User talk:Daniel/Archive/43

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 42 · Archive 43 · Archive 44 →

Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 32	6 August 2007	About the Signpost

Committee makes statement on U.S. chapter	About: The Wikipedia Plays
Review: The Wikipedia Plays	WikiWorld comic: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Similpedia, 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 08:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland Portal

Hi Daniel, thanks for the note. You did a great job on the portal overhaul. The automatic update capability is excellent, so I added material to take us well into 2008. I added back the DYK section which is still active and important (but dependant on relevant material obviously), tweaked the layout to suit and modified the title bar colour to reflect the saltire blue, giving a stronger national identity. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That you did :) all by yourself, and all! ~ Anthøny 18:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it looks fantastic now. Thanks again for all your hard work populating the portal into 2008 :) Cheers, Daniel →♦ 02:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

Hello Daniel. You requested on Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Professional_wrestling_aerial_techniques that I please provide a link to the third opinion, but I thought I already had. Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do. Thanks! -Fall Of Darkness 13:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You provided a link to Wikipedia:Third opinion, as in the main page. May I ask where the third opinion was given, and if it took place, please provide a link to it. Cheers, Daniel →♦ 02:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalproof backlog

Hi. I am sorry if I am bothering you as you are probably busy but I just thought you might like to know that there has been a growing backlog for vandalproof approval requests at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Approval for some time. Thanks.Tbo 157 16:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw it last night, but my main PC's monitor died so I'm using my laptop (which I haven't installed VP on). Hopefully I'll get my new monitor tonight sometime, or at worst tomorrow. Cheers, and sorry for the wait, Daniel →♦ 02:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done just over half, and will do the rest in a couple of hours (hopefully). Cheers, Daniel →♦ 12:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finished them all. Cheers, Daniel →♦ 05:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Conley

Hello, I surfed onto the Chris Conley page from the Saves the Day article and found that it had been redirected. I restored the article but the history section suggests that some kind of edit war has been taking place, and that you denied a speedy deletion yesterday? Is it possible to protect the page or something to stop continued redirects by User:Eusebeus (maybe a block on the user)?

Daniel, sweets, please make sure to read this before. Hope the Australian Winter is treating you well! :) xoxox, Phaedriel - 22:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Phaedriel for issuing blocks on this issue; COI sockpuppets seem to be unusually active. Eusebeus 23:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems Phaedriel has this under control. I declined the A7 because it asserted some notability; whether it asserted enough to avoid being redirected is another story, and up to editorial discretion. Thanks again to Phaedriel for taking care of it :) Cheers, Daniel →♦ 02:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSN comment

In case it wasn't clear, my comment in the CSN discussion regarding Rlest referred only to the "Aquasplash" account, which by this point is ancient history anyway (all edits on a couple of days in March). Obviously his recent conduct with the accounts created to evade blocks was unacceptable. As you may have seen, WJBscribe has now closed the discussion. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I saw your response - sorry for the confusion. It seems the discussion has been un-archived (by Will), though, so the discussion continues. Cheers, Daniel →♦ 02:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Question

I was wondering, would you be able to make a map similar to commons:Image:Burnsidemap.png for the City of Unley? I had a go, and totally failed, and your Burnside one looks fantastic :)

It'll cost you 50 bucks! Just kidding. I think I could do that. To come soon... Donama 08:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha :) Thanks for this. Cheers, Daniel →♦ 05:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy

Could you userfy the contents of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plan II Honors to a subspace of Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Texas at Austin ? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpx (talk • contribs) 14:37, August 9, 2007

Which ones? Or all five? Daniel →♦ 05:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All 5 please Corpx 05:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. When you create/finish any "merged" version of this article in the mainspace and you no longer need the userfied versions, please drop me a line so a) I can delete them and b) I can deal with any history problems with regards to contributors of merged materials. Cheers, Daniel →♦ 06:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Corpx 06:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:) Daniel →♦ 06:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalproof problem

Hi. Thank you very much for taking your time to check the approval requests and for approving me. I have downloaded the programme and installed it on my PC running vista. I managed to login but nothing happened after clicking verify authorisation. I know you may get alot of similar queries, and I do apologise for adding to them, but any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 15:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had someone post here with a similar problem using Vista. Let me have a check through my archives to see what I can find. User talk:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs may have some relevant information, also. Cheers, Daniel →♦ 05:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here we go: User talk:Daniel/Archive/42#Problem with VandalProof. Is that the same problem/solution for you? Daniel →♦ 05:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you Daniel, but I get this error message when using vandalproof about script error. Can you clarify for me? --H irohisat ^Talk 06:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. This generally happens when you have non-IE-compatable scripts in your monobook.js. It can be fixed by either disabling JS in IE (see this) or by using this tool to close the error messages. Some of the threads on User talk:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs also relate to this. Cheers, Daniel →♦ 06:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Daniel! --H irohisat ^Talk 06:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it worked? :) Daniel →♦ 06:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, Thanks for welcoming messages. But I'm bit confused with reverting. When I revert by using VP, it posts user warning in talk page first, then revert the article. You might find it in my contribution history. BTW you are too first man. I've just seen you in VP world--NAHID 06:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That's strange. I don't use VandalProof personally - administrator rollback is faster because it accesses directly to the server, if I recall correctly - but I remember that when I did use it it always reverted the article first. Let me check. Cheers, Daniel →♦ 06:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried the latest version of VP - 1.3.6 - and what happens is I click on an edit to check, check to see if it's vandalism, press the "Rollback - Vandal 3" button, and then it automatically reverts the page (doesn't show the editing screen) and then takes me to the user talk page, shows me the editing screen, and saves. However, judging from this, it does seem to do it in that order. Strange... Daniel →♦ 06:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

06:51:08, August 10, 2007 (UTC), to User talk:212.159.101.192 (warning)
06:51:11, August 10, 2007 (UTC), to Roy Keane (revert)

Bizarre...that's a new revert/warning order from when I last used it :) Cheers, Daniel →♦ 07:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I've also noticed redundant warnings get appeared in the anon talk page e.g. (Posting {{subst:uw-test1|Time management}} {{subst:User:AmiDaniel/Rv-ref|Time_management|149583513}}), like here (User talk:66.245.11.4).Best--NAHID 07:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found all the these incident happened when I pressed in Roolback Custom button.Is there any problem with it?--NAHID 08:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had any other comments about it, so I'm not sure. I'd suggest posting to User talk:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs to solicit further input. Cheers, Daniel →♦ 08:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I have tried running vandalproof in admin mode but the same problem still occurs. When I click verify authorisaton, nothing happens. I have tried reinstalling but the problem is not resolved by this. Thanks.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 12:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. Haven't heard of this one before. Let me have a look and ask some Vista people. Cheers, Daniel →♦ 08:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you fix

When you closed User:Defender 911/WikiResource/Feeling Upset?'s MFD you didn't put the tag at the bottom of the discussion to archive it properly. The entire page beneath it is archived now. Not sure how to fix it :)Kamryn · Talk 10:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for that. In deleting the pages after I closed the MfD, I realised that I know Defender 911's old account, and we...didn't like each other. Regardless, I made the closure not knowing who he/she was, so I can't exactly say there was any conflict of interest, really. Thanks again. Daniel →♦ 10:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I don't know who the guy is, but he cracks me up. It has totally brightened my otherwise boring day. Kamryn · Talk 14:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, it's Geo.plrd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Geo.plrd 3/Daniel's notes is of interest, also. Daniel →♦ 08:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation policy protection

I see that you protected Wikipedia:Mediation a few months ago, because Wikipedia:Arbitration policy was also protected. However, the latter page has been unprotected for a few weeks (well, semi-protected), and no disruption has occurred, so you may want to try unprotecting the mediation policy as well :-). Mel sa ran 12:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really a point? The page isn't open to amendment, except by the Mediation Committee, and the technical measure in place (i.e., protection) simply prevents tedious reverts having to be made ~ Anthøny 19:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee continues to note its' role in the upkeep of Wikipedia:Mediation and assorted pages, and is still of the opinion that protection is the best option for that page given its' standing within our official role. The protection will remain in place and is not subject to removal at this time.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel →♦ 08:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Courtesy blanked

Good Evening (BST time) Daniel; just a little note, that the template {{courtesy blanked}} should be "subst"-ed. If you take a look here, you'll see a fair few instances were this hasn't been done, and you're behind a lot of them, due to your work with OTRS :) I think the point is that such a list isn't actually available... Just a reminder ~ Anthøny 19:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to your assertion above, only one of those was placed by me. I also disagree with you on the point about whether this template should be substituted for tracking reasons, in addition to the fact that 90% of the transclusions are not mine. Daniel →♦ 08:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, okay. I didn't mean to cause offence - I only intended to raise the point; you've done good work in the area, and I did not intend to demean it in any way. In future, I shall leave you to get on with it. Anthøny 17:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleting Michael_Arrington's article

Hi Daniel. I would like to know why the Michal Arrington's page has been deleted. I guess Wikipedia would need one article on him as he is one of the most popular technology writers on the blogosphere right now. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinglee (talk • contribs) 07:23, August 11, 2007

It was deleted per WP:PROD. I have undeleted it as you are obviously contesting it, as is the process for a proposed deletion. Daniel →♦ 08:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 33	13 August 2007	About the Signpost

CC 3.0 licenses accepted on Commons	Reviewing five software requests
WikiWorld comic: "2000s"	News and notes: Meetup, 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 20:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archived Vandalproof problems

Just a note that I haven't been able to fix Vandalproof yet and so I am still having the same problems. I have noticed that the original thread about this is in your archives now , so I have inserted a new thread here for your convenience. Hope you manage to get everything done in your wikibreak. Thanks.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 15:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can only suggest you solicit further opinions at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs. I have no further ideas to solve your problem, sorry. Cheers, Daniel →♦ 04:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes during your recovery ;-)

Here's a gnome for you! Gnomes somehow help people get better, and hopefully this one has helped you. Spread the WikiHarmony by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend or somebody who is likewise injured. Make your own message to spread WikiHarmony to others!
Anthøny (contact ⇔ talk)

Get well soon! Anthøny (contact ⇔ talk) 13:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^^^

What he said. Really sorry to hear of your injury, and I hope the surgery and recovery goes gangbusters. Oh, and that the Mariners start the year off with a win for you! :D Cheers, and get well soon! Dibo ^{T | C} 04:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, thanks guys :) Got home from hospital earlier this morning - had to stay in overnight, and couldn't get hold of a wireless connection, unfortunately. Ehen I damaged it, my knee popped out of its' socket on initial impact, and back in on secondary impact, and in doing so, it chipped off a bit of bone on my thigh-bone and it managed to lodge itself inside my knee joint, hence the sharp pain. They found and removed it in the surgery, and realised that it was the bone particle and not my anterior cruciate ligament that was giving me the pain, hence their original diagnosis was off. I did some damage to another, less important/easier-to-fix ligament which runs laterally across my kneecap, which is six weeks, but much better than doing my ACL.

So, thanks everyone who left me a message here and the stacks of emails I got :) Lets hope the Mariners can flog the mob from south of the Hawkesbury on friday night. Cheers, Daniel 02:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, Daniel. I feel so sorry for you. :-( Keep the ice pack by you at all times, don't put weight on it...(it will hurt like hell at first -- I have heard horror stories). Hope you feel better. Miranda 05:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As part of my recovery work, I have to put weight on it in moderation :| Daniel 23:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeepers, that's not a nice sounding injury (even if it is better than the ACL). Good luck with it all, and look out for us yellow folk tearing it up at the SFS tomorrow night. Cheers, Dibo ^{T | C} 00:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prediction: 2-0 to the Mariners, Nik and Sasha scoring the goals. Lets hope I'm right :) Cheers, Daniel 02:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Members

Sorting the table by date isn't working - seems to arranging them alphabetically by date again... Any idea what's wrong? PS. I'm on IRC at the moment... WjBscribe 00:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was the same for me about 5mins ago, but it seems to have fixed itself now. Has it? By the way, school server doesn't like IRC, but Google Chat is working. Daniel 00:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still not working for me :(. Will be on google chat in a couple of mins... WjBscribe 00:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 34	20 August 2007	About the Signpost

Bad Jokes, Deletion Nonsense, and an arbitration case	WikiScanner tool creates "minor public relations disasters" for scores of organizations
WikiWorld comic: "Tomcat and Bobcat"	News and notes: Wikimania '08, 200 x 100, 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 04:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were the blocking admin last time...

...please take a look at the contribution history of 24.18.130.89, who is back to attacking Matt Sanchez (and occasionally other editors) at Talk:Matt Sanchez. I have reverted, en masse, all of the latest set of invective, but I suspect he is going to need a block before he stops. I chose you because you a) are not involved in editing that page and b) are familiar with the history of this particularly vexatious and intemperate editor. Thank you. Horologium t-c 12:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a month. The comments made to Talk:Matt Sanchez (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) were ridiculous. See my comment on User talk:24.18.130.89. If he/she comes back under another IP during the block, tell me and I'll semi-protect the talk page. Those comments were utterly ridiculous. Daniel 23:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected the talkpage, which was being used by the blocked IP for attacks and soapboxing. WjBscribe 01:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danke Will. Daniel 01:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sparky

Hi, Daniel. Could you explain to me why you protected Charles Schulz? The page had gone about 15 hours without being edited, so I don't think "edit warring" is a very accurate description of what was happening. There was a disagreement over content, and I took it to the discussion page long before the page was protected. In fact, if you have an opinion on the subject, please contribute to the discussion! But I'm afraid I don't see any reason to protect the page, thereby disallowing any constructive editing from taking place. Cheers! :] Faithlessthewonderboy 01:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not your fault that I had to protect it, but rather Hornetman16 (talk · contribs)'s. As noted by his last revert, he says "revert (one last time)", referring to the fact that he's gaming the three revert-rule and stopped for now because one more would result in him being blocked. Implied in this is that he will return to edit-warring tomorrow, when his "revert count" is "reset". I felt that it was prudent to stop this before it happened.

As you're the other involved party and the protection was to stop Hornetman16's disruption, I'm willing to lift it if you want it to happen. I must say, Hornetman16's verging on a block of some form. So, I'll leave the ball (and the ultimate decision) in your court - I'm happy with either. Daniel 01:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, and sorry if I came off a bit accusatory. Really I'm just eager to get some feedback from others on this. Unfortunately, Hornetman seems determined to be offended by something, and decided that a pair of quotation marks were disparaging towards his religion. :P I don't really mind that the page is protected, as it's pretty stable and doesn't need any big edits. I'm just afraid that since the topic is current or controversial, he might get away with it simply because no one is going to notice. Faithlessthewonderboy 02:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems :) Hornetman is, quite frankly, treading a very fine line at the moment with edit-warring, as noted on his talk page by a number of users. In the event he is blocked within the week of the protection on the article, I'll unprotect it. Further, my offer remains open to you during this one-week period of protection. Cheers, Daniel 02:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I noticed you reverted a userbox deletion I did on this users userpage. Why can he have it and I can't? I'm older than him. Why can't I have it?--Hornetman16 ^(talk) 07:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because you gave excessive personal details in addition to your age. Daniel 00:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Sure, go ahead and pull it. And what was the "conflict with me"? Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 00:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I used those words. Regardless, I clarified my statement. Daniel 00:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for your comments at my RFA! Democracy sure is great, even when you lose. I'll try to use your comments to shape my character and become a better admin, thanks! Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 02:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom on me

Already the situation is beginning to spiral out of control. This section is fairly representative of why "nothing has been solved". Am I going to need to provide evidence on this or what? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 04:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the Committee has accepted the case, they will be evaluating all evidence presented and making decisions for all involved parties, whether these parties want them to or not (provided the arbitrators don't do something like this). Given this, I would suggest that you compile evidence and add it to the page, if you feel that you have something to add. There's further information about the 'hearing' stage at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Hearing. Cheers, Daniel 04:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue my efforts then. One last question - I would hope that I have a few days to collect and present evidence. If this is in fact acceptable - is it necessary for me to mention this to people wondering "where the evidence is" and if so - where do i do that? I'll mark this for watching to save you the trouble of having to notify me! Thank you for keeping this centralized, if you would like to refractor to my page - go right ahead. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 04:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration policy notes that "[t]here is usually a grace period of one week between the opening of the case and the beginning of deliberations by the Committee", because the Committee acknowledges that compiling evidence takes time and we're not all as active as each other. That being said, if you wish to note that you will be delayed in presenting evidence, you could possibly do something like this:-

==Evidence presented by Jmfangio==
Noting that I will be presenting my evidence in a few days, as I need to collect and present it. ~~~~

...on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson/Evidence, if you so please. I won't bother with refactoring - probably not worth the effort :) Cheers, Daniel 05:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! Be well. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 05:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems :) Daniel 05:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge you to look at more than just the evidence Jmfangio provides, as it is all bound to be extremely biased. If you were somehow able to witness our entire relationship play out live, you'd see he is just as guilty as I am. (Maybe more so, but I'm not claiming that.) I shouldn't just be punished because I have better things to do than scour Wikipedia and compile evidence on someone.►Chris Nelson 04:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't examine/rule on any evidence to make a decision; the Arbitration Committee will. I am merely acting in a clerk role, to assist with the process per the desires of the Committee. I'm sure, however, that the Committee will endeavour to scruitinize all evidence presented strongly to achieve the correct result. If you choose not to present evidence, that is your decision. Daniel 05:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. No, I will not be presenting evidence. It will probably make me look a lot worse than him but... I just don't care enough to put in the time. I have real-life obligations.►Chris Nelson 05:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Daniel 05:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current Status

I have begun to copy your current status utility, please let me know if you see something amiss and i certainly intend to give you proper credit for it after i figure out how to get it functional. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 05:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice :) At the moment StatusBot (talk · contribs) seems to be down, so the changer won't work until it's working again. Cheers, Daniel 06:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jmfangio/Chrisjnelson

This comment is in regards to the ongoing dispute between these two users: Jmfangio (talk · contribs) and Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs). I previously had a separate dispute with Juan, but have since reconciled and have been forgiven by Juan. Anyway, I know that there is an ArbC between them, and in the past hour, Chrisjnelson sent me an e-mail that had inappropriate language directed towards Jmfangio. I've told Jmfangio of this, but I have yet to say what exactly was said. He suggested I come to you to ask you if divulging this information would be a conflict of interest, or if it's something that I should reveal for the sake of the dispute between them. Ksy92003(talk) 05:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an email, you are prohibited from posting it on Wikipedia, per this ruling. Thanks for taking the conservative route and approaching me before posting it.

Generally, if a user wishes to submit email evidence to the Committee, they email it to the clerk of that case, who will then forward it on privately to the Arbitration Committee's private mailing list. In this case, I think that this will be the best course of action.

That being said, the Arbitration Committee has been split over the usage of emails (and other private communications) as evidence in cases. The most notable, recent discussion about this took place at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Workshop. According to the Arbitration policy, "The Committee reserves the right to disregard certain items of evidence or certain lines of argument, most notably if they are unverifiable".

All this being said, you might as well email the correspondance to myself and I'll forward it to the Committee, who will decide whether they wish to use it or not. My email is dbwiki[at]gmail[dot]com (as it will be impractical to forward the correspondance via the Wikipedia email interface). If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. Cheers, Daniel 06:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How could anyone even think it's okay to consider a private email forwarded, since forwards can be edited by the sender and therefore its impossible to prove I actually said it? I could send you an email and make it look like Ksy said horrible things to be - you'd have no way of knowing if it were real.►Chris Nelson 11:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, I'm not sure Ksy is trustworthy, considering he's previous said he wanted to go to Juan's house and shoot him. But that's just my opinion.►Chris Nelson 11:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee "reserves the right to disregard certain items of evidence or certain lines of argument, most notably if they are unverifiable". I don't have the right to disregard it, because I'm not the Committee. If an editor wants to submit email evidence to the Committee, as clerk I will facilitate it. The Committee can then decide what they want to do with it, if anything. Daniel 12:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I said that to you, Chris, about Juan, that was when I was so frustrated because of all that had gone on. But since then, Juan and I have patched things up, and we don't have any more disputes. And I never said "I'm gonna go kill him" or something. I said everything out of frustration, which I believe you didn't. Additionally, since Juan and I have resolved our disputes, that shows that I had no intention of willing physical harm to anybody else. If you wanna tell Juan about this, Chris, then go ahead, but I don't lie. I am very trustworthy and would never change somebody's words to alter their meaning. You can deny what you said, Chrisjnelson, but you and I both know that you sent me that offensive e-mail, so there's no point in denying it. If you don't think I'm trustworthy, that's your decision. But I have never lied before. Ksy92003(talk) 16:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's what a liar would say.►Chris Nelson 16:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what would a truthful person say then, that they are a big-time liar? Are you denying that you said what you said? Ksy92003(talk) 17:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wonderful synopsis of the situation. Ksy92003 obviously made some rather troubling statements - ones that are alarming no doubt - but he has apologized and made a clear attempt to reconcile - and we have done so. This is a clerks page and does not need to turn into a soapbox. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 19:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, arguing here on my talk achieves absolutely nothing other than to waste your own time. I've forwarded the email to the Committee's list, and they can take it from there and do what they like with it. Cheers, Daniel 22:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Busy

Hey, you busy? If not, come on IRC and chat :-) --Deskana (apples) 12:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just signing on :) Daniel 12:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Computer (05)

[1]

You got me confused. Two arbitrators as well as many others have stated that there is nothing wrong with this. How am I supposed to gather consensus more than that? Tell me what to do and I will do it. -- Cat ^chi? 12:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators are no more important than you and me, unless they're acting in an official role. Create an RfC or something, I don't know. But there's clearly no consensus support for this task to take place. Hence, the bot (which is arguably pointless per VOA, but that's another matter) cannot be approved at this stage. Daniel 12:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFCs are for userdisputes (My bot isnt in dispute with any spesific user) or article disputes. This is beyond the grasp of RFC. Tell me what I can do and I will do it or else you have no reason to decline the bot. I have created an rfc on Ned Scott (one of the sig reverters) over this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ned Scott. -- Cat ^chi? 13:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Then, have a discussion in your userspace somehwere and post a request on all noticeboards to invite community input. The question is "Should a bot be allowed to swap my signature over", not "Is Ned acting inappropriately" (two linked but very different questions). In the absence to community consensus support (as is the case here), it's not our job to find or imagine it for you. At the moment, we have every reason to reject it, hence why I did so. Daniel 13:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus that disallows bots from updating sigs. I'd not pursue this matter if you had a policy disallowing them. I should not need explicit consensus for every bot edit. -- Cat ^chi? 13:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No consensus exists to do it, either, and given there's been endless discussion on it (as opposed to no discussion), the fact that no consensus exists means the task is controversial. Period, as far as I'm concerned. Direct all further correspondance to Voice of All or ST47, because I'm done with this pointless discussion. Daniel 13:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)White Cat: You can not run a bot that performs this task. BAG has reviewed it twice and declined it twice. Of four comments on the latest request, three BAG and a crat, all four were opposed. --ST47Talk·Desk 13:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words I am not worthy of the courtesy even the most notorious vandals receive. -- Cat ^chi? 13:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Not via automation, no. Do it yourself, and deal with any problems you encounter. Daniel 13:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRC again

IRC? --Deskana (apples) 22:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already on... Daniel 22:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duhhh... sorry. --Deskana (apples) 23:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha... :) Daniel 23:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hornetman16

I'd like to apologize for all that, I was his adopter and I kind of feel guilty about what happened. Sorry about all that. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 02:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's most certainly not your fault - to quote someone else, "he was probably beyond help". His display just before being blocked showed that you could not have helped in any way. Thanks for trying to deal with him - you have far more patience than I :) Cheers, Daniel 02:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]