User talk:Daniel/Archive/30

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.

Contents 1 Talk:Graaalonline 2 Question about a deletion 3 RfA thanks 4 Apologies for lack of clarity 5 Userboxes 6 Nancy Cartwright 7 Unre4L 8 It's nice to be back 9 My RfA 10 FA!!!! 11 Restarting User:Punk Boi 8's block 12 Cricket in Australia 13 Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #11 14 Preload. 15 Science Collaboration of the Month 16 Biased Comment on CheckUser 17 AfD Templates 18 Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007. 19 Nancy Cartwright...again 20 Re:Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar 21 Giza E 22 Re: User statement made on Workshop 23 Apologies 24 Hindutva Propaganda 25 Hindutva deletion 26 MFD 27 You said so 28 OTRS 29 Yes 30 Wow

[edit] Talk:Graaalonline

I just noticed you deleted my article under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Could you point me in the direction of the right forum where I could make my request? Thank you. -Bottlecapninja 12:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You can ask at DRV, but I suggest that you don't. Unless you can provide sources, which you indicate you can't from your message, it probably won't be overturned. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GraalOnline where the community decided that the article should be deleted due to a lack of sources, which was subsequently upheld at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 5 It was then endorsed again at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 14. However, you're more than welcome to try. Daniel Bryant 12:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about a deletion

Why did you close the MfD on User:Chiefsfan364/Pizza two and half days early? There was no clear consensus, so I was quite confused when I came across it. I'm just a bit confused about why you did it. Thanks for your time. Vassyana 08:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Because, every substantiated opinion was to delete, and debates don't have to stay open for the five days. As an administrator, the community has vested in me the ability to apply discretion.

"it is not an article", hence why it's at MfD.

"Only reason, is I find it kinda funny", evident.

"ctive and valued contributor", see After Midnight's comment.

"We have a long history of funny little essays in userspace", the definition of ILIKEIT.

But if you insist...undeleted and reopebed. And given I'll have to abstain in closing it, now it's time to refute all the ILIKEIT's... Daniel Bryant 08:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. And so you know, the swans don't have a chance this year, Collingwood is clearly going to take the flag. (so I'd like to think anyway) Cheers. - Michael Billington (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

/msg Mike42 No, you're wrong, Swans = domination :) Cheers, Daniel Bryant 11:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You're both wrong. I'm just disgusted with you boys. If I'd known about your terrible tastes in football teams, I never would have supported either of you! Do you think it might be too late to withdraw my RFA nomination of Daniel? Sarah 12:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thataway, if you can convince the other 232 people as well :) Daniel Bryant 12:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's one --Michael Billington (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure once I explain that you support an evil team that defected from Melbourne, they would be easy enough to convince. However, to be honest, I'm more troubled by Michael. I mean, Collingwood is just horrific, especially with Eddie McEverywhere running the ship! Sarah 12:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL [1] I like that, very good, Daniel. :D At least my first "block" is for a good cause! Up the mighty Hawks! Sarah 12:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies for lack of clarity

I wanted to say I am sorry if you mistook my post for an attack or complaint. I did not mean to imply that the closure of the deletion debate was improper. I was just honestly a bit confused and wondering why you did it. You are an admin, have over 19k edits, are well-respected and have no legit blocks in your log. That is, you obviously know what you're doing. I just wanted to ask so I would understand why it was done. I was not making an objection. I honestly was just trying to get a better handle on the XFD process and why some cases which do not appear obvious are closed early. Your explanation was quite adequate, as I do understand "votes" on XFD do not add up in a hard tally. Please accept my sincere apologies for any misunderstanding. It was not my intention to second-guess or upset you, but rather to educate myself about process. Vassyana 13:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No problems; my apologies to you for the terse reply. Daniel Bryant 21:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I really should have been more clear in my post. I'm quite aware of the kind of abuse and complaints you guys can face. I know for sure that I've seen far more complaints about deletions than people bothering to use deletion review. Thanks for accepting my apology and understanding. Be well! Vassyana 22:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction on where to learn to make a "userbox". Thanks Jokerst44 18:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The instructions at WP:UBX#Constructing a userbox are the best I can find. Be sure to read the whole page for instructions on what you can and can't do with/have in your userbox. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 21:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy Cartwright

I have had Nancy Cartwright (the voice of Bart Simpson on my watch list for a while now and it seems that there is an anon editor who completely changes all of the information of her over and over for months now. The issue was brought up on the talk page and I thought I would just see if I could get an admin to protect the article from unregistered or newly registered users. --Joebengo 20:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. Daniel Bryant 21:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unre4L

Hi mate, this edit suggests that you suspect Unre4L of being a sockpuppeteer. Could you please tell me which accounts you suspect? At the moment I've been following socks of many trolls in the India/Hindu vs. Pakistan/Muslim Saga. Thanks Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, shit, I accidentally copied the boilerplate message from User:Hkelkar and forgot to remove the sockpuppeteer template! Thanks for the message. I'm currently going through Category:Banned Wikipedia users and cleaning up the userpages/adding more information, per WP:LOBU, but it looks like I better go back and check that I didn't accidentally add any other templates without intending to do so. Cheers, and thanks for that, Daniel Bryant 07:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's nice to be back

Hi Daniel. Thanks for the welcome back! I don't know how much I'll be around for the next couple of months -- I've got some rather important exams coming up -- but it's certainly nice to be back editing and to be around friends. See you around! Best wishes, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back, again, and good luck with the MedCom case :) Daniel Bryant 22:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA.--Anthony.bradbury 10:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA!!!!

PILE-ON!!!! —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 22:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I should have known... :) Daniel Bryant 22:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, thanks for your thanks! It was a pleasure helping out. It was weird, I saw CCM disapear from the candidates list and seeing as it wasn't promoted by Raul I was busy searching for what happened to the nomination, then you posted on my talk as I was doing that. Co-incedences... Cheers, HornetMike 01:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I was slightly confused as well, I must say. Ah well, result is the same :) Cheers, Daniel Bryant 01:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on the Central Coast Mariners FAC! Top Effort. Todd661 08:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm thinking a future project that could very well be very interesting is Newcastle and Central Coast railway line, New South Wales. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations and well done! I'm looking forward to seeing any future work you do. Cheers, darkliight^[πalk] 09:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Great work. Let me know if you work another another football article. The Rambling Man 09:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Will do, thanks - I've got an interesting one in mind :) Cheers, Daniel Bryant 07:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restarting User:Punk Boi 8's block

Hi Daniel, Just noticed that you protected Nathans' talk page, and was wondering if it was appropriate to restart the 1 year ban (I believe this is policy with Community Bans), in the end it's up to you but just thought I might as well ask. --NigelJ ^talk 09:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing he didn't know it wasn't allowed, so that'd be a little harsh. If he starts using sockpuppets - and trust me, we'll know - I'll reset it then (and probably extend it by a month each time). Thanks for the note, and cheers, Daniel Bryant 11:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm happy with assuming good faith, I personally wasn't actually sure if he was allowed to or not until I sought clarification so no problem. --NigelJ ^talk 11:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have an e-mail from him asking about the situation which I am going to answer and explain that he needs to spend some time on other activities now. He's frustrating but means well I think, but he obviously needs to spend some time away from Wiki. Please give me a little time to see if I can make some progress. Although, if you've protected his page there's not much damage he could do anyway. Newyorkbrad 12:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Returned with sockpuppets, Punkyboi80 and KalehOuse_404. Cyberjunkie reset the ban accordingly. On a pleasanter note, congratulations on the FA! :) – Riana ^ऋ 15:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Another one just got blocked. Only a matter of time until we contact his ISP I suppose. Sheesh. – Chacor 16:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A couple of responses, sorry for the delay:-

Brad: I agree that I also thought he meant well, until he made these edits. Once more, and he'll have to answer up to his ISP. I'm not putting up with his shit any more; just because he's an immature little kid with what appears to be only half a brain, doesn't mean he can continue his disruptive editing.

Riana: Yeah, I saw; updated his userpage accordingly. Thanks for the congrats, as well.

Chacor: Yep, most certainly. See my comment to Brad.

Thanks for monitoring the situation, everyone. From now on, every time he sockpuppets, I'm going to reset the ban and add a month, to the point when I send an ISP report (ie. basically he has about two more chances to leave). After that, it's Checkuser IP blocking and ISP reporting time, as well as a formal indefinite ban. Thanks again, and cheers, Daniel Bryant 07:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Have to say, I didn't know words like that when I was 11 (allegedly) ^^ – Riana ^ऋ 08:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's what shocked me. By the way, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check#Punk Boi 8 (for those of you playing along at home) :) Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to add User:Nathannoblet to that list, or is that too old to check out? – Riana ^ऋ 08:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

He changed that username (technically) via WP:CHU; currently, I believe, there is no account in that name. I don't believe that there would be any data saved for that username given this, and it'd probably be too old anyways. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, can't say I'm all that surprised by any of this. I might be the only one, but I haven't believed he was acting in good faith for quite sometime now. He's just been toying with us and using us as playthings in his little games. He's obviously blaming it all on me and he needs to wake up and realise that I was simply the admin who pressed the button. The ban and it's length were decided on by the community, not me. And he's had heaps more opportunities and second chances than most people get. If he thinks calling me a "lesbian" is an insult, well, LOL. But he should be very careful where he goes from here because we know his gradfather's name and he gave out so much personal information about himself (full name, personal photo of himself which can easily be restored and used to prove identity, age, location, school, etc) that it wouldn't be difficult to contact his parents directly. As well, we have his ISP details (Telstra 58.166.36.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) and as Chacor (I think) noted above, we can file an abuse report. Sarah 09:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Also Danny, a PS, would you mind if I stole your OTRS team userbox? Cheers, Sarah 10:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, regarding the information, I think it's now when we go to email, especially when discussing in any detail deleted edits of private information that is now-retracted (still, his fault for adding it in the first place). Although, if we were to lodge an ISP complaint, better coming from you than me - Telstra seem to hate me :) Reagrding the userbox, of course - anything you like! What's yours is yours and what's mine is yours also :) Cheers, Daniel Bryant 11:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks Daniel. That sounds like excellent terms for a divorce settlement! ;) Don't worry, I wouldn't mention on-site any of the deleted personal information. It was just a reminder to Nathan. Cheers, Sarah 11:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you all for taking on a great deal of my (past) wiki-stresses. I've noticed my wrinkles and grey hair disappearing of late - and now I know why :) -- Longhair\^talk 11:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Last week, I pulled the first grey hair out of the top of my head, Mr Longhair. I think I shall have to leave dealing with these nuts to the young 'uns if they do result in premature ageing. :) Sarah 11:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've gotta admit. Punk Boi gave me my first taste of acting like a bull in a china shop on-wiki. Never before, and hopefully never again! I've only just caught up on latest happenings, and I'm glad it's (somewhat) over. I said it once, and I'll say it again, we're here to build an encyclopedia, not play parent to somebody elses children. -- Longhair\^talk 11:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Related topic: Somebody may want to look into User:Squrtle11 via a checkuser also. I may be wrong, but this user I understand is around the same age as Noblet, and edits similar articles. -- Longhair\^talk 11:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The IP-check CheckUser should flush any other accounts of his out... – Chacor 11:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dan and all, please see the community sanction board where I have proposed making Nathan's ban a permanent indefinite one. Also, it is probably time to seriously start considering contacting his ISP, if he doesn't stop (a new sock was just blocked about three hours ago I believe). – Chacor 02:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, a couple of responses, and sorry again for the delay:-

Regarding next point of contact: I'm starting to think that, given the breast cancer and lesbian comment, that this is more an issue for his parents and not his ISP. I've got his contact details (via deleted revisions and some Mr. Detective work), but I'm holding off per the current issue which has been brought up at CN regarding whether these are socks or unrelated trolls (see below).

Oh, noes, not the stress!: This reminds me of the good ol' days when Sarah and I fought now-banned Neutralizer. Ah, the days *stares dreamily out window, reminiscing*

Squrtle11: Watching like a hawk. However, in response to Chacor, as the results of the IP check were to block OP's, they might not be flushed out because he may be using a different OP.

Community noticeboard thread: See my response there, asking for further input from Jpgordon. The claims from GD do raise an interesting point, and one we can't dismiss all that readily (without proper investigation).

Cheers to all, Daniel Bryant 08:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked Squrtle11, obvious sock, administrators see Special:Undelete/Talk:Avril Bandaids (and the history of the main article page, which is also deleted). Ban reset, again. Daniel Bryant 09:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cricket in Australia

Hi. Cricket in Australia is the new Australian collaboration. Please help to improve it in any way you can. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, cool. Thanks Scott for the note, and cheers, Daniel Bryant 07:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #11

[edit] Preload.

for Wikipedia:OTRS/ReviewPreload. -- Jeandré, 2007-04-01t19:38z

No problems :) Daniel Bryant 07:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science Collaboration of the Month

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Month, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is Carbon. You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name!

NCurse _work 19:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biased Comment on CheckUser

Hi, I am wondering if this comment is biased? This is a new clerk who made the comment. Real96 21:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm no longer related to the RFCU clerks circuit (except for being good friends with a couple of the checkusers and the clerks). I suggest you solicit further input and try to reach a consensus as to whether it's "biased" or even "problematic" at WP:RFCU/C/N. Sorry that I can't be of more assistance, and cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Templates

Thanks for catching this formatting error. I was wondering why the pages were not disappearing from the count-down listing at WP:AFD. (your contribution to my talk page) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No probs. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 14	2 April 2007	About the Signpost

Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable"	Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention
Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion	Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction
WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll
Wikipedia in the news	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 04:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy Cartwright...again

Well thank you for placing the block on the Nancy Cartwright page but it seems that only a day after the block was lifted that same anon editor changed ALL the info on the page, diff. I don't think blocking that user indefinitly would even work because this same thing happens from other IP addresses, maybe a longer block on the article would just deter the vandal from doing it again. You probably would know the best thing to do, and thank you for all your help.--Joebengo 17:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Round two, they did it again, diff, they just won't give up.--Joebengo 20:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Y Done, semi-protected for three months. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 21:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Hopefully this doesn't happen again.--Joebengo 21:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No problems. Daniel Bryant 02:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar

I relisted the case of course, thanks for filling the gaps. Note that you could have added the case to pending again, clerk job is only procedural, we don't make judgments on cases :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 02:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giza E

Hello Daniel. As you blocked User:Giza D, perhaps you would be interested in User:Giza E who has started editing on the same articles?-- Zleitzen^(talk) 03:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Giza D because Checkuser confirmed that it was a sockpuppet being used abusively. Although there is a solid chance (looking at the contributions) that this is the same person, there appears to be a large dispute about the checkuser findings last time (see D's user talk), and hence I'd much rather see a SSP discussion first before blocking; or, even better, RFCU confirmation. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 03:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: Luna Santin, who blocked the original MagicKirin account based on behaviour and not on sockpuppetry, maybe be a better administrator to ask. My blocking was purely procedural on the grounds of the confirmed checkuser result, so I have less knowledge than Luna would. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 05:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked anyways by someone else; Y Done. Daniel Bryant 05:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User statement made on Workshop

Actually, I think that particular comment is going to be more useful than most of the stuff there (if not, perhaps, in the way its author intended). Kirill Lokshin 05:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I know what you mean *nod*, and I suspect you are referring to proposed remedy 3 :) Cheers, and thanks for the note, Daniel Bryant 05:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

Sorry, didn't know, I saw them on the Adelaide United page and decided to add them to the Melbourne Victory page. Didn't know about the copyright infringement. Once again, my apologies Mikhael04 05:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No problems. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 05:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hindutva Propaganda

I'm confused about how you made your decision to delete the article. According to my accounting, there were 20 votes to "delete," 16 to "keep," and there were 3 "keeps" from the first version of the AfD (i.e. editors who didn't re-cast their votes in this version); in addition, there was one "delete or major rewrite" and one "leaning towards merge." How does that translate into a "rough consensus?" (There were 4 admins who votes to delete and 3 to keep). To, me that doesn't sound like any kind of consensus; it's not even much of a threadbare majority. If you had closed the vote a few days ago, you could have come up with the opposite result. And how did you deduce that the article is NPOV etc. I agree that the article needs work, but it has barely been given a chance, with AfDs breathing down its neck from the moment of conception (26 March). I recently added references to the article, all from internationally recognized journals. Last year, an entire special issue of the journal Social Epistemology was devoted to the subject of the article. In addition, two books about the subject of the article were published by Routledge (and internationally recognized academic publisher) in the last two years. (My last post, at the very end of the AfD, gives a flavor of the noteworthiness of the subject.)

I'm afraid I don't know what rules you were following and what your own compulsions were in deciding NPOV and OR, but I am very perplexed and disappointed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't equal vote-counting, and I have interpreted the debate as delete. If you wish to contest this, please take it to DRV; this talk page will not be entertaining any more discussion on the matter. I won't be arguing about the close, but if you want me to restore the references, or similar tasks, I can. Daniel Bryant 12:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

PS How do I recover the text of the article, especially the references I had added? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fowler&fowler (talk • contribs)

Daniel has (I think) replied to this. Check his archives and the history of this page. Martinp23 13:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I had already got it, and replied; I've dearchived it for now. I can give you the references, but not the text, I'm afraid; WP:CSD#G4 leaves me in a stickly situation. However, giving you the references and external links seems like a fair request. Where would you like me to copy them to; will User:Fowler&fowler/HP References do? Cheers, Daniel Bryant 13:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that will be great. I think the references I had added were in the "Literature" section. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done; gave you the Literature, See also and External links sections, as well as a couple of other references from the text - see my note. Hope that satisfies your request. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 13:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Daniel, for the references and also for your post on my talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No problems, and all the best :) Cheers, Daniel Bryant 13:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hindutva deletion

I happen to consider your deletion far beyond anything arguable under deletion policy. You have deleted a well referenced article based on a blatantly bad faith AfD, where half of the "delete" votes were from pov-pushing accounts, and even counting those no "consensus" to delete was in sight. If we deleted articles because religionists campaign against them, you should be off and delete the Muhammad cartoons article this instant. Your alleged

much stronger argument in this debate, based on official policy.

is appalling. Since when do we delete articles because of alleged NPOV concerns? Your judgement that The responses to the delete comments based on NPOV and OR were less than satisfactory is beyond me. All "pov" in the article was closely referenced to academic publications (Routledge, Rutgers, peer-reviewed journals, not blogs). So the article reported on opinions. Since when is that a problem? Would you say the same of Criticism of Islam etc. because it is inherently about a certain pov and you "cannot see these concerns being fixed anytime soon"? I know you acted in good faith. But you made a big mistake. You deleted a fully referenced article on a controversial political topic. I will take this to DRV and RfC of course, quite apart from re-introducing the deleted material into existing articles, but you could save me the trouble by going back and undeleting. This is a disheartening precedent of Wikipedia caving in under the sustained Hindutva attack, and I care enough about the project's immunity from ideological subversion to take your decision all the way to arbcom if necessary. regards, dab (𒁳) 17:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't equal vote-counting, and I have interpreted the debate as delete. If you wish to contest this, please take it to DRV; this talk page will not be entertaining any more discussion on the matter. Daniel Bryant 21:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MFD

I have listed this Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Geo.plrd 3/Daniel.Bryant's notes project page at MFD. Please come by and offer comments if you like. Regards, Navou ^banter / _contribs 17:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done; thanks for the notification. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 21:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have ended the MFD with rationale. It was not my intent to hide Geo's actions, or change the context of your oppose vote. After futher consideration of the context, I have closed this MFD as keep, and withdrawn. I hope you can forgive my obtuseness regarding that page. Navou ^banter / _contribs 06:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No need for apologising - there was nothing wrong with your actions, in my eyes. Thanks for withdrawing, though, and cheers, Daniel Bryant 00:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You said so

Your a man of your word. found this in your archive from when i gave you your barnstar for good article status.

Thank you very much - that article will be a FA by the end of the 2006-07 season, even if I have to totally rewrite it again to make it so :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well done mate on your Central Coast Mariners work and becoming an admin :) Boltonfan22 11:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, and thanks! Your hard work in improving the article was crucial also. Cheers, and thanks for all your help :), Daniel Bryant 00:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OTRS

What would it take for me to become a member of the OTRS team?? --SunStar Net ^talk 13:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You can sign up at m:OTRS/volunteering. Please read all the documentation in subpages of m:OTRS before adding your name to the list, and also make a judgement call on whether you believe you have the trust of the community (as that's what the OTRS admins have to do, before giving you access). Cheers, Daniel Bryant 00:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yes

Yes. You deserve it. --Bhadani (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... Daniel Bryant 00:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

I am utterly shocked by your recent deletion of Hindutva Propaganda. I enjoy nothing more than a deletion that isn't a lazy 'no consensus' result if that deletion were actually based on the merits of the case. Your deletion reason is disrespectful in that it makes a statement that a particular side is far 'better argued' without going further into which aspects of these arguments you considered moving. A vague appeal to policy is, of course, even more pointless. You seem to think that DRV is an acceptable response. Some of us dislike going to DRV and having to sit through another five days of wrangling, what is not what this project is supposed to be about. If you were responsible enough to actually exert yourself to indicate your thinking, then one might actually consider whether DRV is worthwhile or not. Since you don't, I am afraid that your decision to close is as intellectually lazy as the average no-consensus keep. And further, your unwillingness to engage, and your unquestioning acceptance of a 'rough consensus' without considering the source of that consensus, calls into question your ability to intervene in controversial subjects. If you wish to recover some ground here, I urge you to spell out your reasoning on this page, and then we can put this behind us, if possible. Hornplease 19:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

After a comment like that ("If you were responsible enough to actually exert yourself to indicate your thinking", "I am afraid that your decision to close is as intellectually lazy as the average no-consensus keep", "your unwillingness to engage, and your unquestioning acceptance of a 'rough consensus' without considering the source of that consensus, calls into question your ability to intervene in controversial subjects"), you can't honestly expect me to take your comment and even give it the slightest consideration, can you? As I have said before, if you wish to contest this, please take it to DRV; this talk page will not be entertaining any more discussion on the matter. If you don't want to take it to DRV, then my close stands. Pretty simple, really. Daniel Bryant 00:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)