User talk:Daniel

Archives

This page was last archived on Wednesday, January 2. The most recent comments can be found in Archive 56. For a complete list of archives, please see here. If you wish to leave me a new message, please click here. Cheers, Daniel 10:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Daniel

Wishing you the best for 2008! Acalamari 21:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - you too :) Daniel 11:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I have a moment?

Daniel, from what I understand, you're one of Wikipedia's top mediators. I was recently asked to comment in a dispute between two editors (the editor likely thought I was an administrator). I knew I lacked the experience, but nonetheless attempted to mediate the two. I made the mistake of focusing too much on mediating the two editors, but I didn't focus enough on the dispute at hand. What should I do now? Maser ^(Talk!) 06:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with the first line, but we'll press on :) Were you "comment[ing]" or "mediat[ing]", or both? Daniel 07:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "disagree with the first line?" I think you're a fantastic mediator. :) Well, I didn't know what to do. Looking back, I wish I had told the editor in question that I'm not actually an admin, but I saw it as a chance to gain more experience. :) I guess it's a comment that I initially wanted to give, but it's mediation that I attempted. Maser ^(Talk!) 07:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with a non-administrator mediating, and I feel it's fantastic that you're giving it a go :) Often when mediation veers off-course it's a good step to place archive templates (eg. {{archive-top}} and {{archive-bottom}}) around the discussion, start a new section with a motivating header (like "Refocusing scope" or "Lets try again" or "Starting again" or similar), and explaining that you feel the focus of the mediation has shifted from content to users, and wish to try and refocus the discussion back on content. Then maybe ask them a few questions about the content, and in a flash you'll be back talking about content :) Although it wasn't mediation (but rather article mentorship for the Arbitration Committee), what I did here might be a good example. Cheers, Daniel 08:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

RFA comment

Thanks for telling me I was going in a second actually to ask you whether I should remove it. I didn't see that it was closed when I added the comment, I really don't know how that happened but there is probably some long-winded and boring explanation such as my computer is slow, actually what must have happened is that I saw the RFA and between my seeing it and clicking on the 'voice our opinion' link you closed it , I didn't see this and when I clicked save it altered the closed version, now wasn't that interesting. Please save from this freak. Cheers! Harland1 (^t/_c) 10:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hobart coastal defences

Hiya? How are we going for the GA required edits?? Do we still need a lot more referencing?? I am in London and cannot find any books related, so other than web references, am struggling a bit. Rac fleming (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally think it looks fine now. I'll track down the reviewer and see what he thinks :) Cheers, Daniel 14:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How to handle those who harm Wikipedia, though in good faith?

Hi. I need some advice. I've been contributing to Wikipedia since late in 2001, although I only created an account in January 2006. I've recently been involved in some disputes about Wikipedia policies, and one well-known administrator in particular has been very strongly advocating a position which I believe is harmful to Wikipedia. I just took a look at some old edits I'd done years ago, and I see that over the years this same administrator has taken a very high-handed approach to determining the content of articles, and criticizing those who disagree in a manner that borders on incivility. As far as I can tell, it's not just me -- I think that this administrator has a reputation for being quick to revert other's edits, slow to justify said reverts, and quick to criticize others when they complain.

So, two questions:

• I don't have much of a problem assuming good faith, but I've seen several people on Wikipedia over the years who, despite possibly the best faith in the world, make edits and advocate policies that IMHO are harmful to Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, we don't have any policy or procedure to cover, "Fine, you're acting in good faith, but you're still hurting the project." Do we?

• In the specific case of the roguish administrator: As I say, this is a general and long-time pattern of behavior which in my opinion (and apparently that of others) falls short of the standards that we can expect of administrators, but probably rarely if ever is in actual violation of policy. I.e., it's not obvious to me that I could make any formal charges.

Aditionally, this administrator obviously has any number of barnstars and awards and a large following of Wikipedians. I suspect that it would be disruptive to the project to initiate any formal complaint.

On the other hand, as I say, this administrator seems to generally react to criticism with scorn, so a polite message from me saying, "Hey, could you please stop acting like a jerk" ( <- More polite than that) probably won't accomplish anything useful either.

If necessary, I'll be able to live with the situation, but as I say, I see that this has been going on for a while. Do you have any advice on how to handle bad editors in general and this administrator in particular?
Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if talk page discussion doesn't work, many administrators are more inclined to listen and respond properly via email. If you think it's a long-term thing and the administrator is not responding sufficiently to the concerns/not responding at all (in the case of multiple attempts at contact), initiating a discussion on a noticeboard can be beneficial, provided you don't cry "administrator abuse" and you give a fair representation of what's going on including diffs. The result of any discussion of this type, provided someone doesn't close it as "trolling" (hopefully not, but you never know), will be either refer it to a user requests for comment (note: not an administrator requests for comment, unless you feel the user has directly abused their administrative tools), will have significant support that the administrator has been acting inappropriately (and the administrator will either acknowledge this, or won't, in which case see the prior step), or consensus will be that the administrator has acted appropriately. Generally these are the steps that are taken. Cheers, Daniel 11:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia newsletter

WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

Reply

my comment was to another user, not to hammersoft. freedom of speech. regardless the war was started by hammersoft feel free to read the talk page on the article we are "warring" about. i tried to discuss it and was responded to with, change it and i revert it.--Grimjaw (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no right to freedom of speech on Wikipedia. Secondly, whether you're attacking someone using incivil language to their face or in a discussion with another user is irrelevant, as everything on Wikipedia can be viewed by anyone. Again, please desist the attacks, incivility and the revert warring immediately. Daniel 00:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

attacks were ceased after i spoke to duane...thats the only attack i made on hammersoft. again hammersoft decided it should be a war, its totally un fair that i ask him if certain things would be acceptable i get a change it and i revert it in response and i'm viewed as the douchebag starting a war. i didn't even change anything in the article until after my attempts to talk it out were met with a revert war challenge --Grimjaw (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

statement by hammersoft after i tried to discuss it with him: "The removal of individual images for depiction purposes will continue. If you do not like this, please take it up with the Foundation. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC) "

my first change after hammersoft delete images...time shows its clearly AFTER he decided to he was right come hell or high water.

(cur) (last) 23:28, 3 January 2008 Grimjaw (Talk | contribs) (44,680 bytes) (despite me asking no reason was given for the removal of images already in use) (undo) --Grimjaw (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Email

I have sent you an email. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Recieved, replied. Daniel 11:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month

File:Chemistry-stub.png

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Month, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is . You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name!

NCurse _work 20:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal

Just passing and saw Tasmania is still a FPOC on your userpage - but its nomination was withdrawn. I know it's something and nothing, but just thought I'd draw your attention to it. Kind regards, Rudget. 16:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Daniel 08:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine arbitration

I didn't see a place to post that Sanchez/Bluemarine's continual COI, self-promotion and use of socks on Talk:Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy should be given a hearing as well. I wish to avoid dealing with him direct so remain anonymous so do with this whatever you feel is correct. 71.139.2.52 (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:AC/CN

your message has already been noted and archived. See the archive at the top of the page. What do you mean by this. I have looked at the linked archive, and there has been nothing noted about me. Regards -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)