User talk:Daniel/Archive/31

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 30 · Archive 31 · Archive 32 →

Imperial triple crown jewels

Your Imperial Majesty, I am honored to present you with the imperial crown jewels of Wikipedia editing. May you wear them well. Durova^Charge! 05:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Cheers, Daniel Bryant 09:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh! His Royal Highness Daniel now has crown jewels!! [1] LOL :D Congratulations, Daniel, wear them well! Sarah 11:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Booshakla

Hi. I suspect this user has more socks: User:Booshaklla, User:AbbyWrickler, User:Earlofyens, and User:Dime ond. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any background information/any reason you brought it to me, rather than to WP:SSP? I don't remember ever interacting with/blocking sockpuppts of this user. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 09:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the time...

i was wiki-flying by your userpage, and saw you had a link to the time - did you know that you can just say 'the time in adelaide is 22:07'? - I would have been cheeky and thrown it in for you, but your page is protected...

happy easter!

Petesmiles 06:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...but now i'm not even sure if it works, that'll learn me..... (btw it's 22:37 for me......

...please delete this clutter if you feel like it! - cheers, Petesmiles 06:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does work - I used it at my old talk page header (see User talk:Daniel.Bryant/Header, at the bottom of the large white box). However, the problem with this was that, to update the time, you had to purge the page (because it was transcluded); people didn't realise this, and always got the wrong time (often by 12 hours :D). Instead, I use the external link, as it is handy for me as well (it's got the weather and everything - brilliant). By the way, it's probably not a good idea to go around making changes to other people's userpages - many Wikipedians don't like it, especially without prior discussion (unless, of course, you're removing stuff which isn't allowed). Thanks anyways, (late) happy Easter to you too, and cheers, Daniel Bryant 09:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivica Kankaraš

I think you hit the big red button on the wrong tab there. :) MER-C 11:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for that; I did it once in the past, here (talk). Nasty case of tab-mixup :) Cheers, and thanks so much for that, Daniel Bryant 11:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 15	9 April 2007	About the Signpost

Danny Wool regains adminship in controversial RFA	Leak last year likely to produce changes for handling next board election
Association of Members' Advocates' deletion debate yields no consensus	WikiWorld comic: "Fake shemp"
News and notes: Donation, Version 0.5, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

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 07:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term vandal question

Hi. Quick question along the checkuser/long-term vandal lines. I am getting ready to strike at a small sock ring which is making small year-of-birth edits claiming they are based on references that don't seem to exist: [2][3][4][5][6]... Does this type of behavior sound familiar to you from your WP:RFCU work? It does to me but I can't recall which case. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Damrau and User IP 86.129.72.81

Hi, we spoke before when you protected Opera. I have a problem with an anon editor using IP 86.129.72.81 editing Diana Damrau who repeatedly removes wikify tags. What would be the best way of handling this? Thanks. - Kleinzach 15:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you firstly ask the IP to stop, and if that doesn't work, try dispute resolution, possibly Mediation Cabal, on the matter. Such tag-removing isn't "clear-cut vandalism" exactly, and it's a dispute, so the situation isn't really the same. Cheers, and sorry I can't be more of a help, Daniel Bryant 05:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brandt?

I'd been confusing your username with the banned critic of Wikipedia. Is this an unintentional similarity?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is unintentional - it's my real-life name, and naturally I wasn't aware of the Wikipedia-Daniel Brandt incident(s) when I first registered. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 05:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Lee

I think I'm getting a bit agitated....Or maybe Brett Lee really is the best player ever. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those edit summaries. Maybe too much violent editing....and then the rant on the talk page....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* watching, when I'm online. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 11:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments at DYK

Encountering some difficulty, WP:NPA from WP:SPA, at 2 DYKs, Mind Dynamics, nom on April 10, and Holiday Magic, nom on April 12. The Mind Dynamics nom was suggested by Howcheng, so this should be fine. Please note that virtually every single fact and indeed every single sentence within both of those articles are backed up by in most cases multiple citations from reputable secondary sources. Smee 21:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Mind Dynamics one for April 10 wasn't on the page. I'm also not sure that characterising Justanother as a SPA is really helpful. Given my prior involvement and endorsement of your DYK's, I can't act, sorry. Daniel Bryant 11:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carrots?

Well, maybe some carrots would help. ;-P —SlamDiego 06:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:) Daniel Bryant 11:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horizon Science Academy Rejection for Mediation

Daniel,

Thanks for taking a look at the Horizon Science Academy page. I was disappointed that it was rejected for mediation. Is this because I formatted the "mediation request" incorrectly or because the other party did not respond? If it was formatted incorrectly, could you please provide a link so that I could do it correctly? If it is because of non-response, what is the next step that I should take with this fellow deleting all my comments? -Mvblair 13:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that was what it was declined for (more info). To fill it out correctly, click this link to get the template on the correct page. Make sure you read the instructions at the top of the page, in the box! Cheers, Daniel Bryant 11:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everton FA of the day

I noticed you supported the Everton FA status I've now given it a specific date request here as its the date Everton won the Cup Winners Cup. Please comment on it if you agree! SenorKristobbal 18:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for the notification. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 11:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed AFD The result was delete, yet the article remains

The Page is related to an article you closed and deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Beer & Hot Wings Morning Show, The result was del `'mikka 17:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC), however the article still exists. --Master pedia 03:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for the note. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 03:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Australian general election, 2006

basically you destroyed a whole bunch of well written and researched content, you didn't perform the suggested merge, and you went with a majority that lacked a consensus. i'nm new at wikipedia so you tell me -- what is the point of writing & editing if ur work just gets deleted?? its not like it was unnotable or PoV! ChampagneComedy 06:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i demand u put the deleted page somewhere where i can access it! ChampagneComedy 06:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't demand anything. The content is still available at this link, prior to being redirected. Please read my adjusted close, and note the message in small text at the end as to the further circumstances which were external to the AfD but explained the context surrounding this dispute. Please note the following, also:

I cannot merge content back into this article as of present, as it is protected due to a dispute over this very content. An editorial comprimise over what content to readd back into the article (note: the content is still in the history of South Australian general election campaign, 2006, see this), if any, should take place on the talk page of South Australian general election, 2006 and be implemented after disputes are resolved (and protection lifted).

My hands were tied, so now it's up to editorial consensus, not deletionary consensus, as to what to readd. I hope all of you can reach an amicable solution so the main, featured article can be unprotected as soon as possible. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4 editors voted keep, 6 delete/redirect and 3 delete/merge. a majority wanted the content to be kept, you have not listened to that majority, even if the block ties your hands. in any case, consensus isn't about a majority. with all due respect, i think you made a mistake... kindly let me know what my options are for reviewing this decision ChampagneComedy 07:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that characterisation. If you wish to appeal this close, you can do so at Deletion Review. I invite you to ask for a review of this, because I will not be changing my close. Please do not post on my talk page here about this issue again, as I have nothing further to say on the matter. Daniel Bryant 07:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm frankly in awe of any admin who was able to take that on and actually generate a sensible outcome out of the mess that the AfD ultimately became, regardless of whatever outcome ensues, I respect that you've done the best job you can with it and just thought that should be recognised. Orderinchaos 07:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Daniel Bryant 07:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of South Australian general election campaign, 2006. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ChampagneComedy 07:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No real need to post that here (given our previous correspondance), but meh, whatever :) Daniel Bryant 07:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts at mediating this dispute. I think your solution was perfect; I hope the issues can be thrashed out over the coming weeks. Recurring dreams 08:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. If you wish to take part in the review of my closure, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of Najd

Daniel Bryant, User:Striver has created, and no doubt will continue to create, a very large number of articles of this nature.[7] The common denominator is that they are not cited to reliable sources, and vary between researchy pitting of Shi'a vs. Sunni to blatant anti-Sunni polemic. Striver has rightly identified AfD as critically weak relative to the quality control processes on well-trafficked articles, and has exploited this to create a Striverpedia-within Wikipedia of OR/POV scriptural interpretation. On AfD, people might be deterred or baffled by the apparantly exotic subject matter. There seems to be no way to put a stop to this chronic disruption.Proabivouac 08:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can only suggest a request for comment on the matter; it seems the most appropriate course of action in the dispute resolution chain. However, I cannot do anything to help you in this case except give you the above advice, as well as suggesting you AfD the articles. However, have you even talked to Striver about your concerns? I appreciate that communication may not be terribly effective if there is a disagreement of POV, however trying it cannot hurt. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Daniel

Dear Daniel,

Thank you so much for your beautiful words and your warm welcome. I can't say in words how much they meant to me :)
E-mail sent your way! I hope we talk again soon.

Your friend, Phaedriel - 20:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone loves pink boxes :) Welcome back, and thanks for the note and email. I'll respond to your email later today. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 00:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on the Haslingden article

Thank you for your help on saving the Bruce Haslingden article from deletion. I grealty appreciate it. Chris 20:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just closed the debate - the thanks go to you for convincing people the article should be kept :) Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of Indigenous Aryans in India

Much of the content is a straight reproduction from Hindutva propaganda/Hindutva pseudoscience which was deleted per WP:DRV and WP:AFD.Baka man 21:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask for administator intervention at ANI - I'm far too involved given what's gone on to be using my administrator tools in making a subjective decision like that. Daniel Bryant 08:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chin up!

Hey Daniel; I see you're suffering from a lack of motivation - it happens to the best of us, and for somebody of your activity, it's expected ;) don't *rush* back, because we want a fully refreshed Daniel, even if it means waiting longer!

Kind regards,
anthony^[cfc] 23:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note - I've got some ideas about how to ease back into things :) Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Icelanders

Couldn't find the application form. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Daniel Bryant 08:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chess AFD Closures

Well, in the case of the initial closures, I checked with the closing Admin, who agreed to the reversion. If he hadn't, I would have reported him. Since in the second event, this user was not an Admin, I reverted it again. But do you think you could give User:YechielMan some advice on the subject, since he seemed curious as to how to know when to make such decisions and when not? FrozenPurpleCube 14:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's good - I wasn't aware that you had already discussed it with the initial closing administrator. Discussion is the best cure, and I'm glad it was sorted before you had to bring it to a noticeboard. I'm sure that YechielMan now understands the limits he has in closing AfD's, given his message of acknowledgement of WP:DELPRO in his message on your talk, hence this by me. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 14:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute needs to be resolved on the Buffalo Soldier article

In reference to the Buffalo Soldier article, the user Beetstra has a bot called Shadowbot which is automatically deleting external links which I am trying to provide on the site for additional credible sources of information. The user Beetstra refuses to add the members.aol link The Buffalo Soldier Story which is featured on the official Fort Leavenworth Buffalo Soldier Monument website: http://garrison.leavenworth.army.mil/sites/about/Buffalo.asp therefore it should be credible to add on the Wiki site since the logic that the U.S. Army has approved it for their external link it should be on the Wiki site as well.

In addition this user has tried to add a linkfarm on the site, where all of the articles are valid and credible sources of information in reference to the article.

--Signaleer 18:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved on my part, comment left at Talk:Buffalo Soldier and article protected. Daniel Bryant 00:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 16	16 April 2007	About the Signpost

Encyclopædia Britannica promoted to featured article	Wikipedia continues to get mixed reactions in education
WikiWorld comic: "Hodag"	News and notes: Wikipedia television mention makes news, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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 05:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel

Hey, Is your real name really Daniel Bryant? King Lopez ^Contribs 08:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I really am :) Daniel Bryant 09:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl.mangan

No worries, matey! Sorry about the late reply, I went offline pretty much immediately after the block. Hopefully he didn't come back? – Riana ^ऋ 13:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I haven't seen him back. Cheers, and thanks again, Daniel Bryant 02:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies

Good afternoon. I'd like to offer to you my sincerest and deepest apologies for my recent copying of your user page; the fact that I know you're quite protective of your user page design is something I knew beforehand, and proceeding to impede on it is quite frankly, unacceptable on my part. My apologies.

Of all the Wikipedians I respect on the encyclopedia, you are certainly high up the list - and offending you, causing you upset or anger is not something I wish to do, and I have taken actions to amend this. Hopefully my request for speedy deletion of User:Anthony cfc/Userpage/Base is to your satisfaction.

On a further note, my closing of a MfD as delete shouldn't have been done, and I thank you for - rather strictly ;) - bringing it to my attention is something I am grateful of.

Whilst you're in the process of imparting to me advice - e.g., at my talk page - I was wondering if I could enquire into a section of your comment: ...put frankly, I'm getting sick of it, and your general behaviour on Wikipedia is reaching RfC stages..." - if possible, could you spare a few words specifying "general behaviour"? The last thing I wish to do is harm this encyclopedia, especially through my conduct, and general behaviour indicates a rather widespread problem that requires rectification as soon as possible.

Once again, my sincerest apologies - although the plan was actually to convert to something a bit different, the fact that I even saved a page with copy and pasted text from your user space remains unacceptable.

My kindest regards,
anthony^[cfc] 15:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being so co-operative, and recognising your errors in judgement. When people do that, it erases them out of my brain, magically :)

With regards to the clarification, I was referring to the userpage history, which is resolved. That comment was in the heat-of-the-moment, and looking back, there's no way that an RfC would stand up over a userpage. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 02:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got the same message I did

See User talk:Daniel.Bryant/Archive/31#Dispute_needs_to_be_resolved_on_the_Buffalo_Soldier_article and User talk:Armed Blowfish#Dispute_needs_to_be_resolved_on_the_Buffalo_Soldier_article.

Do you think any further help is needed on the subject, or should I consider the topic resolved as well?

Thanks,
Armed Blowfish (mail) 23:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, given the article has been protected for a week and cluestick applied that they must engage in discussion rather than simply reverting. Resolved, I'd say, although a check-back to see how they're going in a week wouldn't hurt. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 02:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was wondering if they wanted aid in the discussion part, but I guess it makes sense for one of us to check back in a week. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 04:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Daniel , many thanks for your help on creating the account. i guess now i can start using/contributing. --BrightStar 02:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No problems, and best of luck at Wikipedia! Cheers, Daniel Bryant 02:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Fine... I'll ask nicer... Why do I have to be blocked, when I am backed up on that I'm not the only one who has had a problem with Durin? -- Spawn Man 03:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you continued, it would have been my opinion that your behaviour was disruptive to make a point. See my comments at ANI; all discussion can go there. Daniel Bryant 03:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All further comments please go to the centralised discussion at ANI. Daniel Bryant 03:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]