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.
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
So he can't do it and won't say why? That doesn't seem proper. Am I going to contravene some regulation if I resubmit to RFCU? Thanks. :-) TheQuandry 15:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
The checkuser declined per a technical reason, which for WP:BEANS sake, will not be explained further. Checkusers are under no obligation to explain why they delined - most declines aren't even given an explination at all, but rather "{{declined}}. ~~~~". If you resubmit it, it will be speedy-declined and removed. Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 00:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for letting me know! My primary concern was about a potential edit-war over which template the userpage should be tagged with, which I saw as inconsequential, not with the logistics behind it. :-) Thanks again! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flcelloguy (talk • contribs) 04:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC).Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hope you don't mind me tagging your new bots ;)...I'm keeping an eye on the new user logs so I went ahead and tagged them with the bot tag for you.¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk) 02:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Cheers, I was about to log out and do it myself. Myself and GeorgeMoney (talk·contribs) are going to submit the bots to WP:BRFA when I get back (see my header). The former could actually do with an indefblock, because we'll only be using the latter (no sharing accounts). Cheers, Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 02:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Daniel, thanks for your note on my Checkuser request. As of right now, my request is listed in both sections. You may have copied it and then forgotten to delete the original. In any event, sorry for posting in the wrong place, I should know better. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
No problems - now removed. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 02:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Different RfCU question - where do the new Cplot socks get listed these days? Newyorkbrad 02:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
No prob. Afraid there was no black magic involved on my part though, I did work from the report at WP:AN/I. I was wondering if you had a view on the question I raised there: if an anon user goes through Wiki deleting prod templates, should the correct response be to repost the templates or nominate the articles for AfD? Different editors seem to have taken different approaches- and there is a very valid rationale for each.
Also, could a Bot be created to respond to the deletion of prod templates? The bot could either:
inform the user who posted to prod of the removal,
post a report of the deletion to a list of deleted prod templates for review, or
nominate the article for AfD using reason in the prod as reason for AfD.
Not sure if this is practical but again wonder what you think? WJBscribe(WJBtalk) 03:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I may be able to get someone to script an IRC bot, if possible. That's about the best I can do, sorry... Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 07:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Wikiproject Golf
This is a "newsletter" of sorts. It's designed to let you know whats going on with the WikiProject. Contact me, Grovermj, if there is anything i could improve, or if you would like to write the newsletter yourself, because i'm certainly not skilled and experienced at this. Call it a test run.
Well, it's been a month since the project has started, and 4 new articles have been made by editors in the project. They can be found here.
The template {{Wikiproject Golf}} has been added to a total of 794 articles. We are most probably more than half way there.
Badbilltucker has proposed "Wikipedia Week" starting on the 15th of January. Details can be found here.
This is the monthly newsletter of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. The Hurricane Herald aims to give a summary, both of the activities of the WikiProject and global tropical cyclone activity. If you wish to change how you receive this newsletter, or no longer wish to receive it, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list. The WikiProject has its own IRCchannel.
Tropical cyclone activity
Three tropical cyclones existed in the West Pacific during December. Typhoon Durian (Reming) was the deadliest and strongest of the three, killing over 800 people, in the Philippines and Vietnam and peaking at Category 4 strength. Typhoon Utor lasted formed on December 7 and lasted for 7 days, passing over the Philippines and causing severe floods in Malaysia. The final storm of the year, Tropical Storm Trami, lasted for three days and did not affect land.
The Southern Hemisphere saw a number of storms develop during December. The most significant was Cyclone Bondo, which hit Madagascar on December 23. Cyclone Anita dissipated early in the month, having formed in November and Cyclone Clovis developed on December 30 before reaching its peak in January. All of these storms were in the Southwest Indian Ocean, the only other cyclone was Cyclone Isobel that formed on December 31 to the north of Western Australia.
The PortalPortal:Tropical cyclones is designed as the entry point to the WikiProject's work and is recognised as a Featured Portal. The structure emulates that of Wikipedia's Main page and needs updating in a similar manner. The following are the key sections that need editorial attention:
Selected article: This is one of the articles of the project, rotated on a weekly basis. These are selected from the better-quality articles and discussed at Portal talk:Tropical cyclones/Selected article.
Selected picture: This is chosen from the pictures used in the articles and is rotated monthly. It is selected in a similar manner to the article on Portal talk:Tropical cyclones/Selected picture.
Did you know: This is rotated as new articles are created and contains an interesting fact from a few of the new articles.
Active tropical cyclones: The currently active tropical cyclones are listed here, and are linked to appropriately.
Tropical cyclone news: Recent events in Tropical cyclone activity, such as formation, landfalls and dissipation of storms.
Anniversaries: This significant anniversaries for each day in the last week. Unlike the others it refreshes automatically, but should be updated if a new significant event occurs.
Things you can do: Unlike the other sections which are reader orientated, this is aimed at editors to give suggestions of articles to work on.
Please keep all of these sections up-to-date and refresh them as new tropical cyclones develop and articles are created. Also please keep the suggestions to editors current and fresh.
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I'm Not sure which code to assign, there doesn't appear to be an option per se that fits this situation... I'm guessing maybe 'F' is closest. Thanks, Sfacets 00:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
No, F is not appropriate. Please read m:Checkuser policy, WP:SOCK, and WP:CSD, and then re-evaluate the merits of your check. If you still believe the check is warranted, then prove that one of the code letters listed at WP:RFCU is applicable (using diffs, if required). If you can't, it means your check probably doesn't meet the above three policies/guidelines. Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 00:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hmmm there doesn't seem to be a category for this... do you know where I could take this? On second thoughts, the user hasn't edited for some time, and there isn't too much POV in the article, the question on reliability still remains, but I think I'll let it rest for the moment. Thanks for your help! Sfacets 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
No problems. I have withdrawn it on your behalf. Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 07:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for your contributions to the WikiInterview plan, which will be going ahead as soon as confirmation is received from Wales.
Good luck in your "other committment", and see you around the enclyclopedia. Cheers and regards, Anthonycfc[T • C]01:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Post Script: I have read your header, so don't worry - I'm not looking for a reply.
Don't worry, I'm here, just not as usual at the moment. Please consult with Ral315 about the interview, as I'm not sure he will publish it if it's from Jimmy. Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 01:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Working Man's Barnstar
I award this barnstar to Daniel.Bryant for your help and assistance in getting the WikiProject user warnings to the review phase, and to let you know your work has been appreciated. Khukri(talk . contribs) 22:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Welcome to the architecture wikiproject - here's the bulletin, it's updated on the fly - If you don't like it just delete it from your talk page. Kind regards. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Articles related to architecture over the past two weeks are listed automatically by AlexNewArtBot.
This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.
This template will be updated regularly. If you would rather not receive this bulletin, just delete it from your talk page.
Cheers - for some reason, I find writing about notable Houses etc. appealing, even though I have no real interest outside that in the field of architecture. Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 11:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or want to discuss something with me. Thank you also for your congrats on my talk page, I hope to see and support your RfA soon before you are too involved in cabal matters to have a hope of succeeding!--Nilfanion (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The term "Overseer" was selected by Renata. I can see your problems with the term so I changed it to Coordinator. I am going to replace the heading on the MOTD desk, with some minor changes. Coordinators are there to maintain the pages, and clean up. The Special Veto is just a method of cleaning up. Geo. 21:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thank you so much! By the way, did you get the second one off the net? If so, were there any details on when it was taken? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 06:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
That second photo was taken in 1880. Use pictureaustralia to find images; photos taken before 1955 are out of copyright and may be used at will. Ignore/remove the silly watermarks that you find as copyright legislation overrides whatever the state libraries say. michaeltalk 06:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
It wasn't that - I envoke the 50-year-rule often enough - I just wanted to add a year to the caption :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 06:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I saw that you blocked this user as a sockpupet of a vandal. Do you remember where is the checkuser info about him? I must admit I am quite puzzled, I remember watching him for a while and he really seemed like a genuine new user (and not prone to vandalism). But I can be wrong, it is just a feeling :) (PS: I just saw he is asking to be unblocked) -- lucasbfrtalk 15:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Inline citations are a defacto requirement for FAC, so I find it easier in the long run to set up the citation mechanism from the off and add citations as you go. eg. Igualada cemetery. For complicated articles I also set up the heading structure and add notes at an early stage (an essay plan essentially) before diving into the prose. Knowing what has preceeded a paragraph and what will follow seems to help the article flow better. eg. Expressionist architecture/Structure redesign sandbox. Keep working on the lead as you go. If you add a paragraph, write a quick summary for the lead and then chop it all down later. Some thought (to be taken with large pinches of salt) specifically to Beaumont house, it's not clear whether it's notable for its architecture or because it was built by first Anglican bishop of Adelaide? It's described as romanesque but the inference from the world fair movement quote implies it's much more ecclectic than that - and the photos perhaps confirm this. Since creating the infoboxes, I'm not sure they really add anything to articles and often force a rather unsympathetic look to the layout. There you go, my ha'pennies worth. Take care. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for that. Some really good points that I'll remember for the future. I must say, I do not have any idea about architecture styles, and hence basically go off what the sources tell me. The article is notable mainly for it's historical context to Adelaide and Australia (it's deemed one of only a few "structures of historical importance" by the National Trust of South Australia), and the architecture is more just a side-thing. I'll see what I can come up with; I must say, I am a huge fan of infoboxes as a summary, although I acknowledge some don't like them as much :) Cheers, and thanks, Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 01:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry for taking so long to reply. First, thanks for the apology. I completely understand the reason behind your actions, and carry nothing against you. Second, how'd you do it? Hope our paths cross again in the future. Until then, thanks a lot and happy editing! SD31415(SIGN HERE) 12:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your understanding and forgiveness. How'd I do it? A pinch of cabalism It's just that Jimbo's a genuine nice guy, who likes to help make the community better. I guess I could put it down to this cool little internet feature...and the fact that Jimbo never sleeps; it was ~4:30am EST when he added that message - to quote him when I asked why he was on at 4:30am, "The internet never sleeps. ;-)". Cheers, and best of luck in the future, Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 12:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
By the way, I love your userspace design. SD31415(SIGN HERE) 23:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Cheers - and yours too (I loved Essjay's to start with, and I don't know which compilation actually looks better :D). Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 00:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for the modification to the FU image on my user's page to prevent deletion. I saw the notice yesterday, but hadn't gotten a chance to address it yet -- plus -- I was probably going to change the page in a few days, so wasn't sure I needed to do anything.
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry about that - my first RFCU. By the way, what should I put rather than 'S' for a voluntary? Should that be in the instructions on the WP:RFCU page? AnonEMouse(squeak) 00:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
No problems - I made it N/A, but it doesn't really matter given the circumstances. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 05:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Is this dispute being mediated, or just sitting stale? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ^demon (talk • contribs) 01:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC).Reply
How on earth did that bot beat me? I pressed edit immediately.... ^demon[omg plz]01:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Stale. It has been dead on my watchlist since creation. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 05:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hey Daniel, I trust you had a good Christmas. To say it looks that you've been busy would be an understatement. Well, it's been a while and myself (and I'm sure a great number of other editors) would be willing to nominate you for adminship. However, this is a choice you must make. How do you feel about it? Would you accept? Awaiting you response, Dfrg.msc1 . 2 . Editor Review 06:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not just yet, sorry. I'll notify you when it is. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 06:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Is that sufficient now? —ExplorerCDT 07:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
That's actually fantastic. One suggestion - I noticed you made the first reference for a print reference the full one, then farmed the rest off with "Hillis, op. cit., (page)". What you could do, optionally, is make the first one the same form as the others, given the full print source details are in "Books and printed materials" as well. Just a thought, but kudos either way for a great job referencing, Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 07:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I prefer full citations at the first reference, no matter what the situation. —ExplorerCDT 07:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
OK, each to their own, it doesn't really matter either way to me. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 07:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the barnstar. Surprisingly, for 2.5 years I was never noticed enough to get any accolades, and now I get three in one week. Thanks. I should apologize if I sounded like a prick earlier. I'm not in a good mood out here in Idaho on vacation. I badly want to get back to New York City and I notice I'm snapping at people because of it. —ExplorerCDT 07:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
WP:DELPRO says that non-admin closes may be speedy reverted by admins. Since edit-warring over procedural matters is lame, I would suggest taking them to WP:DRV until you are sysopped. Alternately, you could report clearly erroneous or bad-faith closures to WP:AN/I or your nearest admin for quick attention. Otherwise I wouldn't mess with a closed AfD excpet for clear formatting errors (like a missing {{ab}}) just to avoid the head-ache. Just thoughts from a non-admin. Eluchil404 08:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
That's what I thought - it makes sense that admins can revert non-admin closes, but non-admins can't. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 08:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Portal:Tropical cyclones is designed as the entry point to the WikiProject's work and is recognised as a Featured Portal. The structure emulates that of Wikipedia's Main page and needs updating in a similar manner. The following are the key sections that need editorial attention:
