User talk:Daniel/Archive/67

Mediation Committee/Current Nominations
I see you and have been edit-warring on Mediation Committee/Current Nominations, so I just wanted to remind you of the 3RR. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) --  tariq abjotu  16:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's editing by itself is worth being blocked over :) Daniel (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Typical Daniel... bullying an inferior editor to show his domination. *hides in a corner* &mdash;Dark talk 05:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Disclaimer: The editor in which the comment refers to should not take offense, nor should they take the nearest plane to Sydney holding a butcher's knife.
 * I wouldn't dream of it. Using a butcher's knife is totally redundant to using a Roman Longsword... Daniel (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was wondering how you could pass through airport security with a big long sword sticking out of the luggage. But then, that's just me... :p btw, a Roman longsword is so totally in the past... for a contemporary, sophisticated weapon, I present the shotgun. &mdash;Dark talk 11:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Trott and Johnson
Hi Daniel. Thanks for your comments on the Harry Trott article, they helped improve the article immensely. Unfortunately (or fortunately I should say) it has been promoted to FA status, however if you have a chance, Ian Johnson (cricketer) is at peer review if you can find some time to make some suggestions. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 11:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the copy edit. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 09:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, like, four edits :) Lets hope I actually finish this one sometime... Daniel (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sajjad Karim
Daniel, I'm disappointed that you have removed the only part of this article with references. I originally deleted that part of the article for being unreferenced, the two references were then forthcoming from balancing sources and as the MEP himself has not denied the story I let it stand. It has been periodically removed without any explanation by a user within the European Parliament, a user I have been trying to engage in discussion as to the content by starting a discussion at Talk:Sajjad Karim Now we have an article with no remaining referenced information left. I can only reiterate my disappointment - Gallo glass 16:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Partisan blogs are not acceptable references for content like that. Daniel (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

NotTheWikipediaWeekly
It may not be the Wikipedia Weekly, and it may not even be weekly - but it's scheduled for less than 24 hours time! - all the info is at the wiki page, and be sure to hang in all the usual places for help and guidance in hooking up the conference call! - feel free to ask me any questions, otherwise I look forward to chatting tomorrow morning (my time!) - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration policy and Arbitration guide
You said: "This case will open in 24 hours per the Arbitration policy, unless we receive direction from arbitrators to expedite the opening of this case." In fact, the 24 hours opening things is part of Arbitration guide ("Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four net accept votes are cast; that is, four more accept than reject votes."), not Arbitration policy. Pedantic, I know, but having looked closely at the history of those pages recently, it is quite instructive to see how the processes evolved. Also, the extra caveat should be that if the net vote changes in that 24 hours to less than four, then the case doesn't open, presumably? Otherwise case opening could be decided by the first four available arbitrators, rather than those who might not have seen the request yet? Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously if the votes change then the case won't be opened. Also, like law is to case law, "Arbitration policy" is to both Arbitration policy and the general built up procedure from conventions and supporting documents :) Daniel (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Rejected 0/4?
You might get others asking you this. Was it discussed at the clerks noticeboard, or was something said saying that you could remove the OrangeMarlin request? I see you said removing 0/4. Looking at that guide, I see "Cases that have not met the acceptance criteria after 10 days will be removed from this page." Maybe it should be updated to say that cases are also removed before 10 days if they are cannot reach the net tally of four accepts? I see 12 active arbitraotrs, so I don't think 0/4 is the right time to remove the request. Unless, as I said, there is more going on here? Carcharoth (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:AC/C: "Removing rejected cases from the main page within the 10-day period for consideration (a Clerk or Arbitrator may remove a case that has been listed for less than 10 days if there is a clear majority to reject and no chance of acceptance; helpers should only remove rejected cases after ten days);". 0/4 is conventially considered to be the "clear majority", as there's no chance of acceptance. Obviously the case needs to be listed for a sufficient period of time - which it was. I wouldn't remove something rejected as 0/4 after 30mins, but anything beyond 48 hours is fair game. Daniel (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be useful in the guide as well, yes? Carcharoth (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've followed this up here. Carcharoth (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy this was removed so quickly; the result really should have been up there at least long enough for people to see what had gone on.--jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then feel free to revert it (not to mention it's in the history). In recent times, given the activity levels of ArbCom, if we didn't step in and remove cases where it's 0/4 after a reasonable period of time, WP:RFAR wouldn't be loadable. Daniel (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Kinda hard to revert it now (too many intervening changes.) No big deal -- I was going to re-edit my comment to point out that I'm only slightly unhappy, a minor twinge, so you wouldn't think I was making a fuss about it. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be too difficult to restore - just let me know and I'll restore it, if only so one or two more arbitrators can go on the record. Daniel (talk) 02:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, let's restore it for exactly that purpose. I don't know if they will, but unless the result is being explicitly recorded elsewhere, I want the commitment that both Orangemarlin and myself have made to be visible for at least a while longer. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, done. Would copying the commitment to Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin be a reasonable idea? Daniel (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good idea. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, after about 5mins loading time, it's back. I'll leave it to a member of the Committee to post whatever they feel necessary to that RfAr case page - touching it seems to cause explosions :) Daniel (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know! Put a summary of his statement and my statement on WP:AN. That should get enough visibility, then, say, 24 hours after the last vote, take it down from RFARB. Thanks for all this (and for all the work you do in general.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Daniel/Sandbox/1 seems to be the best summary of the reject comments I could come up with. Thoughts? Daniel (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Think that much needs to be said? I tend to lean towards terseness, especially after all that verbiage. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, maybe just the text of R1? If so, does the Committee want the last sentence, or not? Daniel (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no action from the Committee! We rejected the case, remember? This is a personal arrangement between me and Orangemarlin that caused the committee to reject the case. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then it won't need an arbitration subpage, will it? Why don't I just delete RfAr/OM and move the talk page somewhere else? Daniel (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Or else I could post something like this: User:Daniel/Sandbox/1. Thoughts? Seems relatively descriptive and uncontroversial. Daniel (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. Thanks. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, sounds good. When this case is rejected, you can post it to Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin (it doesn't strike me as within the scope of my role to be posting, to be honest, given everything that's happened). Sounds OK to you? Daniel (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Mind-meld
See —  Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Poke
Yo, soon-to-be-an-ArbCom-member (you know it (though saying this will probably make you say no to my request :P)), you up for a peer review? (for them article thingos) WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Midtown Madness is calling (or this FAC is you're in that sort of mood).

kthxbai. —Giggy 09:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For saying such patent nonsense and lies, no. :) Daniel (talk) 09:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC) I can do one. Pick and I'll do it tomorrow.
 * Grr. I'm opposing your ArbCom election end of this year! —Giggy 09:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC) I don't mind, really. Which one's more encyclopediac? Oh, crap. Take the FAC.
 * I'm pretty sure creating a random redlinked page for the purpose of opposing a user who isn't even a candidate will qualify the page for speedy deletion :) Daniel (talk) 09:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC) T&S it is.
 * Heh. Not if I put it in context. :) —Giggy 09:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Awesome, thanks mate. You want anything in exchange?

Removal of Giano's comment from the IRC request for clarification
Hi Daniel. I've mentioned you here, regarding this edit. Would you be able to clear up what the situation is with edits like that? Do you just remove them outright, or do you move them somewhere else. Also, the edit summary of "fix" seems to not cover such a removal. Finally, do you notify the editor concerned that you have done such a removal? I haven't had time to look through your contribs around that date, which is why I am asking you. Carcharoth (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Users cannot comment in that section. Depending on the nature of the comment, I will decide whether to move it or just remove it. Giano's comment was one which I fell into the latter category. With all due respect, your statement at RfAr is deceptive, whether deliberately or not - the edit summary of "fix" applied to the rest of my changes, yet you conveniently fail to mention that there were other changes in that one edit, instead trying to convey that I acted inappropriately. Furthermore, my edit summaries aren't actually an issue for you to be bothered addressing me about. I'd appreciate it if you stopped commenting here attempting to criticise everything I do against either a written page of procedures or some unwritten guide. And no, I didn't notify Giano, because his comment was of an antagonistic nature - he knows he can't comment there (he has been warned and blocked for similar behaviour in the past, yet decided to do so anyways). Daniel (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit summaries are used to communicate to people what has been done in the edit - they are everyone's business and should describe the whole of the edit (though I will clarify things at the RfArb - and have apologised). I'm sorry if you feel that I'm criticising everything you do (I'm not) - the two recent questions I asked are completely unrelated. Two different RfArb cases that I happened to be watching, and one of those involving an old edit that it took me many minutes to find - it was not at all clear where that comment (which I clearly remembered) had gone. I was looking through edit summaries to try and find a "removed comment" edit summary, but failed, and eventually had to iterate through the history of two separate pages to find where the removal was. Turning to your reaction to perceived criticism, with all due respect it might be better to focus on what is being discussed, rather than trying to change the focus to me. Criticism comes with the job on Wikipedia, and being able to handle it without asking people to back off and "[stop] commenting here" is important. I will note that the first comment I made above was followed up by an arbitrator, and that arbitrators are still putting themseleves "on the record" at the OrangeMarlin RfArb, so I feel entirely justified in what I said there. I'll be happy to continue on my talk page if you have any further concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between criticism and three otherwise-unrelated posts in the space of less than 12 hours. Daniel (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

An email
is on its way. Rudget  ( logs ) 21:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Another e-mail
You have maaaaiiilll...lll...ll...l [falls to the floor with a thud.] Bishonen | talk 00:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC).

I think you may have lost your way...
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Geogre-William_M._Connolley/Workshop&diff=223249520&oldid=223248384 please stop blatantly flouting established procedures just to prove your point. need i go and find the rfar for you just to find your admonishment for doing stuff just like this?]

Are you serious? Surely you cannot be serious. And, let's upack your statment just a little bit, how on earth do you know that I did it "just to prove [my] point"? What was my point, anyway? That it's a waste of space to template paste in a swath of empty section I'll never use? That splitting discussion is a bad thing?

I (re)used that section because it's fussy and pointless to enforce this foolish consistancy. The vast majority of editors can work just fine in a shared section, and suprisingly did so for a long time.

There appears to me to be far too much paper shuffling and not enough actual dispute resolution going on here.

brenneman 07:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This issue is too frivolous to bother about... both of you, just calm down. &mdash;Dark talk 09:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Aaron, I am merely charged with doing what ArbCom tell me to. ArbCom told the clerks to change the workshop manner and to refactor new workshop pages to comply with it. If you have an issue with it, lobby them to fix it - I can't help you. I could care much for either format, to be perfectly honest, but that's irrelevant in my view. What is important is how ArbCom want it, and to what degree they want edits refactored to comply with it. Daniel (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just read my comment above as if someone else had written it, and my "tone of voice" is way off base. In real life, I've got a high squeaky voice and a big cheesy grin, so I can rip into you outrageously and not give much offense. None of the light heartedness comes across in plain text, and this is often a problem for me.  Same goes for kicking the tires on the arbitration pages: Brinksmanship is more dangerous when the other person can't read your body language, etc.
 * That aside, I see that we clearly have different ideas about clerk-hood. (This next bit I'm trying to be nice but clear, so if I'm a dick please just tell me and I'll redact.)  I'd presumed that clerks were not just automatons, but that they combined the ability to not get bored with fiddly work and a healthy dose of judgement and discretion.
 * Taking my recent poke-in-the-arb's-guts as an example:
 * Editing the "proposed decision" page was admittedly a way-out there step, BOLD2.  It was not disruption to make a point, since I actually do think it needed to be done, but I am a strong believer that reverted edits are sometimes useful.
 * Sharing a section with D, however, were so trivial that reverting them was serious overkill. Again, sharing the section wasn't done for disruption, but because it's a senseless rule.  Note the duplication of proposals that has resulted from everyone having their own little patch?  How can that possible be helpful?
 * The later section heading was just me being an arse, but was the change really required?
 * In case it's not utterly clear, I agree that the specifics here are trivial beyond belief, but I'm pretty concerned about the generalities. I'd like to have the issue of clerk's roles discussed further, but I can also take "bugger off twat" pretty genially.
 * brenneman 01:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that reverting would have been way overkill, and discourteous. Rather than reverting (and removing your comment entirely), I simply made your edits comply with the format ArbCom want. Kind of a dont shoot the messenger situation, really. Daniel (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Brenny asked me to pop by. Why, I have no idea. I'm supposedly some sort of raving loon according to some, not the calm reasoned voice that he thinks I am... But anyway, enough about me. I think this every person for themselves format in Workship is a failure, at least in some cases, and it should not be rigidly adhered to, instead used flexibly based on the situation. Really, there's no need for anyone to get their back up even one bit. I'll say this, though. ANYTHING that gets certain (*cough* SV/FM *cough*) cases moving a bit faster is to be welcomed. Even if it gets up arb's noses. If it just makes them sneeze instead of sit catatonically I'll call it a win. ++Lar: t/c 02:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But, Brenny... why not ask the arbs to allow forebearance, instead of making their work harder by somewhat pointy exercises? Just before this you were merrily editing on the workshop page itself were you not? What is UP with that, man, are you daft? Er, don't answer that, mate.
 * And Daniel, why not let it slide, and find the most sympathetic arb and ask HIM to revert it or direct you to, if it's that big a deal?

Charles and I
I don't know if this is generally known; but I think I shall make you aware of it: that Charles Matthews and I know each other in Real Life. Its visible on his homepage for those who look carefully; alas I doubt that includes most of the arbs in this case. Whether this constitutes a COI I leave up to the arbcomm; I find it odd that it hasn't at least been mentioned to be dismissed William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles obviously does not consider it to be sufficient to recuse (given he mentions it openly on his userpage), which is his decision. From a regular users' perspective, I wouldn't recuse if I was in Charles' shoes, given I don't believe the conflict of interest is sufficient to merit it. Daniel (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandal Proof
Hi there, I have had my name in the VP approval list for the last few weeks and I was wondering if you could approve to use the tool, I have over 7'000 edits (Including deleted ones) and if you have the time could you please approve me to use VP. Thanks in Advance and All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!
As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway! :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day!   Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Smile!


Here's lithium for you! Lithium somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Hús ö  nd  01:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #18
♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

How often are people approved for vandalproof?
hi, I was wondering how often are a new batch of people approved for vandalproof, as it's been about a month since anybody has, And there are quite a few people on the list. Cheers, Nappymonster (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I've got other things on at the moment which are taking up my time. Please consider contacting one of the other moderators. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Page protection
I have requested unprotection here. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I should have asked you here. Apologies. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tell me what the "mistake" is and I'll fix it, or bring the "mistake" up on the proposed decision talk page and an arbitrator or clerk will fix it. Daniel (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ...which I have seen you have done the latter. Daniel (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was going to swing by and attached the unsigned thing to it, but the arbitrator got to it. Incidentally, why choose full protect over semi?  Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the last two arbitration cases involving this subset of the community has been disrupted by established users, not IP addresses. If administrators want to lose their adminship to play games with the Proposed decision page, they're free to. The protection acts as a deterrant. Daniel (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've not been watching the other cases, I only watch selected cases. Your reasoning makes sense.  Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad Revert Edit
I reverted the edit before doing the research (I know big mistake on my part) after researching though I did find out what it was, and got distracted by something here at home. By the time I came back I had forgetten to go back and change it. Thanks for fixing it though.Inter16 (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problems. Daniel (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU, Status, and you!
As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot  23:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Nguyen Trung Truc DYK

 * Taking credit for YellowMonkey's work, I see... :) &mdash;Dark talk 12:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehstab :) Daniel (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Avrill troll
What is this exploit all about? Can you please post a note on the village pump, so others can understand how to fix this.

I've been trying to fix this - Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism - since past few minutes, but I didn't understand anything. 202.54.176.51 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See Help:Dummy edit. Daniel (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Fred Singer
See. It looks sourced to me too but I am reluctant to go against an OTRS action. Could you review and explain? --BozMo talk 08:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied there. Thanks for not restoring it; that's not a path we want nor need to go down. Daniel (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sent you an email about this. --BozMo talk 11:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied. Daniel (talk) 11:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Arbitration Committee
I was wondering if the ArbCom has any intent of taking over this account for use of the EmailUser function, à la User:Oversight, User:Mediation Committee et al. The owner of the account, szyslak, indicated he is willing to give control of the account over to the Committee upon request. Just something to think about, oh ArbCom clerk. seresin ( ¡? ) 09:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked a while ago, and was told (by Kirill) that they didn't need it because the majority of incoming mail is composed of forwarded threaded email conversation, which the Wikipedia email system isn't very good at dealing with (relative to Gmail, etc.). If you go to the userpage for the account in question and click "What Links Here", you should be able to find the discussion we had. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox
Hi. Why was the sandbox ever move-unprotected? I thought it had been move-protected since last year. It will remain move-protected indefinitely I hope? Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 13:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It was temporarily deleted and during that time lost its protection. Daniel (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

DoDaCanaDa
re: "Do not aggressively cross-post identical messages to other people's pages as you did."

Even so, it's not your place to delete them from other users' talk pages. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Reverting disruptive edits is something I do every day. Daniel (talk) 09:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not on my user pages though. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not yours. Daniel (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough for articles, we're discussing user talk pages: Talk_page_guidelines Removing a 2nd party's comment to a 3rd party on that 3rd party's talk page, such that it's not visible to the 3rd party, is vandalism. Don't do it. I don't care what your issue is with the creator, it's certainly not your talk page to be cleaning up, no matter how well intentioned it was. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to polish up your definition of vandalism. If you still think it is, report me to WP:AIV and see how quickly you get laughed off. Daniel (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all there was nothing aggressive in the message at all and it still stands even being deleted. Please explain your POV. Also. please explain how you, not involved in the ongoing discussion until your action today, got involved. Just random roaming? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I love the automatic assumptions of bad faith. Please stop aggressively (used to refer to the actual editing, not the content of the messages themselves) crossposting as you did. Daniel (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)