User talk:Daniel/Archive/44

Help in requesting Mediation
Hello,

I am currently in a discussion on the Kyiv/Kiev page, and the arguments seem to have become circular.

I would like to request mediation, but I have a question about the way to request it - do I have to copy only the tag to the page? I saw that there was another page with an explanation, and other text. Do I need to copy that page also?

Thank you Horlo 02:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There's three things you need to do:-
 * 1) Fill in the details at Requests for mediation/Kiev (who else are the parties to the dispute? what previous dispute resolution activity has taken place? what are the issues that need to be mediated?). Then add your signature after the 'Agree', to note that you agree to mediation (as I presume you do, as you want to file it).
 * 2) Post  Kiev  to the user talk talk pages of all the parties that you listed in step one.
 * 3) Add   right at the top of Talk:Kiev.
 * Then, all the parties will either agree/disagree, and we'll take it from there. Cheers,  Daniel  03:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Horlo 03:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I now I saw all the steps you prepared for me. Thank you very much. Horlo 03:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No problems.  Daniel  03:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, one of the problems has been that there is only one other person now debating me for about ten days, and claiming that everybody who disagrees with him is my sockpuppet. There is actually a special page called "Kiev-naming" because of the length of debate on the issue. I tried drawing more people into the debate, but got a less-than warm reply. That's why I'm asking for outside mediation. Thanks, Horlo 06:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The case was rejected because not all parties agreed to mediation. We can't mediate where everyone agrees, due to the voluntary nature of mediation. Sorry,  Daniel  08:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your turn, mate
Collingwood (15-11-101) def. Sydney (11-10-76) Next stop: Finals. --Michael Billington (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * *sigh*  Daniel  08:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fluked... How would you do against the Crows?-- Dark Falls   talk 08:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Help with procedure
I'm busy gathering evidence for presentation at the ArbCom here. One of the difficulties i'm having is that it says "Never link to a page history or an editor's contributions, as those will probably have changed by the time people click on your links to view them. Please make sure any page section links are permanent." Part of the problem is that with all the moving and refractoring and jumping around - i cannot seem to provide diff links to a significant number of edits. Many of the most useful pieces of information exist on Template talk:Infobox NFLactive/Archive 1. There is no way to date link them because of the moves. Any suggestions? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 22:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * An archive would probably be OK to link to, because it is unlikely to change (per its' purpose). To be sure, however, you could link to a permanent version of the archive (ie. this), and then link to the section in question (eg. this). As I said, because it's an archive, it's probably not a problem though (as the idea of an archive is to provide a stable place for old discussion). Cheers,  Daniel  08:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do. I'm preparing all the evidence for the case on a subpage - i'll probably just refer people there due to the organization of the page. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 07:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The arbitrators generally prefer the evidence be physically added to the main evidence page, as personal subpages may be deleted eventually leading to loss of records, and they generally like everything in the one place following the same layout :)  Daniel  07:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for all your help with the mediation process.

Horlo 05:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My pleasure.  Daniel  08:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to trouble you, but do you have any suggestions as to what I could do next? Even a brief glimpse at the discussion will show you in what high esteem I am held by some in the Kiev camp.
 * Thanks, Horlo 21:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Another article RfC to solicit new, outside opinions? I understand your frustration, as you've exhausted all options and arbitration probably isn't possible as it's a content dispute. Sorry, and all the best,  Daniel  07:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * Thanks for the advice. It's actually quite amusing to read some of the arguments, and try to figure out where these people are coming from. I'll try another RfC, hopefully bring some cooler heads into the discussion. Horlo 03:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation request on eComXpo
As you explained, behavioral issues are not to be considered by MedCom. Does this mean we can raise directly to ArbCom? Or you suggest dealing with content first? In particular, in the last few hours I have been very heavily attacked, including the making of legal threats, and I do not want to give the appearance of forum fishing, but do want these behavioral issues addressed in some way. Please advise. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I suggest you don't. Mediation is a fickle process, and is destroyed if user conduct proceedings (WP:RFC/U or WP:RFAR) are running parallel to it. If one of those is filed, the mediationis generally closed, at the discretion of the Chair (if the case hasn't been accepted/assigned) or the mediator (if it has been assigned). See this (the part that starts "I would strongly suggest you don't go..."). Cheers,  Daniel  08:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

eComXpo Mediation Question
Hi, Since this is new to me, am I not sure if this is the right place, but I have some questions related to the process, which I posted to the Mediation's talk page here. The Questions are for you and I would appreciate, if you would answer them for me. If there is a different and better place for those type of questions, please let me know. Thanks. I appreciate your time and help. Cheers! --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 07:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have responded there.  Daniel  08:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

RfC?
I just discovered that Sethie has instituted an RfC against me:

I have initiated a RFC/User on Kwork based primarily around his actions on the Alice Bailey page. Please feel free to add comments.

Requests_for_comment/kwork

Sethie 19:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there not some formal process for this sort of thing? I did not even recieve a notice on my talk page, but discovered it by chance. The above is on the article talk page. Kwork 22:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sethie could have notified you on your user talk page using . That being said, you know about it now, so the RfC should operate as normal (see details). I see you also got responses on ANI, which seem to clarify the matter further.  Daniel  07:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Schulz
Hi, Daniel. Since Hornetman has now been blocked, I was hoping you'd unprotect Charles Schulz. Thanks! :) faithless   (speak)  04:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Cheers, and happy editing,  Daniel  07:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.
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 05:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Knee Surgery
 

Get back soon, we need your brilliance all around. But, obviously, get better first :) In fact, here's a surgeon to (somehow) make you feel better :D &mdash;  Gig  gy  09:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Eek...*quickly hides image using * Thanks for the well-wishes - the knee is recovering nicely :) Cheers,  Daniel  10:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Seems like the IP user 216.79.33.77 is at it again. He vandalized the Syracuse Orange page three times, and the University of Maryland, College Park‎ once. Given his track record, can you place a temporary block on this IP address again? Thanks. Chengwes 14:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * blocked him for 31 hours, see here. Sorry about the delay in responding, but it's good to have other administrators on the prowl :) Cheers,  Daniel  00:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for informal mediation
Another row over the use of date terms has flared up on China-related articles. Would it be possible to organise some informal mediation? I'm not sure how to do that. I'd go the formal route, but some people might reject it. However we've tried discussing it at the China Project and the MoS sub-page, so I thought mediation of a sort might be the best option at this stage. John Smith&#39;s 21:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Informal mediation is covered at Resolving_disputes. As noted there, the Mediation Cabal will probably be your best bet. Cheers,  Daniel  00:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What does one do when it concerns multiple pages - can one put it up on a project page, for example? Or do we have to put the "subst:Medcab-request" at the top of all the pages in question? John Smith&#39;s 14:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dunno exactly, maybe ask one of the three MedCab co-ordinators (there's a list on WP:MEDCAB), or ask on WT:MEDCAB. Cheers,  Daniel  11:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Daniel, thanks for your comments on my talk page. Yup, I enjoyed my vacations. Still, I will not be available much for the committee, as I am busy. But, I will come back soon. Cheers, Shyam  ( T / C ) 06:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Great news :) Cheers,  Daniel  09:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland flag usage
I want to agree to meditation, but I feel the "Issues to be mediated" section is inaccurate. I wasnt sure if I should just edit it to be more accurate... I think its slanted & I dont want to get off on the wrong foot with this. For the record, I dont think the Ulster banner is just "offensive to Irish republicans", I know it's use to be inaccurate due to the fact N Irish law does not recognise the flag & prohibites its use. Fennessy 18:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Per my recusal in this case, will be dealing with this case pre-acceptance. Please direct all question to his talk or the mediation's talk page. Sorry about giving you the run-around, but it'd be improper if I continued to have any involvement in this request given my prior involvement. Cheers,  Daniel  09:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Alex Leake
Thanks for your contributions to DYK! It's always exciting to see an experienced editor helping with the project! I do have a small request -- when you nominate articles, it would actually help if you could leave a time stamp. We usually try to make sure a hook has been on the suggestion page for at least 24 hours, just so people have a chance to review it for typos/errors, etc. But we need the time stamps to know when exactly a hook was nominated. Thanks again for helping with the project. Keep those nominations coming! Cheers! --JayHenry 19:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, my apologies about that. I'll be sure to include a inside the nomination details (small text) with future nominations. Thanks for featuring one of my nominations on the main page :) Cheers,  Daniel  09:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Blnguyen.  Daniel  09:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Medal

 * Thanks Anonymous Dissident, can't wait for you to get your bit so we can have another hand over there as well :) My current editing projects (User:Daniel/Sandbox) are progressing slowly, so I generally tend to nominate other people's stuff. Thanks for the award, though :) Cheers,  Daniel  11:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. I hope this does't seem overkill, but you get this by default:


 * Thanks again :) Daniel 07:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

VP
Please check the VP page, as there are about 20-30 people awaiting approval. Dr ea my \*/ !$!  16:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look in a moment. Cheers,  Daniel  06:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

 * Ha, I know the feeling (I still remember how badly I screwed up updating the DYK template...). Cheers,  Daniel  00:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK Thanks
Thanks for the thanks on the inclusion of Charles K. Landis on the August 31, 2007 DYK. It's always fun finding a truly interesting subject, and being able to share the fascination with other Wikipedians. Thanks again for the thanks. Alansohn 15:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why I've caught the DYK bug, as well :) Daniel 20:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you know?

 * Thanks :) Daniel 20:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Time
Early? Its 7:00! No, seriously, usually I get up much later. However, my sleep has been disrupted recently, what with the RFA and all... -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 21:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I vaguely remember the feeling, although you could probably go back to sleep and not worry :) Daniel 21:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, but I just can't! What if the anti-dissident cabal come along and make an avalanche of opposes?! :) -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 21:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I'll block them all? Just go back to sleep :)
 * In all seriousness, I saw on your user page that you think the Central Coast article could become a FA. If you want, I'd be happy to help out and make a GA/FA drive, and I can think of some other users who may also be interested. Thoughts? Daniel 21:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It was actually who suggested it. I would be glad to get into some sort of collaboration if you are interested... --  Anonymous Dissident  Talk 21:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll have a think about how best to do this. Daniel 01:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Commitee
What's the mediation commitee? AR Argon  22:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Answered by Deskana on User talk:AR Argon. Daniel 23:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Lucky Simple, then. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You know what is extremely freaky? I had an email 75% written on that very topic, to you, Deskana and Alison, after seeing "ChristianMan16" pop up on the recent changes list. Can you pop onto IRC for a bit, or would you prefer Gmail? Daniel 02:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just wrote that as I was popping out to an optometrist's appointment... on IRC now though... :) ~ Riana ⁂ 06:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month
NCurse work 07:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your message
Hi, What did you want me to "remedy" on that user's talkpage?. Thanks --  ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤   09:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This. Daniel 09:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
For the recognition of my small efforts and I hope your knee is on its way to a fast and full recovery. In Arabic, to aid in the healing process, we say "Salamtack", meaning "Your peace" or "May you have peace," to the person recovering. So, Salamtack and thanks. T i <font color="#FF0080">a <font color="#800000">m <font color="#FF0080">a <font color="#800000">t  13:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contributions to DYK, and also for the well-wishes - the knee is most certainly on the mend :) Cheers,  Daniel  08:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

DRV Terminology
Hi,

Just so you know, it isn't possible for a DRV to have a "no consensus" close (because, if it were, the possibility of relisting and deletion review review would make even process wonks cry!) In phrasing future DRV closures, you might want to avoid thorny phrases like "neither have a clear consensus." Under normal circumstances, if the positions in the discussion are absolutely equal (in strength of argument -- and/or number, if relevant), relisting is the typical outcome, though the BDJ decision certainly allows for different treatment of BLP issues in that event. Point being, to keep process from spinning completely crazy, there is always some sort of a consensus coming out of a DRV. Best wishes, Xoloz 02:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand the logic of no consensus = relist, but this would become a circular argument where it would end up with the same situation no matter how many times it's relisted. Because there was no consensus to undelete, the BDJ principle applies; however, I would be stretching things a long way to say that there was a clear consensus to endorse the deletion. Would you have any suggestions for what I could have written or closed it as instead? I'm all ears :)  Daniel  02:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Given BLP concerns, there is a consensus that the content should remain deleted." In this context, the BDJ decision "shifts the burden" a little bit, so consensus means something slightly different.  You only need one sentence.
 * By the way, "equal strengths" = relisting is not circular at all. The idea of discussion is that it causes someone to compromise; while there will always be steadfast advocates for one view, I cannot imagine (and have never seen) a cycle of debate where no participant changes her/his mind, and no new participants arise.  Only in a box of robots of that option become circular; thankfully, we're human! ;)  Best wishes, Xoloz 02:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I'll adjust my wording to make it more simple.  Daniel  02:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, I don't close many DRVs I'll admin but Xoloz, that seems the wrong way round from my understanding of the process. Deletion review is a review of a judgment call by an admin (at the very least a judgment not to use admin tools). Seems to me that if there is an "absolutely equal" balance, then that's no consensus to overrule the original admin action and it should be endorsed... WjBscribe 02:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC) The idea is that, if a DRV garners many undeleters, there is something worth discussing. Remember, a DRV doesn't firmly reverse the first outcome, it only opens the floor to more deliberation. It's a question of cloture. Xoloz 02:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There are, of course, circumstances were the weakness of the argument for undeletion makes numbers completely irrelevant. For the hypothetical I've imagined to apply, the question must be key, and both sides must have very strong arguments.  In over a year of doing DRV, it hasn't happened yet.  Best wishes, Xoloz 02:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that is the stance I usually take, and when I added that to the clear-cut ruling in BDJ, I thought that the close was a pretty easy call to make.  Daniel  02:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine close. Tricky phrasing is all. Xoloz 02:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I simplified the wording back. I guess the close probably was a little confusing when it didn't have to be. Thanks for the advice,  Daniel  02:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge tags
I'm sure you already know this and just overlooked it, but when you remove a merge tag from one article it's really helpful to remove it from the companion article as well, such as Adelaide United FC and List of Adelaide United F.C. players, and List of Newcastle United Jets F.C. players and Newcastle United Jets. Pairadox 08:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, my apologies about that - I scrolled through all the articles, and must have missed those two tags. I did it for the New Zealand Knights (Main article; List of players), but must have missed the purple boxes on the Adelaide United and Newcastle Jets pages in haste. Thanks for cleaning up my mess :) Cheers,  Daniel  08:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No prob [[Image:face-smile.svg|25px]] Pairadox 08:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Portal Bulgeria
Hi Daniel: thanks for reverting your comments. Actually I was preparing response to your comments but before I post it, you reverted them. So I'm just giving them here in case they have any helpful information for you..


 * The very first featured portal criteria does mention that "it has to exemplify our best work". As of now all country related featured portals have a news section . And there are a lot of country portals which are not featured but still have this section. So, I have not invented something out of the blue sky. Yes, it is hard to maintain. But this hardwork is fully justifiable. The very benefit of having a news section is that it enforces the editors to regulalrly update wikipedia with latest developments in the subject area in order to keep the portal well maintained. When will most of the ordinary readers come to Wikipedia to read about Bulgaria? Usually when there is an important Bulgaria related news item in the media. An "In the News" section on the portal page will help them to redirect to the most relevant article. Sorry my friends, we are discussing whether this portal exemplifies the best work in wikipedia, and without this extremely common, unquestionably useful and absolutely relevant section - I simply cannot agree that it is one of the best work on wikipedia. Arman Aziz 09:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is a screenshot from IE. Right now, I don't know what specific error in the code is causing this, but I'll try to fix the code myself when I get some time. Arman Aziz 09:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As a reader, when I click "Read more..." on Bulgaria portal "Did you know" section my expectation is to get either more Bulgaria related did you know items or more details about the selected did you know items on the portal page. Arman Aziz 09:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this was not really a reason of objection, this was more of a suggestion. If all other problems are fixed I won't object simply for this. None the less, peer review is a very useful process to get helpful suggestions about improving a portal. Please check point number 1 of Nomination procedure on this page, to get the reason of my comment. Arman Aziz 09:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey - nice one :) ~ Riana ⁂ 12:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey! I only noticed the news section... nice job all around! ~ Riana ⁂ 17:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha :) Thanks very much for your comments, Arman Aziz - I believe all three have been remedied, and I have noted to this effect on the nomination page. My apologies for my initial tone - it was out-of-line, and a very poor reaction to your good-faith comments.  Daniel  00:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)