User talk:Daniel/Archive/10
- 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. |
Pewlosels' block
Daniel, I have supplied my reasonings on her talk page. -- llywrch 18:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- OK, that clears it up. I would endorse your block currently, pending Pewlosels' reply. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 01:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
September Esperanza Newsletter
|
|
|
Tension leg platform problem
Thanks for fixing the problem I was having on Tension leg platform. DRK 03:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- No problems. Daniel.Bryant 03:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
RFCU for LostKnob
Hey, I notice you've been keeping WP:RFCU/Case up to date (nice job BTW). An anon claiming to be a banned sock has added a new request on the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lost Knob page. If that action turns out to be kosher, I figure the new request needs to be shown on WP:RFCU/Case. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I'm going to consult with other clerks on this one.
I wonder why he chose to add it to Lost Knob... random selection?I'm extremely confused with case - is User:Lost Knob bringing a case on himself forward to clear his name regarding User:Spotteddogsdotorg? And I'm unclear about what you mean by "I figure the new request needs to be shown on WP:RFCU/Case" - we archive cases there after four days, so it will be shown there anyways. Sorry, but I'm not understanding this fully (I'm probably at fault, too tired :D) - if you have IRC, I'm in #wikipedia as Daniel-Bryant. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 04:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)- Oh, I guess I wasn't entirely familiar with WP:RFCU/Case. I was looking for more info on the Lost Knob case and Spotteddogsdotorg in general and noticed WP:RFCU/Case didn't even accurately represent the Lost Knob case itself - but if it's an archive, I guess that explains it! Yes, Lost Knob has been banned forever as (yet another) Spotteddogsdotorg sock and, using an IP, s/he requested an RFCU to clear his/her name. But s/he used the existing page to do it which I worried would throw a wrench in the machine... Spotteddogsdotorg is one of the more peculiar and long-running sock case I've come across so far. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- From what I can gather from WP:RFCU/Case (control+f, search for "Spotted"), he doesn't seem to be listed in any other RfCU cases as either sockpuppets, or as the master. Nothing at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Spotteddogsdotorg either. Hmmm. I think we'll just let this one go, and see what happens. Hopefully Mack will be on a bit later to review the request. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, I guess I wasn't entirely familiar with WP:RFCU/Case. I was looking for more info on the Lost Knob case and Spotteddogsdotorg in general and noticed WP:RFCU/Case didn't even accurately represent the Lost Knob case itself - but if it's an archive, I guess that explains it! Yes, Lost Knob has been banned forever as (yet another) Spotteddogsdotorg sock and, using an IP, s/he requested an RFCU to clear his/her name. But s/he used the existing page to do it which I worried would throw a wrench in the machine... Spotteddogsdotorg is one of the more peculiar and long-running sock case I've come across so far. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Autoblock
Thank you for your help. That's three times in the last few days, all by the same admin. I have written to him.--Anthony.bradbury 08:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- No problems. Daniel.Bryant 08:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I dont get it
Why is it that someone else can threaten me and then vandalize my page who has no authority and then someone else with no authroity tells me what I can and can't say? At least you didn't delete what I said when the other guy did? This makes no sense and I don't understand your desire to censure my words. I have a right to warn of legal action and yet you say I can't. Instead of explaining anything, you just attack me and from what poor documentation I can find on this site, that is also wrong. So, instead of just attacking you I am at least going to explain to you why I am going to report you to actual authorities. At least I have that decency. If you disagree or are of authority, say that you are and talk to me instead of just throwing out warnings. Sorry - forgot to sign (which I don't get either since it shows you who did what) 68.102.160.254 14:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Also, it seems like everyone is so quick to respond right away and jump to conclusions and warn and threaten but when I take a minute to ask some real hard hitting questions, no one has an answer. Convineint. 68.102.160.254 17:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has a policy of "no legal threats", especially baseless ones. Your lawyer will tell you that anyone can edit Wikipedia and that you have no legal right to your talk page. I hope I just saved you a phone call, and by extension, some money. Cheers hoopydinkConas tá tú? 03:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- It appears that you are aggrieved by this situation, and that alone is regrettable. However, I must stress to you that my actions in this situation were entirely justified, and backed by a community consensus over IRC.
- In this edit, you threatened another user with unfounded legal threats. This is not tolerated on Wikipedia. VegaDark removed a personal attack on your talk page, and you were totally out-of-line by making legal threats. There is no excuse for making legal threats on Wikipedia. Considering all your contributions are made under the GFDL, you would have no legal case, either – I’m an undergraduate law student, and I know that anyone else who blesses the profession I am about to join will laugh at you.
- After you threatened him, I was alerted by an administrator, who shall remain unnamed, about how long I thought you should be blocked for. Generally, users who make legal threats are blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Daniel Brandt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a prime example. I managed to convince this administrator not to block you, as they originally intended, but instead give you a final warning. If I had have agreed with him, you probably wouldn’t have edited Wikipedia for about two months or so (IP's are very rarely blocked indefinitely). I assumed good faith and decided to act in a way which assumed you didn’t know Wikipedia policy. Therefore, I added a request to your talk page asking you to stop making legal threats against other users, or you will be blocked from editing.
- Please also note that official Wikipedia guidelines state that Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats. Either act upon your threat of reporting me, or stop making them. Doing neither will result in you being blocked.
- On the subject of reporting me to "the authorities", I would strongly recommend you don’t. Why? I was extremely lenient in my recommendations in this instant, and many other administrators would have blocked you for a fairly long time. "Reporting me" will only illuminate your case to these people, and you will be blocked. Even so, I have nothing to answer for – all my actions were by community concensus in the #wikipedia IRC channel, they have administrator-backing, and concensus is the principle that Wikipedia runs on.
- You also say that "someone with no authority" cant "tell me what I can and can’t do". However, we can with community consensus, and if you don’t follow our instructions, you will be blocked. I could have had you blocked, yet I saved your bacon. I can always change my recommendation, I guess...
- You also seem to disagree with owning up to your actions, evidenced by your statement "forgot to sign (which I don't get either since it shows you who did what.)". Signing your talk messages is Wikipedia convention, and users have been blocked for deliberately disregarding it. You are accountable to Wikipedia for your edits on it - it's called responsibility.
- I am telling you now: any more legal threats on Wikipedia and you will be blocked. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and you have no "rights" on Wikipedia. You edit and contribute by our rules, and not your rights. Remember, Wikipedia administrators will take away these "rights" (sic) if you keep claiming to have them. Any further legal threats will result in a block. You have been warned. Daniel.Bryant 03:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Kendrick Meek
I've done my best to improve Kendrick Meek. I added his voting record. Is this standard practice for Wikipedia politicians or is this considered more of the Wikisource type of info? Please evaluate the article and see if I've made any egregious policy violations. DRK 00:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- To tell you the truth, I would have no idea - I recommend you ask this very question at the talk page for Wikiproject Politics. I have absolutely no idea what the MOS is for politicians. Sorry, Daniel.Bryant 04:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks Daniel for the Barnstar you gave me. I'll polish it daily! However, I meant every word about on your editor review. I just hope I'm someone newbs can look up to lol! And not just because I'm tall.... Thanks Daniel. Keep in touch... Spawn Man 04:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- No problems. Keep the surveys coming! Daniel.Bryant 05:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Aha! it is done!
You have no idea how much trial-and-error it took with the parserfunctions, but my first half-good template finally worked. Check it out:
It should update daily, if not, purge it. See User:MichaelBillington/QOTD for more info :-) If you have any quotes to add, then I dare you to click that edit tab so the source code can attack you... it's that messy... The only reason I am posting this here is to show off my template, I'm proud of it :-) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Very nicely done. Daniel.Bryant 00:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Editor review
By the way, just out of curiosity: considering your vote at my last RfA, if I was to continue on as I am now (but with better edit summaries, hopefully :D) for another nine-or-so months, and got into no conflicts, would you oppose on those diffs from my RfA, or would twelve months be long enough? Anyways, thanks for the review, and cheers, Daniel.Bryant 04:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- I certainly would not oppose in nine months and would do my best to diffuse if someone else brought up the Graal situation by then - assuming things stay calm here until then. I don't have a problem with people having meltdowns - but requesting adminship just a few weeks later was a very bad idea - no offense. The Graal nonsense was ridiculous on every side but we always need to keep things in perspective and remember we're just on the sidelines here. The real players - the ones with money at stake - are Wikimedia and the subjects of articles. When things get escalated out of our control, we need to quietly step aside, not take offense at the escalation, and move on to something else. But you probably already know all that and the fact that you've continued to stay in the middle of things since then without letting them getted heated out of control is very commendable. When I scanned your talk page yesterday and noticed another loud person mentioning legal action, I was impressed that you've not been baited by it.
- BTW, in reality, now that I look at your oldest contributions, you had only been here a couple months at the time of your RFA so it was probably premature regardless. If you keep going the way you have outside of the one incident, I predict a new entry at WP:100 in nine months! —Wknight94 (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it probably wasn't great timing. Thanks for your detailed response! Daniel.Bryant 00:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
No need for reverting
It's obvious who has won :P Timeshift 12:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- And aren't I happy for it - go the Swans! Daniel.Bryant 12:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The Halo's RfA
|
Daniel.Bryant... Thank you very much for your support in my request for adminship. Ultimately, no consensus was reached, and I failed to be promoted, but I am very grateful for your support. Daniel, thanks for the support, it really means a lot to see you name there. Your comment was wonderful, and I can not thank you enough for it. Yours, Thε Halo Θ 22:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
- No problems, and bad luck - in my opinion, you deserve the mop more than most. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 00:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Crocodile hunter
Would you miss steve irwin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.4 (talk • contribs)
- Stop spamming. Daniel.Bryant 22:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I did not vandalize anything
I did not commit any sort of vandalism. You cannot block an entire IP address just because one person is committing the vandalism. Please do not block me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.133 (talk • contribs)
- I never said I'd block you. It looks like you will, however, with edits like these 1 2 3. Daniel.Bryant 22:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Zacarias Moussaoui
Hi. I'm having some trouble with a reference on Zacarias Moussaoui. Could you take a look at reference 25? I'm not sure how to fix this. Thanks, DRK 21:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Fixed. Just had to replace <ref/> with </ref>. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 22:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, now I see. Sometimes all it takes is a second pair of eyes. Thanks, DRK 00:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- No problems. Daniel.Bryant 01:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your welcome...
Hi Daniel - thank you for your welcome message. I'd appreciate it if you'd look at some of my articles and let me know if there is anything you feel is missing or could maybe improve them some way. I'm looking through the tutorials etc too. Thanks again, Ntsunda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntsunda (talk • contribs)
- No problems. I'll have a look over your articles now, and give you some feedback on your talk page in a little while. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MacGyverMagic - Mgm|(talk) 22:13, 24 September 2006 (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 05:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Daniel!
Appreciated! Been tied up with RL for the past few days - good to be back :) - Glen 05:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- No problems! Daniel.Bryant 07:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:D.BSig.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:D.BSig.PNG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award spammer guidelines
I've speeded up the competition by nominating the last 3 nominees.
Please spam the following immediately:
After the finalists have been chosen:
- Judges (excluding alternative judges) - {{upanudge}}
After the announcement of results:
- Everybody (judges, alternative judges, nominees) except the winner - {{upathanks}}
Be on the watchout for inactive judges; if a judge takes too long, inform the overseer (Celestianpower), to remove him and appoint an alternative judge in place. Keep the overseer informed on the happenings. Contact him right now, and when all 5 finalists have been chosen.
I guess you would already be knowing all of this, but I thought I'd post anyways. Be seeing you! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 12:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't know this...thanks for getting back to me. I "spammed" everyone just then. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Daniel.Bryant! You've signed up to be a judge for the Esperanza User Page Award! You'll have three user pages to examine. The user pages you get coincide with your signup number. So if you signed up to be a judge in spot 1 than you will get nominations 1-3. Pick your favorite one, and list it in the finalist section. After all 5 judges have chosen a finalist it's time to award them 1-10 points in the four categories:
- Attractiveness: general layout, considering colour scheme and/or use of tables if applicable
- Usefulness: links to subpages or editing aids, helpful information
- Interesting-ness: quirky, unique, captivating, or funny content
- General niceness: at the judges' discretion
Please remember to include Subpages in your judging criteria. See the Scores section on this page for additional information on your job as a judge.
Keep in mind that your scores are confidential! Email Celestianpower with your scores and final picks. As soon as all the scores have been tallied, a winner will be announced! Thanks.
- That's right, I spammed myself with a message... Daniel.Bryant 07:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed... Daniel.Bryant 07:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 25th.
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 39 | 25 September 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS 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 07:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Why many thank yous Sir :)
I looked, but as it was hidden from view on the CU mainpage I thought Meh? - Thanks again Glen 09:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- No problems, your highness. It just keeps them out of Category:Checkuser requests to be listed. Daniel.Bryant 09:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Poll 1 - Wikipedian relationships RESULTS
- Question 1: Do you feel that other Wikipedians are as nice (or as horrible!) as when you started editing Wikipedia as a registered user?
- A)Yes. B)No. C)Roughly about the same. D)Don't know. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
- Question 2: If you answered "No" above, how have other Wikipedian's attitudes changed?
- A)They have grown nicer. B)They have grown meaner. C)Don't know. D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.
- Question 3: Are admins as nice as you think they should be? If you're an admin, try to be truthful...
- A)Yes. B)No, they are nicer. C)No, they are meaner/grumpier. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
- Question 4: Have you ever been in a serious dispute on Wikipedia?
- A)Yes. B)No, I've never been in a dispute. C)No, I've only been in minor disputes. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
- Question 5: Have you ever been blocked from editing Wikipedia?
- A)Yes. B)No. C)Not sure. (You can find out by checking "My contributions" & selecting "block log"). D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.
- Question 6: Have you ever met another editor on Wikipedia in real life?
- A)Yes. B)No. C)Not sure. D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.
- Question 7: Do you enjoy communicating or working with other editors on Wikipedia?
- A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
- Question 8: Have you ever taken a "Wikibreak" due to stress from other editors?
- A)Yes. B)No. C)No, I've only taken a "Wikibreak" due to un-editor related stress. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
- Question 9: Have you ever collaborated on an article with another editor on Wikipedia?
- A)Yes. B)No. C)Several times. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
- Question 10: Do you envy other editors on Wikipedia for their achievements or good fortune? Be honest...
- A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)I don't know. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.
These are the results for Poll 1 - Wikipedian relationships. For the actual questions see above. Other (please explain) answers may have their text placed into these results for clarity. However, only a selection of Other (please explain) samples may be included if full selection is too big. Options not expressed means that nobody picked them. Any thoughts are appreciated.
- Question 1: Of the 14 editors to answer Q1; 3 editors (21%) chose option A), 6 editors (43%) chose option B), 2 editors (14%) chose option C), 1 editor (7%) chose option D) & 2 editors (14%) chose option E), saying "People need to be nicer to one another. The other site I tend to inhabit is much more civil, and always has been" & "It really depends on the individual; some are as nice as ever while others have acquired noticeably dourer dispositions."
- Question 2: Of the 7 editors to answer Q2; 3 editors (43%) chose option A), 2 editors (29%) chose option B) & 2 editors (29%) chose option D), saying "The focus needs to be more on building the encyclopedia, and less on internal politics, in my opinion" & "Passive aggressiveness is more prominent than before."
- Question 3: Of the 14 editors to answer Q3; 4 editors (29%) chose option A), 2 editors (14%) chose option C), 3 editors (21%) chose option D) & 5 editors (36%) chose option E), saying "Admins need to realize their behaviors reflect on the entire Wikipedia community" & "Again, it depends on the individual" & "Administrators are not as professional as they should be."
- Question 4: Of the 14 editors to answer Q4; 8 editors (57%) chose option A), 5 editors (36%) chose option C) & 1 editor (7%) chose option E), saying "It depends on the definition of "serious". I've been involved in some that got fairly acrimonious, but mostly over things that might be considered relatively trivial in some quarters."
- Question 5: Of the 14 editors to answer Q5; 1 editor (7%) chose option A), 11 editors (79%) chose option B) & 2 editors (14%) chose option D), saying "Yes but it was overturned" & "I was blocked by accident when someone hacked my email."
- Question 6: Of the 14 editors to answer Q6; 5 editors (36%) chose option A), 7 editors (50%) chose option B) & 2 editors (14%) chose option C).
- Question 7: Of the 14 editors to answer Q7; 8 editors (57%) chose option A), 4 editors (29%) chose option C) & 2 editors (14%) chose option E), saying "For the most part, yes" & "Yes, but not always (but more than 'Sometimes')."
- Question 8: Of the 14 editors to answer Q8; 5 editors (36%) chose option A), 6 editors (43%) chose option B), 2 editors (14%) chose option C) & 1 editor (7%) chose option E), saying "Only to deal with real life time consuming things."
- Question 9: Of the 14 editors to answer Q9; 9 editors (64%) chose option A), 1 editor (7%) chose option B), 3 editors (21%) chose option C), & 1 editor (7%) chose option E), saying "I suppose I have, but not directly. I haven't spoken to someone directly and said, okay let's work on this together."
- Question 10: Of the 14 editors to answer Q10; 2 editors (14%) chose option A), 7 editors (50%) chose option B), 4 editors (29%) chose option C) & 1 editor (7%) chose option D).
Hope you enjoy the results which you, the editors of Wikipedia, changed in every way. Have a ncie day! -- Spawn Man 10:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting...keep the surveys and results coming! Daniel.Bryant 07:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The QOTD template
In response to:
<Daniel-Bryant> I need your help with your QOTD
<Daniel-Bryant> i want to add some
<Daniel-Bryant> what form does the code take?
When I add quotes I don't do so manually, I use a programme I made to generate the template code for me. It accepts a quote, and an image for each entry. If you want to add quotes, probably best to drop them on the botom of the template in <noinclude> tags, and I'll add them to the text files. If you still feel like adding the templates to the code yourself, then here is a basic rundown of how it works (comments are between :
{{ #ifeq: {{LOCALMONTHABBREV}}{{LOCALDAY}} | <!--The day the quote should appear goes here, taking the form of Sep1 or Jan23 or Oct8, be careful not to have more than one quote on any one day though, or you get 2 boxes :S--> |
{{{!}} class="messagebox"
{{!}}-
{{!}}align="center"{{!}}[[Image:Nuvola filesystems services.png{{!}}75px]] <!--note you may change the image, try to select a good one :-) -->
{{!}}align="left" width="100%"{{!}}
<big>'''Quote of the day for [[{{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALDAY}}]], [[{{CURRENTYEAR}}]]'''</big><br>
<!--You put the quote here, with a link back to the author of the quote, like "Blah -- [[Somebody]]"-->
{{!}}}
| }}
If you add a quote manually, i'll try to keep my collection up-to-date :-) If you want to improve the code 9seeing as you know a lot more about templates than me) then go ahead. I will add tomorrow an optional parameter to allow you to view older quotes as well. Another note: because O(ctober) comes before S(eptember) in the alphabet, the oct quotes are first, so you have to efit half way down the page. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think I'll just let you add them. I'll place my suggestions on the talk page for QOTD. I'm confused by all that :D Daniel.Bryant 11:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, sure, and I thought you were the one who knew about templates, heh
:DMichael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, sure, and I thought you were the one who knew about templates, heh
- I do, just not...that much :O Daniel.Bryant 07:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Shiny thing
Nishkid64's RfA thanks
|
Thank you very much for participating in my RfA, which closed successfully earlier today with a result of (60/9/4). Although, I encountered a few problems in my RfA, I have peacefully resolved my conflicts and made amends with the people involved. If you have any further questions or suggestions, feel free talk to me. I hope I will live up to your expectations. --Nishkid64 22:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC) |
- Yay, another quality admin :D Good luck, Daniel.Bryant 07:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Archive
Hey Daniel, I recently archived my talk page and I lost my table of contence in the process, do you know how I can get it back? Also, our friend Culverin is going a bit stir crazy. You may want to talk to him. Thanks, Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 00:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Daniel, thankyou once agian. I think that solitary confinement is really getting to Culverin though. I see you have surpassed the 7400 edit mark. Congradualtions! That is a very impressive feat, and you are to be commended. Thanks again mate, Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 06:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- No problems. I think you need to tell Culverin to write some articles, so we can parole him - tiny little fixes aren't great. Maybe direct him to WP:REQUEST...I think you should do it, as he respects you a fair bit. Daniel.Bryant 07:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm, it is apparent that writing articles aren't his strong point - perhaps he can contribute in other ways. I understand he has a digital camera, perhaps he can put is to good use? I'll mention WP:REQUEST, but I think he'd prefer taking a few pictures, I enjoy it and I'm sure he will too. Thanks, Dan. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 07:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed. Maybe also link him to WP:RP as well :D I'd be happy to substitute his article parole into a combined article/image parole. Daniel.Bryant 07:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm, it is apparent that writing articles aren't his strong point - perhaps he can contribute in other ways. I understand he has a digital camera, perhaps he can put is to good use? I'll mention WP:REQUEST, but I think he'd prefer taking a few pictures, I enjoy it and I'm sure he will too. Thanks, Dan. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 07:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- No problems. I think you need to tell Culverin to write some articles, so we can parole him - tiny little fixes aren't great. Maybe direct him to WP:REQUEST...I think you should do it, as he respects you a fair bit. Daniel.Bryant 07:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for info re copyvio procedure
Thank you for taking the trouble to leave a clear explanation and links for further reading on my talk page in response to my question about the copyvio procedure. Stumps 09:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- No problems. Daniel.Bryant 09:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)