User talk:Daniel/Archive/19

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 18 · Archive 19 · Archive 20 →

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 14

The nbsp; header was there for a reason, to keep the open discussion separate from the closed discussion underneath it, but you could've just closed the last open discussion. The only reason why I didn't close it is because I participated in it. ~ trialsanderrors 06:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, I see now - my bad. Anyways, the last debate is closed, so do what you want with the all-finished page :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I took care of the rest. ~ trialsanderrors 08:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motto of the Day

I've given the project a second refreshing, cleaned out all the pages and organised new mottos well into February 2007 - are you participating in this as an overseer any more, or would you like to be removed from the list? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 18:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on MOTD desk. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Neutralizer

There seems to be an allegation that Neutralizer forged my signature in a vote. I cant remember the exact details but I believe that it happened in error and there was no malice intended. If you can give me a link I can ellaborate further - Cartman02au 03:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of that, but nonetheless, he's community banned now for being disruptive with sockpuppets, wikistalking, harassment and being a general pain in the neck. Maybe ask Sarah E for a diff, because I don't know of one. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The forged vote allegation came from here and you confirmed that the vote wasn't made by you. Though there's so much trolling on that RFA page, it's very hard follow. Regardless, it was just an observation and it's really not important to WP. As Daniel said, he and his puppets are now community banned. Sarah Ewart 04:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, he's banned by the community. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashes Changes

I threw a line on there about Australia regaining the Ashes at lunchtime of the 3rd test to celebrate beating up the poms, knowing full well that the line would be edited later. Having copped 15 months of crap here in London from the English I think I deserved one moment of fun.

Jesus Christ mate, GET A GRIP!!!! and after 13000 edits, perhaps a life. Can I recommend watching the 2005 AFL Grand Final instead of sending whining emails to a fellow Swans fan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.41.169.147 (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, I watched the 2005 AFL Grand Final again only last night - and yes, it never fails to amaze.

Sydney by four. Tadhg Kennelly did it well, saw the option in the pocket, went for it - Leo Barry. Slow it down. So Leo Barry in the back pocket heads along the boundary line. Ooh, good mark by Cox. Throws it onto the left, one last roll of the dice - Leo! Leo Barry you star!

Quite thrilling, I must say; although, 2006 was just horrible.

Back on topic, and by making the edit you did, it may confuse some people who are coming to add "one" to the tally - if they hadn't been following the series, it would have been easy to increment that "three" into a "four" easily, which is factually incorrect. Although it was a near-given result, some strange things have happened in cricket (a-la Adelaide Test, 2006), so it's better not to assume - Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. I'd also like you to stop making comments such as "get a grip" and "[get a] life" - such comments are personal attacks, for which you may be blocked for. Please let it drop. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In lieu of

In lieu of a barnstar, wanted to say that you're doing a great job here multifactorially. Please keep up the hard work -- Samir धर्म 02:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers :) I like to spread my contribs around, as to not get bored of one area. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Hi Danny! I just want to say Merry Christmas to you! Have a nice holiday time. - Darwinek 11:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a happy New Year to you too Daniel. Take care -- Samir धर्म 23:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moroccan Spaniard/Celtmist/Ragusan case continued...

Regarding Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Moroccan Spaniard and my previous grumbling at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ragusan, I'm not too happy how the case was handled, as both new RFCUs were declined for procedural reasons, no one willing to research the matter deeper than the original Dmcdevit's CheckUser. I even pinged Dmcdevit at the time, but I didn't receive an answer (he was on a wikibreak at the time and apparently missed it). I'm very inclined to assume good faith and trust Celtmist (talk · contribs) on his statement regarding the shared IP. Now, we have a silly situation: DW Celt (talk · contribs) is an apparent (and self-admitted) sockpuppet of User:Celtmist, and as such should be blocked at sight per the first RFCU finding, which was contested in vain, and the matter dropped for procedural reasons. Please see my fairly detailed analysis at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ragusan.

I suggest simply unblocking Celtmist (talk · contribs) and Ragusan (talk · contribs) (the old accounts which have never committed any vandalism) and deal with Moroccan socks on case basis (I didn't see any of his resurrections recently). Duja► 12:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have Dmcdevit look at this, however he is busy with other issues at the moment, so no promises on the speediness of his response. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #7

Number 7, December 22, 2006

The Hurricane Herald

This is the monthly newsletter of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. This shortened late issue covers just global tropical cyclone activity in November, to prevent the next newsletter from being too large.

Tropical cyclone activity

One hurricane, Hurricane Sergio, formed in the eastern Pacific. Sergio was the longest lasting November Pacific hurricane recorded. Two other tropical cyclones, Tropical Storm Rosa and a tropical depression formed in the basin. None of the systems affected land.
An unusual extratropical cyclone developed in the northern central Pacific, resembling a subtropical cyclone at its peak.
A total of three typhoons formed in the western Pacific, and all the storms followed a similar track across the Philippines. Typhoon Cimaron formed at the end of October and lasted into November, killing 19 people. Typhoon Chebi existed during the middle of the month and was the weakest of the three causing minor damages. The most devastating storm of the month, Typhoon Durian hit the Philippines on November 30, killing at least 720 people in the island nation.
Two named cyclones developed in the Southern Hemisphere, Tropical Cyclone Yani in the South Pacific and Moderate Tropical Storm Anita in the Southwest Indian Ocean. Two unnamed depression also formed in the South Pacific. None of these storms affected land.

Editorial

The lateness of this edition is due to me being on an wikibreak and no-one taking up the slack. My wikibreak was the result of a lightning strike damaging my internet connection and frying my router, and the time taken for the replacement to arrive. As this issue is almost 3 weeks later than planned, only the monthly cyclone activity for November has been included. The next letter will be produced for January 7, 2006 and will be larger than normal to cover both month's Wikipedia news and December's tropical activity. There will be no Member or Storm of the month in January, to reduce the length; and the newsletter will return to normal in February.--Nilf anion (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge

I might be talking complete nonsense here, but my understanding was that the redirect is kept for GFDL reasons, as deleting it would require a history merge to preserve the history. Oldelpaso 11:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, yes. In this case, however, the content that will probably be merged isn't going to be a large percent of the original article, and given that it will need to be rewritten to fit in with the main Poland national team article, GFDL becomes irrelevant. It's only when you copy the whole of the article and straight-paste it without altering anything that GFDL is a concern. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. We should (as WP:MERGE states) always leave the redirect, even if only a small amount of the information is used, even if it seems pointless. If we are taking someone elses work and using it elsewhere (even if it's being paraphrased) it still needs to be cited. Redirects are cheap, so we should use them liberally. Essjay (Talk) 23:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have seen countless merges take place, and the admin always seems to delete the text behind the redirect. I have three examples in my talk page archives. Also, there is a very good chance that the author of this article will simply revert the redirect, to reinstate his article. Further, this isn't a plausable redirect, so it may even end up on RfD anyways. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two (or four, or two dozen) wrongs don't make another one right.
Redirects, like any other page, can be protected.
If it goes to RfD, so be it. If "It could be deleted" were a good reason for not doing something, we'd still be taking bets on what the 100th article will be. Essjay (Talk) 00:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but two (or four, or two dozen) "wrongs" may mean that it could possibly be right, or at least in-line with current practice - no matter how "wrong" it is. May I ask, would having it deleted at RfD create any different "GFDL concerns" than deleting it at the AfD? I think that the end result would be exactly the same. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter what I say at this point, what policy says, or anything, so I'm not going to waste my time any further. It's Christmas and there are better things to do then argue over following policy and copyright law. Essjay (Talk) 00:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever - this is a perfect example of why I plan on staying away from copyright disagreements (like the one Jimmy is in regarding a Fair Use poll at the moment). Merry Christmas to you, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice from Daniel

Just want to wish anyone who views this page today a very Merry Christmas. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Christmas

Thanks Daniel. I hope you had a great day, too. We had really heavy rain in Melbourne and it was pretty wet and cold all day. I just hope the farmers and water catchment areas also got it. Take care and have a nice evening. :) Sarah 10:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers (by the way, your signature is screwed up - it reads [[User talk:Sarah_Ewart|Sarah ]] - note the space). Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Daniel...I think it's fixed now. Cheers, Sarah 10:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems - yes, it's fixed :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check User

Hey, you recently moved my CheckUser request on Snowolfd4, I don't completely understand why, though you most probably have good reason to, would you mind explaining the process to me on my talk page, or to a relevant page or article? Thankyou, Sharz 00:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checks on users are placed on case subpages, as noted in the big green box at the top of WP:RFCU. The code letters that you indicated mean it is listed on a subpage, as only "A" letter checks are listed in the IP Check section. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharz (talk • contribs)

Signpost updated for December 26th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 52	26 December 2006	About the Signpost

Seven arbitrators chosen	Wikipedia classroom assignments on the rise
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses"	News and notes: Stewards appointed, milestones
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 07:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Archiving

Hi, I noticed that you archived this thread. Is there any possible way whereby I can retrieve this discussion and link to it? It seems to be absent from the ANI archives. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive161#User:Irpen_blocked_for_48_hours.2C_please_review. It would be better to link to it than to recopy the entire thread to AN/I but I suppose that depends on what you want to discuss. Thatcher131 14:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Thatcher - I left a note on Ghirla's talk page with a link to your response. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr rejected cases page

Hi. I saw you added the "Crz" case to the rejected cases page. I think the precedent is that cases that are summarily reverted off the RfAr page for being grossly trolling, filed by sockpuppets of banned users, etc., have not been included on the page which is more reserved for cases actually rejected by the arbitrators. This makes sense under the policy of WP:DENY although I can see the counter-argument that future frivolous filings by the same people would be easier to spot if they were listed.

Let's leave it alone for now and we can ask Thatcher131 what he thinks when he comes back from his Wikibreak–just wanted to bring the issue to your attention. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you on this point, despite my complete hatred of WP:DENY getting in the way of keeping a complete documentation (I like Essjay's essay on socktagging as a perfect explination of my general position). I merely went off the fact that someone had added "Cool Cat" in December also (I don't think it was me...), so I figured I'd follow the lead. Indeed, Thatcher seems the best to ask :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were a couple of others in October/November that weren't added. I haven't seen Essjay's essay you refer to; do you have a link? Newyorkbrad 04:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Throw it open to the real clerks at the Noticeboard and we'll see what the ultimate decision is - I honestly don't care nor mind either way :) Oh, and User:Essjay/Archives/Socktags is the essay. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lotuslander

Daniel, why did you ask for the Lotuslander check user request to be deleted? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see I put it in the wrong place, or did I do something else wrong too? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the only thing that you did wrong was to create it in the wrong place. That's why I had it deleted, because it was unneeded. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions

With respect to the specific dispute, as there was a consensus reached, users should follow it. With respect to disputes in general, it is the responsibility of those who engage in a consensus decision making process to "close" the discussion. summarizing the result and incorporating it into policy. Fred Bauder 14:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK...I think that answers my question. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your message. I do suspect that there has been *some* IRC canvassing re this RfC, however. All best and happy new year, Cindery 16:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, I'm not sure either. Happy new year to you too, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 1	2 January 2007	About the Signpost

Effort to modify fair use policy aborted	Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
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 07:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Review

Hi Daniel, I have seen your work on editor reviews and I would greatly appreciate if you review me here. Thank you if you decide to or not. Cheers! — Arjun 19:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed :) 23:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, very, very much! Cheers! — Arjun 23:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CantStandYa

Thanks for your note. This user is quite persistent and pretty much ignores blocks. We didn't block the "CantStandYa" account in the hopes he'd use just that one, but he simply abandoned it. I succeeded for a while in getting him to just use his IP account, then 155.84.57.253 (talk · contribs), so that he'd be more easily identified but when he transgressed some admins blocked that account so he went back to creating socks. We can apply a long-term block to the new IP (it looks like all the edits are his) but I don't expect it to slow him down much. The editor isn't an outright vandal and makes positive contributions but he engages in edit wars, incivility, and 3RR violations in addition to the sock puppet abuse. If you have any suggestion for a permanent resolution I'd be very happy to hear them. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 23:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he's abandoned the main account, which it appears so, in favour of sockpuppets, the main account should be blocked indef. Regarding the IP, I don't know enough about the history and this users' ability to switch IP's, as well as his "positive contributions", to be able to judge what type of block needs to be placed. I would suggest discussing with Jayjg about the next step regarding IP's, it was Jayjg who ran the check. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the puppetmaster account, and put a one-month block on the IP. I expect he'll find a new IP before the month is up. I'll put up a notice on WP:AN later tonight asking for consensus that the user has exhausted community patience, etc., so that his status as a banned user will be clear. -Will Beback · † · 00:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, a community ban is probably appropriate. I'll be sure to give my endorsement on AN when you create the proposal to do so. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the puppet master was originally known as Shran (talk · contribs), but that name is used by an admin on the Star Trek wiki Memory Alpha. He objected to being confused with the puppetmaster. I don't think it's worth the trouble of recategorizing the old accounts with the newer puppetmaster designation, but there's no doubt they are all one person. -Will Beback · † · 00:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's why I was confused (see my note on Jayjg's talk page). Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I can't be bothered retagging them, though. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Td2 AfD

You forgot a } on the end of the afd3 subst I added it for you. TTFN. Whisp e ring 00:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops - probably should have double-checked I highlighted everything in the {{afd1}} template before pressing Control-C. Cheers for that, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD's

How long do they last?--C J King 01:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Five days minimum, unless they're closed as a "speedy" or "snow" (per WP:SK and WP:SNOW). Non-admins can only close discussions older than five days; see this. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Templated message posted by MECU≈talk at 02:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC) regarding {{rfu}} removed, in history.[reply]

Ah, thanks for that one - I uploaded that when I was a newbie, and didn't understand the interpretation of FU on Wikipedia back then. There's a couple of others, so I'll have them speedy-deleted as well. Cheers for the note, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ehinger222/Rugby 666

Hi Daniel. A user has popped up on a coupla IP's very similar to a sock of Ehinger222/Rugby 666 (147.10.112.157 to be exact): 147.10.117.219 and 147.10.112.186. Making similar sorts of pro-RL edits, similarly uncivil edit summaries... Is there an easy way to simply block this guy off? He just pops up again and again doing the same crap. Either comes from the 60.225.*.* or 147.10.*.* namespace each time I think, which both trace back to the same ISP (Telstra Broadband). Annoying as hell, and I wind up not wanting to do stuff on here, cos every time I'm on here I seem to find another sock doing the same crap... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dibo (talk • contribs) 07:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rugby 666. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science Collaboration of the Month

You voted for Supernova and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Month!
Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article.

NCurs e _work 09:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Anthony cfc

I've replied to your comment concerning both the signpost idea and my userpage which was ~~based on~~ completely plagiarised from yours :) Cheers, Anthony cfc (talk) 00:06 05/January/2006 (UTC)

I'm ~~stalking you~~ watching your userpage, so I've already responded :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I did get it but it got lost in all the en mail. Sorry about that. I've replied now. Sarah 04:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I replied to you. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you very much. You are very helpful :-). Thaa Rumpelstiltskin223 06:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems.[1]. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the page and clicked on the links. They seem to correspond to the text of the links as you refactored them. I added a couple of links pertaining to recent developments. I followed your method of linking diffs. Thaa. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, cool. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiInterview

Is there any reason in particular why you deleted all but one question in the Interview script? I think that we should focus our questions on foundation issues for the next interview, not this one. Cheers, Anthony cfc ^{[T • C]} 12:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Ral315 here. Maybe Mindspillage is a good person to interview, given his very recent promotion to the board. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember User:Ral315 being involved in the interview project, but nevertheless perhaps an interview with User:Mindspillage (who is a her, btw :) would attract more attention. However, I am afraid that we will have to go through with the original script of questions (Esperanza questions and all) - I've already emailed Jimbo asking if he would like to participate! Regards, Anthony cfc ^{[T • C]} 14:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XD. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]