User talk:Daniel/Archive/29

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.

← Archive 28 · Archive 29 · Archive 30 →

Vandalproof application - Zarius

Hi,

Thank you for your response in regards my application. Whilst I understand your reasoning I feel I need to mention why I applied with a low count. I didn't know the 250 edits was a minimum requirement - if it is, this should be noted on the application page, as it currently states "While in no way a strict rule, new users with fewer than 250 mainspace edits...".

Note also that I have been around (though quiet on the editing front) for nearly four years, with no history of vandalism (whilst not a lot of major edits, I feel I have a good mix of vandalism reverts, spelling/grammar/cleanups and smaller edits). Also, my edit count is quickly rising, as indicated by the count page, so I have no problems reapplying when I hit 250 - I just feel that if the count (regardless of age) is a hard and fast rule it should be noted a little more firmly.

Again, thank you for your prompt response - I will be working on raising my count and applying again shortly.

Regards, Zarius 22:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Except for extraordinary circumstances, 250 mainspace edits is a requirement. The current wording is by moderator consensus to allow some discretion in dealing with requests.

If you feel I have erred, please readd your username to the awaiting approval list with a link to your message here, or else do as you mentioned above and make 250 edits. Due to your large inactivity, I am at present not inclined to overturn my initial decision. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 22:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My quotes page

Just thought I'd let you know that I stole a nice quote of yours that I've always liked for my own page. See you around :) —Xyrael / 23:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

:) I find that particular quote extremely motivating. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 23:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Alia Lahlou

Hi there, could you take a look at Alia Lahlou? It was nominated for speedy deletion and removed. It was then nominated for AfD and that was removed too. Thanks--Thomas.macmillan 17:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Alia Lahlou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been deleted four times now, and protected (see log). Sorry for the delayed response in dealing with this, and cheers, Daniel Bryant 22:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

sorry, I just got VandalProof and am learning the ropes. I think I got it down now, just a little carried away... Thanks for letting me know, I can update my mistake log. --Hojimachong^talk 22:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No problems. Daniel Bryant 22:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Closing AfD's

Replied here to preserve threading —dgies^t_c 17:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Noted. Daniel Bryant 05:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A Shanty No Lemon

An editor has asked for a deletion review of A Shanty No Lemon. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ironhide1975 22:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Given I have never deleted this article under either names (capitals or no capitals), or never even closed an AfD related to it, I don't understand why I was notified. Daniel Bryant 05:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Dean Roberts

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dean Roberts (criminal). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MadMax 03:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Daniel Bryant 05:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:UW future?

Hi, Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as active at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace template issue. As you are or have been active on this project we feel you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers ^Khukri 10:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have given my input. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 10:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

At this rate...

... it begins to look like I may have to pester admins about protected-page edits for at least a few more months. When, or even just before, that starts to become a bother to you, please let me know, and I will immediately shift "your share" of that workload over to some other poor, unsuspecting, and no doubt equally overworked admin, on the principle that the best person to get the job done quickly is someone who's already busy. (If at that time you have any suitable candidates in mind, please point me in their direction.) Thanks for all your help and support already! -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 01:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, one could argue RfA is broken :) Although I am always happy to help you, currently I am very busy, namely with OTRS stuff at the present (as well as that institution...). I will be able to help with some minor-to-moderate things; however, for complex stuff, I can suggest Luna Santin (talk), who has far superior template knowledge compared to me. Cheers, and thanks for the note, Daniel Bryant 10:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

sockfarm

there's been new breakout from my old 'friend' licinius/ehinger222/NSWelshman/Rugby 666, i put together an RFCU page here - there was a more info request, have i put enough in to justify a checkuser running the check? i realise you recused yourself from the last case so i though you'd be a good person to ask. cheers, Dibo ^{T | C} 03:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite that I was recused, and the fact that I am no longer a clerk (time constraints forced me to withdraw), I can't speculate on behalf of the checkusers as to whether the information provided is sufficient, beyond the obvious (code letter, etc.). However, I can say that I agree with your request and would like it to be run; not that my preferences overrides the checkuser policy, or anything :) Cheers, Daniel Bryant 10:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 12	20 March 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream"	News and notes: Bad sin, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru MFD question

Risker had listed a variety of other forked Essjay articles there--don't those get swept up too, or do they need seperate MfDs each? - Denny 13:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus to delete User:NorwegianMarcus/Sandbox, User:NeoFreak/sandbox/sandbox5, User:Wikiman232/Essjay and User:C.m.jones/Essjay as a result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:QuackGuru, because there was only one comment made after they were listed. As such, yes, another MfD will be required for those four. I've modified my close of MfD/QuackGuru in light of your query. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 10:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Cow tipping

Hi. As a member of the mediation committee, I'm hoping you have the expertise to help close/decide/whatever the RFC I started at Talk:Cow_tipping#Request_for_Comment:_Inclusion_of_image_of_cow_.26_related_caption. Not sure how long they should go, and I figure a neutral party could help sort things out. Let me know if this process is incorrect. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Although there is no time frame specifically, four-or-so days - with that latest comment made just one hour ago - is probably nowhere near enough. Generally, discussions like this would go for at least five days, or until all possible discussion has been exhausted. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 05:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No problems. Daniel Bryant 07:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the discussion has simmered down now - the last comment was a few days ago. Should I post it an ANI for someone to come over and close the discussion? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, probably - just request an administrator close it. I am currently cleaning out a large backlog at OTRS, so apologies that I can't be of assistance; I would probably feel uncomfortable closing the RfC anyways, given our discussion here. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 10:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection on Opera article

Greetings from the Opera Project. I see you have put a sprotect2 tag on this article although I don't recognize your name as a contributor. Could you possibly let us know what is happening? Thanks. - Kleinzach 09:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There has been moderate levels of IP vandalism from a number of sources, as covered by WP:SEMI. I have protected it due to this, and pursuant to an OTRS request for temporary protection which was what triggered my action initially.

If you feel this protection is unjustified, please let me know so we can discuss it further. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 09:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection from vandalism is obviously a good thing but can you please explain what it is and how it works, not here but on the Opera Project page? We have a daily vandal problem not only on the Opera article but on many other pages devoted to famous composers, famous works, so rather than taking it off Opera we probably need it on a number of other pages. Thanks. Kleinzach 09:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What protection is and how it works is all explained at Wikipedia:Protection policy. There is a relatively strict set of criteria for articles to be protected, also outlined on that page. I would do the policy no justice by simply regurgitating the words. Daniel Bryant 10:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Could you do everyone the courtesy of telling us what you have done? Parachuting in, deus ex machina style, without more than half a sentence explaining what you have done, is only doing half the job. Communicating is the other half. - Kleinzach 10:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What I have done is used my ability as an administrator to restrict editing for a period of five days under the protection policy; no IP address or user less than four days old will be able to edit the page. This action has been logged on the article's log by the MediaWiki software. Protections do not require a note detailing what the administrator has done, on the talk page or especially any associated Wikiprojects. However, per your request, I have copied this note above to Talk:Opera. Wikiprojects do not require notification of protection of their articles. Daniel Bryant 10:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Request further edit on locked Tom Swift article

Article has links to two sites owned and operated by the same person, listed here as: “The Unofficial Tom Swift Home Page” and “Fan Forum For All Swift Fans”. The latter seems to violate the asserted rule regarding refs or links for “fandom” or “fan activity” about this character. Other such refs have been regularly removed.

If this is not a problem now, the cited “Fan Forum” is a moderated group closed to viewing by nonmembers. As it is cross-linked from the owner’s other site anyway, I suggest replacing this link with one to an active group on the same topic:

• Tom Swift Series Fan Forum

This group does not require membership and is moderated by a committee of five persons well known in this area, and appears to be more active at present.

The article page is locked, so this would need to be addressed by a sysop. (Given the history of edit warring, I do not recommend unlocking the page.) 67.101.87.172 18:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The ip associated with 67.101.87.172 suggests that this is a sockpuppet of Doxmyth, who was engaged in a long term edit war with the owner of the fan forum that is currently linked to the article in question, and it comes as no surprise that Doxmyth is a member of the fan forum that he now suggests be linked in its stead. This is a clear conflict of interests.

Wiki guidelines state the following:

If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors

2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors

3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization

The animosity between these individuals proved to be so disruptive that this article had to be locked to editing. Now one of the parties is soliciting an admin to replace a link to his rival's fan forum with one to a forum that he posts on. This suggestion should be dismissed out of hand. Pak434 02:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

 Not done, whether either of you are right or not about Wikipedia policies (I haven't looked too deeply), this protected edit request is contested, so I will not complete it. If a consensus was to form on Talk:Tom Swift for the change, I would make it. At present, per above, there is no consensus. Daniel Bryant 03:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

New DYK potential...

... on the article Elli Perkins, newly created. Can you think up a proper hook? I am not sure which fact to pull it from, and on this one it might be more appropriate for it not to be a self nom... Also let me know please what you think of the article itself? Yours, Smee 02:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Nevermind, I think I got a good hook for it. But if you have a chance feel free to let me know what you think of the article itself at some point... Smee 06:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Looks fine - although under most circumstances the heavy linkage to reference two would be an issue, in this case it is paramount to the article, so I'd consider it all right. The only fault I can see is there is no accessdate for the websites; also, the {In English) part probably isn't needed, given they alla re (and this is enwiki). Cheers, and good luck with the DYK, Daniel Bryant 07:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try to find some time to implement your suggestions. Though I was also thinking about the reference, it is from a highly reputable source, so that seems okay. Smee 07:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Done. Thanks for the suggestions. Smee 07:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

No problems. Daniel Bryant 07:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

CCM

Hi, thanks for getting in touch. I've responded re: marquee players on the FA nom. Should be relatively simple. Cheers, HornetMike 17:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for getting back to me; I've implemented what you said. Daniel Bryant 10:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Nathan

He's now appealing his block. Just a heads up. Take care, – Riana ^ঋ 04:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Ryulong has dealt with it; I would have, but he was demanding someone "uninvolved", which I'm not from my comment at ANI. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 10:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Userbox markup

Problem solved --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 04:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers mate. Daniel Bryant 06:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

IRC #wikipedia-checkuser-clerks

Good afternoon (GMT time); nice user page design :) might I request access to #wikipedia-checkuser-clerks? This means I don't have to badger a CheckUser or Clerk several times a day when I need to (re-)connect. I realise you are no longer a member of RFCU, but I was under the impression you still had access to it, after being told upon first joining the channel that "I just missed Daniel by a few minutes", and with you often being somebody who get's things done, I've decided to post here.

Hopefully this matter will be dealt with quickly, as the channel is extremely useful, and it would bring an end to my constant pestering of those with access!

Regards,
anthony^[cfc] 17:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Y Done, you now have +i under the nickname anthony_cfc for -clerks. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 23:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Daniel — anthony^[cfc] 23:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No problems. Daniel Bryant 01:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Userfication of William E. Dudley

Please userfy The Article William E. Dudley to My User Page. Thank You! >Wedudley 20:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)<

For what it's worth, I agree with that request. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Y Done, see also below. Daniel Bryant 06:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Any Details?

Any details you can give me on why the article William E. Dudley was deleted would be appreciated, Thanks >Wedudley 20:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)<

The article was deleted because consensus was reached amongst established and uninvolved editors that the article did not assert sufficient notability to remain on Wikipedia in its' present state. This consensus was achieved via a discussion, located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William E. Dudley. As noted above, I have undeleted and moved this article to userspace per your request and my closing statement; when the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion regarding notability, it can be moved back into the article namespace. I hope this answers your question. The article after being moved to your userspace is at User:Wedudley/William E. Dudley. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ryan Harpur

It came to my attention from looking through the assessment logs for the Northern Ireland WikiProject that you deleted this article as a result of a group nomination for deletion debate. The reason given for the nominations was that "he has not played in a professional league (i.e. the top four divisions of English football)".

However, this rationale completely ignores the fact that Ryan Harpur is a former Irish Premier League footballer. The article currently has incoming links from five other articles. Could you undelete this please? Thanks in advance. --Mal 06:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Could I please have a reference for that (he played in the IPL)? Currently the (deleted) article makes no such statement, and there is therefore no reference for it. If it is true (which I don't strongly doubt, but better to be sure when undeleting against an AfD consensus), it is blatant that the consensus got that one wrong, as a result of the group nomination - notability of people specifically states about professional leagues - and then I'll undelete. Thanks for the note, and cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration. I'm not huge into footy, and I know little about Portadown (Harpur's former club). I'll have a look around myself and, if I can't find any source I'll leave a message in the Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board and various other places in the hopes that someone else does know. Obviously, not being an admin, I haven't a clue what the article used to say. I can only assume it was a stub. I'll let you know either way. Thanks again. --Mal 06:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No problems. I did a quick search, and found this, which clearly states that "[Harpur] made Ronnie McFall's first team [Portadown F.C.] ... on a couple of occasions last term appearing in the Premier League matches against both Newry City and Loughgall". On this basis, I have speedy restored it, and added the information. Y Done :)

Regarding viewing deleted articles, you are correct; however, prior to me becoming a sysop, I always used to use Google cache. Basically type in the URL for the deleted Wikipedia article, and provided it is recent, you should be able to click the light blue "Cached" link and see it. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Above and beyond the call of duty - thanks very much Daniel. And thanks for the Google tip too. :) --Mal 09:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalproof application

Hi, as per previous discussion, I re-applied for VP after passing 250 mainspace edits, however I wasn't been added to the userlist in the last pass. Do you know if this just an oversight or is there something else? Thanks, Zarius 11:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Because of a problem with my ISP, I am currently unable to run the VP interface to add new approved users.

Please go through the history of the approval page and see who removed you from the list; and then ask them why they didn't approve your access request. I cannot answer for them. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 10:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Change in Template:DRV top

Just a heads-up that I made a small change in the {{DRV top}} (or {{drt}}) template: the level 4 header, with a (closed) marker, is now part of the template. So any discussion can now be closed by simply replacing the four equal signs on each side of the title into the the template text:

 ====[[Title]]====

is changed to

 {{subst:drt|[[Title]]|Decision}}

which turns into

Title (closed)

Hope that makes closures a bit easier. Comments and questions please here. Take care, trialsanderrors 08:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers T&E - I'm sure it will. Daniel Bryant 08:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 13	26 March 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS
Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 13:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mediation-l

Yes, I am the list admin now. Essjay gave me access before he left. I changed your subscription e-mail, so a confirmation should be sent to your new address. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and I just confirmed it. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 10:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

SEGA

Hey there Dan! I was wondering if you might take a look at something on WP:AN/I for me and maybe comment, since you were part of the first RFC case at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SEGA. The section at AN/I is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppeter SEGA. I appreciate your time. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* Him, again :| Responded on ANI; suggest taking it to CN per Luna Santin. I will support a community ban, however it has become apparent that the Community noticeboard does this better than the Admins Incidents one. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 10:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now filed a case at Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#Community ban on User:SEGA. I would appreciate any input. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Y Done, thanks for the note. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 10:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Supercategories

Hi Daniel

I just noticed on the Mariners article seems to have a couple of super-categories, Sport in NSW is a supercat of Football (soccer) in NSW, and Australian football (soccer) teams is a supercat of A-League teams. It's a minor point but are the supercats necessary if you've already identified more specific cats? The Rambling Man 10:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you raise a very good point. I must say, categories have never been my strong point; the best example was Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/FIFA World Cup hat-tricks, when I submitted it to FLC without even adding them (I forgot about their existance totally). I have modified the article, as (from my limited category knowledge) you are quite correct. Cheers, and thanks so much for this note, all your other suggestions, and your minor fixes, Daniel Bryant 11:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)