User talk:Dak

The 'OI! DAK!' box of attention solicitation

If I've left a comment on you're talk page, or on a talk:article page that you particulaly want me to respond to, you can reply here, or, if you want to keep the discussion all in one place, you can put a link to it in the box below to get me to respond there:

The 'Oi dak' box

P3NIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.250.68.225 (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Dak

Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Here are some handy tips:

You can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~
Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date.
If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 21:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV

OK, the IP you reported 209.158.191.252 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is a judgement issue, and you were definitely not out of line in reporting it. I think about half the admins processing that one would have blocked the IP since it is a vandal who has a nastily long track record, but in this case I decided not to block, and instead give a {{subst:test4}}-warning for these reasons.

The last time the IP was warned was December 22 2005.
The vandalism from the IP ended about half an hour ago.

If there is any more trouble from the IP do not hesitate to re-report. By the way, thank you very much for your help in counteracting vandalism, it is a severe problem here and anyone helping in fighting it is doing a greatly appreciated job! Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not want

Thanks for pointing that out. I left some comments on the talk page. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 07:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect? might help you in future situations. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 07:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typo fix

Thanks for fixing the typo on the Yahiya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi article. I think the policy is to mark such corrections as minor edits. Thanks. :) --Nkv 12:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time I got myself a pair of specs. Sorry to bother you. :) --Nkv 03:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your VandalProof Application

Dear DakAD,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that at this time you do not meet the minimum requirement of 250 edits to mainspace articles (see under main here). Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. - GIen 18:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nil problemo :-)... kinda thought i'd get tuned down, but was worth a try --DakAD 18:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

category talk

That category was moved to Category:Wikipedians by D&D alignment. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ahthankinyou. updated the WP:EDIANS link to it. --DakAD 01:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncategorized articles

Please be aware that putting a stub marker on an article, as you did with Bohemian earspoon, isn't good enough - please put in an actual category. Stub categories are Wikipedia maintenance categories, not subject categories. Eli Falk 17:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 15:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Gordon

A tag has been placed on Rodney Gordon, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 04:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Messages

Hello, Dak. You have new messages at Talk:Rodney Gordon.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

04:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring at Fisting

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. HalJor (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for 24h for this. You are editing tendentiously and failing to respond meaningfully on the talk page. You are repeatedly re-inserting an attribution to "mich" as you put it in the full knowledge that is false; this is unacceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what the fuck are you talking about? Haljor was the one who just stopped bothering to talk on the talk page and simply removed the image, and I am re-inserting an image that was quite clearly by michaelangelo, as it can be seen in the sistine chapel painting (ONLY difference being the colour). If you feel the attribution is incorrect, take it up with wikimedia commons (where the image is stored, attributed to michaelangelo). Why not block HalJor? He's 'edit warring' as much as I am, and is the one refusing to talk about it, simply deleting the image ad-nausium, claiming it's 'until we reach consensus' whilst refusing to discuss it.

And oh noez, you have blocked me! I guess I'll log out to edit stuff --Dak (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dak (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Reasons for block totally false, it was HalJor who wasn't discussing it, whilst simply removing the image. I also suggested he set up a request for comments ( i don't know how ), I was just simply trying to stop him getting his way by brute-force.

Decline reason:

User editing as anon while blocked, block extended to 1 week Vsmith (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dak (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

wft?! Who said i'm not allowed to log out of my account and use an unregistered IP? if i wasn't allowed to do that, you should have blocked my IP too from the start! anyway, if you check my (anon) edits, you'll find that they're non-distruptive, that I (obviously enough) didn't re-insert the image, and instead I edited the talk page putting an RfC in there...

Decline reason:

You, the human being editing as User:Dak, are blocked. Not the username. You the person. So, no, you're not allowed to use an unregistered IP to get around your block. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dak (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

yes, I know that NOW. my reason for being unblocked is that i didn't know it at the time, i.e. i didn't intentionally do something that I knew, at the time, i wasn't allowed to do. i.e., it was AN ACCIDENT. I thought it was a temporary block from my account (i.e., can't post with my name, don't have trusted user rights). please AGF and drop the block down to 1 day again, and let me appeal the original block (reason for decline was (unknowing) block evasion) also note that i intend to put the RfC back on the fisting talk page, then leave that article alone (just participating on the talk page and not 'edit warring' on the article -- when there's a RfC, there'll be enough editors there to get consensus -- like i said, my only reason for repeatedly reverting HalJor's edits was to stop him getting his own way (image removal) by brute-force.)

Decline reason:

Incivility on your talk page, plus openly stating (and carrying through) on a threat to evade your block. Sorry. Talk page disabled for the duration of the blockBlueboy 96 19:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Jesus, are you guys fucking retarded or just trolls? I didn't know that it was block-evasion when I did it, as I said! And I'm being uncivil because I was blocked for no good reason (seriously, check the article closer: I made numerous attempts to discuss the issue, but HalJor just kept misrepresenting what I'd said and started an edit war, so i gave up talking and tried to stop him -- then he reported me, lied in the report (see below), and I was banned without even being able to state my side and without seeing whether the warning would work on it's own).

I guess I'll just create a new account for the duration of the block then, so I can keep on voluntarily aiding wp (note that this is the first set of edits that anyone's had a problem with) then come back to this account when the blocks expired. Unless you block 'me' permanently, in which case I guess I'll just keep my new account.

And now the block is one month--continue this, and it'll be indef next time. Blueboy 96 22:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: original block:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Dak_reported_by_User:HalJor_.28Result:_24h.29

Please note the following:

I never reverted thrice within one 24-hour period, and I only ever reverted HalJor's reverts.
Yes, HalJor talked on the talk page, BUT THEN HE STOPPED, and simply repeatedly removed the image without any further discussion on the issue.
And, no edits were made by me to the article between HalJor 'warning' me and me being blocked: I didn't have a chance to respond

--Dak (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dak (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

original block unjustified (no warning given at all before ban) and done by an admin who has since been de-op'd for abusing his power, including edit-warring (which is what he banned me for)[1],[2], which is why I was annoyed and rude. Have since calmed down and will not be rude anymore. Have done 1 week of 1 month ban. Apologies for threatening to ban-evade (note that I haven't been ban-evading, if I had been I wouldn't worry about having access to this account). Last request for unban.

Decline reason:

Your actions are not excused because of what has happened to the blocking administrator. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dak (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

(Please note: my 24-hour block for edit-waring and 7-day block for block-evasion have expired, and I'm only now 'serving' my 1-month block for incivility).

Can I have the above unblock request re-reviewed please? User:Backslash Forwardslash, I'm sorry, but your decline reason doesn't match my request. To clarify: I didn't offer the fate of the blocking admin as an excuse for my actions -- I offered the blocking admin's heavy-handed actions as a partial excuse for my behaviour, and offered the fact that he's since been de-admin'd as evidence that he was a 'rogue', heavy-handed, admin.

Other than that, it was of course my fault for speaking when angry (always a bad idea), being rude, and making stupid threats to ban-evade (tho the first was a genuine mistake).

I have a long history of useful contributions, and no previous bans/warnings/etc, and have been blocked for over a week so far for, ultimately, getting annoyed over what I perceived as an unjustified 24 hour block. I am now being civil, have not block-evaded since initial (accidental) insident, and do not intend to edit-war again (that was my first and last editwar, espescialy as I now know how to use RfC's). If we could just call it quits at this point please?

If not, please advise of the next step in requesting unblocking?

Decline reason:

Incredibly difficult to assume good faith with all the incivility and threats on this page. As such, I endorse the blocking admin's actions. Please come back refreshed and willing to work with the Wikipedia community in a more collegial manner. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]