User talk:Daniel/Archive/16

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.

Since I see you are active on the /Pending page for RFCU at the moment, I thought it best to offer a heads-up: Tangotango & I are testing the bot, so please ignore any strange edits you might notice from me, Tangotango, or EssjayBot II. Essjay (Talk) 06:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I wondered what was going on :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Since you expressed an opinion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Discuss and Vote, I would appreciate it if you could comment on WP:DDV, in particular as to whether it accurately represents the way Wikipedia works (and feel free to reword it if it doesn't) and as to whether it is correct that we generally discourage (but not forbid) voting. Thanks. (Radiant) 08:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Done. I see nothing that urgently needs to be reworded, however I'll give it the once-over tomorrow sometime. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have moved Gosport Ferry Company Ltd back again. I didn't use the Move tab because you can't move it to a page that already exists. The official is the only place that you can get the right inforamtion and it clearly says in the banner at the top - Gosport Ferry Company Ltd. If you read the page, I clearly stated this a hundred times and on various talk pages. So please dont attempt to move it again as there is a reason behind the name. The article is about the whole company NOT just the ferry. Unisouth 08:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think you have the wrong person - see Martinp23 (talk · contribs). Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for passing it on, at least wikipedia has some normals users like you unlike the other one. Unisouth 09:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please, no personal attacks. I have great respect for Martinp23, and no-matter-what, an admin is going to have to fix up the copy-and-paste move that you made - it creates GFDL problems. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week. Old Firm has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Hi Daniel,

How do you think we should deal with editors who have been "convicted" of sockpuppetry on Wikipedia but have not been indefblocked? How would others know of the user's past with sockpuppetry? I have run into this problem a few times and no one has given me a good answer. Thanks. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

These are my opinions, and some admins don't share them. However, for the most part, they do:-

• Tag the sockpuppet's page with the appropriate sockpuppet tag (normally {{SockpuppetCheckuser}} for the stuff I deal with), and indefinately block it. This tag adds them to the category Category: Wikipedia sockpuppets of (sockpuppeteer), which allows people to see the accounts that the user is "convicted" of operating easily.
• Give the main account a block of 24 hours (for 3RR evading socks) to 1 week (using sockpuppets to make personal attacks). Sometimes indefinately blocking is required, but these are isolated circumstances.
• If the main account (the sockpuppeteer) is indefinately blocked, tag it with {{Sockpuppeteer}}. If the account isn't indefinately blocked, don't tag it.

Again, these are my opinions. For more, see WP:BLOCK and WP:SOCK. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Daniel. I'm not sure about these technical things, but if you feel it is an improvement, then by all means go for it. I'm very happy with how the FLC is progressing at the moment, 5-0.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Too big for me to crop successfully. I guess it'll just have to stay how it is. Good luck with FLC :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello -

I'm new to editing on wikipedia. I'm sorry that I attempted to create a page "boulder opal" by cutting & pasting info from my website www.koroit.com. Koroit.com is my website. I wrote everything that is on that site. How do I wikipeia-legally cut & paste info from koroit.com to a wikipedia page "boulder opal"?

thanks for your help & sorry for my ignorance.

I'm a yank, but spend about 4 or 5 months a year mining opal in Koroit (SW Qld). I might have a few questions about AFL rules.

thanks, Gene

feel free to contact me through here or email: gene@koroit.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobrancusi (talk • contribs) 00:59, November 21, 2006

Consulting some other users about this. Excuse the delay. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please follow the instructions here: Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#When permission is confirmed. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I deleted the edit history behind your redirect so that the article on the NZ politician can't just simply be pulled out. Cheers, trialsanderrors 01:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Cheers for that one. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey Daniel. I just decided to ask you what your interest in the Mariners is. Are you a fan. I am! It's a pity that Beauchamp left. Is that how you say his name? Anyway, is there anything to be done on their page? Drizzt Jamo 22:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey! Well, yes, I am a fan - although not technically a "Marinator", I do travel to Melbourne/Adelaide/Perth games (I moved to Adelaide from the Coast at the start of '06), and watch all the rest on TV. Anyways, with the article, there's plenty to do - there's a to-do box on the CCM talk page which has some tasks needing completion. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I consider myself a "Marinator", although I am not privileged enough to have Foxtel to be able to watch the games. I do occasionally listen to them over the net at home, using online radio. I live in Canberra so i can't go to see them live (becuase my family like the NRL) and so we might be able to see one game if we got to Sydney for the rugby. Well thanks for that i'll see what i can do! (Although I am supposed to be doing a Geography assignment!) Drizzt Jamo 22:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah, yes, good ol' Geography. I have a case study to do before next Wednesday, but I'm really not motivated to do it :) Anyways, cheers, and good luck referencing the CCMFC article, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the help on what to do next with the article. It gave my edits a slight boost, a very needed boost. Anyway Dfrg.msc told me to give you this. It's great! Drizzt Jamo 03:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Bloody Pointless И This user harbors a deep mutual resentment and/or a general dislike of Dfrg.msc. X This user has, at some point, blatantly ripped off Dfrg.msc. ??! This page Smells Funny. Brick. Brick(s).

About the CCMFC page. I was wandering why you deleted the part of that article which i contributed. Drizzt Jamo 01:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

The reason I deleted it was that Wikipedia is not a scoreboard, and that kind of information is more appropriate for the Season pages. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Thanks for the help. More than what my wikifather has been doing for me lately. I'm just joking he's pretty good. See you around. Drizzt Jamo 00:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Dan. My Wikison escaped again. Jamo, drop and give me 20! Edits that is. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 07:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'll do it later! Drizzt Jamo 21:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the compliment on my talk page. I think your userpage has got to be the best looking one I've seen on Wikipedia so far. Very nice.--Hatch68 03:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Cheers :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey Daniel, I see you've been closing AFDs lately...and yet you're not an admin yet...how? Jpeob 03:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

WP:DELPRO#Non-administrators closing discussions. There is a small group of people who fit into the "editors in good-standing who have not been made administrators" category, and this was what this procedure was designed for. From what I can see, you're one of them :) If you are planning on closing AfD's, make sure you read that section a number of times, and follow it to the letter - although we (as non-admins who are respected members of the community) can close discussions, the situations that we are allowed to are pretty small. Also note WP:DELPRO#Articles for Deletion page if you do find an AfD that can be closed (note, they must be at least five days old before we can close them) - that has all the templates etc. listed. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Cheers, "fellow editor in good standing"! Jpeob 04:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

:) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Here's the first AFD I've closed! Cheers, Jpeob 20:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Weekly Delivery

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 06:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why could you just had left my (fairuse?) image were the fuck it was! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.37.64.6 (talk) 6:15, November 21, 2006

Maybe if you read the link - WP:FU - that I so graciously left you when I removed it,[1] you'd understand why fair use images can't be used in userspace. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Atlantis Hawk nomined the article to FAC. You can now leave a message in the nomination page. Thanks :) No-Bullet 21:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Support :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, quick question. Is it OK for me to remove a db-spam template that I added to someone's page if I change my mind after corresponding with the author? Thanks for the help. Hatch68 03:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you're the one who added it, sure you can :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey Daniel, about the checkuser case for User:Snsudharsan [2], the procedure has judged that a number of users Psivapalan, Sri119, Mama007, Mystìc and Ajgoonewardene to be socks of User:Lahiru_k. I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Looking at the contributions of User: Mystìc [3] and User:Lahiru_k [4], they seem quite different and their contributins are on varied topics. Even User:Ajgoonewardene and User:Mama007's edits don't seem to be related, apart from the TFD vote.

What I think has happened is this. There is currently only one broadband ISP in Sri Lanka called SLT, and they do not issue static IPs to subscribers. Everytime a subscriber connects, a different IP is issued (like AOL I believe). The WHOIS result for the IP Mystìc used to request unblocking says the status of the IP is "ALLOCATED PORTABLE" and the SLT website says they issue Dynamic IPs [5]. And from what I know, SLT has only a small pool of IPs they assign to their customers.

I'm not entirely sure how checkuser works, but if it checks the IPs from which the users have edited and compares them to see if they are similar, it could well be that it has judged everyone who was assigned a similar IP at one time or other to be sockpuppets of Lahiru_k. And therefore everyone who uses SLT may be may have been banned as sockpuppets.

So can you plase check into this, and make sure whether they really are socks of Lahiru_k? Thanks. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 09:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Although you do bring up an interesting point, I unfortunately am not the person to be asking - I'm only a clerk :) I would suggest you forward this same information onto Dmcdevit (talk · contribs), the person who made the check, to evaluate. Cheers, and apologies for not being able to fufill your request (I know how it feels to have the buck passed around when you ask something, but I promise there is nothing further I can do), Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem :) Thanks for the quick response. I'll post the same question to Dmcdevit. Thanks again. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 10:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

:) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ahh, I figured you'd just be able to tack it on the end like this: #REDIRECT [[blah#section]] Thanks. Neurophyre^(talk) 01:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problems :) I wish you could do that, but as far as I'm aware, it doesn't work. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! – Chacor 02:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problems - it was unverifiable, redundant info which doesn't add any meaning to the article, and was poorly written to boot (beyond comprehension to most). I've given him {{3rr4}}, and if he edits again, I'll get an admin to block him. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to WP:WPTC!

The latest WikiProject newsletter is available here.

Dear Tropical cyclone editor,

As a member of the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject, you are receiving this message to describe how you can better tropical cyclone articles. There are hundreds of tropical cyclone articles, though many of them are poorly organized and lacking in information. Using the existing featured articles as a guide line, here is the basic format for the ideal tropical cyclone article.

1. Infobox- Whenever possible, the infobox should have a picture for the tropical cyclone. The picture can be any uploaded picture about the storm, though ideally it should be a satellite shot of the system. If that is not available, damage pictures, either during the storm or after the storm, are suitable. In the area that says Formed, indicate the date on which the storm first developed into a tropical depression. In the area that says Dissipated, indicate the date on which the storm lost its tropical characteristics. This includes when the storm became extratropical, or if it dissipated. If the storm dissipated and reformed, include the original start date and the final end date. Highest winds should be the local unit of measurement for speed (mph in non-metric countries, km/h in metric countries), with the other unit in parenthesis. The lowest pressure should be in mbars. Damages should, when available, be in the year of impact, then the present year. The unit of currency can be at your discretion, though typically it should be in USD. Fatalities indicate direct deaths first, then indirect deaths. Areas affected should only be major areas of impact. Specific islands or cities should only be mentioned if majority of the cyclone's effects occurred there.
2. Intro- The intro for every article should be, at a minimum, 2 paragraphs. For more impacting hurricanes, it should be 3. The first should describe the storm in general, including a link to the seasonal article, its number in the season, and other statistics. The second should include a brief storm history, while the third should be impact.
3. Storm history- The storm history should be a decent length, relatively proportional to the longevity of the storm. Generally speaking, the first paragraph should be the origins of the storm, leading to the system reaching tropical storm status. The second should be the storm reaching its peak. The third should be post-peak until landfall and dissipation. This section is very flexable, depending on meteorological conditions, but it should generally be around 3. Storm histories can be longer than three paragraphs, though they should be less than five. Anything more becomes excessive. Remember, all storm impacts, preparations, and records can go elsewhere. Additional pictures are useful here. If the picture in the infobox is of the storm at its peak, use a landfall picture in the storm history. If the picture in the infobox is of the storm at its landfall, use the peak. If the landfall is its peak, use a secondary peak, or even a random point in the storm's history.
4. Preparations- The preparations section can be any length, depending on the amount of preparations taken by people for the storm. Hurricane watches and warnings need to be mentioned here, as well as the number of people evacuated from the coast. Include numbers of shelters, and other info you can find on how people prepared for the storm.
5. Impact- For landfalling storms, the impact section should be the majority of the article. First, if the storm caused deaths in multiple areas, a death table would work well in the top level impact section. A paragraph of the general effects of the storm is also needed. After the intro paragraph, impact should be broken up by each major area. It depends on the information, but sections should be at least one paragraph, if not more. In the major impact areas, the first paragraph should be devoted to meteorological statistics, including rainfall totals, peak wind gusts on land, storm surge, wave heights, beach erosion, and tornadoes. The second should be actual damage. Possible additional paragraphs could be detailed information on crop damage or specifics. Death and damage tolls should be at the end. Pictures are needed, as well. Ideally, there would be at least one picture for each sub-section in the impact, though this sometimes can't happen. For storms that impact the United States or United States territories, this site can be used for rainfall data, including an image of rainfall totals.
6. Aftermath- The aftermath section should describe foreign aid, national aid, reconstruction, short-term and long-term environmental effects, and disease. Also, the storm's retirement information, whether it happened or not, should be mentioned here.
7. Records- This is optional, but can't hurt to be included.
8. Other- The ideal article should have inline sourcing, with the {{cite web}} formatting being preferable. Always double check your writing and make sure it makes sense.

Good luck with future writing, and if you have a question about the above, don't hesitate to ask. – Chacor 02:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please respond here Arsath 04:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good job on your statement on the page (except for that annoying way you spell "behavior" with a "u" :) ). Newyorkbrad 04:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ha :) Cheers for that - nothing annoys me more than people wasting the 10secs of the ArbCom members' time to write * '''Reject''' ~~~~ because they haven't bothered to read WP:DR and WP:ARBCOM. *shakes head* Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I find it more frustrating when it sits there for a week waiting for 4 arbs to get around to rejecting it. Although lately, the precedent seems to be that someone just reverts the request off the page, which is efficient, but leaves something to be desired from a process point of view. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, all in all, it's a waste of time. You should read my additional comment that I just added to the RfAr page :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict, I just saw it) You're right about it being inappropriate to bring a case against someone for doing a clerk's job, but I recommend that you not remove your own name from the party list–someone might accuse you of tampering or something–you might want to write to one of the ArbClerks (Thatcher131 or FloNight) and see what they think. Newyorkbrad 04:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good point. If it does get to that situation, I'll either ask Dmcdevit/Raul654 over IRC for their thoughts on my proposal. We'll wait and see... Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

A question for you, why is User:Lahiru_k not banned yet ?RaveenS 14:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why would I know? Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Daniel, thanks for filing the MfD on that user's talk page. Hopefully this ridiculous story will come to a close shortly. Cheers. (→Netscott) 05:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problems. I personally think it's a sitting duck, but even if it has to go the distance, I'm sure the outcome will still be the same. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I must say thank you for the kind words :) I just find it fun writing about what I love, so it's just an added bonus that people appreciate it. BTW, welcome to the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject. There's quite a few ongoing projects, such as maintaining and updating current seasonal articles, expanding articles on the structure and development of tropical cyclones, and, what I do, improving existing articles for older storms to as good of a quality as possible. If you don't mind me asking, what do you plan on doing in the project? Thanks again for the kind words and the barnstar, and I'll see you around. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, I have been tinkling with seasonal pages as an IP before I joined in May (I edited from an IP for three months), so stuff like 2006 Atlantic hurricane season is right up my alley. I also like writing lists, so if I think of something that hasn't been done yet, I'll create it. I also copyedit, so if anything comes up regarding articles getting into the A- and FAC range, I'll be happy to help out. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Awesome. If you're interested in lists, there is also a project to get a List of XXX hurricanes article for each state. For example, I wrote List of Delaware hurricanes and List of New Jersey hurricanes, both of which are featured lists. New Jersey was fun because that's where I live. There is also the List of California hurricanes which was featured, and List of Hawaii hurricanes and List of Arizona hurricanes which are decent. There are several others, but they're all not as good of quality. You might have some fun working on that for the state you live in. Given your previous experience with featured lists you'd be able to come up with some cool things the WPTC hadn't thought of. Basically any area is up for grabs, though some will be harder than others (like Florida, which I am tediously doing due to the high number of Florida storms). Whatever you do, have fun with it, and good luck. Hurricanehink (talk) 06:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, my state has never had a cyclone in recorded history :) Still, I'm sure I will have fun brushing off some of those lists to FL. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah, ok, cool. :) Hurricanehink (talk) 06:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Some of the articles you are adding tags to are inappropriate, as they are part of a wider context than purely Australian football e.g. FIFA World Cup. Adding unnecessary tags clutters up the talk page at best and causes confusion at worst. Oldelpaso 22:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's part of our project scope, and hence it should be categorised as such. If you've got a problem, do something like Talk:India. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

As the Australian project and Wikiproject Football are in essence two sides of the same coin, it strikes me as peculiar to have them both listed on a talk page. Surely it would make more sense to pick the most appropriate tag, i.e. the Australian one for say Sydney F.C., and the WPF one for "meta" football articles like FIFA World Cup and articles which don't match up to a more specific project? Oldelpaso 22:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, I know that half our members aren't a member of WP Football, and yet have worked very hard on the FIFA World Cup article, as well as the 2006 (1974 got neglected) edition articles. The problem is there is currently no collaboration going on between the two, and so it wouldn't benefit anyone to have this designation. On the same token, or maybe different, do you like what I did with Talk:FIFA World Cup? Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

More cross-project collaboration would be beneficial to prevent balkanisation of football editors, not sure what to suggest though. (an aside, I note that the lack of extra edits to Central Coast Mariners FC while it was FAID got a couple of negative comments on the Aus project talk page, but the AID is very variable in productivity at the best of times, and as the article was already quite well developed there wasn't all that much an editor unfamiliar with the subject could add.)

Having the various tags down the side looks preferable to having more than a screens worth of tags. Oldelpaso 22:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

thanks for the vandalism revert on my userpage! Madjohnflint 07:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problems :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I see you've added the above template, or the related categories of it, to a few articles not really about football (soccer) in Australia. I don't see the reason to do so and would suggest that the template only be added to articles whose main subject is football in Australia such as the A-League, Australian clubs and players, but not to articles that might mention Australia but do not have that as its main subject, such as the FIFA World Cup or football (soccer) articles. – Elisson • T • C • 16:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Responded and discussed over IRC. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

FWIW I agree with Johan. Articles like FIFA World Cup and Football (soccer), whilst they might refer to football in Australia, are about football in general. The 74 and 06 WCs have a case to be included, but WP:FinAus specifically covers football in Australia, not everything else about football. I'd be interested to see a quick summary of aforementioned discussion and the result. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 10:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the tag from FIFA World Cup and Football (soccer), but left it on the 2006 Controversies page, the 2006 FIFA World Cup page and the 1974 World Cup page. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Responded on User talk:Ral315. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just stumbled accross this little .GIF. Anyways, I've made my own to express my support for your arbcom candidacy, thought you should know (incase you want it deleted, etc, etc :D ), You'll be seeing it at the top of my user talk page. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

o_O Wow! Nah, I don't want it deleted - you're free to express support of me :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh my, this looks fun. You have my support. \o/ — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 11:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

LOL, good banner. Hv put it up! — Lost^(talk) 11:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Congrats to Mike for making it. I believe the template {{User:MichaelBillington/DB for Arbcom}} is the easy way to add it. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm so using that. riana_dzasta 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

As am I Jpeob 04:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

:O Cheers, guys! Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Daniel. Quite unorthodox AFD this is. Anyway, after some investigation I see that 152.91.9.144 closed it in good faith, because the nominator was actually requesting a merger and 152.91.9.144 decided to close it in order to give way to a traditional merger discussion in the article's talk page. Closing the AFD was a wrong procedure, but 152.91.9.144 had good intentions I believe. Anyway it's the good the article was brought to AFD because it was created against WP:POINT and should be deleted.--Húsönd 03:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I retracted my comment on the IP's talk page. Never-the-less, it can't be speedy closed now that people (myself and you included) have !voted to delete per WP:NOT. Cheers for that, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Daniel, that means a lot :) I'll run... sometime, never fear! I'm still working on points brought up during my editor review (including the ones by yourself), so I don't think I'm entirely ready yet. AFAIK Year 11 exams are ongoing right now, so I hope you're doing well - and if they've finished, then I hope they went smoothly :) Cheers, riana_dzasta 04:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

They finished last Wednesday - all seemed to go OK (I know I got 19-or-20 in English Studies, and I thought I did crap in that, so it looks good for the rest of them :D). Anyways, good luck, and have fun :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me and your positive experiences we've had, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 22:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd probably tie between LoC and KoD, at present. Both were action packed and really moved the story along. By the way, are you aware of the Wheel of Time wiki on Wikia? It's linked from my user page... -- nae'blis 07:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I had a browse once, long ago, however I only remember that now after your userpage triggered my memory. I might have a look-in at creating articles - personally, locations (mountains and rivers of importance etc.) seem to be my favourite part of WoT (in the way that it is so large and detailed), so I think that it would be my favourite area to write about. We'll see how it goes. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply