User talk:Dtobias/Archive 1

(Archives for 20 Dec 2004 - 16 Jun 2006)

Welcome
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

147.9.159.128 02:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New Graphic Table on Libertarian Party Site - Thanks
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


 * You're welcome, but I didn't really do it; somebody else put it up, and I just fixed up some of the syntax and formatting so it looked better. Dtobias 18:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Capitalism has nothing to do with anarchism
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)


 * I see it more like fans of punk music putting up a "Music FAQ" that claims to be about music in general but which holds the position that only punk is true music, and all other genres (classical, bubblegum pop, hip-hop, etc.) deserve to be listed only in a section entitled "Things that are Not Music". (And I've been in online music forums where people actually do seriously assert that some genre or artist they dislike is "not real music".)  I'd say that the Wikipedia entry on music should cover all genres in an evenhanded manner (even including genres that many or most critics find to be discordant noise, and artists who are regarded by critics as talentless hacks, if they have some degree of popularity and cultural visibility nevertheless).  The same is true of the entry on anarchism. Dtobias 20:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Community watch
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)

About RickK, me, and user blocking

 * Note: Please read this carefully and thoroughly, as this is important.

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)


 * I'm not an admin, so I have no power to ban or un-ban anybody, but you actually did do something under the old account that looked like vandalism -- you blanked the Hilary Duff article. Maybe it was an accident as you state, but that, combined with claiming to be Hilary yourself (celebrity impersonators are a common problem on the Internet) is bound to make people suspicious.  You haven't done anything bad under your current username now (well, some might regard your posting the same comment to a lot of user talk pages as spamming), so it's unlikely you'll get banned under that name unless you commit vandalism. Dtobias 13:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Neutering" external links
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. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 02:36, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

3rd millennium
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)
 * Let me step in here to point this out. That a new millennium begins in XXX1 is not a "viewpoint," it's simple reasoning based on the observation that our calendar system has no year zero from which to begin counting, so the start dates of centuries and millennia (and decades, but that gets pretty widely ignored, I guess) are a year off.  The Wiki article Millennium has a good quote from Arthur Clarke: basically, "Would you accept it if a store clerk used a scale that began at one, and claimed to have sold you ten kilograms of tea?" If the scale doesn't start at zero, the first unit is skipped and you get nine kilograms. See also 0 (year).  Mr. Billion 20:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

18th century
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)

Black Death
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)


 * You're mistaken, apparently... I don't think I've ever edited the Black Death page. I recently made a minor grammatical-correction edit to the Avignon Papacy page, another page related to a similar historical era which you have edited recently yourself, so maybe that's where you got my userid. *Dan* 14:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

My mistake! Thought I had clicked on User:Dmcdevit Hiberniantears

Rand
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)

Error
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 Requests for page protection that says:
 * "This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies."

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)


 * The problem is that User:Ted Wilkes is still accusing me of "vandalism" simply for inserting additional information in some Wikipedia articles, which seems to be not in line with this user's personal opinion. He is still accusing me of "deliberate misinformation", "unfounded statements and outright fabrication", "distortions" and even of a "disinformation campaign". See, for instance, Talk:Nick Adams. He also calls me a liar. See Talk:Elvis Presley. As everybody can see, all my additional contributions are verified and supported by several independent sources cited on the discussion pages. In my opinion, it his high time to put this user in his place and tell him that he should stop accusing me of "misinformation" and "outright fabrication" until such times as he actually shows that something I have written is wrong. – 80.141.xxx.xxx

Oh, do please try to be a bit more NPOV
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)
 * Thanks. About your comment on your most recent edit on the article, my view is that since it's in the opening paragraph, it deserves some mention, and then be extrapolated further below. Ambush Commander 01:04, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks
You reinstated insulting comments that I had removed from my Talk page. Personal insults violate official' Wikipedia policy as specified in No personal attacks. Please refrain from inserting a personal attack. Thank you. Cheers. Ted Wilkes 13:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Since it is your personal talk page, I won't revert it back again, but I think you were out of line to refer to the negative comments about you as "vandalism", which is a technical term here with a specific meaning that does not extend to all comments you dislike. Furthermore, some regard comments you have left about others on various talk pages to be "personal attacks" as well. *Dan* 14:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I asked User:Ted Wilkes to remove all his personal attacks against me from the discussion pages. As a reply, he has written on his Talk page, "I stand by my words that you are a vandal as defined by Vandalism. I made no personal attack on you of any kind..." He even invites me "to immediately take this matter to the administration". I think it's high time to permanently ban this user from the Wikipedia community, as he repeatedly called me a liar, constantly accused me of "fraud", "deliberate misinformation", "unfounded statements and outright fabrication", "distortions", a "disinformation campaign" etc. and refuses to discuss the additional information I included on the discussion pages. 80.141.196.241 15:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * May I ask you for comment on this page: Requests for comment/Ted Wilkes. Thanks. 80.141.225.96 18:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Please unblock Mike Garcia now. He wants to come back.


 * I'm not an admin; I have no power to block or unblock anybody. *Dan* 19:08, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Dtobias (or should I say Dan), what kind of "idiot" are you?


 * You've stumped me... I've never been able to figure that out myself. The kind that's a member of Mensa, I guess. *Dan* 19:15, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
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)
 * You're welcome... be sure to use your powers for good instead of evil! (With great power comes great responsibility...) *Dan* 00:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Kim
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)

Mesmerize
Do you think the page block was a mistake? Guettarda 00:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Probably... I never really like page blocking in any case, though it's sometimes regrettably necessary. Some action needs to be taken regarding Mike Garcia, who has instigated a whole bunch of edit wars because of his unconstructive attitude. *Dan* 01:00, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Their edit war required some sort of intervention - I was hoping it would make them talk, but Mike only thanked me (not my intention) and the anon has been silent. I suspect that if I unprotect the page they will just start back.  Any advice on how else to proceed? Guettarda 01:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Both of the main participants in the edit war have been temporarily banned now for 3RR violations, so it should be safe to unprotect the article. *Dan* 02:36, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been silent because I am waiting for Mike Garcia to present his sources, as requested by you. I'm not sure what else is expected of me at this point, since I initiated a talk discussion on the topic from the beginning and referred to the talk page at every instance to get a dialogue going. Mike refused to discuss the issue with me. After researching the topic, a third party has found no evidence supporting Mike's claims. 66.36.129.150 02:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mike Garcia
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)

User Wyss and the articles on Nick Adams and Natalie Wood
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 and User_talk:Ted_Wilkes. 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)


 * I'm not sure I want to jump in the middle of this, given that I'm not really familiar with the subject anyway... I have no idea which "facts" are true in this case, but I wish everybody would get less emotional about them and stop hurling attacks and accusations about it. *Dan* July 2, 2005 13:30 (UTC)


 * Thanks anyhow. I don't understand the intentions of User:Wyss who is now harshly attacking administrator User:Mel Etitis. May I ask you to mediate since you already know the conflict? See Talk:Natalie Wood. I only wanted to include some additional information which can be found in a new biography on Natalie Wood. User Wyss and some others repeatedly deleted this information. 80.141.193.245 5 July 2005 17:31 (UTC)


 * Also, you'd probably gain in credibility if you got a user account instead of using an anonymous IP address; this isn't required here, but people do tend to take known users more seriously than anonymous ones. *Dan* July 2, 2005 15:58 (UTC)

Re: Hypnotize
The user wants me to give him/her a source about that information in red. 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)


 * Then why don't you give a source? That seems like a reasonable request to me. *Dan* July 3, 2005 22:11 (UTC)


 * It's not me who added that information before the anonymous user user showed up today to remove it. -- Mike Garcia | talk 3 July 2005 23:49 (UTC)


 * Well, some of the text is mine, I think, where I refer to the existence of a dispute over what order the albums would come out (based on edit-warring that you were involved in earlier), but I believe you came up with the part that says that they actually intended to release the albums in the other order but flip-flopped, but haven't provided a source for that. *Dan* July 4, 2005 00:17 (UTC)

Melissadolbeer
You commented at the above user's talk page that you were not sure what the situation was.

Please see Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer. 17:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: britney Spears
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)

Libertarianism, anarchism, and anarcho-capitalism
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.
 * 1) a disambig at the top that points to anarcho-capitalism
 * 2) an anarchism and capitalism section was added that discussed both anarcho-capitalist views and their relationship to socialist anarchism
 * 3) a discussion of anarcho-capitalism in 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)

Domain Name System, TLD entries, etc.
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)


 * Perhaps linking to a page listing a number of registrars (perhaps ICANN has such a page in its site with its accredited registrar list) would make more sense than linking to one particular registrar as you did. It does appear that you were "shilling" for eNom, since you put links to them in several pages, sometimes with slightly misleading titles like ".uk registrar" implying that they were the sole, or primary, registrar for a particular TLD.  You also created a page about them with some writing that sounds like marketing hype rather than an encyclopedia entry. *Dan* 01:04, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the feedback. I will further edit the entries to make them more generalized, and work to include a broader scope of registrars. Rather than shilling for enom, I am trying to present a broader range of registrars (I am a reseller of domain names, and have worked with all of them). By including the article on enom, I simply followed the format of the other 4-5 registrars' entries and scraped some info from their site.
 * Jog1973 21:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)jog1973 (talk)

Harry Potter
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)
 * Thanks for your comments 205.188.116.7 10:50, 10 August 2005

Band names requiring pluralized verbs
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:


 * Are you sure this is an American/British thing? I'm American, not British, and the grammar I explained above is common American English as far as I can tell. The American music press also follows my "pluralized" usage: search for Green Day or The Velvet Underground at AllMusic.com, for instance, or read this randomly selected news dispatch from MTV.com (note: "System of a Down are...", "Built to Spill have..."). You are talking about American sports press (which I also follow a lot :)... ha!), which is not famous for its good grammar but perhaps more for its colloquialisms, such as the one being discussed. As I said, the "singular" construction is common, but not fit for writing, unlike other AE/BE conflicts which involve sound conventions on both sides.

What one can glean about this convention from browsing American versus British band articles on Wikipedia is misleading. &mdash;Tarnas 04:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Economic "affect" of Hurricane Katrina
D'oh! Thanks for the quick catch of my amateur mistake! -- BD2412 talk 14:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism
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 fact that there's an incident where he tattled to the cops in order to get an enemy in trouble is certainly relevant on Black's own article, but that doesn't mean that everywhere his name is mentioned it is necessary to call him a "police informer", any more than it would be necessary to add "convicted criminal" everywhere Martha Stewart's name appears. The label makes it sound like he's an infiltrator in any group he may be affiliated with, and is tattling on them to the authorities rather than supporting their program, which is not a proven fact. *Dan T.* 18:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Kook
The NPOV way of calling someone a Kook is to write: "***** won the alt.usenet.kooks award for July 1999"

From Ed Poor's talk page
''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)''


 * First, let me start by saying that I never carried on about how unfair I was being treated. I've said from the start that I don't care if people oppose me, they are entitled to their opinions. I was simply questioning Ed's motives. Second, there does seem to be a grudge match going on, but I am only a pawn in it. There seems to be a number of editors opposing me because of who nominated me. User:Hipocrite may have had a past that I was unaware of, but now his past is being held against me. Third, I feel I have been very even-handed throughout my RfA experience. It has been hard to see so much criticism about me, but most of it is deserved. I have handled myself in a calm, rational way, even when being crapped upon, and personally attacked. I am not one to hold grudges. Lastly, I think someone that actually defends themselves shouldn't be ostracized. I simply tried to stand my ground while all the criticism has fallen on me. I didn't partake in any "grudge match". I simply responded to peopples comments and concerns. Besides Ed Poor's page, where have I been more civil than I have been? I can show you many examples of people being uncivil to me since this RfA started, but choose not to make a big deal out of it. I think WP needs admins who actually want to be admins, and having that desire should not be held against them. I appreciate any further comments you may have. Cheers my friend. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark) 17:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia meetup:Tampa
I'm writing to let you know that the Tampa meetup has officially been announced -- Meetup/Tampa2 &amp;rarr;Raul654 04:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

List of dictators
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)

Articles for deletion/David Perkis
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)

Economic fascism
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)


 * Not so much "bored" of it as that I decided it was pretty much pointless to do any editing on that page, as it's unlikely to survive long with the POV wars over there. *Dan T.* 13:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

iPod hacks: why deletion of hacks?
Cheers,

why did you delete

- * 200GB iPod Nano - How to create a 200GB iPod Nano, wth 6 minute run-time.
 * 3 1/2'' floppy disk attachment for the iPod.

from that page? One I didn't get around to posting the URL yet, the other looks pretty legit, too.

Thx, DJ Vollkasko


 * I didn't... where did you get the idea that I did? *Dan T.* 13:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop Vandalizing my Page
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

Re: Your comment
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)

Merry Christmas
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)

Persondata
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)

Posting on my Talk page
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)

RFC/KM
You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin. CastAStone|(talk) 03:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Not banning intellectuals and scientists (proposed language)
I would appreciate your comments and suggestions on the following:

Wikipedia talk:Autobiography

Thanks, --Carl Hewitt 09:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Merkey Article
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.

Mad Magazine & The Canterbury Tales
Can you put the complete Mad Magazine parody of the Canterbury Tales up somewhere? It looks hilarious. GoodSirJava 17:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It was actually just a small section of verse in the middle of a larger article, so there isn't that much more to it. It would probably violate copyright to publish the whole thing. *Dan T.* 20:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review
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)

User Talk:Jimbo Wales
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)

Jack Thompson
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)

Ai contestant articles/stubs
There's currently discussion ongoing concerning whether AI semifinalists deserve articles or stubs at Talk:American_Idol_%28Season_5%29. Your participation in the discussion would be appreciated! --Emperial 00:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

From DQ
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)

The small-world non-problem
There's something familiar-sounding about your username. Hmm: I see this (and also this). Strange coincidence! -- Hoary 00:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that last link of yours is "404 Not Found", but yes, I did create the other site you linked to. *Dan T.* 01:14, 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)

Personal comments
Even hilariously funny personal attacks 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)
 * Is crackpottism a medical condition now? :-) -lethe talk [ +] 08:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Musical Artists
WikiProject Musical Artists has officially been started at 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)

Boca Raton US1 sign
What road is the picture of the red US1 sign taken on? --BHC 11:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Military Trail, southbound just before Palmetto Park Road. *Dan T.* 12:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, wanted to see it --BHC 08:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Jack Thompson
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)

DreamHost
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 (&tilde;&tilde;&tilde;&tilde;) 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)

Highway articles
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)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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)

Long talk page
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)