User talk:Daniel/Archive/27

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 26 · Archive 27 · Archive 28 →

Essjay's talk

I reverted your revert, because Essjay's user talk page clearly states:

"Do not, under any circumstances, remove posts from this page without my permission. Non-vandalism posts, regardless of merit, should not be removed or reverted; anyone observing the removal of information from this page by anyone other than myself should blanket revert on sight"

Please respect his wishes on this matter. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 01:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i had to revert it according to the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. I did not know there was a comment on Essjay's user talk page; again please be careful when reverting. Thanks! Meteoroid » 03:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, RPA is an essay, and in this case Essjay's wishes trump yours. And don't caution me about reverting, because it is you in the wrong. Daniel Bryant 03:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys - let's cool it here. We're all volunteers here, and disputes don't help the encyclopedia. Hopefully you two can get along now. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 21:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it's one of the least of all the current worries on Wikipedia at present... Daniel Bryant 02:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion?

Could you explain why you speedy deleted the request for checkuser on MyWikiBiz? Durova^Charge! 04:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I history-merged it with Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MyWikiBiz, as that's what the checkusers generally prefer - I wouldn't want to be claiming credit in the history for your great detective work! Cheers, Daniel Bryant 04:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golly, thanks. I was just reading up on the stuff and figuring out that's what you had probably been doing. If need be the checkusers can review my e-mails with Brian Bergstein, who was the journalist who wrote January's AP story. Durova^Charge! 04:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why it'd hurt. I've sent you an email regarding what to do with them. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 04:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's in your hands. Durova^Charge! 04:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note added regarding second source. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 02:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February

Psstt... February only has 28 days, not 30 ;-) Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 10:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really should know that...ah well, shouldn't edit whilst half-asleep :) Cheers for the note, Daniel Bryant 02:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for your support in my recent RfA which passed unanimously - thus proving that you can indeed fool some of the people some of the time. I'm still coming to terms with the new functionality I have, but so far nothing bad has happened. As always, if there's anything you need to let me know, just drop me a line on my Talk page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some essential light reading for you

File:Little rouge book.jpg

The Thoughts of Chairman Jim, the legendary Little Rouge Book

On the readng list for all rouge admins... Guy (Help!) 14:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this has something to do with my discussion initiation on CN regarding semi-protection...although rouge is good, better to be safe than sorry in this case, I felt. Meh, thanks for brightening up my day slightly, and cheers, Daniel Bryant 02:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asking your opinion

In light of the Essjay firestorm I'll throw a question your way: this project has only 11 active bureaucrats. Do you think it would be beneficial to add one more? And what would you think if I requested it? Durova^Charge! 20:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would !vote support; however, given I don't believe I've ever actually seen a successful RfB, I don't know how you'd go. Better to ask someone who's been around longer than I have :) Cheers, Daniel Bryant 02:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Daniel

Did you usurp this account bud? It only has a few contribs so I'm confused! Glen 02:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, here's how it worked:-

Daniel.Bryant (main account) didn't change

Daniel-Bryant (secondary account) was renamed to Daniel

I then re-registered Daniel-Bryant after the account was moved to Daniel

I hope that clears it up; cheers, Daniel Bryant 02:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, nice :) I've just applied to usurp Glen - been meaning to for awhile Glen 02:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - and good luck with that! Daniel Bryant 02:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK ideas...

Sorry to bug you, but any ideas on the 2 new potentials for DYK suggestions? First one and Second one ?? Thanks again so much for your time and help. Smee 10:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Religion, Inc. is probably too short for DYK. Added one for Cults of Unreason :) Cheers, Daniel Bryant 02:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 3 March, 2007, a fact from the article Leo J. Ryan Federal Building, 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 12:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

Good evening (GMT time); everything sorted now? Hope you're well.

Kind regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 14:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, thanks for the well-wishes. Daniel Bryant 02:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message

What do you think I would need to do to get past the 'little tsar' connotation? G e o. Talk to me 22:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent behaviour towards me does not make your request for information high on my priority list. I can suggest that you actually edit articles, though. Daniel Bryant 02:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDCOM

Good morning (GMT time); might I just say how much I agree with your userpage comment? The trolls have won the battle, they shan't win the war.

By the way, I've been up for hours with my eye on this MedCom request for promotion for ages (I even used my watchlist - a first :) so I was wondering if you would start the ball rolling?

Keep your chin up - now the community needs to plug a terrible gap in our ranks, and together is the only way we can. Business as usual - don't let the trolls succeed.

Kindest regards,
anthonycfc ^[talk] 04:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw it - to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure which way I wish to vote yet, and I wish to see my fellow MedCommers' opinions prior to making a decision either way. I appreciate your hard work, however there were a number of valid objections raised in your recent RfA, and I'm wondering how applicable they are to the MC nomination (as it reads, "MC nominations are not a RFA", however they do share some similarities). I hope you will excuse my sitting-on-the-fence-ness for the time being :) Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 4 March, 2007, a fact from the article Scientology: The Now Religion, 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.

--ALoan (Talk) 10:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Counter

Good evening (GMT time); I've been on for hours, mainly waiting on something to happen at the MedCom, so I happened to come across your user page, and noticed you've still got Essjay's edit count up. The tool has been taken down, so you might want to link back to the old count.

Kind regards,
anthonycfc ^[talk] 19:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 05:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Untitled)

This is Giza D you bolcked me claiming I am a sock puppet, please see my discussion page and unblock.65.96.132.149 20:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this response. Fellow administrators, as I noted in that comment, feel free to review the {{unblock}}. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 05:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #10

Number 10, March 4, 2007

The Hurricane Herald

This is the monthly newsletter of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. The Hurricane Herald aims to give a summary, both of the activities of the WikiProject and global tropical cyclone activity. If you wish to change how you receive this newsletter, or no longer wish to receive it, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.

Storm of the month

Cyclone Favio developed well to the east of northern Madagascar on February 12 and moved to the southwest as it developed. The storm did not significantly intensify until February 19 when it was just off the southern coast of Madagascar, but rapidly intensified soon after to its peak with 185 km/h (115 mph) winds. Favio turned to the northwest and hit Mozambique worsening the floods already occurring in the country. Favio claimed at least 4 lives and destroyed thousands of homes.

Other tropical cyclone activity
There were a total of 6 tropical cyclones in the southern hemisphere during February. Five of these, including Favio, were in the South West Indian Ocean.

The only other storm in the Australian region was Cyclone Nelson which formed at the end of January in the Gulf of Carpentaria before it hit Queensland.
Cyclone Dora was active in January and reached its peak as an annular cyclone on February 3 with 185 km/h (115 mph) winds.
Cyclone Gamede was an unusually large storm that prompted the highest level of cyclone warning on Réunion and brought strong winds to the island on February 27, causing a bridge to collapse.
Neither Enok towards the start of the month or Humba near its end, had any impact on land.

Member of the month

Cyclone barnstar

The February member of the month is Miss Madeline. Miss Madeline is responsible for many of the projects featured lists such as List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes and List of California hurricanes. She has also put serious work into many of our Pacific hurricane articles since she joined the project as one of its founding members. Recently she has worked on 1996 Pacific hurricane season, bringing it from a stub-class article to a Good article candidate.

New and improved articles

New featured content: Hurricane Erika (1997), Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Maryland and Washington, D.C., Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma, 2000 Sri Lanka Cyclone, Hurricane Isabel and List of Florida hurricanes (pre-1900).
New Good articles include Hurricane Pauline, Hurricane Isis (1998), 1939 Pacific typhoon season, Typhoon Tip and 1983 Atlantic hurricane season.
New articles include Hurricane Isis (1998), Hurricane Debby (1982), Hurricane Adolph (2001), Hurricane Alberto (1982) and Tropical Depression One (1992).

Main Page content

Entries from 6 articles: Hurricane Flossy (1956), Hurricane Able (1951), Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma, Effects of Hurricane Wilma in the Bahamas, Tropical Depression One (1992) and Tropical cyclone basins appeared on the Main Page in the Did you know column during February.

New articles and improvements wanted

Articles are wanted on Pacific typhoon, North Indian cyclone, diffluence, Outflow (meteorology) and Central dense overcast.
Improvements are wanted to Subtropical cyclone, Japan Meteorological Agency, Intertropical Convergence Zone, 1919 Florida Keys Hurricane Hurricane Ivan and Hurricane Andrew.

Storm article statistics

Grade	Dec	Jan	Feb	Mar
FA	19	23	25	28
A	6	2	2	2
GA	57	74	75	80
B	78	71	76	78
Start	200	193	195	194
Stub	15	16	16	16
Total	375	379	389	398
percentage Less than B	57.3	55.1	54.2	52.8

Comments wanted on project talk Many discussions that potentially have far reaching impact for the whole project are carried out on the project's talk page. However, only a fraction of our active contributors actually engage in those discussions. If you add the project page to your Watchlist and keep an eye on discussions there to monitor upcoming changes, even if you don't participate in those discussions it would help both yourself and the project as a whole. For instance, at the moment the primary infobox templates such as {{Infobox hurricane}} are in the process of being deprecated and replaced by new versions which do the role more effectively.

Thanks for covering for me

I totally spaced out on Wikipedia:Request an account and got sidetracked with other things. I didn't add the users to the log like I was supposed to, but lucky for me, you did! Thanks again for covering for me, and keep up the good work! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 05:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems! Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock-puppet of User:MagicKirin

I hate to bother you with this, but we have a new account, User:Arankar, making exactly the same POV-pushing statements as User:Giza D was making before being blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of MagicKirin. This new account hasn't edited any articles yet (edits restricted to Talk:United Nations, but I am still very suspicious. If it isn't too much trouble, could you run CheckUser? Thanks.

Note: if this account comes from 65.96.132.149, like Giza D, I'd recommend blocking both the IP and the account. Michaelbusch 17:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

help with assistance request

I have requested assistance while ago [1] but it seems I forgot to put my username in the title. Anyway, it does not show on Assistance listing [2] Can it be fixed somehow or I should re-apply. I asked some admin to check it but it seems he is busy. Could you do me a favor of fixing it.--Dacy69 21:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser and Checkip

I am dismayed and aghast to learn that what I thought to be an ordinary cleanup and polishing, with only one template actually added, turned out to have "broken" WP:RFCU. Aside from the necessary WHOIS link replacement, I was trying only to make the links look and work right whether invoked or not, including ucfirsts to catch and fix uncapped usernames, and popup titles that briefly and clearly described the links' functions. Everything seemed to look and work right when I was done, and for the life of me I can't guess what went wrong.

Certainly feel free to do away with the SSP/socklists subtemplate -- its coding was designed to not even show any links in the display unless an outstanding SSP subpage or sock category actually exists for that user, at which point all the links need do is alert the readers to an already established case... possibly saving some time from being wasted on reinventing the wheel. If people don't need or want that flag waved, I surely won't impose it on them!

But what on Earth else was wrong? These were tested formulae, already used in other templates without problem. Could you give me some idea of what they showed, under what circumstances? May I try again to get these other features working right? Or should I just slink off quietly into the night, having already caused enough trouble? -- Ben 06:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened was every {{checkuser}} and {{checkip}} template didn't work - it linked to Checkuser, with no supplement information (the brackets links). As funny as it may sound, not all usernames are capital letters - see Special:Listusers; I know of a couple of requests where your template would have made it impossible for the checkusers to perform the check.

For some reason - beyond me - the changes you made to the two templates also broke the {{rfcu box}} template on the main RFCU page. I have no idea why, however.

I encourage you to continue testing with the templates. However, really, the defaultpagename function isn't probably needed, as is the ucfirst. I appreciate the effort, but I can't see what forseeable benefit it could have.

However, I did see your work with {{userlinks}} and others, and I see that the defaultpagename and ucfirst did have a substantial benefit. However, in the case of RFCU templates, they aren't really needed. On that note, I appreciate the creation of {{Rfcu}} and related templates - they will be extremely handy.

Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've copied my (later reverted) versions of {{checkuser}} and {{checkip}} over to my userspace for safe testing, removing the SSP subtemplate, the ucfirsts (I had no idea any real usernames had eluded that requirement), and for the moment I've made the default username "Example"; and I've copied Durova's RFCU entries re MyWikiBiz as live field data (2 usernames, 2 IPs). Here's a comparison display of the current "production" checkuser/checkip followed by my "development" versions:

Production templates:

MyWikiBiz (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Ray Regan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
72.94.152.27 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
72.94.158.49 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Development templates:

The only real difference at this point should be that hovering your cursor over the links gives you a shorter clearer popup title. The default name only matters if no name or IP is provided when the template is invoked, as on the template pages themselves.

{{checkuser}} → {{checkuser}}
{{checkip}} → {{checkip}}
{{User:Ben/Template:Checkuser}} →
{{User:Ben/Template:Checkip}} →

None of these are huge glaring remarkable changes. They're just intended to be a tiny bit more user-friendly. Do they accomplish that? -- Ben 06:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They look fine - the only thing is, can you remove the garish blue from the spanclass links; the pale blue should be fine. Other than that, I see no objections. Great work! Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, 002BB8 is fine :) Daniel Bryant 07:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Make free with them, at your leisure.... and thank you for your patience with me! -- Ben 07:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve the GFDL credit, so feel free to copy them yourself. Thank you for putting up with what could have been considered a terse comment by me initially - my apologies if you were in any way offended. Again, thanks for all your help! Cheers, Daniel Bryant 07:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "production" versions are updated. I wasn't really worried about the credit, this was all just building on what others had built first anyway; I just wanted it to work right -- which is why it so distressed me to learn that somehow I'd accomplished the opposite for a while, and why I'm so relieved now that everything does work. I certainly was not and am not offended by your reaction.... more horrified to think of how much trouble I caused, or worse yet might have caused if it hadn't been caught and reverted quickly. So thank you for doing that! Given how you experienced it, the whole page full of links gone wonky, you'd have been justified in a much angrier response than you actually made. I'm indebted to you for letting me try again, so that I could get it right, rather than sternly ordering me to go and never darken RFCU's door again. Thanks again! -- Ben 07:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't know what was wrong, and I guess we never will :| Thank you for all your help, and you're always welcome to "darken RFCU's door" whenever you like :) Cheers, Daniel Bryant 07:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 10	5 March 2007	About the Signpost

New Yorker correction dogs arbitrator into departure	WikiWorld comic: "The Rutles"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	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

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 06:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If possible...

... could you email me a copy of the email you sent arbcom. I'd reckon I might find myself a party to an arbcom decision, so if its not out of line I'd like to see the initial email. I trust your judgment either way. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why I shouldn't send you the email. Sent via Special:Emailuser. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. Note to others that I will not be forwarding this to anyone else, as it would totally contradict my actions at ANI. Jeffrey O. Gustafson knew everything already, and given he was a major party to the whole thing, I felt it appropriate. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usernames starting with lowercase letters

Not to reopen the ucfirst question, but I was intrigued by what you'd said earlier: "As funny as it may sound, not all usernames are capital letters - see Special:Listusers; I know of a couple of requests where your template would have made it impossible for the checkusers to perform the check."

So I did go look, and found exactly three usernames starting with lowercase letters: behnaz@wikipedia.com, che, and shannon. (We aren't talking about all the usernames starting with non-alphabetic characters, since uppercasing those does nothing: {{uc:123`-@$}} → 123`-@$). I gather those three names are very old, from before anyone realized the need to tweak the account creation process. It turns out that one literally cannot look at their contribution histories or logs because the software returns results only on the capped name: the log request for "shannon" gives a report on "Shannon", etc. Could the original owners even login with these names? Surely the login process would long ago have forced them to use the capped versions instead. Accounts can't be deleted, but is there any reason these three names should not be changed to something else, perhaps merely prefixed with "Old:_", to resolve the only three discrepancies in a database rapidly approaching four million entries? -- Ben 16:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. I do note that your suggestion is probably sensible, and will contact a rogue B'crat to have a look at this proposal.

However, I do know someone who knows how you can avoid this trap when creating an account. For BEANS reasons, it would be stupid for me to explain how to, given your correct statement that it breaks a lot of the user interface.

Of course, you can only log into it once, because the Special:Login page would convert it to capitals upon manually typing it in. I am not sure how it would work if it was set to "Remember me", and it probably isn't an intelligent idea discussing it here either :)

As I noted, I will refer your message to someone, to see if we should just rename these users for usability. However, on that note, will they be able to rename them due to this technical issue? I don't know :)

Cheers, Daniel Bryant 11:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MyWikiBiz RFCU

Just to touch bases: both Brad Patrick and Jimbo replied to me via e-mail. Neither addressed the checkuser question directly but neither message seems to imply any reason for not running the check. I'm willing to share the correspondence with you. Where do we take things from here? Durova^Charge! 17:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not accept discussions that involve the Wikimedia Counsel, unless they are totally "boring" as such. The other email you sent was free of any sort of social restrictions, however emails from BP/JW sometimes carry such restrictions. Better to be safe than sorry, I think :)

In relation to the status of the check, I saw your note on the case page, and it has been responded to by Uninvited Company. I presume that the emails made no difference to the method used in answering the request.

Cheers, Daniel Bryant 11:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick DYK question

For the Template talk:Did you know listing of Cults of Unreason, could a book cover image be used as well for the entry? Smee 02:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Unfortunately, no, as it is preferable to have a freely-licensed image for the main page. Naturally, the image in CoU is {{bookcover}}, making this probably not suitable. The reason is that the DYK part of the main page is transcluded many places in userspace, and to have a FU image would violate FU in relation to userspace usage. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 10:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New DYK suggestion potential

Newly created article, List of groups referred to as cults in government reports, with 18 reputable citations and a public domain image (produced by U.S. federal government in 1979), that might be good for main page DYK suggestion... What do you think? Smee 14:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wow, extremely interesting! However, due to certain circumstances involving this article, I'm not comfortable with nominating it - I don't consider it stable, at all. It's frustrating - so much so that I added my endorsement to the RfC - but, as I said, I'm not sure it would be appropriate for DYK given the current events. By all means, maybe I'm being conservative here, and feel free to nominate it yourself or get someone else to, but I won't. Sorry, Daniel Bryant 03:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive sentiments about the article itself. I am not sure what I would write as a selfnom for the "hook", and how to include the public domain image, much as I would not be opposed to a selfnom... Smee 03:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

WWII Mediation

Greetings! I saw your comments on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/World War II, and I had a quick question to ask, as a first-time initiator of an RFM. Given the inactivity of W. B. Wilson and Wandalstouring, and the fact that I would generally consider them more "minor" participants in this dispute, would it be appropriate/acceptable for me to remove them from the list of parties, so that the mediation can still go forward if they are not active in time to agree? Obviously we'd still need the agreement of the two editors who have been active since the request was filed, but I have hopes that they will be deciding what actions to take soon. Thanks in advance for your help, and for your expressed interest in this case. —Krellis (Talk) 19:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel doesn't appear to have answered, so I'll provide a response in passing, in the hope he doesn't mind. If the party is minor, but expresses and interest in participating in mediation, then it's best to await their reply - see WP:NEHAMFTAY for a useful essay. However, if they have not expressed interest, seek the consensus of the rest of the parties, via email or their talk page. Removing them outright without consulting or gaining consensus could be seen as eliminating the opposition, so the final word is to use your common sense. anthonycfc ^[talk] 20:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, don't remove them. I will still push for the mediation to be accepted by the chair even if these two users don't respond (and stay inactive). Of course, if the other two fail that are active don't assent to mediation, then this becomes all moot. I would suggest that don't worry with the talk/email thing, but don't remove them. My notes should cover the fact that they are inactive. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 03:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username changing

I'm very sorry to see you go, and I won't beg you to change your mind. However, I think the changes are much more superficial than you have taken them to be. The idea is that, as long as I have a handle on who is doing the work, it doesn't really matter whether there's a title associated with it. The trust mechanism still exists -- if I do not trust a user who wishes to help, I will tell him so, give reasons why, and ask him to move on. (All this applies as well to any bureaucrat who helps with the process, of course, and not only to me.) We have merely replaced institutional trust with personal trust. I trust you to do this job effectively, and I must admit I can't see much sense in withdrawing your own name out of fear that someone else might not be as good at it as you.

If you are willing to ask someone to "move on" when they consistantly make mistakes/overstep their bounds as a non-beaurecrat, you have restored most of my faith in that people could still be of assistance in helping at CHU. However, it poses an interesting question: will you automatically trust people, or will that trust have to be built up?

I detest bureaucracy. I did not make these changes exclusively in response to Durin's urging, the appearance of which seems to have contributed to your disagreement with them; nor have I betrayed my principles in making them. This is a dull process with little relevance to the goals of the project at large; it ought to cut as low a profile as possible and work as simply as possible. It ought, most of all, to be easily ignored. To staff it with titled users opens it to politicking and status-seeking; I have no interest in creating further opportunity for would-be satraps to exercise authority for its own sake. My reasoning is not identical to Durin's (which I cannot discern very well anyway), but he is pleased with the outcome and so am I.

That be it so, I am happy with what happened at CHU, although I still disapprove that there will be no safety netting for users who continually become more of a hindrance than a help at CHU. However, my anger is from Durin's last comment, where he says he is coming after RFCU.

I do not mind your quitting out of disagreement with my actions; it is, however, frustrating to find myself apparently misunderstood. Regards — Dan | talk 21:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have rejoined on the comment you made in the first paragraph. However, I would appreciate it if you will be more strict than lenient (within reason, of course) with users who cross their bounds/make mistakes after being "warned". The fear of all the helpers being ignored because of a couple of ring-ins who continually act in error is one which was the initial motivation for having a select body. Daniel Bryant 03:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi. Would you kind enough to explain?

I found Justanother's actions on List of groups referred to as cults in government reports (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) deplorable. Daniel Bryant 03:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks --Justanother 03:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit summary is a prime example, and one amongst many. Although Smeelgova was nearly as bad in some instances, that doesn't give you license to run around yelling at other people in edit summaries with such blatant assumptions of bad faith. I endorse the suggestion that you actions would benefit from a comment/(s) from the community, which is why I endorsed that RfC (in its' provisional format). Daniel Bryant 03:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could certainly see how an external party not familiar with how much grief this guy has given me would not appreciate that edit summary. So for that reason alone it was ill-advised. But everything I scream in that ES was true. He was edit-warring with me over a POV-section tag that I have every right to put (not the 1st time he has done something like that in addition to all the "regular" edit-warring he does). He was falsely accusing me of PA, repeatedly and again. And all after he had promised to make changes to his behavior. But yes, I perhaps shoulda/coulda have foregone that ES. If you have another complaint about my behavior it would be my pleasure to address it at this time with you. I doubt that RfC will ever go live. --Justanother 03:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the two certifiers already exist (as needed by RfC guidelines), I'll remove my certification until this is more developed. I still think the edit summary was not appropriate, regardless of the history between you two, but in light of your recent comments I figure that I'll let you have a response to the initial RfC allegations (if it ever goes live, as you note) before making a statement. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 03:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The two certifiers must have each made a good-faith effort to handle the specific dispute, I believe. Since that has not occurred, it is not really good-to-go. --Justanother 04:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Just to let you know, out of courtesy, that he did take it live but it has not been upgraded from candidate and I think I make a good case that it should not be. At least I think it is live as he listed it here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (diff) but did not know to move it out of his user space, User:Anynobody/Requests for comment/Justanother. It is already getting comments though so it probably should be moved. --Justanother 06:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, and I moved it when you left me this note. Sorry for the delayed response. Daniel Bryant 00:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I made a (fairly) succinct summary of my response. Please take a look at at and see if you endorse it. It is not mutually exclusive of your endorsement of FoO's summary, IMO. If you cannot endorse it I would be curious as to why as I really think that I acknowledged what most might find objectionable, my allowing my temper to influence my edit summaries and talk page postings. Thanks. --Justanother 14:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I endorsed the second part of it; the first I am not sure about (attacking the validity of the RfC). I for one appreciate that you can admit that your editing occasionally has flaws due to your temper, and this is a good step to managing it. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 00:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cults of Unreason on DYK for 8 March 2007

Did you know? was updated. On 8 March, 2007, a fact from the article Cults of Unreason, 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.

Thank you for making the nomination! — ERcheck (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]