User talk:Daniel/Archive/64

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.

← Archive 63 · Archive 64 · Archive 65 →

DYK

...is late, can you post it? Gatoclass (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Doing. Daniel (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

User:ElisaEXPLOSiON

Hi, I wanted to let you know that she is using this IP to evade her block. Her MO is to fight to add Christian Rock into articles which the members are Christians, you will also see evidence of this on her talk. She mentions wanting to edit these articles, and said this after her block. I am nearly certain a checkuser will confirm her account has used this IP in the past. My guess is that this IP belongs to the high school she attends. Landon1980 (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser came back  Unlikely; "different State". Daniel (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have wasted your time, I was so sure too. I still think that IP is a sock, and I think I know who since it isn't her. Anyways, thanks for checking. Landon1980 (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not at all; all the best in working out who it is! Daniel (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My RfA...

Thank you...

...for your participation in my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! Once again, thank you ;)
EyeSerene^talk 16:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand 2, weird diff

While in good faith, [1], should anything be done about this? x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to our attention; the link, per Newyorkbrad (the author), was meant to be this. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

1999 Sydney Hailstorm

Congrats on making the main page. An enjoyable read. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 23:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; now we need some Invincibles there as well. Daniel (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFM/COMMON

Just noticed, this is content-less. Any thoughts as to what could be used to fill the gap? Anthøny 02:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You could adapt this, I guess. Daniel (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hugh Trumble

Hi Daniel and thanks for your thoughts at Wikipedia:Peer review/Hugh Trumble/archive1, they have resulted in a much improved article. I believe I have dealt with the points you raised and if you have further ideas I would love to hear them. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 21:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm a tad under the weather at the moment, so I haven't been able to get to the second half (I even have a medical certificate to ask for an extension, I swear!). I'll try and get to the second half on Friday, with any luck. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no rush at all. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 04:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Second half of Saturday... Daniel (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletions into redirects

Hello! :) Late last year, Treant was nominated for deletion. At the time, there was no suitable page for this article to be redirected to, so based on the consensus, you deleted the article. I have created a new page, List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974-1976), which would be a proper destination to merge and/or redirect the article to. I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the original article, and turn it into a redirect, thus preserving the edit history?

Also, if you are amenable to it, I would like Shambling Mound and Shrieker (Dungeons & Dragons) restored and redirected to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, which were deleted at the same time as Treant under the same circumstances. Thanks!  :) BOZ (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

All three undeleted and redirected. The histories should all now be available. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - much appreciated!  :) BOZ (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but could I trouble you for one more? Could you restore and redirect Violet fungus into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters? Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again - I shall not trouble you again tonight!  :) BOZ (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 14th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 16	14 April 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Interview with the team behind one of the 2,000th featured articles	Image placeholders debated
WikiWorld: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: Board meeting, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Featured article milestone
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Coaching

Hi Daniel,

I responded by email to the message you sent me, but I have not yet heard anything back. Is the offer still on the table? I would have sent email but it appears I've somehow become unconfirmed. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC).

I sent an email to Riana yesterday evening at 2048pm my time, which she got this morning and said that while she isn't actively editing enwp, she could do a little bit, but she probably wouldn't be able to supplement my lack of knowledge in administrator coaching due to her relative busyness in real life. I've never done it before in any structured way, so I'm going to ask one more person (MBianz, who does a lot at the coaching request page) for their opinion on some good sort of stuff to cover, and then we can get going. Sorry about the delay, and my offer is certainly still on the table! Cheers, Daniel (talk) 09:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear! Would it be possible for you to make a note on the coaching page that we're talking, as I've received an offer from another admin in the meantime and it would be a shame for their energies to be wasted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC).

Sure, done :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Lankiveil, suggest you stick with Bibliomaniac. ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Giggy. Daniel is terrible, especially with the amount of hailstormcruft junk he brings to Wikipedia. Great ... now I need to sip on some brandy as Daniel's on the first train to Sydney with a stabbing tool... —Dark ^talk 04:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Daniel. I would just like to say thanks for when you gave me rollback a while back. It has been very useful and don't know how i survived without it. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 13:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No problems. Daniel (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

He's back - yet again

See this and this for details. TML (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Update is ready if you are active to post it. Gatoclass (talk) 11:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for DYK.

I was tracking this hook nom for CRN and glad it made it to Main page. Thanks again. --gppande «talk» 12:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Henry W. Howgate DYK

Daniel, On behalf of the interesting historical figure, Capt. Howgate, and myself, thanks for the inclusion at DYK! Cheers, Rosiestep (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Note about the last month

Thanks to everyone for their patience with things I couldn't deal with over the last month. I had a series of massive assignments which were due in late August, and I really needed to get started on them. I had managed to do an average of about 20% of each in the last two months, and took an estimate that there was a good likelihood that it would probably take me another two to three to finish them off (given all my other commitments). However, to my surprise, I was actually further progressed than I thought, and now I'm basically done except for formatting, referencing and bibliography in all of the major assignments. That means I'm back here basically :)

Although I do have end-of-trimester exams over the next week or so, I'll still be about occasionally, and then things should be back to normal with general classes and assessments after that. Again, my apologies for those who had queries who either waited or were diverted to other locations. Please feel free to contact me and I'll try to make up for my time off to catch up. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Re-sysop

Done. Welcome back! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

teh lies...

"I had a series of massive assignments which were due in late August, and I really needed to get started on them" I was wondering what you were doing, helping out in wikisource and all... Guess that must be your negligence towards your studies... :p —Dark ^talk 09:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hardly - one of them was on Dow Jones and Co, figured I may as well get a nice copy of it on Wikisource to complement the ugly Austlii version :) Daniel (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well... as long as it keeps you away from hailstormcruft... —Dark ^talk 09:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. :) Anthøny 17:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Daniel (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Corey Worthington

Just a note to let you know that when a protected deleted page is created, the protection is dropped. It appears that it was your intention that this redirect be protected, so I have protected it now. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and welcome back :) Stifle (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The things you learn :) Thanks very much for reprotecting them, and it's great to be back. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Daniel you can explain to me why you closed early, ignoring the previous deletion review to allow recreation altogether, which you admit in your closing overrules limiting to the redirect by putting protection on? I know there were BLP concerns, so email if necessary. DGG (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If an administrator closes the deletion review about the article (May 7) proper as allow recreation, they will unprotect then. The previous deletion review (May 7) wasn't closed when I acted (May 16), so I have no idea where you came to the conclusion that I "[ignored] the previous deletion review to allow recreation altogether". As I noted in my close summary, if the May 7 deletion review closes as allow recreation, they will then unprotect the redirect and the article will then be recreated. I don't follow on what grounds you feel my actions here were improper. Daniel (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome aboard! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Good to see that you're back. :) Acalamari 21:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Daniel (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcoming committee. Looks like your hailstorm work has paid off :p —Dark ^talk 03:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I have permission for images that I need to upload... Daniel (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Permission to groan in dismay? —Dark ^talk 03:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Dee-nied. Daniel (talk) 10:21, May 17, 2008 (UTC)

Re: Links in Camera Lobbying

Please feel free to change them to standard links; I had no idea the secure proxy ones would be a problem for anyone. Kirill ^(prof) 15:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I was always told to archive RFARs after 7 days. Where'd the 5 days come from? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Discretion. When something gets to 0/4 and there's no activity in two days or so, and the case has been up for five, it's generally OK provided there's no real chance of any developments which will swing it around to accept. This has been "unwritten law" so to speak since I began being involved with the clerking process in early 2007. This doesn't, however, affect the "10 days for non-clerks" rule. Daniel (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah so it's a bit of wiggle room. Ok. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they trusted us to understand what on earth is going on at RfAr, so we take it for granted (and from what arbitrators have told us is fine) that we have a little bit of it :) Daniel (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The heck?

Who do you heck do you think you are characterizing my concerns and comments as trolling? Even actual legal court decisions can be criticized. Why can't arbocom? And this isn't even tied to any decisions by arbcom on a dispute. -- Cat ^chi? 01:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Because they've made their point clear and your comments are to effect of "well screw them, I deny they can control the way RfAr works". What you seem to forget is all the RfAr pages are designed for the community to interact with the Committee, not the other way around, and as such Committee have control over the format and composition of all pages in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/* and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/*. Daniel (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

WC/CC...you're being disruptive and three arb clerks have, in various words, told you to chill out. So do so. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have taken this issue with the foundation itself including Jimbo. I will drop this issue when I feel comfortable with the result. You can count on that. Arbitration clerks are not divine entities. I will not be patronized. -- Cat ^chi? 01:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Good. I eagerly await the Foundation's inaction on the issue due to them totally disagreeing with you. Daniel (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Is everything that scripted? My my... -- Cat ^chi? 02:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you're just naive and ignorant. Daniel (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Naive in the sense I still believe foundation would listen to what I have to say? Ignorant as in I see a cultural problem others want to hide under the carpet? -- Cat ^chi? 02:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and no. Daniel (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What makes you so sure? -- Cat ^chi? 02:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My gut. Daniel (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

How ironic. You are attempting to rebuff my attempt to criticize wikipedia by linking to external criticism of wikipedia by Stephan Colbert. -- Cat ^chi? 03:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because Colbert is a satirist himself; his criticism was ironic in itself. Daniel (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Guys, calm down plz. —Dark ^talk 01:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why should I be "uncalm"? I am the one merely proposing minor changes to arbcom. People are going out of their way to attack me for it. It is them who should be calm. -- Cat ^chi? 02:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, misrepresenting the facts. It was disagreed with by arbitrators and clerks, and you're going out of your way to threaten to make edits which will disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. You even link to the essay policy when doing so regarding the mediation restriction. Daniel (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What essay is that? -- Cat ^chi? 02:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Policy, even. Daniel (talk) 02:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I intend to disrupt wikipedia by successfully mediating a dispute. Your point? -- Cat ^chi? 02:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not what Daniel said... —Dark ^talk 02:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Right, that is what the ridiculous arbcom remedy bans me from though. -- Cat ^chi? 02:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The respected members of the Arbitration Committee i) believe mediating "require[s] skill and the trust of the community", ii) believe you "[have] unsuccessfully attempted to mediate a number of contested articles" ... "where he had a strong POV", and iii) have therefore "prohibited [you] from holding [yourself] out as a mediator or attempting to serve as a mediator of any dispute". These respected and elected representatives of the community do not believe you have the necessary qualities or community support to be a mediator, and have banned you from doing so to prevent further disruption. You cannot ignore an arbitration decision just because you disagree with its ratio. Daniel (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? Will you block me for mediating? What makes you think I haven't mediated many disputes via a sockpuppet account? -- Cat ^chi? 02:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, stop digging yourself into a hole. Daniel (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am doing the exact opposite. Trying to pull arbcom out of a hole. -- Cat ^chi? 03:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not. You're furthering a personal agenda under the guise of trying to improve Wikipedia, where everyone and their dog (including the Arbitration Committee) agrees that you mediating would be a bad thing. One thing you do have right: there is absolutely no chance of you being appointed to the Mediation Committee. I would contribute one half of that. This conversation is over. Daniel (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProxy

WikiProxy isn't handling : in titles correctly see Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. — Dispenser 16:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe you're after de:Benutzer:Duesentrieb :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Daniel knows basically nothing about these tools; the only thing he's good at is making hailstormcruft, as well as POV pushing on some non-notable soccer teams... for future reference :) (*anticipates Daniel's knife entering his chest region*) —Dark ^talk 07:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

*stab* Daniel (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

IRC

Ping. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Portalz

Mind doing the selected pictures for P:NSW as Giggy is obviously too lazy? Thanks :p —Dark ^talk 07:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I could try :) Daniel (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done, and for P:AUS as well :) Daniel (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well even hailstorm junkies have their uses :p (Thanks, btw) —Dark ^talk 12:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

WMA media stuff and favour

Since you're involved in linking WM to the public and so forth, and know OTRS and all that, could you kindly have a chat to Mark Tonelli and ask him to release photos of him and his Quietly Confident Quartet team-mates? He has a website here [2] and his email is at the bottom. Judging by his website, it seems as though he would be willing to share his story with the public and so forth. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

{{Quietly Confident Quartet}} - FT hopefully - they;re all GA atm. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Are the images actualy on his website? I couldn't find them, and to ensure that any release is valid, I really need to specify which images I'm requesting he release. If the images aren't on his website, then I guess I could say "Could you send me some images which you are willing to release" etc., but I'd prefer to make sure they aren't actually on his website :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This page has the Olympic pics. But there are a whole pile of other stuff as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've sent the email regarding the images. We'll take it from there. I'll keep you informed :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Does your uni have Questia? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to :( Daniel (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Great Hunger

There is a consensus among the majority of editors that this article should be moved to the title Irish Potato Famine. An argument continues about the title change on this page by three particularly vocal editors who hold a minority viewpoint. However, given the overwhelming number of editors who agree that the article should be moved to Irish Potato Famine, the name it's best known under internationally, it seems like enough should be enough and an administrator might want to close the discussion and move the page. I see that you are one of the listed mentors. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My role as an Arbitration Committee-appointed mentor precludes me from closing this either way, as I'd prefer to remain impartial. To make a line-ball decision like this would likely alienate a group of editors and could lead to accusations of bias further down the track when I need to exercise my mentorship "powers". Sorry, but I'd prefer not to - an uninvolved administrator will come along and close it for you in due course, being listed on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Cuz

Because you blocked part of it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halosean (talk • contribs) 02:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comment makes no sense. Daniel (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean cleared part of, lol -- <<Sean G >> 02:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I seriously think you need to read Wikipedia:Vandalism and learn how to properly identify it before you continue going about reverting perfectly good edits. You clearly lack the experience and understanding required at this point. Daniel (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, a litt--- forget it. -- <<Sean G >> 02:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

... Daniel (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This as well. Daniel (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

O....M...F...G...L...E...A...V..E..M..E..A..L...O...N..E...!!! -- <<Sean G >> 02:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC) How do I ignore people? -- <<Sean G >> 02:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Only when you stop reverting perfectly good edits and start acting in an appropriate manner generally. Daniel (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I said leave me alone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halosean (talk • contribs) 02:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I said, I will when you stop needing to be babysat through each edit you make, something you quite clearly aren't up to just yet. Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism and Help:Reverting before reverting anything else. Daniel (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Did I not say leave me alone, and I have ALREADY READ THE FREAKING PAGES I DON"T NEED ANY MORE FUCKING REMINDERS!

... Daniel (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

zOMG... More civility needs to be present here. This is an encyclopedia, it is Daniel's duty as an administrator to make sure that everyone acts in accordance to Wikipedia's policies. Unfortunately you have not done so, which is the reason you were blocked, Sean. —Dark ^talk 12:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTD

FIFA World Cup hat-tricks was selected as a WP:LOTD for one day in June and will be the LOTD twice during the month. Let me know before May 23rd if you have any date preferences.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe June 11, for the start of the 2010 FIFA World Cup, and/or June 10, when the last hat-trick was scored. Probably not good to have them on consecutive days, though :) Daniel (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)