User talk:DanielEng/filed3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

User:Hopiakuta

Re your comments at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Hopiakuta, I would appreciate it if this was taken further. I took the issue to the administrators' noticeboard as suggested, and the discussion was closed as resolved with no further action taken - my request that redress regarding the personal attacks the user engages in regularly was left unanswered before the entire discussion was archived. I would support someone else taking this to a higher level, as I don't know how to do it myself. -- Roleplayer (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message! I'm honestly stumped on this one. Something clearly does need to be done--the user seems to have bona fide issues, but that shouldn't exempt him from being civil and working with other users. I'm going to run this situation by an admin or two that I think might be able to help, or at least have some idea where to take this. Give me a little while and I'll see what I can do. Best, DanielEng (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the user for 31 hours as noted at User_talk:Hopiakuta#Block_for_incivility.2C_threats.2C_etc..2C_to_prevent_further_damage. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help here! Best, DanielEng (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tnull|helpme

Sadly, the {{helpme}} tag will not do you much good. The users who respond to this tag are best at helping with "newbie" questions, editing help, and simple edit conflicts. Many of the actions you have already suggested would be a better way to go (admin notification per WP:AN/I or a WP:RFC). You may also want to try a IRC channel for more immediate attention. Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance. If you feel that another editor may respond better than I, please feel free to re-add the {{helpme}} template. Best regards. --omtay 38 07:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stopping in to reply! Ive been completely stumped on this one...it seems as though an RfC might end up being the way to go here. Best, DanielEng (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

I disagree. The purpose of WP:ANI isn't to deal with incivility. Addhoc (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just in the process of leaving you a note, but you beat me to the Talk Page. :) Anyway, when an issue is up at [WP:ANI]] already, it's wise to leave it there and let it run its course. While it might not be a place for incivility complaints per se, they certainly are addressed there. Not to mention that ANI is also overseen by administrators; WQA is not. So there's really nothing we can do to discipline an editor in a case of severe edit warring, personal attacks or incivility.

I'd also add that filing a WQA under someone else's signature is unacceptable. If BgHx had wanted to bring the issue to WQA, s/he could have done so. Copying text from ANI, using someone else's signature and making it appear as though it came from them, as you did here, [1] is not acceptable. In the future, please do not file WQAs for others this way--either file them yourself with your own signature, or suggest that the editor with the problem takes that step. Don't file them in a way that makes them appear as though they came from someone else. Best, DanielEng (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you're wrong. The purpose of WP:ANI is handling incidents, while WP:WQA is dealing with a lack of etiquette. If you had looked at my user page, you would know that I'm an administrator, so I don't require an explanation of admin powers. If you don't want to assist at WP:WQA that's fine, but I don't require your advice. Addhoc (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not going to argue with you about this. Filing a complaint under another person's name, in another forum while the issue is being discussed elsewhere, is out of line, and if you really are an administrator, I'd think you'd be aware of that point. I've never heard of an admin thinking it's acceptable to file WQA complaints under someone else's name, or bringing an issue to WQA without choosing to step in on their own and deal with it themselves. Again, if the user had an problem, s/he could have brought it to us on their own. DanielEng (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't file a complaint under someone else's name, I copied a note that was placed to another forum, and explained my actions in the edit summary. If you want to verify someone is an administrator, you can look at their logs Addhoc (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true, but unless someone were to look at the diffs and the edit history, it appears that the complaint came directly from BigK HeX, not from you. Considering that s/he is involved in an ongoing edit war and has discussions elsewhere, this really did make it appear that s/he was forum shopping, et al. The only signature on that complaint was from BKHx and anyone looking at the page would think that s/he filed it, and s/he--not you--will get the brunt of any criticism for that. It would have clarified things immensely if you'd have left a note at the top of the complaint saying "Hi, I'm filing this on behalf of BKHx" or "I'm sending this over from ANI because I think it belongs here" or something of that nature, indicating it wasn't filed by him/her directly. Again, I think it's better to let people file their own complaints or letting them know they have that option.DanielEng (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Addhoc?

His actions here were highly inappropriate. [2]

I attempted to restore your comments, but was reverted. I started a thread, "Please stop removing comments," but I suspect that will be reverted also.

If you would like to issue an RFC on the matter at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, I would support you. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better to try a Wikipedia:Third opinion first, if you feel more opinions are necessary. RFC is kind of a heavy process (even though its not supposed to be....). --Iamunknown 22:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Zenwhat and Iamunknown, thank you for your support--it's very much appreciated! I do not like Addhoc's actions here at all, and I do think they are out of line, especially for an administrator. Unfortunately he is allowed to remove content from his own Talk Page, but his WQA actions are definitely not OK. For the time being I'm going to leave it alone, but if the situation continues or another WQA like that is filed, it will definitely be an option to seriously consider. And if an RfC is filed against him by anyone else at any point I will be bringing this up. I hadn't thought about using WP:THIRD, but perhaps that would be a way to go right now Best, DanielEng (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WQA archiving

FYI we don't really close or archive WQA threads unless they get out of hand and need a firm "Thread Closed" indicator. We just let MiszaBot do it really. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. Thanks for the heads up. Best, DanielEng (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent kerkuffle

Hey Daniel. In trying to sort through the recent kerkuffle originating at WQA, I ended up writing a fairly lengthy post. I hope it clarifies a few things. (It may already be clear to you, but I figured I should send around a few links to people involved or semi-involved.) You may wish to see my remarks at Zenwhat's talk page: (talk page section) (diff). --Iamunknown 00:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just read through your comments on Zenwhat's page. Thank you for taking the time to sort through this mess and write such a concise, objective and accurate post! You've summed up the issue nicely, and I hope that the others involved will take heed. I think that at this point, it would be wise if all three of them--Addhoc, Zenwhat and BgHex--would just stop reading each other's posts and take a break from editing common articles for a while. I had no idea the issue of user sigs was so heated--that was interesting reading, and I thank you for passing it on. Addhoc's actions, and the fact that he still seems to see nothing wrong, do concern me. I've come back to Wiki tonight to see the escalation continuing on AN/I, and like you, I'm troubled by it. I don't know what the solution is, especially since none of them seem willing to back off at this point. I'm keeping an eye on it, but right now I don't even know what I could offer by jumping into the fray again. Best, DanielEng (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your help on the Aoife Hoey (bobsleigh) article. I really appreciate it. Chris (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. If there's anything else I can do to help, please let me know. I'll keep it on my watchlist so there will be another set of eyes looking out for vandals. Best, DanielEng (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Aoife Hoey (formerly Aoife Hoey (bobsleigh)) article was kept earlier today. Again, thanks. Chris (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's good news. :) Good luck with it, and if there's anything else I can do, let me know. As I mentioned, I'll keep it on my list so any vandalism can hopefully be cut off early. Best, DanielEng (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (Re: Gymnastics)

I just wanted to say "thank you" again for your help and your encouragement. It's great to see other knowledgeable and passionate gymnastics fans on here doing their part to help the presence of gymnastics on Wikipedia. If you check my user page, you can see all the things I've done (hyperlinked-to near the bottom) and either add to them or judiciously edit them or make suggestions or what have you. I've been fairly active lately. You can also check out my contributions history and see just how insane I've been with all of my nitpicky edits and re-edits and re-edits of my own and other people's articles and sections of articles, et. al. Miloluvr (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thanks for your kind words on my talk page, again. At first, I didn't understand what you meant about the World Champion thing - I was wondering what I had done wrong and where. But I saw what you did (to Voronina) - you removed the "World Champion" tag for her. Actually, I often copy and paste the tags from one to the other, making sure I get the countries and categories right, but this one slipped my attention. *eek* But, yes, of course, I would never intentionally call somebody a "world champion" unless they had gotten an individual medal. Also, about the World Cup - well, I kind of disagree. Because the FIG has been so inconsistent for so long, we have trends like the cessation of world cups and introduction of individual-only world championships in the 90s, the re-introduction of the world cups later again, and it gets to be madness. When they had finally (for about a decade) decided on a regular cycle for World Cups (why oh why couldn't they stick to it)?, it ended up being the biggest worldwide competition on even-numbered non-olympic years (e.g....'82, '86, '90). I have no issue with the others that you mention being in the medal table, but I find that the importance of the World Cup and how competitive it truly was justifies it being there. Plus, I think that a lot of it, especially in this case, is little, if any, more than a semantics debate. But then again, I certainly doubt that this is the end of this discussion, and this is Web 2.0 after all, so we shall see, and perhaps I shall be the one to acquiesce.

In any event, thank you again for all of your kind words. My intention is to create pages for each of the about 100 most decorated individuals (100 men, 100 women) at the World/Olympic level, in history, with some consideration to European successes. I was looking at the men, though, and OH MY GOSH, they need a TON of work. Bilozerchev (THE BILOZERCHEV) has only a very tiny stub, Sawao Kato (greatest male olympian gymnast ever?) is completely absent, as well as Korolev, and so many others. So, there is still a lot of work to do.

Still, if there are any suggestions you can come up with, please send them my way.

Oops. Forgot to sign the above. Here I am, mere seconds after, correcting that. Miloluvr (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was also wondering what you think about ordering in the medal tables. I know that often, all the Golds are listed first. However, I think it's more revealing to show things by year and then by olympic order. That way, a sort of progression or regression can be shown, via a timeline. People can easily see the gold, silver, and bronze because of the colouring. I know there's also the chart at the bottom of a few pages, but that's not as visible, and it's a little unnecessary and repetetive and more work, imo. Plus, that's what references and external links are for and I don't know that Wikipedia is supposed to have an exhaustive entry for everybody. But then again, some people may argue my adding people like Bosakova, Lazakovich, and others I will add later. Just wanted to know what you think about all of this. Miloluvr (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMGOMGOMG!!! I just saw what you did to my Alternate Olympics - Gymnastics page. I. LOVE. YOU!!! That is bloody AWESOME!!! I didn't look at it incredibly thoroughly, so in accordance with the vision I had for it, I might want to discuss with you some possible changes, but then again, there might not be any I'd want to make. Anyway, THIS IS BLOODY AWESOME!!! Thank you so much!!! I have also done some looking around at other stuff that needs to be done, especially for MAG, and it is a nightmare. LOL! Again, YOU ROCK THE WORLD!!! Miloluvr (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your viewing pleasure, what may be my all-time masterpiece creation (dunno if I'll evver top it): Yuri Korolev. Also, if you look at his page as well as the one you made for Ivan Ivankov, you will notice that I added a footer which exists for the women and should exist for the men, also. Later, I will go back and add it to all other relevant Male World Gymnastics All-Around Champion Bio Pages. Miloluvr (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another thank you

After an exchange with a hostile fellow editor that's left me too dispirited to return for awhile, I've just made a tentative step back in, and saw your supportive comments at Wikipedia:WQA#Talk-page flaming and insults about me and about my attempts at etiquette toward that editor. I just want you to know how much I appreciate in general your volunteering the time to help people on that page, and in particular for kind words about my efforts. It means a lot to me, to know that the time and work I put in, out of love for the topic and a journalist's sense of duty toward accuracy and perspective, finds some appreciation and acknowledgment among other editors. Thank you, Daniel. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome and I'm glad I could help. I'm sorry you had to deal with such a negative editor--it's definitely discouraging and disheartening to put so much work in, and to be treated in an adversarial manner in return. You contribute to a lot of really interesting articles and do great work here, and I hope you won't come across such a bad situation again. Thank you for your note! And please let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Best, DanielEng (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re to message on my page

And thank you for letting me know. Best, Dahn (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know too. -- AdrianTM (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Do you have a valid e-mail address? Care to e-mail me if possible? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had a chance to set up a Wiki-associated email yet, and I'm only passing through tonight, but give me a day or so and I will email you. Best, DanielEng (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why do you think I am a sockpuppet? I was reading the PowerPuff Girls page, when I saw the discussion page. I really didn't know what a discussion page was, so I checked it out. When I saw Treelo, I thought of the pokemon treeko, I went to see if there was any connection. But when I read his page, I saw that he was kinda nasty. So, I kept reading, looking for Treeko, and I found out how mean this guy was. So I went to the wikipedia page and told them about it.The C. Leader (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been on Wiki for a day and you're already complaining about people and deciding they're mean? And you know how to file a WQA report in the same timespan, you know about blocks, and you also just happen to be listed in an ongoing Suspected Sockpuppet case filed by the same user you complained about on WQA? Curiouser and curiouser! DanielEng (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh maby I read the rules. Besides, I already said that I thought that user was named after the pokemon. Also, you can't just say that I am a sockpuppet. Get evidence. And I have no clue why my name is on sockpuppet list. Wow, if I had known that Wikipedia was this bad, I would never had joined.The C. Leader (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

shrug* I'm not going to argue about it with you. Besides, I'm not the one you need to convince, because I have nothing to do with your sock puppet case. I'm sure you know how to locate the case that is open about you, and you're welcome to defend yourself there. I have absolutely nothing to do with it, so leaving me messages trying to convince me otherwise won't do you any good. Anyway, it's really no of consequence to me if you're a sock or not, but if you're not, you're doing a very good imitation of one. This isn't my concern and I'm not getting involved. Discussion ended. DanielEng (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fringe users

Have you not noticed User:Martinphi's Wikiproject involvement? I highly doubt that there can be any reasoned discussion, given that, with the exception of you and me, are polarized on both sides of the dispute -- one side actively promotes the fringe theory, the other disputes it. seicer | talk | contribs 05:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but only after the fact. The entire WQA seems to have spun completely out of control there. I don't even know how to resolve it at this point--they got an apology out of the editor, what more did they want? It's a mess. DanielEng (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS I haven't forgotten about email. I'll get myself over to Gmail before the weekend's out. :)DanielEng (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]