User talk:Daniel/Archive/41

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 40 · Archive 41 · Archive 42 →

I'm sorry, but it looks like someone made a subsequent edit. Could you please delete again? Thank you.   j    talk   06:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad did it himself - ArbCom clerks are so efficient. Daniel 06:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks like you guys shook hands just while I was typing my comment, which as it happened advocated exactly the result Daniel mentioned in his deletion summary, and was certainly a result I thought the head of the Mediation Committee should be able to broker. :) Happy editing to all. Newyorkbrad 06:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I didn't manage to reach an appropriate agreed resolution, I think I'd have to quit... Thanks for your input as always, however redundantly delayed on this occasion, Brad :) Daniel 07:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was efficient, Brad. Daniel, thanks for listening. Next time, I'll stop by your talk page, instead of an RfC. Did you know we once agreed on something? Anyway, I wish you well. Please let me know if you're ever visiting Los Angeles. I think someone recommended we have some tea and cookies.  :)   j    talk   06:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, Ral's the sort that draws people together. I went to LA two years ago, but hopefully I can get back there sooner rather than later (all Qantas flights from Australia land there, if I recall correctly). Cheers, Daniel 07:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ping.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, dealt with, responded. Daniel 07:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Daniel

I was under the firm impression that the case had been assigned to you, since you called for opening statements some time ago; these statements have been made by all four parties. The case is currently listed as unassigned, and looks dead. What's happening? Tony 11:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First up, my apologies for leaving you in this confused state - I was under the impression I left a message explaining what was happening (similar to this one), but it seems that I missed the boat on that one... :|

What happened was I tentitively took the case and got you guys to give statements etc., to get things moving. Under most circumstances I wouldn't have taken the case, because I lack the technical knowledge about the subject matter of the dispute to help in any way (as I noted here for my fellow Committee members).

I figured that getting things moving initially whilst I sought out a mediator to help you who had the required knowledge might be beneficial, and I held a faint hope that your initial statements may reveal to me that my limited knowledge of the subject matter may be enough. It wasn't, hence my actions.

Again, my apologies for not posting a message (which would have been similar to the above), as I thought I had. I'll continue looking, asking and poking around to try and get someone suitable, to which end I've had no luck to date. Cheers, and my deepest apologies. Daniel 07:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see my comments on the RFA and Picaroon's page. I could just as easily go how dare you remove my remarks!, that doesn't make your actions any better or worse --L^augh! 11:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USER#Removal of inappropriate content, and the consensus on the talk page. You might not find it offensive, but everyone else (including U and others) agree that it shouldn't be hanging around in userspace. You aren't consensus. Daniel 11:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, I'm sure you think you're doing the right thing, but there is no consensus to remove an innocent comment on linguistic differences. Please do not remove it again, or I will take this to WP:3RR --L^augh! 11:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made three reverts (plus the initial change, so not 3RR yet), so I'm safe at the moment. You're right - I'm not removing it. Other people who agree with myself, Picaroon, Newyorkbrad, Thebainer and U amongst others, will remove it anyways. Yay for consensus. Daniel 11:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are on three reverts, also. Yay for both of us. Daniel 11:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Daniel, you're at about six reverts. The only reason I didn't report you was out of WP:AGF and kindness, if you're attempting to mock me, I will take it there -L^augh! 11:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wha...? Initial edit, R1, R2, R3. The other two (E1, E2) were not the same thing, and weren't even reverts. I appreciate what you're doing as an act of goodwill (both mutually avoiding AN3), but I'm genuinely confused. Daniel 11:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, you're up to four :P Anyway, can we just leave it like it is now? Nobody could possibly be offended by it (well, except the people that make babelfish, but I doubt that), and nobody has to get blocked etc. --L^augh! 11:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It still seems to be gathering some concerns, and I still believe it would be better to remove it entirely. Daniel 12:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment about this on the SLG talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks Brad. Daniel 07:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I took one look at the interface for mediation and felt dizzy. I'm a carer, that is someone who has cared for other family members in my case for 18 odd years, I've been a Trustee of two major UK carers charities, and I'm fed up being beat-up by oh-so-learned wikipedians who are not carers and know nothing of the subject telling me what I should call myself and many millions of other carers around the world. The dispute seems to focus on the simple fact that "they got there first" ...I created the carers page which someone then moved into voluntary caregivers, a word I would never use or even knew existed. I have added quite a few extra chapters, I have lots more that I can (and would like to) write but on reflection I am bugg*ered if I will contribute to a page which has a title that I and most other carers profoundly disagree with. So the page will simply rot on the vine...not a good result. Any helpful advice you can offer (and please remember I am a carer and have a real job looking after my disabled son, and dont regard this game playing as amusing or productive in the slighest.) Excalibur 00:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your concern. Could I possibly suggest an article requests for comment, to solicit outside input? It may be beneficial in your situation. All the best, Daniel 07:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 29	16 July 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Filling in with a new feature
Möller, Walsh retain seats; Brioschi elected	British agency cites Wikipedia in denying F1 trademark
Two new bureaucrats promoted	Wikipedian bloggers launch "article rescue" effort
Book review: The Cult of the Amateur	WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"
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 20:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your comment on my RfA, in case you were interested. Useight 09:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Daniel 10:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It's been about a month since my RfM has seen any activity. Is it still going on, or what? --Eyrian 12:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for Anthony's reply, and it slid off my watchlist, sadly. I'll see if Anthony's still interested despite his inactivity in the dispute (which could simply be because of the same reason as me). Daniel 00:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright. I just don't want consensus by timeout. --Eyrian 01:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 15:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Daniel, sorry to bother you again, but I am still having issues with VandalProof. I was logged in in IE and tried to log into VP, but it would only pick up my IP. Any idea what is going on? I appreciate your work on VandalProok and your patient help! Sincerely, Neranei ^T/C 21:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno about the login problem. The script errors you mentioned earlier are noted in the various threads of User talk:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs, so you may find the answers helpful. I will have to shunt you off to User:Eagle 101 on the login issue, as I have no idea about that :| Cheers, Daniel 00:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Bless you! Thank you for your help, and for your tireless work on VandalProof! So, here's a little present for you. :) Cheers, Neranei T/C 01:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, thanks! It's been a while since my last barnstar - apparently I'm becoming too nasty :) Daniel 01:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; you definitely deserve it! Cheers and happy editing, Neranei ^T/C 01:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comba Tai courtesy blanked? Legal threats? VanTucky ^(talk) 00:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindness. Daniel 00:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is doesn't seem a valid reason to me. What evidence of unkindness in the AFD is there? VanTucky ^(talk) 01:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this and this. Ask Jimbo, not me - I just act as his templating side-kick (there was also an OTRS request from four days ago, which merely drew my attention to the blank debate, and I added the template [and when I followed Jimbo's contribs back, I found those two comments]). Daniel 01:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADMIN ABUSE!!!!--Deskana (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* You didn't quite fit the model of my envisaged process-wonking troll, but I guess that's all the trolling I'm going to get... Daniel 01:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See you tomorrow! :) >Riana leave message 03:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really...and I thought I was WP:POINT-happy at the moment. Daniel 03:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:o Australia says no! ~ Riana ⁂ 03:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

584 characters... and speaking of Australia saying no, lulz. Daniel 03:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plop. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. See you both tomorrow :) Daniel 03:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you failed.YellowAssessmentMonkey 03:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm getting an A in Maths Studies (I dropped Physics and Specialist, yay for having a life). So, mark those apples... :) Daniel 04:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been renamed from Evilclown93 to Maxim, so please remove Evilclown93. BTW, I have a problem logging in. Every time I try to login, I receive this message:

An error has occurred in the script on this page.

Line:  877
Char:  1
Error: Expected identifier, string or number 
Code:  0
URL:   http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
       title=Special:Userlogin&action=submitlogin&type=login

Do you want to continue running scripts on this page? (Y/N)

Any clue as to why that happens? This might be obvious, but I don't what to do. Is it some sort of bug? Maxim 15:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Daniel, I've answered Maxims problem as I had the same problem, just so you know.....Rlest 17:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Daniel 11:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I am currently working on getting List of Sydney FC players to FL status, but have come accross some problems, mainly getting references for international caps. I've seen some of your outstanding work on Aussie football, and was wandering if you could give some help with this if you have the time. Thanks, Mattythewhite 21:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, I was doing the same thing at User:Daniel/Sandbox/List of Sydney FC players :) Feel free to hack out any information you like from there and copy it over (just mention my name in the edit summary if it's a direct copy), and I'll try and get some stuff for the players section. Cheers, Daniel 23:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, just notification that Hornetman16's been blocked again, as I thought this might interest you. --Deskana (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and it seems he might be autoblocked at wikiquote as well. --Dark Falls ^talk 00:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just like magic? --Deskana (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the appropriate response is: sigh. Thanks for letting me know, both of you :) Daniel 00:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he is blocked at wikiquotes. See block log. ~ Wikihermit 02:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was autoblocked, as DarkFalls said :) Daniel 10:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you locked the article to the wrong version. Please read the talk page and the first archived page. Consensus was for the Japan section to be included, and the deletion of this material never achieved consensus. Here is the last consensus version. Last Consensus Version Could you please restore it to this version? We need a Administrator Referee there too. Thanks. Bmedley Sutler 00:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

m:The wrong version. And administrators aren't "referees", because content is non-enforcable. I'd suggest you try the Mediation Cabal. Daniel 00:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is that it protected the results of the vandalism, blanking of an entire section (Japan) that was well referenced and the work of many editors on both sides of the POV fence, and added with consensus. Vandals came and blanked it, and now its protected with the section mising. If it can be established that this was indeed vandalism, then I take it an admin can restore that section while its protected? What is the procedure to have this validated? This is not a matter of a content dispute, but of vandalism. How to proceed? Thanks.Giovanni33 02:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC) See here, where a no answer, I think, will reveal that it was vandalism. If he explain, though, the maybe it was not. Its hard for me to think of how this section is in anyway OR, as he claimed:[[1]][reply]

Please stop calling content disputes vandalism. 5 editors removing your original research and synthesis is not vandalism. --Tbeatty 04:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, when those five attackers blank whole source sections and never use the talk page to discuss why they are doing it, or explain who they can possibly call it "OR"---and when they are blanking material that was supported by over 17 editors who actually regulary edit this page. Gettting a gang of 5 editors to vandalize a page has happened before, and it happened this time. I call it as I see it.Giovanni33 08:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A content dispute is not vandalism, specifically as stated in WP:VAND, nor is a good-faithed attempt to improve the encyclopedia. My user talk page will not be hosting any further discussion on this topic, so I suggest you try dispute resolution, of which my talk page isn't part of. Daniel 10:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Daniel, I see you locked the above mentioned page. I would like to know why if thats possible. I see edit warring was mentioned, but when I reported this [2], nothing was done about it. I consider the locking of the page a lazy way of addressing the problems with editors on the article. Regardless of whats going on, that article should not be locked, there are alternatives, such as Article Probation. The only problem being, getting an admin who was half intrested to do it. --Domer48 08:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the argument presented here to be adherant with our protection policy. Daniel 08:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! - Alison ☺ 10:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops indeed! :) Daniel 10:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'sokay! :) - Alison ☺ 10:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:) Cheers, and thanks for the note(s), Daniel 10:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in My RfA which closed successfully. I am honored and truly more than a little humbled by the support of so many members of the community. It's more than a bit of a lift to see comments on my behalf by so many people that I respect. I'll do my best to not disappoint you or the community. - Philippe | Talk 20:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found this while going through the contested pages; seems obviously notable to me so I removed the hangon tag, but I'm wondering: is the title correct? Shouldn't there be call letters or something? Just double checking everything. -WarthogDemon 23:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea :( Sorry, Daniel 08:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh it's probably okay. It's attached to two projects now, I've noticed, so if the title's wrong probably someone from the projects will fix it. Anyways, thanks anyway. :) -WarthogDemon 17:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's at least one other reference:

• http://my-best-shot.blogspot.com/2007/05/bob-guccione.html

You can also check out these photos from 1994, and you can see the resemblance, although obviously he has aged by 13 years:

• http://www.wireimage.com/SearchResults.aspx?igi=5660&s=Guccione&sfld=C&vwmd=e

--David Shankbone 12:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, those images seem like him. There must be some confusion about whether the page is talking about Guccione Snr. or his son (both have articles). Strange...thanks for readding them, I was just about to, and sorry to bother you, Daniel 07:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Daniel, I would like to request that the page block on the Great Irish Famine be lifted. The content dispute has been agreed [3]. I have given an undertaken here [4] not to revert any edits. I can give the same undertaken to you if you wish. While I can not say there will not be differences of opinion, I will not lose the head. While the conduct of editors is still the subject of an Abrcom [5], for my part I give an undertaking to abide by all rules governing conduct on that article. Thanks --Domer48 20:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer if another, independant administrator reviews any request for unprotection. I would appreciate it if you posted at the "requests for unprotection" section at WP:RFPP instead, and feel free to link to this comment so that the reviewing administrator knows I'm fine with any review (in some cases, asking to have a protection lifted so soon would be blanket-rejected, but linking to this should at least get it a review proper). Cheers, Daniel 07:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel. 2007 Australian football code crowds is very very out of date, and I suspect it’s because it’s simply hard to keep updated. Do you know of any good, simple WYSIWYG editors where you could say, copy an excel spreadsheet and have it wikified? That way you could simply c+p the table into excel, add the crowds you want to add and sort them, then c+p them back out.

Cheers, Dibo ^{T | C} 01:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't...I'm not too privvy with WYSIWYG or similar stuff (as seen by how long it takes me to make those List of X players articles). Sorry, Daniel 07:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 30	23 July 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "World domination"	News and notes: "The Wikipedia Story", visa ruling, 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 06:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for the revert on my talkpage. As I noted to NYBrad who also reverted, I'm growing just a little weary of CyberAnth (talk · contribs) and his current campaign to post and repost the same unwelcome, misguided and irrelevant warnings and messages on my talk page. Cheers, Deiz talk 08:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. Daniel 11:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, they only reason I posted to your talk page was that was the advice outlined when I went to the unblock page. I simply suggests you ask the blocking editor first. THANKS --Domer48 08:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most certainly, thanks for leaving me the note. Cheers, Daniel 11:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni33 filed a new application for mediation.

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story 2

However, he did not ask me to sign off on it. I am very angry with this because he was the reason it failed last time. Can you please notify whoever needs to know to suspend this, as I have asked Deskana if we can go straight to arbitration on this matter.

If you can re-file mediation without getting permission again, then Giovanni could keep not participating, causing it to fail and then insist on more rounds. It's ridiculous. I was not asked about this so I want it to be stopped until Deskana gets back to me. Thanks. John Smith's 10:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you didn't actually agree to mediation, but your signature was copied across. Sorry, I didn't realise. If you disagree with the case being accepted at RfM, please replace the copied-from-the-last-RfM (but wasn't declared as such) "Agree" with your signature to "Disagree" with an updated signature if this is your current stance, to make everything be formally signed off.

My apologies for this issue - I haven't bothered to check the history of RfM's in the past to ensure that it was the actual user signing, as a gesture of good faith, however there seems to have been some confusion in this request. My apologies for my error. Cheers, Daniel 11:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is this one. John Smith's 11:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so, thanks. Daniel 11:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just a quick note to tell you I have copied your userpage design and I am Qst (as told in my signature) as it was permitted I could create a new account but Molag Bal already knows its me after I warned a blatant sockpuppet of his. Cheers, — Rlest (formerly Qst) 18:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel - I've asked Rlest to come over here and let you know, as I know this is a sensitive issue for you. Please don't shoot him down in flames ... situations like the one a few months ago should be avoided where possible :) cheers, Daniel ~ Anthøny 20:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had already come over before the discussion with Anthony, cheers Anthony — you're great! — Rlest 21:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with you using my layout, and although no credit is legally required, as Anthony noted on his talk page I would greatly appreciate it if you did give a small little notice (and it may also avoid people asking you the same question you've just asked me...). However, I do think it would be an appropriate courtesy to remove the sentence in which you reflect unfavourably on my involvement in the previous incident, as well as Riana's and Anas's, as a gesture of good faith and so that we can all move on. I was doing my best to avoid commenting at all about the situation and was prepared to let things slide along since your return as a gesture of good faith, and I hope you wish for this situation to continue as it benefits both of us. As such, I'd appreciate it if you could remove that little slap-in-the-face on your "essay". Cheers, Daniel 22:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, I will but I was very annoyed as I awoke that day and signed on later only to find that I had been repeatedly blocked and unblocked, I'm still highly annoyed at Anas and Riana but I'm not going to be uncivil to them. I will leave a note at the bottom saying its yours, I also couldn't find a nice green colour for my signature which wasn't to bright so for the minute I have kinda... stolen yours. Regards, — Rlest 09:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, it's understandable to be at least frustrated in such a situation (I was in one myself, if you check my old block log). Regarding your signature, I'll reveal my trade tip on colours: colr.org :) I can suggest either #48BF3F (lighter) or #48BF3F (darker), however you may wish to play around with their little slide-program to find the one you really like. Cheers, and thanks again, Daniel 09:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, your welcome. I'll remove your name from the essay, and I'll check out that colour website. Regards, — Rlest 09:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say my new sig is too bright? — Rlest 10:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just a touch... :) Daniel 10:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail, Daniel! :) Love, Phaedriel - 19:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded :) Daniel 08:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]