User talk:Daniel/Archive/65

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 64 · Archive 65 · Archive 66 →

Re: Rollback

Sorry, I was using huggle and I assumed that it was an article, and not a talk page. Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 02:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problems. Non-administrator rollback can be used through Huggle? Interesting - you learn something every day. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yamashita's gold

This page is currently protected, so I would like to ask you to change the current category Category:World War II -> Category:Japanese war crimes...at least until there is a subcategory alleged crimes, or myths of World War II. In nay case, I'm not involved, just doing root category maintenance. Thank you--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the protection permanently. Daniel (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, would you know an easy way to remove the Media in category "World War II"? The images were deleted, but not the articles, so not sure if IfD is required, or some other way.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AWB, maybe. Not really sure, sorry. Daniel (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-.-

Less bureaucracy and more article work!!! You're getting horribly immersed in wikipolitics, Danny... Must be the political-atmosphere-at-university rubbing off on you :P *flees* —Dark ^talk 11:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we'll ignore the OTRS tickets I just replied to... and the articles I'm writing in Notepad... and my edits on other Wikimedia projects... :) Daniel (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lies... Riana's been doing all your article work for you. I am extremely disappointed why you did not attribute her for her years of making FAs for you. Against the spirit of GFDL and your university's ethic code. *talks out of his ass* —Dark ^talk 11:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other wikimedia projects such as meta... articles on wikipedia's policies and OTRS on what someone said on ANI :P —Dark ^talk 11:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hello. What I meant by that was it can help you know what the tools do. But it cannot help you at an RfA at all. Just knowing the tools doesn't mean you can become an administrator here. Here, you must use the tools with responsibility rather than blocking any random user here, along with protecting the right pages, deleting appropriate pages that have been decided at AfD, etc. At the Test Wiki, you can only learn what the tools do and what they are like. I'm sorry if you misunderstood my comment. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 15:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my RfA - Ta!

Vandal Proof

Vandal Proof Request Backlog, Can you clear it? Prom3th3an (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted here, unfortunately I currently do not have access to the interface, which means I can't approve anyone for use at this time. Sorry, Daniel (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

for the extended positive comments and feedback on my RFA. It means a lot to hear such emphasis on things that I hold dear such as your actual content and good communication. And to return the compliment, I am always impressed by what I see you do around the place. Thanks very much again! --Slp1 (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord Daniel, that must be the most enthusiastic support you have ever given. (I'll go back to my hole before you come stabbing me...:p ) —Dark ^talk 11:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slp1: No worries, and thanks for the compliment in return. I hope to see another of your articles on the Main Page as TFA sooner rather than later :)

DarkFalls: Is it permissable to block you for disrupting my article-writing yet? *runs* Daniel (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

Daniel, I tried to remove the superfluous commentary added to the logs of this page, but certain users didn't like it. I've seen this a few times ... the comments invite further comments, inviting a whole discussion in the log, which it isn't supposed to be about. The block was reasonable and lenient, that Betacommand didn't like it is hardly noteworthy (his complaints in any case concern some editors he was reverting, though I blocked him for personal attacks, one of which was directed against an editor entirely uninvolved in that particular revert war). Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Hopefully this will solve the problem of making all the facts available without presenting interpretations of fact. I agree that the section is not designed to be used a forum to note the blockee's continued objection to the block, and thanks for raising it on my talk page so I could resolve it. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that definitely sorts it, Daniel. Thanks. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, Daniel, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! User:Daniel (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Idontknow 610^TM 19:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halosean's "bites"

(continued from Halosean's talk page)...Although, I did notice you continuously bugged him about his edits and what you called "bites." Even though they were bites, you did cause him to give the bites. So actually, your constant bugging about his edits got him giving bites and getting blocked. Later :-| The SRS 03:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, my comments were entirely appropriate. Please fix your signature, it is ridiculously long and unreadable. Daniel (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute, how is my signature too long and hard to read? It clearly says The $R$/Habla/Hancock! What about this signature? SexySeaFlounder^{The $R$} 03:34 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I never attacked you, I am sorry if I offended you, alll I ask is for you to stop reminding me to read some pages that I HAVE ALREADY told you I have read. Thanks,-- <<Se an G >> 02:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then apply the things you "read" rather than blatantly contradicting them. Daniel (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

I'm on now if you need to talk in #sssi. I had to nip out earlier this morning, but I'm there now. Qst (talk) 10:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email reply/IRC (monoxide)? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Design page

Daniel, since I happen to recall that you loved, loved, loooooved the shops discussions of half a year ago, I was wondering if you'd look at User:SimpsonsFan08/WikiDesign and the question I've posted to its talk page. Just like the shops, it appears to be duplicating the functions of other projects on Wikipedia. The only difference is that they don't call each other workers or employees and there is no "Wikibucks" system. There is a bit of the elitism/exclusionary system though in the members section (there can only be two founders ever, you must do X and Y to be a member, etc.). It also has the elements of the bureaucracy of the past shops (fill out this form, do it exactly like this, ~~stand in line 34 where you'll be another form to fill out in triplicate~~ etc.) Any thoughts? Thanks, Metros (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed about the Membership section. I suggest speaking with Peter, who is SF08's mentor — Peter has never edited the page, so it's fair to suggest his name being there doesn't necessarily endorse the pages' existance. Better to nip this in the bud now rather than have to go down the Gp75motosports route. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally see no harm in it. SimpsonsFan just wanted to do something project-based, so designing userpages was his suggestion. I've never personally been interested in userpage design (as you can probably see from my own userpage!) and I've been out most of today so I've only just seen the more completed draft. There are definite problems--the members section sounds a bit like WP:OWN, the "founders" sounds a bit WP:JIMBO and the whole process thing is bordering on unnecessary bureaucracy. However, at the same time, all it boils down to is informal requests to have the userpage spruced up, which seems quite harmless to me. I'm not aware of any previous discussions about similar things, but is this really such a problem? If it turns out to be then I'm sure it won't be a problem for it to be closed, but SimpsonsFan seems committed to it and I've agreed to play a supporting role in just overseeing it. RyRy5 (talk · contribs) has also expressed interest in designing, as that is his one of his key interests. What do you think? PeterSymonds (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem provided he actually still edits the mainspace mainly, it doesn't become bureaucratic or restricted in any way, and he doesn't annoy anyone in using it. Daniel (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current senior Australian Defence Organisation personnel AfD

Hi, I see that you've reverted the non-admin closure of this discussion. Could you now please re-close it per WP:SNOW? The nominating editor agrees that WP:SNOW should apply at: User talk:Travellingcari#Early AFD. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done given MBianz's post-close comments. 'Twas a terrible nom-administrator close regardless :) Daniel (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notified his adopter about this and a couple of others and then gave MBisanz the heads up on it _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Daniel (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

(Cross posted at User talk:Anonymous Dissident, User talk:Daniel, and User talk:Keeper76.)

As it's something you've expressed an interest in, you might want to see my most recent comment here—the "I'm going to go ping a few people now about this" refers to the people this has been cross-posted to (though I am appreciative of everyone else, who knows who they are!).

Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Daniel (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement Photo Request for Rachel Marsden Article

Rachel Marsden has sent an email to OTRS (the email is copied on the talk page of the article, here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rachel_Marsden#New_Photo ) requesting that the photo used in her BLP be replaced with a more generic one which she has given to us under free licence. The admins over at the Rachel Marsden page are requesting that someone from OTRS go in and approve the use of the new photo (in Image file and Commons as Rachelheadshot.jpg) and insert it into the article. Otherwise, it's being blocked. If you could do so, it would be much appreciated. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainmaker2005 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All dealt with, see Talk:Rachel Marsden#New Photo. Thanks to Krimpet for the final step. Daniel (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Hunger

Hi. I see your warning on Great Hunger. I'm going to report Domer48 for 3rr, although he's not done all 4 reverts in 24 hours, his edits indicate an intention to keep reverting. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, sure, but he won't be blocked. If he or anyone else starts edit warring again, I'll revert them and ban them from the page. Daniel (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only did it because the article is subject to Arbcom ruling and apparently there's been huge fighting in the past. If I'm pushing the line with my edits on the article please let me know. As far as I'm concerned I'm adding value, but I think I've reverted Domer's reverts twice now, so I'm getting nervous. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again (sorry about all this, but I just saw that you're one of the mentors on the article so i guess you're a good person to ask). Based on what Scarian is telling me, should I consider myself "warned off" the Great Hunger page and stop editing there for a while? The LEAD is (IMHO) getting there, but it could still stand improvement and better referencing. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably better not to edit it further until the dispute over the lead is resolved. Just pretend the lead is full-protected and not editable - that was the idea of mentors, to prevent the entire article being locked due to disputes when it would be better just to have the article unlocked and temporary measures put in place to act as a quasi-protection of the disputed parts. Daniel (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just say that IMHO Wotapalaver has added value to the article by providing a logical, coherent, overview of the Famine for the first time in the history of the article. Until recently the article was (IMHO) muddled, prolix, repetitive and incomplete. A mess...I support all editors who are trying to make constructive edits there. Colin4C (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I'm not in the business of caring what the content in the article looks like. My job is to keep the articles' development overall from degenerating due to edit warring etc. The people you need to convince are those on the talk page, not me. I'm not making any binding content decisions. Daniel (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not edit for a while and will make suggested additions/mods on the talk page. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Much appreciated. Daniel (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RyRy5 and AFD

I've been trying to help out RyRy5 the best I can. I haven't dealt with AFDs much recently, so I was pretty conservative. I told him not to snow close this, this, or this, but did think he'd be fine closing this one since it had been over five days. I agree with you that he should only be closing AFDs five days old for a while, but I disagree with your edit summary here. Non-admins can snow close AFDs, TenPoundHammer does it all the time and Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure says, "An AFD decision is either to 'keep' or 'delete' the article. AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to 'keep'. The AFD decision may also include a strong recommendation for an additional action such as a "merge" or 'redirect'. In many cases, the decision to 'keep' or 'delete' may be conditional on the community's acceptance of the additional action. These recommendations do represent the community consensus and also should not be overturned lightly. However, these are actions which can be taken by any editor and do not require 'admin powers'." Now I'm rambling a lot more than I wanted to, I just wanted to jump in and say that while non-admins can snow close AFDs, I agree that that RyRy5 should stick to five-day-old ones for a while. Useight (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a non-administrator snow closes any AfD nominated by an administrator, I will revert. That's my general rule. It is disrespectful of a non-administrator to snowball keep a nomination made by an administrator, in my opinion. Administrators are promoted for having good judgement, and to have a non-administrator who hasn't been vetted in such a way closing an AfD after 24 hours seems to be contradictary. That's for the same reason why non-administrators shouldn't be closing discussions as "keep" where an administrator has given a "delete" opinion - administrators are trusted for their judgement, and they deserve the ability to have their argument judged on its merits by someone who has been vetted to do so, rather than have a non-administrator see five bolded "keeps" and close. In effect, a nomination is the same as a "delete" !vote. Daniel (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I saw this on my watchlist so don't mind me) So, what you're saying is that admins are the "super delegates?" RC-0722 ^361.0/1 00:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, just that their judgement has been vetted by the community. Can you link to a page where your judgement has been vetted by a large number of users? Daniel (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you're coming from, although I'm not sure I agree with all of that. A non-admin closure of an admin's nomination after only 24 hours does seem contradictary to the trust of that admin's judgement which had been indicated via that admin's successful RFA. However, it's not against the rules for a non-admin to close an AFD, and I think it'd be fine to do so as long as sufficient time has gone by (24 hours does seem too short), but admins are not elitists (and I don't think that you think they are), but it is also true that their judgement has been vetted by the community. Either way, I'm getting off topic here, RyRy5 has indicated that he will not close AFDs until they are five days old, that's all I really wanted to say. Useight (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, provided the RyRy5 problem was solved now (rather than solving later with a topic ban or similar as has been required with other users like him), then I figure this is resolved. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um?

OK, I was in the midst of responding when you archived. With all do respect, I'm not critiquing, I actually agree with what you're saying. I was just trying to draw an analogy. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 01:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. I tend to archive after a topic is resolved between the major participants. Daniel (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 01:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stabbing party?

*gets his knives sharpened...* —Dark ^talk 09:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... :) Daniel (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA.

Yeah, I forwarded the e-mail to WJB. · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. He's dealt with a situation like this before, so I'm confident he'll do a good job resolving the issue. Daniel (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure he will. · AndonicO ^Engage. 02:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Your statement here is impressive: you deserve this barnstar for your great skills in writing that nomination. :) Acalamari 01:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Hunger

In light of this discussion, here, and based on the responses here and here, further discussion is pointless. Having attempted to address this issue here also I have no reason to believe the discussion will move on. Now as has been pointed out here, this article is under an Arbcom Ruling here, with conditions outlined here under Principles and here under Remedies. I’m now requesting that Mentor’s intervene and address this issue. “All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page.” As the article history shows, no discussion took place prior to the changes being implemented. No issues in relation to the Lead Section were raised prior to the discussion on the proposal to change the Article Name. The Article Lead Section only became an issue when one of the editors posts of a “Timeline” were removed under our guidelines of WP:LEAD. Since then I have placed a detailed outline of why the edits should be removed, including WP:OR, which is pacifically mentioned in the Principles section which is clearly indicated and outlined above. Since this is the first time that Mentor’s have had to intervene, should I direct this to them or to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement? The solution I would favour is for the Article Lead to be returned to last Stable Version, and issues raised can then be discussed as to content being added. The proposal currently being made on the talk page is aimed a addressing a problem created by the recent contentious additions, and not building upon a non-contentious and stable version. For that reason, I consider the proposal premature. To illustrate the dificulty just one example:

Article says:The British Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel, immediately recognizing that the circumstances in Ireland meant that this crop failure could cause famine, ordered corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission set up.[3]

Actual Source says: "The Great Famine begins. Prime Minister Robert Peel orders corn and meal to be sent from the United States."

Editors response: “I have the book to which notes 3 to 8 refer in my hand at the moment: Ireland: History of a Nation (2002) by David Ross. Checking it I see that the appropriate text of the article is supported by reference to this book…” Colin4C (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, --Domer48 (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel. Domer48 is reverting, butchering the lead again. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under the circumstances I have no alternative but to direct your attention to the recent edits on the Article. I have detailed my concerns here and in the absence of any worthwhile response acted upon them. The recent changes here has resulted in the deliberate re-insertion of factually incorrect information. Because of our policy on Copy-Vio’s I have emailed you a copy of the page being quoted. --Domer48 (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel. Domer48's edits on the lead have rendered it unreadable nonsense. Also, I just saw that he was warned by a user called Ryan Postlethwaite to stop reverting. His edits on the lead, particularly this complex revert [1] come after that warning and are spectacularly bad edits. I, and apparently also Colin4C, are refraining from editing the lead but at some point mentors are going to have to do something. Domer48 isn't engaging on the talk page, he's just throwing sand in the air all the time with continuous meaningless policy quotations. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel. Domer48 has now finally entirely reverted all of the recent contributions to the Lead, made by me, Colin4C and Bardcom. What do you suggest should be done? An edit war isn't allowed or advisable, but Domer48 is just reverting and reverting. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent an email to the other two mentors asking for their thoughts. I unfortunately need to leave in 5mins, so I have no time to deal with it. Daniel (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all Daniel, like I have said, should you require any additional information please let me know. As edit warring has again started I will awaite your opinions. --Domer48 (talk) 09:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another monster revert from Domer48 just now, despite more attempts to get discussion going on the talk page. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 21	19 May 2008	About the Signpost

Pro-Israeli group's lobbying gets press, arbitration case	Board elections: Voting information, new candidates
Sister Projects Interview: Wikibooks	WikiWorld: "Hodag"
News and notes: Russian passes Swedish, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Good article milestone	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Volume 4, Issue 22	26 May 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections: Candidate questions	Single User Login opt-in for all users
Community-related news sources grow	WikiWorld: "Tomcat and Bobcat"
News and notes: Wikimedia DE lawsuit, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured sounds	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 (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need graphics editing help

I noticed you are listed to help people in designing their user pages.

Well, I need help with a similar type of thing - graphics editing.

I'm preparing to coordinate this: and for it I'm developing some awards. Each award will include an image, and that's where I need help...

I've got to have all the awards done by July 15th, and I don't even have the first one finished yet.

I'm looking for someone who knows how (or is interested in jumping in and learning how) to work on images in xcf format using GIMP, or Inkscape, etc. (Because I and others will need to be able to edit each image's layers after you are done with it).

If this sounds like something you are interested in helping with, please drop me a note.

By the way, both GIMP and Inkscape are free, making it easy to get started from scratch.

I look forward to your reply.

The Transhumanist 12:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not me. Daniel (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Tonelli

Not forthcoming? That's strange. He seems like he was wanting to get his message out. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, indeed. Daniel (talk) 07:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great hunger

Under the ArbCom ruling a number of principles were agreed upon by the ArbCom. While editwarring and reverting were not directly addressed, Verifiable information and original research were. While you have focused on the issues which were not directly addressed, you have ignored the ones which were. That the ones you ignore are directly responsible for the ones not listed appears to me at least strange. Ignoring the causes and focusing on the symptoms, and not alone that but targeting one of the editors who is trying to improve the article. While I get warnings on my talk page here and here on reverting, I appear to be the only one. Having engaged on the talk page here, here, here, here, here, here and now here, I get warnings. Now can you explain to me why this is? Why are you reluctant to enforce the rulings of the ArbCom?

Now here is some examples from the revert you failed to address or even mention.

Examples:

Actual Source verbatim: Famine begins. Prime Minister Robert Peel orders corn and meal to be sent from the United States. A Relief Commission is set up under Edward Lucas. David Ross, Ireland: History of a Nation, Geddes & Grosset (Scotland 2006) ISBN 13: 978 1 84205 164 1 , p. 311

Actual text added to article: The British Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel, immediately recognizing that the circumstances in Ireland meant that this crop failure could cause famine, ordered Indian corn and meal to be sent from the United States and a Relief Commission set up.

Actual Source verbatim: Whig government falls. Lord Russell's Tory government halts food and relief works (re-instates them by end of year). The Central Relief Committee of the Society of Friends is set up to alleviate suffering.David Ross, Ireland: History of a Nation, Geddes & Grosset (Scotland 2006) ISBN 13: 978 1 84205 164 1 , p. 311

Actual text added to article: The new Whig administration under Lord Russell, influenced by their laissez-faire belief that the market would provide the food needed, then halted government food and relief works leaving many hundreds of thousands of people without any work, money or food. David Ross, Ireland: History of a Nation, Geddes & Grosset (Scotland 2006) ISBN 13: 978 1 84205 164 1 , p. 311

Actual text added to article: Private initiatives such as The Central Relief Committee of the Society of Friends (Quakers) attempted to fill the gap caused by the end of government relief and eventually the government reinstated the relief works, although bureaucracy made food supplies slow to be released. David Ross, Ireland: History of a Nation, Geddes & Grosset (Scotland 2006) ISBN 13: 978 1 84205 164 1 , p. 311

Now are you going to answer my queries and address this, or sit on your hands and wait for the opportunity to issue me another warning? Please address the cause of the problem, the people adding un-sourced material and/or original research and edit warring to keep it in the article, instead of threatening to article ban the person trying to keep it out of the article. I don't see a single warning for edit warring on anyone else's talk page, despite them edit warring to retain disputed information. I should not need to go for RFC or Third Opinion, we've already been all the way up to ArbCom and various principles were established, and if they were actually upheld things would go a lot smoother for everyone. So where from here? Domer48 (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You spammed this to all three mentors. Angus has dealt with it. I have nothing more to add to his statements, and am presently using this time for OTRS rather than duplicating mentor statements. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to discussion

“All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page,” per ArbCom ruling. This revert by a single purpose account Editor was accompanied with the Edit Summary “removed after discussion.” This is the outline of the “discussion” which resulted in the above reversion. The editor proposes removing it here. I respond here, suggesting I reference it. I almost immediately put forward a reference, and said I would provide more. My answer noting a policy based reason was based on a previous proposal here, which gave no rational. The first editor to respond had no real objection, did not even ask why remove it. I asked why they wanted to remove it, and they said they wanted to make it flow better and beside they never heard of it. The editor who previously had no objection supported its retention bending sources. The editor who proposed it be removed, removes from the article and only then responds on the article talk page, rejecting the source and any other source provided, under a completely different rational. Is this what constitutes discussion? When I see the amount of discussing I was doing and I still got a warning? Where is the consensus for its removal, and were is the discussion for that matter. --Domer48 (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[2], [3], [4], [5] , [6], [7]. --Domer48 (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per above. Daniel (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clem Hill

I've opined on my talk page. Heh. Time for a bit of olden-day school rivalry. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Famine

Hi. Do you reckon it's safe for me to try editing that article again, or should I stick to the talk pages for another while? Wotapalaver (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. What type of edits were you contemplating making? Daniel (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Global rights usage

What is the purpose of this page? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To define our implementation of meta:Anti-vandal fighter, and which category we will fall under at meta:Anti-vandal fighter/Wikis. Daniel (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]