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.
Thanks for your thoughts on the issue. I have been working to get the images removed for a while now, and I'm glad it's settled. J Milburn (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think you were doing?? Nobody told me that this was even being debated - which I think is at least a small oversight, considering I had written the thing. On my count in that debate there were three keeps and three deletes.
So there is absolutely no consensus, and I have no idea what the OTRS complaint was, but this deletion is totally unreasoned. This is an entirely notable person: I had listed the cases he has been involved on: all precedent setting for religious discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Well Daniel didn't delete it, he only nominated it, so he can't very well restore it. If you haven't I'd suggest you contact the deleting admin or look at WP:DRV, even though I voted to keep it though, I do agree with the close of delete as the consensus and policy indicated it should be deleted. Just my 2 cents. MBisanztalk00:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just notifying you (as I think is only courteous) that you are welcome to comment on the talk page for Paul Diamond (lawyer). If you have issues to discuss about neutrality or accuracy or notability, then might I suggest you start with talking, rather than deleting first? I'm sure you were only trying to do the right thing by the complaint, which is fine. But I would note that the assertion that the guy is not notable if a bunch of rubbish: hence the big list of leading cases that he has acted in. The WP:BIO page you confidently cited has an interesting first sentence:
"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]"
This would seem to include court cases, and a single newspaper article. If you want to get in touch with me, and you do in fact have something further to add, then feel free to email me. Wikidea19:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested in creating a Wikipedia page about Patch Products, a national game and toy manufacturer. However, I noticed that a Patch Products page had been deleted. Can you tell me if it was about the game company?Barbuebelacker (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was about the company, but it was deleted because the article lacked assertions of notability (see also CSD G4). Feel free to recreate this article with more importance if it exists. Daniel (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Daniel. Well, User:Tony1 has been strongly encouraging editors to reappraise their approach to this. The MOSLINK states:
"Careful consideration of the disadvantages and advantages of the autoformatting mechanism should be made before applying it: the mechanism does not work for the vast majority of readers, i.e., unregistered users and registered users who have not made a setting, and can affect readability and appearance if there are already numerous high-value links in the text." and there is a section on the advantage and disadvantages of autoformatting the dates. I'm not too fussed either way, however I do tend to agree that when you've got hundreds of blue links in an article, adding dozens more for date formatting can detract from the "high value" links. Anyway, it's not mandated either way and my comments are really just suggestions (unless I link to policy) so take them with a pinch of salt! All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zilla know arb page rule... but 'zilla too great to follow arb page rule. Please let little arbs decide whether remove helpful link. (Leave link, save Tokyo!) bishzillaROARR!!20:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Good job on returning to the article. There are just a few minor issues left, with the largest being the expansion of the lead. Please ask me if you have any questions, I'd like to see this article passed by this weekend. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You recently deleted a fairly hefty swathe of discussion about the naming dispute over the article currently located at Burma at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Burma under WP:CSD#G8. I'm pretty sure this comes under "any talk page which is useful to the project". Would you please undelete it and/or move it to a non Medcom title if that is the issue? Thanks, BigBlueFish (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had a bad day, and when some guy does that, you know...I'm sorry. I bit as well. I'll put it on a joke subbie. It was just that I wanted to use it to make new friends, and besides, I saw another guy did it too! I thought it was OK! I'll undo it again and put a commented-out note. Editor510drop me a line, mate16:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Not sure if you remember me. I returned to Wikipedia a couple of months ago after taking a year+ hiatus. Before my extended Wiki-break I work long and hard to assist Moeron with the troublesome SEGA sockpuppetry case. A case which, if I recall right, you were a huge part of. I caught an IP vandal on a Phish related article (a known SEGA haunt) and after reverting a couple of times, the IP suddenly transformed into User:Mburke346 and continued to add the false content. The addition of false content is a simple matter and I can report that easy enough to AiV. However it was the username, specifically the Name/Number styled username that caught my attention. I may be overly WIki-paranoid, but that "modus-operandi" username style of Name# is very familiar to anyone who is familiar with SEGA and his socks. I can't recall SEGA's IP range so I can't confirm that the IP address used by Mburke346 falls into the SEGA geography. Just wanted to alert you in case there is a sudden population growth of "Name#" accounts editing Phish related articles. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Did my own digging and, unless SEGA has moved from North Carolina to Indiana, I am likely barking up the wrong sock tree. Never-the-less the style of the new user account is just odd enough to keep me curious. Sorry for the blather/bother. Cheers! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, no problems. Good to see you back; any more possible SEGA socks, send them my way and I'll have them checkusered. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir, I posed a question on this image of an Egyptian pharaoh to Admin Rudget below:
"I uploaded this image for the funerary mask of pharaoh Shoshenq II here: Image:Shoshenq II mask.jpg I checked on Commons and there was no image of his mask anywhere; no one has ever placed a free copy of it there. The web site I uploaded the image from states its images are copyright free but for non-commercial use. There is currently no free equivalent of the image and all tourist photography in the Cairo Museum where it is located has been banned since September 2005 except in rare circumstances for scholars. But none of the latter have placed such unique images on Commons.
Can the image be kept under the fair use rationale I provided or must it be deleted? Thank You"
Rudget then replied to my talk page saying that he thought it was OK due to its cultural importance here but suggested I contact Eastmain718...who is away. So, I have to ask you the question instead. Is my fair claim use for the image of the mask of Sheshonq II acceptable or not? Or do I have to modify it? I have checked on Commons and there is no image at all of the sarcophagus or funerary mask of pharaoh Shoshenq II there. No one has posted any before the photo ban was enforced in 2005. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in the absence of arguments in support of the deletion of Beaker Street page, I would like to contest the deletion. Thanks. RI-Bill (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I guess, provided the image would be simply a crop of the actual note - the main aim is to prevent reproduction, hence why Federal laws exist regarding "SPECIMEN" overlays for images of money bills which are of a certain size to be printable in a realistic fashion. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you reduced the image along with adding the "SPECIMEN" notation - what size could an image without the notation be? (The law itself seems to specify only actual size, not detail level) Also, there are other images that would be affected. Image:US_$20_Series_2006_Obverse.jpg for example (incidentally, I love how that blurs out the serial number like that matters) --Random832 (contribs) 12:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Small enough to not be able to be enlarged to a proper bill size without resulting in severe distortions; so probably only around 150px wide I'd estimate/ I think it's better to simply crop the note to remove the right and left hand sides, as that won't affect the image of the tree. I'll email back the Government employee who I interacted with for the '04 series regarding the '06 series; thanks for bringing that to my attention. Daniel (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actual width: 6.14 inches (may vary if your screen DPI is not set accurately)
A note at 300pxThe same at 150px The issue I'm seeing is that the regulation itself, at least the one I'm aware of, says "must be under 75% or over 150% of the real size" rather than covering the detail level and ability to be blown up or reduced to the original size. And I think 150px wide is overly conservative - I printed Image:United States one dollar bill, reverse.jpg out at 300px [black & white in order to avoid breaking the law myself] and the distortion was very noticeable (it was pixelated into squares of about ½mm)- I would regard that size as the minimum for an effective illustration for the encyclopedia - 300px wide at actual size is only 48dpi; at a typical monitor resolution it is 3.5" or 57% of actual linear size. --Random832 (contribs) 15:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm serious now. I will go help do some articles but do you not like me? I mean, I'm not offended, I can take my humor elsewhere but do you still feel spiteful for the stuff I've said? It's all over. I guess other people have differed opinions. You just seem to have a huffed tone when you reply to me. Well, not everyone likes everyone. Nice knowing you.--Editor510 (talk)
I'm not criticizing, but with edits such as this [4], please remember WP:BITE, and consider that Editor510 may not be of the same vintage as Jimbo to have his level of maturity.:) StickyParkin01:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am mature. I'm not being immature, I'm being humourous. That nature makes me a bit annoying, but I'm certainly not immature! I don't consider what you said biting, I consider that a case of misunderstanding. Man, I gotta go edit some Pink Floyd articles...--Editor510 (talk)
I will only say this once, but although humor is important to the development of Wikipedia's community; our aim as an encyclopedia, is to contribute and develop content. If you wish to further contribute to Wikipedia, please re-prioritize your aims and goals on this project. It is unacceptable to treat this as myspace or another social network. —Darktalk07:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Ok, let me offer this as a rebuttle: I'm only humourous when talking to others. I have a serious attitude to the whole project, but i'm a glass-half-full kinda guy. Now, can we cut all ties, stop talking about this, and get on with being Wikipedians, because edit warring has changed me. I'm glad I'm off on holiday soon, I can get rid of wikistress.--Editor510drop us a line, mate09:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel's behaviour isWP:BITE IMHO, as Editor510 really hasn't been here that long, being friendly and polite and not bullying to those who are young is also just the decent thing to do. I have also tried to steer him towards contributions more related to the encyclopedia, however. Saying 'thank goodness' if he were to go is not in accordance with WP:CIVIL, nor supportive of encyclopedia building in the long run, as he may well improve and has sought adoption, which shows he is seeking to improve. StickyParkin12:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus at three noticeboard discussions have found that my actions are entirely appropriate and within policy. Sticky, please don't continue trying to tell me to stop violating policies when I'm not. Daniel (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Following Editor510's contributions over the last 24 hours, I have to say that Daniel's just calling a spade a spade. Editor510's edits have been generally inappropriate, unnecessary, and immature. Metros (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As DarkFalls indicates this encyclopedia's main aim is to encourage the growth and development of content which, also as DF says, is the main aim of the project. On the cotrary, socialisation and general behaviour which is perceived as humourous is detrimental to the project as it distracts those editors from editing greatly and appropriately to the encyclopedia. WP:BITE is not relevant here, as Daniel suggests; this user has been here a while now and should both fully understand and interpret policies potentially knowing the consequences of such an attitude to inter-wiki relations etc. If you are reading this Editor510, I'd suggest organising an interest into the project and contributing to it constructively through article work - for that is the only way you'll garner better relations with your colleagues. Rudget14:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not denying it, I'm saying he's a young user who's following WP:ADOPT and may improve, and that there's more polite ways of communicating with a WP:AGF contributor. He does make some mainspace contributions, and made a few more since daniel had a word with him. Daniel, have these three noticeboards mentioned editor510 specifically?- if so, he hasn't been made aware of it as is usually considered good form. StickyParkin20:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, they discussed being adversarial with Myspacing young users identical to Editor510, and found by overwhelming consensus that my methods were perfectly acceptable and beneficial to the encyclopedia. Daniel (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The project does not benefit from mollycoddling users. If they don't learn after multiple suggestions to improve, a slightly more forceful comment may be required. —Darktalk08:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sneaky bastard...
And I thought you somehow sneaked past the meta temporary-admin restrictions and acted as a full admin ... then I found this. I guess it suits you to keep one foot in the ever-growing bureaucratic world </ends the weekly trolling on Daniel's talk page> :p —Darktalk07:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two "involved" parties other than myself were identified. Thus far, one of the two main parties has agreed. However, I learned that one of the plausible parties is unwilling to participate. At this point, I wonder if there might be some sort of implied impropriety if I were to apply for permission to strike BillCJ's name from the following list:
Assent from the following need not be a factor in the decision to accept this dispute for mediation; but perhaps they might construe themselves as parties because of their contributions to the talk page record.
Is this one of the ways in which I can avert consequences which are otherwise fatal to this request for mediation? Is there nothing to be done in such circumstances?
All major parties must agree, unfortunately (hence why I rejected the case based on BillCJ's disagreement). Because the result of mediation isn't binding, it relies on the goodwill of all major disputants to respect the agreement by including them in the proceedings. On that basis, there is unfortunately no way to have mediation where a major disputant disagrees. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of parties
I had no difficulty following the instructions which were explained in your guide for filing a case; however, as you know, steps 5-7 are "to come" ... which I took to mean I would be receiving further information in due course.
The step-by-step instructions for filing a request for mediation did not explain that I needed to notify others.[5] I will remedy that oversight without further delay. --Tenmei (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where were these additional instructions which I failed to follow? For me, this issue has been easily resolved. I simply posted notices on the talk page of each plausible participant in this process.
I bring it to your attention, knowing you'll do as you think is best. I wouldn't want to see others repeating the same mistake I've made.
.svg){kind=logo}