User talk:Daniel/Archive/22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< User talk:Daniel | Archive

Current editing project: 1990 Sydney hailstorm · Need help? Click here.

English Wikipedia (admin): user · talk · contribs | Meta Wiki (admin): user · talk · contribs | English Wikinews (admin): user · talk · contribs

OTRS Wiki (admin): user · talk · contribs | English Wikisource: user · talk · contribs | Wikimedia Commons: user · talk · contribs

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Daniel. No further edits should be made to this page. For a list of archives for this user, see User talk:Daniel/Archive.

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

[edit] New Zealand Rugby Under 21s

Hi, thanks for removing that featured article thingy. I had no idea it was there. I was using a copy/paste from a previous article and must've picked it up from there. Cheers Smaunsell 12:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No problems - it was probably the All Blacks article, which recently attained featured status :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 12:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with 2 Sockpuppeting accusations

I noticed you thought that users Joshua dude and MomDude were sockpuppets of me. This is false because:

1. Joshua dude is my brother 2. MumDude is my mum

Please unblock them, because they are not my sockpuppets. Daniel10 15:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't block them - Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) did. Secondly, the former actually isn't blocked, which was probably a procedural error somewhere. Thirdly, I'm in no position to do anything about it, nor is anyone else, per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Daniel10. I would suggest you take this to ANI and demonstrate, using diffs, how you are separate people; Psychonaut seems to think you are the same, based on behaviour.^[1] Daniel.Bryant 20:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Butting in... Joshua dude was registered at the same time as Daniel10 and they edit the same articles. If you really are brothers, it's hard to tell a sockpuppet from fraternal similarity. MumDude's only contributions were for vote stacking in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ajaxf. —Dgies^t c 21:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI guys...I'm in no position to do anything here. Daniel.Bryant 21:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (Acting as Assistant to the Clerk) 23:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darkest Hour on WP:CHU

Re edit summary at [2]: I'm not sure I understand. This request is effectively a duplicate and there is no supporting instructions anywhere that I can find that such duplicates should be left to be archived. What the user should have done was update his original request. Since he didn't, and created a replicate, it seems to make sense to remove the replicate. Am I missing something? Perhaps the instructions should be changed to reflect this guideline? --Durin 20:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Us clerks are a fickle bunch, and this has been a long-standing tradition, really - it's none your fault that you weren't aware.

Basically, you're right, normally users do update their requests with a new username; however, in the event they don't, and create a new request, normally we just leave it, for two reasons really:

B'crats generally prefer to usher requests through when a user has had to go through a renomination process, because people tend to get angry if they don't, and rather leave a user sitting there for >14 days because they had to resubmit
B'crats and clerks generally check Special:Contributions/* to make sure the user was actually the one who submitted the request. If that request is removed, and a new one added by an account not of the actual user being changed, the 'crats might simply think "ah, there's one request on CHU, he has one edit [which was the initial, rejected request] to CHU, everything seems to be in order", whack that button, and yeah...problems 101. If they update their request, then there'll be a note from the clerks (or you! thanks for everything in that regard) saying "please choose another", so the two requests - one has been written over - is obvious
Basically because generally we like to keep records of all requests, fufilled or not, in the interests of complete documentation.

I understand your misunderstanding, as I didn't get it at first, however this is really what Essjay and co. want - complete documentation. Once again, thanks for all your help pointing out when usernames are taken/too close to other usernames. Just a question: do you deal at all with {{unblock-un}}'s? You would seem like the perfect person to, given your interest. Cheers, and thanks for everything you do at CHU, Daniel.Bryant 21:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Re whether I deal with unblocks or not; I've touched it, but that's the extent of it. I do keep an eye on things that map my interest/skill sets by trancluding User:Dragons flight/Category tracker/Summary to my main userpage. When the unblock requests get high, and I notice it, I tend to poke around to see if I can reduce the backlog. But, it's rare that unblock requests get much of a backlog. Thanks for your explanation regarding Darkest Hour. It might do to modify the instructions at the top of the page so that people do not make a similar mistake. What do you think? --Durin 21:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conf.) Actually, I like the idea of force-merging requests. I adopted your intelligent ideas, and put it into practice with that latest case.[3] It seems to make the most sense, and provided the modification of the request is annotated, then I see no reason not to make this the common "thing". I can't see how adding this procedure to the process instructions would do anything but confuse users who are asked to change their requested username destination, so it'll probably just be an action people like you and I take if we see a double-up. Cheers, and thanks, Daniel.Bryant 21:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more of an instruction set for people wanting to help on the page :) (and for new bureaucrats). It'd be nice if the knowledge of how to maintain this page wasn't vested only in the craniums of those who are already doing it :) --Durin 21:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe...although, at this rate, there doesn't look like there will be any new bureaucrats in the near future...WT:RFA suggested culling them to three active ones, and RfB has shown a resistance to promoting new ones even in the last week. Hmmm, you raise some interesting points to ponder *thinks, for a change* :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 21:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

de-indent Yeah, I've been following that conversation and it troubles me. I'm thinking of writing up an essay of sorts on the issue in my userspace regarding pros/cons of the "we don't need more bureaucrats" stance. Maybe something similar to User:Durin/Admin criteria comments.

Personally, I find the arguments to oppose new bureaucrats because of a perception that we have enough to be fraught with problems. I noted at WT:RFA the single point failure problem. WP:CHU shows how that can become a problem. No, WP:CHU isn't crucial to the functioning of the encyclopedia. But, it is a customer service issue so to speak. People who make requests who do not receive responses in a timely manner can be rightfully miffed that nothing is happening. This can generate ill will towards the bureaucrat corps and the project in general. Plus, some people who are doing the change for privacy concerns may be rightfully concerned that their privacy remains exposed until the request is processed. Right now, we've got a nearly four day backlog of requests on that page. Essjay handles most of the requests...something like 80%. But, he's stepped back from editing for the most part for the last four days...and poof we have a backlog. That's a single point failure problem.

We did have a problem a while back when Cecropia stepped down, leaving a vacuum. It was ably filled, but it too was somewhat of a single point failure problem. RfA promotions right now seem to be distributed well, so it is not a current problem. But, behavioral knowledge among the bureaucrat corps should not be vested in a tiny number of bureaucrats. if we lose some in rapid fashion (and this is not unprecedented), the replacement bureaucrats may not be up to speed on current culture and expectations at RfA. This can lead to problems like what we've seen with Ryulong which may have been exacerbated by Raul's lack of current experience on RfA. Few people would currently agree that 70% is the threshold of promotion. Yet, that's the bar Raul used.

Further, having more bureaucrats to turn to when uncertain of the appropriate decision to make is a good thing, not a bad thing. Having just three active bureaucrats could leave another form of single point failure; time to close the RfA but no other bureaucrat handy to discuss the closure.

Mmm. I think I may have just started writing that essay :) ...puts pen down :) --Durin 21:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha :) Daniel.Bryant 07:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thank you

thank you for your time and efforts in alerting me too, then closing the AfD, have a great week. Travb (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can you please help motivate a resolution for this Checkuser case?

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine Thanks so much! --BenBurch 01:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please ask Mackensen (talk · contribs), however he is snowed under at the moment. The case was deferred to him, and he is uncontactable outside normal talk pages as of late. Therefore, you might as well ask him at Mackensen, rather than have me do so :) Sorry I can't be of more help, but things are busying up for a lot of people as of late, myself included. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 01:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Good enough! Thanks! I am snowed right now myself answering customer service emails for one of my radio ventures. --BenBurch 03:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Here you go

I hereby award you an alarm clock so you never make us wait this long for something ever again.Jorcoga Yell! 08:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks for your recently-added support :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 08:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

I reverted my diff additions, since you'd already done that job.Constanz - Talk 10:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I wanted to ask, whether it's OK if my statement has 538 words, whereas over 500 is said to be 'overlong'. I may shorten it a bit, if necessary. Constanz - Talk 10:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

38 words isn't going to kill anybody, really - you should be fine. 500 +/- 10% is generally acceptable; it's when that page gets clogged with 800+ word essays that the Arbitrators tend to begin complaining. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 10:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFCU procedural question

Hello Daniel. Quick RFCU question: I think that there's circumstantial evidence that Bluegold (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bluegold, etc.) is now editing as Vintagekits (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vintagekits) and is continuing the behaviour the results in an open-ended block. Should I reopen the old case, make a new one (called?), or something else altogether? Many thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bluegold, as it's the suspected sockpuppeteer :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but you could mention in passing about the results of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vintagekits if you feel it provides anything to your case. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've mentioned the other case, but the whole thing is rather weak. Thanks for the help. Glad to see your RfA is going ok so far. I won't tempt fate by guessing the outcome. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No problems, and thanks for your support at RfA. True, it is bad to count your chickens before they hatch :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 12:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Piotr Blass

Hi Daniel. You were correct to list Piotr Blass under AfD for a third time. By itself, the present article should not be deleted. However, the article appears to come with predeveloped issues that are better decided by consensus. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the matter. -- Jreferee 18:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That article has considerable baggage that makes this AfD a very interesting discussion. No problems for the DRV/Move/AFD actions, and cheers, Daniel.Bryant 02:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So long and thanks for all the fish!

Good evening; firstly, let me wish you Happy Australia Day!

However, I have came here to inform you that I am leaving the project to spend time at Meta and Simple; I find contributing here unenjoyable, and it is time for a long break. I will return, but it won't be for a long time.

In the meanwhile, I would be honoured if you decided to visit me at my simple talk page; otherwise, goodbye for now!

Pax tecum

Kindest regards for the last time,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 22:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I await your return :) I'll register an account over there, just for you. Cheers, and thanks for everything (and don't be too long!), Daniel.Bryant 02:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Australia Day

Happy (belated) Australia Day Dan! Hope you had a good one. Also, your RfA has just tipped 200 Support votes. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 22:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw :) Thanks - I had a relatively good one - and cheers, Daniel.Bryant 02:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odinic Rite

Glad you removed the Hengest article but hope you incorporate the stuff under Music under his original entry into the new Odinic Rite one noting that his "musical contributions which do not make for much of an entry. The article linked to were all written for the OR journal and the musical work came about due to Heimgest's work within the OR." The Most Honourably Great Sir Dr. Robert C Prenic the 3rd, all Adademic Degrees. 23:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll paste the info in; if you wish to add/remove/alter/reference/note any of it, you're welcome to; because I unfortunately don't quite understand what you mean. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 02:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User:Matvej_A._Kozhev

Could you please cite your source for the policy you so duly cited in that MfD? Personally, I think that you should have at least made a comment before deleting the page. The user was new and obviously didn't know what he was doing, or he planned to fix up the page in his honor. But regardless, you shouldn't just go deleting someones userpage without even alerting them. I know that a user page isn't solely the person's, but he has a right in deciding if stuff stays or goes. → JARED ^(t) 23:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete it; as listed in both my closing statement (here) and in the deletion log for the userpage in question (here), it was DragonflySixtyseven (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). I merely closed the MfD discussion under section 1, point 4 of the XfD guidelines for non-administrators (see here). Please take up any issues you have regarding the process with Dragonfly, as I unfortunately can't help you :( Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 03:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely appologize if you were offended by the comments that were not rightfully meant to go to you! → JARED ^(t) 14:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No offence at all taken. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 06:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I am interested

[[Image:AnimalSacrificeToday.jpg|thumb|55px|left|Vote early, vote often]] in getting people to vote about this picture which was just removed from the sacrifice article, so am contacting everyone recent on my talk page. Please consider taking a few minutes, looking it over, and voicing an opinion. Thanks. Carptrash 04:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No thanks. Daniel.Bryant 04:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:SEGA

Based on the sockpuppet case SEGA (talk · contribs), I believe that new user Solohann (talk · contribs) is a puppet of them. How do I go about find this out or where would I post this? -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 04:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You could either ask for another checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SEGA, following the instructions at the top of this page, or else create a suspected sockpuppet case following the instructions listed at that link. The latter uses behavioural evidence only (as submitted by you), whilst the first requires you to follow a fairly strict line if you want your check to be run. Personally, in this case, I would reccomend WP:SSP, and simply list all the evidence you have linking Solohann to SEGA following the instructions. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 04:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I reopened the old case at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SEGA due to some concerns by another user. If I erred in my relisting, let me know so I can fix it. Thanks! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 05:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, formatting etc. looks fine. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for eavesdropping but I am about to take a brief wiki-break and I didn't want to leave without addressing my concerns. I have brought a couple of suspect users to Moes attention. During the original "SEGA" case there were 3 IP's listed as possible 'pipes' for SEGA's use. 2 of the IP's were blocked but the third one, not used as often, was left free to edit. I believe this third IP may prove worthy of inclusion in any re-opened case. I am going to be away from Wiki but can be contracted via email should my input be required in dealing with this matter. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 05:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add it - just add a note after the original request, stating basically what you did above, and then add it to the list of usernames to-be-checked using {{checkip}}. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: RFCU

Thanks. I clearly botched that. Thanks. --Spartaz 10:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha! No problems - I'm here to help people through RFCU. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DAB for freo

Is it usual practice to have a redirect such as the one at Charles Fremantle. It does seem appropriate that he be listed at at the DAB page. My thinking is anyone at the article would have found what they are looking for. I would like to know for the future. Any attention to freo is good in my book, if you think of anything else. Fred 12:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Are you busy? Fred 13:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree and think that the otheruses tags you've placed on the many Fremantle related pages are made redundant by the DAB page. If you type in Fremantle Football Club or FremantleMedia, you are unlikely to be looking for anything but the Football Club or the TV producers. Type in Fremantle and you get the DAB page, which then quickly points you to your intended target. Why clutter up each of the prison page, the media page, the football page etc when they aren't needed. Wikipedia:Hatnotes#Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous seems to agree. The-Pope 02:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair point - removed. The DAB Freo possibly needs to be somehow linked to the DAB Fremantle, although I have no idea how. Daniel.Bryant 05:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:200

Congratulations on breaking the 200! That was a fantastic surprise when I logged on and I believe it gives me the honour of being the first person to nominate two WP:200 RfAs and nominated only nine days apart! That little record might be around for awhile yet. :) By the way, how did you manage to wrangle access to the press box on grand final day? [4] Very impressed with that, Danny! Hope you had a nice long weekend. Cheers, Sarah 12:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

A cousin of mine in Melbourne writes for The Age, and his colleague/recorder (ie. Player Y scored at Xmins) was very sick, so he called me the day before and asked if I wanted to come :) Thanks for everything over the last week and beyond - it means so much to me. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 06:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:CCMTeam.JPG)

Templated message from BJBot 13:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

{{db-author}}ed. Daniel.Bryant 20:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heritage Guitars AfD

DB, this issue is, of course, long since settled, and so I ought straightaway to apologize for my not having replied apropos of it sooner; I was tardy in addressing the DRV and upon the withdrawal thereof allowed the matter to slip my mind altogether—my bad. Inasmuch as your construal of the AfD and DRV discussions and mine appear to remain incongruous, though, I imagine that I ought to explain my close and my understanding of the AfD and DRV. Because my explanation is exceedingly long and in view of our common love for collapsible boxes, I've consigned my remarks to the box infra; you should feel free to remove it after (or, hell, before) reading lest your talk should gain 30 exorbitant KB. Cheers, Joe 21:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD and DRV

I certainly recognized that my closure was probably disfavored by the non-admin closing guidelines but thought such closure nevertheless to be correct; this is, I suppose, one instance in which I silenced the PIIer inside me and IARed, principally, I should say, because I was relatively confident that any closure (or non-closure), even one effected by the most well-respected admin, would be DRVed and because I found the absence of a consensus for deletion to be plain, though perhaps not unambiguous (to be sure, though, my review was more than cursory and I surely apprehended that one might raise the concerns you did).

Were NHN’s objection indeed to have been entirely new and to have been unrebutted, a formal relisting or simply a non-closure might well have been in order, but his principal objections were as to the nature and focus of the sources provided toward the company's WP:CORP notability; such objections were not entirely dissimilar from those offered by Donald Albury, precedent to which took place a colloquy about the multiple sources formulation of CORP on which Nick rested his strong delete. To the extent, further, that NHN's !vote served to suggest the non-notability of Heritage Guitars per WP:CORP, such objection was presumptively considered by those !voters who supported the keeping of the article in view of Nick Graves's adduction of sources relative to WP:CORP.

There was, in any event, surely no concern as to the unverifiability of the content of the article itself, such that there were no fundamental policy concerns that militated against a closure consistent with the AfD consensus (cf., perhaps, the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rusty trombone or any of the several The Game (game) AfDs [save, I suppose, the last], in which the facial verifiability of the subject or of the content of the article was itself disputed); neither was the interpretation of WP:CORP essayed so inconsistent with a plain reading of that guideline as to suggest that an inconsistency between the AfD consensus (and the application of CORP in the AfD) and the general understanding of CORP for which a consensus of the community exists. Whilst one might have done well to relist/leave open the AfD, I cannot fathom an unconsidered objection in view of which consensus would have changed, and, so, though the AfD's being kept open would not have brought any particular harm neither would it have conferred any particular benefit (had this been a contrary situation—viz., one in which there appeared to be a bare consensus for deletion and there remained an unconsidered keep—relisting would surely have been in order, but I don't imagine such relisting to have been necessary here, if only because a closure as keep/no consensus is more readily reversed than a closure of delete should consensus change (a subsequent AfD relative to the extent [or triviality] of the coverage of the company offered by the sources proferred toward CORP compliance might well be undertaken).

The DRV, to my mind, went toward the proposition that the AfD had generated sufficient input from the community at large and that the a clear consensus emerged from such discussion that the company was notable per CORP and the article was encyclopedic. I appreciate your construction of the DRV as not addressing your fundamental concern, but my reading of the DRV discussion differs from yours; I take those partaking of the DRV as having considered your concern and having found it unpersuasive (that locution sounds to me to be indecorous, but I hope you'll not infer any malign purpose in my choice of unpersuasive; having stayed up to watch the Oz Open men's singles final, I am much too tired to find a better term).

In a handful of days you will be an admin (those 67 consecutive opposes could come at any time, but I'll venture you'll be safe), and I should be interested to know how, qua admin, you'd have disposed of the AfD and the DRV. The only tenable options for the former, to my mind, were relisting (either formally or informally, i.e., by non-closure) or closing as keep or no consensus and, for the latter, were endorse closure or overturn closure and relist/reopen, and I'd be especially curious to hear whether you'd have perceived as appropriate for either an option other than those enumerated. I'm quite sorry that this "note" became so long; I wanted merely to convey that, the non-admin procedural issue notwithstanding, I think my closure to have been quite right and that such closure was not made entirely without thought (largely without thought, yes, but not entirely).

I find this comment extremely insightful, and one that merits a lengthy response itself (from my first browse, and a re-read over the discussion, I'm tending to fully agree with your comment in the second paragraph). So, here goes...

Although I didn't initially read it as so, you are (now reflecting on it) fully correct in asserting Dalbury's comments were very similar in meaning and intent, although expressed in a different way which made my tired brain not click :) One could wikilawyer on the basis that is "unambiguous", but in the interests of assuming good faith, applying the thought of improving Wikipedia in preference to procedure, and the fact that doing so would probably be a very dickish act, there can be doubt now that what you did was certainly in the best interests of the encyclopaedia.

Probably, in the same situation, I would have merely not closed it but allowed it to run slightly longer (and pray another admin would do the same). Another five days, by the virtue of {{relist}}, I'm sure we both agree would be massive overkill. I'm one that encourages all opinions be discussed fully, and I'm sure this trait had some influence in my method of thinking when I asked for a review of this close.

You make a very good case, both policy- and common sense-wise, as to why this article should be kept. In light of your clarification on your thoughts of the article's state per V and CORP, I see no point in carrying out "the NYB solution", as given what you have said I'd probably !vote weak keep/keep etc. Further, you make a good argument about justifying your close, reasoning that I naively failed to pick up from when I asked for a review, and as with the AfD I would have joined with saying that the closure should be endorsed given your justification or similar above.

I was a bit of a tight-ass, so to speak, about bold non-admin decisions back then - something that has loosened up, especially given the fact I probably made a more bold decision than the one I contested by closing the Piotr Blass DRV on Jan 24 very early; this "boldness" was eccentuated by the relatively tortured history of said article (see my procedural AfD statement). As you can see, I've learnt to loosen up slightly, in the interests of allowing everyone to improve the encyclopaedia. I'm still a little bit of a "policy wonk", but actions taken in the best interests of improving Wikipedia in any way should be greeted with enthusiasm.

On a kinda-related note, I saw the Men's Final last night - Federer killed González in the end, and I personally think that when González failed to take the two set points and then went on to lose the set in a tie-break, he realised he missed probably his only realistic opportunity of beating the #1. Still, a good match nonetheless, and given that I'd seen three of González's matches during the tournament, I found it interesting to see how Roger managed to negate González's "weapons" (something that no-one else could).

With regards to my RfA, I believe it has 24 hours left (close to exact, now). I must say, I do fear the "rogue elements of the Canadian cabal" and any possible attempt to find 67 members :) As I stated above, at the time, I would have probably "informally relisted" - ie. allowed to run on for a little longer - to wait for Nick's point to be discussed. If I had have interpreted the comments the same way you did - ie. correctly, in that they were very similar to a previous point - I would have gone the same way as you. At DRV, I would have probably...actually, I don't know :) I mentioned above that I probably would have weakly endorsed, but every situation is different, and has different interpretations, history etc., and given my recent aforementioned change in attitude, I'd have to have a totally new incident of similar situations to fully answer the second bit.

Make no apologies for writing a long comment - if writing a long comment makes communicating everything you want to convey possible, than I'd rather see that happen than a ten-response conversation where it takes days for all the points of discussion to be...well, discussed :) In regards to your quasi-humourus comment at the end regarding thinking or partial lack thereof (I hope it was intended only to be partially :D), Kenneth Patchen once said "think enough and you won't know anything"... :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 06:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: IP block

The contributions justify an indefinite ban, but it's a shared ISP. However, there is a message on the talk page from the ISP suggesting a long anon only ban, which is what I did. It's been reverted now anyway to something weedier. jimfbleak 07:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks for the clarification. You are correct in saying that it has been reduced. I just figured there isn't much recent activity (contribs) from the IP, and combined with the indefinite block, sparked my intrigue. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banned

I am extremly angry that you have banned me! I am User:Daniel10's brother, not him! I was enjoying wiki, but now, i don't want to come back. You must unban me, or i will talk to the land, and many other users, against this. Joshuadude II 10:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make threats. And it wasn't me who "banned" you; see [5]. Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) blocked you. Daniel.Bryant 10:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

Wield me! Wield me!
Response from DB: Wait your turn, the cluestick is first :)

Food for you

At the risk of jinxing your still unfinished RFA, I hereby congratulate you on your amazingly (but not surprisingly) successful RFA! Make good use of your new tools! :-) Festive regards, Hús ö nd 02:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll probably be asleep when this closes officially, so I'll congratulate you now. Quite a remarkable job you've done. Newyorkbrad 02:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, I wans't going to agree, because I didn't want to do it before it was offical... but NYBrad's right, I'll be asleep too. So, congrats! Cbrown1023 talk 02:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome back, Daniel! And your RfA looks like it might just scrape through (heh), so good luck with the buttons when you get them :) riana_dzasta 03:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations Daniel! You'll always remember me as Oppose #1 lol. If you ever need any help with the admin tools, let me know and I'll be at your side in a flash. =) Nishkid 64 03:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Daniel.Bryant, it gives me great pleausre to congradulate you in advance for gaining adminship. Altough a decision has not been made yet, with the tally of over 97% support and less than two hours before closing, I'm sure the communtiy will reach a consensus that you are suited for adminship, and that a Bureaucrat will sysop you, despite the one strong oppose. Many sysops did support you, such as Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Glen S, and other administratorss. Never have I seen a canadate with 231 supports in an RfA! I know that the Bureaucrats ultimately decide, and I can't guarantee they will chose to give you the tools, but I bet on it. I don't mean to jump the gun, but I'm proud to help you have the tools to help Wikipedia even more. Wikipedier (talk)--Wikipedier 04:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Nishkid, you know my thoughts on your oppose, as does everyone else who read my blockquote of the email :) Thanks everyone (especially NYB and Husond, who have done so much for me over the last couple of months), welcome back Riana, hello Wikipedier (I believe this is first time I've met you, so *waves*), and I hope that something doesn't go crazily wrong (especially given it was meant to close near-on 20mins ago) :) Cheers, and thanks again, Daniel.Bryant 05:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll make a great difference to Wikipedia, and once again, Congradulations. I was proud to support such a worthy canadate, and now you have the tools. Cheers, right back to you. --Wikipedier 21:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Wikipedier Per your RFA, I have now made you a sysop. Congradulations. Make sure you are familiar with the relavant policies before putting your new buttons to use. Raul654 06:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, those tabs sure look cool :) Cheers Raul, Daniel.Bryant 06:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations on a WP:200-breaking support vote! I look forward to working alongside you! Regards and happy mopping, (aeropagitica) 06:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, congrats on becoming an admin! --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 07:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you - I'm writing up a short note for my userpage in leui of spamming 239 userpages, but I decided to whack some whackable stuff before I did so. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll just pile on with another congrats! --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 09:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yay! <Jorcoga does jig> About time, put the tools to good use. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{09:01, Tuesday, January 30 2007}

Will do :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 09:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Congrats Daniel! I was there in the beginning, both of your time here on the 'pedia and your RFA, so i take all the credit! Just kidding: you'll do an outstanding job. Jpe ob 11:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

PILE-ON!! —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Didn't take long for a deletion of mine to end up on DRV :) [6] Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Drat I am late for the party :p, still congratulations buddy. ~ Arjun 19:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Me tooo!!.... - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 20:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose piling on is OK when it's to congratulate a newly-minted admin ;) | Mr. Darcy talk 21:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See? See? You've earned the trust of the community Dan, and through you actions, eared the right to use Sysop tools. Congratulation's and well done. Dfrg.msc 22:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Mr Bryant. :) Sarah 22:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job, Daniel. I know that you'll do well. Cheers! S .D. ¿п? § 00:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Daniel.Bryant 10:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for blocking 222.155.132.249. I only just noticed that he had vandalized my talk page. It kind of annoys me that he managed to make more than 15 vandalizing edits in less than an hour without getting more than one warning. I wish some people were more on top of warning and reporting vandals, it would save everyone a lot of trouble.--Dycedarg ж 07:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm here for - doesn't look shared, and has been highly active recently, so 31 hours seemed appropriate. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Goodall

Hi Daniel, I just noticed that the AfD on Tom Goodall appears to have been closed but the AfD page has been deleted rather than the article itself. Just thought I'd let you know...... All the best, ChrisTheDude 10:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's kinda embarrasing - I was deleting all three of the "walled garden" football players, and in the process of deleting the articles, I accidentally deleted the AfD for one of them instead :| Thanks so much for that - major screw-up by me :) - and cheers, Daniel.Bryant 10:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't be too embarrassed. A then-newbie admin who shall remain anonymous got his tools and promptly blocked himself! :D Everyone makes noob mistakes and yours was pretty easy to do when you're multi-tasking. By the way, Danny, you have email. :) Sarah 08:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously wasn't you[7] :) I'm responding to your email. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 10:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

I didn't klnow that you didn't bann me. Sorry. Can you asssist me in my fight against being banned?Joshuadude II 13:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No problems. With regard to your plight, I can't help you beyond giving you the advice to discuss it rationally with Khoikhoi. That is your best hope. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 10:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 5	29 January 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation names advisory board, new hires	Court decisions citing Wikipedia proliferate
Microsoft approach to improving articles opens can of worms	WikiWorld comic: "Hyperthymesia"
News and notes: Investigation board deprecated, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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 17:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

I am sorry to say that I failed to notice that you were up for adminship. I was, unfortunately, not able to access a computer when it was first put up, and then subsequently must have missed it when glancing over my watchlist. I would have certainly voted for you had I been aware. However, congratulations, and I hope you do well in the role. michael ^talk 09:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha, no problems; cheers for everything. Thanks again for that picture of Beaumont House, and cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Golf Newsletter

The WikiProject Golf Newsletter
Issue II - February 2007
If you would like to improve our future newsletters, go to our newsletter page.

News

Well, this newsletter is new. I'm still mucking around with the layout, so if someone feels it could be better, go right ahead and change it. The newsletter page is right here.
An article has been selected for a drive to featured status, Jack Nicklaus. The article is currently rated a B, and is currently a Good Article candidate (thanks to The Giant Puffin). A to-do list has been set up in the talk page, see what you can do, or add a new thing to do which you think you could write well.
A shortcut WP:GOLF has been created. Thanks again The Giant Puffin!
Please add to the new list of core articles: Core article list.

New Members

We have had two new members join our project this month. They are:

Updates/New Articles

Expansions:

Royal Birkdale Golf Club

New Articles:

Robert Rock

Click here for a full list.

Featured/Good Articles

No articles have been promoted to Good or Featured status this month.

The To-Do list

Over 1100 golf articles have been tagged with our template {{Wikiproject Golf}}. There is still many more though.
A userbox is requested for golf course articles including location, par etc. This may need to be discussed on the talk page.
Continue expanding and making new golf-related articles.