Jump to content

User talk:Daniel/Archive/75

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Daniel | Archive

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daniel (talk | contribs) at 07:07, 8 May 2009 (+6). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 74 · Archive 75 · Archive 76 →

Live Journal Sourcing

While working on Barry Graham (author) I noted the revert of some inflammatory material citing LJ. Almost this entire article needed Citation, and I have marked it as such, and have done some re-arranging. I'm assuming based on some history gaps and notes in the history that this page is somewhat contentious. Would you please take a look at the page as it sits, and respond to my queries on Talk:Barry Graham (author) Thanks! Trelane (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Foundation/ORTS concern

While working WP:RPP yesterday, I can across two curious protection requests, one made by RepDarrellIIssa (talk · contribs) requesting protection of Darrell Issa and another made by 143.231.249.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) requesting protection of Aaron Schock. Both requests had the same syntax errors, leading me to believe they were made by the same editor. I declined both requests and reported RepDarrellIIssa at WP:UAA (thinking it a possible impersonation of a public figure), leading rather quickly to an Orangemike indef block. Afterwards, I checked the IP and noticed it is listed at WP:SIP as a verified US House of Representatives IP address. I immediately amended OM's block to remove the autoblock. The IP address may indicate that RepDarrellIIssa is indeed the Congressman, which is possibly an ORTS issue, and per WP:SIP blocks of sensitive IPs (I suppose even possible ones) need to be referred to the Foundation. Let me know what else (if anything) needs to be done. Thanks, caknuck ° remains gainfully employed 06:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Issa definitely didn't need protection; Aaron Schock, depending on what he wrote, may or may not have.
If they do need to contact the Foundation (ie. they post on the talk page about it), just direct them to info-en-q@wikimedia dot org and then we can deal with it from there.
I would however make sure Steve contacted the Communications Committee as it suggests to do on Special:BlockIP under "Sensitive addresses". Cheers, Daniel (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Stefan Grun

I have nominated Stefan Grun, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Grun (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Plastikspork (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #24

The January–February issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list. Jason Rees (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Les Twentyman

It would be helpful for those contributing to the Les Twentyman article for you to explain your issues with it. You have restored a number of errors to it and have blocked a number of users. Less high-handedness would be appreciated. --Memsuleyman (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swoopo

Which blog are you having an issue with? wp:SPS does not say any blog is unreliable, and Ian Ayres's NYT blog seems pretty notable/reliable! This has been hashed out already at the talk page and the article's former AFD. Please have a look at the consensus already built. NJGW (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show where it's been published previously in a third-party reliable source, as mentioned by that section. Further, given you have been reverting to restore a) a derogatory modification to "auction", b) a decidedly negative quote from the not-terribly-reliable hate-machine that is The Register, and c) a section, without any reliable sources, which is of undue weight and overly-negative in tone, you should consider whether you have a conflict of interest in this. I care a grand total of 0 for the former AfD; I am acting in response to an OTRS ticket, and myself and the OTRS team will evaluate the content on its merits, not on some prior-formed consensus which most likely lacked users who have experience with dealing with such issues. Daniel (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Register issue is quite secondary. I was more interested in reverting the game theory information that was removed. I placed a reliable source (already used in the article) in the game theory section [1]. Employees of this company were edit warring over this article, so the fact that they were caught makes me not surprised at all that they would wait a bit before trying some other tactic. This is not an auction site. Let me know if you need more info. NJGW (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is an auction site, until you can show me a reference which says otherwise. The NYT blog is not a reliable source, period; it lacks editorial oversight and is not a third party published reliable source. The history of the article is irrelevant to the content when I evaluated it, as I said above in reference to the argument that the AfD "consensus" contradicted my action. Sorry, but I think you're wrong here. Daniel (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly, there is some information that you're not aware of as part of the OTRS process, and I cannot share the sensitive details of this with you, unfortunately. In the end, the information (especially that in the "Game theory" section) appears to be factually inaccurate and unsupported by any third-party non trivial sources. If we can get proper sourcing for this section I'd be fine with re-adding it. Until then, lets remember that Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So they're threatening to sue. That's their only option, and I have no comeback for that. It's not factually inaccurate though, and we have a PhD in economics[2] saying so. There was a link somewhere that had a Swoopo spokesperson claiming the site wasn't really an auction site... I'm looking for it now. NJGW (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I have right now:
  • news24.com "a heady combination of gambling, shopping and auctions - is a piece of moderately evil genius."
  • Washington Post ""Entertainment Shopping" With a Hint of Scam"... "The auction is considerably different than other sites - EBay included."
  • German press release - They call themselves "entertainment shopping portal" even in German, but not "auction site" or "auction portal"
I have to go out now, but please have a look at these two sources and another look at Ian Ayers (I'd fix the link above but I don't want to upset Daniel), as well as the NYT blog (which has a staff editor--perhaps worth emailing her with questions about this issue)[3]. I think the interview where the spokesperson says something strange about them not being an a regular auction site is in the current refs, but I'll have another look later. NJGW (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arg! Ian Ayres. Sorry. NJGW (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't mind if you fix it, provided that I'm not responding to your initial message at the time :) Daniel (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found the interview I was looking for, but it was actually in reference to their "auctions" for $1000 cash, which the spokesman admitted were a "promotion".[4] So what are the concerns with the reliability of the Ayres piece? I would email them to the editor of the blog myself, but I don't know what exactly to ask. What can we say without causing trouble. Also, what are the specific issues with the game theory section that was removed (so that I know what pay attention to in any redrafts)? NJGW (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rjd dealt with the OTRS ticket directly - it's up to him as to what he wants to release with regards to it. Daniel (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The game theory section is just unverified and has no sources. It should be fine if you can add some. I'm going to unprotect the article now. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But what are the concerns with the Ayres article. It is a blog in name, but is written by a PhD in Econ on an Econ subject and has editorial oversight. If there are specific concerns about using the Ayres piece, I would like to forward them to the editor to see if they can be resolved. NJGW (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simply the fact that it is a blog makes me hesitant to use it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that you're in a tough spot, but if the concerns they've raised about the piece are unfounded then I'm not sure what the problem is. A journalist would be considered a hack compared to Ayres, and there's NYT staff editing the "blog". The only reason they even call it a "blog" instead of a "special economics column" is that it's sexier that way. NJGW (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This blog wasn't linked in the article when we got the complaint, so that is irrelevant. If you think it is reliable then go ahead and use it. I'm sure you understand my concerns with it though. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that they will use the term blog as a pejorative. Can you look at the last version I created and tell me the specific problems with it so I don't revert to something absolutely untenable? I'm going to copy this whole section into the talk page too, so that discussion can continue there and leave Daniel in peace. NJGW (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Friendly note

Thanks. I probably won't bother re-link them as they are no longer linked from WP:MAIN and thus high traffic. And I guess I'm in the doghouse myself, even if at worst I brought a knife to a gunfight. Still, I really fail to understand the obsession of the de-linking camp generally. I just don't get it. -- Kendrick7talk 05:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people are expressing bemusement generally, indeed. Daniel (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the bemusement is over the fact that such a minor issue has caused so much ruckus, especially when so much of Wikipedia has moved on. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no autoformatting and we're stuck with whatever raw text there is, then the importance of the "Manual of Style" (and its cadre of protectors) is increased. The argument, like most things in this testosterone-driven world, is driven by power relationships. The MOSNUM folk believe they'll have more power with a plain text system than with an automated software system, which they see as giving up power to software developers. --Sapphic (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Testosterone-driven world. eh... you're speaking to the wrong person for that :D —Dark talk 08:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(to Sapphic:) Interesting. Would you also have insights on the motivations of software developers? The motivations of "link dates" editors? Or the motivations of 190 editors who rejected date linking?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yay... Daniel's talk is turning into a de-linking battleground :| (Kindly take your arguments to a more appropriate forum) —Dark talk 20:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie P. Peirce

Can you expand on why this person wishes to have their article deleted? I tend to agree with Crusio's comment that we should try to address the issue rather than delete the article (especially since she appears to meet the inclusion criteria without the article containing any obvious contentious material) - Mgm|(talk) 12:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not until I receive a guarantee from DGG that he won't be using this as an example to force change to the BLP policy (which he stated as his intention via email). I'm not going to release any OTRS information if there is any intention of using this subject as a "policy example" in the future, which would naturally only serve to embarrass the subject further.
In summary: no, not at the moment, sorry. When DGG gets back to me as to his intentions, I'll be able to reconsider what I can release, after consulting the Foundation as to the degree of confidentiality I must respect (and hence what would be reasonable disclosure). Daniel (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonja Elen Kisa

When you deleted the history of the Sonja Elen Kisa article it had already been merged into Toki Pona. Is there a text version of the deleted history somewhere? —Snigbrook 13:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries themselves contain BLP violations, and the damage I'd need to cause the text version of the log to remove them seemed to outweigh any balance to the two-sentence-long part that was merged. Daniel (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerks

Assuming, of course, he's correct, this seems pedantic in the extreme. Since when did people fixing mistakes become unwelcome?--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because he wasn't correct. I wouldn't have reverted otherwise. Daniel (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comodo

Daniel, I see that you have made a major revision of the Comodo article. Thanks. Just to let you know, I am planning to make some big edits there myself. If you like, please visit my user page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Katharine908 to get a preview and make any comments. I didn't want you to feel that I was undoing your work. Katharine908 (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dietrich v The Queen

Is on FAR. Have you studied about this? because Bainer did which is why he wrote about it. It needs refs mainly, if you already know where it is in your textbook that would be conveneint. Or to refer us to some comprehensive ones with a similar scope on the FAr page. Thanks. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'm the FAR delegate now, although I won;t be closing this one unless it's obviously to delist 10-0 or something (I already tried to ref some) YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly every textbook on AU law will make some mention of Dietrich, but often not enough to reference. I'll have a look at my library on Wednesday or Thursday and reference it up, hopefully. Daniel (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you had to study it yet? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not in any great detail, no. Daniel (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PING! YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the library now :) Daniel (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well just whack in whatever overlap there is between teh book and the article. I guess I should nom every weak looking Aus FA so bilby can clean it up.... YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again sir, while the law books might be open Al-Kateb v Godwin is now at the bottom of the Australian FA vulnerables list....YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost


The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Perfect. Thanks :) — Roger Davies talk

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usability wiki impostor

That's an impostor -- please block it. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I think it's been dealt with/being dealt with...cos it's not part of the Wikimedia wiki tree for some reason, stewards couldn't do anything. Daniel (talk) 05:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about reverted FfD tags

[5] & [6] - Two GFDL-presumed images that say "for Wikipedia use". Uploader had disappeared, but now apparently has a different name and is an admin, and is offended by my nomination. They don't seem to understand what the problem is, and are simply rolling back my tags (which, of course, doesn't stop the deletion discussion). I don't want to offend this admin any further, I'm not sure what to do. Any advice or action would be appreciated. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd...done. Regards, Daniel (talk) 06:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! My guess is that he was just too irritated that his images were up for deletion to think it all the way through. Cheers! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

heh

Admit it, buddy... "This user has never experienced this phenomena due to his severe case of agoraphobia" was pure class :) —Dark talk 07:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

orly. Daniel (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, 4chan is that way. —Dark talk 07:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Tasmanian Wilderness
Boodjamulla National Park
Cardwell, Queensland
Murray River National Park
Félag íslenskra þjóðernissinna
Criterion validity
Daintree National Park
Nullarbor National Park
Green Island National Park
Lake Gairdner National Park
Mole Creek Karst National Park
Endeavour River National Park
Malayer
Chadinga Conservation Reserve
Witjira National Park
Canunda National Park
Reggae Sumfest
Great Sandy National Park
Central Districts Stags
Cleanup
Katapayadi sankhya
Sunnyside, Staten Island
Residence park
Merge
Saint Andrew's Junior School
Mount Field National Park
Saldanha Bay
Add Sources
Mount Barney National Park
King Henry VIII Grammar School
Brisbane Ranges National Park
Wikify
Anterograde amnesia
Holy Cross Convent School
Blackstone Valley Regional Vocational Technical High School
Expand
Wooroonooran National Park
Richard Jordan
Pastoral lease

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your icons

Hi – I'm just wondering why your icon page (User:Daniel/Icons) is protected? Cheers! Cycle~ (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's transcluded and previous pages which have been used as templates for tranclusion in my userspace have been vandalised by sleeper sockpuppets. The protection policy is a joke generally, given 90% of all protections I do probably violate it anyways. I'm just wondering why you used bolding in your comment? Plus, I would have thought users who so proudly parade about their "rollbacker" status (lol @ people proud to have rollback) have more important things to do than bother administrators with such pettiness. Daniel (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:In the news

Erm...it would have been nice if you had have discussed your concerns on the Main Page talk page, given there was an existing consensus of established Wikipedians who thought it was acceptable. Daniel (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read the discussion and saw no clear consensus. And frankly, the wording used went beyond misleading to flat-out false. —David Levy 11:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What, you're disputing that North Korea and South Korea are currently engaged in a football match which serves as a qualifier for the 2010 World Cup? You seriously have lost it with all your fun policing. Daniel (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm disputing that the football match can reasonably be described as a "hostile stand-off" or a step toward "world domination." And regardless, the underlying implication is inappropriate. This is April Fools' Day, but we're still an encyclopedia. There has to be some limit to the jokes. —David Levy 12:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. To date, I've seen no established Wikipedian agree with your opinion, and seen a number agree that it is wrong. You trying to impose your own personal standard on the Foolery is distinctly against the idea of consensus; or do you consider your gratuitous pursuit of enforcing your own personal standards about the place above such minor details? Certainly seems like it. Daniel (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: is 15 people getting injured and tens of thousands of gallons of oil being spilt into the sea sufficiently "serious" to also receive censure? Daniel (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That blurb accurately states that the event had "severe environmental consequences," which is quite different from implying that a football match is a major military conflict (portraying something minor as something very serious). —David Levy 12:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get "major" from? Is this your own opinion coming through again? I think I see a pattern developing...you speak the holy gospel and we must listen because what you say is indisputably correct. Daniel (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that you would not regard a hostile stand-off between North Korea and South Korea (in the pursuit of world domination) as a major military conflict? Are you suggesting that most people wouldn't? —David Levy 12:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Mydoctor93 and Jeandré du Toit aren't established Wikipedians? Exactly what criteria are you using?
2. Please explain how a football match can reasonably be described as a "hostile stand-off" in the pursuit of "world domination." —David Levy 12:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. I missed Jeandre's, but Mydoctor93's objection was so incredibly ridiculous it was instantly refuted.
2. If you're watching the match you'll see how it could easily be described as a hostile stand-off. Further, South Korea v North Korea football matches have been the forefront of politics on the Korean peninsula this year, with matches being rescheduled and relocated due to the North refusing to play anthems and fly flags of the South. World domination is achieved for whatever teams wins the World Cup for that respective sport; this and this showed up on Google page 1 for a check of the relevant terms, albeit for cricket and rugby league respectively, instead of football. Mainstream media use the term for the winners of the World Cup, so surely that should be good enough for us. Daniel (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. You claimed that you'd "seen no established Wikipedian agree with [my] opinion." Now you're saying that you saw one, but his/her complaint was "incredibly ridiculous." Where did you get this from? Is this your own opinion coming through again? Do you consider your gratuitous pursuit of enforcing your own personal standards about the place above such minor details? I think I see a pattern developing...you speak the holy gospel and we must listen because what you say is indisputably correct.
2. That a term occasionally is used in a non-literal context to mean something other than its widely recognized meaning does not justify doing so here, let alone for the sake of tricking our readers (which the cited headlines do not do).
3. Again, wording issues aside, we need to draw the line somewhere. The blurb's implication simply goes too far. You're entitled to disagree, but I see no consensus for its inclusion. When engaging in April foolery (an indulgence that steps outside our usual editorial boundaries), it always is best to err on the side of caution. I don't know why you choose to interpret the removal of one disputed item as "fun policing." —David Levy 12:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you start being patronisingly ridiculous in replies it's clear there's no point in continuing this discussion. Your reputation as a total fun-killer who likes to impart his own standards onto things without regard to forming consensus preceded you, and it's the only reason I entered into this dialogue. Daniel (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to refer to your own words repeated back to you as "patronisingly ridiculous," that's your prerogative. But sorry, "consensus" ≠ "the opinions of those with whom Daniel agrees." And the notion that objecting to one of the many main page jokes makes me a "total fun-killer" (essentially implying that there are to be absolutely no boundaries) seems rather extreme to me. —David Levy 13:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was the act of repeating them back, not the words themselves. Daniel (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you took offense. I could think of no better (and more playful) means of making my point. Where's your sense of humor?  ;-) —David Levy 13:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neonasigoreng

Thanks for blocking this user. I might note that there isn't any sign on his/her talk page of the block. Nor is there any mention of his NeoNazi name (I think it also is a play on Herman Goehring. In any event, his edit history made his intent clear.) which should also be barred. I know this is beating a dead horse but . . . Thanks again. P.S., I rather enjoyed your page. If you have any thoughts on Frank Murphy (a hobby of mine, and given your legal background, perhaps you have some insight) I'd appreciate your input. Best regards from the other side of the world. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

The reason I didn't bother with a block notice on the talk page was because they're a blatant vandal who quite clearly knew what they were doing; what I did forget to add was {{indefblocked}} (so that it gets put in CAT:TEMP and will be deleted in a month or so). Thanks for reminding me of that one :)
I would suggest he would have been blocked for his username had he not been vandalising anyways; however, vandalism blocks don't allow the user to return under a new username, whereas username blocks do (see {{usernameblock}}), so it's probably better to block him for vandalism as the highest infraction that occured.
Cheers, Daniel (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attack usernames

When I look at Versus22's contributions, I notice evidence that material has been oversighted. Based on the comment you left at Versus22's user talk page, the usernames were removed due to the fact that they were attack usernames. Were those usernames removed from Special:ListUsers as well? -- IRP ☎ 02:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, yes (I assumed so but I wanted to wait to see if an OverSighter could confirm it). Cheers, Daniel (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #25

The March issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list. Jason Rees (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ding!

I sent you email. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied :) Daniel (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for Football as the Australian collaboration

Hi -- I recently nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia/To-do for the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight.

This WikiProject has been inactive for a long time and with the World Cup coming up, it would be good for football (soccer) articles to be in depth and comprehensive in Australia.

If you would like to support it, click here for the project page to cast your vote

Thanks! Australian Matt (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel/Archive/75&oldid=288630553"