User talk:DanielTAR

Sockpuppet
DYK: Sock puppeteer could be ban from editing Wikipedia. I think you should make sure you use your user name to edit rather than IP address. See Sock puppetry for more information. --Aleen f 1 06:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Kinda late but anyway, I apologise for that. Sometimes my browser logs be off Wiki and unless I look at the top right corner of the Wiki screen, I can't really see if I'm logged in or not. Apologies! DanielTAR (talk) 11:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Your TAR
Your version of TAR seemse really cool: I would really like to help you with it! Shapiros10 (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Changes in TAR
But it uses different methods under the color rules. It says to leave it alone unless it uses a different method. Furthermore you are violating the confusion rules and changing it to just blue is vandlizing the confusion rules. Oscar22 20:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if I can't change color, then could you at least use underlined for the money penalty, the [] for the time penalty and the slanted for the speed bump non elimnation penalty? Oscar22 20:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:DanielTAR/DanielTAR2
User:DanielTAR/DanielTAR2, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DanielTAR/DanielTAR2 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:DanielTAR/DanielTAR2 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bones Brigade 04:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What does TAR mean, what is TAR, and what does your username mean? &mdash; B o L 04:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's obvious if you look at his contributions this is regarding "The Amazing Race". -- 12 N oo n 2¢ 04:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that he has a COI, but I'm trying to get him to crack. &mdash; B o L 05:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this really against the Wikipedia policy that it has to be deleted? It's just a user subpage... DanielTAR (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, what does your username mean??? BoL 18:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What does it matter? TAR means The Amazing Race and Daniel is my first name... DanielTAR (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So basically you're doing a draft for The Amazing Race, right? If yes, you gotta tell them otherwise *bonk*. &mdash; B o L 00:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk page
Sorry, you are violating the article talk page policy, that is no your point of view, no forum and not bring any unverified contents up to Wikipedia. We are deal with facts here, and please stay with objectives to provide the true. --Aleen f 1 06:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, i don't get it, this is what your point of view about me. So, all the talk page can be found here. "The policies that apply to articles also apply (if not to the same extent) to talk pages, including Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies." So, what you wrote in talk page:
 * 1) Your point of view about the Race progress, violate Stay objective section
 * 2) Deal with facts, you bring up something that not release by any press, so i have told before forum is not a reliable source, so don't bring that up to Wikipedia. Exactly, you can discuss whether this is reliable sources, should it add to Wikipedia, but not bring it up just keep people intesrested.

So, talk page, is use to how to improve article, discussion, make proposals, make people understand what you did, not presenting your point point of view and bring something just to keep people interested.

Another, don't judging people like that, i hope you can. I know my English is worse, many have said that, but i working so much harder for long time in Wiki, and more important, how to make people trust me, thats all. And i edit anything base on policy, so i bring YOUR PAGE up for discussion, so that is not to insult people, but is work via policy, and many people will judging this, not just me. I hope you can read all the policy before posting any talk, don't judging people that despite someone are object you, than you react by saying people dislike your editing, that must be some reason behind this. So anything i can discuss with you, but i hope you don't bring up something that violate the policy. --Aleen f 1 17:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, policy that apply to article will apply to talk page too, i hope you can understand this. Anyway, i hope no conflict between us, i am always welcome anything that true and right. Of course, i working for so many times (4 i think), you are the only one who bring up this to Wikipedia, no one do so far, i probably can think because the policy. So, it is not deny that when season in-progress, people will use forum as sources, but that is always verifiability issues that Wikipedia always concerns. I always welcome you. :) --Aleen f 1 09:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

TAR 14
If you review CBS' official press release it only describes the network's fall lineup. The TVWeek article was written before CBS' official press release and its information has already been refuted by the network's official statement. Unless you can find another source, you're speculating that TAR14 will air in the fall (with TAR13) or in the winter, when CBS hasn't even released its winter schedule yet... that's not permitted per WP:OR --Madchester (talk) 03:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks then. I just kinda read (and probably infer) from some forums about the fact that there would be two TARs within the span of the next 6 months. Apparently, I was wrong. (and yes, I know the whole Reliability of Forum Sources thing) DanielTAR (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Survivor: Palau

 * May I ask why you remove the episode summary? Shapiros10  contact me My work  11:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, there was only one episode anyway. There are like 14 episodes to Survivor Palau and I don't think it is essential since the first 9 Survivor seasons' Wiki Page didn't have an episode summary either. I definitely would not have deleted it if there were summaries of other episodes as well. But leaving just one there and not having the complete list seems pretty useless. DanielTAR (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Look at WP:SURVIVE!  One of our goals is to add episode summaries for seasons!
 * I wasn't finished. Is it really needed to stop someone before they're finished?  Shapiros10  contact me My work  11:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, first off, I didn't know that page exists. So how was I to know that there's some plan to do this? Plus the last update for the Episode Summaries was on the 28th May. About a month and a half ago. Anyway, revert my edit if you want to. It's fine. But do put a hidden notice under that section, not to delete, should you want to prevent such incidents from happening again. FYI, I was just trying to make the pages look tidier and organized. No hard feelings. DanielTAR (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The Amazing Race 13

 * Sorry, didn't see that! :) Shapiros10  contact me My work  11:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Some comments...
I admitted sometimes that is wrong with me. However, your word "childish" seems like insulting me in TARA 3 talk page. You mean i should not bring something that unnecessary or even small things to discuss? That mean you also insulting the other people which sometimes bring topic to be discuss for few days in other project. Furthermore, you told me to consider the feeling of others, have you ever consider it when you type this word?

Based what you said, i can consider you are insulting me. For you, maybe is unnecessary to be discuss, you can treat as simple. However, did you know, a topic is no barrier, a topic can make a bold move, or even it can be solve the conflict, more it can set the pictures for future and also set standard. All this, i ask you why not i bring this to be discuss?

More, you interfere my conversation, my words with other is not involving you, so whatever i did you should said i am "play up the sympathy card", is not your business, right?

If someone raise topic, like you, that mean he/she is very concerns about it, and want to correct it. However, your words seems everyone should not raise unnecessary/needless topic. Furthermore, few months ago, you discuss about results table, did i say you are "childish"? Finally, what happen, you should know...

I felt like you are forcing me out! And i am very angry! I think you are valuable person, and sometimes you may defense too, however, sometimes, you are "overreact" to what people might want to find out. --Aleen f 1 15:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, is not you to decide whether Wikipedia is a place for me or not, and not your turn to tell me that! Furthermore, you know what is consensus? Wikipedia consensus is build for overall, and MAY not relevant to each project, and did you see how the consensus work? Consensus need to be neutral, agree by many, and clearly you are cross the line. Until now, they are only few consensus in TAR, and your last reply in talk page is agree by yourself, and is not really could be treat as consensus. --Aleen f 1 16:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

-

Uh, please get this right. Some of the comments you read were NOT by me. Look carefully. The comment about Wiki not suitable for you was written by the unregistered guy. Do realize that there were 2 main sub-sections in the discussion page. The one on top was by that guy. I had no participation in that. The one below was mine. I even signed off everytime I posted. So please don't blame me. And I never did say you were childish. Please read carefully. I said THE FIGHTING over this was childish, not you. BUT, you have to admit that some of your faults in this conflict were that:t 1) you refused to give in to another person's opinion who might be right (and honestly, I felt he/she was right as well) and kept on reverting edits rather than start a discussion, and hence causing PAGE-PROTECTION.

2) you kept on saying that people were attacking you when there wasn't any attacking to begin with!

3) you DID try to to play up sympathy and/or threaten to leave helping TAR pages just to get what you want and for people to agree with you.

I'm just trying to clarify the definition of "task" and also try to let you see that sometimes, you should consider what others are thinking as well. Yes, you are more experienced but spare a thought for the rest who also want to contribute. There is no intention to hurt anyone's feelings and the term "childish", I feel is not a strong enough term for an insult, nor was it meant to be as it wasn't even directed at you in the first place.

And FYI, no one is chasing you away. PLEASE stay and help on the TAR articles. The only thing is I hope you can show more compassion when you want to revert NON-VANDALISM edits.

Thank you. DanielTAR (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Strongly to said you are insult, i ask to request comment about "that" topic and not ask to comment about the personnel, and you did that! Later you also comment about whether i should stay in Wikipedia, and that is totally not in your jurisdiction. You can refuse to admit your comment is wrong.

React to your reply, i can do whatever i want, if not violation, and you cannot interfere my conversation with others, you can take a look, but if it is not involving you, you have no jurisdiction to comment, because i am talk with another user and not in article talk page, also not with you. And you know what is threaten? So, why you busy around with that? I do impress your ability, but i do not impress you are so busy with other personnel.

Also, it is not wrong to have a page protection, it can stop tense, you mean i can't have page protection? or even what you mean in talk is i can't discuss the small things (it is childish) or you meant to controlling my behaviour that i am not compassion with? --Aleen f 1 06:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

-

I'm really annoyed with you right now. Did you even read my previous message?

FIRST OF ALL GET THIS RIGHT... I DID NOT TYPE THIS:

''If you really think something like "everyone think(s) he is not wrong" and giving up everything after meeting an opposite view, then Wikipedia is not really the best place for you as you are refusing to accept the fact that consensus is a foundation that builds up Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a community that are being shared by more than one person.''

''It will never be you lose, and everyone wins after you have decided to give up putting efforts. Everyone will lose coz I am thinking that your continuous efforts at the part of reverting vandalism and constructive editings must be thanked by a lot of users here. They can observe it without doubts. But the rule is there, we are less easily to remove things here than adding things. If the consensus turns out to be on your side, in my view, the other side shouldn't be considered a "lose" because at least the people involved have put their effort to figure out a consensus and they have tried to be their role in the community.''

'''I DID NOT WRITE THE ABOVE. IT WAS NOT ME. IT WAS ANOTHER PERSON. STOP BLAMING ME FOR THIS.'''

Let me just quickly address the issues over here:

1) I cannot interfere with your conversations? It's on the TARA3 DISCUSSION page, open to everyone. If you wanna have a personal/private conversation, USE THE PERSON'S TALK PAGE. As far as I'm concerned, your discussion was about TAR. And I have every right to interfere and voice my opinion. AND... the ONLY part I commented was under YOUR SUB-SECTION asking what is the definition of a task. I said what I said and that's it.

2) It is not wrong to have page protection but it is wrong if it's over a personal feud over you and that other guy, that is prohibiting me from editing it CONSTRUCTIVELY. And I asked for the removal of protection because several people, including me, have already FORMALLY defined what an Additional Task was. 3) The discussion only got personal because of the actions you took. Don't deny it but you were the one who first started the "everyone doesn't appreciate me and I'm gonna leave. you go handle all the TAR issues yourself" in the first place. Who the fuck asked you to leave anyway? If you can't accept constructive criticism, then fine, leave. But don't try to make people feel guilty because it's disgusting.

I tried to make it right and explain the situation thoroughly. But either you can't understand what I wrote or you just blatantly want to stir up trouble. I don't have time for this. I have my O Levels right now and can't be bothered to deal with this. Stay to contribute on TAR wiki pages if you want. If you don't want to, then bye. DanielTAR (talk) 07:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you can say anything, include "childish", anything, because you are right, i am thinking why you can insulted my English, and use "fuck" to reply, which is rude. I propose you to read WP:PROT, if i want to care everyone like you, surely i will not brave to do it. I dislike to be a troll and also embroil. More, this line "everyone doesn't appreciate me and I'm gonna leave. you go handle all the TAR issues yourself", i didn't say that in talk page, so you try to add the salt or fire, i don't know, read carefully, don't just always said i am stir the problem.

If everyone agree, surely i am satisfied, but your word "childish" seems disappointed me and thinking leaving than stay.

Good luck to your exam, even you have conflict to me, but that is my honest word, up to you believe it or not --Aleen f 1 08:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC) -

I just want you to be aware that I think you think that I said a lot stuff on the TARA3 talk page that really was not me, but the other guy. So PLEASE, check the page out again.

And the line "everyone doesn't appreciate me and I'm gonna leave. you go handle all the TAR issues yourself" is basically what you say except that I paraphrased it. Yes, we're criticizing how sometimes you revert edits to fit your opinion but no one has asked you to leave and you overreacting by threatening to do that was perceived as childish by me.

And the "rude" reply was because I took SO LONG to write the message in reply to your 1st message you wrote on this page but then you seem to completely not read it by accusing me of what I told you I didn't write.

And thanks, for the good luck wish. I appreciate it. DanielTAR (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry...
So, i am apologise my fumble, it is very chaos and messy.

From what i see, you are very care about other people's feeling. So, because you are coming up in March 2007, everything is well prepare for you, WYSIWYG, did you aware that:


 * 1) TARA1 is first to introduce the additional task?
 * 2) Is me started that?
 * 3) Why additional task is listed and what is the principle?

Not talking about TAR 1-9, all the task listed in TARA 1 is the team member at least have to perform by search, eat, etc, not using eye to see and receive, signing up the time, or even stand in the boat that ride by other, that is just like drinking water, nothing is notable. Later it follow in TAR10 and so on. Also, because i DIDN'T observe TAR1-9, so, that is out of my knowledge, and some of may even is not approved.

So, you can said i want sympathy, childish, i can't blame you at all, because everything is pretty well. However, that word is mean a lot, i could think you are erase my effort by "fighting this is childish". I am work in TAR since Season 9, you have to understand why i fight for it, it is not childish and edit TAR is consider one of my routine. Many of ex-TAR editor left, i the one who still keep in faith. Is not let you sympathy me, but you have to know i use a lot of time to figure out, fixing and working in templates, so is not just experience to be mean.

Anyway, i don't mean to be troll at all. BTW, i aware that a lot of feature and policy may you unknown, DYK, you can request for unprotected? because you blame me so much for that. Sorry, i can use whatever that WP granted, so you should not abusing my rights. I will talk more for this. --Aleen f 1 17:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

unblock request
yeah i think it auto-unbanned itself. DanielTAR (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Where you mean about "THE ARTICLE SAID" shown me! If i can't see what you mean, i will pray myself i am not wrong --Aleen f 1 11:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

http://forum.realityfanforum.com/index.php/topic,17788.msg367514.html#msg367514 Even though it's in the forum, it's an excerpt taken from TVGuide, a reliable source. DanielTAR (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, i got it, but if you know what date that magazine published, please cite it, generally it require to be, you have to understand that no original research. --Aleen f 1 12:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

TAR17
It does not really make sense to include Sweden in the Leg 6 locations when the only thing they did in Sweden was use its airport. I've removed other "stepping stone" nations from the section headers, as they are not the focus of the leg. You call for season 3 to set a precedent, when in season 3 they actually had route markers in the other nations.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 18:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

What about TAR3 Leg 5 where they transited through Spain but there weren't any route markers? It's included in the flow of locations. DanielTAR (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)