User talk:Daniel/Archive/54

Your PT page
... currently transcludes User:Mercury, and his categories, categorising User:Daniel/PT into Wikipedia administrators, Wikipedia administrators open to recall and Eguor admins. It's unintentional, right? :)  Spebi  06:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is :)  Daniel  08:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello there (mk. II)
Nah, don't worry about it! I'm also getting eaten alive by schoolwork. Anyway, your life is the priority; I don't want you to shove aside everything else to help me. :) So please don't worry. Cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share?  17:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Padded zeros in dates
This isn't padding the day out to two digits which is needed to get the dates blue linked, on the first through the ninth of the month. Can you fix it? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * :) Fixed. Cheers,  Daniel  23:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Question
Hello Daniel, how are you? I hope all is well. I was referred to you by "Libsey" (156.34 I.P.) whom did say that you were a great admin after dealing with the whole User:SEGA fiasco. Well, I have a quandary. In my sandbox, a number of users including myself have gathered evidence pertaining to a possible abuse of multiple accounts (Sockpuppetry). We believe that the puppet master has used a sock account to circumvent a block for 3RR. Now, the information in the box isn't that well organised and lacks any vivid structure but the most pertinent evidence is located at the top. Could you please review it and see if we have enough evidence to request a checkuser? Thanks in advance if you can help! Scarian Talk  18:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I must say :) In my not-a-checkuser opinion, the only thing it's missing is direct evidence of breaking one of the codes at the top of WP:RFCU. The current line which is drawn between legitimate and illegitimate alternate accounts has blurred/moved lately, so the safest bet is to specify one of the six codes and make it clear how they violated it rather than presenting a more complex argument as to why the edits violate WP:SOCK. Cheers,  Daniel  01:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems a great mind and a not-so-great mind think alike :)  Daniel  01:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Note
Please be advised that I have reverted 's removal of the tag from Great Irish Famine. By no sense is the present wording neutral, I have not dropped by objections to the present wording nor is there consensus on the talk page. If it is improper for me to have reverted him I will self-revert but I ask that you look into the matter. Best, Mackensen (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Arbitration Committee decision didn't prevent reverting, but what it did ask for is a note on the talk page and avoiding revert-wars (ie. if people go in during the next few days and continually revert/re-revert again on the templates). I see nothing improper with your edit if you post a note to the talk page.  Daniel  22:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Which I see you have done. Cheers,  Daniel  22:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for mediation/Criticism of Christianity.
This user (Biblical1) is a rather inexperienced and problematic editor with whom I have some personal experience (on WP, I mean). His opening of a case when no other resolution attempts have been made is worth noting concerning the reason I came to your page to message you. As it stands, though, I have a few other issues with this user that I thought I would bring up to you, as you are an administrator and may have a recommendation for a course of action.

This user has a fundamental misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, and even recently deleted material from the page in question because "the individual espousing this opinion is sympathetic to Christianity". I'd noted on the talk page that if this is how Biblical1 wants to misread the policy, he should go ahead and delete Bertrand Russell and every scholar who opposes Christianity as well. As you can see, I feel very much that this user is either confused or is directly ignoring policy.

On one occasion in particular, the user apparently reported me to another user (under the mistaken impression that he was an administrator) with some rather malicious fabrications. The most disturbing element of this act was that it was committed from an anonymous IP, and was written from the perspective of a "neutral, concerned observer" and completely misrepresented my character and my argument (and made Biblical1 sound righteous). The anon betrayed his identity later by continuing to comment on my talk page with references to earlier posts which he had posted as Biblical1 (even though I had requested that he no longer post on my talk page). Thankfully, I explained the situation to the user in question, and he later noted his concern over the issue and his support for my side of the argument.

As you can see, I do have some history with this user. I, for one, am one of the editors who opposes the changes he is making (as I see them as completely misguided, or in direct ignorance of policy). I am tiring of this user's nonsense, because it is apparent to me (due in no small part to the personal messages left on my talk page) that this user is unwilling to adhere to the policy of NPOV as it is understood properly. Ironically, he accuses the users opposed to him of the very problems which he exhibits.

If this user continues to push his POV (or at least misunderstand policy) and revert pages and file undue reports, what should specifically be done? Reverts earn a quick punishment, but the other situations tend to be more difficult to resolve. He refuses to assume good faith concerning myself and the editors involved in the mediation request, so I'm unsure of the level of cooperation he will exhibit if any resolution actions are taken against him. Additionally, I rarely have to open dispute resolution cases, so I'm unsure where to start if these problems continue. Any advice you could offer would be appreciated.--C.Logan (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem you describe above would probably be best suited to getting more opinions on the matter. My suggestion would be filing a user request for comments on Biblical1 and seeing what consensus and/or suggestions comes out of it from uninvolved Wikipedians. That way, if there is consensus to take further action, it's clearly documented and the support for such is unambiguous and all in the one place. Cheers,  Daniel  01:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Curious
Hi,

I'm curious as to why you made this edit. I checked, the mediation talk page, the article talk page, your talk page, Str1977's talk page and Shell Kinney's talk page, but found no evidence that Str1977 made this comment.

Is there any other venue of communication that I'm unaware of?Bless sins (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I found this. Never mind.Bless sins (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No problems.  Daniel  05:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

PrestonH RfA
Um, were you talking to me here? If so, what did you mean with "please act immediately"? Sorry I wasn't on earlier. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:09, December 10, 2007
 * Sorry for the confusion — the message was intended for AL2TB, but I can see how you were confused due to the indent. I've fixed the indenting and adjusted my comment to make it clear :) Cheers,  Daniel  05:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Daniel
My requst for mediation was rejected but I was wondering if you would aid me. I'm having trouble fixing the criticism of christianity webpage. Two particular editors (the two I listed on the mediation - Peter and Logan) continually revert material that critisizes Christianity. They've also inserted on 5 different occasions apologetic works under the further reading section, even though it's not in line with the subject of the page. They also have vandalized the compatability with science page by inserting references from two Christian philosophers - "historians of Science" is what they claim - and they claim there was never a problem with science and christianity. They also included 4-5 pictures in that one section that have little to do with "conflict with science and christianity". I need someone who is more familiar with Wikipedia rules than I. I don't have time to mediate the page and I'm just a wikipediazen looking to have the article fair and objective. If you could swing by and take a look, that would be much appreciated. I've had to protect the page from these trolls for at least 3 months and no moderator has helped. Thank you for reading. Biblical1 (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Given I have already advised another user in this dispute on a similar topic (see this section, above), I cannot intervene in the situation. If you believe that the two are acting inappropriately and discussion doesn't result in the resolution you wish for, you could try a user requests for comment (note that you have to demonstrate that you have tried and failed to resolve the dispute, and there must be another user who has done so also). Asking for comments on WikiProject Christianity's talk page might also be beneficial. However, I doubt the users are "vandalising" - they seem to be acting in good faith, which means that by Wikipedia defintion they are not vandalising. Cheers,  Daniel  05:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comment
Why did you remove your comment? What were you trying to ask? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because I'm rogue I withdrew the comment as my sample size wasn't large enough and my comment was factually incorrect upon second check.  Daniel  06:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

IRC
Can you pop onto IRC? You can use my athens account to access Springerlink if you want?  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  12:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just missed you, it seems :( Will try and catch up with you over the next couple of days. Cheers, and thanks for the offer Ryan,  Daniel  00:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be on IRC in a few minutes, so if you can make it, I'll see you there.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict across two pages :) Cheers, and thanks!,  Daniel  00:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Question
What is mediation? I don't understand what this is? Please reply on my talk page thank you.... Rianon Burnet 14:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (cross-posted) Mediation is an activity in which a neutral third party, the mediator, assists two or more parties in order to help them achieve an agreement on a matter of common interest.
 * The common aspects of mediation are:
 * a difference of positions between the respective parties
 * a genuine desire on the part of the parties to find a positive solution to the dispute and to accept a discussion about respective interests and objectives
 * the intention of achieving a positive result through the help of an independent, neutral third-party not connected with any of the involved parties
 * the intention of achieving a steady result, preferably a long-lasting agreement between the parties
 * The ordinary form of a mediated agreement is the consensus of the parties on a proposal that has been developed with the help of the mediator. The mediator may or may not set out a formal agreement for the parties to accept; some mediators prefer to help guide the parties towards developing their own agreement. Agreement to mediate does not obligate the parties to accept any proposed agreements.
 * Mediation does not have a set structure or methods, although some common elements exist:
 * Clarification of the respective interests and objectives
 * Conversion of respective subjective evaluations into more objective values
 * Representation to the parties of a collection of possible solutions
 * Translation of the result of discussions into a draft of agreement (perhaps in written form)
 * Formalisation of the agreement.
 * Each mediator is granted the freedom to develop his or her own method, and to apply it as necessary for the specific case at hand. The method used by any given mediator may differ from the general guidelines set out here. This is not a formal policy, and mediators are not obligated to utilize methodologies set out herein.
 * The role of a Wikipedia mediator is far less controversial than the role of a Wikipedia arbitrator; mediators are facilitators of voluntary discussion, while arbitrators hear evidence and issue binding rulings, including the ability to issue sanctions against users.
 * Mediation is at its best when it is simultaneously protecting content and community. Mediation aims at working with the users in conflict to incorporate the information or viewpoints of both, while ensuring that the result conforms to all applicable Wikipedia policies. At the same time, it endeavors to produce sufficient peace between the parties to allow amicable discussion and prevent the need for future dispute resolution.
 * Mediation is intended to achieve a way for people to keep working happily together and build better articles, while growing from the mutual exchange.
 * Mediation doesn't need to produce mutual amity between the disputants, though increased tolerance and respect is an important aim of any mediation.
 * Mediation is not a forum for policy decisions. If the locus of the dispute is not covered by current policy, the matter must be referred to the Wikipedia community as a whole. Under no circumstances will mediation between a small number of parties be substituted for a valid community-wide exercise in consensus building.
 * Wikipedia mediators are permitted and encouraged to use their own best judgement to recommend a solution to the disputants, one that is in the best interests of the project. Where the position of one disputant is clearly unreasonable, fringe, or based on a strong point of view, the mediator is not required to subvert the integrity of the encyclopedia in order to reach a resolution.
 * I hope that helps :) Cheers,  Daniel  04:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Why did you deleted all the stuff on my page??
Please respond! —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdzMaldoom (talk • contribs) 16:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I deleted because it does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards — see also CSD A7.  Daniel  04:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia newsletter
This newsletter is a monthly newsletter with details relating to events and happenings within the Australian Wikipedian community and WikiProject Australia. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or receive it in a different format, relist your name appropriately at the subscription page. Delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

RfA Thanks
 Thank you for participating in my RfA, which was successful  with a vote of 33/7/4. Special thanks go to Epbr123 for nominating me and Pedro for the offer of help. I am honoured by the trust placed in me by the community. I hope to repay this by the wise use of the tools, which I intend to use gradually. Mop & bucket is on the Christmas list - honest. Keith D (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Your cat...
...is so cute - even for someone not big on animals. If you only you looked as good (I've heard that's nowhere near the case) :P &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  04:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 04:55, December 12, 2007 Daniel (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Dihydrogen Monoxide (Talk)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 69 hours (Personal attacks, poor judgement) (Unblock)
 * Just kidding :)  Daniel  04:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Closest to 69 you'll ever get. *runs* &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  05:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Deanna Laney
I have restored Deanna Laney as I feel your speedy justification was invalid. If you disagree, please use AFD rather than speedying again. Superm401 - Talk 04:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I will be AfDing this article. However, for future circumstances, please follow this before undeleting a biography of living person which has been deleted due to concerns included in said policy.  Daniel  05:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 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) 07:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Lynch mob
I saw your edit summary stating that "Recall is flawed because the community is too often a lynch mob who see the evidence they want to see. This is more like it." Is it not possible that the tendency to "see the evidence they want to see" is also present among admins, who unfortunately are granted extensive (and potentially disruptive) powers for an unlimited period of time, without any meaningful method to have those abusing such powers removed. That's why I, for one, support recall. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I see the lynch mentality far more often among admins than among us rabble. Alansohn (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is certainly possible that administrators are just as bad as normal users in such situations, but that wasn't my point :) My point is that arbitration proceedings are far more likely to produce an educated result based on properly-verified evidence than a community discussion, such is the tendency of noticeboards to be a "survival of who can shout the loudest for the longest". The best real life analogy is trial by jury compared to trial by media. I know I'd take the former every time, and I also know that recall is voluntary, thank goodness.  Daniel  13:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, this is Rianon and I was on Wjmoore17 page with the discussion of Jesus Christ, you posted that after our discussion...... That's why I was wondering what you meant.

It's ok, we agree with each other, I just missunderstood what he was saying.... Thank you so much and have a wonderful day! Try, if you respond, respond on my page..... Rianon Burnet 13:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Another one...:)
Hey, just to let you know I'll be reviewing 1947 Sydney hailstorm. From a quick skim-over, it's definitely on par with 1992 Queensland storms. I'll do an assessment soon (next day or two). Best, &mdash; Rudget Contributions 18:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to it :)  Daniel  04:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Another hail storm for you to indulge yourself with...
... -- DarkFalls talk 06:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The first line of the current quote on my userpage refers to this storm :) At the moment I'm still not sure it's notable — $138m doesn't even put it inside the top 10 costliest natural disasters (insured damage), whereas the rest are (1999: ~1700, 1990: ~390, 1991: ~220, 1947: no figures, my best guess would be greater than 300 in todays' figures). As the report says, "has hit $138 million - a figure insurers are expecting to rise over the coming days" — I think I'll wait to see if it makes 200mil :) Cheers,  Daniel  09:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever happened to the anything-that-has-verifiable-sources-is-notable mentality? :p -- DarkFalls talk 10:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm notable therefore :)  Daniel  10:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1947 Sydney hailstorm
The article 1947 Sydney hailstorm you nominated as a good article has passed, see Talk:1947 Sydney hailstorm for eventual comments about the article. Well done! &mdash; Rudget Contributions 18:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied at Talk:1947 Sydney hailstorm.  Daniel  00:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Still don't understand your attraction to hailstorms... -- DarkFalls talk 06:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said I did either :)  Daniel  11:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe. :) &mdash; Rudget Contributions 18:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK:Muhtar Kent
Hi Daniel! Thanks a lot for your contribution. Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

How-to needed
Hi,

I seem to be involved in a revert war over four words ("like theories of gravitation") in the article Objections to Evolution. I'm not sure where to go here; there doesn't seem to be a good how-to article on what to do in the case of an apparently irreconcilable edit dispute. The article "Requests for mediation/Guide to filing a Request for Mediationn" links to your name (under "please feel free to ask the Committee Chair") as who to ask about mediation procedures, so I'm asking-- what do I do next? (Talk:Objections_to_evolution has some of the discussion.))Geoffrey.landis (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest first having a request for comment on the article, then enlisting the help of the Mediation Cabal, prior to formal mediation. For more information, see Dispute resolution. Thanks,  Daniel  08:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Email
Email sent from me. I don't think it would be smart to publish on-wiki that discussion so just a confirmation please. If I'm wrong, then I'll drop the issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied via email.  Daniel  10:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

 * Enough with the hailstormcruft already! &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  22:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * *slap Dihydrogen Monoxide* Thanks EncycloPetey!  Daniel  22:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yo, can get you get on IRC/MSN/Gtalk for a moment? *hailstorm boogie* &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  23:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, OK
Forget about me saying that he was a great editor once. Sorry if I gloryfied him. Maser ( Talk! ) 18:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't just glorification, it was simply patently false.  Daniel  22:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One of these days, my AGF is gonna run me into huge trouble. Maser  ( Talk! ) 00:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then again, AGF has brought Wikipedia to heaven and hell and heaven again in the past. ;) Maser  ( Talk! ) 00:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

WPTC Active Members
The WikiProject Tropical cyclones has changed greatly since it was first started, and according to our main page we now have 87 members. However, we only have a small group of members that are still active, and as such, I am sending this out to all users on the participants list. If you are still active, please sign your name here. If you do not wish to be part of the project any more, or if you do not answer to this, you will be placed on an inactive users list after a period of two weeks. If you wish to rejoin after you are put on the inactive users list, you are welcome to rejoin. Cheers. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)