User talk:Daniel/Archive/50

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.

Do you mind...?

If I take the design from your old userspace which had a box (bottom right, I believe it was) with policy, guideline and essay links? The quotes just aren't doing it for me. Qst 13:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure - see your email (the latest one). Reply and I'll forward the deleted contents to you. Daniel 06:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, with all due respect, I took your former userpage design — its not the end of the world. I think your requests for me to credit you before AGK is outrageous, and you sending me several links about GFDL. It is a userpage design, hence forth - I refuse to change the order of my credits to make you go first, they are alphabetical. Qst 21:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand QST the problem here. If Daniel wants to be credited first, then credit him first. I'm sure AGK won't mind. It's not the end of the world, and it certainly won't effect your page in anyway. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Then my response is no, you may not have deleted parts of my userspace. Daniel 02:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Invite to discuss goals for WP:Golf

You are invited. Go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf#Goals. michfan2123 15:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

See above :) Daniel 06:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Another RfA Spaming

Thank you for constructive criticism in my recent RFA which did not pass at (18/27/10). I will be sure to improve my editing skills and wait until someone nominates me next time. Thank you for you comments! Tiptoety 00:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wording at RFA

No problem, I just like to see that everyone play nice and I don't want NHRHS2010 get discouraged. Although I don't think he will, seeing that he's logged a lot of edits. As a side note, I agree that his timing of that edit was poorly chosen, regardless of his intentions. Useight 02:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I opposed because of judgement and discretion issues and a perception of immaturity, and he started feeding me edits throughout... Daniel 03:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

OhanaUnited's RfA

Thanks for voting at my RfA. Unfortunately, the result stands at 51 support, 21 oppose and 7 neutral which means that I did not succeed. As many expressed their appreciation of my works in featured portals during my RfA, I will fill up the vacuum position of director in featured portal candidates to maintain the standards of featured contents in addition to my active role in Good articles. Have a great day. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

According to Andre's message yesterday, he is very busy with his education at the present. Do you wish for me to ask another member to be reassigned the case in his absence? (I have already emailed our private mailing list asking for a potential reassignment, if this is what you want.) Daniel 06:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Daniel,

The other mediatee has expressed the desire to go to arbitration - I'm willing to continue trying mediation or pursue arbitration depending on what the other mediatee wants to do - do you think applying for arbitration would be a viable step to take?

--Skyelarke 22:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to provide advice about whether arbitration would be a viable step. What I can say is that if the other user wants to end mediation and take it to arbitration, then that's what will happen (because arbitration cannot take place with mediation, and mediation involves everyone to be taking part); if it does go to arbitration, remember that it only deals with conduct disputes, and they will utterly refuse to look at content at all.

If you could get back to me with what the other party wishes to do, I'll take it from there - I'm fine either way (reassigning a mediator or closing and transferring to arbitration). Cheers, Daniel 04:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Notification

[1]. :) Acalamari 04:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Daniel 04:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Acalamari 04:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Here

Another key point is the lobbying effort of Randall Hagar of the California Psychiatric Association (CPA). Hagar had been a lobbyist for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, where he had been censored for numerous issues, issues including accepting a donation of over $500.000.00 from a pharmaceutical company. Hagar's family had been concerned about violent video games for decades, dating back to the Death Race 2000 issue of the late 1970's. Hagar's concern could be seen to be more self-centered than actual concern for the state, as his younger brother had been convicted for burglarizing a Reno pharmacy in 1980. The younger Hagar was sentenced to attend a drug rehab in Washington State, thus bringing external and out-of-state influences into the Hagar family's decision-making process.

You're so interested in protecting Hagar's input in California legislation, why don't you get really involved and find out where he's lying at. Deleting what you don't like doesn't change the truth. "Biographies of Living Persons?" Don't worry about it, biographies of zombies don't count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.161.230 (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, rather I'm only interested in removing contentious unsourced (or poorly-sourced, even) material that you persist in readding despite me informing you of the policies WP:V and WP:BLP. I actually have absolutely no interest in the topic. Good day to you. Daniel 13:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Some thankyou spam

Thankyou for supporting my successful rfa which closed with 58 supports. If i am honest i am rather humbled by the unanimous support and i hope to live up to everyones expectations. If you ever need any help, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks again. Woodym555 13:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Name

Hey, s'ok man, you're just doin' your job. If you got any more questions, go right ahead and ask =) Cheers, eh? Vampire Warrior 14:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have one question, or rather request: please fix your signature. The developers added a 255-character limit (see here) for a reason - signatures shouldn't be any longer than that. You are obviously substituting from a template or similar, which is fine provided it complies with the general length rules, but your signature is 813 characters, which is ridiculous. Daniel 14:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I'll fix it, errr right away....hmm..s'gotta be an easier way to do this....oh well =P Sorry for any inconvenience it may have caused! Vampire Warrior 14:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

California Law

No, good day to you, sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.161.230 (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Open Tasks

In answer to your comment, I was thinking of Template:ArbComOpenTasks. You do realise that almost every change I make to that box, you revert? I appreciate that you mightn't agree on what change I make, but I would appreciate some discussion rather than a generic Undo. Anthøny 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss it with me first before changing the aesthetics, because it's like it for a reason. Daniel 22:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Re: Question about a permanently blocked user who is still active as an IP

I am sure you are very familiar with the SEGA saga. SEGA was permanently banned (See Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive6#Community_ban_on_User:SEGA ). But I've noticed 2 of his usual IPs (that were only blocked for 6 months) are now active again. (See 67.33.61.18 (talk · contribs) and 68.112.18.13 (talk · contribs) ). Take note of this edit. Immediately after being tagged... the user blanked their page and then vandalised the talk page of the user who tagged them. My question is... since SEGA is perma-banned.... shouldn't all his usual IP haunts be banned as well? Just wondering. Thanks for your help. Have a nice day! 156.34.142.110 18:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

They should be, but I don't have access to my cluehammer at the moment. Can I suggest you post at ANI and ask someone to reinstate the checkuser block placed by Essjay? Cheers, Daniel 06:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I did as you suggested and posted this concern at WP:ANI. But it was ignored and deleted from the page yesterday. SEGA created a new user account and began editing a slew of Iron Maiden related articles. I rv'd him and called him out on his sockpuppetry. He tried to plead his case on my talk page claiming he was an entirely different editor (one that's been dormant for a few months) In the end though he goofed up and accidantly put a reply on my talk page using his 67.X IP instead of his new sock account. It was actually quite funny at the time. But... in the end... this is still SEGA... he's permanently banned fromWikipedia... and he's editing using multiple IPs and creating new sock user accounts in spite of his block. After his goof the other night I expect he has been busy creating many new accounts while he still can. I can predict we'll be seeing copyvio images being uploaded into any/all Phish related article for the next three months. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks 156.34.142.110 23:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that I have access again, I've blocked both IP's for six months per previous checkuser evidence and some pretty blatant contributions-based connection as well :) Cheers, Daniel 23:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Is there any sort of official request/procedure for snooping into whatever new accounts he may have created recently... from those 2 IPs??? A sort of add-on to his already lengthy checkuser case? Again thanks! 156.34.142.110 23:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, because checkusers aren't inclined to go fishing. If you spot any suspicious activity on accounts which look like it's SEGA, that's when we can pounce :) Cheers, Daniel 23:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh.. I am very good at doing that. If I can spot 'em... can I come directly to you about it? Being a staunch IP... I sometimes find that ANI reports from anons tend to get passed over... unfortunately. its why I rarely use it I have an excellent raport with quite a few admins who are familiar with "156.34" edits. I find I get a lot quicker action when I alert my wiki-admin-acquaintances directly after I spot anything nasty or damaging. I can spot SEGA from a mile away. I can tag 'em... but I need someone to "bag 'em". While we're on the topic... I;ve been very curious about the recent activities of KevinPharmers (talk · contribs). I wouldn't bet the farm on it... but I would certainly bet a prized cow or 2 that he is not who he says he his. I will be watching him for a while to see if he slips into someone else's "habits". Take care and again.. thank for your help. 156.34.142.110 23:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Very much so - I am familiar with SEGA, so that should be no problem at all :) Cheers, Daniel 23:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent thanks! In the perfect "Wiki-world"... you wouldn't have to hear from me on the topic ever again. But this is Wiki... and SEGA has proven he won't give in. So... until we meet again... Good evening! 156.34.142.110 23:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Morning :) Daniel 23:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhh :D . I was just in Sydney 3 weeks ago actually. It was just a one day stop-over after spending 8 days in NZ. I still haven't completely adjusted back to my own hemisphere/timezone yet. I have to travel to your homeland at least once a year for work purposes. It is beautiful... but I wish I could snap my fingers and just be there though.... 36 hours of airports and airplanes from here to there is a long f'**in time to spend trapped in an aluminum tube :D. Cheers! 156.34.142.110 00:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Query

You recently declined to semi-protect Joseph Priestley, writing that reversion and perhaps blocking were in order. I do quite a bit of content editing, but the pages I work on don't usually get vandalized, so I am unfamiliar with the whole process. I was under the impression, however, that blocking was for individual IP users while semi-protection was to protect a page when multiple IP vandals were attacking it. Joseph Priestley has been vandalized over the past few days by more than one IP - am I supposed to request blocks for all of them? Thanks for your advice on this matter. Awadewit | talk 23:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, the vandalism is at a level where it's manageable (one IP per day), which generally is considered not enough to justify protection. If that was three or four different IP's per day then it's a totally different kettle of fish :) Regardless, it seem Blnguyen has protected the article anyways, so I figure this is resolved. Cheers, Daniel 23:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I see. I thought the article being at FAC might change things a bit, but I guess not. Thanks, anyway. Awadewit | talk 23:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

re: Email

I have recived the E-mail and changed the account password as you reqested while noting this on its userpage. Thank you for your help in this matter. Cheers! -Icewedge 02:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No problems. Daniel 02:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

commons:User:Daniel

Hey mate, is this you? Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that's de:Benutzer:Daniel. I'm commons:User:Daniel.Bryant until single user login comes into effect. The confusion was that I was using a copy of my English Wikipedia siganture, which I have now fixed. Daniel 08:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

*steals your IP* Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

*resets router, now has new IP* Daniel 08:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

*cancels reset of router, thus taking you back to your old IP* *blocks your MSN* *lolz* Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFA

Daniel, the user answered the questions at the same minute as I reverted the transclusing of his RfA from WP:RFA, I the left it as his discretion to decide whether or not to readd it, given I had left him some friendly comments about RfA and what the community expects, I left it to be his decision. Qst 14:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

He added his nomination and was in the process of answering the questions, and you reverted it off within six minutes? Seriously... Daniel 14:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I quote from WP:RF, "Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you wish to nominate a user, contact them first before making the nomination page. If they accept, create the nomination and ask them to sign their acceptance. To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow the instructions on this page. The nomination may be considered "malformed" and removed if you do not follow these instructions". Adding a nomination, without a description, acceptance or any questions answered would be reverted, I know it was rather hasty, but questions should be answered first, then the questions answered etc... Qst 14:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Given you tactlessly removed it off with the edit summary "please answer the questions and write an introduction about yourself before transcluding", it only makes sense to readd it once it's been done. And process-wonkerly like that doesn't reflect well on you at all - why not wait a little while longer, because in effect it makes no difference which order it's done in to the final result). Daniel 14:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

True, but I intentionally left it for him to decide whether to readd it, if he had changed his mind and decided not to run, it would have looked rather foolish to readd it. Qst 14:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Does answering the questions and pursuing the matter of your unneeded revert through discussion on your talk page, both pre- and post-revert, suggest that is the case? No. Daniel 14:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, we could sit here all afternoon (or night for you) and argue with each other, and it won't get use anywhere, hence forth — we should leave this, and agree to disagree. Qst 15:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, because you're in the wrong here, and you're already walking a tightrope as it is. Daniel 15:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I don't need reminding, thank you. I'm not saying I was or was not in the wrong, I'm saying that this discussion should be archived as no good is going to come out of this. Qst 15:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I can think of something good that could come out of it - you promising never to do this or similar again. If you stop acting inappropriately the terms of your unbanning won't be brought up; simple. Daniel 15:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The terms of my unbanning were never brought up, Daniel. It was a mistake, I think you'll find you make them as well. Qst 15:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Less than you do, it seems - I haven't created sockpuppets to vandalise and then launched tirades of personal attacks after being blocked. Daniel 15:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

You seem to be online at the moment. Can you update DYK?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll be able to do so in about 10mins. Cheers, Daniel 15:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, I hope :) Daniel 15:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You are quite expert with the template. I usually get separate templates for a multi-DYK. I am still going to count it 3 times.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've had a couple of multi-bolded hooks before, so I learnt from experience :) Daniel 15:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

re:my RFA

Hi Daniel, I just wondered if there is a question I can answer or some explanation I can give to help you decide between neutral and oppose. happy editing, VanTucky ^Talk 20:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral'll do :) Daniel 02:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

mediation needed

I'm not entirely sure what to do. A very long debate has sprung up here Talk:Dragon_Ball_Z, and so far all attempts to resolve matters have utterly failed.

A short synopsis is that one user has taken it upon himself to remove all information that he considers to be "unsourced". However, there is no reason behind it. There was no discussion about this being necessary, no one even talked about it before he started wiping out large sections of multiple articles. He just posted a message one day stating that if people didn't add sources he'd delete everything without a reference. Even though he has stated that to NOT be his intent, removing almost all information without a ref tag is the net result of his actions.

He regulary describes his actions as enforcing wikipedia policy. But he seems to think that guidelines and essays are trumped by policy and doesn't understand that they exist to explain how to implement policy. He has also refused to listen to anyone who disagrees, and regulary treats other editors with disdain. And refuses to let other editors change things back without adding a specific reference for every tiny change

What is the best thing to do here?--Marhawkman 11:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee and requests for mediation is the second-last step in the dispute resolution chain on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Resolving disputes lists the various types of dispute resolution available. They include:-

• Discussion on the article talk page, and attempt negotiation
• Solicit third party input:-
  • Requests for comment (on articles)
  • Third opinion
  • Surveys
• Mediation Cabal (informal mediation)

It is generally expected that at least one of the third party input options has been attempted, and informal mediation has been tried, before a request for mediation will be accepted. Discussion on the talk page, whilst required for any form of dispute resolution to be considered, does not fufill the requirement of 'prior dispute resolution'.

In this dispute, I could see an RfC which recieved very little feedback, and a lot of discussion. At this stage, please try and resolve your dispute using informal mediation, from the Mediation Cabal.

Cheers, Daniel 11:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I added it to the Cabal's talk page. I considered this before, but didn't think it'd actually help. But hey I could be wrong. Thanks.--Marhawkman 12:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please attempt all dispute resolution with an open mind and with the goal to reach a successful conclusion. Otherwise, it'll never work :) Daniel 12:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: ArbCom email

Unfortunately, the Special:Emailuser interface is pretty limited. In many cases, what we receive are forwarded email chains; forcing people to copy those into emailuser wouldn't be very effective, in my opinion. Kirill 17:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, fair point, didn't think of when people need to forward things. Cheers, Daniel 17:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

If you could get back to me with what the other party wishes to do, I'll take it from there - I'm fine either way (reassigning a mediator or closing and transferring to arbitration). Cheers, Daniel 04:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The other party has expressed a clear preference for arbitration, and I'm prepared to tackle the case from a conduct perspective hence, this to request closing mediation and transferring to arbitration. There is one thing though, the other party is currently involved in a different arbitration case which recently opened and wishes to wait a couple of weeks before continuing with this one.

Cheers,

--Skyelarke 00:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have closed the case. The Mediation Committee won't be filing the request for arbitration, and because the other party initiated it, they probably will - hence, you can take as long as you like/need :) Cheers, Daniel 01:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for letting me know the rules of EfAs. Again, thanks. Best, --Gp75motorsports 02:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

Hi Daniel. I'm just curious, are you going to run for the arbitration committee elections?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 05:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Daniel 05:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFAR/OT

Wouldn't T:AC be easier? Picaroon (t) 06:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably - I'm just so used to WP:RFM/OT that it was my natural choice :) *changes* Daniel 06:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

:) Daniel 06:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

T:M? Picaroon (t) 21:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Aburesz

Hi. I just wanted to note that the {{sockpuppeteer}} tag was added to his user page automatically when I did the submission through Twinkle. It wasn't something I did on my own to be discourteous. If that isn't what it should do, the Twinkle code should probably be updated :) Collectonian 08:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet tags are useful once a user is indefinitely blocked for being too problematic (User talk:Daniel/Archive/Tagging Sockpuppets). Until that stage, they are merely a source of ill-will and discourtesy onto the user who has the top of their own personal userpage plastered with a reminder of the fact. If it happens automatically with Twinkle, then you are not at fault, and as you suggest it may be something to look into changing with the code. Daniel 08:35, 12 November 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 12:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mediation

'OK, I have closed the case. The Mediation Committee won't be filing the request for arbitration, and because the other party initiated this series of events, they probably will - hence, you can take as long as you like/need :) Cheers, Daniel 01:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)'

Thanky kindly!

Cheers,

--Skyelarke 13:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No problems. Daniel 13:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again

I've copied this message over from Picaroon's page. The discussion on the Mao: The Unknown Story article died down after some issues were resolved, but the matter of the external link wasn't resolved. Giovanni then went away for about a week, so, given he didn't answer any of my points (or indeed any of Folic Acid's in a proper fashion), I removed the link. He then came back just to say "I'm sort of on wikibreak" so it would take him time to get back to me. Yet he conveniently came back to revert the page in a matter of hours.

I feel Giovanni is trying to avoid the matter because he has a revert advantage and hopes that I'll get bored - or he just doesn't care because he can keep the link in by reverting me once a week. What can I do? He's shown that he won't back down in discussion over this particular link despite the fact the points I raised were pretty conclusive, mediation didn't work and arbitration doesn't resolve content disputes. So what is there left to do? I even left a message on the book/literature project but no one seems interested. Please leave your response on my talk page. John Smith's 23:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A surprise

So does Spebi know about his RfA, or are you just going to spring it on him? :P GlassCobra 04:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

He knows - we've been in touch. Please add anything you like to the nomination :) Daniel 04:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I can add much more than the great nom he's got from you, but you can be sure of my support! GlassCobra 04:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)