User talk:Daniel/Archive/19

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 18 · Archive 19 · Archive 20 →

The nbsp; header was there for a reason, to keep the open discussion separate from the closed discussion underneath it, but you could've just closed the last open discussion. The only reason why I didn't close it is because I participated in it. ~ trialsanderrors 06:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah, OK, I see now - my bad. Anyways, the last debate is closed, so do what you want with the all-finished page :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I took care of the rest. ~ trialsanderrors 08:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problems. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've given the project a second refreshing, cleaned out all the pages and organised new mottos well into February 2007 - are you participating in this as an overseer any more, or would you like to be removed from the list? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Responded on MOTD desk. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

There seems to be an allegation that Neutralizer forged my signature in a vote. I cant remember the exact details but I believe that it happened in error and there was no malice intended. If you can give me a link I can ellaborate further - Cartman02au 03:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not aware of that, but nonetheless, he's community banned now for being disruptive with sockpuppets, wikistalking, harassment and being a general pain in the neck. Maybe ask Sarah E for a diff, because I don't know of one. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

The forged vote allegation came from here and you confirmed that the vote wasn't made by you. Though there's so much trolling on that RFA page, it's very hard follow. Regardless, it was just an observation and it's really not important to WP. As Daniel said, he and his puppets are now community banned. Sarah Ewart 04:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yep, he's banned by the community. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I threw a line on there about Australia regaining the Ashes at lunchtime of the 3rd test to celebrate beating up the poms, knowing full well that the line would be edited later. Having copped 15 months of crap here in London from the English I think I deserved one moment of fun.

Jesus Christ mate, GET A GRIP!!!! and after 13000 edits, perhaps a life. Can I recommend watching the 2005 AFL Grand Final instead of sending whining emails to a fellow Swans fan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.41.169.147 (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC).Reply

Actually, I watched the 2005 AFL Grand Final again only last night - and yes, it never fails to amaze.

Sydney by four. Tadhg Kennelly did it well, saw the option in the pocket, went for it - Leo Barry. Slow it down. So Leo Barry in the back pocket heads along the boundary line. Ooh, good mark by Cox. Throws it onto the left, one last roll of the dice - Leo! Leo Barry you star!

Quite thrilling, I must say; although, 2006 was just horrible.

Back on topic, and by making the edit you did, it may confuse some people who are coming to add "one" to the tally - if they hadn't been following the series, it would have been easy to increment that "three" into a "four" easily, which is factually incorrect. Although it was a near-given result, some strange things have happened in cricket (a-la Adelaide Test, 2006), so it's better not to assume - Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. I'd also like you to stop making comments such as "get a grip" and "[get a] life" - such comments are personal attacks, for which you may be blocked for. Please let it drop. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

In lieu of a barnstar, wanted to say that you're doing a great job here multifactorially. Please keep up the hard work -- Samir धर्म 02:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Cheers :) I like to spread my contribs around, as to not get bored of one area. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Danny! I just want to say Merry Christmas to you! Have a nice holiday time. - Darwinek 11:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Cheers! Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Merry Christmas and a happy New Year to you too Daniel. Take care -- Samir धर्म 23:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Will do :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Delete and merge

edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I might be talking complete nonsense here, but my understanding was that the redirect is kept for GFDL reasons, as deleting it would require a history merge to preserve the history. Oldelpaso 11:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Normally, yes. In this case, however, the content that will probably be merged isn't going to be a large percent of the original article, and given that it will need to be rewritten to fit in with the main Poland national team article, GFDL becomes irrelevant. It's only when you copy the whole of the article and straight-paste it without altering anything that GFDL is a concern. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. We should (as WP:MERGE states) always leave the redirect, even if only a small amount of the information is used, even if it seems pointless. If we are taking someone elses work and using it elsewhere (even if it's being paraphrased) it still needs to be cited. Redirects are cheap, so we should use them liberally. Essjay (Talk) 23:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, I have seen countless merges take place, and the admin always seems to delete the text behind the redirect. I have three examples in my talk page archives. Also, there is a very good chance that the author of this article will simply revert the redirect, to reinstate his article. Further, this isn't a plausable redirect, so it may even end up on RfD anyways. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Two (or four, or two dozen) wrongs don't make another one right.
• Redirects, like any other page, can be protected.
• If it goes to RfD, so be it. If "It could be deleted" were a good reason for not doing something, we'd still be taking bets on what the 100th article will be. Essjay (Talk) 00:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but two (or four, or two dozen) "wrongs" may mean that it could possibly be right, or at least in-line with current practice - no matter how "wrong" it is. May I ask, would having it deleted at RfD create any different "GFDL concerns" than deleting it at the AfD? I think that the end result would be exactly the same. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

It really doesn't matter what I say at this point, what policy says, or anything, so I'm not going to waste my time any further. It's Christmas and there are better things to do then argue over following policy and copyright law. Essjay (Talk) 00:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Whatever - this is a perfect example of why I plan on staying away from copyright disagreements (like the one Jimmy is in regarding a Fair Use poll at the moment). Merry Christmas to you, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just want to wish anyone who views this page today a very Merry Christmas. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Daniel. I hope you had a great day, too. We had really heavy rain in Melbourne and it was pretty wet and cold all day. I just hope the farmers and water catchment areas also got it. Take care and have a nice evening. :) Sarah 10:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Cheers (by the way, your signature is screwed up - it reads [[User talk:Sarah_Ewart|Sarah ]] - note the space). Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that Daniel...I think it's fixed now. Cheers, Sarah 10:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problems - yes, it's fixed :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, you recently moved my CheckUser request on Snowolfd4, I don't completely understand why, though you most probably have good reason to, would you mind explaining the process to me on my talk page, or to a relevant page or article? Thankyou, Sharz 00:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Checks on users are placed on case subpages, as noted in the big green box at the top of WP:RFCU. The code letters that you indicated mean it is listed on a subpage, as only "A" letter checks are listed in the IP Check section. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

thanks for that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharz (talk • contribs)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 52	26 December 2006	About the Signpost

Seven arbitrators chosen	Wikipedia classroom assignments on the rise
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses"	News and notes: Stewards appointed, 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 07:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed that you archived this thread. Is there any possible way whereby I can retrieve this discussion and link to it? It seems to be absent from the ANI archives. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive161#User:Irpen_blocked_for_48_hours.2C_please_review. It would be better to link to it than to recopy the entire thread to AN/I but I suppose that depends on what you want to discuss. Thatcher131 14:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that, Thatcher - I left a note on Ghirla's talk page with a link to your response. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I saw you added the "Crz" case to the rejected cases page. I think the precedent is that cases that are summarily reverted off the RfAr page for being grossly trolling, filed by sockpuppets of banned users, etc., have not been included on the page which is more reserved for cases actually rejected by the arbitrators. This makes sense under the policy of WP:DENY although I can see the counter-argument that future frivolous filings by the same people would be easier to spot if they were listed.

Let's leave it alone for now and we can ask Thatcher131 what he thinks when he comes back from his Wikibreak–just wanted to bring the issue to your attention. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I tend to agree with you on this point, despite my complete hatred of WP:DENY getting in the way of keeping a complete documentation (I like Essjay's essay on socktagging as a perfect explination of my general position). I merely went off the fact that someone had added "Cool Cat" in December also (I don't think it was me...), so I figured I'd follow the lead. Indeed, Thatcher seems the best to ask :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

There were a couple of others in October/November that weren't added. I haven't seen Essjay's essay you refer to; do you have a link? Newyorkbrad 04:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Throw it open to the real clerks at the Noticeboard and we'll see what the ultimate decision is - I honestly don't care nor mind either way :) Oh, and User:Essjay/Archives/Socktags is the essay. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Daniel, why did you ask for the Lotuslander check user request to be deleted? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I see I put it in the wrong place, or did I do something else wrong too? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, the only thing that you did wrong was to create it in the wrong place. That's why I had it deleted, because it was unneeded. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

With respect to the specific dispute, as there was a consensus reached, users should follow it. With respect to disputes in general, it is the responsibility of those who engage in a consensus decision making process to "close" the discussion. summarizing the result and incorporating it into policy. Fred Bauder 14:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK...I think that answers my question. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your message. I do suspect that there has been *some* IRC canvassing re this RfC, however. All best and happy new year, Cindery 16:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Maybe, I'm not sure either. Happy new year to you too, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 1	2 January 2007	About the Signpost

Effort to modify fair use policy aborted	Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, 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 07:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Daniel, I have seen your work on editor reviews and I would greatly appreciate if you review me here. Thank you if you decide to or not. Cheers! — Arjun 19:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Reviewed :) 23:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, very, very much! Cheers! — Arjun 23:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

No problems :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your note. This user is quite persistent and pretty much ignores blocks. We didn't block the "CantStandYa" account in the hopes he'd use just that one, but he simply abandoned it. I succeeded for a while in getting him to just use his IP account, then 155.84.57.253 (talk · contribs), so that he'd be more easily identified but when he transgressed some admins blocked that account so he went back to creating socks. We can apply a long-term block to the new IP (it looks like all the edits are his) but I don't expect it to slow him down much. The editor isn't an outright vandal and makes positive contributions but he engages in edit wars, incivility, and 3RR violations in addition to the sock puppet abuse. If you have any suggestion for a permanent resolution I'd be very happy to hear them. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 23:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

If he's abandoned the main account, which it appears so, in favour of sockpuppets, the main account should be blocked indef. Regarding the IP, I don't know enough about the history and this users' ability to switch IP's, as well as his "positive contributions", to be able to judge what type of block needs to be placed. I would suggest discussing with Jayjg about the next step regarding IP's, it was Jayjg who ran the check. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've blocked the puppetmaster account, and put a one-month block on the IP. I expect he'll find a new IP before the month is up. I'll put up a notice on WP:AN later tonight asking for consensus that the user has exhausted community patience, etc., so that his status as a banned user will be clear. -Will Beback · † · 00:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yep, a community ban is probably appropriate. I'll be sure to give my endorsement on AN when you create the proposal to do so. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

FYI, the puppet master was originally known as Shran (talk · contribs), but that name is used by an admin on the Star Trek wiki Memory Alpha. He objected to being confused with the puppetmaster. I don't think it's worth the trouble of recategorizing the old accounts with the newer puppetmaster designation, but there's no doubt they are all one person. -Will Beback · † · 00:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, that's why I was confused (see my note on Jayjg's talk page). Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

My pleasure. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cheers. I can't be bothered retagging them, though. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You forgot a } on the end of the afd3 subst I added it for you. TTFN. Whispering 00:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Whoops - probably should have double-checked I highlighted everything in the {{afd1}} template before pressing Control-C. Cheers for that, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

How long do they last?--CJ King 01:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Five days minimum, unless they're closed as a "speedy" or "snow" (per WP:SK and WP:SNOW). Non-admins can only close discussions older than five days; see this. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Templated message posted by MECU≈talk at 02:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC) regarding {{rfu}} removed, in history.Reply

Ah, thanks for that one - I uploaded that when I was a newbie, and didn't understand the interpretation of FU on Wikipedia back then. There's a couple of others, so I'll have them speedy-deleted as well. Cheers for the note, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Daniel. A user has popped up on a coupla IP's very similar to a sock of Ehinger222/Rugby 666 (147.10.112.157 to be exact): 147.10.117.219 and 147.10.112.186. Making similar sorts of pro-RL edits, similarly uncivil edit summaries... Is there an easy way to simply block this guy off? He just pops up again and again doing the same crap. Either comes from the 60.225.*.* or 147.10.*.* namespace each time I think, which both trace back to the same ISP (Telstra Broadband). Annoying as hell, and I wind up not wanting to do stuff on here, cos every time I'm on here I seem to find another sock doing the same crap... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dibo (talk • contribs) 07:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rugby 666. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You voted for Supernova and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Month! Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article.

NCurse _work 09:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've replied to your comment concerning both the signpost idea and my userpage which was based on completely plagiarised from yours :) Cheers, Anthony cfc (talk) 00:06 05/January/2006 (UTC)

I'm stalking you watching your userpage, so I've already responded :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I did get it but it got lost in all the en mail. Sorry about that. I've replied now. Sarah 04:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

And I replied to you. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. You are very helpful :-). Thaa Rumpelstiltskin223 06:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

No problems.[1]. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I looked at the page and clicked on the links. They seem to correspond to the text of the links as you refactored them. I added a couple of links pertaining to recent developments. I followed your method of linking diffs. Thaa. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, cool. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is there any reason in particular why you deleted all but one question in the Interview script? I think that we should focus our questions on foundation issues for the next interview, not this one. Cheers, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 12:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I tend to agree with Ral315 here. Maybe Mindspillage is a good person to interview, given his very recent promotion to the board. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't remember User:Ral315 being involved in the interview project, but nevertheless perhaps an interview with User:Mindspillage (who is a her, btw :) would attract more attention. However, I am afraid that we will have to go through with the original script of questions (Esperanza questions and all) - I've already emailed Jimbo asking if he would like to participate! Regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 14:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

XD. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply