Does it hold weight that this would be post-arbitration and voluntary? This looks to me like a gray area per checkuser rules. On a human level I'd like to file a request and see it accepted. Some of these editors have entered [[WP:ADOPT]] and they're all well educated. Their mentor and I would like to see them work things out without anybody getting topic banned. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]<sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge]]''</sup></font> 22:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Does it hold weight that this would be post-arbitration and voluntary? This looks to me like a gray area per checkuser rules. On a human level I'd like to file a request and see it accepted. Some of these editors have entered [[WP:ADOPT]] and they're all well educated. Their mentor and I would like to see them work things out without anybody getting topic banned. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]<sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge]]''</sup></font> 22:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
:I can't give an opinion on whether the case has merit/speculate on whether the case will be accepted or not, but post-arbitration shouldn't make any difference, at least in my eyes (it may for [[Special:Listusers/checkuser|the checkusers]], though). What I can refer you to is [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Peteris Cedrins]], from yesterday; although RFCU doesn't run on precedent, that's the best indication I can give you without speculating. Cheers, '''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|Daniel.Bryant]] <sup>[ [[User talk:Daniel.Bryant|T]] · [[Special:Contributions/Daniel.Bryant|C]] ]</sup>''' 08:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
== Article Improvement ==
== Article Improvement ==
Revision as of 08:20, 15 January 2007
This page has a backlog that requires the attention of Daniel.Bryant. Please excuse any delay in response during this time.
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 06:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
Welcome to the architecture wikiproject - here's the bulletin, it's updated on the fly - If you don't like it just delete it from your talk page. Kind regards. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles related to architecture over the past two weeks are listed automatically by AlexNewArtBot.
This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.
This template will be updated regularly. If you would rather not receive this bulletin, just delete it from your talk page.
Cheers - for some reason, I find writing about notable Houses etc. appealing, even though I have no real interest outside that in the field of architecture. Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 11:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My Request for Adminship
Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or want to discuss something with me. Thank you also for your congrats on my talk page, I hope to see and support your RfA soon before you are too involved in cabal matters to have a hope of succeeding!--Nilfanion (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MOTD
The term "Overseer" was selected by Renata. I can see your problems with the term so I changed it to Coordinator. I am going to replace the heading on the MOTD desk, with some minor changes. Coordinators are there to maintain the pages, and clean up. The Special Veto is just a method of cleaning up. Geo. 21:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! By the way, did you get the second one off the net? If so, were there any details on when it was taken? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 06:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That second photo was taken in 1880. Use pictureaustralia to find images; photos taken before 1955 are out of copyright and may be used at will. Ignore/remove the silly watermarks that you find as copyright legislation overrides whatever the state libraries say. michaeltalk 06:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't that - I envoke the 50-year-rule often enough - I just wanted to add a year to the caption :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 06:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw that you blocked this user as a sockpupet of a vandal. Do you remember where is the checkuser info about him? I must admit I am quite puzzled, I remember watching him for a while and he really seemed like a genuine new user (and not prone to vandalism). But I can be wrong, it is just a feeling :) (PS: I just saw he is asking to be unblocked) -- lucasbfrtalk 15:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for clarifying that up. I must admit I am disappointed... :( -- lucasbfrtalk 22:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RFCU is rarely the bringer of good news, I'm afraid. Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 06:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems so :/ An interesting case anyway... Have a beautiful day :) -- lucasbfrtalk 19:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beaumont house
Inline citations are a defacto requirement for FAC, so I find it easier in the long run to set up the citation mechanism from the off and add citations as you go. eg. Igualada cemetery. For complicated articles I also set up the heading structure and add notes at an early stage (an essay plan essentially) before diving into the prose. Knowing what has preceeded a paragraph and what will follow seems to help the article flow better. eg. Expressionist architecture/Structure redesign sandbox. Keep working on the lead as you go. If you add a paragraph, write a quick summary for the lead and then chop it all down later. Some thought (to be taken with large pinches of salt) specifically to Beaumont house, it's not clear whether it's notable for its architecture or because it was built by first Anglican bishop of Adelaide? It's described as romanesque but the inference from the world fair movement quote implies it's much more ecclectic than that - and the photos perhaps confirm this. Since creating the infoboxes, I'm not sure they really add anything to articles and often force a rather unsympathetic look to the layout. There you go, my ha'pennies worth. Take care. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Some really good points that I'll remember for the future. I must say, I do not have any idea about architecture styles, and hence basically go off what the sources tell me. The article is notable mainly for it's historical context to Adelaide and Australia (it's deemed one of only a few "structures of historical importance" by the National Trust of South Australia), and the architecture is more just a side-thing. I'll see what I can come up with; I must say, I am a huge fan of infoboxes as a summary, although I acknowledge some don't like them as much :) Cheers, and thanks, Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 01:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bujarat Violence
Cheers for the note. --Robdurbar 13:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for taking so long to reply. First, thanks for the apology. I completely understand the reason behind your actions, and carry nothing against you. Second, how'd you do it? Hope our paths cross again in the future. Until then, thanks a lot and happy editing! SD31415(SIGN HERE) 12:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your understanding and forgiveness. How'd I do it? A pinch of cabalism It's just that Jimbo's a genuine nice guy, who likes to help make the community better. I guess I could put it down to this cool little internet feature...and the fact that Jimbo never sleeps; it was ~4:30am EST when he added that message - to quote him when I asked why he was on at 4:30am, "The internet never sleeps. ;-)". Cheers, and best of luck in the future, Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 12:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I love your userspace design. SD31415(SIGN HERE) 23:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers - and yours too (I loved Essjay's to start with, and I don't know which compilation actually looks better :D). Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 00:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thanks for the modification to the FU image on my user's page to prevent deletion. I saw the notice yesterday, but hadn't gotten a chance to address it yet -- plus -- I was probably going to change the page in a few days, so wasn't sure I needed to do anything.
Sorry about that - my first RFCU. By the way, what should I put rather than 'S' for a voluntary? Should that be in the instructions on the WP:RFCU page? AnonEMouse(squeak) 00:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problems - I made it N/A, but it doesn't really matter given the circumstances. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 05:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Zoophilia RFM
Is this dispute being mediated, or just sitting stale? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ^demon (talk • contribs) 01:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
How on earth did that bot beat me? I pressed edit immediately.... ^demon[omg plz]01:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stale. It has been dead on my watchlist since creation. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 05:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your RFA
Hey Daniel, I trust you had a good Christmas. To say it looks that you've been busy would be an understatement. Well, it's been a while and myself (and I'm sure a great number of other editors) would be willing to nominate you for adminship. However, this is a choice you must make. How do you feel about it? Would you accept? Awaiting you response, Dfrg.msc1 . 2 . Editor Review 06:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not just yet, sorry. I'll notify you when it is. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 06:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that sufficient now? —ExplorerCDT 07:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually fantastic. One suggestion - I noticed you made the first reference for a print reference the full one, then farmed the rest off with "Hillis, op. cit., (page)". What you could do, optionally, is make the first one the same form as the others, given the full print source details are in "Books and printed materials" as well. Just a thought, but kudos either way for a great job referencing, Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 07:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer full citations at the first reference, no matter what the situation. —ExplorerCDT 07:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, each to their own, it doesn't really matter either way to me. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 07:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the barnstar. Surprisingly, for 2.5 years I was never noticed enough to get any accolades, and now I get three in one week. Thanks. I should apologize if I sounded like a prick earlier. I'm not in a good mood out here in Idaho on vacation. I badly want to get back to New York City and I notice I'm snapping at people because of it. —ExplorerCDT 07:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LMFAO. "My hypocrisy knoweth no bounds." —ExplorerCDT 08:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting Non-admin closes at AfD
WP:DELPRO says that non-admin closes may be speedy reverted by admins. Since edit-warring over procedural matters is lame, I would suggest taking them to WP:DRV until you are sysopped. Alternately, you could report clearly erroneous or bad-faith closures to WP:AN/I or your nearest admin for quick attention. Otherwise I wouldn't mess with a closed AfD excpet for clear formatting errors (like a missing {{ab}}) just to avoid the head-ache. Just thoughts from a non-admin. Eluchil404 08:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought - it makes sense that admins can revert non-admin closes, but non-admins can't. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 08:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) - Mark 12:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problems, Mark - rewriting that was actually quite fun :) Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 08:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kanowna
I had been worrying there were no new maritime arts anywhere in the last couple of weeks - its excellent - it looks good - its a bass strait wreck (I am a tassie-ophile ) and the quality of the article really shows! Thanks! SatuSuro 12:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers - I hope I did that ship's extensive history proud. Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 08:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DYK!
On January 13, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beaumont House, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 17:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You may want to take a look at the list I repared on a user subpage of mine, User:A. B./Sandbox2. It may save you some time. It lists anyone who's ever edited Bharatanatyam and inciudes an analysis of many of their edit patterns. There are some names flagged as possible sockpuppets there that are not on the checkuser case list yet. Also, there was a Vfd for Medha Hari in the past that was influenced by sockpuppets. I prepared this as part of a complex spamming analysis for WP:WPSPAM. --A. B.(talk) 03:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have mentioned this compilation of data to Mackensen, who ran the original check. Thanks for your efforts, Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 03:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a procedural question for whether a post-arbitration situation qualifies for a checkuser. I was the sole admin who shepherded the Waldorf education dispute. Although sockpuppetry wasn't an issue during the case an accusation came up this week and the accused editor has volunteered to undergo checkuser to clear the air.
No actual user block occurred, but a couple of editors were confused about user blocks when this issue came up so there's a plausible (if somewhat convoluted) argument to be made in favor of sockpuppetry.
Does it hold weight that this would be post-arbitration and voluntary? This looks to me like a gray area per checkuser rules. On a human level I'd like to file a request and see it accepted. Some of these editors have entered WP:ADOPT and they're all well educated. Their mentor and I would like to see them work things out without anybody getting topic banned. DurovaCharge 22:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't give an opinion on whether the case has merit/speculate on whether the case will be accepted or not, but post-arbitration shouldn't make any difference, at least in my eyes (it may for the checkusers, though). What I can refer you to is Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Peteris Cedrins, from yesterday; although RFCU doesn't run on precedent, that's the best indication I can give you without speculating. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant[ T · C ] 08:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article Improvement
Hey Dan, I know how well you've been doing lately with the improvement of Articles, and I was wondering if you could help me. I'm trying to make a more structured effort to build some good articles, I've done one, contributing solely and it's not quire good enough for peer review. So aside from pictures, which will come soon, do you have any recommendations?
