User talk:Daniel/Archive/56

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 55 · Archive 56 · Archive 57 →

Sup homeboy. Just a question about these edits - I must say it looks odd to be noting FP-class, since (AFAIK) that isn't used elsewhere on Wikipedia..."Australian Featured pictures" reads better and is something people are familiar with. Thoughts, bro? — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 03:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yo, we got a sample for Parables for Wooden Ears...and I still have a question waiting — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 06:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Will look at the article, and I'll try to catch you about the template. Cheers, Daniel 10:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey Daniel. You recently relisted a non-admin closure I made and I understand your rationale for doing so. However, I have just got involved with non-admin closures and would like to continue them in the future. I don't want to do so, though, if they will result in reviews. I also read your RfA at one point in the past and know that you took part in a number of non-admin closes before you were made an admin. As such, I was wondering if you could give me some criteria further than those listed in the WP:DPR for non-admin closures. In that guideline, I feel as though I followed the listed criteria. As such, I was wondering if you have any tips. Either way, thanks for the time and happy holidays, SorryGuy  Talk  05:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Four rules of thumb generally work:

• Never close a discussion before five days is up, although after four is generally OK if there's a good handful of people advocating for keep and they're all respectable Wikipedians, and no-one is advocating for deletion.
• Never close a discussion where an established user has argued to delete it and their argument hasn't been completely refuted (or discussion is continuining between that user and others about their argument).
• Never close a discussion where biographies of living persons concerns are involved.
• Never close a discussion where there isn't a good handful of respectable users advocating to keep it.

Other than that, you should be fine. Happy holidays to you too :) Daniel 06:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reopening the aforementioned AfD. I wasn't willing to violate WP:POINT by nominating the article for an additional AfD; I'm glad this got amicably resolved. Happy holidays. Nice kitty. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

She is nice, yes :) Happy holidays! Daniel 10:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello Daniel. Merry Christmas! The article Max-Planck-Institute of Quantum Optics, which I substantially expanded appeared in the DYK section. I was informed about it in my talk page. User:Stone also deserves credit for it. He created the article. Please inform about it in his talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I didn't leave those notifications — the administrator who did has done so. Daniel 05:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help - Take Care... Dinkytown (talk) 07:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Great success! Thank you for supporting my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 53-3-2. Special thanks goes to Shalom for both the suggestion and the nomination. I'm honored by the trust that the community has shown in me, and will do my very best as an administrator. Thanks again! faithless (speak) 08:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Daniel, do you think you could post the DYK update please? It's several hours late and we are already considerably backlogged. Gatoclass (talk) 11:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done — thanks for the note. Daniel 12:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks :) Gatoclass (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

No worries at all. Daniel 08:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

As a Napoleonic crown recipient you might be interested in this. Cheers and happy editing! Durova^Charge! 20:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Noted :) Daniel 08:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

This should be an interesting one if you want to help :) Spebi 00:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh boy...maybe when I get home... Daniel 01:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

In April you closed this AfD on the "Freedom from religion party" as delete following community consensus. The article has now been reposted with exactly the same content, as the Freedom from Religion Party. I have tagged it for deletion again but because the capitalization is different the previous AfD won't show up in db-repost. So - I thought I'd bring this back to you as the original AfD closer. Euryalus (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note — to avoid any accusations of impropriety, I won't redelete it, but I hope one of the administrators who has my page watchlisted will see my edit summary (Note: administrator needed) and take appropriate action. Cheers, Daniel 01:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Bah, I saw the note, but someone already grabbed it. Poo. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know we were supposed to have your page watchlisted :) The page "User talk:Daniel" has been added to your watchlist, which will list edits to this page and its associated talk page. The page title will also be in bold type in the list of recent changes" –  Done ;) Anthøny 12:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hrm, you must have missed that notice from the Cabal...I mean...I didn't say that...um...whatever :) Daniel 08:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 52	26 December 2007	About the Signpost

Wales appoints six arbitrators	Board approves expansion, up to 11 trustees possible
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses"	News and notes: Stewards, Senate testimony, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Plants
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 (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why is my name on this list - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Daniel/Sandbox/1&oldid=179568902 It's a list of people who did what? Just curious. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 18:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

A list of users who I will freely admit I'm watching to ensure that WP:USER and WP:NOT aren't violated. Daniel 02:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Although you were below the line which meant I'd seen your name around certain pages where many of the users above the line frequent, but I hadn't checked to see if you were of true concern. From a cursory look I'd suggest you aren't. Daniel 02:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

GA nomination on hold. Was tempted to fail because it's you, but I decided to AGF on this one. You got lucky. *shakes fist randomly* — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 07:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much, will respond there. Daniel 08:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

The above portal has been promoted to featured status. Well done. And please inform Riana aswell, I have to go now. :) Thank you. Best regards, Rt. 22:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much Rudget - Riana already knew before I told her :) Cheers, Daniel 08:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for registering at the WikBack. I look forward to your posts. If someone other than you registered in your name (or if you have no idea what this is about), please let me know immediately as it may be an imposter. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's me, per my email to you. Daniel 08:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your support in my successful RFA. BLP is one of my pet peeves as well. In many cases I'm in a position that's perceived as "defending" someone who I don't know or may even dislike, but I'm really just trying to abide by WP:BLP. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fantastic, great work! Look forward to seeing you around. Cheers, Daniel 08:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

DYK is really late again. I've thrown together a quick update, would you be able to post it? Gatoclass (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Updated before I woke up. Sorry, and thanks for all your work with DYK, Daniel 20:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Guess who is back in yet another incarnation? He is trying to pretend he is a newbie and is also "welcoming" strawmen who have been set up to show he is neutral, but, as you will see, all the old themes eventually make an appearance in the history. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Getting some confirmation just to be sure. Will obviously block if it's confirmed. Please hold :) Cheers, Daniel 20:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Did you know? was updated. On 31 December, 2007, a fact from the article Sturt River, Adelaide, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 01:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks :) ~ Riana ⁂ 02:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Darkfalls^talk 10:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done :) Daniel · talk 01:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yay cabal! :) ~ Riana ⁂ 02:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Riana, shhhh!! :O Spebi 03:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh my, what have I started. Daniel · talk 03:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

A conspiracy? :) --— Darkfalls^talk 03:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Daniel, congratulations in your new role as a featured portal co-director. I look forward to your continued efforts to help improve Wikipedia's portal namespace. Along those lines, I am asking for your help. Please take a look at the portal peer review for Contents and megaportals. Just like adding featured portal co-directors, it is a part of a larger portal namespace improvement drive. All of your comments, suggestions and participation in this improvement effort will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, RichardF (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I appreciate it. Cheers Rosiestephenson (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Keep up the great work! Daniel 03:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dear friend, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Eve, and that 2008 is your best year yet! ~ Riana ⁂ 02:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Reply

The userpage will be back, just need to work on it ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 02:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Happy New Year, Daniel! :) - Alison ^❤ 03:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks :) (Replied on individual talk page) Daniel 03:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and duh! Thank you :) Nothing escapes your watchful eye - Alison ^❤ 03:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll drink a Foster's and toast you and Dave. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd sure enjoy one of those :| Daniel 03:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I could do with some booze....you're of age, right? ;) — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

checkuser suggests it was Dereks1x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Daniel 06:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You wrote this on ANI. Yet, I looked at ANI and the block log and nobody was blocked. Yet in ANI, it says "resolved, user blocked". Is it possible that this is a decoy written by a sock so that nobody will block? I wrote something like that on ANI and someone removed the comment? Is that yet another sock trying to hide his/her tracks?

If these two assumptions are true, then 3 socks need to be blocked, 1. The penis sock, 2. The sock who wrote "resolved, user blocked", and 3. The sock who reverted and removed the entire section that I wrote on ANI in order to cover tracks. Republic of One (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Some of us would really like to know what a "penis sock" is, seeing as this is dreadfully out of context :) - Alison ^❤ 06:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Er, what the? I never said Blow of Light was a sockpuppet, as you asserted here. I said "As I suspected, the account wasn't who Blow of Light incorrectly accused" — in that the vandal account wasn't a sockpuppet of PWeeHurman, who Blow of Light initially accused and I disputed. So, firstly, Blow of Light shouldn't be blocked. This was pointed out on the noticeboard here and here.

Then you suggest that the two users who were adding the templates aren't blocked. As seen in the two logs for blocks on the accounts, they have clearly been blocked since early yesterday (UTC time). Thirdly, the person who removed your misunderstanding thread is Ryulong, an administrator. He certainly isn't a sockpuppet and certainly won't be blocked. To cap it all off, the other user who you suggest should be banned—the one who correctly tagged the discussion as resolved as both vandals were blocked (see above) is Avruch, an established contributor.

I think you have misunderstood the entire situation, and request you read the discussion and comments again (with particular attention to the comments by myself and who the inspecific pronouns refer to — the context of "who Blow of Light incorrectly accused" should have been clear from the discussion which took place earlier in the thread) if you have any further concerns. Thanks, Daniel 07:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dear Daniel, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! ...and further nationalist conquests on Wikipedia (LOL).... ~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Reply

I wonder where I've seen this design before...hmmm...anyways, will be sure to push the obvious nationalistic point of view I have displayed previously in 2008 :) Cheers, Daniel 07:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello.

I saw you reverted an edit of mine to the page about Sam Harris, without an explanation. Would you please clarify the reason for removing that addition? RebelChrysanthemum (talk) 09:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

It was accidentally removed due to collateral damage when reverting a banned user's sockpuppet. My apologies, and thanks for bringing it to my attention — I have reinstated the content of your original edit. Cheers, and sorry again, Daniel 10:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - you too :) Daniel 11:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Daniel, from what I understand, you're one of Wikipedia's top mediators. I was recently asked to comment in a dispute between two editors (the editor likely thought I was an administrator). I knew I lacked the experience, but nonetheless attempted to mediate the two. I made the mistake of focusing too much on mediating the two editors, but I didn't focus enough on the dispute at hand. What should I do now? Maser ^(Talk!) 06:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, I disagree with the first line, but we'll press on :) Were you "comment[ing]" or "mediat[ing]", or both? Daniel 07:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean "disagree with the first line?" I think you're a fantastic mediator. :) Well, I didn't know what to do. Looking back, I wish I had told the editor in question that I'm not actually an admin, but I saw it as a chance to gain more experience. :) I guess it's a comment that I initially wanted to give, but it's mediation that I attempted. Maser ^(Talk!) 07:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

There's nothing wrong with a non-administrator mediating, and I feel it's fantastic that you're giving it a go :) Often when mediation veers off-course it's a good step to place archive templates (eg. {{archive-top}} and {{archive-bottom}}) around the discussion, start a new section with a motivating header (like "Refocusing scope" or "Lets try again" or "Starting again" or similar), and explaining that you feel the focus of the mediation has shifted from content to users, and wish to try and refocus the discussion back on content. Then maybe ask them a few questions about the content, and in a flash you'll be back talking about content :) Although it wasn't mediation (but rather article mentorship for the Arbitration Committee), what I did here might be a good example. Cheers, Daniel 08:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for telling me I was going in a second actually to ask you whether I should remove it. I didn't see that it was closed when I added the comment, I really don't know how that happened but there is probably some long-winded and boring explanation such as my computer is slow, actually what must have happened is that I saw the RFA and between my seeing it and clicking on the 'voice our opinion' link you closed it , I didn't see this and when I clicked save it altered the closed version, now wasn't that interesting. Please save from this freak. Cheers! Harland1 (^t/_c) 10:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply