User talk:Daniel/Archive/35

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.

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.

← Archive 34 · Archive 35 · Archive 36 →

VandalProof Approval

Hello User: Daniel, I know this may possibly circumventing protocol, but is there a way to get expedited approval to use VandalProof. I’ll let my record speak for itself with regards to edit history. Appreciate your help.Shoessss 18:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going through the process of approving/decling some on the list now, so I guess your name will be there, and I'll do it then :) Cheers, Daniel 06:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And yep, there it is :) Daniel 07:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel. Shoessss 10:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No problems :) Daniel 11:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

Hello, you say on one of your userboxes: This user is formerly known as Daniel.Bryant, shouldn't that say This user was formerly known as 'Daniel.Bryant? Regards — The Sunshine Man 19:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It should, and I initially had it that way, but I'm trying to think up a wording which uses 'is' (as to follow the pattern). Thanks for noticing and leaving a message! Cheers, Daniel 06:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

May I a favour, I was wondering if you could authorise me for VP, I have just under the 250 mainspace edits and I'm a regular reporter to WP:AIV so this would be made easier with VP so could you approve me? Here is my edit count. Regards — The Sunshine Man 14:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please request so on the appropriate registration page at WP:VPRF, under "Register" in the box at the top, and your request will be reviewed in turn with everyone elses. I am not favourable to ex parte requests like this. Daniel 07:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry it was out of order, I'll put my request in as I now have the required 250 mainspace contributions. Thanbk you — The Sunshine Man 09:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Why

Daniel, can you please give reason why you have changed your name?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 09:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Do I need a reason to change my name? I wasn't under the impression I did. Daniel 09:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Curiosity. I will never stop calling you [removed]! Unless you ask me not to (I notice you changed my post).--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 09:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Because I felt like using 'Daniel', and it's simpler. And yes, I did change your post, because my username is 'Daniel', and I'd appreciate it if you started addressing me by my username. Cheers, Daniel 09:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay Daniel. Is it something to do with privacy or something? Just curious here, thats all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hamedog (talk • contribs) 09:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

A little bit of privacy, an ounce of prevention, and a truckload of convenience :) Daniel 09:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Convenience?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 09:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Convenience is anything that is intended to save a consumer time or frustration. Daniel 10:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, cool. Getting late, need to finish this history homework. Good luck with the new name.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 10:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Neutral"

Can you explain what is more neutral about "name for the article" as opposed to "proper name for the article"? I have no problem with the change, as I see them as almost equal in meaning, but I would like to know how you interpreted the original wording. -- tariqabjotu 15:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought that it may have implied "the current article name isn't right, and we need help finding the correct one", which I assumed those who advocated for the current naming would object to. I removed it because, as you say, it makes little difference to how it would most likely be interpreted, although the removed word removes a possible interpretation which I don't believe would have helped in getting mediation off the ground. Cheers, Daniel 07:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

VP

Hello, I just thought I should contact you since you are a moderator and inform you that when I try to log in I get an error message saying the user list is corrupt. What does this mean? Is there any way I can fix this?--Eskimospy 23:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, "If you are getting this error, you are not running the latest version of VandalProof. Ensure you are running version 1.36. You may need to be reapproved".[1] To be reapproved if updating and running 1.36 isn't enough, please readd your name to the 'Register' list at WP:VPRF. Cheers, Daniel 07:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Advocates For Free Speech

I see you met our old friend, the workforall spammer (a.k.a. Bully-Buster-007), with a new sock account.

For tracking accounts that add spam, we have an informal method of listing the relevant domains and accounts on each user talk page. This, along with some associated spam-searching tools, makes it easier to identify problem spammers when they reappear with new accounts or spamming new domains. An example of this can be found at User talk:Bully-Buster-007#Summary: workforall spam and disruption on Wikipedia.

Is there any chance you could unprotect the page long enough to add the same text to User talk:Advocates For Free Speech? Thanks.

By the way, that page contained the most memorable complaint from a spammer I've ever seen. I reprinted it at WikiProject Spam for posterity:

• "The workforall.net spammer meets the sandbox fire-parrot -- for everything else, there's Mastercard" (Permanent link)

--A. B. ^(talk) 17:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

He he :) I've unprotected the page fully, so if you want to add it, you can (it will also alow you to update it at future times). If the spammer decides to be a pain again, I'll reprotect it, although I'd like to avoid doing so because protection means you can't update it when more socks come in. Cheers, Daniel 05:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My VandalProof Application

Hi Daniel and thank you for a quick response. The reason I reapplied so quickly is that Betacommand left no reason for me being declined. Additionally, I ask Betacommand, on his talk page, why I was declined and have heard NO response. You, and Betacommnd for that matter, asked me to "apply again soon, although in a reasonable amount of time", my question is what is a 'reasonable amount of time'. Do you have any pointers on how I could be more eligible in the future? Thanks Jerm 05:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, shit, you were the one I made a mental note of to recheck because I couldn't see why Betacommand declined you (you have ~400 edits, and a number of active months' editing). What I generally do is go through and add all the "Recently reapplied after being declined" users to the decline list, as I am generally not inclined to overturn a fellow Moderator's decision within three days. However, you aren't one of the "now-I've-got-260-edits-in-one-month-and-one-day,-approve-me-now" types, so I've approved you. I don't understand why Betacommand had any doubt to approve you, unlike some of the others he declined (who reach 250 edits and then apply, even though they haven't been editing using their account for a while), and he hasn't given any reason whatsoever after two requests for a justification, so I have re-evaluated your request from scratch. Cheers, Daniel 05:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Thanks for the wishes, Danny - appreciate it :) Times like these reminds you why it's worth it. Take care mate, – Riana_ऋ 06:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it :) Daniel 12:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks Mate

And a race with points :-P ^demon^{[omg plz]} 10:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What further motivation did we need? :) Daniel 12:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Meditation

Hello! I saw that you are on the Meditation Committee. I love Wikipedia, and want to do more to help. Everyday, I look around, and see disputes! I hate arguments, and want to do more to help. What do I have to do to get approved, and be on the Committee? Politics rule 11:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to join the Committee, you need to follow the instructions listed on the WP:MC page. However, I would strongly suggest you don't nominate yourself for the Mediation Committee at present.

The Committee is comprised of the most experienced mediators on Wikipedia, who generally have extensive experience in mediating disputes through other organisations. Also, in recent times, varely rarely is a non-administrator appointed, and for a non-administrator nomination to get a support from me is most certainly the exception and not the rule, as all members of the Mediation Committee must have the community's support, and I must be able to see this to vote support. The most common way is through being an administrator (which means a successful RfA).

What I would suggest is you help out the Mediation Cabal, an informal group of mediators who deal with disputes. In contrast to the Mediation Committee which is a formal group with the right to govern and regulate themselves, the Mediation Cabal allow all users to help out by mediating the disputes that come to them at their page.

Put bluntly, if you were to run for the Mediation Committee now, you would be rejected basically immediately (via the two-oppose rule). The Committee requires experience, community trust and proven skills, and the only way to achieve this is by mediating extensively at a lower level, eg. WP:MEDCAB or WP:3O. I also see you have barely any experience generally with Wikipedia. Maybe with six or more months of solid work resolving disputes successfully, nine or so working generally around Wikipedia proving dedication and experience, always acting with the utmost honour and civility, and with clear evidence of community trust, you would be better to nominate yourself. Even then, I cannot guarantee anything — standards may change, and I had 16,000 edits before my successful nomination closed.

I apologise if this was blunt or deflating, but basically, I figure it's better for me to be upfront with you know and tell you how you can help as opposed to waiting for you to make a misguided nomination with only one months' experience on Wikipedia, no apparent knowledge of the dispute resolution chain, and no on-Wiki mediating experience, and you would be rejected and probably dejected.

I hope you offer your services to the Mediation Cabal, or third opinion, or even just informally on random talk pages, because they all need you. However, in response to your question, you may nominate yourself by following the instructions at WP:MC, however I strongly advise you against it per the reasons noted above. Cheers, Daniel 11:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw your comment. I did not mean right now. I meant later. I have been here almost 2 months, w/o a lot of training. I will nominate myself when I think the time is right. Maybe a year, or two from now! Politics rule 18:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:) Daniel 05:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder meditation

Hello Daniel, I recently placed a request for meditation concerning an article Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder. I noticed that you removed the template regarding the mediation from the talk page. In addition, you removed the templates placed on all the parties in the dispute concerning the mediation also. There was no explanation about why these templates were removed. Was the request for mediation turned down or was it something I said? Thanks for your help.Shoessss ^talk 12:10, May 17, 2007 (UTC)

I removed the templates from user talk pages because you didn't follow the instructions correctly.

*Add the text {{RFMF|Case Page Name|~~~~~}} to the top of the talk page of all involved articles.
*Add the text {{RFM-Request|Case Page Name}} to the talk page of all involved parties.

You added {{RFMF}} (the one meant for the article talk page) to the user talk pages of the parties, meaning that their talk pages were erronously categorised into the Category:Articles pending in mediation category. That was why I reverted it. I had made a note on my pad next to my computer to drop you a message explaining it, but it appears that I missed doing that before I had to go. My apologies for that.

I removed the template from the article talk page because the request was deleted by ^demon, the Committee chair. When the case link is red, the template I removed from the article talk page read "The case " Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder" doesn't exist...please remove this template".

The request you made on the RfM case page was deleted as a result of this discussion. Because you failed to follow the instructions in filing a request, and didn't use the preload template at WP:RFM, the mediation chair honoured a good faith request by a user to delete the case so they could correctly refile it. Even if it wasn't deleted, it would have been rejected anyways, per Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Common Reasons for Rejection#Reason #2: Failure to comply with the required format. Daniel 12:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel, appreciate your quick response and by the way, no apologies necessary. Is there a way to check and see if the other editor refilled? If not , since this article definitely needs a third party to mediate, can I re-file this quickly again since the first request was denied? Appreciate your advice and help. .Shoessss ^talk 12:38, May 17, 2007 (UTC)

The request hasn't been refiled. You can do it immediately if you wish, but ensure you follow the instructions (linked above). Cheers, Daniel 12:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel. I’ll be more attentive this time. One last question, which does not have anything to do with this situation. I have been working with a Wikipedia Administrator who has been nice enough to coach me, under the mentor program here at [Wikipedia]] with regards to the possibility of applying for Administrator privileges. However, he recently found it necessary to take an extended sabbatical from Wikipedia for personal reasons. Can I convince you to replace him? Once again, thanks for input. Have a great day. Shoessss ^talk

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to disappoint you and decline, for two reasons: a) I'm terribly, terribly busy, and you'd be better off with someone who can devote more time to helping you than I could; and b) I'm weakly against the notion if administrator coaching, and although I won't go out of my way to argue against it, this general feeling makes it difficult to be a coach myself. Sorry, Daniel 05:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Shoessss ^talk

Good wishes

Thank you! --Dweller 13:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Congrats again! Cheers, Daniel 05:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you kindly...

... for the VP approval - my faith in human nature is restored.

Central coast supporter eh? I worked up in Gosford for a few years and loved it up there. Mind you I'm a little further from home now :) Paxse 16:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in Adelaide now, so I'm a fair way away also :) The Central Coast was, and I assume still is, a delightful place, and I miss it a lot. Cheers, and enjoy VP, Daniel 05:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks, and sorry I wasted your time. Zucchini Marie → ^{Complain here} _{Please sign!} 01:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Not wasted at all. Daniel 05:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Boris Stomakhin mediation

Daniel, please proceed. You have now all signatures. Vlad fedorov 05:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to check the two cases (via my mediation watchlist), but thanks for the note prompting me to go there immediately :) I've added a request for initial statements so I can see where you all stand. Cheers, Daniel 05:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My VandalProof Application

Daniel,

I know that you are very busy, and I do not wish to be a bother, but I would ask that you reconsider declining my application for Vandal Proof. Before I applied, I read that users with fewer than 250 edits in mainspace may not be approved. However, I have also read, specifically on WP:Editcount, that edits are not a measure of quality, nor can they truly indicate a level of contribution or worthiness. I would ask that you look at my edits to see that I have written a few articles, and made some other contributions, that I edited and previewed for hours before posting, resulting in a net edit of one or two for each article, rather than dozens. In fact, I have worked very hard over the last 10 months not to artificially inflate my edit count based on reading the policies. I have started slow on Wikipedia over the last year or so until I felt confident enough to move forward. I do not jump into a project until I am confident of my ability to perform adequately.

I have learned to fight vandalism the best that I can, and will continue to do so, and I hope that the utilization of Vandal Proof will help me do that.

However you decide, thank you very much for your extra time and consideration.

Eleos^Prime 10:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever WP:EDITCOUNT says, moderators have been instructed by the owner and sole discretionary of the application, Daniel Cannon, not to accept anyone with less than 250 edits. Whether or not I agree with this is irrelevant, as this is blanket policy that will not be overriden. ALthough I appreciate your concerns, I'm afraid my hands are bound. Daniel 12:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My reply seems to have gotten lost. I have the necessary edits, and I have placed my name on the list awaiting approval. Thank you for your time. Eleos^Prime 22:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick thanks

Hey, Daniel; I see you've jumped on the WP:CHU/WP:CHU/U bandwagon as well ;) I'd just like to say a quick (belated) thanks for your help at Portal:Scotland - I really couldn't have done it without you, and your effort was paramount to the lovely gold star at the top of the page.

Have a good one!

Regards,
Anthony 16:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No problems :) Daniel 04:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation nomination

I've been speaking with Chad, and he's wished me luck with the nomination, so I'd assume that the matter is settled?

Anthøny 23:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey; are you around IRC? Just need a quick word ~ Anthøny 23:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I pinged you about 2mins ago :) Daniel 23:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm on as a slightly different nick: anthony_cfc ~ Anthøny 23:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about running out before - umpiring duties. I've removed my note, as Chad has nuked the rule. Cheers, Daniel 04:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

CCM

Ah, ok, that makes sense. if it flips back, no probs. President and Chairman are functionally the same in any case... :) Dibo ^{T | C} 08:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Still working on fixing it... Daniel 10:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: New name

Thanks :)

Congratulations on yours too. You've joined the likes of Madonna, Cher...and Sarah and Riana :D--cj | talk 09:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And Mark...basically, the people at the top of the Aussie Cabal :) Daniel 10:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Achiving a discussion less than an hour old

Surely it can't be right to 'archive' discussions about admin conduct that are under an hour old? I don't see many other 'archived' discussions on that talk page, and those that are have been far more thoroughly discussed.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you've bothered to read my closing comment. When you have, and believe you have a rebuttal to it, please come back and reply with an actual argument. And, please read the instructions at the top of WP:ANI. Daniel 10:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If you'd checked the edit summary I provided, you'd have seen that User:Ryulong also removed an (admittedly short) comment from the section above, which in any case was only partly concerned with David Gerard's editing. The IP's comment was more informative, providing a contribution history and a link to the main discussion. If it's such a concern keeping things in one place, then the natural thing would be move the comment, not erase it.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Then why don't you readd it yourself to the pertinent discussion which is occuring higher up the page? I don't see why it even needed a section in the first place (as all the points were moot, or split from an above topic for no reason), and that's why I archived it. Daniel 10:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I may do that, assuming I don't get reverted. However, I'm unconvinced by your assertions that the topic was split; the first is about the anti-spoiler brigade's questionable tactics in general, the other is about David Gerard in particular. Obviously there's some room for disagreement over whether the two topics are the same or not, but frankly, it's better to live and let live than giving good faith comments the heave-ho.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with the statement that there may have been ambiguity regarding whether the topic was split or not, and I apologise if my actions added to this. You shouldn't get reverted if you readd to the existing topic (see my closing summary for which topic it is), and if you do, message me and I'll look into what's going on. Cheers, and thanks for being reasonable in all this (there's been a greater proportion of reasonable people come by my talk page this month compared to last...strange...), Daniel 11:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up

Would you happen to know why my application for Vandal Proof was rejected again? Eleos^Prime 10:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No idea, Betacommand is the person to ask, so you're going to have to wait for a response from him. Note that I said "we blanket-decline anyone with less than 250 edits", not "we accept anyone with more than 250 edits". As moderators appointed by the sole controller of the application, Daniel Cannon, we have been told to a) apply discretion and b) apply this discretion in a way which will protect the application from misuse. Obviously Betacommand has decided that you still don't meet the needed requirements, and that's for him to explain. Daniel 10:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, thank you for your reply. Understanding that User:Betacommand is the one to ask, I have already left him a message, but I must admit to some kind of confusion. What exactly are the 'needed requirements'? Are they different for each moderator? I understand that you want to protect the program from misuse, but if you could tell me what I am doing wrong here, I would really appreciate it. Eleos^Prime 10:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't speculate on Betacommand's reasons. Naturally, there are variations between how the approval process is applied, which is caused by slightly-different interpretations of the instructions given to us by Cannon. It's the same situation that occurs with umpires in sport, and just like the fans in that, I appreciate why you are slightly confused. Hopefully Betacommand gets back to you and clears it up. Cheers, Daniel 10:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your time, Daniel. Eleos^Prime 10:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No problems. Cheers, Daniel 10:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I see you added a link to my post to Betacommand's talk page. I apologize if it seemed I was quoting you out of context. I had thought to link to our conversation to make it clear, but I figured he would check it out anyway. I didn't mean to imply that you made any guarantees, I just thought that was the only reason I hadn't been approved, based on your message on my talk page. Since Betacommand didn't leave a reason for rejection on my talk page, it lead to the aforementioned confusion, obviously. :) Eleos^Prime 11:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No problems - I'm a little bit anal retentive about split discussions (see immediately above), and there was no error on your behalf. Cheers, Daniel 11:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, good to know. :) Take care. Eleos^Prime 11:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to keep cluttering your page...

I scrolled back on your talk page to see your point about split discussions and read the entry by User:Thejermdotorg, and it has given me some insight as to why I have been rejected twice. Just want you guys to know there are no hard feelings. :) Eleos^Prime 11:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, and never fear cluttering a blank page :) Daniel 11:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA's; tallys, timelimits and consensus

Thank you for the link to WT:RFA#Overdue requests per my RfA. I notice the original proposal was to remove "out of time" votes. I may suggest at a relevant forum whether the tally at the scheduled end should be mentioned (such as I did) as an indicator of the consensus then if it were significantly different (or otherwise) to the final count. Do you believe that it would be of any benefit to the 'Crat? My reason for considering suggesting a timelimit tally is that some requestees may feel disadvantaged by an oppose pileup (I cannot believe they would complain about a support pileup) after the titular timelimit when other requests are dealt with more swiftly. It is a suggestion to provide a more "level playing field" for all involved.

BTW, I was promoted. Thank you for participating. LessHeard vanU 12:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I dunno whether the B'crats want a note of the expiry time or not, however I believe that they wouldn't (hence my actions). May I suggest asking on WP:BN - I'm not a heavy WT:RfA user, so I'm not terribly up to speed. Good luck with the new tools. Daniel 03:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

The Qiun Zhijun situation is at ArbCom, and you have been listed at a party. Please leave comments there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

<fakeenthusiasm>Yay.</fakeenthusiasm> Daniel 03:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Racism by Country mediation

Daniel It not obvious to me who is or isn't involved in this dispute. The article got locked down really fast - only Pejman47 and myself have any edits in this edit war. But from start to finish was less than three days. I don't want to exclude anyone who might consider themselves involved now - but how can I tell, apart from asking them and seeing what they think? WilyD 16:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, has anyone else except you two been involved in the discussion about the dispute on the talk page in recent times? Everyone who has should be listed as a party. Daniel 03:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

So everyone who left a comment through the RfC should be listed? The discussion has actually been dead for quite a while, which is why we've tried to move up the dispute resolution ladder. WilyD 15:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Well I've handed the issue to you, Daniel.[2] Just hope it'll be solved before it gets too hot... And sorry if I put a bit of pressure on the last comment.. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 23:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm also wondering if it'll be better for a full-protect to be placed on the article in question, as it's obviously a dispute? --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 23:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to steer their interest away from RfAr and to RfM, and thanks for all the added pressure and compliments :) I have no opinion, as any mediator should about protection of the article, beyond the normal opinion of the Mediation Committee (we prefer for it not to happen, because it lends itself to The Wrong Version complaints). Cheers, Daniel 03:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation for race

Hi Daniel, A friendly reminder about the unassigned case for mediation, as you had mentioned you would consider taking it if nobody does after 48-96hrs. Muntuwandi 01:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't any more, sorry - I've got a shit-hitting-the-fan situation involving myself, and I won't have time to take on another case. I've been trying this morning to get someone to take it, however the only person I've got a reply from said they couldn't take it due to a COI from prior interaction with the parties. Sorry, Daniel 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hawks

Ah, you know me too well, Danny! I didn't go to the game but I was watching it on telly. I reckon that would have been a very disappointing game to brave the cold night for. It was great to win so well, but the first three quarters were shocking. Nice name, by the way. :) Cheers, Sarah 04:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe I'm currently sitting on three out four, thanks to the Hawks...but it wasn't a pretty game to watch, at all. Cheers, Daniel 04:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Stomakhin mediation

Daniel, please proceed. I've made short overview. Vlad fedorov 05:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait for the other party's statement, first, because for mediation to be effective I must know where both of you stand, and why. Daniel 05:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)