User talk:Daniel/Archive/16

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.

Since I see you are active on the /Pending page for RFCU at the moment, I thought it best to offer a heads-up: Tangotango & I are testing the bot, so please ignore any strange edits you might notice from me, Tangotango, or EssjayBot II. Essjay (Talk) 06:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered what was going on :)

T · C ] 06:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Done. I see nothing that urgently needs to be reworded, however I'll give it the once-over tomorrow sometime. Cheers,

T · C ] 09:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I think you have the wrong person - see

T · C ] 09:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for passing it on, at least wikipedia has some normals users like you unlike the other one. Unisouth 09:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no personal attacks. I have great respect for Martinp23, and no-matter-what, an admin is going to have to fix up the copy-and-paste move that you made - it creates

T · C ] 09:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week. Old Firm has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Hi Daniel,

How do you think we should deal with editors who have been "convicted" of sockpuppetry on Wikipedia but have not been indefblocked? How would others know of the user's past with sockpuppetry? I have run into this problem a few times and no one has given me a good answer. Thanks. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are my opinions, and some admins don't share them. However, for the most part, they do:-

• Tag the sockpuppet's page with the appropriate sockpuppet tag (normally {{SockpuppetCheckuser}} for the stuff I deal with), and indefinately block it. This tag adds them to the category Category: Wikipedia sockpuppets of (sockpuppeteer), which allows people to see the accounts that the user is "convicted" of operating easily.
• Give the main account a block of 24 hours (for 3RR evading socks) to 1 week (using sockpuppets to make personal attacks). Sometimes indefinately blocking is required, but these are isolated circumstances.
• If the main account (the sockpuppeteer) is indefinately blocked, tag it with {{Sockpuppeteer}}. If the account isn't indefinately blocked, don't tag it.

Again, these are my opinions. For more, see

T · C ] 03:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Daniel. I'm not sure about these technical things, but if you feel it is an improvement, then by all means go for it. I'm very happy with how the FLC is progressing at the moment, 5-0.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too big for me to crop successfully. I guess it'll just have to stay how it is. Good luck with FLC :)

T · C ] 03:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

feel free to contact me through here or email: [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobrancusi (talk • contribs) 00:59, November 21, 2006

Consulting some other users about this. Excuse the delay.

T · C ] 03:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Please follow the instructions here:

T · C ] 04:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey, I deleted the edit history behind your redirect so that the article on the NZ politician can't just simply be pulled out. Cheers, trialsanderrors 01:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that one.

T · C ] 03:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey Daniel. I just decided to ask you what your interest in the Mariners is. Are you a fan. I am! It's a pity that Beauchamp left. Is that how you say his name? Anyway, is there anything to be done on their page? Drizzt Jamo 22:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Well, yes, I am a fan - although not technically a "Marinator", I do travel to Melbourne/Adelaide/Perth games (I moved to Adelaide from

T · C ] 03:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I consider myself a "Marinator", although I am not privileged enough to have Foxtel to be able to watch the games. I do occasionally listen to them over the net at home, using online radio. I live in Canberra so i can't go to see them live (becuase my family like the NRL) and so we might be able to see one game if we got to Sydney for the rugby. Well thanks for that i'll see what i can do! (Although I am supposed to be doing a Geography assignment!) Drizzt Jamo 22:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, good ol' Geography. I have a case study to do before next Wednesday, but I'm really not motivated to do it :) Anyways, cheers, and good luck referencing the

T · C ] 23:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the help on what to do next with the article. It gave my edits a slight boost, a very needed boost. Anyway Dfrg.msc told me to give you this. It's great! Drizzt Jamo 03:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Pointless И This user harbors a deep mutual resentment and/or a general dislike of Dfrg.msc. X This user has, at some point, blatantly ripped off Dfrg.msc. ??! This page Smells Funny. Brick. Brick(s).

About the

CCMFC page. I was wandering why you deleted the part of that article which i contributed. Drizzt Jamo 01:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The reason I deleted it was that

T · C ] 01:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok. Thanks for the help. More than what my wikifather has been doing for me lately. I'm just joking he's pretty good. See you around. Drizzt Jamo 00:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Dan. My Wikison escaped again. Jamo, drop and give me 20! Edits that is. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 07:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it later! Drizzt Jamo 21:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment on my talk page. I think your userpage has got to be the best looking one I've seen on Wikipedia so far. Very nice.--Hatch68 03:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers :)

T · C ] 03:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

T · C ] 03:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Cheers, "fellow editor in good standing"!

ob 04:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

:)

T · C ] 04:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

ob 20:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Signpost updated for November 20th.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 47	20 November 2006	About the Signpost

One week later, Wikipedia reblocked in mainland China	Military history dominates writing contest
News and notes: Wikibooks donation, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

Why could you just had left my (fairuse?) image were the fuck it was! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.37.64.6 (talk) 6:15, November 21, 2006

Maybe if you read the link -

T · C ] 23:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi there. Atlantis Hawk nomined the article to FAC. You can now leave a message in the nomination page. Thanks :) No-Bullet 21:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support :)

T · C ] 23:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey, quick question. Is it OK for me to remove a db-spam template that I added to someone's page if I change my mind after corresponding with the author? Thanks for the help. Hatch68 03:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're the one who added it, sure you can :) Cheers,

T · C ] 03:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey Daniel, about the checkuser case for User:Snsudharsan [2], the procedure has judged that a number of users Psivapalan, Sri119, Mama007, Mystìc and Ajgoonewardene to be socks of User:Lahiru_k. I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Looking at the contributions of User: Mystìc [3] and User:Lahiru_k [4], they seem quite different and their contributins are on varied topics. Even User:Ajgoonewardene and User:Mama007's edits don't seem to be related, apart from the TFD vote.

What I think has happened is this. There is currently only one broadband ISP in Sri Lanka called SLT, and they do not issue static IPs to subscribers. Everytime a subscriber connects, a different IP is issued (like AOL I believe). The WHOIS result for the IP Mystìc used to request unblocking says the status of the IP is "ALLOCATED PORTABLE" and the SLT website says they issue Dynamic IPs [5]. And from what I know, SLT has only a small pool of IPs they assign to their customers.

I'm not entirely sure how checkuser works, but if it checks the IPs from which the users have edited and compares them to see if they are similar, it could well be that it has judged everyone who was assigned a similar IP at one time or other to be sockpuppets of Lahiru_k. And therefore everyone who uses SLT may be may have been banned as sockpuppets.

So can you plase check into this, and make sure whether they really are socks of Lahiru_k? Thanks. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 09:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although you do bring up an interesting point, I unfortunately am not the person to be asking - I'm only a

T · C ] 09:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

No problem :) Thanks for the quick response. I'll post the same question to Dmcdevit. Thanks again. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 10:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:)

T · C ] 10:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Ahh, I figured you'd just be able to tack it on the end like this: #REDIRECT [[blah#section]] Thanks. Neurophyre^(talk) 01:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems :) I wish you could do that, but as far as I'm aware, it doesn't work. Cheers,

T · C ] 01:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks! – Chacor 02:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems - it was

T · C ] 02:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The latest WikiProject newsletter is available here.

Dear Tropical cyclone editor,

As a member of the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject, you are receiving this message to describe how you can better tropical cyclone articles. There are hundreds of tropical cyclone articles, though many of them are poorly organized and lacking in information. Using the existing featured articles as a guide line, here is the basic format for the ideal tropical cyclone article.

1. Infobox- Whenever possible, the infobox should have a picture for the tropical cyclone. The picture can be any uploaded picture about the storm, though ideally it should be a satellite shot of the system. If that is not available, damage pictures, either during the storm or after the storm, are suitable. In the area that says Formed, indicate the date on which the storm first developed into a tropical depression. In the area that says Dissipated, indicate the date on which the storm lost its tropical characteristics. This includes when the storm became extratropical, or if it dissipated. If the storm dissipated and reformed, include the original start date and the final end date. Highest winds should be the local unit of measurement for speed (
   mbars
   . Damages should, when available, be in the year of impact, then the present year. The unit of currency can be at your discretion, though typically it should be in USD. Fatalities indicate direct deaths first, then indirect deaths. Areas affected should only be major areas of impact. Specific islands or cities should only be mentioned if majority of the cyclone's effects occurred there.
2. Intro- The intro for every article should be, at a minimum, 2 paragraphs. For more impacting hurricanes, it should be 3. The first should describe the storm in general, including a link to the seasonal article, its number in the season, and other statistics. The second should include a brief storm history, while the third should be impact.
3. Storm history- The storm history should be a decent length, relatively proportional to the longevity of the storm. Generally speaking, the first paragraph should be the origins of the storm, leading to the system reaching tropical storm status. The second should be the storm reaching its peak. The third should be post-peak until landfall and dissipation. This section is very flexable, depending on meteorological conditions, but it should generally be around 3. Storm histories can be longer than three paragraphs, though they should be less than five. Anything more becomes excessive. Remember, all storm impacts, preparations, and records can go elsewhere. Additional pictures are useful here. If the picture in the infobox is of the storm at its peak, use a landfall picture in the storm history. If the picture in the infobox is of the storm at its landfall, use the peak. If the landfall is its peak, use a secondary peak, or even a random point in the storm's history.
4. Preparations- The preparations section can be any length, depending on the amount of preparations taken by people for the storm. Hurricane watches and warnings need to be mentioned here, as well as the number of people evacuated from the coast. Include numbers of shelters, and other info you can find on how people prepared for the storm.
5. Impact- For landfalling storms, the impact section should be the majority of the article. First, if the storm caused deaths in multiple areas, a death table would work well in the top level impact section. A paragraph of the general effects of the storm is also needed. After the intro paragraph, impact should be broken up by each major area. It depends on the information, but sections should be at least one paragraph, if not more. In the major impact areas, the first paragraph should be devoted to meteorological statistics, including rainfall totals, peak wind gusts on land, storm surge, wave heights, beach erosion, and tornadoes. The second should be actual damage. Possible additional paragraphs could be detailed information on crop damage or specifics. Death and damage tolls should be at the end. Pictures are needed, as well. Ideally, there would be at least one picture for each sub-section in the impact, though this sometimes can't happen. For storms that impact the United States or United States territories, this site can be used for rainfall data, including an image of rainfall totals.
6. Aftermath- The aftermath section should describe foreign aid, national aid, reconstruction, short-term and long-term environmental effects, and disease. Also, the storm's retirement information, whether it happened or not, should be mentioned here.
7. Records- This is optional, but can't hurt to be included.
8. Other- The ideal article should have inline sourcing, with the {{cite web}} formatting being preferable. Always double check your writing and make sure it makes sense.

Good luck with future writing, and if you have a question about the above, don't hesitate to ask. – Chacor 02:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond here

Good job on your statement on the page (except for that annoying way you spell "behavior" with a "u" :) ). Newyorkbrad 04:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha :) Cheers for that - nothing annoys me more than people wasting the 10secs of the ArbCom members' time to write * '''Reject''' ~~~~ because they haven't bothered to read

T · C ] 04:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I find it more frustrating when it sits there for a week waiting for 4 arbs to get around to rejecting it. Although lately, the precedent seems to be that someone just reverts the request off the page, which is efficient, but leaves something to be desired from a process point of view. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all in all, it's a waste of time. You should read my additional comment that I just added to the RfAr page :)

T · C ] 04:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

(edit conflict, I just saw it) You're right about it being inappropriate to bring a case against someone for doing a clerk's job, but I recommend that you not remove your own name from the party list–someone might accuse you of tampering or something–you might want to write to one of the ArbClerks (Thatcher131 or FloNight) and see what they think. Newyorkbrad 04:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. If it does get to that situation, I'll either ask Dmcdevit/Raul654 over IRC for their thoughts on my proposal. We'll wait and see...

T · C ] 04:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

A question for you, why is User:Lahiru_k not banned yet ?RaveenS 14:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I know?

T · C ] 08:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Daniel, thanks for filing the MfD on that user's talk page. Hopefully this ridiculous story will come to a close shortly. Cheers. (→Netscott) 05:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. I personally think it's a

T · C ] 05:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I must say thank you for the kind words :) I just find it fun writing about what I love, so it's just an added bonus that people appreciate it. BTW, welcome to the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject. There's quite a few ongoing projects, such as maintaining and updating current seasonal articles, expanding articles on the structure and development of tropical cyclones, and, what I do, improving existing articles for older storms to as good of a quality as possible. If you don't mind me asking, what do you plan on doing in the project? Thanks again for the kind words and the barnstar, and I'll see you around. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have been tinkling with seasonal pages as an IP before I joined in May (I edited from an IP for three months), so stuff like

T · C ] 05:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Awesome. If you're interested in lists, there is also a project to get a List of XXX hurricanes article for each state. For example, I wrote List of Delaware hurricanes and List of New Jersey hurricanes, both of which are featured lists. New Jersey was fun because that's where I live. There is also the List of California hurricanes which was featured, and List of Hawaii hurricanes and List of Arizona hurricanes which are decent. There are several others, but they're all not as good of quality. You might have some fun working on that for the state you live in. Given your previous experience with featured lists you'd be able to come up with some cool things the WPTC hadn't thought of. Basically any area is up for grabs, though some will be harder than others (like Florida, which I am tediously doing due to the high number of Florida storms). Whatever you do, have fun with it, and good luck. Hurricanehink (talk) 06:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well,

T · C ] 06:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah, ok, cool. :) Hurricanehink (talk) 06:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the articles you are adding tags to are inappropriate, as they are part of a wider context than purely Australian football e.g. FIFA World Cup. Adding unnecessary tags clutters up the talk page at best and causes confusion at worst. Oldelpaso 22:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of our project scope, and hence it should be categorised as such. If you've got a problem, do something like

T · C ] 22:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

As the Australian project and

Sydney F.C., and the WPF one for "meta" football articles like FIFA World Cup and articles which don't match up to a more specific project? Oldelpaso 22:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, I know that half our members aren't a member of WP Football, and yet have worked very hard on the FIFA World Cup article, as well as the 2006 (1974 got neglected) edition articles. The problem is there is currently no collaboration going on between the two, and so it wouldn't benefit anyone to have this designation. On the same token, or maybe different, do you like what I did with

T · C ] 22:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

More cross-project collaboration would be beneficial to prevent balkanisation of football editors, not sure what to suggest though. (an aside, I note that the lack of extra edits to

FAID got a couple of negative comments on the Aus project talk page, but the AID is very variable in productivity

at the best of times, and as the article was already quite well developed there wasn't all that much an editor unfamiliar with the subject could add.)

Having the various tags down the side looks preferable to having more than a screens worth of tags. Oldelpaso 22:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the vandalism revert on my userpage! Madjohnflint 07:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems :)

T · C ] 07:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, I see you've added the above template, or the related categories of it, to a few articles not really about football (soccer) in Australia. I don't see the reason to do so and would suggest that the template only be added to articles whose main subject is football in Australia such as the A-League, Australian clubs and players, but not to articles that might mention Australia but do not have that as its main subject, such as the FIFA World Cup or football (soccer) articles. – Elisson • T • C • 16:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded and discussed over

T · C ] 03:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

FWIW I agree with Johan. Articles like

Football (soccer), whilst they might refer to football in Australia, are about football in general. The 74 and 06 WCs have a case to be included, but WP:FinAus specifically covers football in Australia, not everything else about football. I'd be interested to see a quick summary of aforementioned discussion and the result. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 10:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I've removed the tag from

T · C ] 08:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on

T · C ] 02:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Just stumbled accross this little .GIF. Anyways, I've made my own to express my support for your arbcom candidacy, thought you should know (incase you want it deleted, etc, etc :D ), You'll be seeing it at the top of my user talk page. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

o_O Wow! Nah, I don't want it deleted - you're free to express support of me :) Cheers,

T · C ] 10:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh my, this looks fun. You have my support. \o/ — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 11:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, good banner. Hv put it up! —

^(talk) 11:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Congrats to Mike for making it. I believe the template {{

T · C ] 11:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm so using that.

dzasta 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

As am I

ob 04:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

:O Cheers, guys!

T · C ] 04:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Daniel. Quite unorthodox AFD

I retracted my comment on the IP's talk page. Never-the-less, it can't be speedy closed now that people (myself and you included) have !voted to delete per

T · C ] 03:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

They finished last Wednesday - all seemed to go OK (I know I got 19-or-20 in English Studies, and I thought I did crap in that, so it looks good for the rest of them :D). Anyways, good luck, and have fun :)

T · C ] 04:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd probably tie between LoC and KoD, at present. Both were action packed and really moved the story along. By the way, are you aware of the Wheel of Time wiki on Wikia? It's linked from my user page... -- nae'blis 07:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a browse once, long ago, however I only remember that now after your userpage triggered my memory. I might have a look-in at creating articles - personally, locations (mountains and rivers of importance etc.) seem to be my favourite part of WoT (in the way that it is so large and detailed), so I think that it would be my favourite area to write about. We'll see how it goes. Cheers,

T · C ] 07:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]