User talk:Daemon8666

Welcome. Please post your comments in an orderly fashion below.

Leonard Scott

Hi. I see from your user page that Leonard Scott is one of your pages "under construction". However, nothing has happened to it since August. Do you plan on expanding it?

Since the article is so short, maybe we can merge the information to corpus delicti — and thus clear the Leonard Scott article to make way for Leonard Scott, the American sprinter? Punkmorten 11:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes

It isn't really a controversial topic. And I would guess the vandalism over the last few days is the result of one person using several IP addresses. If he's back again today, I think we should try blocking him. –Shoaler (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nineth day

I'm not sure what you mean, are you referring to this edit [1]? I was not voting, just noting who made the comment for the administrator who closes the discussion. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 16:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Odin

Thanks for your message on my page.

I'd love to help rewrite the page, but right now it would be reverted. I am hoping that my calling attention to the substantial factual problems will lead to a major overhaul. When the time is right, and if you know some first-rate Norse mythology, would you come help? I for one would welcome a new hand on the article.Wighson 23:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a repository of story, not language; as that seems to be where most of your disputes lie I don't know how much of a help I would be there; but I most definitely welcome the changes. Daemon8666 14:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steel

I am not sure what to suggest. The majority of the article is about ironmaking (which probably ought not to appear here at all) and carbon steel. I wonder whether the answer may not be to limit the present article to carbon steel, with a brief allusion to modern alloy steels, and to ahve a seaparate article on modern alloy steels. I am primarily a historian with a manor interest in the hisotry of the iron industry, but anything later than 1815 tends to be too modern for me. I have been trying to tidy up a number of articles of iron and steel and production processes, eliminating nonsense, filling in missing details, and so on. What I have written on new 19th cnetury processes has been a precis of what I found in books, which I own written by people who knew the subject. I am definitely not qualified to deal with alloy steels. However I would recommend Historical Metallurgy 19(1) (1985), which prints the papers given at a conference shortly before dealing with the introduction of alloy steels.

While on the subject would you have a look at the aricle wrought iron. Some one has added a long section of how wrought iron is made, which in my view unbalances the article, as well as duplicating material appearing in the article puddling furnace. If you know abnout this, you comments would be appreciated. I do not like deleting a substantial piece of work that may well be better than what I put in my expansion of puddling furnace, but I am not happy with it as it is.

Over to you. Peterkingiron 22:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfdog article tagged by you a few months ago

You tagged the Wolfdog article with "not verified" and "requires cleanup" a couple of months ago. While the history shows numerous edits since it was still in bad shape when I first saw it yesterday. I have attempted to improve it and would like to ask you to take a quick look and give some feedback, as you are the one who was concerned enough to first flag it. Although I made a fair number of changes it still needs work and some suggestions on what to focus on or what direction to take it would help. If you don't mind providing some input please post to the article's discussion page so other editors can see them as well - I don't have any intention of hoarding the article, just want to get it up to par.

Thank you! Bigdoglover 22:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what the Wolfdog article needs most is a NPOV section about disposition/behavior/personality/predictability etc. that is very strong on facts and sources... (you mentioned it needing a section on this on my talk page). This is where things get most political and personal for many people, and in my non-neutral pov, run the highest chance of doing harm to the animals - people get them for the wrong reason (the very few I've actually known personally were owned by people wanting super-macho "wolves" - one was the pot dealer who terrorized my childhood nieghborhood and told everyone his wolfdog would kill if he said a secret word... I think he believed it himself (and was probably his own best customer judging from this and other things) while another was owned by the homeless ex-lead singer of a failed but ALMOST HUGE (yeah, well... they opened for a few big names, or so he claimed) 80's hair-metal band who followed me around the neighborhood telling me about his wolfdog and how he could have killed my Irish Wolfhound AND my friend's wolfhound at the same time... pathetic. (Sure, my dog was originally bred to hunt wolves, but I got one specifically because they generally make horrible gaurd dogs... they've been bred to be gentle for way too long). Anyhow, I attempted to write the section when I made my edits but it kept coming out stilted, and the article needs more good writing, not just more writing. I figure I'll leave it to you or another who can do it justice. A year or so ago I read up on them and ended up in an email dialog with a manager of one of the major wolf rescue centers (primarily rehabilitating wolves that were raised as pets, if I recall). They also work with wolfdogs and had quite a lot of good information. One thing that impressed me was their strong attempt to take a harm reduction stance rather than preachy or attacking those who disagreed. I looked - no longer have the email - but if I can recognize which site they were from I'll send you the URL in case you wish to get some input (if you even want to take on writing it). Hope your vacation is grand. Bigdoglover 17:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 06:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're Joking.....

Seriously, do you really think removing 80% of an article and leaving a three sentence explanation for it is in the best interest of the site? If you think that the track sections for the four albums needs improvement in whatever area (grammar, citing sources, etc.) than you are perfectly free to do so! But just deleting someone else's work because it isn't perfect is just totally wrong and uncalled for, can't you see? LEAVE THE TRACK SECTIONS IN! Develop, don't delete. And if you really, truly, honestly think they should be removed (I doubt that anyway), then DISCUSS IT 1st! Maybe it will be approved of. But probably not. Legnthening stubs and other contributions are what people should be doing for the site, OK? Also, you keep talikng about how "proper citations have to be added to make the article's accuracy apparent", and how can you do that if the text isn't there?.2Pac 15:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see your point now, but I have a favor to ask. Could you please not remove the section for The Marshall Mathers LP? it's been up a lot longer than the other three were, and also has a lot more refrences, and is better built. So please just leave that one alone. Also notice that for "Encore" I created a "Miscallanea" page with all of the trivia facts from the deleted section. Leave that in too.

A Feast for Crows

It's been a while and I don't have my books on me at the moment, but luckily I found the key passage online:

The candlelight was dancing in his eyes. "Ser Lyn will remain my implacable enemy. He will speak of me with scorn and loathing to every man he meets, and lend his sword to every secret plot to bring me down."

That was when her suspicion turned to certainty. "And how shall you reward him for this service?"

Littlefinger laughed aloud. "With gold and boys and promises, of course. Ser Lyn is a man of simple tastes, my sweetling. All he likes is gold and boys and killing."

Thus, Lyn is doing a service to Littlefinger by pretending to be his enemy, in return for the gold, boys, and promises that Littlefinger gives him. -Captain Crawdad 22:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Hi. You keep telling me about how text needs citations, and that the track descriptions are missing them. Lots of articles have unsourced statements like this, but that doesn't mean they should be trimmed extensively. So here is my suggestion. Got through them, and if there is any information you have doubts about, simply add a "citation needed" label, and who knows, maybe you will eventually get the sources you want so much. I could work on finding them for you, but when you just say "it's lacking citations", it's a bit vague. It seems to me that is a better way to deal with this issue than deleting all the text that has been built and developed over a very long time. PLEASE take this into consideration, and thanks a million. 2Pac 01:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who says it can't be sourced? How do you know? By the way, it's very tiresome watching this go back & forth, it should be settled some other way.

Yeah, you are right, Im sorry. I'm instead working on improving it through other wayss.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Daemon8666. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Daemon8666. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Daemon8666. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Daemon8666. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]