 |
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page. |
Signpost updated for November 27th.
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 01:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Notability guideline being developed for malls
You have recently commented on AfDs for Shopping Malls. Please see WP:MALL where there is an ongoing attempt to create a guideline for which malls are deserving of articles. Your thoughts are appreciated. Thanks! Edison 07:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm bowing out of this, for the time being. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 08:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Konstable
I saw your note on the /Workshop page in the Konstable case. Don't worry, half as long would have been twice as good. I tend to write long (real-world stuff too), plus I couldn't help saying what I thought of the /Proposed Decision, plus I couldn't help analyzing the other (checkuser and recusal-related) aspects of the case either. I have to say that every week that passes, you become a more and more credible candidate for the committee. Newyorkbrad 07:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- With the fear of sounding all wishy-washy, I cannot honestly state how seriously flattering that statement above from you means to me. Honestly; I actually consider you a shining prospect for ArbCom, however as you have stated (and I agree with) there's always next year, and I can certainly forsee a strong possibility of you reaching the AC in the Dec 07 elections, if you decide to run, of course :) Even if I don't make it this year, I'd still like to continue helping out with ArbCom (I've since added a bunch of generic-sounding FoF's into the SA & Waldorf case), and naturally your well-thought-out proposals in /Workshop etc. are much appreciated by me, and I'm guessing by the ArbCom and editors in general. Yes, you're right: length isn't always best, but the more you express your ideas, often the easier they are to understand and comprehend; A perfect example is your motion :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 08:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Arb
Are you still running for Arbcon? I couldn't find your page. Well anyway, can I be your campaign manager? Heres a slogan "Daniel bryant, taking this party to the good dam Arbitration committee 06. Good luck and best regards. Culverin? Talk 09:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- His campaign statement is here. Jpeob 09:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I am running, however I have no real want, nor need, of a "Campaign Manager" for these elections. If you want to promote my candidacy, simply place Mike's template - {{User:MichaelBillington/DB for Arbcom}} - wherever you want :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 09:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- How does the voting process work? Is it like an election or more like RFA? Could you elaborate? I also now have over 1000 edits. Good luck Daniel. Culverin? Talk 07:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-11-14/ArbCom election explains it :) Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Portfolio for ArbCom
On Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table, I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. Since you were one of the first candidates to register, I included some links which you provided on your questions page. You may want to check if you're OK with them. — Sebastian (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC) (I stopped watching this page as of 19:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC). If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and let me know.) I only noticed your medical note just now. Get well soon! — Sebastian (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
MedCabal
Hi, we have a heavy backload of cases at WP:MEDCAB and since you are on the mediator list I thought I would request your help. Thanks! --Ideogram 10:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Done - Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-25 Email Harrassment over a disagreement about a fact posted on here. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 11:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
|
|
Oh, the humanity!
I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll still have it the next time around. Kafziel Talk 14:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
|
RfA thanks
Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep an eye on me(if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Heads up
This was probably inevitably going to happen sooner or later: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Arbcom_campaigning_images. Newyorkbrad 22:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Cheers for the note. Responded on AN. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Afrika paprika sockpuppetry
Thanks, man! --PaxEquilibrium 22:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- My pleasure :) Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 22:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Diffs added
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Editingoprah
I've added as much documentation as I can find in ten minutes... hope that works... David Fuchs 00:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Editingoprah and I freely admit that we are classmates, friends, and post together. All we were trying to do was remove libelous information (as per wikipedia's living person biography policy which trumps the 3 R rule) David Fuchs added to the Oprah article based on anonymous hate web pages which we feel he may be associated with. Timelist 00:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Don't tell me...post that at the checkuser case. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 03:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikinews!
hi, welcome to Wikinews! Doldrums 11:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Cheers! Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 11:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Science Collaboration of the month
NCurse work 17:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
RFCU
That user is a tricky, vexatious litigant who has never admitted to any of his sockpuppeting, even when it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. He uses lots of IPs, and keeps hoping that by using one location for all of his edits from one userid, and another location for all of his edits from another userid, we'll all be stupid and not figure out what's going one. The username in question was used as an e-mail address by yet another of his sockpuppets; see further developments on his Talk: page. In any event, the situation is complicated, so if you want you can e-mail me for more detail, or I am willing to speak to another CheckUser and I will explain the issue to them privately via e-mail. Jayjg (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- The main thing is that he is accusing you of fabricating the evidence/lying about the results. If you could get another checkuser to endorse and confirm your findings, it'll leave him with no leg to stand on. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Poke
If you're still around, could I see you on IRC for a minute, please? Essjay (Talk) 09:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
AWNB/Announcements
Sorry to have posted blng and not you; I didn't know you were Australian. Hesperian 06:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- No problems :) Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
re: Illness
Hey Daniel, I'm sorry to hear you have pneumonia - I had it 3 years ago, so I know how much it sucks! Here's some hot chocolate to make you feel better :) Take care of yourself, and get better soon, and why on Earth are you on Wikipedia if you're not well? </mothering> riana_dzasta 07:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ha! I'm editing from my laptop, lying in bed. I'll probably have to get off soon, given that I get really tired really quickly (6-7 hours of waking supplements about 12 hours of sleep, and I've almost used up all my waking time :P). Thanks for the support! Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Get well soon mate. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 07:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Get well soon Daniel, and good luck in the elections too. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 11:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Get well soon. —Goh wz 18:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Get well Soon. Go the mariners Boltonfan22 08:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 4th.
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 05:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Zanta
Note that Zanta has been restored, and place on AfD for a proper deletion debate. -- Zanimum 14:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Could you please read my note on Talk:Jonathan Fifi'i? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 04:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Do you want me to undelete and put on an afd? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Not specifically. Note the last sentence of my message, regarding re-tagging. If I do believe it fufills it after some research, I'll put it on AfD anyways to make sure. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 04:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I will put up for AFD unless you object in the next 5 minutes. (I am the one that deleted and I read your reasoning when I deleted. I am curious why you point me back at this... —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Go for it :) Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 04:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Actually, don't worry - the sources I've found for him, in my opinion, don't make him notable. I withdraw my (hopeful) objection :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 04:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Your comments on my user page
You stated, "To violate the three revert rule, you need to perform four reverts in 24 hours, not just three." If you read the page referenced, it states, "This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable." While four reverts is, de facto, a violation, conversely, three reverts is not necessarily not a violation. You also stated, "Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers isn't a policy, but rather a guideline." I erred in using the word "policy," as that would be confused with Wikipedia official policy. Nonetheless, merely because something is a guideline does not mean it should be ignored, particularly when the offending administrator links to that very guideline page on his user page, which implies an endorsement of and an affirmation to adhere thereto. Carmela Soprano 07:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I was right on both counts. You are not in violation of the 3 revert rule if you only revert three times; I never said you cannot be blocked even if don't reach this threshold. And there is a huge difference between Wikipedia official policy and guidelines. WMF needs to be consulted on any major changes to official policy, which, believe me, is a huge hurdle to jump. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 08:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what "WMF" means. As far as a "huge difference," I stand by my original statement. You seem to be splitting semantical hairs and are getting caught up in bureaucratic rationalizing as opposed to addressing the real issue here. When the person in question links to a "guideline," and then refuses to follow that very guideline, you don't see that as a problem? The other party in question blanked material without explanation and contributed nothing to the article. He improved nothing. He seemed only interested in playing "policy cop," while blatantly ignoring policy in the process, all the while doing nothing to improve the article. How is that of any benefit to the end user? I've been warned that Wikipedia is a miasma of administrator cliques, where people are more interested in protecting their friends than in improving the quality or the content. That certainly seems to be the case here. I was contributing to an article; the other party contributed nothing, was rude to me in the process, and violated Wikipedia policy to boot. In all candor, you compound his rudeness with your dismissive and patronizing behavior toward me. You seem more interested in protecting an abusive administrator than improving article content. As well, you're quite rude to a new user with your "I was right on both counts" remark. You might consider "in my opinion" or "with all due respect" as some phrases worth adding to your vocabulary.Carmela Soprano 08:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Seriously, if you have a complaint about a user, please take it immediately to the right forums. Lay all your cards out on the table, and see if anyone agrees with you (I know I'll be reading, and may even endorse it if I agree with the evidence you present). I'd also appreciate it if you assumed good faith on my behalf - it was me who answered your {{unblock}} request, hoping to help you understand two of the intricacies of Wikipedia policies and guideline structure. However, on this note, I apologise if I came across rash - I'm running on low energy (I can't sleep properly due to my chest infection). I'd appreciate it if you didn't bother me again on this issue, as you seem unwilling to back down from your stance that you're right, of which I disagree with. Maybe we can agree to disagree, given we're meant to be here to write an encyclopaedia? Good luck with however you proceed with this issue, and if you remember, could you possibly just leave a friendly :) message on my talk page with a link to the discussion? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 11:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
|
