Jump to content

User talk:Daniel/Archive/76

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
Archive This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.
← Archive 75 · Archive 76 · Archive 77 →

Aria Wallace

[edit]

Several months ago you fully protected this page. Could you please remove the protection, some of the information is out of date.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. Regards, Daniel (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transona Five

[edit]

I'm frankly bewildered how anyone could think the two IP edits were libel, let alone how that could be grounds for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, what? Removing one edit from the history is not 'deletion'. The article still exists, exactly as it did before now. And the standard to remove a single, immediately-removed edit from the history of a page isn't 'libel'; it's our biographies of living persons policy. Daniel (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misunderstood your edit on the Afd page and thought you had blanked the Transona Five article, based on Taniabinney's claim that reverted edits on that article were libel. I'm still bewildered who that claim could be made, but now see you were not backing the libel claim, and actually reverting the Afd tag. Agree fully with your action now that I correctly understand it. Sorry to have bothered you. Edward321 (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problems. The only reason I courtesy-blanked the AfD was because it was being handled off-wiki, and there was no need to preserve the content in a public venue which was also being handled off-wiki. Regards, Daniel (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for handling this. It sounds like the issue has been appropriately resolved, and that the attempt to delete the article was simply a desire to have that one particular statement removed. Given the alleged issue (and the "alleged alleged" issue!), I'm sure you understand why I was concerned. Goldenband (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. Daniel (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please explain this to me? I am one of the original members of Transona Five. This evening I received an unexpected phone call from an individual acting on behalf of Rachel Smith, claiming the Wikipedia page had been updated to include libellous statements by an individual well-known to the group. I have looked at the history of the Transona Five page and I am baffled at the accusation. Can someone please clarify *exactly* what was added? I am willing to share details of the conversation privately, so long as those details are kept confidential as a courtesy to everyone involved. I just want to ensure what I see here matches up with what was said to me over the phone, and based on what has been left publicly available, they are not matching up at all.--Iamroboton (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iamroboton, I'll be in touch via Myspace presently. Goldenband (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is being handled through OTRS also; it should not be necessary for other Wikipedians to contact any individual involved in this, or, if they do, they must emphasise they are a volunteer and do not speak for the Wikimedia Foundation or any other individual. Daniel (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Er, OK, then: I'll be in touch (or more correctly, I have just been in touch), but strictly as a volunteer and not as a representative of anyone but myself. Goldenband (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone, Thanks for your input. This has been explained to me sufficiently, and everything matches up with what I was told. Thanks for your time. --Iamroboton (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. Daniel (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Codefixer bot

[edit]

hey there Daniel. I was fixing these red links ..missing files at .Wikipedia:Database_reports/Articles containing red-linked files.and I stumbled upon this bot User:Drilnoth/codefixer.js/doc and installed it to help .I never stopped to think if I had the permission to operate this bot and is it helpful in this work . thanks (Off2riorob (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fix pls

[edit]

File:Dirty south edited.jpg

I forgot how to link to images without transcluding them

thanks Spebi :O 202.46.138.86 (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSD I8 i mean 202.46.138.86 (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps You Can Help...

[edit]

A few of us at WP:TVS are having a problem with User:Theaveng adding copyrighted information to List of television stations in North America by media market‎. The information has to do with the Nielsen Television Markets. The user has been adding information from the FCC (which is exactly alike to the information Nielsen uses). To avoid being in violation of OTRS ticket #2008091610055854, the information is removed. For whatever reason User:Theaveng readds it. The user has been warned multiple times and had stopped, but started up again today. I reverted and issued a Warn4im warning.

I brought this to User:Powergate92‎ (who has been involved in talk page discussions about this and who I thought was an admin) and he sugguested I bring it to an admin. I spoke with User:Juliancolton and for some reason he couldn't find the OTRS ticket and directed me to you, I was then directed to User:J.delanoy who didn't have access to the queue the ticket was in, he directed me to you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 14, 2009 @ 22:59

Sorry to re-re-direct you, but that ticket/the whole issue was being handled by User:Swatjester in conjunction with Mike Godwin, if I recall correctly. Hence, I'm going to suggest the best thing to do would be to contact him :| Sorry, Daniel (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda knew that was going to happen :) Let's hope User:Swatjester can stop User:Theaveng from adding the information. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 14, 2009 @ 23:05

RfD nomination of Corey Delaney

[edit]

I have nominated Corey Delaney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Sceptre (talk) 03:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winterberg protection

[edit]

Hi - see that we now have a multiyear semiprotection of Friedwardt Winterberg. I don't mind at all (prefer to deal with logged-in users even when they're SPAs) - but wonder what direction the complaint took - most of the anon edits were "pro"-Winterberg, with a number of them actually claiming to be from Winterberg's assistant at the university - see User:Alvestrand/Winterberg notes for some of my case notes. --Alvestrand (talk) 09:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was done in consultation with the subject due to the high probability of DS1000 returning with new accounts/IP's to continue the editing he was engaged in. It wasn't so much a complaint - more a compliment of our operations, actually - but rather a "What options are open to try and prevent issues in the future?", to which semi-protection is a cheap yet effective option. Hope this helps :) Regards, Daniel (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert Winterberg's article

[edit]

Could you please revert Dr.Winterberg's article to how it was when you protected it? Someone has removed all of Dr.Winterberg's documents which were displayed on 4 geocities links whose purpose was to display his documents. Also, someone incorrectly assumed that Winterberg's paper entitled The Einstein Myth was a critique of Einstein, but the title is misleading, and it is only a critique of string theory, not of Einstein. Whoever added that did not read the paper, it is not a critique of Einstein. Please revert the article to how it was when you had protected it, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.184.176.57 (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again

[edit]

Hey, could you take a gander at this edit and tell me what I did wrong? I copied and pasted it into notepad to see if I missed anything, and I worked around with it for awhile but I don't see a difference between list1's Child Navbox and list2's Child Navbox (as far as the coding and stuff). It also could be that I'm super tired and delirious, but I was wondering if I could ask for you assistance again. Thanks for any suggestions you might have. Killiondude (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, sorry for the delay, and happy to hear it got sorted out :) Daniel (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#New requests

[edit]

Any chance you can take a look at this and make the new requests banner a little more friendly? I would, but I'm positive I'd break something :-). Cheers, hope you're having a good weekend! Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Hello, Daniel/Archive. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#John_R._Talbott. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Havant & Waterlooville FA Cup Story

[edit]

Re. commentator in youtube clip (per IRC), it was definitely Alistair Mann - I actually found an article about the somewhat ebullient commentary and hence a cite; 

{{Cite web
| title = Mike Walters meets... Havant & Waterlooville manager Shaun Gale
| publisher =  [[mirror.co.uk|Daily Mirror]]
| accessdate = 2009-05-21
| url = http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/columnists/walters/2008/11/08/mike-walters-meets-havant-waterlooville-manager-shaun-gale-115875-20878424/
}}

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  02:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danke sir :) Daniel (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bradman?

[edit]

Why the comment on your facebook? That FAC closed a while ago. Up to Ron Hamence now YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, that's because I friend-req'd you like three months ago, and you only saw it now :) Daniel (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Hamence in 48 one, not the main one YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS page

[edit]

Hi, the AIDS page is confusing in stating 'In 2007, it was estimated that 33.2 million people lived with the disease worldwide, and that AIDS had killed an estimated 2.1 million people, including 330,000 children.' - it's not clear whether this 2.1 million is in 2007 or in total. It would be logical to add the number of people killed in total, which according to http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/aids/News/aidsfaq.html is 32 million. The page is still protected from October 2007. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by User20090521 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:JT-Piano_Concert_No._2_(1953).jpg

[edit]

Uploader recently updated details , after I requested more detailed sourcing.

I also advised them (based on an e-mail they sent me) to send a more formal release to the OTRS permissions queue.

They responded (by e-mail) saying they needed detailed guidance on how to do this. Can you help the uploader concerned (User :איתן טל), as they look like very genuine?

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

[edit]

.. I will bite, what was the BLP issues with Ariel Glenn. I don't know your email. My email button is on my User:Rkmlai page. rkmlai (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correspondence initiated via email. Daniel (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

[edit]

That was a great edit summary. :) Garion96 (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:) Daniel (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #26

[edit]

The 26th issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Hullinger

[edit]

You placed prod template on the page. Did the actual subject contact you and say that he doesn't deserve a page? NPervez (Push) 13:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he did. Daniel (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]

You probably didn't know that AfDs are now supposed to run over 7 days, not 5. This is a relatively recent change. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the Sam Blacketer controversy article, Hans, I concur. Not that I wished for the article to be kept (I !voted merge), but I agree the AFD should have run for another two days, especially considering there is some controversy over the short length of time for two AFDs of the related David Boothroyd article. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See below. I confess I wasn't aware of the change, and will sort it out when I wake up and can parse information better. Apologies, Daniel (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy‎

[edit]

Your recent close of this discussion seems premature as AFD discussions are now kept open for at least seven days. Please restore the article and reopen the discussion as it seems important for Wikipedia's reputation to avoid the appearance of impropriety in this case. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, see section above. Also, there have been several discussions recently in which editors showed themselves concerned about the systemic bias caused by the fact that admins that follow the rules strictly often don't get a chance to close AfDs because premature closures are becoming the norm. This closure was after 4¾ days, so it wasn't even OK according to the old rules, especially in such a high-profile case.
Apart from this technical problem I found your closure well thought-out. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, when did it change to seven days? And 4.75 days is close enough to five not to matter, unless you'd have preferred me to close it now, when my writing would make very little sense as it's currently 02:47 Sunday morning my time and I'm fairly incoherent at this time of the weekend normally. Daniel (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies to all - I just found this having read the history of WP:AFD. I've reverted my close on the basis that I was not up-to-speed with the seven day length change, and agree that in such a high profile AfD it shouldn't be [mistakenly] closed two days early, especially given the rationale for my close was pretty much which-opinion-about-notability-has-the-most-support, which is something which could change in the next 48 hours. Thanks for letting me know in a civilised manner, and also thanks Hans for your kind words about the close itself (aside from me not being up-to-date with the latest changes to the AfD policy). Daniel (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks a lot, and have a good night. Tomorrow morning you might want to ponder about the fact that at least one admin has said in the past that he never gets a chance to close AfDs because he waits the full 5 days. Personally, if I have the chance between a geographic bias and a bias against admins who try to follow the rules strictly in this matter, I prefer the former. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Hullinger

[edit]

While I appreciated the true humility of the subject in thinking he was not notable enogh for these pages, I am gratified that he was able to see though the improvements that his career has indeed made an impact on a number of people and is worthy of inclusion. Breathing life into that stub was rewarding. Thank you for the withdrawal. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits to it. I truly was intending to leave you a thank you note for your edits, or send you an email, but it unfortunately it slipped my mind. It certainly is a far more reasonable and accomplished article now, and the improvements are astounding (I had a quick look for sources, but saw nothing like the number you found). Regards, Daniel (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel/Archive/76&oldid=1166514579"