User talk:Daniel
User:Daniel/Icons User:Daniel/Header User talk:Daniel/Header
Archives
This page was last archived on Tuesday, December 18. The most recent comments can be found in Archive 55. For a complete list of archives, please see here. If you wish to leave me a new message, please click here. Cheers, Daniel 05:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 51 | 17 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Arbcom case on Defender 911
I've filed a request for arbitration regarding Defender 911 here. Since you've been leading the charge against allowing him back, I listed you as a party ... feel free to comment. Blueboy96 23:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I object to the characterisation that "[I've] been leading the charge against allowing him back", and I am only as "involved" as the other ten admins who endorse the block (excepting Krimpet as blocking administrator, and WJBscribe as largely involved pre-block). I have removed my name from the list of parties, although I still intend to comment — I hope this is OK with you. Daniel 00:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- No problem ... I just listed you because it seemed you were the most vocal in objecting to him being unblocked. Just so you know, my position is pretty close to yours ... it seems Dan T. and Kendrick wanted the block reduced to time served, but I thought he should wait a few more months before being unblocked. Blueboy96 13:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
DYK on Bob Glidden
Winningest is a real word. I worded it carefully to be the same as the source used. I see it all of the time in motorsport sources. I do not object to your rewording of the hook, so the case is closed as far as I am concerned. The main page can't say that he had won the most money when he retired, because that may not be true. Royalbroil 00:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. Daniel 00:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I was hoping that the main hook would have been used instead of the alternative. See my talk page for more details. Royalbroil 00:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I never saw the alternate, unfortunately. If you provide me it I'll replace it, or you're probably free to do so yourself. Cheers, Daniel 00:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I changed to the primary hook as you suggested. Please review it to make sure that it makes more sense. Cheers! Royalbroil 00:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, and I'd say a touch more interesting too! Daniel 00:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I changed to the primary hook as you suggested. Please review it to make sure that it makes more sense. Cheers! Royalbroil 00:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I never saw the alternate, unfortunately. If you provide me it I'll replace it, or you're probably free to do so yourself. Cheers, Daniel 00:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I was hoping that the main hook would have been used instead of the alternative. See my talk page for more details. Royalbroil 00:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you fix the licensing on the image? If it's a copy of a Commons image, would you delete it? Royalbroil 15:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- It was for {{mprotected}}. Daniel 08:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you!
Hi there! Just dropping a note to say "thank you very much" for your support in my successful RfA. I appreciated the added questions you brought forward, and I'm pleased that my answer was such to earn your strong support. BLP issues are an important danger for admins to consider, and I intend to ensure that I'm very careful with how I handle such articles. As I mentioned in my statements, I tend to default towards attempting mediation when dealing with tough situations, and I respect the work that you and the MedCom do, so having your support is gratifying. Thanks again for your taking the time to participate. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 05:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
RfA
Thanks. :) I'm taking things slowly right now (especially because of all the off-wiki distractions during the holiday season), but I'm looking forward to trying out the new tools! Have a good holiday season, --Elonka 10:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
RfM - quick question about process
Hi Daniel. Sorry to bother you a second time. If I submit a second request for mediation on the J.H. article, who should I list as interested parties? Previously, there was a RfC some months ago which attracted huge numbers of people commenting. Then there was the first RfMedation which had an extremely long list. On 6 December I restarted the subject on the article talk page and a handful of people joined in over the past 2 weeks. Should I just submit those names of people who have discussed it over the past 2 weeks? Thanks, Lester 11:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey Daniel, good job already. I've left a comment there for you to mull over, although I think its irrelevant considering in the current quality of the portal. Best, Rt. 19:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- On the subject of portals, Portal:Powderfinger is aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawessssommmeemememememem :) Spebi 20:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- You can't deny you do get a lot of lovin' for your portal work, big D. And don't go saying you have limits! — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 08:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Mediation and arbitration in foreign language Wikipedias
I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask, but I was not yet able to find an answer. What is the mediation and arbitration process in cases of disputes in foreing language wikipedias. The issue are not articles but the adaptation of general wikipedia rules to a specific foreign language wikipedia. Just as an extreme example, I expect that copyright rules have to be applied by all wikipedias and this is valid for other general wikipedias too. What happens if a decision is taken which is against these rules or if there is a dispute regarding these rules. Who has the right to decide and how can the mediation or arbitration process be initiated? Sorry for the inconvenience. Afil (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Mediation for Banu Qurayza
Hi,
Arrow740 has just listed him/herself as a party in a mediation that has already started.[1][2]
However, the user was not at all part of the dispute. The user hasn't posted on the talk page since September (which is before most of the disputes started). I'm a bit worried, due to my past experience with Arrow740 on other Arab/Islam related articles.Bless sins (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Why?
Why don't you explain why you're trying to hide your failed RFA? Why can't you have it in normal format like everyone else does? Instead of reverting with a "hell no", maybe bother to explain your actions, eh? Redrocketboy 16:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)