User talk:Daniel/Archive/52

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.
Archive This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.
← Archive 51 · Archive 52 · Archive 53 →

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 21 November, 2007, a fact from the article A. Ronald Walton, which you recently nominated, was 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.
--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Cheers, Daniel 04:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now what?

Add in. Daniel 01:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Sent you mail a couple of hours ago. Cheers! — Sebastian 21:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Daniel 22:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swarming

I made a sourced reference to "swarming (military)" as I updated the article, Force multiplication, and wrote some material about it. Finding the term was red-linked, I'm asking you, as requested on the note, why it was deleted, or, more to the point, if there is a problem with having a decent page on the development of swarm tactics. They are a definite part of network-centric warfare and force multiplication.

Swarming is not restricted to human military. Some research I've described in MASINT deals with swarming an area with sensors or counter-sensors. I am aware of work on swarming areas with unmanned aerial or ground combat vehicles.

Could you suggest next steps? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was a proposed deletion, the policy and procedure of which is outlined there. The idea is that they are "uncontroversial" deletions, and will be restored under 99.9% of cases upon a "reasonable request". I consider your message about to fall into this category, so I have undeleted it. Cheers, Daniel 23:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA, 1992 Queensland storms

An article you recently created, 1992 Queensland storms, has passed the GA nomination you requested. Congratulations. Next step FA. Regards, Rudget.talk 16:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, and you're 100% correct about the images (or lack thereof) in the article :) Thanks again, and cheers, Daniel 23:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashes

I am quite happy to leave the term "series" in the article and I am not disputing this. However I am greatly disappointed with your conduct in this matter.

Re your comment left on Blnguyen. "Your reverting of Blnguyen and another user without edit summaries was even worse, given the reasoning provided on the talk page lacks any factual accuracy whatsoever. I have reverted your changes with an edit summary due to the lack of substance in the reasoning provided on the talk page, which does not merit you disrupting the current consensus on the issue/article. Daniel 00:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)"

You have asserted I had no factual accuracy, when your own reference indicates that the BBC use the term "tournament" as do many other agencies. I am happy to accept that "series" is more common, but I reverted over the claim that the Ashes "does not represent a tournament" when it very clearly does.

Furthermore, you would no doubt be aware, using the "rollback" button automatically generates edit summaries. In light of this as soon as I reverted I provided an explanation on the talk page.

Blnguyen then reverted without addressing my comment. I left a comment on his talk page to the effect of "please don't automatically revert without acknowledging the discussion". I do not appreciate being overturned without any form of discussion taking place, and neither does anyone else. (Update - Blnguyen left a mesage to say he reverted before my comment on the talk page was posted, which I regard as fair enough).

Furthermore, while I appreciate your first response, I feel your second was offensive and unnecessary. It was dismissive and derogatory and there was no reason to behave in such a manner.

This is not a dispute over the article as I have stated. I am simply appalled at the lack of civil conduct displayed here. I am amazed at the derogatory and dismissive tone to another administrator, particularly as you also appointed to the mediation committee. Accusing any editor of lacking "factual accuracy" and "disrupting the current consensus" is not within the spirit of the Wikipedia. Manning (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confusing "civility" with "total respect". Furthermore, the fact that I have been appointed to numerous positions on Wikipedia is irrelevant in this dispute, as I haven't used my administrator tools nor am I acting on behalf of the Mediation Committee in this dispute. I am merely another editor, and to suggest that you feel I have acted inappropriately because I also have these positions doesn't fly with me, sorry.
I do not feel I have not acted inappropriately in any way. Whether my reply was too terse in nature is not really my concern, to be honest. If you show up at a user talk page and let fly with comments that say that the user hasn't acted appropriately given their position, you cannot expect to be given flowers and tea served with crumpets. I emphasised my position with the content, and the only even mildly incivil thing I have said is "This takes the cake", which quite honestly is extremely timid from where I sit. The second part of that comment consisted of quoting you, and explaining how using the same source you used shows that 'series' is a far more appropriate word. I'm sorry, but I feel you're off the mark here, and telling me you disagree doesn't accomplish anything. Daniel 01:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you and I have irresolvable differences in what is accepted levels of communication civility on Wikipedia. I have no intention to play any further part in whatever unfolds at The Ashes, because it will only create animosity which quite frankly I don't have time for nor do I wish to continue contributing to. It seems we will have to agree to disagree on the way I express myself with content disputes, and with that, I need to duck into the City for a little while. Cheers, Daniel 01:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing unfolding at "Ashes" as I have accepted the consensus view cheerfully. I still regard your conduct as disgraceful and totaly outside of the long-established spirit of the 'Pedia. IT is never acceptable to accuse people of "having no factual basis" or of being "disruptive". Regardless, I shall merely do my best that we do not cross paths again.Manning (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calling my conduct "disgraceful" is not appropriate in the slightest given what you believe was inappropriate by me, at least from where I sit (although I usually wouldn't mind, but your application of civility seems to differ from the norm). Good day to you as well. Daniel 01:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now what?

Mediation in the case of the Dragon Ball Z page seems to have failed.--Marhawkman (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what should I do now?--Marhawkman (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look as if the mediator, SJP (talk), has been active with that case for a week now. If you wish to close the Mediation Cabal case (it still appears as open) as withdrawing your support for it to continue, you could possible file an RfM. The decision is yours, however. Daniel 23:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
wel... actually I want to figure out what to do. The way it stands:
a: the mediator left(apparently not related to this)
b: one side of the discussion never took it seriously and walked out when people refused to agree with their side
:( obviously this attempt at dispute resolution has failed. I'm not really sure what to do now. My only idea, (aside from RfM) is to try to continue with the remaining participants.--Marhawkman (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me poke around for a bit and see where this could/should go. Remind me in 24 hours if I haven't got back to you, as I may have forgotten :) Cheers, Daniel 01:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your options include asking on Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal for another mediator (and discussing the inclusion/exclusion of parties with them), or asking for the case to be closed and filing a request for mediation. The decision is, naturally, yours. Cheers, Daniel 03:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Images

Hello, thanks for writing, regarding the Wren picture, me and some friends take a bunch of them in the humedales last year. I´m not sure if the picture in question has been published elsewhere. However, i replaced it for other picture of the same bird, although it is kind of blurry. The first one is prettier but if there is some doubt about the copyright it´s ok. If there is anything else i can help with let me know. xoxo Koven.rm (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer me one question so I can sort this out: did you take that photograph (link)? Thank you, Daniel 03:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 ArbCom Elections

Hi, I would like to know the requirements for running in the ArbCom elections. Thanks. -Goodshoped 01:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are quite clearly stated at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007. I must advise you, however, that you have no real chance of being successful (c.f. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Goodshoped35110s 2) and running would not be an enjoyable nor beneficial experience for you. However, running is your prerogative. Daniel 03:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure. I may meet the requirements, but do you think I should delist? -Goodshoped 03:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm delisting. -Goodshoped 03:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the statement "I am running for ArbCom because I want to help solve vandalism problems in the community" quite clearly demonstrates you have insufficient knowledge of the Arbitration Committee, requests for arbitration and the arbitration policy to be elected at this juncture. Daniel 03:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's why I've just delisted. I feel like that I'm not ready for the job. -Goodshoped 03:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 24 November, 2007, a fact from the article Gordon K. (Sandy) Douglass, which you recently nominated, was 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.
--WjBscribe 03:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An unexpected surprise, thanks Will. Daniel 03:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not actually chosen by me but I noticed that the next update for DYK was two thirds done and a couple of hours overdue so I thought I'd better finish the work and update it. The previous update was 10 hours late! WjBscribe 03:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say five minutes?

Seriously, I was just reviewing it, not more than a minute after quitting IRC, and my memory is gone. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, just don't forget your password :) Cheers, Daniel 07:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for supporting me! Please find your thank you card here, should you wish to see it. I'm honored to have received your support. All the best, ~Eliz81(C) 23:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

You may want to update your matrix of helpful users ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip :) Daniel 05:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query On 25 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1992 Queensland storms, 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.
--Balloonman (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat-Belated RfA Thanks :-)

hi

Casey Calvert from Hawthorne Heights died last night. Sorry if your inbox is flooded with a bunch of messages but I was just trying to put it in. I figured it'd be kept because they're a more popular band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.101.130 (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Calvert. Daniel 07:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


My RfA

Thank you for your participation in my RfA


re: image

yes, I did take the picture. Also I e-mailed it to some friends. xoxo Koven.rm (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have deleted the image as it is (by your own admission) redundant and it has a questionable copyright status. Thanks, Daniel 01:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have

I have stopped, removed it from my watchlist, and am ignoring it. I have been for a while, there was no need for the warning, but I thank you for your response. And as such :

The Barnstar of Peace
I wish you peace, and prosperity, and I hope that we are ok... Do not think to badly of me. <DREAMAFTER><TALK> 01:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have blocked you if you had already been warned, so obviously I don't approve of your conduct. I figured it'd be better to warn you that I'd block if you readded it rather than blocking without warning. Daniel 01:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query On 27 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Whitaker, 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.
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The big five-oh

The 50 DYK Medal
In appreciation of his 12 creations and 40 nominations, I hereby award Daniel The 50 DYK Medal. Your continued devotion to building an encyclopedia, while simultaneously laboring at MedCom, has made you a shining examplar of a great Wikipedian! Thank you for all you do! --JayHenry (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much :) I'm trying to write some more articles, because I neglected it for a while there. The end result is a bunch of DYK's. Cheers, Daniel 05:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 48 26 November 2007 About the Signpost
Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles WikiWorld comic: "Cursive"
News and notes: Ombudsman commission, fundraiser, milestones Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Education in Australia 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 (talk) 07:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Thank you for letting me know my article about June Bride warranted a DYK mention. MovieMadness (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. Daniel 02:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad‎

Thankyou for your effort and time. smb (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure - glad it helped. Daniel 02:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on 50

I was just on my way to give you a medal but see someone has beaten me to it. As they say "numbers are not important" .... but fifty ... I mean FIFTY!!! Well done. Victuallers (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Daniel 02:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the 300 thing

I wasn't named in the dispute, but I think that I have insight and viewpoint to contribute. Not having been involved in an RfM, how should I proceed? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you'd add your name to the list of parties, sign your agreement in the appropriate section, and leave a note on AGK's talk page explaining your action and your involvement with the dispute. Cheers, Daniel 02:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your assistance. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't sign in.

Why can't I sign in to VandalProof? (please respond on my talk page) Chetblongtalk to me 02:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(responding here to preserve context, note to this effect left on User talk:Chetblong) I do not have access to the program at the moment, due to a technical issue with my other computer. I'd suggest you ask another moderator, probably Betacommand (talk) as he is the most recent to approve users for use. Cheers, Daniel 02:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRICAUSBIO

Hi there Daniel. Since we know have a lot of people writing about Australian cricket biography articles [I counted five people who have written FAs or GAs on Australian cricket in this year], and since some people (like myself) tend to work offline or in sandboxes with a book for a few hours and then upload in a large chunk (so it seems), I have created this subnoticeboard type thing, so that people can write down what major expansions they are working on, so that there won't be instances of people spending 5-10 hours writing and collecting information which is then duplicated. It has happened before at WP:GAC that two people spent an hour or so reviewing an article and then had an edit conflict and posted two reviews on the same article among other things. Of course, this shows a good sign that the Australian cricket biography scene is doing well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australia

Sorry about not leaving a comment. Me bad. Your edit was unsourced and frankly jingoistic and unencyclopedic. Speaking about "poor performers such as Canada" without reference is original research. If you can provide a quote from a commentator along these lines that is fine. However we should let the facts speak for themselves, not try to push our own national feelings of self-importance down readers throats. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, although Daniel wasn't the one who made the edit. It might have been possible to leave the first sentence (the medal count) while removing the second sentence (about Canada). The Canada sentence was problematic, but the lack of info in the edit summary wouldn't tell User:Thefreemarket what you found objectionable about his edit. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was happy to see this. Cheers, Daniel 11:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Trying to access the edit in question generates an error message. The most similar name I could think of is Newyorkbrad. I found unused account NewYorkDreamer (talk · contribs · block log) in Special:Listusers, but I was unaware of thisname when I chose mine. New York Dreams (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit (now deleted, apparently) was referring to your clerking of the username Tiësto. If an account is "similar" to an account which was registered before 2007 and has few edits (generally also made before the start of 2007), we usually make the account for them. Of course, only administrators can do this — non-adminsistrator clerks generally use the {{ACC|s|Example|who has n edits, made in date}} template, which produces:

This username is similar to the existing account Example, but can be created. Similar to Example (talk · contribs · account creation) who has n edits, made in date but should be created by an administrator shortly.

I hope that helps. Cheers, Daniel 22:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Daniel/Archive/52"