User talk:Daniel/Archive/24

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 23 · Archive 24 · Archive 25 →

Brenda Song

The issue isn't totally resolved, but it's died down. I think you can unprotected it now. BTW, I didn't mind being blocked. I probably needed to calm down. :) Crumbsucker 14:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, glad everything is forgiven. The protection is now removed. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Untitled)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of A Shanty No Lemon. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ironhide1975 02:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't... Daniel.Bryant 07:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AKN

In reponse to [1],I actually used 2 sources. The group was actually the first black greek fraternity of record. You can actually google the group and find it. thanks for the reponse. FrozenApe 22:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for the DRV to finish. Also, those sources you linked to (two Google book hits) stated nothing of what you claim. Again, wait for the DRV to finish; recreating it whilst there amounts to contempt. Daniel.Bryant 08:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser code

What and where is the code? That's what I could never figure out on that complicated WP:RFCU program. Where the heck is that number code? Can ya help me find it? Power level (Dragon Ball) 05:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The codes are listed at Template:Requests for checkuser header. Daniel.Bryant 05:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help me, please? I really don't understand this "code" business. See, this is why I never use CheckUser. Nobody ever helps me understand it. Power level (Dragon Ball) 06:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, see this table: Template:Requests for checkuser header

Now, in the second column (titled "Situation"), it has a number of situations that may lead to a person requesting a check. Find which one best matches the situation you are requesting a check for.

Once you've done that, check if it's highlighted in yellow. If it is highlighted in yellow, great, see which code (in the "Code" column) it is and then add that to the checkuser request. If it isn't yellow, then see what is in the "Solution" column, and follow the instructions. Daniel.Bryant 06:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What THE HELL did you just tell me to do? What does any of that have to do with me getting these "codes"? Know what, I'll just explain why I'm accusing these users on the CheckUser page. I mean, whatever you just told me to do, uh.... that's all I gotta say. Power level (Dragon Ball) 06:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Don't come crying to me if your request is declined. Daniel.Bryant 06:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio cruz

Hi Daniel. Belated congrats on getting the bit. I blocked Sergio24 (talk · contribs) as a vandalism-only account after deleting an attack page that he created after already having been warned with {{bv}} and {{test3}}. I looked at his other contributions to make sure there wasn't any unreverted vandalism and deleted Sergio cruz. I saw that you had edited it a bit, so I wanted to run it by you. There was never a 49ers quarterback by that name ... or at least not in recent memory. The article was one incoherent sentence and so I deleted it as G1, patent nonsense. Please feel free to examine and reverse any of the above actions if you believe me to be in error. Thank you. --BigDT 06:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine - my lack of NFL knowledge comes back to haunt me again. If that is the case - and I trust you on it, of course :) - then I fully endorse the deletion as G1. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 06:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Untitled)

How dare you delete my article. This unjustice towards the wikipedian world is both heinous and unforgivable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daranzolin (talk • contribs) 09:13, February 10, 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CSD, WP:NOTE, WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:OR. Mentioning which page it was would help, too, as I don't know which article you wrote. Daniel.Bryant 09:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Kappa Nu

You stated that the two google books provided nothing that I claim. [2]. Did you bother to read them? With google books, all you had to do is look at the index for Alpha Kappa Nu and you could easily find the corresponding pages. Black Greek 101: [3] page 22 [4] . Page 137 of African American Fraternities and Sororities: [5] . Please take the time to read the references provided. It really wasn't that difficult to located them. I was able to. FrozenApe 18:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how much you bicker and argue, I'm not going to undelete it, becuase DRV is greater, as a concensus-building exercise, than a unilateral undeletion. Daniel.Bryant 20:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your post at my talk page

Good evening (GMT time); I've replied to your post at my talk page. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 18:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Daniel.Bryant 20:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Kappa Nu

[6] No one asked you to undelete it. Quite simply i made a statement that you didn't read the references effectively. I am also stating that your rationale behind deleting it was weak. I said what my mistake was [7] and pointed out that your thought process was at best ineffective (when it came to your rationale behind deleting [8] from no sources to poor sources. [9] . I am waiting for the DELR to finish; as i said previously i had made a mistake. [10]. For some reason I think you glanced over what I wrote and wrote back something that made no sense to what was being stated. You also stated there was no sources (which was another reason for deleting), but in the end I proved that wrong. A shot gun defense simply didn't work. If you're going to present a rationale, please look at all sources thoroughly. It would serve everyone at wiki a great benefit. FrozenApe 22:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've made your point - I will be more careful in the future. There is no point continuing on with the discussion on my talk, as you have said you don't want me to undelete it, but rather merely acknowledge that I may have erred in deletion. I acknowledge this. However, as you have acknowledged (thankfully), recreating an article during a DRV is not good also (and I made a liberal interpretation of G4 given this). Good luck with the DRV and beyond (I can't act unilaterally to undelete it, remember), Daniel.Bryant 22:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For taking care of that Vandal for me Dan. Great to see you out there and even better to see you using your new powers. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 00:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime - AIV is everyone's friend :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 00:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wizardbrad: Thanks for the swift action

Thanks for quickly blocking the sockpuppets of Wizardbrad, much appreciated. A question though, should I edit the votes of those puppets on the mentioned AfD now? I had previously tagged them with {{spa}}, is there a tag available for uncovered puppets? --Krator 00:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a template, but what I could suggest is manually adding something like this:-

<small>{{user|(Username)}} is a [[WP:RFCU|confirmed]] [[WP:SOCK|illegitimate sockpuppet]] of {{user|Wizardbrad}} (who has already commented in this AfD), and as a result (Username) is [[WP:BLOCK|blocked]] indefinitely. Please see [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wizardbrad]] for more information. ~~~~</small>

...below each vote. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 00:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JFBurton block

I've responded on his user page, forwarded his complaint to the CheckUser list, and asked any other CheckUser who is interested to check my work. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me; I just don't want people overriding checkuser blocks erronously. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 06:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Activity in Recent Sockpuppet Case

Krator recently contacted you for help in cleaning up some sockpuppetry on an AfD. The sockpuppetry has continued, and I filed another request for it to be addressed. Because you are familiar with this recent case, you might be able to help. I've never tried cleaning up sockpuppets on Wikipedia before, so I might need some help from someone familiar with the process. This is getting really frustrating, as it is polluting the discussion, and making the entire matter a confrontational, ad-hominem one, instead of allowing for some consensus to be reached as to notability guidelines. Thanks NetOracle 22:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon has given his Checkuser findings, and Luna Santin has acted upon them. Thanks for reporting this (it was a very good checkuser report :D), Daniel.Bryant 06:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Gnanapiti-Sarvagnya

There is a possible sockpuppet and/or meatpuppet fraud going on including a possbile vote fraud by both Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti. Where should I go to report this? Regards. Wiki Raja 07:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gnanapiti-Sarvagnya :) It's been listed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Pending for evaluation. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any user named Gnanapiti-Sarvagnya. Has there been some typo? - Aksi_great (talk) 07:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just a bad header name. Page history-merged into Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sarvagnya. Thanks for that, Daniel.Bryant 07:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Those vandals actually do know me in real life, and set up there accounts primarily to vandalize me. I appreciate the protection given. --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 09:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems - I suspected as such. I'm going through and blocking them all now. If they come back after 5 days, let me know and I'll reprotect. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 09:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Recoome

Hi. I remember that you're a clerk for CheckUser, right? Can you confirm if I did it 100% correct this time? Thank! Power level (Dragon Ball) 18:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine - and has been {{confirmed}}. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 7	12 February 2007	About the Signpost

US government agencies discovered editing	Comment prompts discussion of Wikimedia's financial situation
Board recapitulates licensing policy principles	WikiWorld comic: "Extreme ironing"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	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 05:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note of apology

I know this is probably going to do squat for my reputation now (Not that I ever really had one), but I thought I'd leave a note of apology to everyone involved in my recent actions. An explaination is in order too. First off, I had a bad real life situation, that I really don't want to talk about, on the day this all started. I shouldn't have edited on Wikipedia afterwards, but I did. When I saw the situation with Riana's RfA, it kind of set off a build up of unvented anger at my situation & it was un needed. My whole tyraid had very little to do with the RfA, but I guess I took it out on that angle anyway. The way I was handled could have been better, but I wont go there in threat of making this sound like a back handed apology. My apologies go to Riana, who was also having a real life crisis at the time too. Basically the whole thing was a misunderstanding & venting process which I involved you all in. In regard to the whole sock puppetry thing, I had told my brother about my problems in due trust & he went & did something stupid on here. I don't really know what else to say but sorry. If that & a little bit of hard work repairing relationships on here doesn't change your current view point of me, then I don't think anything will. So again, sorry if I've inconvenienced you guys in any way & I hope that over time you'll think better of me. I'd love if you guys could forgive & hopefully forget & I wasn't really in control of myself these past few days. Hopefully things can get back to normal. :) Spawn Man 06:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. I was most disappointed & saddened that I haven't lived up to your expectations especially Daniel. You are an editor I look up to & I'm sorry I didn't fufil your expectations of an editor.[reply]

Don't worry about it. We all have our little "moments" - as you may be aware, I had a particularily bad one myself - and your apology is accepted by me with a full intent of moving forward. I am a huge believer in forgiving and forgetting - "he who cannot forgive breaks the bridge over which he himself must pass" - and I hope you can return to being your prolific self. Cheers, best of luck, and no worries, Daniel.Bryant 07:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 20:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that one, NYB :) Daniel.Bryant 20:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

Thanks for that, I suspect he will be back with a vengeance - his talk page seems to suggest he knows of no other way of enjoying wikipedia - sean mc sean - Satu Suro 06:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems - if he continues after the block is lifted, he'll soon find himself blocked indef. That sort of abuse should not come anywhere near the surface on Wikipedia, and nor should we accept it. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 06:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much - could you do me a real big favour and do a quick check at the argument that I have been trying to throw sand at? I'd appreciate an outsider to look at it... if it dosnt take you too much time... Satu Suro 06:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'd rather not get involved in any argument over content - it would prohibit me from acting if his ridiculous behaviour extends even further. Sorry, and cheers, Daniel.Bryant 06:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heheh thanks for responding on that thats fine - i think so many are actually watching this particular argument - that it will go down as the revealing the true colours (and thats nothing to do with cyndi lauper either) and probable loss of face.Satu Suro 06:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 06:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Ebony Anpu

Why did you delete this guys picture? NO reason given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainbarrett (talk • contribs) 13:14, February 14, 2007 (UTC)

CSD I3, as I said (and linked to) in the deletion log. Please don't cry "abuse" etc. - you'll only end up blocked. Daniel.Bryant 20:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userpations

A note on the usurpations - I didn't want them rejected, I simly did not want to do the more complicated ones. They are currently marked as "Not done" - I don't know if that's the same thing as a rejected request, but if it is, I'd like to make it clear I am not rejecting them. Raul654 08:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fixed.[11] Daniel.Bryant 20:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nitelink Rovers AfD

Don't forget to delete International Youth Cup as well..... ChrisTheDude 08:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just killing it as you wrote that message :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 08:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh

Hey Riana, future administrator :) Thanks for dropping by. On, a side-note, I saw 141.164.91.16 (talk · contribs) leave that hilarious set of messages on your user talk, and couldn't resist enshrining the best of them :) If he/she comes back with some more silliness, feel free to contact me (that is, if you haven't got +sysop by then :D). Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 09:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, yes, it's nice to encounter a funny vandal in a while, instead of your run-of-the-mill nasties :) Cheersy, riana_dzasta 10:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had one a while back who went to the liberty of signing my email up for all sorts of lovely things...you can imagine XD Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 10:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Trohman

Looking back in the Joe Trohman page's history it seems to me that User:AngelRECKLESS is most likely the primary behind the recent vandalism rampage. Note Wentz and Falloutboy (similar to blocked users) in this edit - Dan D. Ric 10:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but I'm not 100% sure, so I'll wait for this. Thanks for requesting the Checkuser, Daniel.Bryant 10:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do the request. That was Shadowlynk. All I did was revert some of the vandalism and post a couple warnings. -- Dan D. Ric 17:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it was - sorry about that. Still, good work reveting and warning. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Thanks alot, im not going to ever use them thanks again. Nareklm 11:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems - I'd rather give users another chance, especially if it was an error-in-ways like it appears yours was. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey also no where in this page i ever used a sock, the user is attacking me in a edit summary, randomly openly saying such this should be prohibited since i never used any there, [12], not to mention i find interesting how when dacy and adil gets blocked, grandmaster knows right away all the info, since he reported my sock, than Atabek knows this out of nowhere, i have a feeling these users, cooperate to revert, thanks. Nareklm 23:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks - please go to ANI. I will not "cooperate to revert", because it is not my role to assist in edit-warring. Daniel.Bryant 07:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

!

		The Civility Barnstar
		Daniel, I award you the Civility barnstar in apprechiation of your great civilness in Wikipedia. Keep it up! Kamope·?·! Sign! 11:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you! Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username change

I have submitted a request for username from Surena toSoren, which was declined, since the new username exists. However, what about ParthianShot, since this username has not been taken yet? Many thanks Surena 13:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine - it is available. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 13:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So would you kindly sanction the change? Many thanks. Surena 22:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel can't, as he's not a bureaucrat, but I can, and I have. Essjay (Talk) 04:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thank you Essjay. Daniel.Bryant 05:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your official opinion needed

If you can, please weigh in at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names#% (talk • contribs). Someone has raised a concern that "%" as the username will mess up some of the wiki-processes; given your insane scope of activity on Wikipedia, I figure you'd be a good person to ask. :-)

Thanks! EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm split on my thoughts on this one, however I'll be sure to give an opinion in a little while. Both "sides" raise good points, and I'm currently reading to see if I like one more than the other :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you can seen by when I made the comment, I wasn't expecting this to become the utter shitstorm that it has ended up becoming. I thought this could be resolved with a quick "nope, doesn't mess with CheckUser/whatever" and close the thing, but this has become one of our longer threads... bleh. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has rapidly become a shitstorm, I agree. However, I'm actually not convinced either way on this one currently, so I'm going to bide my time for giving my input. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for nominating Inside Scientology at Template talk:Did you know ! It is nice to know that someone noticed. Yours, Smee 03:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No problems :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]