User talk:Daniel/Archive/60

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Daniel. No further edits should be made to this page. For a list of archives for this user, see User talk:Daniel/Archive.

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.

Given Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Great Hunger#Sarah777 and that you were nominated as a mentor to "Great Irish Famine" in fulfillment on Remedy 1.1, please will you cast your eye over user:Sarah777 recent behaviour. See User talk:Sarah777#Talk:List of massacres#Alternative names, User talk:John#No consensus, Talk:list of massacres, and list of massacres. As I am directly involved in this I would prefer if an admin who has not been involved with "list of massacres" would cast their eye over the situation because Sarah777 accused User:Ioeth, who recently blocked her, as an act of bad faith "Wow! Talk about abuse of Admin power! You block me for an attack on yourself. This is the third time in the past year that an Admin has blocked me for a personal dispute. Total abuse of power. Sarah777 (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)" (User talk:Sarah777#Banned from British Isles for 7 days) and I do not want her casting the same accusations against either myself or User:John because even when they are not true such accusations are dammaging to the Wikipedia admin system. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Daniel; clearly this has nothing got to do with "The Troubles" or any related article and thus has nothing whatsoever to do with your mentoring role. But you could chastise PBS for harassment of myself; this amounts to nothing less. Regarding the blocks - the record is clear; except for one accidental 3RR all the others were Admin blocks for so-called incivility directed at them - clear abuse of power in my view. Given the amount of editing I do and the number of Admins I interact with, the views I hold and the type of POV I am trying to remove, it is fairly unremarkable that I'd have picked up a few dozen abusive Admins by now yet the number is actually in single figures. This may indicate a low proportion of abusive Admins or it could be a tribute to my immense patience. (From memory, PBS isn't one of those who have used personal blocks though he has used his power to preferentially edit "massacres"). Sarah777 (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

And further reflecting on this problem surely concern that "such accusations are damaging to the Wikipedia admin system" is beside the point. Such abuse in itself is what is damaging, not the accusation. And the key thing in relation to "massacres" is surely to tackle the core issue of the impossibility of getting any limit on the number of entries while also maintaining WP:NPOV? This is classically illustrated by the proposed "consensus" - it would make the bias worse that it was to start off with! And this is being proposed as a solution to be imposed by a fake consensus. It is this "article" needs examination at the highest level of Wiki; not my attempts to remove bias. However hurtful those accused of abuse and bias find the charges they don't damage Wiki. but "List of massacres" most certainly does. Sarah777 (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

A couple of things:

• "clearly this has nothing got to do with "The Troubles" or any related article and thus has nothing whatsoever to do with your mentoring role" — I believe you meant to refer to the Great Irish Famine article, but in principle agreed.
• "But you could chastise PBS for harassment of myself; this amounts to nothing less" — with all due respect, I really cannot be bothered wading into the behavioural side of this, and don't think it'd be appropriate for me to. I was given the role at the article by the Arbitration Committee to act as an impartial and experienced user in ensuring the future development of the article in a manner suitable to the Arbitration Committee. Quite frankly, this side-issue relates in no real substance to that part of my role, and hence to wade into it would put my impartiality into dispute. Hence, I must decline both requests for involvement above.

Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your considered response, I fully understand you position. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Quick, let's delete the front page!

No seriously, thanks for contributing at my RfA which ended 68/0/0. I'm amazed and humbled by the result, and the warm and supportive comments that went with it. I've put the pic of Tiger here because although I know not everyone appreciates lolcats, to me it illustrates the possibility of taking things seriously with a light heart. I will try to do so, and remain open to the being slapped down if I do start being impossibly pompous. Thanks Pedro :  Chat  for your generous nomination, and also to Master of Puppets for ripping off his thankspam without so much as a by-your-leave. To all who contributed - especially the eventually withdrawn (but very interesting) neutral and oppose - thank you! Now it's off to new admin school for me, before I dare do anything for real... Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

PS: Now the RfA is over, I can't resist asking - why was it a surprise? I presume from your support that if it was a surprise, it was a nice one?! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The fact that the RfA was happening at all — one of a handful of genuine "you're not already one?" moments. Daniel (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Understood - thanks for the compliment Daniel! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

• [1]
• [2]

So far user has forced my workshop entry from the sub-workshop page I created twice. This user has been barely laid off by arbcom some time ago for harassment ([3], [4]).

I hereby request action.

-- Cat ^chi? 17:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to be pushy, any news? Thanks for your help. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 09:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

So sorry, thanks for the prod :) Talk:Clem Hill. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Template:User6a requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Template:User CU Clerk requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Template:User Mariners1 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Template:User Socceroos3 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Template:User WikiProject A-League2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Template:Userm requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Damn, I'd have been a wikidollar richer. I hear Bruce Willis was on standby. --Stephen 12:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Template:Bbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

This one I'm keeping :) Daniel (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully with 40 supports, 13 opposes, and 4 neutrals. For those of you who supported my RFA, I greatly appreciate it. For those who did not, I'm also thankful for your constructive criticism. If you need some advice or have some pointers for me, you know where to reach me! A special thank you to Majorly for all his time and effort he has placed in my nomination. Once again, thank you all for your helpful comments. Now off to new admin school! Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 01:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I assume this was what you were expecting me to do? Daniel Case (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're wasting your mind-reading talent here :) Yes, thanks for that. Daniel (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey Daniel, sometimes to avoid confusion, you should use {{sockpuppetCheckuser|sockname|casename}} and link to the RFCU case in block summaries, as well. Just a heads up, Spebi 01:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd prefer block reviews come via here so I can direct people to the right place, rather than the mire that is RfCU subpages. Daniel (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Which one? Blnguyen (photo straw poll) 04:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not yours. Daniel (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Email. Daniel (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, can't resist. *runs* —Dark ^(talk) 09:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

It was on the news that there's some conspiracy that the result wasn't fair. Somehow, I think someone just can't accept reality. *runs* dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Long live Mark Shield! Dihydrogen Monoxide is right, you need to accept reality and maybe the Mariners might win something in the next century :p—Dark ^(talk) 09:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is just further proof that Frank Farina is the best coach in Australia. GO ROAR! (Don't mention the fact they weren't in the final...just don't.) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Let's all run and maybe we won't have to face the consequences :P Life-ban. —Dark ^(talk) 09:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

A life ban would be too good for him. (We're still running off, right?) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Methinks we're being ignored! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Very good observation :) Daniel (talk) 05:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Daniel, excuse me if this isn't the proper way to contact you--I'm an inexperienced user, but I joined wikipedia to help translate English articles into Italian. One problem I've run into is entry of the band Ra Ra Riot. It currently exists in Italian, but was deleted in English, several times, even while the band continues to recieve coverage for its music and tours. I worked with the band recently--before the death of their drummer they were featured in Rolling Stone magazine, and are by all means notable; a quote from the Spin Magazine article I posted in a later version of the entry said "You must know Syracuse's Ra Ra Riot. Like, right now." They're a signed, working, musical group with one EP released commercially on the Rebel Group label, a full-length album due, two european tours and several North American tours completed. Again I apologize if I am going about this process incorrectly, but I did a good amount of research on how to deal with deleted articles and I am a bit lost in the woods. As I understand it I am supposed to contact you, as an Admin, who can help with the restoring of the article. Thanks very much if you're able to help. Cheers (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Firstly, my apologies for the delay in replying. Given the circumstances and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ra Ra Riot, unfortunately this will have to go to Wikipedia:Deletion review for wider consideration, as I can't unilaterally overturn this (if it was a speedy deletion I could consider it, but AfD's are done by consensus and I can't just ignore it and undelete). If you filed at deletion review asking for permission to recreate the article, people will comment and a result (either to keep deleted or allow recreation) would be reached. "As I understand it I am supposed to contact you" — thank you very much for that (yes, you are correct that a user wishing to contest a deletion generally must engage with the deleting administrator before filing a deletion review), but as I noted above, given the circumstances, my hands are tied so I can't even consider undeleting it. Should you file at deletion review, you do so with my full blessing, rather than a "didn't discuss it with me" protest (as would have happened had you not commented here first). Cheers, and sorry again, Daniel (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't see how reverting the dab to a redirect to the only blue link can be an BLP problem, but after reading your talk page notice I reverted myself. Redlink bios do not support maintenance of dab pages. If WP's legal department sees fit that we must give people vanity links, this is less an encyclopedia than a threat-of-litigation driven hosting service. Truly sad. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

There was an issue with confusion in real life and misrepresentation of one person with another, and this seemed the most logical fix. I have every intention of creating the currently-redlinked article when I get a chance. It is hardly "hosting" or "vanity", nor was that ever the intention of the correspondant (if it was, I would probably not have taken any action). Daniel (talk) 06:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Would you consider stopping by Wesley Chapel High School and semi-protecting it? Its been getting vandalized repeatedly and frequently for a good week now, and I'm a little tired of seeing that nice picture of dinosaurs representing the school. Thanks! Loren.wilton (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Zzuuzz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) beat me to it. Daniel (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just a happy Birthday message to you, Daniel, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!--User:Daniel (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

• FROM YOUR FRIEND:

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yey! Happy birthday! Ryan Postlethwaite 00:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Happy birthday, Daniel! :D GlassCobra 00:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

	Happy Birthday	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Daniel a very happy birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Don't forget to save us all a piece of cake!--User:Daniel (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

--Nadir D Steinmetz 09:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Cool!! Happy birthday!!! :) - Alison ^❤ 10:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Likewise, all the best! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fantastic, time for you to drink, smoke, vote, watch porn, and perhaps star in it yourself. Hope you had a good one! ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 11:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Happy birthday Daniel! :) · AndonicO ^Hail! 12:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Noticed your name on the birthday calender—it happens to be my first edit day :) Have a good day! AGK (contact) 16:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

A Happy Birthday from me too. :) Acalamari 18:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

	Happy Birthday	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Daniel/Archive/60 a very happy birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Don't forget to save us all a piece of cake!

Have a Happy Birthday!!!:) You're the first person the recieve a birthday message from me! I better go sendmy second message.--♥ Yenaldooshi ♥ Benwolf ♥ (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The loss of the Mariners a few days beforehand might not be the best birthday present but... now you can legally drink! :D —Dark ^(talk) 08:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

For he's a jolly good fellow... — Beer plz. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

(late) Happy Birthday! Hope you've enjoyed all the boilerplate birthday messages and the {{BASEPAGENAME}}s and whatnot... ;) Spebi 09:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much, everyone :) Daniel (talk) 05:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Weekly Delivery

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) 08:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

nice picture : ) ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 17:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Daniel, I'd like to get all A-League "<team> season <year>" articles cleaned up (some are horrible), and with your efforts on the CCM articles I would guess that one of the CCM season articles would be the ideal format/layout. Do you have a particular preference for the "best" one that could be use as a model article for the others? -- Chuq (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Even the Mariners' ones are trashy. I seriously don't know what a good season article would look like, but I'll see if I can get this years' Central Coast one looking half decent over the next week or so. Daniel (talk) 08:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, so you're another example of "I thought he was one"...

Anyway, they're discussing on WT:RfA about nominating some bureaucrats. And I think you'd be a good choice. Would you be interested? - jc37 05:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, sorry — not only would I not get the support required (as someone semi-jokingly put it on IRC a moment ago, "has no chance of passing because he pisses everyone off", although they are probably right), I also don't have the time and probably lack the motivation. Sorry, Daniel (talk) 05:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I wonder who said that :) —Dark ^(talk) 05:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, not "everyone", though I suppose I haven't given you enough opportunity : )

That aside, a common issue with RfB is that, as an admin, someone is likely to not be happy with you. C'est la vie, I suppose. - jc37 05:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

		Milhist Coordinator elections
		Thank you very much for your support in the recent Military history Wikiproject elections. I went into it expecting to just keep my seat and was astonished to end up with the lead role. I anticipate a rather busy six months :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply Haut-Koeningsbourg castle, Alsace.

... I know, I know, we should both be over these things. But since I can't mail you cookies without revealing that I know every aspect of your life :D

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		'Cause you rock. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure the barnstar box feels insulted that you used it as your soapbox to spread more lies :) Daniel (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

		The Random Acts of Evilness Barnstar
		'Cause CC Mariners lost:) —Dark (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

		The Random Acts of Truth Barnstar
		Go Roar! dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey Daniel. Quick note - I replied to your question. Neıl ☎ 17:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Read, noted, I'm going to continue floating about like a pansy in neutral until I make up my mind, although your duck essay is very persuasive to me supporting :) Daniel (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Firstly, my apologies for the delay in replying. Given the circumstances and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ra Ra Riot, unfortunately this will have to go to Wikipedia:Deletion review for wider consideration, as I can't unilaterally overturn this (if it was a speedy deletion I could consider it, but AfD's are done by consensus and I can't just ignore it and undelete). If you filed at deletion review asking for permission to recreate the article, people will comment and a result (either to keep deleted or allow recreation) would be reached. "As I understand it I am supposed to contact you" — thank you very much for that (yes, you are correct that a user wishing to contest a deletion generally must engage with the deleting administrator before filing a deletion review), but as I noted above, given the circumstances, my hands are tied so I can't even consider undeleting it. Should you file at deletion review, you do so with my full blessing, rather than a "didn't discuss it with me" protest (as would have happened had you not commented here first). Cheers, and sorry again, Daniel (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Daniel. No worries about the delay, I was able to contact another deleting administrator in the meantime, and since then I've been getting positive comments on WP:DRV. I hope to hear from him soon about the next step towards getting the article on the main space again; now that I've been able to include the WP:BAND criteria that the band meets. I appreciate your help very much. Thanks again. -Acatauro (talk) 09:57, 01 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see consensus was that the userspace version should be put 'live' — good work! Daniel (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Daniel - I was wondering why Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) was deleted. It is referred to and cross-reference linked as part of the record of the previous debate on the subject at the relevant talk page, as well as the archived debate sub-page , for reference just in case the discussion debate re-emerges again. Should the RFM not have been left archived at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Archive_26 for reference? I suppose it might have been deleted since not all parties agreed to mediation and the case was rejected after only 5 hours, but I believe the RFM archive pages show other such non-resolved or refused cases, as it were. I would not really care, but I was acting as the clerk at the rather lengthy and highly volatile RFC debates regarding the proper title for the film, and have tried to preserve the record in case the discussion resumes, and noticed the RFM link has "gone red". Thanks for your attention. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 00:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The deletion was an act of the Mediation Committee and on behalf of them in my role as Chair. As I am no longer Chair, I must refer all discussion on this to WJBscribe. Sorry about the bouncing about! Cheers, Daniel (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply