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.

← Archive 37 · Archive 38 · Archive 39 →

Yes please, do something about this user. Other users have expressed the same opinion before administrators (User_talk:Stephen#Dcrcort) but nothing seems to be happening. I am withdrawing from the Wikipedia project, but there are least two other users being affected by this. --FateClub 02:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sad to hear you are going. I will monitor the situation, and take it from there. Thanks for the notification. Daniel 05:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here are the relevant links:

The missing entry is Secure Computing, which is apparently shorthand for Secure Computing Corporation, the company's real name. This company has been a nontrivial contributor to the evolution of computer security and there was some worthwhile stuff in there. To my knowledge there was no "spam" in there as claimed.

I am an occasional Wiki contributor and I hadn't logged in to contribute in time to see the deletion itself. I only found out about it when an image I'd provided of the company logo was declared to be violating fair use since it wasn't actually being used (since its article was deleted).

Here is my initial comment about the deletion: User talk:^demon/Archive3#Restore Secure Computing Corporation, which is followed by my response to what he said here: User talk:Cryptosmith#Re: Restore Secure Computing Corporation

Cryptosmith (Rick Smith) 03:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the article on the basis of the deletion not being controversial, and the dissent being kind-of on-the-money. Although the version that was deleted probably violates WP:CSD#G11 and ^demon was correct in deleting it, I believe that there is a better, less spammy version in the history from my brief check. However, as I'm not involved with the article, I'll allow you to sort it out. See my comments here and here. Cheers, Daniel 05:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping by to say "thank you" for supporting me in my recent my RfA. I passed the vote, and am now an admin. It will take me some getting used to with the new tools, but I thank you again for the trust. Have a good one, and, as always, happy editing! Jmlk17 05:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Daniel/Archive/38, and thank you so much for your support in my recent RFA, which passed 59/0/0! I will try very hard to live up to your expectations – please let me know if I can help you in any way, but first take your cookie! Thanks again! KrakatoaKatie 00:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] NOTE: I'm not very creative, so I adopted this from RyanGerbil10 who swiped it from Misza13, from whom I have swiped many, many things. Chocolate chip cookies sold separately. Batteries not included. Offer not valid with other coupons or promotions. May contain peanuts, strawberries, or eggs. Keep out of the reach of small children, may present a choking hazard to children under the age of 3 and an electrical hazard to small farm animals. Do not take with alcohol or grapefruit juice. This notice has a blue background and may disappear into thin air. The recipient of this message, hereafter referred to as "Barnum's latest sucker", relinquishes all rights and abilities to file a lawsuit, to jump on a pogostick while standing on his head, and to leap out in front of moving trains. KrakatoaKatie, Jimbo Wales, and the states of Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma are not liable for any lost or stolen items or damage from errant shopping carts or unlicensed drivers such as Paris Hilton.

Template:AL-CCM and related templates, some of which you have also created, have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Mike Peel 07:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks. Daniel 03:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to demon, there is a problem with the closure. Why are you starting the revert war? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I wouldn't have reverted if you didn't erronously do so. That makes you the instigator of the reverting. Don't do it. Daniel 13:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The closure was disruptive and improper. What was I supposed to do? This action is getting included in the ArbCom case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, maybe, not revert an administrator's closure of a debate you're paramountly involved in? Daniel 13:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not disruptively closing to begin with. The fact that you upheld it is very problematic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: my revert to the closed version was procedural. As someone involved in the debate, it was extremely improper of you to be reverting the close. I have never said I endorse the closure (although, in this case, I am inclined to). My reversion was merely procedural, as you (as a central party to the dispute) should not have been reverting it. Daniel 02:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that ^demon has sent us over here while he is on Wikibreak. Could you help me with this request about Image:Eskimo pie box.jpg I made just before his departure? --Knulclunk 22:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you [^demon] were so helpful with the last request, I've come with another one. Image:Eskimo pie box.jpg was another Smithsonian image I uploaded a few moths ago. Again, I had fair use info with it. I think what happened is that WP depreciated the {{Smithsonian}} tag and all those images picked up AFD's. I actually have the copyright info for this one. Can you restore it, please? I'll fix it within 24 hours. Thanks! --Knulclunk 23:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC) —User talk:^demon

Would I be able to get a link to the "last request"? I'm just interested to see what ^demon did with it, before I take any action here. Thanks for the note, by the way (it was quite a shock, and slightly saddening, to wake up this morning and find that message. I'm planning on firing an email to ^demon in a moment). Daniel 02:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the transcript of our last exchange:

---

[:Image:Sgilliam.jpg] was tagged with full copyright information and watched. We were given NO WARNING to modify reasoning or rationale. Not cool. Why was it deleted? Perhaps the image was mistagged Speedy?? Please restore the image, so we can repair the usage trail. --Knulclunk 12:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sgilliam.jpg was tagged as not having a copyright tag for 7 days (which from looking at the deleted history, is true). No notification is required for that tag. I didn't tag it, I merely deleted it from the backlog. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That's odd, as I did not get a warning, even though I was the uploader and I watch the Sam Gilliam page. I must have forgotten to watch the image. I have no record of the rationale that I used the first time (though as I recall, it seemed fairly solid) Oh well. Is there ant way I can view the deleted history as a non-admin? Or can you give me an extension to rewrite rationale? --Knulclunk 13:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to your first question, no there is no way to see page histories after they've been deleted as a non-admin. In response to your second question, it wasn't the fairuse rationale that was the issue, it was the lack of a copyright tag. If you want, I can restore it, you can pick an appropriate tag from that category, and we can move onward. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want, I can restore it, you can pick an appropriate tag from that category, and we can move onward. -- That would be very helpful, thanks! --Knulclunk 15:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I was checking the image restrictions and I need to get permission from Mr. Gilliam to use it. As that will take a while, go ahead and re-delete the image. I copied all of my rationale from it and will re-upload it when I have appropriate copyright info. Thanks for your help. --Knulclunk 14:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I want ahead and re-deleted it. Just ask if you need anything else. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Thanks --Knulclunk 03:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, image undeleted. Cheers, Daniel 04:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Daniel/Archive, thank you for you efforts to build consensus on my RfA. As you know, it was unsuccessful. I am not the type of editor to be disheartened by such a result, and have gained much experience.

I will run again, however I am concerned that I may see your name in the same place, for the same reasons. I would greatly appreciate knowing what I could do to earn your support next time.

If you have anything to contribute by way of improvements or comments, please don’t hesitate to tell me. Kind regards, Dfrg.msc 00:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on User talk:Dfrg.msc. Daniel 02:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in becoming a Mediation Committee member and wanted to try out a mediation request to see if I'm up for the task. Would you mind if I took on one of the unassigned cases? -- tariqabjotu 03:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'm pretty sure I'd vote support for your candidacy at this stage, and you have the communitys' trust and the right attributes for a Committee member, so I see no problem with that. Which one would you like to take? Tell me, and I'll set up all the required stuff for you. If you could take AMG Chemmani, that'd be great. Daniel 03:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That one works fine, although I won't be able to set up the mediation tonight as it's approaching midnight in the Eastern U.S. As for the statement that you're pretty sure you'd vote support for my candidacy... the compliment is appreciated, but I wonder if you've looked at my talk page recently. That's precisely why I want to test out a case – to ensure my head won't spin when I handle an average case, as opposed to some of those brought up on my talk page. (IRC: tariqabjotu) -- tariqabjotu 03:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. There's a couple of things I need to do, because you are (presently) not a member of the Committee. I'm on IRC now (and taking to you), so I'll give you further details there. Cheers, Daniel 03:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'll admit I don't use IRC often (almost never). I can read what you're writing and I'm responding, but you obviously can't read what I'm saying. -- tariqabjotu 03:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, bizarre. Have you registered your nickname? You can't send private messages if you haven't. If not, there's quick instructions at that link. Daniel 04:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) How about we try gchat (I assume you're meaning through Google, unless there's another gchat). That's also tariqabjotu. -- tariqabjotu 04:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, gotcha. Talking now :) Daniel 04:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was just approved for VandalProof, but when I click the authorisation button it says "the user list is corrupt, please contact a moderator". Can you advise? Thank you. -- Sparkzilla talk! 06:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try now? Daniel 11:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Agtaz 18:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My question is about article Greater Croatia. This article is having peacock for more of 12 months and question about facts is from january 2007. What is needed so that this text or part of him be deleted by administrators ? I ask that because in next few days this article will have very great changes (I will work on him). Rjecina 12:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what article you are talking about, but if you need assistance from an administrator, try WP:LOA or WP:ANI. Daniel 00:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get a LOT of scripting errors. Any idea why? --Smokizzy (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That happens because you have non-IE-compatable scripts in your monobook.js. It can be fixed by either disabling JS in IE or by using this tool to auto close the error messages. Some of the threads on User talk:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs also relate to this. Cheers, Daniel 00:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Daniel

What ever happened to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Goguryeo? Are we going to go ahead soon?

Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Assault11 (filed by fellow RfM participant) and comment on behalf of the Mediation Committee, with respect to the current mediation status? I believe some people are deliberately trying to sidestep RfM for some selfish reasons, and personal accusations are flying against myself and others.

I sincerely hope that we can continue with this RfM, and put all doubts to rest. Thank you in advance.--Endroit 19:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get back to you later today - I need to converse with some members of the Committee. Daniel 01:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Assault11. Daniel 02:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were Daniel Brandt! Sorry, wrong person!VK35 21:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... Daniel 00:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Daniel. See this deletion in which you report the reason as 'CSD G5'. That's a page created by a banned user while they were banned. This attempted mediation is needed as one of the references of an RfC that is now in progress. Can you check if the deletion was erroneous? Who was the banned user? EdJohnston 23:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the reasoning was meant to be CSD G5. I've fixed that.

No, I will not undelete the page. The charter that founded the Mediation Committee (in fact, we were established by Jimbo Wales himself) explicitly states that mediation is not to be used as evidence elsewhere within dispute resolution (see here for more).

Mediation is supposed to represent a good faith effort of all parties to resolve their disputes on their own. In it's design it is therefore immune from being used as evidence to prove the bad-faith of editors in a dispute. As our charter and policy states, we reserve the right as a Committee to not allow this information to become involved in further disputes.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 00:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no undeletion is needed, but the letter code 'G5' still looks wrong. It still refers to a banned user. I wonder if you need another way of describing the deletion (other than speedy), since this type of deletion does not appear on the CSD list, IMHO. EdJohnston 03:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used CSD G6. Daniel 03:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping does sound more natural, but permanent removal of a document that several people have edited doesn't seem to be described by this paragraph:

Non-controversial maintenance tasks such as temporarily deleting a page in order to merge page histories, performing a non-controversial page move like reversing a redirect, or removing a disambiguation page that only points to a single article

It kind of sounds that the Mediation Committee needs to employ a new kind of deletion that doesn't yet exist in the policy documents. EdJohnston 03:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I'll say "For the Mediation Committee", and that's it. The fact of the matter is, we can delete any page of ours we like, whenever we like, even if it doesn't meet a speedy deletion criteria, and even if someone doesn't want it deleted. Even if there is no consensus to do so. Even if the Arbitration Committee doesn't want it deleted (see WT:MC, archive four, at the bottom). We can do what we like with those pages. Daniel 03:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel is correct on this one. We (meaning the members of the Mediation Committee) take our mediations very seriously. One of our core policies is that we do not allow mediation information to be used outside of the Mediation itself. I am sorry that we accidentally used the wrong deletion reason when removing the page, but as Daniel says, clearing out archives/rejected request/etc would fall under G6, as it is a housekeeping task.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 04:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-hum. ;) Phaedriel - 05:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*splutter cough* :) Daniel 05:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boink! :) Phaedriel - 06:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. Thanks for that :) Daniel 06:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, its inactive and so was closed. Good friend100 11:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was unfortunate that I had to close it. As I noted in my comments to the RfC, however, a new case may work. Daniel 12:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Danny, see diff ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

It's probably going to be easier to simply file a new request ('Prem Rawat 2'), to be sure logistics are spot-on. That, and our bot wouldn't like me unarchiving it :) Cheers, Daniel 08:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About what I say about the Salinity control page in the page discussion, DMacks says the following:

That's a great idea! Unfortunately, adding lots of zohar "ideals" to a page that appears to be talking about evidence-based issues is merely muddying (sorry:) the issues here. I look forward to reading whatever people can find in the way of cited research about these issues. DMacks 05:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

DMacks apparently is reverting the page merely because he dislikes it.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcampbell422 (talk • contribs) 06:51, June 12, 2007

Please read WP:DR, and proceed by following it. I strongly suggest trying a Mediation Cabal case. Cheers, Daniel 08:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan, sorry about the late response. I've looked into it and it looks good, many parallels between it and the AMA. I'd never even see it until you passed on the link, only heard it mentioned in passing. Can you give me any extra information/advice before I get stared? Cheers, Dfrg.msc

Sure - I see Vassyana has commented on your talk, offering to answer any questions, and I strongly suggest you pick Vassyana's brains about how the Mediation Cabal in particular works - Vassyana would know much more than I do about the MedCab, being a co-ordinator and all. However, what I can give you some general advice on mediation :)

Mediation is aimed to find a comprimise version of article content between parties in a dispute. As such, mediation generally avoids commenting on, or intervening in, user conduct issues. Kinda like the inverse of arbitration, except mediation is non-binding and totally voluntary.

Just remember, a mediator is not an advocate. A mediator, under all circumstances, should not take sides or promote one person's point of view or request over those of another person. The aim is to work towards a comprimise that both parties will agree to, so you must constantly keep in contact with them, and work with them, to find what this comprimise is.

Beyond that general mediation advice, I can suggest you take a two-party case first-up, as they are generally more 'simple'. Vassyana may also be able to help you with other minor details during the mediation, as such. However, I hope the above gave you a better insight into mediation generally. Cheers, Daniel 11:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have. Yeah, I'll probably go into a two-party dispute, first up. Maybe join in with someone else to observe the process better. I'll take a look. Thanks for the help Daniel. Regards, Dfrg.msc 07:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a few free moments, I'd like to touch base with you about MedCom and a few other things. On-wiki, IRC or email all work equally well for me. I hope this finds you well! Vassyana 10:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loud and clear :) I just pinged you on IRC. Daniel 11:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 24	11 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Privacy report lists Wikipedia among best sites, but needing improvement	Board candidacies open, elections planned
WikiWorld comic: "Why did Mike the Headless Chicken cross the road?"	News and notes: Ontario error, no consensus RFA, milestones
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 02:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a potential dispute with an administrator regarding the Sam Harris (author) page. However, it doesn't seem possible to go through the suggested negotiation process since the administrator's immediate response was to lock the page as if I was a vandal instead of a genuine contributor. I have four questions:

1. Why is a citation from a major, accredited news organization with a print publication - WorldNetDaily - considered a poor source, when The Huffington Post and AlterNet, both unaccredited online sites, are acceptable? WorldNetDaily is often cited by the television networks and major newspapers, the other two are not.
2. Is there a comprehensive list of what news sources are considered acceptable and which are considered poor?
3. Why is my citation deleted as being sourced poorly when there are two citations which source Sam Harris's personal website, in apparent violation of the WP:SPS?
4. Is a request for mediation appropriate in this case? How does a new user negotiate with an administrator who shows no indication of being willing to discuss anything.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7ubuntu (talk • contribs) 13:16, June 13, 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked the article, or the discussion between you. So, these answers are only to be taken at face-value. Here goes...

1. If the source independant, non-biased and reliable for the issue, then it overcomes the first hurdle to being allowed to be used. See the link below in #2 for more information.
2. No, but we have our 'Reliable sources' guideline.
3. No idea. Ask the other person?
4. I suggest a Mediation Cabal case :)

Cheers, Daniel 04:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aherm - did this have to be semi-protected? It doesn't appear to have ever been vandalised. There I was about to happily change the status for Thermal lance to show you'd taken that case, when I realised I can't edit the page at all! How embarrassing is that..? ;) WjBaway 08:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chad and I discussed semi-protecting all the crucial elements of the RfM pages (ie. the main page, /Top, /Preload, etc. - the stuff that makes it run). Maybe I was a little over-zealous with OT :) Unprotected. Cheers, Daniel 08:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My fault for not creating my sockpuppet far enough in advance... WjBaway 08:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, honestly - being a master socker, and all, I someone should give you a crash-course in socking... :) Daniel 08:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - Newyorkbrad thought it might be a bit obvious who this account belonged too. Suggested in future I might opt for something more like User:DefinitelyNotWJBscribeWhateverYouMightThink for my socking needs... WjBaway 08:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:) Daniel 08:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that, will add this information when I get home later this evening. You have no idea how many weird looks you get when you're using a laptop in the middle of a shopping centre food court. Thewinchester ^(talk) 10:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine. Thanks for fixing up that problem article. Cheers, Daniel 03:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. someone left a comment on my page that is hurtful. It said "Wow, you like George Bush, then i guess you like killers." It was the most recent comment on my page. He has been blocked once for making comments like that. Could you look into this.

God bless you, Politics rule 13:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the IP who said it was blocked for two months (link). Daniel 03:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you unprotect Soul Calibur IV? Concrete information has been released since the last AfD, and I think an appropriate article could be started now. Right now, some of the information is being dumped haphazardly into the Soul series page, and it's not working well. Dancter 19:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give me five independant sources which provide non-trivial mentions and Wikipedia-like information (WP:RS; WP:V), and I will. Daniel 03:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't mess around, do you? Well, aside from the ones used to cite the information currently in the Soul Series page, here are a few more:[1][2][3][4][5] I'm not sure the extent to which you mean "independant" or "non-trivial", as they all are generally covering the same press material. It's not like there'd be a GA from the get-go, but I feel there's enough information to make a decent stub, without any inappropriate speculation such as with iPhone 2.0. Dancter 05:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to recreate it now. Cheers, Daniel 06:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I returned from my wikibreak --sefringle^Talk 21:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good to hear. I've re-opened it. Daniel 03:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G'day mate, had a look at the article and I really can't see why there's a problem with the two editors and the Spoiler tags. Given that its been a couple of weeks, can we get this article unprotected? Cheers, MojoTas 03:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Daniel 03:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you around on IRC? Someone wants to talk to you. --Tony Sidaway 05:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got who you mean. Daniel 06:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]