User talk:Daniel/Archive/71

Courtesy blanking on AN/I
Just a thought on the courtesy blanking on AN/I, while a courtesy blanking on other pages isn't a big deal (history easily readable) a courtesy blanking on AN/I is the equivalent of a permanent deletion. Someone attempting to check the contents (for whatever reason) would be buried under the sheer amount of traffic on that page. I'd recommend in the future any courtesy blanking come with a link to the diff.--Crossmr (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that was part of the rationale of the decision. Daniel (talk) 06:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Then it isn't really a courtesy blanking is it? on any other page it would be easily recoverable. If its meant to be permanently hidden, it should be oversighted and deleted. Otherwise calling it a courtesy blanking is a bit misleading. Yes technically its still available but technically something being oversighted might still be available on a mirror or cache somewhere, they're in about the same class there.--Crossmr (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Raymond Hoser
Hi there, can you revisit this? The article now cites peer-reviewed academic reviews with a total of eight separate authors that make strong criticisms of this guy's work. I don't see how his reason for requesting deletion can still be valid. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to let the nomination run, even if it is simply to have a point of reference for community consensus when someone has to handle Hoser's OTRS emails in the future. Daniel (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "No consensus" I'm afraid. However, the article has improved a great deal during the AfD so he might not object to it anymore. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * At least now, in refuting his requests to delete it, we can say "The consensus determines content, and they have refused to delete it". Daniel (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Central Coast Mariners FC players
Hi, just thought I'd let you know that according to the cleanup listing, the article currently is in need of updating. Because the page is a Featured List, it would be great if it could be resolved quickly. Thanks, Scorpion0422 15:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ta. Will look at getting it fixed in the next couple of weeks. Daniel (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Elia Kazan
Daniel, your bias is showing. R.E.: (cur) (last) 06:12, 12 October 2008 Daniel (Talk | contribs) (19,591 bytes) (Undid revision 244607250 by 66.167.50.127 (talk) This is WP:OR and a WP:BLP violation to boot.)

If a sentence describing those who did not acknowledge Kazan is WP:OR and thus you deleted it, how can a sentence listing those who supposedly did acknowledge Kazan be acceptable and thus left in place by you to be frozen in place? I grant WP:OR status and agree with it, but this entire article is a mish-mash of un-cited statements and WP:OR!

Given that I stipulate WP:OR it should be moot to bring this up (since the entire subject should be going away), but I know nothing in that puff piece is going to change so: RED FLAG: There are factual errors in the (supposed) list of Kazan's supporters; people listed in this article as supporting Kazan are in fact on the record denying it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.60.245 (talk) 07:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Which sentence is this? If it's also referenced to a Youtube video and therefore violates OR, I'll kill it as well. Daniel (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, found it. Removed with the same rationale. Daniel (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Error
If you check more carefully you will see that you have cut my statement in half ... please reinstate it in full or cut it out. Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian Abtract (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The threaded discussion was removed as one is not permitted to include evidence copy-and-pasted like that in opening statements; see Arbitration_guide, in particular "Use diffs to point to specific instances to illustrate the point". Please also note at the top of the case page, "Statements on this page are original comments provided at arbitration request and serve as opening statements". The statement includes a link to the excessive copy-and-pasting of evidence which you provided initially, refactored by a clerk as they have been instructed and officially empowered to do so by the Arbitration Committee. As I noted here, all further statements, comments and evidence should be submitted to the working areas of the case - talk pages, evidence and workshop pages - and not the official case page. Daniel (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether by accident or not, the section you removed was part of my statement at the time the decision was made to continue ... if it is not restored I will take no further part in this matter. Abtract (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Arbitration does not require that all parties take part; sanctions are enforceable regardless of a users' participation (or lack thereof). From a historical observatory standpoint, users who refuse to participate in RfAr's brought against them have historically been left worse off by the remedies than I believe they would have had they participated. However, the choice is yours; my actions with regards to the statement are not going to be reverted by myself, and as an action in my role as Clerk on an arbitration page, can only be reviewed and altered by an Arbitration Committee member. Daniel (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Big Sonic Heaven
Hi there - wondering why the page Big Sonic Heaven was deleted? It's been awhile since I visited the article, but just noticed that it was gone. The only reason there apparently is "expired prod", which doesn't help much. Personally, I'd like to see the page restored. Thanks! LesOrchard (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It means someone proposed it for deletion due to notability concerns, and because no-one contested it, it was deleted. However, WP:PROD says that if it's contested it needs to be undeleted, so it's been undeleted. Regards, Daniel (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber
Please accept my apologies, I wasn't aware of this rule. Ludraman (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

unprotect Talk:Joe Wurzelbacher
Hi, following the guideline at Requests for page protection, I request you to unprotect Talk:Joe Wurzelbacher and merge Talk:Joseph Wurzelbacher to it. The main page Joe Wurzelbacher is not fully protected now. There is no reason to protect its talk page. Thanks.--Neo-Jay (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Now Talk:Joe Wurzelbacher has been unprotected. But the edit history of Talk:Joseph Wurzelbacher still needs to be merged to it. --Neo-Jay (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The merge was completed by CIreland. The problem has been solved. Thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 11:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Court Avenue

 * Thanks for nominating this! I considered self-nominating it, but quickly dismissed the thought because I thought the minimum was 5,000 rather than 1,500 characters :-)  Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * At one stage I thought it was 1,500 words... -- How do you turn this on (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

your assistance please...
You were to administrator who closed the DRV on Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam.

More sources are emerging on this individual. And I would like to review the deleted article, with an eye to incorporating that new information, and then putting it back into article space.

First, some advice please. If someone userifies the article for me, if after I incorporate the new material, if I think it is in shape to be moved to the main article space, what would you recommend? Is there a normal procedure for restoring articles to articles space, after the inclusion of new material? Do I file a formal request? Do I poll some of the good-faith challengers, and see if they think the new version addressed their objections to the first version?

Second, could you userify the article to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Review/Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam -- 2. Could I have the full edit history and talk page?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I am a little hesitant to userfy the article as it was deleted per a consensus who thought it violated BLP; in all other situations I wouldn't hesitate as you're in good standing, but in this situation I'm a little stuck. What I am happy to do is for me to email you a copy on the understanding that you won't repost it on-wiki (as the current consensus from the last AfD is that it's a BLP violation), and you work on it offline to bring it up to a different version which you feel meets all out policies.
 * At that point, I believe what happens is you post it to your userspace and at the same time instigate a deletion review seeking consensus to move it into the mainspace. If the DRV is successful, depending on how much of the original article you incorporated, I'll post a textonly version of the history to the talk page; if it is unsuccessful, the page in your userspace gets deleted.
 * Does that sound OK? Daniel (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay then, please mail me the article. Can I ask you to use your judgment in choosing which version to e-mail?  I have persistent challengers, who show up whenever an article I started is nominated for deletion.  And they sometimes conduct a practice I personally think is intellectually dishonest.  Even though they have gone on record in the afd that they do not believe the article can be improved so it is worth keeping -- they continue to edit the article.


 * Yes, I agree, even a contributor who has voiced a delete should remove obvious slander or libel. But, otherwise, in my personal opinion, adding "improvements" to articles one has nominated for deletion, while the afd is underway, strains my AGF past its breaking point.


 * So, if you can't userify the article, and it edit history, could you please use your judgment, and if it looks like someone from the deletion party was edit-warring please use your judgment and email the last version that you think I was happy with?


 * You will mail me a version with the wikicodes? Can you send an e-mail the talk page too?  Geo Swan (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Daniel (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Received.  Geo Swan (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * About the article's violation of BLP?

Can I as you for some clarification? When you wrote that, if 2.0 version of the article survived a DRV you would post a text-only version of the edit history to the talk page -- you meant you would merely list the previous contributors, without providing links to the actual edits to the 1.x versions of the article?

For clarification, can I state my guess as to why you think this step is necessary?

If an article was deleted because it contained slander, or libel, or otherwise harmed a non-notable individual, and then a second version was restored, and its edit history allowed access to version 1.0 edits, it would allow the persistent to view the slanderous or libelous comments that triggered the BLP concern in the first place, correct?

But, in this particular case, no one argued that the article violated BLP because it contained libel, or slander. They merely argued that it did not comply with BLP because they did not regard the references it was then using as sufficiently independent.

To be frank, I understand:
 * 1) it is important for the wikipedia to have a policy that protects individuals from libel and slander, and protects the wikipedia from accusations of libel and slander; and
 * 2) it is also important for the wikipedia to have mechanisms to clear out bumpf, cruft, and patent nonsense.

But I am mystified why the strong measures necessary to protect individuals from libel and slander should also be applied to disagreements about "notability".

If new sources are supplied, that everyone agrees establish "notability", and no one suggests any previous version of the article ever contained slander, then why should its edit history be suppressed?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus in the AfD was that the article violated BLP. That prohibits the edit history being restored, regardless of what part of the BLP policy it violated. BLP doesn't only cover slander, but also people notable for negative events (such as imprisonment) or for one event. Daniel (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussions that preceded BLP becoming a policy?

I have asked a few other people for help with this. I'll ask you too. I'd like to read the formal discussions that preceded BLP becoming a policy. Can you tell me where to find them? Was they a vote? Who got to vote?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the right way to go about this is to challenge whether BLP is actually a policy. BLP is a foundation-based policy which was instituted by edict of those within the foundation, including Jimmy Wales. Daniel (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of challenging whether it is a policy.


 * I would still like to know how it became a policy, and take a look at any public documents from the discussion that composed it. Geo Swan (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wasn't around when it happened, but as a guess maybe foundation-l's archives. Daniel (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Do text-only histories comply with the liscence contributors grant under the GFDL?

I have seen some other wikis that mirror wikipedia material, or that allow contributors to port material from the wikipedia, and the fork from the wikipeida, put disclaimers that basically tell readers that if they want to see the contribution history they have to go to the wikipedia. It has always seemed to me that this was a misinterpretation of the GFDL, or, at best, an excessively loose interpretation. If the wikipedia article subsequently gets deleted readers of the material from the other wiki have absolutely no path to viewing the contribution history -- so their use of the material would not, IMO, comply with the GFDL under which the original contributors released it.

Do you think my concern that a text-only contribution history would have the same weakness is misplaced? Geo Swan (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do, because I have spoken to Mike via Jimmy about text-only histories in the past when dealing with OTRS, and he said they're sufficient for licensing concerns. Daniel (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is Mike the wikimedia foundations lawyer? Expert on intellectual property?  Geo Swan (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, he is our General Counsel. Daniel (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If that 2nd DRV were to fail?

So, if I add more material, more references, to the version you email me, then upload it to my user-space, then initiate a 2nd DRV of that version, and that DRV fails, what are my remaining choices?

It seems to me that I retain some rights to my initial contributions to that article, under the GFDL. If I understand the GFDL the wikipedia has no grounds to object if I were to port somewhere else material originally submitted to the wikipedia, of which I was the sole contributor of intellectual content.

I have ported the initial versions of some articles I started elsewhere. When I do so I only port those portions I feel I can claim to be the sole author of. Sometimes I go to a version after someone else has made an edit. If their edit is a spelling, or punctuation correction, I don't count it as an intellectual contribution.

If the other contributor's edit is just the addition of a category I don't count it, because other smaller wikis don't use categories, and I have to trim them out anyway.

If the other contributor's edit added new references, but no new text, I don't count it as intellectual content, because I don't think it would comply with the SCOTUS ruling in Feist v. Rural, which says "facts" cannot be copyright. I don't think a reference, no matter how much effort it took to find, or populate, is anything other than a "fact" according to the SCOTUS ruling, and thus a contribution that only contains references doesn't count as intellectual content on which someone can claim a copyright under US law.

My recollection is that I contributed most of the intellectual content of the Ajam article.

If that second DRV fails, or if, after you mail me the last good version, I decide a second DRV is pointless, I would like to be able to consider porting my portion of the intellectual content of the article elsewhere. But, in order to do that, I would either have to have access to the article's history, or get an administrator to mail me the last version where I can claim to be the sole author of the intellectual content.

Do you agree that, if I can get access to the last version I can claim to be the sole intellectual author of, I should feel free to use that material wherever and however I want?

Thanks  Geo Swan (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am happy to email you the last version where you retain full GFDL rights over all its content, and yes, you are free to repost that under your sole ownership and a GFDL-compatible license. Daniel (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Passing by, I see no blp concerns raised in the AfD. Can you indicate what you think they were? . Absent them, I think he's entitled to a complete copy of the material. After all, everyone who contributed contributed according to GFDL, so anyone at all may reuse their contributions in any manner they see fit. I think, GS, you are legally and morally entitled to port anywhere any content that ever appeared on Wikipedia if you maintain the attributions and do not change the copyright of what you post from GFDL-- except if it had deleted as being someone else's restricted copyright. Reinserting it in Wikipedia is of course another matter and does at this point require Deletion review. DGG (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed he can, as I noted above. You are also correct in noting that republishing it onto Wikipedia is not a right automatically granted either. Daniel (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK
These two seemed to have slipped through, so noting them here myself :) Daniel (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Utter vanity... &mdash;Dark talk 06:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

hi
Hi Daniel, thx for the reminder cos its the kind of thing I might do... however your diff doesnt support the assertion ?(I think), Either way. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Oh I see ... yes guilty as charged. thx. Could you award yourself and Ill try better next time Victuallers (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done already :) I believe the punishment for such an offence is 10 strikes to the back with the banhammer, so if we ever meet, remind me that I owe you one...or, rather, ten! Cheers, Daniel (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

G'day :-)
noticed your archive thing (of course!) - and had a quick question... the only arb-page postings I read about this was from 31st August... I also read multiple noticeboard and talk page threads. I strongly suspect that I've missed a clarification request due to general uselessness, and wondered if you might remember it, or be able to point me in the right direction? Cheers big ears, Privatemusings (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There definitely was one, dunno where it went though. Hrm... Daniel (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll keep digging (hopefully not a deeper hole :-) I also mentioned elsewhere that maybe this page needs updating. I would, but I really don't think steve's status is clear enough at the mo.. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 'cos it's related, and 'cos you might have 5 min.s spare to take a look, and 'cos it seems to me that you're wise in the ways of arb. clarifications etc. here's a request I just made of Flo. It seems to me that the situation warrants confirmation by the entire committee, but obviously won't restore or re-write the clarification that you archived the other day..... do you think any clarification is required? - I think it would be best for there to be a regular case, or at least some sort of process..... your thoughts most welcome! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a very bad idea to raise this on-wiki again, especially as Steve is basically reneging on a previous agreement between him and the Committee which was handled via private correspondence. I think it would be better to let Steve contact them himself, privately, because as Sam says, "the involvement of third parties in this situation is not likely to be beneficial". Daniel (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * yeah - I totally understand that Steve and the arbcom came to some sort of agreement, which Steve now wishes to alter. What I'm less sure of is whether or not that agreement is a formal 'arbcom sanction' or not (seems unusual to have sanctions without a case? seems a bit unfair, to be honest....) - the 'third parties' thing I (obviously!) don't agree with at the mo, because I feel that 'on wiki' clarity is actually the best way forward for all, so am trying to encourage it :-) It shouldn't be too hard to ask the committee to confirm the results of a private vote, no? - so there are the questions as I see them! thanks for helping out / chatting anywhoo! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

SEGA Sockpuppet
Hello Daniel. I know you are familiar with User:SEGA. He has re-appeared using the account. This edit pretty much tips his true hat. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

SEGA is ❌ to
 * ✅ that =  =,  — Rlevse •  Talk  • 01:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles
Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ? Thanks ARP Apovolot (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr Mabuse
Good edit. Thanks. I went through various possibilities. Yours was better than any of mine. Les woodland (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)les woodland
 * No problems. Took me a while to ponder what was the best word. Daniel (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

ArbCase history - link needs updating
Hi Daniel, it appears that you closed the C68-FM-SV case. Within that case, a page in my userspace is linked in presentation of evidence. I have renamed the page and am repurposing the original. For continuity of the record, the two links on the evidence page should be changed to either of this or possibly this permalink.

Is that something I should just do myself without asking or should it be you making the change? And does it even matter anyway? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Big Sonic Heaven
Thanks for taking a look at the Big Sonic Heaven page deletion I'd asked about! Also, sorry if this isn't the place to drop a note of thanks. :) LesOrchard (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing evidence of closed case
Is this allowed after the case is closed? -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

nu j00zerpage
u has wun. [ roux  ] [ x ] 00:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OMG... Since when has the anti-userpage warrior/bureaucrat changed into one of the 80%-of-my-edits-are-to-the-userpage people he has long detested o.O &mdash;Dark talk 09:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * * gathers up evidence before Daniel spears him with his Mariners bullshit* &mdash;Dark talk 09:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

IRC
Please refrain from discussing me on IRC in future, I regard all logs mentioning my name to be completely fair game and my own property. Giano (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears you missed the sarcasm and irony of my comments, but oh well. By the way, they aren't your own property, as I maintain copyright over everything I say in there. So they are not "your property". Daniel (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well let's hope you never cause me to put that to the test, in the meantine stop gossiping about those that are trying to write this project. Giano (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a courtesy note – you are being discussed at WP:ANI. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just had a look at this and frankly I am disgusted. You have the temerity to officiate at this and remove some of my statement with a pompous reason that it was against the rules - which prompted me to take no part and then I discover you are considerably worse than even my biggest enemies would say I was ... I presume now that your true character has been outed you will ask for my case to be reconsidered? Abtract (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "I presume now that your true character has been outed" Funnily enough, I always thought civility was a policy on Wikipedia. &mdash;Dark talk 06:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you have a point to make?Abtract (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. It seemed you missed it though... &mdash;Dark talk 07:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you understand the back story before making your point? If it was important you'd better make it in plain English cos I am a bit thick. 18:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I know the back story perfectly well thanks. As for my point, I did make it in plain English. &mdash;Dark talk 06:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest not continuing this conversation. Inter-fighting is a waste of everybody's time. AGK 07:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies; especially since I agree that civility is a policy and one which I adhere to. Abtract (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #22
The October issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 02:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your IRC Block
Regarding your IRC Block and its conditions, please be aware that I do not want an apology, it would stick in your throat and cause bile in mine. I would imagine being banned form #Admins is more of a holiday than a sanction, but I expect on past form the sanction will be minutes rather than days or weeks. Funnily enough, I don't really blame you, you must see so much such behaviour there I expect you thought it was the acceptable norm. The people I blame are the channels leaders, the FT2s of this world who when appointed by the Arbcom to investigate the deplorable state of affairs that exists there. Yet having carried out this investigation, in February, assured us all that the channel was properly regulated. It is not regulated at all. If it was this painful situation would not have arisen. We have an Arbcom comprised of #Admins asking other senior #Admins to investigate it and report their findings. It was always going to be whitewash and stitch up, and as usual it is the community who pays the price. Giano (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Minar-e-Pakistan.jpg
Thank you uploading this, image. However because of planned licensing changes in Wikipedia, it would be appreciated if you could consider dual licensing the image under the terms of the GFDL 1.3 and CC-BY-SA 3.0 license.

As on OTRS ticket exists for the image concerned it should not be hard to contact the original copyright holder, to request a change in the licensing.

Dual-licensing assists those wishing to make use of images and media on other WMFprojects, and off wiki. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

hint
Hi Daniel, could you please have a look at your otrs-wiki user page? Work is waiting or you ;) --Lyzzy (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to write the same thing. Thank you, --Elitre (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Privatemusings
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Requests for comment/Privatemusings. --  MBisanz  talk 01:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCase history - link needs updating
Hi Daniel, it appears that you closed the C68-FM-SV case. Within that case, a page in my userspace is linked in presentation of evidence. I have renamed the page and am repurposing the original. For continuity of the record, the two links on the evidence page should be changed to either of this or possibly this permalink.

Is that something I should just do myself without asking or should it be you making the change? And does it even matter anyway? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)