User:Daniel/Icons User:Daniel/Header User talk:Daniel/Header

This page was last archived on Saturday, March 15. The most recent comments can be found in Archive 61. For a complete list of archives, please see here. If you wish to leave me a new message, please click here. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please unlock Ashley Alexandra Dupre. There are now 1,168 news articles primarily on her] so she merits an article. Please redirect Ashley Alexandra Dupre to Ashley Alexandra Dupré. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No unprotection - I fully expect the Dupré article to be re-converted back to a redirect shortly, and hence I'd only be removing a protection which would be put back in place shortly - but I have swapped over the redirect. Daniel (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect had already been changed. The request for unprotection is still Declined. Daniel (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, which comment are you referring to? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yours :) Daniel (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leave Giggy alone!!!! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BoL: Consensus? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not a good idea to close the whole discussion and lift the ban per consensus just yet; generally, people don't like it when they don't get a chance to voice their opinion because everything has happened too quickly ;) It does look like the ban will get lifted, anyway. Spebi (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. PR on the way, by the way :) Daniel (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woah...you mean...I might actually get it...at some stage...? :O dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You just got it :) Daniel (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four hours late, any chance you could post it? Gatoclass (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso Addict (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) beat me to it :) Daniel (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, wouldn't you know it, he was doing the update even as I was posting to you :/ But thanks anyhow ;) Gatoclass (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the Betacommand RFAR page shows "Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)". —Wknight94 (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crap, thanks (I didn't copy the header over...). Daniel (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to copy my base statement over from the request to the main case page? If not, am I supposed to do it? Bellwether ^B_C 17:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is it, no? Daniel (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That is it. When I posted the question to you, it didn't appear as if it were on that page yet. Thanks! Bellwether ^B_C 23:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said "Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible." - I'm going to be away over Easter (next weekend), and there are only four days until I leave, so would it be possible to submit evidence after Easter, on or around 25th March? Carcharoth (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure. That's just a rougle guide - I cannot see this case being closed within seven days, somehow :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I see you are on the case at Kirill's talk page already. Sorry about that. Some cases have more active clerks than others. :-) One thing I was looking at was the numerous threads at WT:RFARB. Some of those might be mentioned in evidence anyway, but others might be mentioned as part of the request process. Would a list of those threads (eventually updated to archive links) be useful? I note that when setting up the case you linked to threaded discussion that took place in the RFARB, but some of those discussions continued at WT:RFARB, so maybe just a teeny bit more linking is needed there to fill things out a bit? As I said, I may mention some of this in evidence (I tend to go into background stuff maybe more than is needed sometimes), but just thought I'd point this out. And yes, I know I said I would be leaving this until after Easter! Hopefully I will be able to avoid spending the time needed for a proper evidence submission until after then... (secretly, I'm hoping lots of people will do most of that before I get round to it - did I say secretly? Oops!). Carcharoth (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I opened the case at 0300 local time, I looked at WT:RfAr and contemplated matching statements up with discussions and linking. Then I fell asleep with my head on the keyboard. If you'd be so kind as to work that giant mess out, I will give you a giant e-cookie </bribery> :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keyboards make uncomfortable pillows! I'll plop a list onto the talk page. A few other things: the list of parties could be trimmed as I think the initial listing by Maxim was a bit random (maybe ask him or others?). I know it is fairly common for some parties to a case to never make a statement, never get mentioned in evidence (or only in passing), and to never get mentioned in the final decision or workshop pages, but it does seem silly sometimes. I've asked User:Friday if they can remember why they were a party. The other two people that never made a statement were Hammersoft and Badagnani (I think they were involved, but that is only my opinion). Also, Arthur Rubin's statement is still under "non-parties" on the talk page, and it might be an idea to tell Coren where a statement can be placed if Coren wants to make one. I'll stop there, as I'm a party to the case, so I can't get too involved with tidying things up as I might end up with a COI! Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This is a message. *Cremepuff222* 12:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Cremepuff222* 12:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your post:

"Erm...mediation is not third opinion, and no informal mediation has been requested nor agreed to. "Third opinions" don't have "cases" - it's simply you give your opinion about how best to resolve the dispute."

Is this perhaps why I'm confused by this post: ::"If this is your first time doing a 3O, the case will be on the IRC channel (Link). If you wish, the mediation may commence on 03:00"

To the extent that I just made this post: "Unfortunately, I am not able to understand this information because 1) I've never used IRC and don't know how to, and 2} I was under the impression (from very very limited experience) that 3O opinions were given through comments in the normal Wikipedia Talk pages." before I saw your post??? Wanderer57 (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blow of Light unfortunately doesn't understand the idea of third opinions nor understand how to give them. There is no reason for you to follow his "instructions" because he apparently doesn't understand what he's doing, and in the end is only wasting your time. I'd suggest just sitting back and waiting for a third opinion to actually come your way on that talk page. You are correct that third opinions are given on the article talk pages. Daniel (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 11:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. Daniel (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I talk too little people don't understand, when I talk too much people don't pay attention. I seem to not comprehend the balance. I was wondering if you could trim it for me only leaving back what you feel is the most relevant. Is this possible? Thanks. -- Cat ^chi? 13:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I was a bit rough. Forgive the tone in the edit summary.

See WP:AC/C/N#Move to voting for comment :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]