The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Daniel. No further edits should be made to this page. For a list of archives for this user, see User talk:Daniel/Archive.
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.
great work on the pre-season cup need any help with any info like scorers, players info etc just give a bell keep it up Boltonfan22
This is an article that I want to raise to featured status by years-end. Make sure you read the discussion page for my proposal. Killfest2 01:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can you possibly have confirmed whether or not the information I added had merit in the brief time it took you to delete everything? I posted it and five seconds later you deleted it. r
No matter whether it was credible or not, writing about a speculative habit of eating omelette is unencyclopædic, and therefore has no place on Wikipedia. I assume you're referring to the following edit you made to the album "Paris 1919":
"it is not known whether or not John Cale enjoys a nice omelette. Some have speculated that he may, but have found it difficult to confirm this hypothesis solely by listening to this album, (something recommended by jazz great Wynton Marsalis during his brief stint as columnist for Popular Mechanics.) Perhaps this album has been listened to by Winton Marsalis at some point during his illustrious career. Some have ever speculated that while recording this album John Cale and Wynton Marsalis may have both looked up at the moon within a 24 hour period of each other's gaze, uniting their souls if only briefly. Wyton Marsalis is 45." Killfest2 05:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
there's no need for me to have content on my talk page. the issue discussed with me and Mike 7 is over and done. thus no one would care what was said. please do not harass me as it's my talk page and i am required to delete messages after i have replied. thank you. 24.148.67.7205:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussed? You posted this:
"i will behave and cease blanking other people's talk pages, as you have suggested i do. now per Wikipedia policy because i have responded to your talk page message i am permitted to do what i please with MY OWN talk page. therefore i will remove the comment. but i am sincere in my promise i will not blank anyone else's talk page. you have my word. 24.148.67.72"
...on his talk page, and he hasn't replied. And also, you are not permitted to do what you like to your own talk page. Just see User talk:70.87.15.130 to have a look at what happens to people who believe that. Killfest2 05:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
just because you're a member of the RC patrol it doesn't give you the right to make threats and be antagonistic. my issue with the editor has been worked out. my promise not to blank other pages stand. but i am permitted to remove any content on my talk page at my discretion.
futhermore that "copy & paste" job isn't convincing. give me a link...and not just the section so it conveniently directs me to the passage you'd want me to read. 24.148.67.7205:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing is a two-way thing, and so far "the author" hasn't bothered to respond to your ill-guided messages. Also, here's the link:
but see [1] says something slightly different. it starts off saying that there's no official policy or consensus...then goes on to repeat the same info in the link you sent.
i suggest you and the other big shots get to work on a clear cut policy. because stuff like that is open to interpretation. 24.148.67.7206:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, that exact page (which is proposed at the moment, and if disapproved will over-ride the current policy of removing warnings being vandalism) is currently 28-1 in favour of warnings being anti-community. Considering Wikipedia is run off a concensus, you can bet your bottom dollar that it will become policy. Also, why would there be official warnings on the Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, including a "final warning" template, about removing warnings if it wasn't going to be policed? Killfest2 06:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this back & forth about me removing warnings is a total waste of time. not only is there not a clear policy that doing so it vandalism but as you have seen it is nothing but an open invitation to revert war on my user talk pages and harass me with warnings about removing warnings. the result? nothing but an ongoing dispute between us on whether or not it is okay to remove warnings. disputes like these have a pointlessly hostile and negative impact in that it outweighs the limited benefit that such a rule would have in dealing with real vandals. I wish you would see that stuff like this only leads to revert wars about warnings and warnings about warnings and does nothing to improve the behavior of true vandals who come on here and upset useful users. 24.148.67.7206:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is far from closed. I notice that you attempt to throw all the blame on me, and yet run off claiming it's over. Well, let it be known that it is not over. Until you acknowledge that you are in the wrong when deleting warnings that are put their for a reason, this will not be over. I'm not saying that I did everything in the right, but until you realise that you were in the wrong by deleteing all those warnings, this will not be closed. I have had 8 vandals blocked for removing warnings (out of a total of 33), so obviously it is against some form of policy, or administrators wouldn't be doing this. Unless you're saying the admins are corrupt and ignorant... Killfest2 06:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know how to use the IP tracker things at the bottom of the IP page - if you do, we can use that as a way of trying to prevent his use of multiple IP's, which is against Wikipolicy. Killfest2 06:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite what you think is personal commentary so that it can be addressed. You are vandalizing my factual posts which were posed with the intent to educate this is a violation of Wikipedia's rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.133.207.244 (talk • contribs)
I, along with about 5 other editors and 2 administrators, have already come to the conclusion that your posts are simply personal opinion with no basis in fact. This discussion is over. Killfest2 08:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What, you think you can get me banned by saying that I'm wrong, even though the concensus within the 2 administrators that have blocked you is that I'm right...? Killfest2 08:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've been banned. No real suprises there, after you stormed off and called editors (including an administrator) "illiterate shits"... Killfest2 08:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, nice job on the July 2006 Java earthquake article! You might want to make sure all of your edits are still in place. I tried to fix the reference problem and add a category but it looks like I inadvertently rolled back other changes. If you find some of your content gone, it was not intentional so feel free to put it back. Sorry for the confusion... That article's getting edited pretty mercilessly! :) —Wknight94 (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problems - maybe use this template if you're planning on making an edit, to aviod edit conflicts.
I'm really interested in your reporting to users that they are listed on WP:AIV. Are you just doing that manually, or is it a bot (it might actually make sense to have a bot do that)? Don't you think that that is inviting vandalism to WP:AIV? Regards, Alphachimptalk04:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing it manually. The reason I do it is I believe that every person should have a chance, if they wish, to defend themselves. At the moment, WP:AIV is one-sided (the RC report what they want to report, and the "vandals" don't get a chance to explain their actions). Killfest2 04:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a good idea, but I'm really concerned about it attracting vandalism to AIV. You should put in a bot request to have someone do it for you. Alphachimptalk04:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This message is to alert you to the fact that you have been reported to the Administrator Intervention against Vandalism (AIV) page so that your case can be reviewed by an Administrator. They may then impose a block for a period of time on your IP to prevent you from vandalising in the future. If you wish to contest the merits of the report, please post it under the actual report on the AIV page. Do not remove the initial report, as this will probably not help you in trying to prove you are not a vandal.
I'm hoping the "Do not remove the initial report, as this will probably not help you in trying to prove you are not a vandal." will deter them. Killfest2 04:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it'd save me doing it. How hard would it be to program a bot to say that if someone reports a vandal to the AIV page, post this warning on their talk page? I have absolutely no idea on how to program bots, so I'm in the dark on this one. Killfest2 04:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be incredibly easy. All one has to do is look over WP:AIV, visit the talk page, and post your template. That's not to say I personally could do it, but there are a lot of bot programmers that could. I'm not sure that they would though. Do you want me to put in the request for you? I always hate to see editors doing bot-type work manually. Alphachimptalk05:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about it. I don't think that it's worth the server load of having a bot constantly monitoring WP:AIV. That being said, you are more than welcome to request the bot yourself, here. I'm going to stop monitoring this talk page. Regards, Alphachimptalk03:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Daniel.Bryant/Archive/July 2006, and thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of (105/2/0). I was very pleased with the outpouring of kind words from the community that has now entrusted me with these tools, from the classroom, the lesson in human psychology and the international resource known as Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Please feel free to leave me plenty of requests, monitor my actions (through the admin desk on my userpage) and, if you find yourself in the mood, listen to some of what I do in real life. In any case, keep up the great work and have a fabulous day. Grandmasterka06:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations! To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well! ♥! ~Kylu (u|t)07:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do want comments, thanks for that. I guess, it might look nicer if I had simply different shades of blue...hmmm. I'll see what I can do. Killfest2 12:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know the benefits of being a logged in user. I used to be one a long time ago. I don't have time make the same kind of contributions that I used to. But I can still rv vandals, spam trolls, POV and superfluity perveyors as an anon so I am content with that. I also know that...as an anon...my own edits come under a little bit more scrutiny...and that's OK by me. If I make a mistake I want someone to catch it and let me know so I won't do it again. Thanks for the kind words and have a nice day! 216.21.150.4401:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice for a 16-year old :)
And lol at the you-know-who comment. There is a suttle difference between the usernames, hopefully you haven't been incorrectly blammed too many times. :S glasnt<303:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was going through my watchlist and saw this vandalism revert [2] and subsequent user warning message here. It doesn't look like vandalism and removing a duplicate listing of ranks is an improvement. I have reverted your change back to the previous version. BigDT15:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
can you squash most of the titles on your userpage towards the top? You have to scroll down quite far to see not a lot (since you asked for critique!)--martianlostinspace16:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I should politely refuse your offer. Not that Im being rude, I am just extremely conscious of my anonymity online. People know only what they must. A userpage means divulging personal information - thanks anyway, but. I should say, I like the quick popups, instead of another page. --martianlostinspace17:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I needed them gone is I changed the template directory style (instead of numbering them, I actually made the title descriptive). Thanks again. Killfest2(Talk)03:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Daniel, i want to ask you if you could translate me something from English to Icelandic language. Text is here. And please leave your name and e-mail adress on that page after you translate it (if you wish). Thank you. --SasaStefanovic • 22:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have only watched this episode from an extreme distance but, in all honesty, the things that are being removed from this GraalOnline article are loaded with unsourced statements and criticism and weasel words:
Many players have sharply criticized the actions of staff on Official Servers How many? How sharply? Where is this reported?
...have been contested by a part of the community. Which part? No source.
Many have been critical of the lack of updates on the public level editor. Who has? How many? Who says? No source.
To me, it's hard to complain about the mass removal of completely unreferenced content. I definitely have a hard time calling it "blatant vandalism". Considering neither side is unbiased, I'd have a hard time taking sides on this issue. If I brought out the {{fact}} tag, that article would be covered in it. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Warcaptain have declared war to the GraalOnline article and to me. He have been warned a few time for reverting articles. Lastly he have added a level of warning to my User_talk:Graal_unixmad when i have not modified anything. Something should be done to stop this.
I also ask mediation to be done on the GraalOnline web page.
Let me know if you want my help in any way on this case. I'm not really familiar with the Cabal, but figured it was probably the best bet. Coincidentally, the same complaints that are being posted on your page are also being posted on my talk page.
He'll like what I have to say. I have only watched this episode from an extreme distance but, in all honesty, the things that are being removed from this GraalOnline article are loaded with unsourced statements and criticism and weasel words:
Many players have sharply criticized the actions of staff on Official Servers... How many? How sharply? Where is this reported?
...have been contested by a part of the community. Which part? No source.
Many have been critical of the lack of updates on the public level editor. Who has? How many? Who says? No source.
To me, it's hard to complain about the mass removal of completely unreferenced content. I definitely have a hard time calling it "blatant vandalism". Considering neither side is unbiased, I'd have a hard time taking sides on this issue. If I brought out the {{fact}} tag, that article would be covered in it. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problems. Feel free to give your views (in any length) on what you believe should be the outcome after all the statements have been analysed. Killfest2(Talk)04:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming, coincidentally, that you want me to offer my opinion separately from everyone else. If you would like, I can post an external opinion now, but I'll hold off until I know what would help the most. Regards, Alphachimptalk06:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Killfest, for you birthday wishes toward me, but it is not my birthday until another six months!! If you can tell me where you got my birthday information, I would like to remove it so I don't have to waste people's time by wishing me happy birthday when it's not! Thanks a bunch though for your message, it cheered me up even though it's not my B-day. PS: My birthday is January 22nd! Thanks again! Iolakana|T10:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What the... *feels like a complete idiot*. My link to the Esperanza calendar for the current month has, for some reason, stopped automatically scrolling down to the current month, but instead started on January...sorry. I'll remove them if you wish. Killfest2(Talk)11:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you want this page to be protected? Have all the involved parties submitted their statements? I'm unsure whether protection is essential here. The notice on the top of the page is quite clear & any arguments occurring can be reverted & if it does not stop the page can be subsequently protected. Protection will mean that none of the involved parties can modify or add to their existing statement. I myself have watchlisted the page. --Srikeit(Talk | Email)11:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't ask, but I spend half my time dedicated to this mediation removing wars of words between opposing sides. It would be merely a convenience, and yes, all parties involved have submitted. Killfest2(Talk)11:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you can tell me where you got my birthday information, I would like to remove it so I don't have to waste people's time by wishing me happy birthday when it's not! Thanks a bunch though for your message, it cheered me up even though it's not my B-day. PS: My birthday is January 22nd! Thanks again! 
Iolakana|T 10:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Iolakana|T 11:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)