User talk:Daniel/Archive/25

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 24 · Archive 25 · Archive 26 →

Mediation Committee

It is my pleasure to announce that after great consideration, you have been accepted as a member of the Mediation Committee. I encourage you to place the Mediation Committee page and Requests for Mediation on your watchlist, as well as the open tasks page, which will be updated as new cases are accepted. You may also (and are encouraged to) join the Committee's internal mailing list. (Please email me directly so I can confirm your email before subscribing it.) If you have any questions about how the committee functions, please feel free to ask me. Congratulations on becoming a member!

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 06:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Essjay. I hope it wasn't just the coffee :) I hope I do you and the other MCers proud. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 06:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Shhhhh! Everybody will know the secret! I think you'll do a great job on the Committee, and am happy to have been the one to promote you. Essjay (Talk) 06:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Cheers Essjay, and thanks for everything - everything over the last 6-or-so months (there's a lot you probably don't realise you've done to help me greatly, but trust me, you have) - Daniel.Bryant 06:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I've done stuff to help you? What was I thinking! In all seriousness: I'm glad I've been able to help you and others out; that's what keeps me coming back each day. Essjay (Talk) 07:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I ditto that last sentence :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Karlspreis laureates

Hi! User:Tasoskessaris re-created the Category:Karlspreis laureates since you were the admin responsible for deleting it two days ago, I guess you know how to undo this breach of consensus. C mon 08:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it as a CSD G4, and removed the categories from the articles. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 08:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Message

My message you replied in your archive i did not want you to revert, i know its against the rules to ask other people to revert, i was saying they do. Nareklm 20:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, take this to ANI. I cannot and will not act unilaterally on this issue, and it requires discussion. Daniel.Bryant 22:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

list

I noticed your list. You can use mine too if you like, though I hadn't thought to add Mediation Committee. Cheers, NoSeptember 02:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The main reason I compiled it is to have quick access to their contributions (so, say, if I need a CU I can see who is online at present), to have a quicklink to send them a message, and a quicklink to their log so that I can keep track of things. That's why I made {{user6b}} :) Just like you with the MC, I forgot all about the AC clerks (and the CU ones, as well), so I'll be sure to add them. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 02:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:CHU

Hi Daniel, thanks for bringing it to my notice. Yes, I am willing to reconsider the move and change the username considering the similarity in the names. It shouldn't be too much of a problem as the user has given it a second shot while submitting a request. PS Hope you get well soon. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering, and thanks for the best wishes - I'll know one-way-or-the-other whether I've got it on Tuesday. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 09:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nearly Headless Nick RfA > RfC

I've C&Ped the statements from the RfA to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (2nd RfC) on the basis that there seems to be agreement that the issue should be taken up in RfC. You may wish to ratify, modify, withdraw, etc your statement if you have made one, or add a statement if you have not. Balancer 23:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I would have removed my statement - which was merely "I think this is premature, RfC would have been better" - to the talk page (because it really isn't relevant to the RfC now it is a RfC), however it was already done for me.^[1] Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: DYK note

Hi Daniel,

Thanks for the hint, I guess I just overlooked those noms, sorry.--Carabinieri 15:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No problems :) Daniel.Bryant 20:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 17 February, 2007, a fact from the article 100 point game, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Did you know? was updated. On 17 February, 2007, a fact from the article Inside Scientology, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Anon edits from blocked user

Hi, Aksi_great had indicated at ANI that blocked user User:Hkelkar a.k.a User:Rumpelstiltskin223 a.k.a User:India Rising was also using IP Special:Contributions/128.83.131.122.

I have observed following range in addition being interchangeably used on similar articles edited by earlier sockpuppets: Special:Contributions/128.83.131.124 | Special:Contributions/128.83.131.123 | Special:Contributions/128.83.131.130 | Special:Contributions/128.83.131.139.

Could you manage to block these? or advise where should I report this, as Aksi is on wikibreak. cheers --IsleScape^Talk 19:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I can suggest AE or ANI. Daniel.Bryant 20:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Eek!

Don't like the sound of that virus; hope it's nothing too serious!

Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Blood test results tomorrow - yay! At least I'll know what I've got, then. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 08:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 8	19 February 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Arbitrator Dmcdevit resigns; replacements to be appointed	Essay questions Wikipedia's success: Abort, Retry, Fail?
In US, half of Wikipedia traffic comes from Google	WikiWorld comic: "Tony Clifton"
News and notes: Brief outage, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
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 07:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Question for you on Wikipedia:Adminship survey

Hi Daniel. I posted a response to your comment on the "Admins should be all-rounders" section, but I guess you haven't checked it since then. I'm just interested to know your response to my question. Raven4x4x 07:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't seen it, so thanks for the note. My response and change is at [2]. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 08:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Hmmm...This sounds very familiar...Perhaps it's contagious! Essjay (Talk) 09:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Well, I needed an alternative to the one I use in the box above, and your wording - "obsessive" etc. - was the best I could come up with copy :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 09:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Essjay (Talk) 09:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

RfCU request archiving

Thanks for taking care of retitling and archiving my RfCU request for Forest H2 and Trebor Rowntree. I'm sorry if I captioned it wrong or should have made it part of the prior case, but at that point it was urgent to get this posted in the form I did and resolved quickly, for reasons you'll see if you look at Trebor's RfA and the talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No problems - I saw "your haste" replicated on ANI - I found your comment extraordinary there, but when I checked the situation I agreed with your evaluation of how urgent it was. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 19:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Blood test

Hi! how did your blood test results go? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Results this morning (ACST) :D Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 19:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I thought you had mentioned Tuesday. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope. The results came back inconclusive due to some blood irregularities, so I took another blood test today and they want to reanalyze it :( Daniel.Bryant 06:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Hello, Daniel. Yes, the Pictures can be deleted, together with those images. Thank you and happy mopping! (Just like what I do in the Simple English Wikipedia. :))--Tdxiang 08:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No problems - deleted as a U1. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 08:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

(Untitled)

Hello,

I am sorry, but I am lost(read the instructions but still feel like a dummy) on how to change my user name(current; "toddathallys") Could you enlighten me or simply assist me in this request? Would like to be know as "tmdrehrb" This is a privacy issue, and my curent username is to similar to my work e-mail(I should have considered this).

thanks for you time and consideration in these regards!

Please help! Todd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddathallys (talk • contribs)

I will have Essjay do it for you; as a note, the page is at WP:CHU, but this time Essjay says he'll bypass that and do it per your comment above. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 08:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Toddathallys → Tmdrehrb

• Current name: Toddathallys (talk • contribs)
• Requested name: Tmdrehrb (change username)
• Reason: See above. Posted here to give Essjay quick access to needed links. Daniel.Bryant 08:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

 Done Essjay (Talk) 08:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Essjay. Crossposted at WP:CHU for documentation purposes. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 08:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi, Daniel.Bryant, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA, which was successful with a final tally of 61/0/2. I'm honoured that you said you'd only seen good things from me, and I hope you will continue to see good things from me as an administrator. If you have any comments about my use of the tools I would be glad to hear from you on my talk page. Thanks again! Heimstern Läufer 06:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you will! Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 08:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civilian (street artist)

You say, "Simply nominating all of them in separate AfD's without reconsidering whether it really deserves to be deleted under WP:N/WP:BIO/WP:MUSIC/whatever will be harmful." How would it be harmful? I think such nomination should be almost automatic. I'm sorry, but it sounds like you are trying to discourage this debate. Are you a participant in the AfD debate or are you an impartial judge? I think your choice of words, in particular the word "harmful," exerts an unfortunate influence on others. Regards. Bus stop 16:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is nominating every article with the same AfD summary will be harmful if you are trying to have them deleted. Because each of these articles are different, and have different assertions of notability, many people (myself included) would frown upon a templated relisting of every page without reconsidering whether they are worthy of deletion, and this could adversly affect the other debates. Remember, I've been here 8 months, and I've now seen about 4 or 5 of these situations; I'm merely recounting what I saw happen, which was a lot of irritability that people blindly relisted. Please don't start throwing allegations of COI around, as it is an assumption of bad faith. Daniel.Bryant 21:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You did not say the above. You said: "Simply nominating all of them in separate AfD's without reconsidering whether it really deserves to be deleted under WP:N/WP:BIO/WP:MUSIC/whatever will be harmful." You did not mention templates. I do not think you should be cautioning people at all, at the close of a deletion process, not to reconsider deleting the article(s) in question. We are talking about eleven graffiti artists of Melbourne. Other people also felt that none of them attained the level of notability. I did not nominate any of them for deletion. But I feel all of them should be deleted. And others have expressed a similar view. The problem was that it was a confusing process to discuss eleven articles on one AfD page. The logical solution to that problem is separate AfD pages. Which artists? All of the artists? Some of the artists? Many of the artists? Those are questions for editors to answer for themselves. I think it is out of place at the point of closing an AfD page, such as that one, for you to issue your cautionary note about the potential harmfulness of separate AfD's for each of the eleven artists. If the editors felt that was called for, then they should feel free to do that. Nominating articles for deletion is a legitimate process on Wikipedia. I think that you should consider going back to that page and altering your wording. You are perfectly acting within your capacity to refuse to delete any of the articles in the AfD that came before you on that page. But it is overstepping to indicate on that same page, at the point of explaining your decision, that it might not be a good idea for editors to re-nominate those articles individually. That is something for an editor to decide without your suggestions one way or the other. That is simply not a rightful concern of yours. Not at that point, which is the closing of an AfD process which faltered because there were too many articles being considered at once. Bus stop 05:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You've missed the whole point of my comment - to help avoid unneeded tension when they are renominated - and as such this discussion is over. My last comment stands; what I will do is add a link to my clarifying note at the AfD. Please do not continue to badger me, or continue to harp, because you will be wasting your time, and I will not waste my time by responding any further. Daniel.Bryant 05:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I missed your whole point? According to WP:CIVIL we are advised "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others." I am merely trying, in a polite way, to communicate a point to you. I am trying to say, that at the point at which you close an AfD discussion, that is not the point at which to issue any cautions whatsoever to the participants concerning the advisability or the inadvisability of nominating again the same articles for deletion. That is because it is perfectly understandable that in this instance it is precisely what is called for. The remedy for a jumbled AfD page concerning eleven articles is the nomination of eleven articles for deletion. There is no worse place I can think of for you to be issuing that caution. It wouldn't matter if you were encouraging or discouraging people to re-nominate. Your role at that point is to decide on the outcome of that particular article for deletion. My point is it is entirely not your role at that point to issue guidance going forward. Every editor has to make up his or her own mind about what is to be re-nominated and what is not to be re-nominated. I did not miss the point of your comment. I responded to your point. I understand fully that you are saying that you meant to advise editors not to re-nominate with the use of templates. (And I could see no reason to believe that people would be using a template to re nominate individual AfD's.) My response is that even that is not proper. That is not the place for you, as an impartial judge, to be offering any guidance of that nature to editors on a going forward basis. Perhaps in some other place -- on your Talk page, or in an essay, you can put forth your feelings about that. But closing an AfD process is not the place to be guiding people -- one way or the other -- about re-nominating an article for deletion. Deleting articles is a perfectly normal and healthy function on Wikipedia. I don't think you need to be overly concerned with avoiding "tension." You say that you issue that warning in order to avoid the "tension" that might result from re-nominations of articles for deletion. I think the more important concern is having good articles on Wikipedia, in this case about notable artists. You have not removed the wording cautioning editors visiting that AfD page that it might be "harmful" for them to re-nominate any or all of those eleven articles for graffiti artists of Melbourne for deletion. Why haven't you? Do you disagree with the point I am making? Bus stop 14:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you seem to understand that I am talking to you in a polite way about an issue that is of concern to me. I think that I am raising a valid concern, that any objective observer can see. It is perfectly within your ability to respond politely to me and engage in a discussion which addresses this issue. Please try to discuss this with me; that is what I am asking of you. There is no mention of templates at all on the AfD page. Is there something that suggests to you that templates may be used to re-nominate these articles? If not, then I think your language of "harmful" is out of place. It would tend to discourage others from re-nominating any or all of those eleven articles for deletion. Bus stop 17:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Writing a templated message "Article is non-notable, delete" for 11 articles is harmful, as many Wikipedians view such nominations in a dim light. This is my final word, the final word on the topic. Seriously, you've made your point, now please stop harrassing me about it. Oh, and if you want to start throwing acronyms around, AGF would be a good one for you to read. Now leave me alone, and go nominate those articles as you please. Oh, and because you are correct that AfD closures should be as procedural as possible, I have removed the controversial sentence. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 23:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sean mc sean block evasion

I regret to inform you that Sean has an IP in his possession that he may use to continue his attacks and vandalism, which is 66.214.9.77. Now, as of now, the time of this message, I do not know if he has vandalised or not, but I feel it would be necessary to give you a heads up of what hass happened. I would have reported him on WP:AIV, but, because, like I said, I'm not sure he's vandalised yet; keep your eyes open for him. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 21:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Checking the contribs for that IP, I haven't got enough to reset the block on Sean, nor do I think any checkuser would entertain the idea of a fishing expedition. However, thanks for the note, and I'll be sure to keep an eye on that IP's contribs. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

template:indefblockeduser-nocat

Hello Daniel Bryant. I just noticed that you created {{indefblockeduser-nocat}} for user pages that should not be deleted. I'm not sure which cases this should be used for; sockpuppets and banned users are tagged with {{SockpuppetBlock}} and {{banned user}}. Normal block notices generally should not be kept forever, and the template was mistakenly used at least once for a page that definitely shouldn't be kept forever. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:02:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I created it for use on sockpuppeteers (ie. {{sockpuppeteer}}) who were indefinitely blocked. I take the first link from Special:Whatlinkshere, User:Juro, as a prime example. I can't help it if people mistakenly use it - the only thing I could do was regularily patrol the transclusions and replace the mistakenly-used ones. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A while back I was running Pathosbot to clean up this sort of mistake automatically (see example diff), running through temporary Wikipedian userpages. I stopped running it when a minor glitch in the underlying software made it more difficult, and never got around to doing it again when that was fixed. If I run Pathosbot through it regularly again, would you oppose redirecting the -nocat variant to the main template? —{admin} Pathoschild 05:51:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, blocked sockpuppeteers need to have a no-category variant on their userpage. I understand what the bot did for that diff, but unfortunately it doesn't solve the problem for the main accounts. I honestly don't know any fix to this situation. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 06:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed that. I just adjusted the template so that {{sockpuppeteer|blocked}} outputs the lower box below. If that looks good, I'll have Pathosbot make the appropriate changes.

It is suspected that this user has used one or more accounts abusively. The abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited; using new accounts to evade blocks or bans results in the block or ban being extended. See block log and lists of suspected and confirmed accounts.

This user has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected that they have used one or more accounts abusively. The abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited; using new accounts to evade blocks or bans results in the block or ban being extended. See block log and lists of suspected and confirmed accounts.

—{admin} Pathoschild 06:22:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I like that new template switch very much, and if my approval counts for anything, you have it. I'll start going through the Whatlinkshere of transclusions for the -nocat one to replace it with the general indefblocked template where it was used incorrectly; I'll allow the bots to make the combination swapovers (ie. the sockpuppeteer one, as well as the sockpuppet one which it did originally). Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 06:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. There's no need to do anything; I'll have Pathosbot make all the necessary changes from the incoming links. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 06:45:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If you say so :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 06:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

What do you think of this new article just created, for possibly using as a DYK suggestion ? Thank you for the others, btw. Smee 06:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Looks good! I'll write a DYK handle and add it to T:TDYK. Cheers for all your work creating awesome new articles, Daniel.Bryant 06:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much, creating new articles is fun! I was wondering how long it will take for the 2nd DYK you submitted on an article I created, and how I'd find out if a DYK suggestion ends up not making it? Thanks again! Smee 06:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

That other DYK will probably take another two days or so - just see how many "open" nominations there are below it at T:TDYK, and there's about 20 used per day on average. There's no procedure for notifying those nominations that don't make DYK, but generally every nomination is chosen unless an objection is made and listed below it on the T:TDYK page; generally, if this happens, it can be fixed/responded to. I added that latest one to the list for the 23rd. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 06:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Smee 06:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

No problems. Daniel.Bryant 06:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Gerald Hannon

It would seem that after making a few relatively minor edits to the article, User:Alaric the Goth seems to have now abandoned his position that the article was biased, per his edit summary here.

I genuinely believe that the mediation request was a bad faith attempt to create a dispute where none actually existed yet, so I have no intention of acknowledging it any further than I already have (not even to post a disagreement on the request page). And based on that edit summary, I don't think Alaric plans to follow through on it anymore, either. (For what it's worth, based on Alaric's edit history I strongly suspect that he's the same user who managed to create a dramafest on Rachel Marsden, and I think he was trying to stir up another hornet's nest on Hannon precisely because I was involved. Too bad for him I didn't bite, eh?) Bearcat 23:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If your decision is to reject the mediation on the above grounds, which you are more-than-entitled to do, please note so on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gerald Hannon, so the appropriate action can be taken by the Committee in closing the request. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 04:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

James Ewing

I had the feeling it was going to be declined but didn't know about the month cap (something I didn't read most likely). In light of the inability to get any evidence what do you think should be done with Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of James Ewing? It is purely based on the users viewpoints and it is connecting vandal account with an account that was never blocked as far as I can tell. This just seems kinda libelous and almost a personal attack on James. I'm just wondering what you think on the matter. BJ^Talk 04:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If there's no hard evidence page (eg WP:SSP), and the connection isn't blindly obvious to any neutral observer, I really can't see the justification in keeping the tags. I suggest that, if you wish to depopulate the Category, you go through and replace all the pages listed with simply {{indefblockeduser}} (if they're blocked). Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

How?

Wait! You have more archives than I do (I have 18). Sicko! :-) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha! :) I guess it's because I communicate a lot....I guess. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD issues

I have an observation and a request based on your AfD closures today. You are just ahead of me on looking through Feb 18th's AfD's so we are examing alot of the same ones. I noticed that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/When Engineering Fails (Movie) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Hollows as no consensus while I was in the process of considering whether they were suitable candidates for a non-admin close as keep. I believe that they both qualified as clear keeps (and thus for non-admin closure) because in both the delete "votes" were based on previous versions of the article and incomplete information while the keep "votes", which tended to come later, successfully answered the primary concerns of the nomination with sourced, factual responces. There's no harm done either way, of course, but I am concerned that either I am too sure of myself in judging AfD consensus or you are too easily swayed by the numbers in cases were the development of a discussion shows that consensus, though not initially present, has emerged.

Secondly, I would request that you re-examine your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie the Unicorn By Jason Steele not only because the Keep votes, though a majority, consist of uncited assertions and handwaving by likely SPA's but also because the merger target is likely to be deleted as well. But I see that you already have. Thanks! Eluchil404 11:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

As I noted in both those closures (particularily the latter), many of them could be a "keep" closure if we simply ignore those prior to the rewrite. However, I tend to disfavour this as often the "rewrite" is simply a sham to try and convince people not to !vote delete, and as such a number of users could re-endorse their deletion !votes (making them non-ignorable). I generally try and encourage that people come back to a debate with 24 to go, and see if they want to re-evaluate their comments, as it would solve this problem.

I've seen it happen - people discounting opinions because the article has been "rewritten" - and I don't like it, per my reasoning above. Although I will generally give them slightly less weight, especially if it is obvious the concerns are addressed, I never ignore them when closing, and hence a lot of my closures end up being "no concensus" rather than "keep". I would strongly suggest you don't close these two-phased debates, as I certainly don't consider them "non-ambiguous"; but rather, quite the contrary.

With that last one (which was changed during your comment), I only merged the fully-verifiable stuff from the article; I left a lot of the unsourced waffle behind, summarised it with sources, then merged. It took 10mins, and I'm afraid it was 10mins I just lost due to the other debate :| Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it seems to me that if a person votes Delete per reason X and X is later shown to be conclusively not the (or no longer) case the "vote" is no longer relevant to the current consensus. If people later come back and re-affirm their "votes" or others claim that the concerns have not been fully addressed then they should be considered still valid but not if they simply don't return to the AfD (as so few people do). In the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/When Engineering Fails (Movie), for instance, the initial "votes" accused the article of being nonsense which is simply not a credible claim given its current, sourced state. Eluchil404 12:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You'd be surprised what people can pass off as nonsense in the form of a stub. Just kidding :) On that one, it probably could have been closed as it was rewritten literally, not just a-few-things-added-here-and-a-couple-removed-here-and-a-non-reliable-reference-trying-for-WP:V-here job like most are. I still consider the other debate you mentioned initially to be a legitimate case of no consensus; however, there is a clear segregation between the prior-to-rewrite and post-rewrite comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/When Engineering Fails (Movie), and as such I have made this change. Thanks for the note, Daniel.Bryant 12:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete my page?

Why did you delete Grand Theft Auto: Carcer City it is real. {WullieMan 19:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)}

Because a consensus was reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Theft Auto: Carcer City to delete the article. Daniel.Bryant 23:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 24 February, 2007, a fact from the article Henry le Chen, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 20:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you know? was updated. On 24 February, 2007, a fact from the article Mount Cameroon Race of Hope, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 20:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

I have no idea on how this works and i couldn't quite find where you nominate articles for such things but here's the problem i'm encountering:

i found an article about Adam Keller, and i took my time, read new information about his affiliation and statements and general opinions about the person and then i took some more time and rewrote the article based also on several hebrew sources - before edit -> the edit (scroll down to see how it looks with the new picture and info). then, after i finished making the article, i contacted user adam keller (last topic on his talk page) to ask for his opinion about the article (since i'm only working on with 2nd hand sources) and here's his response: "thanks for the attention/thanks for putting in the Arafat picture, it is one of my favorites". after completion i found resistance (pun intended) to some of the words i've used by an anonymous IP who admits he cannot read hebrew(!). then when i requested semi-protection so that at least editors who are under check will have discussions with me rather than brute reverts (which i've been a tad guilty over myself), the anon.IP disppeared and suddenly i'm debating adam keller over the nature of the article about him... after the debate has exaughsted itself, i've re-did my research and came to the conclusion that, in retrospect - all the sources on him are either his own description about himself or a few statements he made in hebrew or english and basically outside remarks are on the group he's affiliated with and not about him - therefore, i changed my mind and think that if a version similar to my original edit is not permitted because people demand better citations (that don't exist since the person is not notable), that the article would be nominated for deletion for lack of notability... the only person from "gush shalom" who is notable is Uri Avneri - and therefore i cannot resolve edit disputes with non-hebrew speakers anon.IPs who demand better citations.

i hope that long explanation is somewhat coherant - in short, i asked to either change the status of the article to semi-protect (so anon. IPs who do not know hebrew cannot vandalise it) or to have it nominated for deletion over lack of notability.

thanks in advance for your time and response. Jaakobou 21:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The method to nominate it for deletion is described at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Judging from your comment to me above, referencing WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BIO would be helpful for you. The other thing you suggested was semi-protection; in this case, such an option falls outside the usage guidelines listed at WP:SEMI.

If you wish to nominate this article for deletion, create the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Keller, and then ask any administrator to add the appropriate notice to the article (and link to this discussion), or else simply ask me. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 23:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy ^talk 01:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)