User talk:Daniel/Archive/57

Hobart coastal defences
Hiya? How are we going for the GA required edits?? Do we still need a lot more referencing?? I am in London and cannot find any books related, so other than web references, am struggling a bit. Rac fleming (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally think it looks fine now. I'll track down the reviewer and see what he thinks :) Cheers,  Daniel  14:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How to handle those who harm Wikipedia, though in good faith?
Hi. I need some advice. I've been contributing to Wikipedia since late in 2001, although I only created an account in January 2006. I've recently been involved in some disputes about Wikipedia policies, and one well-known administrator in particular has been very strongly advocating a position which I believe is harmful to Wikipedia. I just took a look at some old edits I'd done years ago, and I see that over the years this same administrator has taken a very high-handed approach to determining the content of articles, and criticizing those who disagree in a manner that borders on incivility. As far as I can tell, it's not just me -- I think that this administrator has a reputation for being quick to revert other's edits, slow to justify said reverts, and quick to criticize others when they complain.

So, two questions:


 * I don't have much of a problem assuming good faith, but I've seen several people on Wikipedia over the years who, despite possibly the best faith in the world, make edits and advocate policies that IMHO are harmful to Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, we don't have any policy or procedure to cover, "Fine, you're acting in good faith, but you're still hurting the project." Do we?


 * In the specific case of the roguish administrator: As I say, this is a general and long-time pattern of behavior which in my opinion (and apparently that of others) falls short of the standards that we can expect of administrators, but probably rarely if ever is in actual violation of policy. I.e., it's not obvious to me that I could make any formal charges.
 * Aditionally, this administrator obviously has any number of barnstars and awards and a large following of Wikipedians. I suspect that it would be disruptive to the project to initiate any formal complaint.
 * On the other hand, as I say, this administrator seems to generally react to criticism with scorn, so a polite message from me saying, "Hey, could you please stop acting like a jerk" ( <- More polite than that) probably won't accomplish anything useful either.

If necessary, I'll be able to live with the situation, but as I say, I see that this has been going on for a while. Do you have any advice on how to handle bad editors in general and this administrator in particular? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if talk page discussion doesn't work, many administrators are more inclined to listen and respond properly via email. If you think it's a long-term thing and the administrator is not responding sufficiently to the concerns/not responding at all (in the case of multiple attempts at contact), initiating a discussion on a noticeboard can be beneficial, provided you don't cry "administrator abuse" and you give a fair representation of what's going on including diffs. The result of any discussion of this type, provided someone doesn't close it as "trolling" (hopefully not, but you never know), will be either refer it to a user requests for comment (note: not an administrator requests for comment, unless you feel the user has directly abused their administrative tools), will have significant support that the administrator has been acting inappropriately (and the administrator will either acknowledge this, or won't, in which case see the prior step), or consensus will be that the administrator has acted appropriately. Generally these are the steps that are taken. Cheers,  Daniel  11:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia newsletter
WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

Reply
my comment was to another user, not to hammersoft. freedom of speech. regardless the war was started by hammersoft feel free to read the talk page on the article we are "warring" about. i tried to discuss it and was responded to with, change it and i revert it.--Grimjaw (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there is no right to freedom of speech on Wikipedia. Secondly, whether you're attacking someone using incivil language to their face or in a discussion with another user is irrelevant, as everything on Wikipedia can be viewed by anyone. Again, please desist the attacks, incivility and the revert warring immediately.  Daniel  00:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * attacks were ceased after i spoke to duane...thats the only attack i made on hammersoft. again hammersoft decided it should be a war, its totally un fair that i ask him if certain things would be acceptable i get a change it and i revert it in response and i'm viewed as the douchebag starting a war. i didn't even change anything in the article until after my attempts to talk it out were met with a revert war challenge --Grimjaw (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * statement by hammersoft after i tried to discuss it with him: "The removal of individual images for depiction purposes will continue. If you do not like this, please take it up with the Foundation. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC) "
 * my first change after hammersoft delete images...time shows its clearly AFTER he decided to he was right come hell or high water.
 * (cur) (last) 23:28, 3 January 2008 Grimjaw (Talk | contribs) (44,680 bytes) (despite me asking no reason was given for the removal of images already in use) (undo) --Grimjaw (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Email
I have sent you an email. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Recieved, replied.  Daniel  11:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month
NCurse work 20:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal
Just passing and saw Tasmania is still a FPOC on your userpage - but its nomination was withdrawn. I know it's something and nothing, but just thought I'd draw your attention to it. Kind regards, Rudget . 16:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks.  Daniel  08:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine arbitration
I didn't see a place to post that Sanchez/Bluemarine's continual COI, self-promotion and use of socks on Talk:Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy should be given a hearing as well. I wish to avoid dealing with him direct so remain anonymous so do with this whatever you feel is correct. 71.139.2.52 (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:Daniel/Sandbox/1
Looks fine to me. Kirill 13:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Closed, thanks. Daniel (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Truth & Consequences. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 15:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Chugging along nicely, I see. Daniel (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, thanks for approving my rollback request. I look forward to using the tool responsibly. See you around! Neparis (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problems - wield it well! Daniel (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why?
&mdash; B o L 01:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What, aside from the fact you just reverted Ned Scott accusing him of vandalism? Oh, I dunno, your obsession with a certain vandal, the fact that you're aren't in good standing with the community, the fact that you have been blocked within the last month (with the block unanimously endorsed on WP:AN/I), and lack of discretion. Daniel (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You do not think i know that, eh? Ever since then, I've changed myself to focus on building the encyclopedia. I've stopped with the you-know-what thing, but there are also other vandals that blow my lid off. But, yeah, I've recently had that war because this mad person was removing tags, I'm not sure about him now, but, yeah, I could really use a editor review. Any other reason why I may be denied rollback? &mdash; B o L 01:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, those ones above are reasons aplenty. Daniel (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * May I remind you to be bold? Believe me, if you want, make an attack. I don't care. If you must, tell me what you really think. &mdash; B o L 01:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are in good standing with the community, and your recent history makes you uncompatible with the additional tools given to rollbackers. Daniel (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So what are the requirements? There aren't any on the RFR page. &mdash; B o L 02:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The requirements are left to administrative discretion. People who pass RfA are expected to be able to use discretion. Daniel (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

RfR
Thank you! Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Have fun :) Daniel (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

E-mail
Hi. You have an e-mail from me ... just an issue I would like some input on ... please respond when you can. I'll be travelling and won't be on IRC much (if at all) for the next couple of weeks, but will be able to check e-mail. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied :) Daniel (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and you have an E-mail from me too. :) Acalamari 03:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

CSD G5
You are taking it to the extreme - don't simply remove everything they ever did because they are banned. I've reverted some of your edits. And I feel the deletion of the High School Musical Portal was inappropriate.  Majorly  (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The user is banned. By allowing some of their contributions to remain, we are merely encouraging them - yes, this rationale was a directive of the Arbitration Committee for banned users like this one in cases like this. I strongly suggest you don't undelete the High School Music portal for this reason - it was a substantial contribution by a single user who is banned. Daniel (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to undelete it, but I feel reverting all their last edits, regardless of whether they were constructive or not, was taking it too far. He was also community banned, but as this new user I don't see any real problems. At this rate, would you go and delete a featured article per G5?  Majorly  (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If a contribution was that significant I'd probably ask for clarification from the Committee, who have discussed this editor before. I'm unaware of their current plan of attack with this person, but I was merely operating on how I'd been instructed in previous cases (and the justification for such, and applying it with Whiteandnerdy111). Daniel (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So, even if the editor was totally constructive, and even became an admin, you'd ban them because they messed up a couple of years back? He's clearly tried to make a new start here; whilst he may not be perfect, I see some good contributions there, and you're banning him for what? A community ban placed ages ago. Personally, unless he's actually causing a problem, I'd just let it go.  Majorly  (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that'd be a good idea for both of us: letting it go and letting the powers that be make the relevant decisions (which they will be doing shortly, apparently). I see you've reverted edits you feel are constructive enough to be exempt from the banning policy, and I'll defer to your judgement on that. I think that our interaction on the issue has reached a cul-de-sac. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

....wait?
I R confused (usually happens when people use my talk page...). Bradii = You? &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oooh I hope not. Although I think that Daniel meant the "ugly as Daniel hell" bit ;) Spebi 03:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt it, he gets that from me all the time - usually does a /me kills Giggy and then leaves it there. *shrugs* :D Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction: /me books plane tickets to travel to Brisbane to kill Giggy. :) Daniel (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, you've been all I R RICH lately. But you still haven't answered my question! /me stabs Daniel (some things don't change :D). Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol... You're the ugly one here Dihydrogen... &mdash; DarkFalls  talk 07:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * O RLY. Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * YA RLY. &mdash; DarkFalls  talk 07:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Self-delivered Signpost, on the double
You are did not receiving receive this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist of some bizarre reason. If you wish to stop start receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list find out what on earth is going wrong and fix it. Ralbot (talk) 08:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Daniel (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

for the record
p in the vagi is not a typo as soem bot suggested. see the film superbad (not the article) if u haven't. thanks. BoogerNation 02:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * deleted the redirect, not me. Daniel (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the assistance and for the kind words and support in my nomination process! It's always uplifting to be praised, and I will attempt my best to do my best as mediator and keep up on the current topics (although my watchlist is a bajallion pages long, which I need to sift through eventually). Cheers  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 23:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, and good luck :) Daniel (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Locke Cole
Hi, Daniel. I see you granted Locke Cole rollback capability a couple days ago. I urge you to reconsider this grant, as Locke Cole has recently been involved in the editing warring on the HD DVD and Comparison of high definition optical disc formats articles. I suspect his promise not to use it in a dispute with another editor will give way to mischief sooner rather than later. Proctor spock (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Every edit he made in that incident was not executed using an automated tool or feature of any kind, and included edit summaries. Sorry, but I'm not removing access to rollback, as there's no evidence of him using automated rollback tools in a dispute presented. Daniel (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong year
You put 2007 here, not 2008, so I fixed it for you: [] — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 15:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for adminship
Hi Daniel. I would like some help from you. I recently nominated User:BritandBeyonce for adminship. However his nomination does not appear on the Requests for adminship page. Instead it only appears to be in the following project page: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/User:BritandBeyonce. Could you please fix whatever is wrong with the page and add it onto the requests page. thanks. JayJ47 (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems this got fixed without my help - sorry for the delay in responding. Daniel (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Soxπed Ninety Three | t cd b 17:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

GP and BoL topic ban
Based on the topic ban as communicated by Riana, does the preceeding diff seem to violate the spirit if not the letter of that ban? If not, should the ban be amended perhaps to include activity like this? (Sean_D_Martin later thanked GP but pointed out the edits GP warned about were from last March). Avruch talk 20:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To tag along with Avruch here, I've opened up discussion at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents about GP's actions. He's already violated the ban three times by editing the Wikipedia space and then there's the issue that Avruch has raised.  Metros (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see banning him from AN/I, but I don't see the merit in restricting him from editing in the section that is actually about him. Additionally, your deletion removed a comment by Metros (which would have been strange to leave hanging, but still). Avruch talk 00:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The merit is to not give an inch and have a mile taken. Daniel (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Working group, eh?
The recommendations will be just recommendations. If the group comes up with something that requires the community to adopt a new policy, then it'll ultimately be up to the community to make that decision; and I expect that the group's recommendations will be presented entirely in public, in any case.

(From a wiki-pseudo-constitutional standpoint, the group "reports" to us, since we're convening it; but that's really just semantics.) Kirill 03:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood, thanks for the reply. I guess whatever this group suggests to you (and you accept as reasonable) will either a) be applied if within the scope of the Committee or b) presented to the community if it isn't within the scope. I look forward to seeing how this works, as it was certainly the one proposal which stood out from your draft decision in the P-I case. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Seems it works :) Dihydrogen Monoxide 11:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And I replied to some of your points there. Good luck with your arbcom stuff, and...well...everything else (we haven't chatted in a while; irc/gtalk/msn?) Dihydrogen Monoxide 11:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget!
 Dear Daniel, my sincere thanks for your participation in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget . 17:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

RfM: Requests for mediation/John Howard: need advice
Hi Daniel, Can you have a look at this please: Requests_for_mediation/John_Howard. Also, the discussion page, where User:Gnangarra has voiced concerns that I have not filed it in a fair manner. Do you have time to advise as to whether I've constructed the RfM fairly? I have listed all 7 people who partook in the recent John Howard talk page discussion which lasted a month. If I have filed the RfM unfairly, can I add others to the list, according to Gnangarra's request? Should I add others to the list? I would like Gnangarra to join the RfM, and hope the process can be left open a few days while I try to answer Gnangarra's concerns. In doing so, he/she may still join the process. I don't want it to close under a cloud that it was submitted in an unfair manner, and wish to make any changes that would make it fairer. Thank you,  Lester  20:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest discussing it with, the current Committee Chair. He will especially be able to advise you on procedural matters, and also deal with the requested extension. Sorry for the hand-off, Daniel (talk) 10:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's OK, Daniel. I understand your position. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Much appreciated. I'll speak to the chair.  Lester  07:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Corey Delaney AfD
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Corey Delaney. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Benjiboi 22:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Hi there,

Just to remind you, you didn't respond to this.Bless sins (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for the note. Daniel (talk) 10:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)