of this page which explicitly says to add new cases to that page? The one with the big instruction box which says:

If you are adding a new request for this user please add it above this notice at the top of the page. Only the latest request will appear on the checkuser page. Please don't create a separate page with a different name.

I followed the instructions I was given. Do not pass along your failure to read what was plainly written onto me. This guy is a long-term pain in the ass -- both to Wikipedia nad, lately, to me personally -- and I'm following the procedure on how best to deal with him. If you want to make what should be a simple procedure ludicrously complex, don't blame others for it. --Calton | Talk 11:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

IP checks get added to the IP check section, not on subpages. My apologies for not reading an archived statement which doesn't appear on the main page; I merely follow the clear procedure listed here[1]. RFCU has been set up and established for many months, with minimal fuss compared to if it was a mess like some procedures on Wikipedia. Please don't yell at editors when they do something that you don't understand, especially when they know what they're doing, as I do - I've been doing it for six months. "Listed in the IP check section" means following the procedures for doing just that, which means listing as a subheading.

Just drop it, please, and get back to continuing your good work prodding Myspace-style userpages which I personally am indebted to you for, given I know how much of a thankless task it is (I did it for a week, and I know how boring it can be). By the way, how do you find said userpages easily? Special:Random/user? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I went through and tagged a bunch of your redirect-blanks from the vanity-userfications with {{db-blank}}. Hope you don't mind :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Samuel Davenport, was selected for DYK!

On January 16, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Samuel Davenport, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 23:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...second of the week. Well, that's cool :) Daniel.Bryant 09:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

BrickFlim.gif

Congratulations! you are in the credits of our movie. Good job Dan. Sorry to keep dropping in. Cheers, Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 05:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Stan McCabe

I've done a bit of poking about. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I'll talk to you about it :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks!

Oops, I totally forgot to uncomment those categories. Thanks for correcting me. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No problems :) Daniel.Bryant 09:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, TSS Kanowna, was selected for DYK!

On January 18, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article TSS Kanowna, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 02:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Names...

Thanks for the note Daniel. I knew about the other list, but it's not that much better than the machine-generated one. Have a look at this diff, for example. As the summary says, Isotope23 was a strike-out, and now he's an admin following a self-nomination. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 12:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: My checkuser request

The information provided by you on edits by the users I have reported is not entirely correct. The problem is that I had already deleted the spam pages created by the users (okay, I forgot one). Looking through the deleted history, I have discovered two more accounts that were used this week, and an IP address used in December 2006. - Mike Rosoft 12:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

In order for us to be able to decide whether a check is in order, we have to be able to see the user's contribs. Further, if we can't see thier contribs, we don't know if they are recent enough to check, and that causes us to do a lot of needless checking to find the ones that actually have contributions. While I recognize that you've already deleted the pages, it's important for us to be able to see the evidence before we undertake an investigation. There's no need to undelete pages, but it would be helpful for you to go through and pull the ones that have recent deleted edits, as Daniel is not an administrator, so he can't see if they do or not. Thanks, Essjay (Talk) 12:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what Essjay said :) Anyways, this discussion really needs to take place at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ROBINDONALD, where I've copied a very-slightly-modified version of Essjay's comment to. Please direct all further correspondance related to deleted edits/process/evidence et all in this case to there. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 13:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong

Hey Daniel, thanks for your message and email. I did get your talk message and had replying to you on my list of things to do tonight, but I was still doing the rounds and replying to people. I appreciate you explaining and clarifying what you meant. It was the word "grudge" that really got under my skin because I feel that Ryulong may think that I dislike him or have something personal against him when that's really not the case. I respect his hard work and dedication to the project and I like him on a personal level. I hope he does become an admin and I hope when it happens that I'm on the support side of the fence.

I wasn't aware of anything like that between you guys, but what you don't know can actually hurt you on Wikipedia :) As I clarified, grudge was probably the worst word I could have used in the situation, but I managed to reclarify it with "perceptions" (which has an overlapping definition but is generally "better" for this situation) in my response. I'm sure nearly-everyone respects Ryulong for what he does, and I appreciate the fact that everyone has their own opinion - and I respect each and every one of them for their own reasons - and I'm not going to try and change your !vote. Perception can be a small thing for some actions, and large for others, and although we normally agree on 90%+ of things (and therefore one could say we share a similar perception generally), it is obvious that this similarity is breached with respect to whether Ryulong should be promoted in this RfA. As I stated, though, neither of us (I presume for you) has any thought of changing the other's vote, and so it should be, so I figure we'll respectfully agree-to-disagree on the issue of Ryulong's candidacy as of January 2007 :)

Thanks for your replies, Daniel. There was just one thing I wanted to clarify. When I said above about Ryulong possibly thinking I dislike him or have a grudge against him, I don't know if he thinks that, I just feel it is quite possible. Last time I opposed his RfA and I brought up issues and diffs that caused many people after me to !vote "per Sarah" and a similar thing has happened this time but not to the same extent. There has also been a couple of times where I've had to have words with him over his interaction with newbies/anons, edit warring, giving that anon I mentioned below who corrected the English a blatant vandalism warning and reporting them to AIV and a 3RR violation (I actually could have blocked him over the 3RR violation but I chose not to and I hope he took that as a sign that I don't hate him or have grudge against him or whatever) and so I wouldn't be surprised he felt that I have a grudge against him. Anyway, thanks for your replies and clarifying your earlier comments. Cheers, Sarah 11:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with your additional comments and I wouldn't wack him over the head with diffs raised in the previous RFAs or expect him to re-answer or re-explain those edits. However, I am looking at the issues that were raised then in terms of whether or not they really are resolved and in the past. I think, as far as possible, after a failed RfA people should get a clean slate to work on. If a candidate is told in RfA that x, y and z are problems and prohibitive to adminship and they go away, work on those issues, resolve them and then come back and ask for adminship, and if the diffs show those matters aren't still an issue, then yes, I agree they should be left in the past and not used as a basis for rejecting the current RfA. Within reason, of course. There are certain "offences" that the community would have trouble forgetting, but in general terms I think a clean slate and redemption are Very Good Things.

Sorry for the huge blockquote, but I think that this is probably what I was trying to say exactly in my original (and response), but it got lost in translation over the border :)

However, I am looking at the issues that were raised then in terms of whether or not they really are resolved and in the past. I think, as far as possible, after a failed RfA people should get a clean slate to work on. If a candidate is told in RfA that x, y and z are problems and prohibitive to adminship and they go away, work on those issues, resolve them and then come back and ask for adminship, and if the diffs show those matters aren't still an issue, then yes, I agree they should be left in the past and not used as a basis for rejecting the current RfA

In an idyllic system, this would be the case; this viewpoint was the one I was pleading for in Ryulong's case, given the...tortured, for want of a better word...history of the previous two. It's a question of whether I can be forgiven for that erronous post in the upcoming *thing* that will probably make all the difference, and this makes my answer to Q3 ever-so-critical.

I don't think any of Ryulong's issues are irredeemable or unforgivable and I do I want him to become an administrator. However, I am troubled by how quickly he reapplied. There were a lot of issues and a lot of diffs raised in his last RfA and they were genuine and serious concerns. They weren't frivolous or easily dismissed and most of them, if done under the admin-cap, could have serious ramifications, like scaring away genuine newbies. I think he would have done better had he waited another month of two. I'm sure you understand why it's important to leave a reasonable amount of time between RfA's because you yourself have waited 5 months. It's not so important if an RfA is close or fails on a minor matter, but I think if there are a lot of genuine concerns it shows that you respect and appreciate what has been raised if you are willing to wait a reasonable amount of time.

5? I thought it was closer to 6...but meh, no big worries :) Back to Ryulong, and yes, I agree with you again (common occurance, eh :D) that it was a slight error in judgement to accept so early - in my view, early March would have been better, as it would have given him ample time to demonstrate he had improved (or possibly not improved, who knows) from the points brought up in the last one. I saw a lot of tentative !votes - mine included, as I stated at the start - and I suspect that this was due to the !voters hadn't had a comfortable amount of time to re-evaluate the candidate. This means that he may have been judged on his prior RfA solely (which is the thing I was appealing against), and this is simply setting himself up to be shot down, sadly.

The matter that concerns me most is the issue of reports to AIV and how that translates to potential blocks. For example, are we going to have an apparently good faith anon with no previous warnings and no block log, accused of blatant vandalism and blocked because they mistakenly thought they were being helpful in "correcting" American spelling to Australian spelling? Obviously Ryu is reporting people he thinks should be blocked to AIV and that is what concerns me most. If he had the block button, he'd do his job as admin and use it. It is true that all admin jobs can easily be undone, however, a lot of people don't bother complaining, so we just don't know and thus can't do anything to fix it. A lot of anons would just think "eh, screw them!" and leave with a bad taste for us. I know that's what I would have done as an anon if someone had accused me of being vandal and blocked me without even attempting a discussion.

Ryulong does have a slight tendancy to shoot first and ask questions later, so to speak. I personally felt he'd done enough recently to quash most of my initial doubts, and you disagree with that, of which I respect. Again, I have no intention of even trying to change your !vote, so I'll save your eyes a long rant - and my fingers/wrist etc. as well - but I acknowledge that Ryulong may still have to improve to get the administrator-level trust of the community as a concensus. I must extend your statement that "all admin jobs can easily be undone...", as I always have believed that if you place an admin action that you strongly suspect will be undone, then don't place it at all, as it's obviously too controversial. I believe this is implied/stated in WP:0WW.

As far as Ryu's RfA is concerned, I would dearly love to support him, but I need to feel sure that he now understands exactly what is and is not vandalism and when people definitely should and definitely should not be blocked. There were other matters raised in the last RfA (civility, edit warring, etc) that are still concerns, but the issue of AIV reports is the thing that really concerns me.

Fair enough. I respect your opinion, as always. I saw your comment regarding the two troublesome users going hammer-and-tong at each other currently on WP:AN, and responded appropriately (I hope!). You summed up the situation quite nicely, and I'd like to think of my comment merely as an "addition" :)

On a semi-related note, please watchlist User:Sarah Ewart/drafts. You should find a present for you there soon (in the next day or so). Thankyou for your patience. I hope you think it was worth the wait! ;)

Watchlisted - somehow I've managed to keep my watchlist down to under 15 ever since I arrived here...I'm sure anything you do is worth it, no matter how long the wait is :)

By the way, totally irrelevant, I know, but I was wondering do your friends call you Dan or Danny or anything? I often feel like calling you Dan or something but I wasn't sure if you prefer being called Daniel.

I don't mind any of them - provided you're not being derogatory, which you will never be, I'm sure :) As you probably know, I sign off my emails using DB, but that's merely because I'm lazy :) Dan, Danny or Daniel is fine here/emails, but it's probably better to specify when posting on ANI etc. that you're referring to me, as I know there's a number of "Dan"s and "Danny"s (one in particular, as you know).

Have a good weekend, Daniel, Sarah 14:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I will - same to you too :) Daniel.Bryant 02:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

*blinks* how do you write so much at 1am? :) I know that anything I write now will be ambiguous, so I'll respond in the morning. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 14:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL Sorry about that, I have a tendency to crap on when I'm tired. It's nearly 2 AM here in Melb. :) Sarah 14:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My responses are indented :) Daniel.Bryant 02:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin?

Are you seeing an RfA in your near future? We're being encouraged to nominate people and you're the first person I thought of. I'm sure 5 months is enough time since your first RfA. Interested? Maybe sometime after your law clerkship ends? Grandmasterka 07:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the section above. Still... :-) Grandmasterka 07:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conf.) You may be able to pick up the crypic hint in Sarah's above post - she's already written one, and my RfA is imminent. I must say that I am humbled by your interest, though, and would be deeply honoured with a co-nomination for you, if you so please. Sarah has been working on this for quite a while, I believe, and if Sarah's success with her nomination of Newyorkbrad was anything to go by (the nomination statement was top-class), I'm a very lucky candidate :) Cheers, and thanks for the offer, Daniel.Bryant 07:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see now that I too was a bit late in coming here to offer to nominate you; it's pretty clear that a proscription on Sarah's stealing candidates out from under, inter al., me ought to be codified in policy straightaway (just because you're a more cogent and persuasive writer and better-respected editor than I doesn't mean you should get all the good ones). I'm altogether certain that Sarah's nom will be excellent, so I'll not offer to co-nom, but I shall, to be sure, be exceedingly happy to support. I wonder whether you might at least permit me to wield Radiant's trout against all those (who'd better not number more than a handful) who should undertake to oppose in view of two ill-advised comments made seven months hither; I'll promise to be judicious... :) Joe 20:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I was considering co-nominating as well, but I agree that Sarah's nomination statement I'm sure will be sufficient, though I plan to throw in an early support !vote as well; it's definitely time. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Joe and Brad, I'm humbled by your comments - really, I am! I'm sure Sarah will do me the minimal amount of justice I deserve, however if you feel I should be promoted further through a co-nomination I would be delighted. Permission to wield trout is granted on the basis that you after you...use...it, you swap it for a herring and proceed to attempt to cut down the largest tree in the forest using it. Being serious, though, I hope my answer to Q3 clarifies everything that anyone will ever want to know, and I respectfully request that anyone who does oppose not be badgered excessively over that opinion. Brad, honestly, you are already in the top couple of users I respect most - that list expands to include the likes of Essjay and Sarah - and a co-nomination from you would mean the world to me. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL Sorry Joe. Nah, who am I kidding! I'm not sorry--I do it deliberately. I've employed a psychic to tune into your brain waves so I can find out who you're considering nominating and then quickly jump in before you! ;D Sarah 11:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Rudyevanescence

There was one entry on it, which has now been moved back to User talk:Rudyevanescence. Good catch! NawlinWiki 14:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's bizarre how I am more efficient in picking out little things at 1am than when I'm fully awake... :) Daniel.Bryant 14:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

AFD

You've done a lot of work on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_13, but your forgot one tiny thing. When you relist an AFD, comment it out of the original days log (something like <!--{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Somearticle}} Relisted to Jan.20-->. Or else it shows up as open still on the days log (and Mathbot won't leave us alone here). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 19:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I wondered about that...thanks for the heads-up. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 10:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for finally banning User:Grkbkny69 and his sock-puppet User:HighEyeCue. Although he has been blocked in the past he has been various times, he has continually been vandalizing and abusing pages for the last few months on a daily bases. He did nothing but vandalize pages and I hope he is banned for ever License2Kill 20:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ban them - an administrator, namely Jaranda (talk • contribs), blocked them. My job was merely identification :) As a note, can I suggest you read the banning policy and the blocking policy, as there's a subtle-yet-very-large difference which you appear to have confused. Cheers, and keep up the good editing, Daniel.Bryant 10:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

User Chosenwiz4 sock puppet

I suspect Chosenwiz4 is a sock puppet of Information Center because I looked at his contributions and he had relativily low contributions (4 or 5) on other articles. If you could review the matter, that would be appreciated. --William Pembroke^(talk) 22:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm unfortunately in no position to anything about it. I can however suggest you read WP:SOCK#Identification and handling of suspectet sock puppets, and then pick the appropriate venue for investigation - either WP:SSP or WP:RFCU. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 10:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

Thanks Dan for the heads up. I noticed it when I came online before and I intend to make a statement but I'm trying to get a certain somethin'-somethin' finished first. ;) Sarah 09:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what that could be... I imagined you had seen it, but just wanted to make sure :) Cheers, and thanks for this, Daniel.Bryant 10:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

(Untitled)

Sorry, was trying to get the hold on in. Please allow adequate time and dialog. Please state your specific reasons with specific paragraph and sentece, for your position. Why not allow others input before you jump the gun and delete? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.83.160.148 (talk • contribs) 12:33, January 21, 2007.

Sorry, but please state specifically what you are talking about, or else unfortunately I won't be able to help you. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Daniel, I wanted to thank you for your early support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, and for your kind comments that accompanied your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. I'm looking forward to your own successful RfA in the very near future and to continuing to work with you. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 17:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You certainly have demonstrated you are capable of handling it, and that being the third most supported RfA is for a reason. With regards to my impending one of my own, lets not assume too much - RfA is a fickle thing, and I'm sure to have rubbed some people up the wrong way too often that there is a very real chance this could all go up in flames, really. But I'm inspired by your confidence in me :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Prod on User:Rstock91

Hey there. I think you did the right thing in prodding User:Rstock91. While the user's been inactive since the page was created months ago, proper prod procedure (how's that for an alliteration!) dictates that we warn the user first. Just a heads up for the future. Cheers! --Brad Beattie (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how notifying a user that their userpage is prodded by posting on their user talk page would make any difference logically - they're going to spot it on their userpage. Articles are different, I acknowledge, because not everyone watches their articles/would look at them every seven days. However, you're right that it's good courtesy to notify them, and I will remember that in the future :) Cheers for the note, Daniel.Bryant 07:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I've added a short co-nomination. If this is a good week for your admin candidacy, you should also remove the "backlog" note from the top of the page to indicate you're fully available to answer questions, etc. Regards and good luck! Newyorkbrad 22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it's on, then I've added a second co-nomination. It's been a long time coming. I don't think you need any luck at all. Cheers, Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 23:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, only problem is some people have actually been opposed in previous RfA's due to (believe it or not) too many co-nominations so just be careful. Now Daniel can you hurry up and accept! lol  Glen  23:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well that's three Co-noms. Damn, I wish I typed quicker, Dåvid ƒuchs made it in before me. Cheers, Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you everyone :) Sarah, especially thanks for all your work. Dfrg.msc, thanks for the co-nomination in leui of me accepting your full nomination a couple of months ago. NYB, read above, where I especially stated my deepest appreciation for a co-nomination - I won't bore your eyes twice :) Glen S, I hope my partial solution goes some of the way to addressing your concern, however sarcastic or otherwise it may have been initially (I was aware of situation with too many co-noms, as well). Cheers to everyone, Daniel.Bryant 05:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wooohooo! Finally! Release the ticket tape and balloons from ceiling! Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 07:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey wow, I'd have added a conom if it wasnt so crowded already :( — Lost^(talk) 08:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, go ahead - the blue boxes make it minimally crowded. I love co-nominations! Daniel.Bryant 08:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok its ready here. Short and sweet (nothing left to say after so many conoms). Can you now apply the wikimarkup thingy to it and add it yourself. You know from past experience that I am really bad at it :) — Lost^(talk) 08:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 10:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DarknessLord/Le Comic

Hi. You closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DarknessLord/Le Comic because it was deleted under CSD U1 (or R1, the log says "page content was "db-redirect"), however, my nomination included the 35+29 subpages that were created as part of the "Le Comic" and moved during the MFD to attempt saving. Can I mark these under CSD, or should I just make a post at WP:ANI or do I really need to mark each subpage for MFD? Your advice will be appreciated. --MECU≈talk 14:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Mark them as a U1, and link to the MfD (which, in turn, links to the diff which demonstrates U1). Sorry about that... Daniel.Bryant 20:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

In advance. I left a nice note on the RFA and wish you all the best. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much, both for your support and, as I stated on your userpage, taking the time to examine my credentials in detail as evidenced by the customised question. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)