(Archives for 20 Dec 2004 - 16 Jun 2006)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
Good luck!
147.9.159.128 02:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Dan,
Thanks for putting up that "table of certain facts" on Libertarian Party (United States). It would make a good addition across all the political parties I think.
Courtland 2005-01-29 USA 13:00 EST
Must this be the topic of argument for yet another time on the Anarchism page? Go to an protest where anarchists are or any anarchist event, show, bookfair, conference, or talk to anyone involved in the movement at all. You won't find any anti-statist capitalists, anywhere. Because for one, there are hardly any, and two, if you want to talk to people that want limited govt and capitalism then talk to members of the "Libertarian Party" which I'm sure you already have. If you want to put the pro-capitalist crap of "'anarchist' theory faq" as a link, then put it in its proper place, on the anarcho-capitalism page if it's not there already. That's the page to go for the people that feel like pretending they're anarchists when they're not. It's stupid to call the Anarchist FAQ pro-socialist. That's like calling an FAQ on punk pro-punk, of course it would be pro-punk! Anarchism and socialism are inseperable, even the economic systems proposed that don't call themselves socialist still draw from elements of socialism and the basic ideas of it. Only someone with a lack of understanding about anarchism whose information is limited to a special on TV would make such misinterpretations and assumptions. That link (although it falsely represents anarchism) fits perfectly with anarcho-capitalism because it's specifically about that falsely named ideology and the faq has literally nothing to do with the topic of anarchism in general. I understand where you're coming from, if you believe in something, you want it promoted in as many places as possible and therefore you want visitors to the anarchism article to also see some capitalist info too, even if it's not relevant or related in any way. Do you think it would make sense for there to be capitalist links on a leninism page? Neither do I, because it makes no sense. Excuse me, but I have to go now and put a link to cotton on the page microsoft. Cheers :) --Fatal 19:19, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that there is an anon vandal on the loose, recently decided to demonstrate their humor on the Libertarian Socialism page. Seems this person has shown up editing a couple of the same articles as you, even has the same fascination with underaged pop stars and movies like Lizzie McGuire. Wouldn't it be odd if someone got the two of you confused? Kev 20:33, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
RickK, one of the admins, blocked my former accounts "User:Hil Duff" and "User:Hil Duff star". He didn't give any reason why and totally ignored my comments on my talk page just because he thinks my user name would be something like imposting or vandalizing. I wanted to discuss things over with him, but he just deleted my account immediately without reason. I just want to be a happy Wikipedian here.
I AM NOT A VANDAL, and I won't be Hilary Duff, just Cool Cat886. I won't tell anybody that I am famous or a pop star. I just want to contribute in peace here, and YOU CAN BLOCK ME ONLY IF YOU SEE ME VANDALIZING OR ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING BAD, BECAUSE I DIDN'T. Would you support me and be my good friend, or should I just get blocked for eternity because I didn't do anything? Cool Cat886 07:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The reason this is done is to avoid giving PageRank to vanity pages and advertisements. The lag time between an article being nominated for deletion on VfD and actually being deleted has been varying between two and three weeks lately. Having an external link from Wikipedia for a week or two can significantly boost a site's results in Google and similar searches, and is one of the primary reasons we get spammed. The link can be restored easily enough afterward if the VfD results in a keep, and in the meantime, the omission does no harm. On the other hand, anything we can do to lower the rewards for spamming is a Good Thing. —Korath (Talk) 02:36, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Dan, You say that the 2000-2999 range is 'not technically accurate'. What is the authority that has ruled otherwise, and who signed up to this authority? On Dec 31 1999 - the majority 'viewpoint' - , no-one mentioned any authority that contradicted the celebrations. The other 'viewpoint' - Dec 31 2000 - was a wash-out. Thanks, Ian Cairns 00:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
According to the changelog, you added Overview header consistent with other centuries. Most centuries don't have an overview. If you're going to change the layout of all of the centuries, then you should discuss it in Centuries. - Brunnock 12:29, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with the Black Death page. You took the religion section exactly in the direction I wanted to go (but I lacked a few key facts to take it there). Hiberniantears 13:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
My mistake! Thought I had clicked on User:Dmcdevit Hiberniantears
Possibly the American general public. She's virtually unknown elsewherea, and hardly counts as influential even when her name is known. On the other hand, apparently Alan Greenspan knew her. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You stated on my talk page: "Wilkes is violating the three-revert rule over on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, deleting another user's (anonymous) comments, misguidedly calling them "vandalism". *Dan* 15:13, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)"
Sorry Dan, you are wrong. I first moved the ANONYMOUS users comments to the talk page. But, they repeatedy reinstated it. That is in fact vandalism according to Wikipedia. I reverted vandalism in accordance with the statement of OFFICIAL POLICY on the page of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection that says:
Thank you. Ted Wilkes 15:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You seem extremely quick to make statements without bothering to make certain of the facts. Doing it twice in a row is hard to excuse and I'm not sure what your mission is. To leave a message on my (or any other) talk page that casts me or any Wikipedia user in an unfavorable light is disrespectful to the goal of Wikipedia cooperation. I think it is good thing to actually read and gather facts before openly criticizing any Wikipedia contributor on their page. Unfounded criticism has the effect of impugning that users reputation and certainly gives others who might read the incorrect comments a false impression. First, never state as fact that I or anybody "don't like" another user. That is an insult and uncalled for. Second, vandalism in fact occurs where any user knowingly and deliberately and consistently inserts fabricated information – let me repeat that: fabricated information -- pretending it to be fact. That is the most destructive type of vandalism possible. Vandalism also occurs when that person's only edits are on one topic in which they have inserted their fabrication(s) and repeatedly bully others to get their way. Note that in the case of the Elvis Presley article, the user who tried to intimidate me had previously done it to other users. (A fact that I posted on the Presley talk page yesterday.) Vandalism also occurs when a person who has fabricated information repeatedly reverts other's attempts to correct their misrepresentations. I'm certain you do not condone the insertion of deliberate fabrications into Wikipedia and as such will want to actually check my assertion as to deliberate fabrications, said assertion already posted by me prior to your message on my talk page. Perhaps once you do, then you will do the gentlemanly thing in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia as I'm certain your intent is only to make Wikipedia a better place. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 22:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's great that you're adding lots of content, and the wiki process is all about multiple people coming together and deciding on a Neutral Point of View, but it would be nice if you at least made an effort on FanFiction.Net to be the neutral. Ambush Commander 02:14, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
You reinstated insulting comments that I had removed from my Talk page. Personal insults violate official' Wikipedia policy as specified in Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please refrain from inserting a personal attack. Thank you. Cheers. Ted Wilkes 13:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi Dan, I know this is a bit late, but I wanted to thank you for your support on my RFA. Thanks to everyone who supported me, I am now an admin, and I have used my new powers to help further Wikipedia. Thanks! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:59, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for alerting to me that mistake of gender. Not every man, albeit a white one at that, is named Kim, but I should have been smart enough to look at his article rather than assume. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:51, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Do you think the page block was a mistake? Guettarda 00:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you'd like, I'd be interested to know the full nature of your dispute with this user plus any relevant links or related disputes. This is, unsurprisingly, one of a very many complaints received against him in the past short while, and there are a lot of people interested in finally settling this issue. Wally 06:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Could I possibly ask you to have a further look at the Talk:Nick Adams page? As a reply to administrator Willmcw's comment on this page, User:Wyss has written, "You clearly haven't read that link yourself. Why didn't you bother to check it? Maybe because you're so busy as a new Wikipedia:Admin?" This sounds very similar to flamings by User:Ted Wilkes. You may remember his reply to administrator User:Mel Etitis on his talk page: "Yet again I have to request that you read facts and know what you are talking about before commenting. I suggest, since this matter is in the hands of Wikipedia:Mediator Ed Poor, that it might be best for you to refrain from further comments and not interfere in the process." You may also remember this user's attempts at silencing me by repeatedly deleting my contributions. Why are users Wyss and Ted Wilkes so keenly interested to suppress every reference that Nick Adams was gay? See also Natalie Wood and Talk:Natalie Wood where information taken from a current biography has been repeatedly deleted by user Wyss. On the Talk:Nick Adams page, this user now claims that he "found zero documented evidence to even thinly support any assertion under WP standards that Mr Adams was a homosexual" and that none of my edits "are supported by documented evidence cited in peer-reviewed, secondary sources". In my opinion, this seems to be a new strategy by user Ted Wilkes (using an alias) to suppress any reference that Adams was gay. I am quite sure that users Ted Wilkes and Wyss must be identical, as User:Wyss is all too familiar with David Bret's writings and uses similar arguments as Ted Wilkes presents to suppress my contributions to the articles on Nick Adams and Natalie Wood. Significantly, the following sentence can be found on User:Wyss's page: "I think the Internet trolls inhabiting Wikipedia are its biggest weakness since they stir up unhelpful vandalism throughout helpful anarchy." In addition, the "barnstar of diligence" is appearing on both of their pages. See User:Wyss#Sway_me and User_talk:Ted_Wilkes#Thanks_Ted_Wilkes.21. What is your opinion? Perhaps you can place some short notes on the related pages. Thanks in anticipation. 80.141.218.197 2 July 2005 12:40 (UTC)
The user wants me to give him/her a source about that information in red ([1]). He/she just keeps removing it as well since I kept reverting him/her three times. The user needs to be banned for this mess. This user won't stop vandalizing the page and got me going over the 3RR again, please don't ban me, ban the user. -- Mike Garcia | talk 3 July 2005 18:25 (UTC)
You commented at the above user's talk page that you were not sure what the situation was.
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer. ~~~~ 17:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
All of them (except say Nicole Parker because no one will care, or maybe Ciara (another GOOD one), because she so new) is subject to interpretation. Only Britney is an example under the guidelines of her singing style (which is what a soubrette is based on), the others are classified (read: lumped in) because of a lack of range. To sing that softly, and mellowly, and stay melodic without cracking isn't a cake walk. Britney Antares33712 00:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I've been talking to Kev about these three issues, and I think his concerns are reasonable. Would it be acceptable to you if instead of having anarcho-capitalism listed as a school of anarchism:
The idea is for the page to be roughly analogous to the treatment of libertarian socialism on the libertarianism page, which discusses libertarian socialism in a disambig, the terminology section, and the criticism section.
It's important to Kevehs that the two articles be consistent, and this seems fair to me. Let me know what you think.
Dave (talk) 13:49, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Adding information about enom is adding relevant information to these articles. It is very important to add information about the whole domain name system, and that includes talking about registrars, which has been widely ignored in almost all domain name related articles. Anyone interested in learning about DNS, or any TLD may in fact want to find out where an end-user can find out more specif information about the registrars. in this case, enom is an example that has been overlooked. there are many other registrars mentioned in wikipedia, not just enom. check out go daddy, network solutions, tucows. This is not about advertising. It would be appropriate for you to contact the editor (me in this case) before simply wiping away useful information in the future.
Thanks
JC (talk)
See my latest attempt to get some facts included to improve this very boring article on Snape here 205.188.116.7 02:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi, you jumped into the discussion on User:Mike Garcia's talk page, this is a copy of my response that I just posted there:
What one can glean about this convention from browsing American versus British band articles on Wikipedia is misleading. —Tarnas 04:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
D'oh! Thanks for the quick catch of my amateur mistake! -- BD2412 talk 14:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
As Bob Black is a self-confessed police informer, how can this be biased information, and as he claims to be an anarchist surely this is also relevent. Harrypotter 16:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The NPOV way of calling someone a Kook is to write: "***** won the alt.usenet.kooks award for July 1999[2]"
I think it's a general truth that the more somebody carries on about how badly or unfairly they're being treated in conjunction with their nomination for adminship, the more likely they are to be perceived as being not the sort who ought to be entrusted with such a position. Whether they're right or wrong in their complaints, the mere fact that they're the sort to carry on a grudge match all over the site shows them not to be likely to be calm and even-handed in exercising their administrator powers, should they be granted. *Dan T.* 16:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm writing to let you know that the Tampa meetup has officially been announced -- Wikipedia:Meetup/Tampa2 →Raul654 04:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey there, I would be grateful for your assistance in countering the systematic vandalism of a admin on the List of Dictators page. An administrator is blanking the page every few hours, without any AfD or anything. Yours,
jucifer 23:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Dtobias,
Just in case you haven't watchlisted David P, I suggest you have another look at it. :-(
Regards, Ben Aveling 07:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey, Dtobias, long time no see. I guess you got bored of anarchism. I don't blame you. You may be interested in vote for deletion on the economic fascism article that I authored. (I'm bringing the vote to your attention message because the guy who put it up for deletion went around putting notices on people's talk pages misrepresenting the contents of the article, so maybe some semblance of fairness can be achieved). RJII 16:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Cheers,
why did you delete
- * 200GB iPod Nano - How to create a 200GB iPod Nano, wth 6 minute run-time.
from that page? One I didn't get around to posting the URL yet, the other looks pretty legit, too.
Thx, DJ Vollkasko
Stop your slander of me and stop vandalizing the page on me. The New York Times article on Siegenthaler applies to you. You are a political enemy of mine. You are a Liberal with a Mental Disorder. Cease your defamation of me. Jack Sarfatti
I really do appreciate your comment... I was trying to defuse something, but instead ignited it. :( sigh.. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 04:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year. Guettarda 18:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't sure what it was and didn't know it was invisible. I have reverted myself. Happy Christmas! SqueakBox 00:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I have not had a dialog with you, and do not wish to have one. Accordingly desist from posting and reposting material on my Talk page. It is unnecessarily intrusive, I do not welcome your comments and wish to have no further interaction. Goodbye Fluterst 03:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Archiving_this_RfC. CastAStone|(talk) 03:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate your comments and suggestions on the following:
Wikipedia talk:Autobiography#Not banning intellectuals and_scientists (proposed language)
Thanks, --Carl Hewitt 09:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Better. Thanks for recognizing POV and smut and removing it. Cleanup the article a little more and your name will be removed as a Cyberstalker from www.merkeylaw.com. The peyote section is OR and false as written.
Can you put the complete Mad Magazine parody of the Canterbury Tales up somewhere? It looks hilarious. GoodSirJava 17:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
When thinking about "Wikipedia Review" and its place in the world, I think it's instructive to consider that it has never mustered more than 50 users at any one time, and generally has four or five visitors at a given moment. Nearly all the posts are by a handful of people, making it not much more than a group blog. That's hardly a board that is considered a "leading" critic of Wikipedia. No wonder, given that most "criticism" consists of whining about getting banned on the part of people who actually thoroughly deserved it or defaming Wikipedia editors. I admit to enjoying the latter myself from time to time but I don't expect to be linked to from the Criticism of Wikipedia page when I do. Grace Note 04:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I saw your comments re: userboxes on Jimbo's talk; I agree that userboxes can get out of hand but also are useful for basic identification wtih a belief, identity or following. I hope cooler heads prevail in the current firestorm. Thanks again. Radagast 04:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The "massive blanking" you refer to on your revert was an attempt to bring an unruly article - which seems mainly vanity and platform building under control - but he-ho! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper?) 14:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
There's currently discussion ongoing concerning whether AI semifinalists deserve articles or stubs at Talk:American_Idol_(Season_5). Your participation in the discussion would be appreciated! --Emperial 00:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
DT, would you mind putting an email addy on my site so we can have a brief email exchange? You have no inbox and I'd rather not post this comment on a public forum. If you'd like, just insta-create a one-time-use gmail/hotmail account for this exchange if you aren't comfortable leaving me a real one. You are missing a vital piece of the puzzle and I just can't post it on the open net.... 67.160.17.29 03:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
There's something familiar-sounding about your username. Hmm: I see this (and also this). Strange coincidence! -- Hoary 00:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
How embarrassing when one can't remember one's own URL (here). My lame "excuse": I haven't looked at it for years. Hoary 02:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Even hilariously funny personal attacks [3] are still inappropriate. Medical conditions should not be laughed at. An editor has volunteered to given an earnest attempt to make the article acceptable to everyone. Let's give him a chance. Cheers, -Will Beback 01:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Musical Artists has officially been started at WikiPedia:WikiProject Musical Artists. Thanks for the input to the pre-project, I hope you'll continue to be interested and participate in the project. bmearns, KSC(talk) 18:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
What road is the picture of the red US1 sign taken on? --BHC 11:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of stating the obvious, I thought I should point out that User:172.169.58.156 seems to me to signify the return of Jack Thompson to Wikipedia. I whole-heartedly recommend the necessary preparations be made for whatever legal stuff he may come up with. Thanx! --Maxamegalon2000 04:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I've nominated the article DreamHost for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that DreamHost satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DreamHost. Don't forget to add four tildes (˜˜˜˜) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of DreamHost during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. Ardenn 16:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
There's a problem with that - there are several editors that have built up groupthink around the wrong name. See Talk:State Route 2 (California), which would have closed as consensus to keep at the correct name were it not for them. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 03:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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 02:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 23:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)