User talk:Daniel/Archive/1

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Meta![edit]

أهلا Daniel/Archive/1 ، ومرحبا بك في ويكيميديا ميتا ويكي! يعمل هذا الموقع على تنسيق ومناقشة كل مشاريع ويكيميديا. ربما سيكون مفيدا لك مطالعة صفحة السياسات هنا. إذا كنت مهتما بأمور الترجمة، راجع ميتا:بابلون. يمكنك أيضا ترك ملاحظة في ميتا:بابل (من فضلك راجع أولا التعليمات هناك قبل ترك الملاحظة). إذا أردت الاستفسار عن شئ ، لا تتردد في سؤالي في صفحة نقاشي. تمتع بالتحرير هنا!

Hola Daniel/Archive/1! Benvingut a la Meta-Wiki de la Fundació Wikimedia! Aquest lloc està fet per a coordinar i discutir tots els projectes de la Fundació Wikimedia. Potser us serà útil llegir la nostra pàgina de polítiques (en anglès). Si us interessen les traduccions, visiteu Meta:Babylon. També podeu deixar un missatge a Meta:Babel o al Meta:Metapub (però abans de fer-ho, llegiu les instruccions situades al principi de la pàgina). No dubteu en preguntar si teniu qualsevol dubte. Si cal ho podeu fer en la meva pàgina de discussió. Bona sort!

Vítejte, uživateli Daniel/Archive/1, a vítejte na Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Tento server je určen pro spolupráci a diskusím ke všem projektům nadace Wikimedia. Možná si budete chtít přečíst naše pravidla. Pokud chcete spolupracovat na překladech, navštivte Meta:Babylon. Také můžete přidat příspěvek na Meta:Babel či Meta:Metapub (nejdříve si přečtěte pokyny na začátku těchto stránek). V případě potřeby se neváhejte zeptat se na mé diskusní stránce. Hodně štěstí!

Hallo, Daniel/Archive/1, und Willkommen bei Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Diese Website ist zur Koordination und Diskussion aller Wikimedia-Projekte gedacht. Vielleicht findest du es nützlich, unsere Regelseite zu lesen. Wenn du daran interessiert bist, etwas zu übersetzen, besuche Meta:Babylon. Du kannst auch eine Notiz auf Meta:Babel oder Meta:Metapub hinterlassen (bitte lies die Anleitung am Anfang der Seite, bevor du etwas schreibst). Wenn du möchtest, kannst du mir auf meiner Diskussionseite Fragen stellen. Fröhliches Bearbeiten.

ވިކިމީޑިޔާގެ މީޓާ-ވިކީ އަށް މަރުހަބާ! މިވެބްސައިޓަކީ ވިކިމީޑިޔާގެ ހުރިހާ މަޝްރޫޢުތަކާއި ބެހޭގޮތުން ވާހަކަތައް ދެކެވި އެ މަޝްރޫޢެއް ހިންގައި ހަދާ ވެބް ސައިޓެވެ. އަޅުގަނޑުމެންގެ ޤަވާއިދުތައް ފުރަތަމަ ވިދާޅުވުމަކީ މުހިންމު ކަމެއް ކަމުގައި ދެކެމެވެ. ތަރުޖަމާކުރާ ހިތްޕުޅުވެވަޑައިގަންނަވާ ނަމަ މީޓާ:ބެބިލޯން އަށް ވަޑައިގަންނަވާށެވެ. އަދި ހަމަ އެހެންމެ މިކަމާއި ބެހޭ ލިޔުމެއް މީޓާ:ބޭބެލް ގައި ލިޔުއްވަވާށެވެ. (އެހެންނަމަވެސް އެޞަފްޙާގައި އެއްވެސް އެއްޗެއް އިތުރު ކުރެއްވުމުގެ ކުރިން އެ ޞަފްހާގެ މަތީގައިވާ ޢިބާރާތް ވިދާޅުވެލައްވާށެވެ.) މިއާއި މުދު ހިތްހަމަޖެހިވަޑައިގަންނަވާ ނަމަ އިތުރު އެހީ އަށް އެދުމަށް މި ޞަފްހާ ގައި އެދުމަށް ފަސްޖެހި ވަޑައި ނުގަންނަވާށެވެ. އުނިއިތުރު ގެނައުމުގައި އުފާވެރި ވަގުތުކޮޅެއް ހޭދަ ކޮށްލައްވާށެވެ!!

Hello Daniel/Archive/1, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Meta:Metapub (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). If you would like, feel free to ask me questions on my talk page. Happy editing!

Hola Daniel/Archive/1! Bienvenido a la Meta-Wiki de la Fundación Wikimedia! Este sitio es para coordinar y discutir todos los proyectos de la Fundación Wikimedia. Tal vez le sea útil leer nuestra página de políticas (en inglés). Si le interesan las traducciones, visite Meta:Babylon. También puede dejar un mensaje en Meta:Babel o Meta:Metapub (pero antes de hacerlo, por favor lea las instrucciones situadas en lo alto de la página). No dude en preguntar si tiene cualquiera duda, o pregunte en mi página de discusión. Buena suerte!

Hei Daniel/Archive/1, ja tervetuloa Wikimedian Meta-Wikiin! Tämä nettisivusto on kaikkien Wikimedia-säätiön projektien koordinointia ja keskustelua varten. Saattaa olla hyödyllistä lukea käytäntömme. Jos olet kiinnostunut käännöksistä, käy Meta:Babylon-sivulla. Voit myöskin jättää huomautuksen Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub -sivulle (ole hyvä ja lue ohjeet sivun yläosassa ennenkuin kirjoitat sinne). Jos haluat, saat vapaasti kysyä minulta kysymyksiä keskustelusivullani. Iloisia muokkaushetkiä!

Bonjour Daniel/Archive/1, et bienvenue sur le Meta-Wiki de Wikimédia ! Ce site a pour but de coordonner et discuter de l’ensemble des projets Wikimédia. Il vous sera utile de consulter notre page sur les règles de Wikimédia. Si vous êtes intéressé par des projets de traduction, visitez Meta:Babylon. Vous pouvez aussi laisser un message sur Meta:Babel ou Meta:Metapub (mais veuillez d’abord lire les instructions en haut de cette page avant d’y poster votre message). Si vous le voulez, vous pouvez me poser vos questions sur ma page de discussion. À bientôt !

נכתב בלשון זכר למען הנוחות
היי Daniel/Archive/1, וברוך בואך ל- ויקימדיה מטא-ויקי! אתר זה נועד בכדי לתאם פעולות ולדון בפרויקטים של וויקימדיה. יש להניח שדפי המדיניות שלנו יהיו שימושיים עבורך. אם הנך מעוניין לבצע עבודות תרגום, בקר ב-Meta:Babylon. תוכל גם להשאיר הערה ב-Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub, (אנא קרא את ההוראות בראש הדף לפני כתיבה שם). אם תרצה, הרגש חופשי לרשום לי שאלות בדף השיחה שלי. עריכה נעימה!

Helló Daniel/Archive/1, és üdv a Wikimedia Meta-Wikijén! Ez a weboldal az összes Wikimedia projektet érintő ügyek megtárgyalására és koordinálására szolgál. Hasznosnak találhatod elolvasni az irányelveinket (angolul). Ha szeretnél fordításokat végezni, látogasd meg a Meta:Babylon-t, vagy a Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub, oldalon hagyhatsz üzenetet (mielőtt ide írsz kérlek olvasd el a lap tetején található utasításokat). Ha szeretnél, nyugodtan kérdezz tőlem a vitalapomon. Jó szerkesztést és tartalmas szórakozást! Jó szerkesztést és tartalmas szórakozást!

Ciao Daniel/Archive/1! Benvenuto sulla Meta-Wiki della Wikimedia Foundation! Questo sito serve a coordinare e discutere di tutti i progetti della Wikimedia Foundation. Potrebbe esserti utile leggere le nostre policy (in inglese). Se sei interessato a fare traduzioni, visita Meta:Babylon. Puoi anche lasciare un messaggio su Meta:Babel o Meta:Metapub (ma per favore, leggi le istruzioni che si trovano all'inizio della pagina prima di scrivere). Se vuoi, puoi lasciarmi un messagio nella mia pagina di discussione. Buona fortuna!

Daniel/Archive/1さん、ウィキメディア メタ・ウィキへようこそ!このサイトは、ウィキメディアのプロジェクト間の調整や話し合いを目的としています。もしよろしければ、ポリシーページを是非ご一読下さい。もし翻訳に興味をお持ちなら、Meta:Babylonをご覧下さい。Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub にメッセージを投稿していただくことも可能です(投稿前にページ上部の説明をお読み下さい)。もしよろしければ私のノートページに質問をお寄せ下さい。

Daniel/Archive/1님, Wikimedia Meta-Wiki에 회원가입하신 것을 환영합니다! 이 사이트는 모든 위키미디어 프로젝트들 간의 상호조정(coordinate)과 토론을 위한 공간입니다. 우리의 정책을 보면, 도움이 되실 겁니다. 만약 번역에 관심이 있으시다면, Meta:Babylon을 방문해 보세요. 또한 Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub 을 사용하실 수도 있습니다. (사용하시기 전에 바벨의 사용설명란을 먼저 읽어주세요). 만약 궁금한 것이 있으시면, talk page에 질문을 올려주세요. 즐거운 편집이 되시길 바랍니다!

Hai Daniel/Archive/1, dan selamat datang ke Meta-Wiki Wikimedia! Laman web ini adalah untuk mengkoordinasikan dan membincangkan segala Projek-projek Wikimedia. Anda boleh mendapati bahawa membaca laman polisi kita adalah berfaedah. Jika anda berminat dalam membuat penterjemahan, sila melawat Meta:Babylon. Anda juga boleh meninggalkan pesanan di Meta:Babel atau Meta:Metapub (sila baca panduan di atas laman yang berkenaan sebelum meninggalkan pesanan). Jika anda mahu, tanyalah soalan di laman perbualan saya. Selamat menyunting!

Hallo Daniel/Archive/1, en welkom op de Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Deze website is voor het coördineren en bespreken van alle Wikimedia-projecten. Waarschijnlijk vind je het handig om onze beleidpagina te lezen. Als je geïnteresseerd bent in het vertalen van teksten, ga da naar Meta:Babylon. Je kunt ook een bericht achterlaten op Meta:Babel of Meta:Metapub (lees wel de instructies aan het begin van de pagina voordat je een bericht achterlaat). Als je nog vragen hebt stel ze me dan op mijn overlegpagina. Veel plezier met bewerken!

Hei Daniel/Archive/1, og velkommen til Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Denne siden er til for å diskutere og samordne alle Wikimediaprosjektene. Vil du vite mer om siden, kan vår policy-side komme til nytte. Er du interessert i å hjelpe til med oversettelser, besøk Meta:Babylon. Du kan også legge igjen en beskjed på Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub (vær vennlig og les instruksjonene øverst på siden før du skriver noe der). Hvis du vil, er du velkommen til å stille spørsmål på min diskusjonsside. God redigering!

Cześć Daniel/Archive/1 i witaj w projekcie Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Ta strona została stworzona do koordynacji i dyskusji nad wszystkimi projektami Fundacji Wikimedia. Proszę Cię o przeczytanie naszych zasad. Jeżeli chcesz się zając tłumaczeniem stron, odwiedź Meta:Babylon. Możesz również zostawić notkę na stronie Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub, (proszę jednak, abyś najpierw przeczytał instrukcje na górze tej strony). Jeżeli będziesz potrzebował pomocy zostaw komentarz na mojej stronie dyskusji. Miłego edytowania!

Olá Daniel/Archive/1! Seja bem-vindo ao Meta! Este site/sítio é dedicado à discussão e à coordenação de todos os demais projetos da Fundação Wikimedia. Talvez lhe seja útil ler a página contendo a nossa política (em inglês) antes de começar a editar. Se tiver dúvidas, sinta-se à vontade para me fazer perguntas em minha página de discussão, ou deixe uma mensagem para toda a comunidade na Babel, Meta:Metapub, a versão do Meta da Esplanada. Boa sorte!

Ciao Daniel/Archive/1, şi bine aţi venit la Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Acest website este pentru coordonarea şi discuţiile tuturor proiectelor Wikimedia. Este folositor să citiţi pagina despre politica noastră.. Dacă sunteţi interesaţi de traducere, vizita-ţi Meta:Babylon. De asemenea puteţi lasa o notă pe Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub, (vă rugăm citiţi instrucţiunile de la începutul paginii înainte de a posta acolo). Dacă ai întrebări, nu ezita să mă întrebi pe pagina mea de discuţii talk page. Editare cu succes!

Здравствуйте, Daniel/Archive/1, и добро пожаловать на Мета-вики фонда Викимедиа! Этот сайт предназначен для координации и обсуждения вопросов, связанных со всеми проектами фонда. Для начала предлагаю ознакомиться с правилами этого проекта. Если Вы заинтересованы в работе над переводами страниц Мета-вики и других материалов, посетите Meta:Babylon. Вы также можете обсудить различные вопросы на странице Meta:Babel или Meta:Metapub (пожалуйста, ознакомьтесь с инструкцией сверху, прежде чем писать). Если возникнут вопросы, не бойтесь задавать их мне на моей странице обсуждения. Удачи!

Tjeta Daniel/Archive/1, dhe mirësevin në Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Ky vënd i rrjetës është për të koordinuar dhe diskutuar çdo projekt të Wikimediës. Mund ta gjësh të dobishme faqet e politikës sonë. Në qoftë se je duke interesuar në përkthime, vizitò Meta:Babylon. Mund të lësh një shënim në Meta:Babel ose Meta:Metapub (të lutem të lexosh përdorimet në fillim të fletës para se të postosh atje). Në qoftë se do, ndihu i/e lirë të më bsh pyetje në faqen time të diskutimit. Të auguroj një redaktim të këndshëm!

Здраво Daniel/Archive/1, и добро дошли на Викимедијин мета-вики! Овај сајт служи за координацију и дискусију око Викимедијиних пројеката. Вероватно ће Вам бити корисно да прочитате наше странице везане за политику рада. Ако сте заинтересовани за превођење, посетите Meta:Babylon. Можете такође и оставити поруку на страници Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub (молимо погледајте упутства на врху те странице пре него што пошаљете свој коментар тамо). Ако имате неко питање, можете да ми поставите на мојој страници за разговор. Срећно уређивање!

Hej Daniel/Archive/1, och välkommen till Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Meta är till för att diskutera och samordna alla Wikimedias projekt. Vill du veta mer om webbplatsen, kan vår policy-sida komma väl till pass. Är du intresserad av att hjälpa till med översättningar, besök Meta:Babylon. Du kan skriva diskussionsinlägg på Meta:Babel eller Meta:Metapub (läs instruktionerna överst på sidan innan du skriver något där). Om du vill, är du välkommen att ställa frågor på min diskussionssida. Lycka till med redigerandet!

வணக்கம் Daniel/Archive/1, விக்கிமீடியா மேல்விக்கி! இற்கு நல்வரவு. இவ்விணையத்தளமானது கூட்டாகச் சேர்ந்து விடயங்களை விவாதிப்பதற்கென உருவாக்கப் பட்டது. விக்கித்திட்டங்கள். நீங்கள் எங்களின் பாலிசிகளையும் பாலிசி பக்கம் படித்தறியலாம். நீங்கள் மொழிபெயர்பில் ஆர்வமுடையவராகின், Meta:Babylon ஐப் பார்வையிடவும். நீங்கள் Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub இல் குறிப்பொன்றையும் விட்டுச் செல்லலாம். (பக்கத்தின் மேலேயிருக்கும் அறிவுறுத்தல்களை வாசித்தபின்னரே அங்கே செய்திகளை இடவும்). நீங்கள் விரும்பினால் எனது பக்கத்தில் செய்தியொன்றை விடவும் talk page. உங்கள் ஆக்கங்களை வரவேற்கின்றோம்!

Daniel/Archive/1, 你好!歡迎光臨維基媒體元維基!這個網站是為協調和討論所有維基媒體項目而設。我們的政策頁可能對您有用。如果您有興趣協助翻譯工作, 請參觀Meta:Babylon。你可在 Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub 留下口訊 (張貼之前請先讀該頁上指示)。若有問題, 請在我的討論頁問我 。祝
編安!

Sarah Ewart 02:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double entry[edit]

Bah, I was there first! :P KTC 14:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usurpation on ca.wiki[edit]

The policy of usurpation in ca.wiki is similar to the English one. Typically, it is for dormant accounts with no edits. But I have asked for comments on the local village pump. --Vriullop 11:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your attacks[edit]

Why does it seem like everytime I come near you, you attack me? And I have straightened out check my Editor Review out on Simple English Wikipedia.--   ChristianMan16  02:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attacking you. I am merely stating facts. A user is unlikely to get a rename of any sorts on a wiki where they are an indefinitely-banned sockpuppeteer, especially not when it isn't a RTV rename. Daniel (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, this suggests that a consensus of English Wikipedians disagree with your assertion that you have "straightened out". Daniel (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you just pointed out happened two months ago...ALOT can happen in that time. And what the heck is an RTV rename?--   ChristianMan16  02:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From my observation, nothing has changed. This is RTV, but it doesn't apply to you given a) you're not vanishing and b) you have no significant amounts personally identifiable information published. Daniel (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Show me your "observations"...I'm sorry but I think you have something against me.--   ChristianMan16  02:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just reading the Discussion to ban me again and i have to say I agree with the last guy to comment....an indef band is harsh and it should have been a year or so band for me to mature.--   ChristianMan16  02:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But whatever I'm stopping this now so, hopefully, this does not come back to bite me in the butt later.--   ChristianMan16  02:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Питање,Pitanje, Questions[edit]

I left a massage to User:Kale (he was doing this), hope shortly will fix the thing--Laslovarga 02:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Daniel (talk) 02:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due Process Question[edit]

In response to [1].

I have asked the same question, although this time it is coming directly from me as a matter of personal interest, and not through me as a proxy. I am an eligible voter, so this shouldn't cause a problem. However, the questions page appears to be protected, which prevents me from listing the question there. I would like to see the question listed properly, what do I need to do to make that happen? --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 14:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised whether asking a question identical to that proposed by an ineligable user is considered to be legitimate, on the Committee's mailing list. We will hopefully reach a resolution within the next few hours. I have listed the question. Daniel (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I know this is a tricky question. I could have been less honest and not mentioned the circumstances from the very beginning! As I mentioned above, I have taken a personal interest in this question since last night, and would like to know the answers even if the original conception for the question was not my own. As a general matter, I think it would be difficult for the election officials to become "thought police" and ask all editors to reveal their original motivations for their questions. If I hadn't been honest with it from the beginning, nobody would have ever known the question was not my own. I personally think a question should be askable if any valid questioner sees fit to ask it. That's just me, and I won't claim to know all the nuances or intricacies of this election. If the committee deems it inappropriate, you may delete it again and I will not bother you about it any further. Thanks again. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books)
I saw the question on an external website, so I would have known anyways that you weren't the original author of the question. Technically, you need to get a GFDL release from the person who initially authored the question. But I'm sure no-one will care along those lines. More worrying is that non-eligable voters can use eligable people as transition houses to field their questions, which can and most likely will be gamed in the future. It is that, that the Committee needs to decide how to address, not simply act as the "thought police". Daniel (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Dear Administrator![edit]

Deutsch | English | español | français | italiano | 한국어 | Nederlands | português | русский | العربية | edit

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades... (our budget is smaller than Commons)

Daniel/Archive, congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Meta. Please take a moment to read the Meta:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat, and Meta:Requests for deletion, but also Talk:Spam blacklist and Talk:Interwiki map), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings, or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

A tip: add this page Meta:Administrators' discussion index to your watchlist, it tracks the latest activity to various sections of many of the important pages.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-admin @ irc.freenode.net. You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading although it doesn't always completely apply here at Meta.

Please also check or add your entry to Meta:Administrators#List_of_administrators and the Template:List of administrators. — VasilievV 2 04:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Daniel (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yayy!! Congratulations :) - Alison 06:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats. WjBscribe 11:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all. Daniel (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Late congrats! giggy (:O) 11:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with the voting software: please read carefully![edit]

See the last paragraph of User:Shalom Yechiel/2008 WMF Board elections.

Regarding the final paragraph of my statement: this is actually a very serious problem waiting to happen. Just to make sure I wasn't fooling myself, I actually tried to hijack an eligible account and succeeded in doing so. On English Wikipedia, the archives of WP:CHU are readily accessible, so all I had to do was to find a user who had 600+ edits including 50 edits between March 1 and May 31, 2008, and who had been renamed to another account. I succeeded in doing so. w:User:Ohyeahmormons renamed himself to w:User:Irk but did not create his old account to prevent impersonation. I just now created that account and logged into Special:BoardVote. I am in fact able to vote from that account even though the edits attributed to that account belong to someone else. I have far too much integrity to double-vote on a board election, but if there is a hole in the voting security system, someone is likely to exploit it, especially since I already spilled the w:WP:BEANS. I assume you have the ear of the Foundation representatives who are managing the election. Do me a favor and tell them about this security hole, and see what can be done to rectify the potential problem. I would summarize it like this: even when edits have been attributed to a new username on a local wiki, they are still attributed to the old username on the election software, and the old username can be created by anyone who wants it. I have no way of knowing how many accounts can be hijacked in this manner by someone determined to rig the election: probably a couple dozen. Certainly that's enough to warrant notification to the election governing body.

I'll sleep better at night if you can tell me that you've forwarded this concern to someone who can act upon it. Thank you. Shalom Yechiel 20:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shalom Yachiel. Ohyeahmormons is not on the eligible voter list. When you go to Special:Boardvote, does it redirect you and say "Welcome Ohyeahmormons@enwiki"? Could you try casting a vote? (We'll strike the vote, so there's no need to worry about double-voting.) —{admin} Pathoschild 20:59:48, 05 June 2008 (UTC)
As best I can recall, on Thursday when I tried to enter the voting screen with Ohyeahmormons, I was given permission to see the voting screen, so I could have voted. When I tried again to enter just now, I was told that Ohyeahmormons is not eligible to vote. I'm not sure what changed.
Anyway, I assume the voting auditors have something similar to "checkuser", and if I had voted, it would have been from the same IP address as my main account. Hopefully that will be enough to deter any shenanigans. Shalom Yechiel 02:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have access to the same information as checkusers and are on the lookout for abuse. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 03:28:34, 08 June 2008 (UTC)

Come to IRC[edit]

My user is millosh. --Millosh 00:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was already online :) Daniel (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Username[edit]

Can you please change my user name to Atjesse ,so that I can acces unified login--Mwjesse 11:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel is not a bureaucrat; please request on Meta:Changing username. Thanks. Majorly talk 11:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for your spirited defense regarding my adminship reconfirmation -- I can live it with it, but I appreciated reading your comments. Andre (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Daniel (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary access expired[edit]

Hello Daniel. The temporary access you requested on this wiki has expired (see archived request). Thanks. Nick1915 - all you want 07:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er...I'm a non-temporary sysop now :)[2] Cheers, Daniel (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yay, back again. Thanks Nick! Daniel (talk) 08:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename on afwiki[edit]

Hello. I renamed your account on afwiki as you requested (better late than never...). —Pathoschild 17:02:40, 01 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation setup[edit]

Thank you for your work, M/ 00:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No probs - best of luck. Daniel (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re:Confirmation of user rights[edit]

Hello Daniel, thanks for the note, that is very kind, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 02:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS[edit]

May I ask which OTRS administrator created your account? I cannot find any record of it being created. Daniel (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

guillom did it yesterday, and it seems to work properly. Maybe, guillom didn't update everything? Regards, --Pymouss Tchatcher - 10:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which I'm just about to slap him about :) Thanks much, Daniel (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Are IP addresses allowed to vote in proposals to close projects? Please let me know as soon as you can. Thanks, Razorflame 22:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, yes. Though context would be important. Trolling from IPs = not welcome. Constructive comments, especially if they are involved with the project = welcome (though they should unify their accounts and/or log in to comment). Hope that helps.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, Mike. Daniel (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Generally: it is not a voting (only votes are usually not evaluated), IP comments (that are not vandalism etc.) are only stricken, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 22:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Account password problem[edit]

I have the account user:Gerry Ashton on this and several other Wikimedia projects. I have tried to set up unified login, and discovered that I have forgotten the password on this project. I think the old email address was made obsolete when Comcast bought Adelphia. I would appreciate any help you, as a bureaucrat, might be able to offer. --24.91.174.134 18:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC) revised 20:59 26 February 2009 (UT).[reply]

If you could post a note on your English Wikipedia talk page (logged in to the Gerry Ashton account there) confirming that you made this message, I'll happily move the Meta-Wiki account out of the way so that you can unify the new account. However, the confirmation is just to make sure that the IP = you at enwiki :) Daniel (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A wise precaution. I will do so at once. --24.91.174.134 02:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done :) Daniel (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Case[edit]

Thank you for your help. Deo Volente, Daniel. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[edit]

I didn´t make my request only for your benefit but for all :)))--Seha 07:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I meant I added the abbreviations for the language you speak there so I could cross-check them with active people already on OTRS who also speak those languages :) Daniel (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should I make a list of those people? :))) It was just a joke, but there are just few at meta, so I can´t imagine that there are more on OTRS. Regards --Seha 07:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If/when you get access to OTRS you'll see we have a giant big list of all the volunteers and their language skills - there's not that many, you're right. I'll hopefully process your application tomorrow sometime :) Daniel (talk) 09:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, THX --Seha 09:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS satisfaction surveying[edit]

Hey Daniel --

I'm curious what, if any, type of surveying is done of people who write tickets to OTRS. Specifically, I'm curious if people who send e-mails to OTRS are:

  • satisfied with the response time;
  • satisfied with the tone of the response they get (esp. if the response was from a template);
  • satisfied with the level of detail that the response included (esp. if the response was from a template).

Could you let me know if anything like this is done currently? Or if it's not, if it's possible to start doing it (either through random sampling or including a message in the footer or something)?

Thanks! --MZMcBride 00:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No structured surveying is done, and I don't think it's feasible; it would seem distinctly unprofessional and highlight to the client the potential that there may be issues with the correspondence. The best way to ensure response quality is currently OTRS volunteers reading each others' responses, which happens a lot currently; obviously, replies to our replies are also a good way to guage, without set metrics, the satisfaction of a client. However, ultimately, there are some clients who we refuse to do what they ask, and then apply the law of diminishing replies to, and so statistics will naturally be skewed and misrepresenting based on that. Daniel (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a response takes three months, the client should have the opportunity to share their thoughts about that. I have no idea how it would come off as unprofessional to do small-scale surveying. Nearly every major company and organization does it when they have systems in place like this that deal directly with the general public. Replies to the replies may be a short "Thank you," but that doesn't assess whether someone is satisfied.
I realize that some people are going to be upset regardless of the outcome, but I think it's very important to get a better "finger on the pulse" of overall satisfaction. This includes assessing the templates that are used frequently; if there are templates that come off (unintentionally) as terse or not specific enough, they should be updated and fixed. How else would things like this be assessed without asking the people who get the e-mails? --MZMcBride 18:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone has had to wait three months for a reply recently, than please do feel free to share the details so that I can chase up what happened. Quite frankly, I don't think anyone has, and as a non-OTRS volunteer you have no basis to assume there has been recently.
I think "small-scale" surveying is unnecessary and impractical, and personally won't endorse it. However, Cary is the true leader of OTRS in terms of final decision-making ability, so feel free to ask him. Daniel (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, may I offer my apologies if I am intruding on this talk page. MZM, I must echo Daniel and further add that any surveying is not appropriate at this time. Currently, volunteers are working as hard as they, as we can, in getting those responses out. I don't think it would be a good idea, or a desirable product to highlight in areas of weaknesses. I assure you, the internal evaluation system we have in place which include our lead Cary, and our OTRS administrators work just fine. I don't want a survey product that could potentially discourage the volunteers. I further echo Daniel that ultimately Cary is the d-maker, and can be consulted here. Additionally, where do you get your information? Three months? Respectfully, NonvocalScream 22:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I am butting in as well - to agree with Daniel and NVS. It is not merely the question of burdening our volunteers with additional (customer satisfaction survey) work; it is also that such surveys are usually considered to be intrusive and objectionable by those surveyed, and those who contact OTRS in the first place are almost always very clear with their level of satisfaction. My experience has been letters of effusive thanks when something is corrected; or letters of vile abuse when a problem is perceived as insufficiently addressed. I assure you, the latter is rare and generally involves a person who is impossible to satisfy under our policies or capabilities (I cannot delete a NYT article, for example.) In addition, our mailing lists are active and feedback and assistance is always an email away, and response is always prompt and helpful. KillerChihuahua 23:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise at all :) It's always good to get more voices. Daniel (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only when those voices agree with you. ;-) Seems those who agree with me can't be bothered to post here. Oh well. Thanks for the feedback. --MZMcBride 17:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Also, in a somewhat related point (but not really), referring to Cary as "our lead," the "true leader," or the "d-maker" is rather bizarre.[reply]
I personally feel that feedback would be an excellent idea. When I worked on the system, there were often tickets open that were weeks old and no one had paid any attention to them. I have to wonder what the person felt on the other end when no one bothered to reply to them. Customer satisfaction surveys happen all the time, and it's not unprofessional at all. It's simply wanting to ensure services provided are top-notch (which in my opinion OTRS is not). Then again, I have to agree, Cary is pretty much the Jimbo of OTRS. I think you'd have better luck asking him. Majorly talk 18:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember a time where a ticket that has been unreplied for "weeks old". Perhaps if you could give the ticket numbers for those, one can check into it. NonvocalScream 05:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, Majorly said this was happening when he was still a respondent; a lot has changed since he last had OTRS access. It is entirely plausible that tickets were being responded to with substantial delays back in October 2008 when Majorly had his access removed by Jredmond, but it certainly hasn't been the case since, especially in the last three months. Daniel (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I cannot, since I thankfully no longer have access. I still think getting feedback would be a good idea, regardless of the speed of the replies, but obviously it's not up to me or MZMcBride. Majorly talk 13:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot imagine what possible good might come of educating ourselves about possible areas that could be improved within the OTRS process. I will agree with the above interlopers who feel that the idea of an objective survey of "client satisfaction" would be dangerously subversive in its potential to undermine the rose-tinted views of all who hold together the Wikimedia projects. Please, MZMcBride, find something more useful to do, such as designing a new barnstar for "Excellence in Linking to Wikia.com", or some such. -- Thekohser 03:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of my candidacy[edit]

Can I assume this was due to my unawareness (at the time of my submission) of the 1200 character limit? KevinOKeeffe 14:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, I left you a message on enwiki thinking it was your main talk page. It should explain my actions more, and how to resubmit. My apologies for the confusion regarding talk pages. Daniel (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template for closed candidates[edit]

The new template says voting has started... it hasn't. Do you know how to fix that? --Philippe 00:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can just blank the first sentence for now. I'll have a look. Daniel (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Templates scare me :) --Philippe 00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That looks great! Thanks. --Philippe 00:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:) Daniel (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning3a[edit]

The warning3a text is currently being displayed on the candidates statement page untranslated. This is not acceptable. It has to be tanslated. --Purodha Blissenbach 10:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

emails[edit]

Hello Daniel, are emails being sent out about the elections? -- sj | translate | vote! |+ 04:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They will be, yes, hopefully by the middle of this week. A little bit of work needs to be done with generating a list, working out how to best send out different language emails, and then actually doing it (my internet's capped until tomorrow so I'm struggling to load anything hence I haven't been able to actively pursue this). Daniel (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

en.Wikibooks[edit]

I have renamed the existing User:Daniel. You are free to create an account by that name on En.wikibooks. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 12:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Cheers, Daniel (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


fr.wiktionary[edit]

Hi. fr:wikt:User:Daniel is renamed on fr.wiktionary. Stephane8888 12:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Daniel (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

60.44.36.112[edit]

Hey I saw your revert on User:Nstm which got me looking again. I originally left it like that because I assumed it was Nstm given the request for rollback that the ip did a little while before (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/60.44.36.112) but Now looking at the other contributions I'm not so sure especially given the odd vandalism/test changing a request to a different name earlier. I'm not sure if it's enough to block but it definitely seems to be doing slow disruption. Jamesofur 08:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Daniel et al, I've blocked the IP for 3 days, seems a ducky case to me (& for the vandalism on Meta:Requests for permissions, Steward requests/Global and more). Please do unblock it if you think I've mistakenly blocked it. Cheers, df|  13:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all. Thanks for letting me know. Daniel (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GerardM's admin actions[edit]

Daniel, you indicated in this edit that you were starting a discussion of GerardM's admin actions on Talk:Public speakers. However a post I made to that page has been reverted by two people for the reason that that page is not the place to discuss admin actions. If you are investigating Gerard's conduct, please take note of his blocking of the anon and the block reason he gave. I fear I lack the standing at meta to have my comments taken seriously. Mike R 15:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are taken seriously, but you're expressing them in the wrong place. It's quite rare to get any sort of dispute on Meta, so the procedure of what to do if there is one may not be known by everyone, so it can be quite confusing. I do think adding new threads to the page, as you did, is inappropriate. If anything, you should be continuing to use the existing thread there. Or, even better, take it to Babel like I have suggested already. Majorly talk 15:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support discussing it there if need be. Discussion on user_talk:GerardM hasn't accomplished much. Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat is another possible venue I guess. It needs discussion somewhere. ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression Gerard had ceded that he had acted inappropriately, and given this and the fact that he hasn't reverted since, an admonishment had been served and the issue of reverting through protection was closed? Correct me if I'm wrong. Daniel (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he has ceded anything. I've had continuing private email dialog and I'd characterize his view as intransigent. But as long as there is no further edit warring (especially, no further editing through protection) that may be the best we can hope for. ++Lar: t/c 12:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edits to Public speakers[edit]

It's a minor point but the page is currently protected and edits like this one are technically a violation of protection, as no consensus was sought for the edit prior to making it. I don't think it's really a big deal but since it's an edit that manipulates an entry, the same "sort" of edit that sparked the war, you may want to self revert and seek consensus. Just a suggestion. ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But wasn't the protection in relation to people removing entries of contentious Wikimedians, not adding (by all appearances) uncontentious Wikimedians? Daniel (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't en:wp of course, but there, ANY edit of a protected article without seeking consensus first can be problematic. And your edit had to do with listing/delisting of someone, which is rather close to what the edit war was about. I stand by my suggestion (which is just that, a suggestion). But I'm far more interested in the thread just above. ++Lar: t/c 06:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Daniel's edit was technically in violation of the protection. The protection was for the edit warring on one particular aspect of the page. Cbrown1023 talk 13:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an aspect. I just construe the "aspect" as "adding/removing/changing listing information" rather than "adding/removing/changing listing information of one particular individual". But as I said, I'm far more interested in the topic just above, which I see remains unanswered. ++Lar: t/c 16:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]