User talk:Daniel/Archive/66

Could you explain the deletion review
Hi, i don't know if you are the right person to ask, but it seemed you closed the deletion review of this page, Comparison_of_one-click_hosters and I don't quite understand the result. Could you just give a small explanation please. This is what i understand from it:

There is an extensive list with hosters with their details on a page. One admin merges 10% of the content into another page and redirects it there. People complain about the lost content, and want or revert ( im not an adept at wikipedia histories ) the page back. This goes back and forth, so the admin puts the page up ask for deletion. The result is keep. The admin waits a year, and then deletes the page, discussion and all history of it. This I disputed by asking a deletion review where most people seemed to go for overturn, after which the admin only restores the history, not the talk, and does not restore the redirection.

The result now is that the content is not deleted, but it is buried somewhere in history logs. Basically thats like killing it softly, no? Redirection is like delete in reality? What should we do now? Should I put up a page called Extensive comparison of one-click hosters?

Could you please clarify one and other, thanks.

dennis -- Hostingcomparison (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Contesting a closure involving a merge and redirect or non-merge and redirect to an Articles for Deletion debate is not an issue for Deletion Review. Merge, as an AfD close, is equivalent to a keep close plus an editorial decision to merge. Keep closes don't prevent editorial merges and merge closes don't prevent the merge being editorially undone to become a keep. Each change is an editorial decision for the two article's talk pages (with an eye on the prior AfD input), not something that requires a deletion review to bless. Merge closes only need to go to DRV if:-
 * ...the history was deleted and lost for GFDL purposes,
 * ...the redirect was protected and the admin won't unprotect, or
 * ...the AfD should have closed as delete.
 * You rightly went to DRV when #1 occured. Now that has been overturned, we're back to it being a purely "merge and redirect" scenario. Per what I said above, it is now an editorial issue which should be hashed out on article talk pages; DRV is not the appropriate venue for contesting merge and redirect actions. Daniel (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Note: Some of this comment has been copied from this close by User:GRBerry. :)

Deleted GraalOnline article maliciously recreated secretly in german...
I'm sure you of all people should remember the heavily biased, NPOV, WP:WEB unsourced self advertisement that was forced to be deleted due to lack of fair sources, threats, and immaturity by Stephane Portha and his sockpuppets/meatpuppets and other trolls... Well it has secretly been recreated in German at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graal_Online unless it is fairly sourced and non biased, which it looks more or less to me like a simple rehash of the same old garbage then it should be deleted for all languages and kept that way... Vipercat (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Daniel has no authority on the German wiki (and probably never will). You could try talking to DerHexer about it though... &mdash;Dark talk 23:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Might be confused with de:user:Daniel; that's user:-Daniel- here. Not likely since I'm sure our Daniel has happy memories of this topic! giggy (O) 01:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * zOMG! A German Daniel? Is that possible? &mdash;Dark talk 06:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically, he's an SUL Daniel! :O giggy (O) 06:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As DarkFalls says, I can't help you unfortunately due to my lack of de (beyond what I learnt in Year 7 German). Plus, de isn't very welcoming of me due to certain...issues...which I initiated, including SUL :) Maybe ask someone on de:Wikipedia:Administratoren? Cheers, Daniel (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * On that note, Commons has said no too. giggy (O) 02:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness the decision will most likely be taken out of their hands with central conflict resolution...I'm pretty sure my 47,000 edits and 5 +sysops beat this person's 1,500 edits if he wants to dispute it (as he does). Daniel (talk) 03:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 47,000 edits and the 5 +sysops are countered by your obnoxious personality... so don't be so confident. &mdash;Dark talk 04:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you missed a there :) Daniel (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Aah, but that assumes that what he says is incorrect... giggy (O) 04:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I had no intention of putting a " " in my comment. &mdash;Dark talk 04:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ... Daniel (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #17
♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
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) 07:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My RFA
Just wanted to say no need to be sorry. The whole point of RFA is to voice your opinion. Have a good day. :)  &lt;3  Tinkleheimer   TALK!!  07:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design RfC
At this RfAR, you've expressed an interest in a RfC on behaviour of editors at articles related to intelligent design. As an outcome, User:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC provides a Workspace, with discussion at User talk:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. We also must try to resolve the dispute and as a first step my suggestion is developing guidelines or procedures aimed improving behaviour from now on, so that the desired outcomes can be achieved amicably. Your assistance and comments will be much appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 14:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for the comment on my RFA. I will definitely try to improve my judgements and work on a few other things. Your comments really mean a lot to me and I wouldn't be able to know what was wrong if you didn't tell me. :)  &lt;3  Tinkleheimer   TALK!!  19:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Great Hunger
Hi. Another major revert from Domer48 is at this diff. . Wotapalaver (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. And another major revert from Domer48. .  Getting tired of this by now.  Wotapalaver (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, missed this section totally. See about four down :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Khadr El Touni
I noticed that you made this edit quoting a OTRS number but you didn't actually remove anything except a couple of blank lines. I was just wondering if you ment to remove something related to this set of edits. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My edit was more to make sure the IP edit before it (which you link to above) wasn't reverted. Daniel (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The article was on my watchlist and I just wanted to be sure what I was looking out for if it gets reinserted. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 10:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks much for watching out :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

IKnowNothing
Ping. giggy (O) 08:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the correct term is 'slap'. Daniel (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You believe? But YouKnowNothing! giggy (O) 10:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * *gets popcorn* Watching Giggy get stabbed is fun! &mdash;Dark talk 11:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel strangely hole-y. *slaps knee* giggy (O) 11:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Gallery tool
I am just wondering what has happened to your Gallery tool\counter?

If i click on the link, it now displays this error. Simply south (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong Daniel... &mdash;Dark talk 05:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You want de:User:Daniel. giggy (O) 09:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to be working again anyway so never mind. Simply south (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, you want the active de:User:duesentrieb, not the active-once-a-year-to-be-a-pita-and-prevent-usurpation de:User:Daniel. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Great Irish Famine
Please see the recent history and discussion, especially Tag Lead Section. Domer is acting without consensus. While you're there, you may want to take a look at the move proposal, where there is a clear consensus to move the article. Regards, Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 13:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Addressed the lead section issue, but it's not our job to deal with the move issue. That should be judged by a totally uninvolved administrator. Daniel (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Inviting editors to edit war? Well thats new. This issues was discussed on the talk page and I provided the editor the oppertunity to address the issue here they were then reminded again here. They indicated no intension to address the issue and I did, with the edit here. Now the reversions were done with discussion, and encouraged by you now to revert. You also said that there was consensus for the previous version, provide the link. The next time you suggest placing a page ban on me, will obviously show good cause. --Domer48 (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Restoring a version with more support than one imposed by one editor without any support from other Wikipedians is not disruptive. Provide a link? Talk:The Great Hunger, numerous sections close to the bottom which have discussed the issue of the lead. I struggled to see any support other than yourself for "your" version of the lead. This certainly shows good cause. Daniel (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You think it shows good cause? Fine, report me to ArbCom enforcement and let the ArbCom and involved Admins decide. BECAUSE this policy of the hoof has to be addressed. You are encouraging editors to add information which is misleading and incorrect into articles. Edit warring and reverting are the same thing, regardless of weather I'm right or wrong, you are encouraging it. Now if you consider yourself to be correct, and that the information is properly sourced and presented as outlined in our policies and guidlines, you revert me. Place the burden of evidence on yourself and you stand over the information. This is all well covered by me in the endless discussions, but having read all of them you'd know that. --Domer48 (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I addressed this comment on Talk:The Great Hunger, particularily that your judgement that the material is "misleading and incorrect" is not support (furthermore, rejected) by consensus, as is your application of policy. Daniel (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And another chunk of text unjustifiably removed so that the lead matches what Domer48 wants. .  Dumdedumdedum...one wonders if reverting is encouraged.  Wotapalaver (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait for the outcome of this, then we'll see. Daniel (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
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) 06:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

AFP
Thank you. Rudget  ( logs ) 14:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They know me :) Daniel (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Awaiting approval
Hello, could you please check out the awaiting approval list for VandalProof, I've been waiting for several days now. -- Mr Stalker  ( talk ) 01:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I will later this week. Waiting seven days is not a terribly grave affliction. Daniel (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply
I didn't know I could be blocked for not editing articles. I usually Ask questions or Say opinions on talk pages. Does that count? Another thing if I was to edit an article I would probably be block for vandalizeism. Plus i'm sort of new so I should Pimp out my Userpage first. Can you help me edit article. What needs to be Improved? --Condolence (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Hideously superfluous signature removed.
 * Yes, giving opinions that assist in article construction on talk pages is good.
 * If you're blocked for vandalism, it's a sign that your article edits aren't up to quality. Improve them, don't go away from them.
 * You can edit without a pimped out userpage - see mine, for instance.
 * There's a list of things that need improvement in the header on Special:RecentChanges.
 * giggy (O) 08:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't know I could be blocked for not editing articles
 * Now you do - see WP:ENC and WP:NOT.
 * I usually Ask questions or Say opinions on talk pages. Does that count?
 * You've made a total of 14 edits to Talk: pages, out of 421. Regardless, provided the input is constructive, you will be allowed to continue doing it. However, it still doesn't excuse the ridiculous fact that you have around 80% of your 400 edits to your userpage.
 * Another thing if I was to edit an article I would probably be block for vandalizeism
 * If you don't think you can contribute to the encyclopedia itself then there's no need for you to be here, quite frankly. We are not a playground, a social experiment, a free web host, or a social networking site. We are an encyclopedia.
 * Plus i'm sort of new so I should Pimp out my Userpage first
 * What a terrible attitude. There is no need to have a ridiculous userpage such as yours to edit, and it's actively discouraged. I have half a mind to delete it totally.
 * Can you help me edit article. What needs to be Improved?
 * See Tutorial, and then see Special:Random and the top of Special:Recentchanges.
 * Daniel (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Great Hunger"
Daniel. I'm trying to stay calm. The discussion that Domer48 presented as being the end of the discussion on the lead section that he recently reverted wasn't the end of the discussion. The discussion continued afterwards (see ) and there was NO consensus on deleting anything or returning to previous versions. Various editors had repeatedly asked for a reason for all the tagging Domer48 was doing, since several editors (including one who I believe is an admin) considered it all to be OK. Domer48 cannot pretend he had consensus to delete. There was none. There ARE references to support what was in the text he deleted. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Daniel, as you can see on the talk page for Great Hunger, other editors agree (again) that there was no consensus to delete the material that Domer48 deleted recently (e.g. ).  They also seem to agree that his tactics on the page are disruptive.  Wotapalaver (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice pun, but tone wasn't right
See here. Hope that's OK. Feel free to archive the pun somewhere if you want. Carcharoth (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I LOL at that... thanks for the link, Carc. (Even though you didn't give me a link and you were removing it...) giggy (O) 09:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous
You agreed there was support that part of a sentence should be removed as original research, and that a new discussion would need to take place for it to be added back. Colin4C and Wotapalaver have now unilaterally decided that there was no consensus to remove it, and Colin4C has added it back without any discussion taking place. Due to the threat of page banning I am now prohibited from removing information which consensus says is original research, so what now? Domer48 (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I said if you continued to restore "your" version of the lead without a consensus (or any support whatsoever) you would be pagebanned. Given there is no clear difference in support for either position at this time (there was on June 6, although I'd argue it wasn't a clear consensus, but any difference in support seems to be levelling itself back out in the most recent discussion), I would not pageban you for reverting it out again, but rather I ask you consider whether reworking the sentence to phrase it differently to address your concerns (eg. "Statistics from X show a differential of Y, with source A showing a differential of B", or something along those lines) would be better than blanket-reverting given there is no clear consensus either way on this issue. Daniel (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See also this comment. Daniel (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There was NO consensus. Even if there had been some demand for more references, I supplied a reference on the talk page at 12:29 on 6 June 2008 which describes the famine's permanent effects and the population decline which followed the famine. MANY more are available but no-one (esp Domer48) commented on that reference before blanking the text.  Wotapalaver (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And even though the topic is still under discussion, Domer48 blanks text again . We could lose the whole article at this rate.  Two plus two equals four would be removed as OR.  Wotapalaver (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Daniel you may wish to review my post here --Domer48 (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have interjected to clarify what I actually said. Daniel (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you going to bother addressing anything else I said then? And I have also clarified your clarification. Domer48 (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, Domer48 is now on Angusmclellan's page with a rather, ehm, "selective" view of history. I have posted an "alternative" view, although not as long.  Wotapalaver (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And more undiscussed reverts. Domer48 has changed tack and is now using massive quote blocks from authors to render the article unreadable.  Wahaaay!   Wotapalaver (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As Domer said here, he was putting what the source said, not what the source did not say. BigDunc  Talk 14:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also if that is a revert, please provide a link to the version he was reverting to thanks. BigDunc  Talk 14:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I must confess I'm getting a little tired of being forced to deal with an issue every day of the week. I'd urge you to direct your comments for a little while to the other two mentors, because I'm going to be busy over the next three to four days especially and won't be able to read copious amounts of discussion and look for resolutions. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Domer has tried that already, and didn't even get a reply so it's no wonder that editors are coming to this page considering Ryan seems too busy and Angus just archieved a valid concern and points raised without even a reply. BigDunc  Talk 14:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That wasn't archiving. It was compressing it to make the rest of the page readable given its length. Daniel (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Voldemore
Thanks for staying neutral and not shooting the messenger :). Ironholds 11:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Insulting Behaviour
Following your vote concerning the new user right Renameuser, I found your comment (something like) Especially if we are considering giving it to StewieGriffin! highly insulting. I would like an explanation as to why you said that, and reconsider your action (looking over the actually poll). Thanks. StewieGriffin! (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Annoying signature refactored.
 * 1) I was not requesting this,
 * 2) Have I mentioned it would be given to me.
 * First of all, I actually said "Even if we did, StewieGriffin! isn't the type who should/would be getting it", not what you quote above. Regardless, you said you wanted it - "If I had the right, i would work on it a lot" (which a bureaucrat agrees was clearly expresing your intention to seek the right yourself). My comments were my opinion, expressed in a discussion where they were relevant and applicable. If you're insulted, please grow a thicker skin (you may want to consult this), and possibly consider go writing some articles instead of trying to create new userrights and asking questions about adminship. Daniel (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * StewieGriffin to echo the aforementioned by Daniel, I feel this application or request for evalution of your theory was put into practise prematurely. I think you probably reflected a insufficiently upon the true scope of what this tool could potentially do. If you wish to have quicker renames in the future or to assist in any way possible to those are who are requesting name changes you can ask any clerk or bureaucrats which are active at the page. Rudget   ( logs ) 10:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Plus, I find the comment about me at Bjweeks RfA insulting. He usually does that when trying to analyze something. I find your behaviour highly insulting towards me. My original comment had nothing to do with the poll, just your comments. Plus, did I say that was your comment... NO! StewieGriffin! (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Annoying signature refactored. Again.
 * See my response to your previous outburst of juvenile hurt-motivated anger. Daniel (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are really not nice. Per your link, obviously other users think the same. StewieGriffin!  &bull; Talk Sign 15:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, at my link they agreed my comments were fine. Daniel (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the user who posted that? StewieGriffin!  &bull; Talk Sign 15:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Requests for adminship/NHRHS2010 3 was a pretty good referendum on his credibility. Daniel (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You're not being nice. Now, there is a indeed whirling circle of reasons around you not being nice, and I'm not going to address any of those. (Some would call that "myopic" but I prefer "focused.") Of course, most of us have at times been other-than-nice. I've let fly with some sizzlers in my time.

The problem is that you're continuing to be not nice, and I was a little shocked at your response that indicated that your "personal experiance" indicated that this was the best way to get results.

To be quite direct, that's not how it works. There are community norms that all users are expected to follow, and that administrators are expected to embody. Being nice is one of those community norms, and your opinon (based upon your experiance) isn't enough to override it. Imagine if you will diffs of your recent interactions with SG being presented as the first "oppose" in your RfA: Do you think you'd be promoted?

I am of course happy to hear opposing opinions, as I am often incorrect.

brenneman 01:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I occasionally mis-step the line between adverserial and nasty, as it is a very fine one. We tried being overly-nice with SG!, and it failed. We tried being nice, and it failed also. We told him what he needed to do, and he didn't listen. From experience with users like Blow of Light and Qst (as seen by his comment at the noticeboard), the next step in the chain which I have found to be effective is to be adverserial. With any luck, he'll go to mainspace, or if he doesn't, he'll move to Simple Wikipedia or similar. Both are a net positive for Wikipedia, because the metaspace shenanigans and disruption ceases.
 * The community norm is to start off by being nice. Hence WP:BITE. Once being nice fails, we look for another solution to the problem, before using the blocking tools. It's more a reflection on the RfA process that a proven-effective method of dealing with users in SG!'s position would bring opposes. Daniel (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm always happy to have, umm, challenging cases pointed out to me. I've worked in childcare, military service, and survived bare-knuckled office politics. I'm good at "firm but fair."


 * I'll pay the sense in your comment regarding the RfA process, but I'd follow up your "proven-effective" statement. Here's my line understanding of your line of reasoning cut to it's barest form: It's ok for you to be adversarial/not nice because you know when it is appropriate to do so.  I'm simply concerned about the standard that sets, and how difficult it makes counselling users who are being adversarial when it is not appropriate.


 * I'll let you get back to whatever you were doing, thank you for taking the time to respond.


 * brenneman 02:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "It's ok for you to be adversarial/not nice because you know when it is appropriate to do so." &mdash; Daniel did not say this. From his experience, some users may need different approaches to stop against inappropriate conduct that are counterproductive or detrimental to the development of an encyclopedia. In this case, the editor in question was asked politely to stop and change, but did not. He was asked again, but did not change. At this stage, there are only two effective strategies. To advocate a ban for the user, in an attempt to eliminate his problematic conduct; or to forcefully steer the user in the right direction. In an act of good faith, Daniel took the latter option. When you are faced with a problem, you take the method that produces the best result for all parties involved. The editor's behavior needs to stop, and this is the best solution. Asking an editor politely to stop for the hundredth time does not work; it can be compared to ramming your head repeatedly at a door in an attempt to open it... &mdash;Dark talk 07:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Tagalog
Hi Daniel. I was wondering why you removed the External link to the WikiAnswers Q&A category page about the Tagalog language?

hagoleshet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagoleshet (talk • contribs) 09:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies, it might have been collateral damage when I was reverting some complex vandalism. Feel free to readd it. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine
I see you are one of the three mentors assigned in this case to monitoring Great Irish Famine. A related arbitration enforcement thread has been opened at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. I am cross-posting this to the talk pages of the other two mentors. GRBerry 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:UsernameBlocked-noedits
Template:UsernameBlocked-noedits has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 06:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Daniel;

I want to thank you for removing me from leadership of MOTD. In retrospect, I did build myself a little dictatorship which needed to be dismantled. I also realize that your comments about me at my Medcom nominations were right on the ball and needed to be said. Thanks for being a part of a necessary wake up call. I hope that we can set the past aside and work together to make Wikipedia the best online encyclopedia.

Respectfully Yours;

Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of mosh pits page
Daniel, I see from the logs that the page on "mosh pits" has been deleted. There was a link to it from a page I sometimes edit, so I'm curious to know why the page disappeared. I don't remember the content of the page, so was the phenomenon deemed not to be culturally significant enough perhaps? Or was there a lack of reliable references? Whatever the reason was, is there anything to stop me reinstating the page? Thanks. --Mashcore (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Icelanders GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Icelanders and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. The seven-day deadline is just in case editors make no corrections to the article at all. If progress is being/going to be made in addressing the raided issues, I have no problem in an extension. Thank you for your work on improving the article further and if you have any questions let me know. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Plyhmrp


I suspect that this user could be User:Punk Boi 8 evading his block through sock puppetry again. He has edited few pages, shows signs of wanting to follow the rules and be nice, but just can't seem to do it. I realize that his subject matter edits don't match, but the behavior is very similar: removing warnings, editing Wikipedia and other namespaces rather than contributing to articles, leaving vandalistic type attacks on groups he doesn't like, etc). In any case I would appreciate it if you would keep an eye on him. See these examples of his behavior: Thx in adv -- Trödel 01:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Enigmaman's talk page
 * Requests for adminship/Plyhmrp
 * clear vandalistic edit
 * removing warning from his talk page (very similar behavior to Punk Boi)
 * removed request for source and comment that his edits seem like vandalism
 * removing a section from the talk page s/he didn't like
 * knowing POV violation
 * I'll see if I can get a checkuser on the account. Thanks for the heads-up :) Daniel (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears that this is ❌ to Nathan; the IP resolves to the USA. The other possible suspect is Hornetman16, who I'm clarifying with regards to. Daniel (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - for the quick response - glad to hear it is not Punk Boi 8 - let me know if I can help - I am still on irregularly but do monitor my email Special:EmailUser/Trödel -- Trödel 01:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This editor is ❌ to -  A l is o n  ❤ 07:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Allie :) Daniel (talk) 10:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

AFD closure
Queen of Bollywood was relisted and then closed by you less than 24 hours later. I don't know the protocol, but isn't that a bit unusually, especially as there were more !votes for keep after the relisting than delete (2 to 1)? Hobit (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisting is superficial, especially when done by a non-administrator who was also involved in the debate. Relisted AfD's can be closed at any time after they have been relisted, by an administrator. Furthermore, AfD is not a vote. Daniel (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)