User talk:Daniel/Archive/51

WP:ANI
I wanted to alert you to edits I made to ANI concerning other vandals and socks that have been uncovered as part of Rubber cat's block. If you believe I have made a mistake, please let me know on my talk page. Thank you for all your help with this! Cumulus Clouds 07:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In the interests of being careful and having an impartial block be placed I would prefer not to use my administrator tools any further in this incident. If the user accounts are vandalising, list them at WP:AIV and they'll be blocked (linking to the ANI discussion might not be a bad idea), and if it's ambiguous discussion can take place on ANI and we'll take it from the consensus there. Cheers,  Daniel  07:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have placed both those users on my watch list and I will follow protocol in reporting them to AIV. Once again, I appreciate all your help in this matter. Cumulus Clouds 07:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your help with these users.  Daniel  07:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 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 07:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

my rfa
  If you voted in my RFA... ...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations. Thank you again and, best regards. Van Tucky  Talk  This RFA thanks was inspired by Lara ❤ Love's 

SEGA
Bet you a fiver that User:BillyOaks is SEGA :-D. It's one thing to be a sockpuppeteer. It's another to have the same habits over n over n over. 156.34.142.110 20:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I explained why I didn't straight-block the account (as I did with the IP's) there. We'll wait and see...  Daniel  02:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Great Irish Famine
Haha, cheers mate!  gaillimh Conas tá tú? 00:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Evasion advice
I noticed your CU request, and considering that you appear to be dealing with something similar, I thought I'd ask you:

We have a case of a user who is continually evading his block, due to using alternate (non-static) IP addresses. Is there a way to deal with this besides just waiting for the next sock? See also User talk:Pastorwayne and the recent User:BrownHairedGirl. - jc37 01:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You could file an RfCU listing all the accounts and ask the checkusers to investigate whether a rangeblock can/should be placed given the IP's used by the sockpuppets. If that doesn't work, it's semi-protection and RBI until they give up, unfortunately.  Daniel  01:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ugh @ the prospect of continual RBI.
 * The main range seems to be 70.104/105/106 (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pastorwayne). Is such a block possible? - jc37 02:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be (range blocks -, , ), however it's probably still beneficial (in my opinion) to ask a checkuser to run a check to make sure that any collateral damage from said rangeblocks wouldn't be more detrimental than they are useful. Cheers,  Daniel  02:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood about the CU. Is there anything else you can think of at the moment, that I should know? - jc37 02:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Deskana's evil on Thursdays, so hopefully you get Lar Nope, probably not. Just ask the checkusers to investigate whether rangeblocks for those three ranges would be all right, link to all the blocked IP's and sockpuppets in the request, and if there's been any noticeboard (AN, ANI, CN etc.) discussions about how disruptive this user has been, link to them also. Cheers, and good luck,  Daniel  02:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok and thank you for the advice/insight. You were very helpful, and I appreciate it : ) - jc37 02:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured List of the Day Experiment
There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

User page format
Don't be alarmed if you see a lot links back to my user page from the templates you use on my page. I am copying your style sheet, and slowly replacing them with mine as they are created. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied to your email.  Daniel  23:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Mariners suck!
Oi, Daniel, could you create (for impersonation) purposes? It's too similar to for me to do it :(  Dihydrogen  Monoxide  01:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting tactic - insulting the team I support while asking for a favour :) Done, I did it "by email" to the email address you sent me privately. Cheers,  Daniel  01:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Speciate
Thanks for removing it. Incidentally, I just posted at ANI. |dorf|trottel| |mess|age| 03:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you realized my response ("I'll try my best not to piss him off") was meant to be darkly humorous. What a horrible, Kafkaesque situation. -- But |seriously |folks   03:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My comment wasn't directed at you, but at Speciate :) I've clarified the target of my comment on User talk:Speciate.  Daniel  03:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I figured that. Wacky stuff! -- But |seriously |<font color="White">folks   03:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello there! Some advice, please?
I was wondering if blanking your talk page is considered bad. At the moment I'm reverting, as if the user vandalizes and blanks all warnings they get they will mess up bots and possibly even humans who warn them afterwards. Thanks, Master of Puppets Care to share?  03:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There currently isn't consensus about removing warnings etc. - see WP:DRRC and User:Daniel/Essays/Removing comments. That being said, there may be a difference between established logged-in users and anonymous users. For now, though, just let them blank it. If they need to be blocked, the talk page history will still be there.  Daniel  03:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No consensus... hmm. My main concern is that it may confuse bots, as they would just keep giving a level 1 warning (I think) and not actually reporting the user even if he vandalizes 50 times. Of course, the chances of a bot catching the same user more than once without any human editor intervention are slim... I guess I'll just let him blank and keep an eye on his contributions. Thanks for the help! Master of Puppets Care to share?  03:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problems - I remember one bot was trying to get around this problem when it first came to discussion by parsing the history, but I don't think it ever got into operation. WP:RBI may be applicable if this IP continues. Cheers,  Daniel  04:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

John Buscema
Hi, Daniel. I'm hoping you can help me. I don't know what the other party said, but the "closed mediation" box at Requests_for_mediation/John_Buscema isn't quite accurate. I never told him I wanted to go to Arbitration over conduct issues. This whole thing has always been about content (which apparently he now realizes is untenable or he wouldn't have switched).

I would hate to have an admin or arbitrator see the box and believe I agreed to something that I haven't. If you could help clear this up, I'd be very appreciate. Thank you so much for any help. --Tenebrae 03:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Would "Closed with intent to proceed to arbitration (mediation and arbitration cannot run at the same time in parallel)" be a more accurate description? Remembering that the mediation pages will be deleted/blanked/protected when the case goes to arbitration, I believe that this new wording is general enough that the arbitrators couldn't infer anything/anyone from.  Daniel  03:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely &mdash; and thanks for the quick response!


 * It's about 11 p.m. Thursday on the U.S. East Coast right now; I'm guessing it's about 11 a.m. or later Friday where you are. Isn't this amazing? --Tenebrae 04:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2:37pm Friday (I'm in a crappy half-an-hour time zone). Made the changes :) Cheers,  Daniel  04:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Username creations
Pre-empting more questions (already recieved two emails) about these two username creations - a combination of preventative action and a casual request by someone affiliated with the club. I have control over the accounts, and have no intention of using them or "giving them out". Cheers,  Daniel  04:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam stuff!
Thanks for the input on the spam blacklist. Can I ask you preferably to log any listing you make and equally to provide a permanent link to a request or similar. I realise it seems like a nuisance however I know from experience on Meta that if an appeal arrives in six months time the site will get taken off the list if the admin cannot find the evidence. Trawling through the page history when the page is 100K log is impossible (I know I've tried it on meta!). Let me know if I can help etc - cheers -- Herby talk thyme 09:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry about that - I figured that this shouldn't be removed without discussing it with me first, hence I didn't leave a note. But your point is well made about trawling through the history. I've added a listing to the log. Cheers,  Daniel  09:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Added. If that's not the right format, just leave a message and I'll fix it/feel free to fix it yourself. Cheers,  Daniel  09:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem & thanks again. It will do - at least they can find out who to ask.  A permalink is good in acse someone isn't around any more I guess.  Removals do happen - someone took one off on Meta with no real reason (I did revert it tho :)).  Cheers -- Herby  talk thyme 09:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for the barnstar! I've been plugging away the fish articles for while, especially the Sillaginidae (whitings), but still a lot more work needs be put in on fish articles. Thanks again! Kare Kare 09:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My pleasure - your drawings are also fantastic. Cheers,  Daniel  10:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Jon Burge
I just checked in on my WP:CHICOTW and WP:CHICAGO colleague User:Speciate and see he nearly got booted after I called for his opinion on Jon Burge. You can see on its talk page it was a former WP:CHICOTW and a quick check at http://vs.aka-online.de/wppagehiststat/ for Burge will show why I called my colleague for his opinion. I have never been challenged by a pair of admins on content as I have on this article. Now, I think my colleague is on some sort of probation. You are on the WP:MC committee and I am not ready to raise this issue to that level yet. However, do you have an opinion on the propriety of the this edit and this edit. Before I pick a fight with a pair of admins I am just calling for opinions. It seems Speciate agrees with me although his voice may be a bit muted while on probation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Lets meet at Talk:Jon Burge and figure out what to do.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the protection, and I'll leave all those with a more vested interest in the article to go through dispute resolution.  Daniel  00:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

smile
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * *smiles back* Cheers,  Daniel  03:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Daniel
I noticed your merge and redirect decision on the Al Gore Controversies page. I have since made an entry on the Al Gore talk page inviting other editors to join the discussion on the merger. Would you please keep an eye on the article itself, to stop any edit war, before it starts. If you could keep the page on your watchlist, that would be great. Thanks. Turtlescrubber (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for initiating discussion. If you need anything, please don't hesitate to ask.  Daniel  05:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Requests_for_adminship/Blueboy96_2
Daniel, please don't take this the wrong way as I have much respect for your comments at RfA, but I'm a little concerned with what happened at Blueboy's RfA. You asked a series of 6 difficult questions, some of them were essentially trick questions. I would guess that 75 percent of successful adminship candidates do not know Wikinews' licensing policies. Help:Transwiki itself doesn't even mention this particular piece of policy arcana. Now his RfA is failing because of his answers to your trick questions. I don't believe it was your intent, but what's happened is tremendously unfair to Blueboy. Other candidates aren't put through a gauntlet of questions like that. WP:BN/R would not have been nearly so green the last couple of weeks if everyone had been asked the questions you put to Blueboy. --JayHenry (talk) 06:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What? As I said at the top, I don't care for the specifics of the answers, but care for the logical reasoning behind them. Merely getting the question wrong didn't have the user get opposes, but the dubious methods of restructuring his answer did. The first oppose to cite my questions says exactly this:


 * When answering my question 10 above, he removes the contradiction from his answer, and then further strengthens his answer to question 8 which further destroys the context in which I asked my question. Getting a wrong answer to one of Daniel's questions isn't so bad, but because he doesn't follow our talk page guideline (specifically WP:TALK), I must oppose. <font color="#4169E1">W<font color="#191970">ODU P  07:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Note the specific sentence "Getting a wrong answer to one of Daniel's questions isn't so bad". All the other opposes have been mainly "per" the fair use concerns, or "per above" (where this means they endorse that they disagreed with the dubious method of changing ones' answer to cover up mistakes). I would agree with you had it not been clearly stated at the top that I wasn't looking for the correct answers, but rather the process to finding the solution to a "new" problem. We have enough sheep pretending to be administrators as it is, and it's more often the case that the users who can't think for themselves and apply logic in unfamiliar situations that turn out to cause problems than those who do.  Daniel  06:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah... I think we likely have intractably different views on what makes a troublesome admin. See, memorizing WP:FAIRUSE and WP:TALK really aren't useful things to do, in my opinion.  And Blueboy was quite polite about it all.  I care more about that than about rote process wonkery.  That's all part of the process, I suppose.  No worries! --JayHenry (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's more the lack of logic in the answers. Being able to logically reason the best solution to a problem is especially important with administrator tools. The answers at Requests for adminship/Captain panda 2 to identical questions show me a user who will be a much better administrator in all likelihood. "I don't think any harm could come of blocking the bot normally with precautions, but I would first ask an administrator who knows more about this kind of thing as my technical knowledge in the matter of bots and their aspects if they are operated from the Toolserver is rather low" and "I would contact a member of the mediation committee for their input on the undeletion of rejected cases" is logical. Also note that even though he got the Wikinews question wrong also, no opposes for it - because his reasoning for that and everything else was logical and well-expressed. Demonstrating those characteristics is important in an administrator, and entirely different to your mischaracterisation that they are "memorizing WP:FAIRUSE and WP:TALK".  Daniel  06:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Requests for adminship/WODUP even got supports for the answers to my questions, despite getting some wrong! The blame can hardly be thrown at my questions.  Daniel  06:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I do think this comes down to differences in our philosophies about what indicates preparedness. I'm sorry to have troubled you with it.  At any rate, the RfA crowd certainly seems to agree with you.  Cheers! --JayHenry (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No trouble at all :) Differences of opinion is what makes Wikipedia interesting, also, so it's not a bad thing. Cheers,  Daniel  07:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Fruit (slang)
I received a note on my talk page about your close of the Fruit (slang) AfD. I responded here. Also, there is a talk thread, here. I wouldn't worry about it but I thought that you would like to know. : ) -- <font face="Kristen ITC" color="2A52BE">Jreferee  <font color="007BA7"> t /<font color="007FFF">c  15:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding and explaining - it was quite evident from a number of the phrases used in their responses that they didn't understand some of the intricacies of the process and how the discussions are closed. Cheers,  Daniel  01:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Daniel  01:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

e-mail
I sent you e-mail some 12 hours ago. Cheers, &mdash; Sebastian 04:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it slipped through. I've replied.  Daniel  04:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 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 (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Curious
I'm curious, what do the different indentations mean at your subpage, User:Daniel/DYK? By the way, thanks for the work you do on maintaining the WP:DYK project, I've noticed your various updating and notifications lately. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 11:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Creations and nominations. Cheers,  Daniel  00:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's a neat way to demarcate. Cheers, Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC).
 * FYI, I put one of the articles you had originally nominated for DYK, A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant, up for WP:FAC. You may wish to comment at the FAC page.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 04:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC).

Re. My Username
Do wikipedia admins usually throw around assertions without argument or explanation? In this case, you and the initial admin are factually incorrect. My username is not made after a "god" but after a layman who, according to legend, had an encounter with the Buddha during the Flower Sermon. See the wikipedia article Mahakasyapa - "Mahākāśyapa or Kāśyapa was a brahman of Magadha, who became one of the principal disciples of Śākyamuni Buddha and who convened and directed the first council." This is not to be mistaken with Kashyapa, although the Sanskrit transliterations happen the same. A little research - and discussion, instead of unilateral assertion - goes a long way. Kasyapa (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Kasyapa
 * The most common usage of Kasyapa (as seen by our article, Kasyapa) is a mythical god. Trying to argue that your intention was different doesn't fly because the username is not appropriate for the community, not yourself. But whatever, keep it if you like, but don't scream if someone s you.  Daniel  00:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Mail
Sent 05:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC). Cheers, &mdash; Sebastian 17:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Received, replied. Cheers,  Daniel  00:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus (again)
Daniel, if a discussion is taking place between three people and you have the situation where two support one thing and another wants something different, can you have consensus per wikipedia rules from just those two people? Please leave your response on my talk page. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied on User talk:John Smith's.  Daniel  00:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

 * Thanks,  Daniel  03:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)