User talk:Daniel/Archive/28

User talk:Rajkumar Kanagasingam
Hi, can you resolve this debate before it gets even more serious? I really don't want this to escalate any further since its causing a great deal of stress to all parties involved. Thank You. Resolved-- KZ      Talk  •  Vandal  •  Contrib  09:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, glad to hear it was reolved, and sorry for the delayed reply.  Daniel Bryant  22:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Scott Keith
I noticed that you deleted the article Scott Keith about a week or so ago.... I assume that you are/were unaware that there were 2 separate "deletion" discussions concerning the Scott Keith article, and on both occassions it was decided near-unanimously to 'keep said article. I am fully aware that that article was a popular target for vandals, but nonetheless, having survived two previous attempts by some person or people to have the article deleted, it is more than a little unusual that you should take it upon yourself to delete the article without any sort of further debate/discussion. One would thus be led to believe that the most likely reason for this is that you bear some sort of grudge/bias against Mr Keith for some reason or another. I apologise if this is not the case, but your personal deletion of this article would appear to run contrary to both official wikipedia policy and the precedents of 2 votes for "keep". 8 March 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.232.128.10 (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
 * As noted in the deletion summary, there was a discussion to delete it, which resulted in "delete", at Articles for deletion/Scott Keith (2). Please remember to assume good faith, as even suggesting I would use my administrator powers to push a POV about a person is extremely uncalled-for. You are correct, however, that if I deleted this article without an AfD discussion that it would "run contrary to ... official wikipedia policy"; however, in this instance, this was not the case.  Daniel Bryant  10:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU
Good evening (GMT time); I've been finding Wikipedia a little repetitive of late, and I was glad to see an new opportunity come up in the form of above.

First let me congratulate you on depreciating the standby list, etc.. - it was rather anti-Wiki spirit, and I'm glad to see the back of it.

Secondly, I was wondering if you have any words of advice to offer? I respect your opinion and I'd love any words of wisdom regarding the above.

Kind regards, anthony cfc  [ talk] 00:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, Daniel, massive rewrite. I meant to contact the denizens of the waiting list but I'm already late somewhere.  I will later, or you can, or just figure if they reall care (like Anthony) they will already know. Thatcher131 00:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Durin notified them. My words of advice form a simple shortcut: WP:RFCU/C/P. Refer to it as often as possible. Also, if you are unsure what to do in a certain situation, don't just invent a new method; ask an experienced clerk (Thatcher, myself or Luna Santin), or post to the noticeboard.  Daniel Bryant  00:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for participating
I'd like to thank you for taking time to comment on the Requests for comment/Justanother, I really appreciate your input. :) Anynobody 02:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No problems - see above.  Daniel Bryant  01:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to trouble you, I saw the note about you being busy in real life so please get to this whenever time allows. The RfC was deleted by an admin at the request of User:Justanother. I noticed you had moved the RfC from my user space to the RfC board, were you also the one who had placed it as an approved RfC? Thanks, Anynobody 04:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Daniel, please compare this ANI thread. Bishonen | talk 12:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC).


 * *sigh* I give up. Thanks for the note, Bishonen - glad to see someone extends such a courtesy these days. I'll defer to your stronger judgement (given mine was purely procedural, RfC number-counting) on this issue. Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  11:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks anyway, sorry to trouble you. Anynobody 22:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No problems.  Daniel Bryant  08:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Some questions re:mediation
1. What's this about?
 * A private matter which has now been sorted; explaining it will achieve nothing.

2. Are you guaranteed to be the WWII mediator or is there a chance it will be someone else?
 * Basically, yes; given I am an appointed member of the Committee, there is a very good chance it will be.

3. Do parties interested in joining a mediation have any say in who the mediator will be? Haber 13:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not really. The only time they do is the parties can disagree to have a non-appointed Mediator if one offers to. However, you cannot have a say in which MC mediator you get; by accepting the mediation with "Agree", you will take whatever formal mediator you get (within respectable limits of recusal, of course).  Daniel Bryant  21:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes at RFCU/C
Thatcher informed me that you were part and parcel of the recent changes there. Therefore, this thank you equally applies to you. Nicely done! --Durin 15:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks - although Thatcher did the rewrite, we as a pair did a lot of discussing via private means as to what we could do to "fix" the process. In the end, Dan made it very easy with his concept model at CHU.
 * Two minor "issues" with your post: a) your fight, where you came under a barrage from many people (including me, at one stage) took a hell of a lot of courage to do and sustain; and b) "Thanks from me may no longer mean anything to you. But if it does, consider this a very heartfelt thank you for your actions" - I can't imagine any rational-acting person not considering your thanks to mean anything, and I am certainly humbled by it.
 * Thanks for also notifying those on the old "Standby list". Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  22:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Being self deprecating in response to (a), a gibbering idiot is equally capable of sustaining themselves under a barrage of assault. :) Whether it was wise or not...*shrug*. Honestly, I acted too sharply in a number of my posts. Yet, I am uncertain if I would do substantially different if faced with the same situation. There are some things I have said that I would most definitely word differently or retract. But, I came to a point where I had to take what I felt were the principles of Wikipedia with me as I ascended what appeared to be the mountain of insanity and yell at the top of my lungs from it. Calmly, rationally trying to work things out with people while doling out infinitesimally small amounts of social currency simply wasn't going to work. I had to essentially immolate myself before people would be willing to shake out of their molds and address the issue. This is not to say that I was absolutely dead certain I was right. But, I had tried other methods and they were not working. I had to try this method. If it failed, it failed. That it had a modicum of success is good in that it wasn't wasted. But, the higher purpose is the success of the project, regardless of the manner (in this case at least) in which we reach it.
 * The thanks is sincere. I have had and still have doubts that people will find any measure of satisfaction in having thanks from what could be a gibbering idiot. I'm heartened that you're taking something good from it, because it is sincere even if I am completely off my rocker :) --Durin 22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Many of Wikipedia's greatest essays were written by "gibbering idiots" :) Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  01:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

New article created
At Scieno Sitter. Let me know if you can think of any cool facts to pull out of there for a nom. It already got me a barnstar! Tee hee. Hope you're doing well... Smee 16:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Okay, now it also has a handy dandy image, screenshot. Smee 18:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Lovely - yet another great article for DYK! Unfortunately, as I mentioned before, the picture can't be used as it is a fair use image. Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  01:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, the pic isn't a problem, just that it makes the article a little more dynamic looking when they get there... Smee 02:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't understand this edit
Why is this edit offering an opinion? I am relatively new to this process, and I thought I was acting in a correct manner in linking the two cases together. Thanks. Real96 01:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Saying a check was "in response" to another, and suggesting that the "nature of this check user [request]", was inferring that it was retaliatory (by using the language "is in response"). My apologies if it seemed bitey, but you have to be really careful about you say, and what you infer. Although the main space doesn't like them, weasel words are your best friend when you are a clerk.
 * If I was in the same situation, I would have said:"[[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|20px]] Clerk note: This request is related to Requests for checkuser/Case/Pens withdrawn; see the list of confirmed users at the bottom. Further comments that may also be applicable are at User talk:Fear the Fire, which pertain to this relation. Cheers, Daniel Bryant  01:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)"
 * Again, my apologies if I was a little too strong, but being a clerk requires stepping a very fine line with word choices, especially when acting in a clerk capacity (ie. ). Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  01:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can I at least help in some capacity? Like, for example, archiving old cases?  I want to be of help.  Really.  Real96 01:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course you can! At present, however, there is no cases to archive, because they are all done (cases need to be archived not before three days after a checkuser responds to them (unless a checkuser asks otherwise); so, for example, Requests for checkuser/Case/Afrika paprika will be archived tomorrow [March 11], which is three days after March 8). Please read WP:RFCU/C/P thorougly - a couple of times, at least - before you dive in, though.  Daniel Bryant  01:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/InShaneee
Looks like several statements, including mine, were removed from this arbitration case? I assume this was accidental? - Merzbow 01:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments from users who are not parties to the proceedings are moved to the talk page of the arbitration request. This is the current practice, as approved by the Arbitration Committee, for cases. Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  01:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. - Merzbow 04:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't get that at all. Where are editors supposed to discuss the statements, if not on the talk page?Proabivouac 06:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You can discuss the preliminary statements (ie. those added whilst the ArbCom were still deciding whether to accept the case) on the talk page.  Daniel Bryant  09:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee RfAr
Great job on opening the InShaneee RfAr, and thanks for your help during your busy season. One minor thing (that I also should have caught), there is one arbitrator who recused in this case, so you should adjust accordingly at /Proposed decision. (We've also been including lists of the arbitrators on the Proposed decision talk page to avoid confusion with the new arbitrators being appointed, but that may not be necessary any more.) Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I should have caught it, as well; fixed. Thanks for the note. Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  09:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Templates handling usernames with equal signs
Daniel, I'm becoming a gibbering idiot myself by now, dealing with a needed upgrade to the &#123;&#123;user__&#125;&#125; templates and their documentation, when some are fully protected and I can't edit them, and I turn to you in the hope you'll once again be kind enough to help.

On the talk page of Wikipedia:Username policy, the proposal's been made to forbid usernames that have equal signs in them, like User:Billbailey=legend, because the equal sign "breaks templates such as vandal".

Now recall that vandal is an alias of userlinks, and that (not counting your toning down the blue or Quarl's adding a tt class) its last big revision came from the fevered brain of yours truly, and you'll appreciate the painful irony of my wanting to fulminate against the fool who couldn't write a template properly, so that now innocent people might get blocked to protect his inadequate code from breaking. What sort of moral priorities have we set here?

In fact, all the templates that process usernames would have the same problem and there's no technical fix for it... but to simply urlencode the name ("Billbailey=legend" → "Billbailey%3Dlegend")... or even more simply, as VectorPotential already suggested there, to put a "1=" in front of the name when filling in the template. Such drastic measures! Maybe it's better to block all the people whom the system allowed to register such names! We can't ask others to type two extra characters to process them! Or, um, well, um, maybe we should ask just that.

VectorP, clearly an intelligent and sensible person with whom I'm sure either of us would enjoy having long dinner conversations, also suggested adding a named variable, with some easily remembered name like, say, "User" -- and here I have to mutter to myself "for those who have trouble remembering the number 1", but would never be so indiscreet as to go on record saying that -- and I'm taking all these excellent ideas and running with them.

So far I've updated User2, User3, User4, User6, User7, User8, User9, User10, User11, User12, and Usercheck to incorporate the variable "User" and document on each template's page how either "User=Billbailey=legend" or "1=Billbailey=legend" will let the template handle the username without breaking. I can keep updating all the username templates I find and have access to edit, but there are some that require the admin bit. So....

Would you please look these over, and, if you approve, copy them from edit mode here to edit mode there, making whatever further adjustments you deem necessary? If not, please just let me know. Thanks! -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 13:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Notes:
 * These all terminate just above the line, so as to include the updated documentation... except userlinks, whose documentation is separate ( and I've already edited it ).
 * To keep the "Usage" headers from cluttering your talkpage TOC, I've put colons-and-comments in front of them which need to be deleted once on the template page.
 * The default usernames differ among templates, some having "Example" and others "Example User". As uses "Example", I'm taking that as the standard and editing accordingly.
 * If "Example" appears as the username because it's entered into the template, it appears normally. If "Example" appears as the username because no name was entered at all, it is italicized. This way there's a hint whether someone really meant to report poor User:Example.
 * Each template with examples will need to be edited and saved twice, because in the first save the examples will have transcluded the previous version of the template; the changes will not show up in the examples until the second save (when the changed version is on record and can be transcluded).
 * Since the changes installing "User=" haven't been made even once yet, the examples below that feature it will of course look "broken" until their templates are updated.

 user 

User: (talk • contribs)


 * == Usage ==


 * &rarr;

Names with (or without) equal signs can be given as 1=Username or User=Username :
 *   &rarr;
 *   &rarr;

 user0 

User: (talk)


 * == Usage ==


 * &rarr;

Names with (or without) equal signs can be given as 1=Username or User=Username :
 *   &rarr;
 *  </tt> &rarr;

 user5 

User: ( talk • <span title="Contributions: ">contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= <span title="Page moves: "> page moves  ] • <span title="Block User:">block user  • [ <span title="Blocklog: "> block log  ] )


 * == Usage ==


 * &rarr;

Names with (or without) equal signs can be given as 1=Username or User=Username :
 * <tt> </tt> &rarr;
 * <tt> </tt> &rarr;

 userlinks 

</tt> ( talk · contribs · [ logs ] · block user · [ block log ] )

end of list


 * Wow, very nice :) My apologies for the delay in doing this - per below, and because I wanted to double-check with a couple of my more template-savvy friends whether this will break anything. All I've recieved is positive feedback, so I'm about to go incorporate the changes now. Cheers, and great work!,  Daniel Bryant  08:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, ✅ Done, in part. I'm awaiting clarification about point 5 in your notes from Luna Santin, in case I need to do anything further. Otherwise, see the history of the four templates to check my changes (which were linked here in an oldid). Cheers, and thanks again,  Daniel Bryant  08:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, unfortunately I'm not aware of any cleaner solution to the issue. Looks like the two of you have worked this out pretty well. Will see if I can pester a few people, just in case, but I don't anticipate anything more we'll figure out. :) – Luna Santin  (talk) 08:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, thanks Luna. Fully ✅ Done in leui of Luna's "pestering". Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  08:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Tar-Elenion
Could please do the relevant edit on his user page (since you protected it). He has been blocked indefinitely as a sock-puppet of User:Afrika paprika. Thanks. --PaxEquilibrium 13:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done; tagged as a blocked sockpuppet. I've unprotected the user page since the warring will now stop due to the block.  Daniel Bryant  05:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ACC
Yeah, thanks for handling those requests! By the way, I was wandering what you thought of the idea of changing the username-is-too-similar-to-existing-account message to point to WP:ACC? I've discussed it with at Wikipedia talk:Request an account but that discussion seems to have been abandoned. Do you think it would be a good idea, and if so, what should the message be changed to? Tra (Talk) 14:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that. It seems that it has been done during my delay in responding; if it counts for anything, my support is with that proposal :) Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  05:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Anthony cfc
Good evening (GMT time); hope you're well. I'd appreciate your advice regarding the above post, concerning a WP:RFCU case.

Basically, an administrator blocked too IP addresses, citing a WP:RFCU case in the block summary. The case was then incomplete, and later the closing CheckUser (Uninvited Company) passed judgement of "No comment for IPs"; this in essence made a block on the grounds of that CheckUser case (ie the block in question) unfair.

I took it upon myself to say "this isn't right" and requested unblocking; as a clerk, was this inappropriate?

Feel free to email me if you wish to give a response without passing negative comments about other Wikipedians.

anthony cfc [ talk] 16:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There was really no need to be acting as a pronounced clerk, and it would probably be better if you didn't - it could be considered passing a judgement. However, as a normal editor acting not in any form of clerk capacity, I see nothing wrong with your actions. Actually, it's better not to pronounce yourself a clerk outside of RFCU, really; clerks aren't meant to be spokespeople for the checkusers. Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  05:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you know...
... that this user has re-formatted the user's userpage to look like the Did you know... section of the Main Page?
 * (I think it looks kinda cool, succinct, hehe.) Thanks for all of your help and encouragement on the project, it is as always most appreciated...  Smee 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
 * On an unrelated note - if I wanted to go about finding the historical text of the "hook" from past articles created that were DYKs on the main page, is there a non-tedious way to go about doing that? Smee 22:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
 * If there's no easy answer to that second question, no worries, I'm going to sift through the history at Template:Did you know anyway... Smee 22:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Done. Smee 03:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Firstly, sorry for not responding before now - busy with school (it's finally the weekend). Secondly, to answer your questions:-
 * a) I now know that "this user" has reformatted their userpage, and I must say it's very cool! :)
 * b) Unfortunately, I don't know of any easy way to look for the historical hooks other than the way you did it :(
 * Cheers, and sorry again,  Daniel Bryant  07:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

hi / adminship
I noticed you were an admin (I've seen you on IRC sometimes). I think you tried several times. Congradulations. How long have you been admin? SakotGrimshine 20:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) I have been an administrator since January 30, 2007 as a result of Requests for adminship/Daniel.Bryant 2, which closed at 233/3/3. I tried twice (the other was at Requests for adminship/Daniel.Bryant, on August 12, 2006).  Daniel Bryant  08:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh and because of your name, I think you should be the admin to close Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (13th nomination). SakotGrimshine 20:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No thanks :) Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  08:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

RfAr
Please adjust the majority in the InShaneee case to reflect that SimonP is active again. (It turns out he was never inactive in the first place.) I'm doing the rest of the cases now. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 16:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. You probably could have done that yourself, you know :) Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  07:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.
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 05:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed your good work...
...on the Do you know section, and I think you deserve a long overdue medal for your duties.

I just got this award, and since you were the impetus that started me on this DYK path, I feel it is only fair to share it with you. Thank you so much! Yours, Smee 21:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
 * No problems! You do all the hard work, really, and I just feed off your brilliant article creations. Thanks again, and cheers,  Daniel Bryant  08:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

New DYK potential...
Let me know what you think of the article Noah Lottick. There are probably a bunch of different interesting facts that could be pulled out of there, but the best probably is simply something like Did you know that Noah Lottick's suicide was profiled in the award-winning TIME Magazine article: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power ? Keep me posted ... Yours, Smee 08:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Hope it's okay, I decided to do a self nom, in addition to Gandhi Memorial International Foundation. Please let me know if you think the "hooks" are okay.  Thanks for your time.  Smee 21:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Of course that's OK - I don't own your DYK nominations, or anything :) Both hooks are great, especially the former for Lottick. Cheers, and keep up the great article-writing,  Daniel Bryant  08:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Account creation
I'm crossing my fingers that gets applied to en.wp soon (we're currently on ). Once it does, we shouldn't hit the 6 accounts per IP limit anymore. Ral315 » 20:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it gets slightly annoying as it is at present.  Daniel Bryant  03:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User Category for Discussion
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="cfd" style="margin: 0 5%; padding: 0 7px 7px 7px; background: #FFFCE6; border: 1px solid #aaa; text-align: left; font-size:95%;"> A category created by you or to which you have significantly contributed is being considered for deletion, rename, move or merge in accordance with Wikipedia's Categories for Discussion policies. This does not mean that any of the userpages in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the User categories for discussion page. VegaDark 21:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC) ✅ Done, CSD G7.  Daniel Bryant  08:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh foo. What fun are you?
The trainwreck has already happened. I'm just admiring the damage. ,) HalfShadow 03:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to have Wikipedia put up with that crap.  Daniel Bryant  03:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was gonna share my popcorn with you, too. *sigh* HalfShadow 03:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Cow tipping
Hi. As a member of the mediation committee, I'm hoping you have the expertise to help close/decide/whatever the RFC I started at Talk:Cow_tipping. Not sure how long they should go, and I figure a neutral party could help sort things out. Let me know if this process is incorrect. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Although there is no time frame specifically, four-or-so days - with that latest comment made just one hour ago - is probably nowhere near enough. Generally, discussions like this would go for at least five days, or until all possible discussion has been exhausted. Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  05:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No problems.  Daniel Bryant  07:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Check out what some cheeky bugger did to your (and others') user page(s) Glen 08:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * *sigh* Some people just have too much time on their hands and malicious intent on their minds. Thanks for notifying me (I didn't see it), and cheers,  Daniel Bryant  08:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries, was only a couple hours before I saw and reverted it :) Glen 08:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I remember I was the first person to add that to a userpage (my own, 10mins after Essjay uploaded it [I even beat him to adding it :)] - a benefit of knowing Essjay on IRC prior to his depature), and I am glad to see some other users agree with the message. Thanks again, and cheers,  Daniel Bryant  08:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

not anymore
your talk page aint blank anymore! (in reference to your edit summary). HamedogTalk|@ 09:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Who's stalking my edits :) Cheers - it's the first time it's been blank in >7 days, due to my busy-ness -  Daniel Bryant  09:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it just so happened I clicked my watchlist and this came up first. I never clear ye olde watchlist. HamedogTalk|@ 09:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "You have 6 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages); you can display and edit the complete list." I clear mine probably too often (namely every week). I have two articles on my watchlist, one userpage (my own), as well as three Wikipedia namespace pages. Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  09:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

UNBLOCK
The above template was just created as a redirect, some of the unblock requests you just denied were six months old. But good calls in any case ;). NoSeptember  12:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I figured as such, as noted in this decline at 12:16, March 16, 2007 (UTC). Thanks for the note anyways, and cheers,  Daniel Bryant  12:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was watching how quickly new unblock requests were being reviewed after making this comment in and RfAr. Darn it if someone was acting promptly today ;). NoSeptember  12:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Normally I haunt WP:ACC (as well as that RfAr, where I am the clerk of the case), but I'm out of my account creation tokens (we all get six, at present) for this 24 hours. I can't wait for the new bugzilla patch which gives sysops unlimited... Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  12:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User5 ...sorry...
Daniel, sorry to bother you again so soon. Just two tiny things needed in User5: <tt>&#124; 2= &amp;#32;• rfcu|cond=n}}&lt;/span>)&lt;noinclude>
 * 1) The last line before needs to end in a double-bracket }} rather than a single bracket, so just adding one } at the end will fix that example.
 * 2) Since to handle equal-signs we specified "1=" in the username, we also need to specify "2=" in the next field, near the end of the template proper:

Neither of these will have affected most users; the first is just an example, not active code; the second just keeps the "rfcu" link from appearing when an RFCU subpage exists, and most people don't get those. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 21:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done both. Edit is there. Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  21:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)