User talk:Daniel/Archive/78

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Daniel. No further edits should be made to this page. For a list of archives for this user, see User talk:Daniel/Archive.
Archive This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.
← Archive 77 · Archive 78 · Archive 79 →

Temporary case clerk need to cover Abd-WMC case

Hi there. You are listed as active at the clerks page. Would you be able to have a look here? I'm looking for one of the currently active clerks to look after the case for a few days until Hersfold is back? If one of the five clerks listed as active could volunteer, that would be great. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my old account

could you email me what you think my old account is? thanks Pzrmd (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Daniel (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guachanche barracuda

Thanks for the message, i'm pretty confused about that too, now that i look back on it -your emailer is prebably right: there's now way a 6 foot fish could weigh only 3 pounds. However, i checked my references and found that they were correct. I think what happened, since the length and weight came from 2 different sources, is that one fish was caught and found to be the longest while another was found to weigh the most (although if someone had bothered to weigh the 6-footer in the first place we wouldn't be having this conversation!)

i'm going to try and chance that line to something like "Although they can grow up to 200cm, Guachanche barracuda have only be recorded to weigh as much as 1.7kg," trying to stress that the two pieces of data aren't related to the same fish. Let me know what you, and whoever found this problem, think about this. peace! Ryan shell (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that note. I sent a reply to the person who emailed us quoting your reply and asking if there were any follow-up comments or suggestions. I'll keep you informed. Thanks for looking at the sentence. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia and soccer

They came back again YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 06:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done :S Daniel (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a small wonder we have a football team at all, with skillful players like Daniel being allowed onto the pitch. His influence on the game has left a mark on the under-six teams he umpires. And by skill, I was referring to his ability to kick a ball in the opposite direction to which he was aiming at. A miraculous exploit indeed. —Dark talk 08:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Falls, I just checked, and it turns out you now have the most edits to my talk page other than myself, surpassing Alex G. Watchlist stalk much? :) Oh, and they're sixteen (and older), not six, and in a different sport! Daniel (talk) 08:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Brandt, I am extremely curious as to the amount of attention you paid to my edits on your talk page. Indeed, I am morbidly disappointed at your apparent editcountitis. And I am confused as to why you are coaching people twice your age! —Dark talk 08:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as you hack at a football with extreme maliciousness (and little hand-eye coordination), I am rather surprised that you can kick an AFL ball. —Dark talk 08:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually can't kick an australian rules football. I can center-bounce it impeccably, though :) Daniel (talk) 08:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Errr, I can't think of anything worse than umpiring under 6 footballers! That just sounds horrendous! Oh, and I can kick an Australian Rules football very nicely, but Hawthorn still won't let me play for some reason I can't figure out. I suspect it has something to do with body parts, but having such a bad season, you'd think they'd be willing to try anything. :D Sarah 07:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha I've never umpired six year olds, I can imagine it would be terrible! At least with the sixteen year olds they have enough creativity to vary the insults - Year 12 football is always good fun to umpire in that respect, I'm always kept on my toes. Hawthorn...hrm...well, the Swannies aren't exactly doing fantastically, so I won't start the taunting just yet! :) Daniel (talk) 07:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Someone should mention to the administrators down at Hawthorn that stealing players from other codes is all the rage at the moment :) Daniel (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think you should pop onto the talk page to explain as well, just to pre-empt the next driveby. The rankings are so crap, Israel got up to 12 and US up to 4 and Norway up to 2 once. Also they don't scale it enough for the weak continents. I wish there was more regular international action. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs
WC (rapper)
Kleagle
Victoria & Alfred Waterfront
Bosonic string theory
Sunday Mail (Scotland)
Hayakawa, Yamanashi
Sneeze
Sagamiko, Kanagawa
New Jersey Bell
Type I string theory
Cardwell, Queensland
Jean-Louis Barrault
Clermont, Queensland
Hachiryu, Akita
Birmingham Post
Cassidy
Saldanha Bay
Yuya, Yamaguchi
Sydenham, New South Wales
Cleanup
John Legend
Doug Stanhope
DMX (rapper)
Merge
Vincent Valentine
Thredbo, New South Wales
Kimmy Gibbler
Add Sources
D4L
Joey Gladstone
Devil's Peak (Cape Town)
Wikify
Chartered Accountant
Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures Game
Daniela Luján
Expand
Hot Country Songs
Will.i.am
Summerland (TV series)

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) 17:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

+

As requested, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ernie Toshack with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1 YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Daniel (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here you go, ungrateful colonial

...that because the Foulées du Gois road running race is held on a tidal causeway, participants are sometimes forced to swim to the finish line? Ironholds (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danke sir. Daniel (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel is descendant from convicts. That's where he gets his dodgy skin tone. —Dark talk 08:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Australia at the Winter Olympics/archive1

Hi, this article is in the FARC stage now. Can you check back to see if your concerns were resolved? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Daniel (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ponting's favorite cricketer! YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Clark

Neil Clark took a "so be it" line on the potential murder of Iraqi interpreters, which amounts to what the anonymous user is claiming. The animus between Clark and Oliver Kamm is not derived from them writting for rival publications; Clark attempted to sue Kamm a few years ago, rather incompetently. An article by Clark has not appeared in The Guardian's 'Comment is Free' since last August, and pieces by Kamm appeared there also before he became a Times full-timer last Summer. Clark's main current outlet is The First Post, with occasional pieces for the Morning Star, Sunday Express and New Statesman, none of them are in direct competition with The Times. So the claim that they write for rival publications is inaccurate as much as it pushing a point of view. Incidentally, the absence of third-party sources on the libel case is the reason why it is unmentioned in the article. Philip Cross (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Neil Clark took a "so be it" line on the potential murder of Iraqi interpreters, which amounts to what the anonymous user is claiming" — no, it's not. You don't get to synthesise, analyse and deduce from sources; see WP:SYNTH. Per WP:BLP, all statements like that need to be impeccably sourced, and your argument for its inclusion (on a talk page, no less) does not meet that requirement.
You were advised last year by two separate administrators to back away from this article. I would suggest that would be a very good idea, given recent developments. You must consider whether you value your anonymity - something which is directly under threat should you continue down this course - more than you do the ability to continue to mash this article to bits with your point of view, an agenda propelled by your blog at http://anti-illiberal.blogspot.com/ (yes, I know it's yours). You are quite clearly an agenda-driven editor when it comes to this topic, and I strongly suggest you cease your involvement with it else face being blocked entirely or being banned from that article under WP:BLPSE.
Daniel (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've reverted an edit that is not an "edit war" but is directly related to comments that I put on the Talk page of this article. There are, as it stands, two clear factual errors in the relevant section - I should know, because I'm the author of the criticisms that are being recounted. If those criticisms are going to be included, then I'd like them to be accurately cited. If they're not going to be included, then it's immaterial, though you might wish to ask in that case whether a subject about which there is literally no other secondary material in a recognised source is sufficiently notable for an article.--OliverKamm (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be glad if you would acknowledge and act on the point I've raised.--OliverKamm (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the delay, I haven't been very active lately. I cannot cede to your first request, but I feel you've made a good argument with the second point (independent third-party sources). I've raised the issue at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Neil_Clark_.28writer.29 to seek wider input on the issue. Daniel (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Foulées du Gois

Updated DYK query On August 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Foulées du Gois, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Wikiproject: Did you know? 17:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Help me to address mediation on a previous dispute PLEASE

Hello sir, I am trying to request mediation for an article on Kent Hovind, I tried to post a request, but there was a previous rejection in 2007, and I am unsure on how to proceed. In the mean time a few ( maybe one bouncing between computers ) is undoing all of my contributions. The artical is blatantly bias against this man, and I wanted to balance out some of the disputed claims to establish neutrality that Wikipedia is appreciated for. Truth is I have time and time again tried to edit in more acceptable ways, citations, and sources, but no matter how legit the contributions I feel like I am being pushed around. It is really stressful, PLEASE HELP ME.

Thanks, Thankful21$3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thankful21&3 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be best to contact the Chair of the Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs). Daniel (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Junkie

You deleted this article but did not identify any reason why. Can you please? Thank you.

Regards Orangeee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The reason, as noted in the publically-viewable deletion summary, was that the currently-yet-to-go-to-print book failed to assert a sufficient level of notability to merit a Wikipedia article. Please also see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Regards, Daniel (talk) 05:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Australia

It's on again YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. Daniel (talk) 05:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 15:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friedwardt Winterberg

I've proposed that we might test the waters with this article and its talk page which you semiprotected six months ago on OTRS ticket 2009030810017633. Do you think it might be worth unprotecting and watching it? --TS 22:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it can be, but I disapprove in the strongest terms of the actions of the administrator (who doesn't have OTRS access) who unprotected it without the consent of myself or another member of the OTRS team. That kind of action is irresponsible in the extreme. Daniel (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs
Bosonic string theory
Sunday Mail (Scotland)
Hachiryu, Akita
Type I string theory
Cardwell, Queensland
Hayakawa, Yamanashi
Graz
Cassidy
Victoria & Alfred Waterfront
Clermont, Queensland
Kleagle
Yuya, Yamaguchi
WC (rapper)
Saldanha Bay
New Jersey Bell
Adam and Steve
Lingerie Bowl
Jean-Louis Barrault
Sydenham, New South Wales
Cleanup
John Legend
DMX (rapper)
Doug Stanhope
Merge
Thredbo, New South Wales
Kimmy Gibbler
Danny Tanner
Add Sources
D4L
Donald Faison
Pretty Ricky
Wikify
Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures Game
Melissa
Daniela Luján
Expand
Mike Huckabee
Vincent Valentine
Will.i.am

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) 18:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Fueling the flames"

I understand your thinking, Daniel. But this guy passed RfA, and these Wikipedia users will go on to support more inappropriate candidates. If we're not going to ban all who supported P.T. at RfA, shouldn't we at least let them know how very wrong they were? We do them and the project a disservice by hiding the truth.24.22.141.252 (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, the way you presented it, plus where you presented it (on his talk page), was unnecessarily inflammatory. The Committee will make a statement in the next few days, which will let everyone know how wrong they were. Plus, to clarify, your contribution may be more allowable at, say, an WP:AN discussion about the issue generally, but doing it on PT's talk page emphasises that it was a remark of a personal nature rather than a constructive warning to the Wikimedian community. Daniel (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks for hearing me out.24.22.141.252 (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also notice that one sitting arbitrator supported the RfA, as follows: "Support, will make a great admin."[1]24.22.141.252 (talk) 06:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please add me as a party to an arbitration

The arbitration is here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list. My reason for this is detailed here: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Request_to_be_included_in_the_arbitration..

--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 09:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding notification

I'm confirming that I have received your notification regarding Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list. I should let you know that my work day plus commute are 12-13 hours, not counting visiting my 97 year old mother who recently went into nursing home care. As I do not have time during the week and all my PL must be attended to on the weekend, I will likely need to request an extension beyond the September 25th deadline. Given the gravity of the charges of misconduct being made, I trust this will not present an issue.

I do not have a copy of the archive in question which forms the basis for the arbitration request. Please make arrangements for me to receive a copy. My Email is public (via LATVIANS.COM): petersjv [at] aol.com and therefore may be shared freely and without stating with whom it has been shared. I commit to keeping private any personally identifiable Email address forwarding the content I have requested. I do not consider the "clock" as starting until I have received the material under discussion and have had at least a day to review its contents. Thanks in advance. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  16:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to petition the Arbitration Committee to provide you with a copy; see below for the details. However, I find it unlikely they will disseminate the material any further than it has already been spread. However, as always, you are free to ask them. Daniel (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent my request, copy to you. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would likewise request an extension on gathering and submitting evidence for reasons which have to do with RL (on which I can elaborate privately) as well as the unprecedented nature of this case and the need for careful approach, which takes much more time than the usual (already very time consuming) arb com case. I would welcome a general extension on submitting evidence of 1 WEEK.radek (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will both need to petition the Arbitration Committee for any extension. They can be contacted by emailing arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org (details); alternatively, feel free to email me (dbwiki@gmail.com) and I'll pass it along. Regards, Daniel (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk assistant

Hi Daniel - I'd be interested in being a clerk's assistant if you have the time and need. I've been around WP for nearly eight years now and have a pretty good handle on how things work. Manning (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pass along your offer to the Clerks mailing list, most likely in the morning when I can write some extended (and positive) thoughts on it to my fellow clerks. Although I personally wouldn't be able to help you, at least at the present anyways (as all my Wikipedia time is being taken up by my current case), I'm sure that another clerk will be able to assist should your offer be accepted, to which I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Am not in the least bit surprised you don't have the time... my review of the relevant matters is what made me get off my ass and offer to help in the first place. Cheers Manning (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change of account in ArbCom case

Hi, Daniel. As PasswordUsername, I was one of the listed parties in the Eastern Europe mailing list dispute, but can't access my old account due to a lost password (I've some seriously messed up hardware and hadn't edited for about 2 weeks after Sept. 6 because of this). I've presented my evidence for the case with my present account under the subheading Evidence by PasswordUsername, noting that I'm the same user. I'm not sure if the list of involved parties should be accordingly modified, but just wanted to make sure that you're aware. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Daniel (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit to party list. Daniel (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[2]. Offliner (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Handled. Daniel (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel but that is not true. The only administrator from the list never blocked him. You can see it in a block history. Why things like that are allowed to be written. I'm so tired of all these accusations, over and over, most of them plain lies. Have you ever been falsely accused of something you never did, seeing evidences against you being fabricated at front of your eyes at the same time? Terrible feeling...--Jacurek (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence is assumed to be POV. Or at least not assumed to be true. Still you can't stop people from believing any old thing. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Please do not edit other people's evidence sections again, Jacurek. Daniel (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. I will not do it again, sorry.--Jacurek (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought

Last two sentences. As amusing as this is... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The injunction hasn't been enacted yet, for the record. Injunction #3 needs to be clarified first. Daniel (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not closing any more threads at this time. I'll close them when I deem it appropriate to do so; I don't need your prompting to try and cease discussion which, in my opinions, still falls within the limits. I'm watching the case closely, I'll be able to see how it develops and when I need to close threads on my own, thanks. Daniel (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bug in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Header

I made a post on Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Header. However, I suspect that no admins watch that page because it's protected. I contacted an admin directly who said it would be better to have a clerk make the change. The template can work in some places where it's used without navigation boxes, but that's not the case on the subject page. Thanks! UncleDouggie (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My block/unblock

On the current arb case, there is a proposed decision dealing with myself at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Russavia. It appears that several arbs have asked for another proposal to be put forward, which I have done at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Workshop#Editing_restrictions_proposal; I don't know if they are aware of this proposal or not. I have another issue, that being my indef block which was put on myself for a perceived legal threat. This has been mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#On_Russavia, and it has also been mentioned there and on the proposed decision case page, that WP:NLT should be dealt with as per that policy. I have dealt with on the PD talk page, and also on my talk page at User_talk:Russavia#Alleged_legal_threats_issued_by_myself_and_unblock_request, as per WP:NLT. It should be mentioned that my indef block was not as a result of any arbcom enforcement, nor as a result of a community supported ban, but as a result of the perceived legal threat. The indef ban was lifted so that I could participate in the Arbcom proceedings, but at that stage WP:NLT had not been dealt with to the satisfication of the blocking admin.? Anyway, I would like to seek some clarification from you at the clerk for this case, as to what I would need to do in order to have the indef block "officially" lifted, so to speak, so that I can return to editing within the confines of the topic ban handed down by Sandstein. Your advice is appreciated. --Russavia Dialogue 06:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the Committee didn't pass that temporary injunction, I'd suggest that you are still under the restrictions set down as part of the unblock-to-participate-in-the-RfAr. When the case closes, I expect the Committee will deal with your blocking/unblocking in some way in the final decision; depending on what the final decision is in this regard (there are an infinite number of possibilities), you/we can re-evaluate the best course of action at that point.
The only way to have the conditions on the unblock lifted before the final decision would be to appeal to the Community and get consensus to overturn the block; I doubt that this would be successful given the parallel arbitration proceedings, as most Wikipedians will likely say "just see what ArbCom decides then play it from there".
My $0.02. Regards, Daniel (talk) 06:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply Daniel, its appreciated. As you can understand I am in a state of purgatory at the moment, not really knowing what may come, and whether the committee will indeed address this, as several arbs have already stated their opinion that cases of WP:NLT should be addressed by the community. Given that WP:DIGWUREN took some 3 months to reach a conclusion, and other cases can take longer, I would hate for this case to take that long only for committee to turn my indef block back to the community. As I am a content creation driven editor, you can probably understand that this is less like purgatory, and more like hell. Do you think it may be possible to seek clarification from the Committee if the issue of my indef block for WP:NLT will be dealt with by them, or not? If not, I would expect this would free me up to take the issue to the community via an avenue such as WP:AN in order to allow me to continue editing, under the confines of the topic ban imposed by another admin, with that perhaps being addressed by Arbcom (the topic ban). Sorry for being a pain in the arse, but hopefully you understand my predicament and hence why I think it would need clarification from the Committee, as to whether it will or won't be addressed. As you are the clerk, might you be so kind as to seek clarification for me, if you don't mind of course. Also, my apologies for bringing this to your talk page, as I am totally new to Arbcom proceedings (hoping this will be my one and only involvement in one), I am somewhat bamboozled at to where to ask for clarification on the case pages; it is a dog's breakfast that is for sure. --Russavia Dialogue 11:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, no need to apologise. I will certainly pursue a line of inquisition with the Committee about what they recommend you do and what their intended course of action is on the issue; if you haven't heard back from me by Monday please ping me again (the weekend is normally rather busy for me, so if it's not sorted and I haven't got an answer from the relevant Committee members by then, I'll probably be unable to progress the issue though Friday night/Saturday/Sunday). Is this OK, or is the issue of sufficient urgency to require a resolution before Monday? Daniel (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not the Spanish Inquisition I hope. Perhaps a line of Australian Inquisition may work :) I am continuing to create content on an offwiki basis, and will continue to do so, so there is no great rush that requires an answer/resolution before Monday. Just in due course would be suffice. Cheers and beers, --Russavia Dialogue 12:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't respond to my emails :( Can I suggest that you write something up and send them an email to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org? Maybe if you send it they'll be more likely to reply, as it's coming directly from a party as opposed to 'via a clerk'. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bob the Wikipedian

Well, Daniel, you've really done well with your arguments on my RfX (I knew that comment on Preston's RfX would come back at me and actually expected it about a day sooner). I've responded to your question as well as your additional concern regarding cursing, which I do not approve of at all. However, WP:NOTCENSORED, my least favorite policy, prevents us from doing anything about it. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 07:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Done. Daniel (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I've responded to your concerns again. I will be giving Pr3st0n another review sometime later today when I get a chance, since my initial reasoning was irrational. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 17:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional responses. Thanks for your time and my sincere apologies for the way I handled your argument. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 22:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Daniel/Archive/78"