User talk:Daniel/Archive/39

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 38 · Archive 39 · Archive 40 →

Question about a failed mediation

Hi Daniel. I saw that despite your best efforts, you failed to get the parties to even participate in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud). I can only sigh and wonder how on earth people can get so worked up about a freakin' title but that's not really my point of course. I'm coming here because you are presumably much more aware than I am about this whole situation. UTAFA (talk · contribs) recently decided he would solve the problem by creating a content fork on Arvand Rud which I reverted. He has just asked me whether I could step in or help him resolve the problem one way or another and perhaps you have a few ideas on what to do now. Is a request for arbitration premature? If not, is there another course of action you can suggest? Thanks for your help, Pascal.Tesson 05:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't feel comfortable offering advice about content issues with regards to a dispute I attempted to mediate, however brief. What I can say, however, is you should probably mention WP:FORK to him, and get him to talk if you feel the fork/redirect was not backed by consensus or other policies/guidelines on Wikipedia - the general stuff. I don't know if it's at RfAr level yet, however if it does I will protect the identity of the person who withdrew at all costs, and if anyone speculates/asserts who it was, that fact will be censored if we have to pursue it using all avenues, as we say at WP:M. Cheers, Daniel 06:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I perfectly understand your reluctance to discuss the failed mediation itself and I certainly don't want to put pressure on you in that respect. I have explained to this user why the forking is not an acceptable solution and I think he reluctantly accepts this. Yet he still wants to see that dispute resolved (and I'll try hard to assume good fatih on his part). Do you think it makes any sense to reopen a case for the mediation committee? (if that's an answer you feel comfortable giving me!) If not, isn't ArbCom pretty much the only option? Again, thanks for any advice. Pascal.Tesson 15:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another RfM case would be pointless, as the person who rejected it in the first place still feels the same way (they saw your comment here, and emailed me). In fact, I would probably speedy-reject-and-delete the case, as it may be used to try and expose the person who doesn't want to participate into forcing them to come forward. If UTAFA continues to be what you consider disruptive, then by all means, take it to RfAr if you feel it is warranted. A user conduct RfC I would suggest more strongly, though, if he does continue and you feel it is disruptive. Daniel 03:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do but I sure feel like I don't have all the info at hand. I did get this rather strange request from UTAFA [1] but I don't think it would make sense for me to file an RfAr on this dispute myself as I got involved in it by accident and only superficially. Pascal.Tesson 03:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I understand your hesitation. If he wants to file an RfAr, he can do it himself; if you don't want to file one, then don't :) Daniel 04:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete expired prod please

I'd like to see Jargon of The Savage Nation so that it might be merged with Michael Savage (commentator) if it's worthwhile to do so. Thanks. 75.35.74.42 23:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.

Undeleted, do what you want with it. Daniel 02:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm done with it, you can delete it again. I was hoping for more than two entries. 75.35.74.42 13:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers, Daniel 01:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VP

Hey mate. You mind adding me back into the VandalProof list, since I've lost my access due to this this username change...? Cheers. --Dark Falls ^talk 06:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most certainly. Amazingly, I had just powered up VP, and I got the "New Messages" bar on the home screen for the application :) Cheers, Daniel 06:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VP user list corrupt?

I was recently approved to use VP but when I click Verify Authorization it says the user list is corrupt and to contact a VP moderator. akuyume^T_C 07:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you downloaded the most recent version (1.36)? Daniel 07:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that did trick. Hehe. Thanks for helping bypass blindness. :) akuyume^T_C 07:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems :) Daniel 07:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ensrifraff

Regards this diff, user: Ensrifraff appears to be back on wikipedia today. thus WLU 19:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted and modified, thanks. Daniel 01:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my RFA

Thank you for supporting my RFA. I hope I will live up to your expectation. Let me know if you need any help, or I make any mistake. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto District School Board

Why would you remove all the content and sources from the controveries section of the Toronto District School Board article and then protect the page from further edits? Your edits appear to be vandalis in nature as the content in question meets wiki standards and is extremly relivent to the article in addtion to haveing many creditable sources. As far as I see everything that was mentioned in this section was backed with a creditable source, unless you can prove other wise this content should be put back into the article. PS. I don't appreiciate your threating comment you left on my talk page for no reason. --Disengaged 01:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being sourced doesn't necessarily make it compliant with WP:BLP. If you wish to discuss this further, per the box above ('Contacting me'), please do it via email. This is a private matter which does not benefit from being discussed in a public place. Daniel 01:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RfAr

Sorry, I thought that the cat was out of the bag regarding who performed the blocks at issue. If it isn't, please feel free to remove any mentions of the blocking administrator from the case and from the administrator's talk page, and to request that all mentions of the blocking administrator be oversighted. John254 01:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oversighting might be a little too far; however, this case is certain to become 'high-profile', so I removed the details from the immediate version, to minimize harm. Thanks for your understanding - this isn't about you, or me, or Dmcdevit, but rather Charlotte. If further details come to light, which would justify readding the details, I would have no objection. I'll archive this immediately, if you have no objection, to again minimize the attention it gets. Cheers, Daniel 01:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:AGK

Greetings ;-) my thanks for looking after my talk page - it's much appreciated; I've shot an email your way, which explains my absence, and includes more grovelling thanks for looking after my userspace!

Regards,
Anthøny 17:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! :) I'll respond to you via email in a moment. Cheers, and good to see you 'round (however briefly!), Daniel 07:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attachment therapy

Are we likely to get a mediator soon? Fainites 23:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Personally, I am recused from mediating the case, as I have had a dispute in the past with at least one participant. You may find this insightful. Cheers, Daniel 07:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. That doesn't look very hopeful. Are you really seriously recused? You did a nice job of cutting down the issues (one of which has been put back by the way). I was just wondering whether the delay in assignment had anything to do with the fact that the referral page and the talkpage both looked like battle zones. Fainites 16:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can't take the case :( For whatever reason, the case hasn't been picked up yet. I see WJBscribe has indicated he might. Cheers, Daniel 00:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waiving consent to Mediation?

Hi Daniel, Given how heated the discussion around the Sri Lanka Conflict can be, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to assume that participants consent to mediation -- unless they themselves say that they do. Agreeing to mediation is a step in the right directions for some editors. When that step is elided, it may be an oversight and a polite reminder might be in order, and/or a note in the process document explaining that the editor in question has not (yet) agreed to mediation. But it seems a mistake to me to sign for them: Offering one's opinion in the context of mediation is not equivalent to agreeing to mediation. Furthermore, it's not fair to other participants who have explicitly agreed to accept mediation. My two cents, whatever that's worth nowadays. Thanks for reading, -- Shunpiker 05:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back, you are probably right. I have reverted my in-lieu-addition of Iwazaki's signature, and left this message. Of course your opinion matters, especially when it is justified, in this instance :) Cheers, Daniel 07:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initial statements complete for mediation

Hi Daniel. I'm sure you're pretty busy, but just letting you know that everyone has been rounded up and given initial statements on the mediation page. Cheers. — George^[talk] 05:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it just sprang up on my watchlist :) I'll get to it in about 30mins, if that's OK. Cheers, and thanks for the note, Daniel 07:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 25	18 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikipedia critic's article merged	Board election series: Election information
Admin account apparently compromised, blocked	Controversial RfA withdrawn, bureaucrats fail to clarify consensus
WikiWorld comic: "They Might Be Giants"	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 08:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

Thanks. It makes more sense to let the AfD to run it's course, rather than set off a herd of angry punters looking for blood :) I'm somewhat in agreeance that the article isn't enough to stand on it's own, but speedy deletion wasn't the best final result we could come up with as a community. Cheers. :) -- Longhair\^talk 10:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. Daniel 10:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help

Dear Daniel,

I am trying to establish a page for Scottish magazine Forgotten Worlds. This magazine is professionally classified by review body Tangent. Tangent is A PROFESSIONAL science ficiton review board. This was made explicit in the article, as well as a link provided for proof.

I have fulfilled the requirement mentioned previously by providing proof for the existence of this page. There is now no reason for it to be deleted. But is has been deleted again, even though I fulfilled the requirement.

Can you help?

Woomfy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woomfy (talk • contribs) 19:29, June 19, 2007

PS: I don't suppose it matters if I tell you that Peter Falandia, the former Captain of the Sydney Swans, is my cousin???? :)

I'm sorry to hear your experience with Wikipedia has been frustrating. Articles on Wikipedia are deleted according to our Deletion Policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

If your article was deleted by an administrator without a discussion, that means the article probably met one of the criteria for Speedy Deletion outlined here: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. If your article was speedy deleted, this may be because it was extremely short or because it did not provide information about why its subject was notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

If your article was deleted after a debate on "articles for deletion" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion), it is because members of the community decided that your article was for some reason unsuitable for inclusion; possible reasons include being not verifiable from outside sources, or because it was a page on a person, group, or idea that is not sufficiently well-known for an encyclopedia article.

If you believe after reading the deletion policy that your article was unfairly deleted, you can ask the administrator who deleted the article for a fuller explanation. (You can find out which admin deleted the article by searching for your article title in the deletion log at the log.) If after an explanation you still believe the deletion was unfair, you can bring up the article at Deletion Review (Wikipedia:Deletion review) where the community can take another look to see if the article was deleted in error.

For more guidance on how to write a Wikipedia article, you might find the newcomers' guide to writing Wikipedia articles helpful: Wikipedia:Your first article. Cheers, Daniel 01:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab to MedCom

Hey, can you help me move a case from MedCab up to MedCom? I noticed you are the mediator, and I'm not sure how to do it. Thanks. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-10 Podilsko-Voskresenska Line — Alex^(U|C|E) 01:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, following the instructions, and then link to the MedCab case in the "Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted" section. Cheers, Daniel 02:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. By the way, clever way to get other users' attention. :-) Hey, I'm worried about one thing, though. Can you take a look at WP:ANI#User:Kuban kazak's behavior? I'm worried things will get out of control again. — Alex^(U|C|E) 02:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know what you think I should do. Thanks. — Alex^(U|C|E) 02:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To preserve my neutrality in this dispute, given it will become a MedCom unassigned case if everyone assents, I'd rather not comment on that discussion. I hope you can understand this. Cheers, Daniel 03:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm just worried about revert wars. — Alex^(U|C|E) 03:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete Mors Syphilitica

Please undelete the article on Mors Syphilitica. I don't get why it was erased. --Hazelfo 04:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mors Syphilitica was deleted per WP:PROD. Because it is contested, I have undeleted it and listed it at AfD. Daniel 07:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish magazine

Please undelete the article on Scottish magazine, Forgotten Worlds. I provided proof within the article that the magazine is a reliable and professional publication. It received a favourable review from Tangent, a professional sci-fi review body and so the magazine is seen as professional by the industry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woomfy (talk • contribs)

Please provide a link to the now-deleted article in question. Daniel 04:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Daniel, I can't seem to find a link to the mag. However, I am not as good at this whole computer-thing as some, so it may be around. All I get is a statement saying the page does not exist and it allows for the creation of a new one. If it is fine with you, I will create a new page for the magazine. Thanks for your response above. Woomfy 23:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go right ahead. Daniel 07:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thermal lance mediation

So, I'm a bit unclear on the process. I've made my initial statement. Are you waiting on me? Or were you going to suggest a compromise? --Eyrian 20:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that RfM seems to have slipped off my watchlist :| Looking now. Cheers, Daniel 07:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Thanks

Hey Daniel; just a quick thanks for looking after my talk page during this absence - it's greatly appreciated, and make sure you give me a shout before your next WikiBreak so I can return the favour ;-) by the way, I've sent you an email for when you've got a spare second.

In addition, just to let you know there's a RfM in which 4/10 (approx.) parties are opposed to Mediation; however, I'm not going to take action: (a) because of the shocking state of affairs I created last time I attempted that; and (b) because I'm involved with one of the listed parties (in addition I have abstained from Mediating, on the RfM talk page).

Until the next time we meet!

Kind regards,
Anthøny 21:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems - I've replied via email. Cheers, Daniel 07:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request article be undeleted

I am unlclear on the process, but why was the Online Property Management Software article deleted? [2] Can I have it reinstated? Other question - how does one flag an article that is advertising? Propertyware.

Online Property Management Software was deleted per WP:PROD. Because it is contested, I have undeleted it and listed it at AfD.

For flagging an article as advertising, see WP:TT and possibly WP:CSD#G11. Daniel 07:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion on Commons

Hey Daniel, sorry for the odd summary, the script I use to link to the request for deletion sometimes doesn’t work. Please see the request here: commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Sri_Lanka_Army. To make it short: We have no evidence, that files by the army of Sri Lanka are in the public domain. Their website says “no”. Regards, --Polarlys 01:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, and thanks for the link. Cheers, Daniel 02:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead redirect page

You deleted Nest egg (del log), would you mind also deleting the redirect page Nest Egg? Nothing of importance links to either of them. Thanks! 124.148.42.23 07:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as a CSD R1, "redirect to non-existent page". Cheers, Daniel 07:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 26	25 June 2007	About the Signpost

Board election series: An interview with the candidates	RfA receives attention, open proxies policy reviewed
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Logo error, Norwegian chapter, 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 07:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karmichael Hunt featured article review

Thanks, for some of the little things, I will do the references over the next day.

I have done everything as you have said. Things I questioned are marked with a {{not done}}, and things I am doing, which will be done by tommorrow are tagged with {{doing}} SpecialWindler talk 09:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, still looks maroon and yellow to me. even on that page. Maroon is the main colour, yellow the edges, and grey in the background. Is it Maroon, in the QLD jersey in the lower part of the article. SpecialWindler talk 10:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished everything you have explained on the FAC page. There are a few

Not done there which have responses, and what does BLP stand for? SpecialWindler talk 21:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look again later. BLP stands for biographies of living persons. Daniel 07:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I posted notice in ANI and no admin wants to touch it because it deals with an admin’s actions in the periphery but in reality it deals with the outcome of the action of the admin not the admin actions. It has to do with the continual harassment of me that has to stop. Any help will be appreciated. Taprobanus 14:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope someone will be willing to review the 'notice', however I'm not in a great position to be doing so. Daniel 07:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our MedCom case

Just letting you know that we withdrew the ArbCom case. We're ready for the MedCom case if it can still be accepted. — Alex^(U|C|E) 22:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off-hold. Thanks for letting me know. Daniel 07:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Boris Stomakhin

Daniel, so when would we deal as to the matter of the dispute? Vlad fedorov 03:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at mediation page. Daniel 08:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request For VandalProof

Hi Daniel. I would like to apply for vandalproof. Where do I go? How do I do it? I have been contributing steady for the last six months and I have been cleaning up vandalism and warning users. But I would like to help out and do better. You can reply on my talk page Thank you. King Lopez ^Contribs 09:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:AmiDaniel/VP/Approval, and an independant moderator will review it (I won't be doing so). Daniel 09:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for follow-up

You warned Awesimo (talk · contribs) for offensive talk page comments in the past, and he's doing it again. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed. Riana (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse Krimpet's indefinite block. Zetawoof, thanks for the note. Riana, thanks for responding in my absense :) Daniel 11:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]