User talk:DanielCD/archive9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Sigh

We did not run the plagiarism-detector bot. It was run by Daniel Brandt, who has effectively declared himself to be an opponent of Wikipedia; Mr Brandt has provided a list of over 100 articles which he feels could be used as the basis for a legal complaint.

Several administrators, including me, did quite a lot of work removing such legally-problematic material from articles and article histories, and many articles were found to be unsalvageably full of copyright violations. Yours was not the only one to be outright deleted.

Mr Brandt has also made statements about wilful negligence and legal responsibility, and about whether individuals such as yourself have been warned against repeating their inappropriate actions.

So. You've been duly warned. As long as you don't do that sort of thing again, I don't see any reason for you to leave the project if you still want to participate. DS 14:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Note

This information was moved back when the 1911EB project was in full swing, most of which was text dumps. I must have made a mistake moving material to Word and to Wikipedia, as I don't make such crass "text dumps" as this.

As for warnings and legal action, I have brought legal implications of things up in the past, most notable about the possibility of children being solicited here, and no one gave a shit. So I don't see why they are suddelny concerned about legal implications or any sort now.

The text dump was some kind of error. On top of that, I don't have any memory of the edit or this article at all. Still, my name is on it, so I must have done it. It will not happen again. --DanielCD 15:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much. See this Signpost article for some general coverage of the situation. GRBerry 00:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Lammergeier

It appears from the history that you, back in 2004, made the last substantive edit to this article on the Bearded Vulture (when you created it). (Most edits since have been adding inter-wiki links and tweaking the taxobox.) Since this is obviously a low edit page, I'm pointing out to you that I made a significant edit to the article so that it can be reviewed by another editor. GRBerry 21:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks great. Thanks! --DanielCD 23:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Plagiarism Bot

We absolutely 100% do not have control over the bot. It is run by Daniel Brandt, about whom much can be said. Brandt has not revealed the precise code used by his bot, but apparently it still requires a great deal of human participation to winnow out false positives, etc - more details are available on his site (www.wikipedia-watch.org/psamples.html). DS 00:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey You!

How are you doing?? Interested to hear how school is for you. Do you have time for your photography? Uploading much on site or Commons?

My oldest son just got engaged (wedding to be in May) so much happiness at our house. Hope everything is going well for you. Take care, FloNight 23:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool. [1] (Not going to look too closly at the copyright lic)
I emailed you today. Did you get it? I was not sure if I still had an active email address for you. --FloNight 03:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The wikipedia email account (on the side bar) is not working. I sent one to another address I had. Not sure if good or not??? --FloNight 03:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Sent. :-) --FloNight 04:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay... to bed early these days??? You use to stay up late as I recall. Guess school does those that to ya. FloNight 04:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Clay Aiken

Thanks for protecting the page; would you mind taking a bit to step in and weigh in on the edits I made verses the one they're trying to put through? Thanks a lot. - mixvio 19:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

We fixed the issue, so whenever you're ready the page can be unprotected. Thanks. - mixvio 02:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Domestic Violence

Howdy. I left a comment in response to your removal of some information from the Domestic Violence article. As you made your change a long time ago, I thought I'd point out my question about it so you could take a look at it and we could discuss the matter further. It's in the "Well-known individuals involved in documented reports of domestic violence" section of the talk page. -- Blain

I'm not interested in this article anymore. Do with it what you like. --DanielCD 02:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Sting (wrestler):

You recently protected[2] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 02:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yo Daniel from Beckjord

I see this in BIGFOOT

"Researchers currently attempting to determine if there really is a living creature under the myth include Dr. John Bindernagel of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, a location with many reported sightings, and Dr. Jeff Meldrum,[10] ..."

Can you add on page that Jon-Erik Beckjord, who heads the North American Scientific Anomalies Institute (NASAI) is also doing active field work to determine the nature of Bigfoot, and has also recently taken a photo from 200 feet of Bigfoot in his own campsite, standing next to an SUV and an icechest. (Sept 06, http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/septexpedition.html) and that Dr Thomas Tomasi, of SW Missouri State Univ, (biologist) says it appears "to be a large unidentified primate". ? Thanks.

Thank you, I think this info will be appreciated by Wikipedia readers.

Beckjord - 510-878-2468 rudyrudy3@comcast.net

Note vandalism and libel

please assist. Killer chihauwa put this up: quote: Truthfully, the term "fringe theorist" is as inapplicable as is the disdainful term "fellow cryptozoologist" as if to somehow dignify Beckjord's "theories." A quick look at his numerous Web sites will reveal that, e.g., Beckjord notes some meaningless camera artifact and concludes thence that paranormal beings that live inside the very rocks of Stonehenge are responsible for nighttime perpetration of crop circles in adjoining fields; or circles an odd clump of hairs in a still of the legendary Patterson-Gimlin sasquatch film (1967) and immediately deducies thence that the animal is toting a three-headed youngster while sallying along. Beckjord has been ejected from an extensive—and growing—set of mailing lists and societies, generally because anyone who deigns to disagree with him is presently subjected to a verbal tantrum, typically intermixed with very personal (not to mention, very incorrect) criticisms of respected researchers who are polite enough to actually endeavor maturely to communicate with him. Beckjord next adopts surplus personae and phony names so that he can somehow manage to get his ridiculous comments posted, much as Ken Uston might sneak into a Las Vegas casino in a brand-new disguise in the thin hopes of defeating their security long enough to play a few hands of blackjack before the bouncer addresses him."

Beckjord. Thanks.

I'll try to look at it Beck, but I've been really busy so be patient. --DanielCD 23:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Where was it posted? --DanielCD 17:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Palaeos page nominated for deletion

Hi Daniel. The wikipage on Palaeos (which I didn't write btw, except for the references at the bottom of the page) is nominated for deletion. If you think it should be retained, please go over there and add your vote! Thanks! M Alan Kazlev 22:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Closing AfD

I noticed you commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palaeos and that you're an admin. Would it be possible for you to go ahead and close this AfD since there is a very clear consensus that it should be kept after the necessary changes were made. The current discussion is starting to stray from the topic of whether the article should remain. Thanks. Hatch68 21:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone got to it before me. --DanielCD 17:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
It strayed because it's linked to a discussion page for the Wikipedia Project Science. I didn't notice until after I looked back there that when I made comments on that page, it was also posted on the AfD discussion. This was not my intention, but it might have been the intention of the person who constructed the talk page. KP Botany 18:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Fifinella

As far as I can tell, you're the one who created the article Fifinella back in 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fifinella&oldid=28675817). So, thanks for that. But please beware of plagiarism; several sentences and distinctive phrases ("went to war", the parenthetical about flight patches) in that article seem to have been lifted directly from http://www.wasp-wwii.org/wasp/fifi.htm, which looks copyrighted. I've now rephrased or removed the plagiarized sentences. --Quuxplusone 21:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I would hardly call well-referenced paraphrasing "plagerism". Three words hardly merits a comment like this. --DanielCD 01:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Test message

Hi - I am not sure that a test message which suggests "Don't let grumpy users scare you off" is really helpful when the "tests" are pretty blatant and thus make people pretty grumpy. Could you please reconsider what you include. I think sticking to the standard {{test}} template is best - it has a useful balance between saying don't do it and welcome without going overboard. The editor you warned reoffended (see User talk:71.220.107.202 ) - hence my message to you! :-) --Golden Wattle talk 01:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Ok Ill look at the message. Trying to make a balance between being firm and being kind. Perhaps it needs a little tweaking. --DanielCD 01:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll just use {{subst:test}} for first time vandals from now on. --DanielCD 01:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Epic simile

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Epic simile, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.english.cam.ac.uk/vclass/terms.htm, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Epic simile and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Epic simile with a link to where we can find that note;
  • If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Epic simile. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Epic simile with a link to the details.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Epic simile/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Epic simile saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Kc8ukw 22:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow this was summer 2005, my newby days. What other time bombs are out there waiting to go off...? Are you sure they didn't copy it from us? Someone should restart it because an encyclopedia needs an entry on it. --DanielCD 03:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
It was quite a while ago. I came across it as part of the Wikification Wikiproject - it was tagged last September. I'm a physicist, so I'm not restarting it! Kc8ukw 04:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Autism

Hello DanielCD You have made constructive edits to the Autism article in the recent past and I infer you wish to see that it is well looked after as do I. An edit to the introduction section of Autism has been made by Q0 (I believe him/her to be a valuable contributor and have no wish to get into a edit war with that person) which, in my opinion, presents problems (see my rationale in the discussion section on the 'Introduction'). From one POV it is a minor change, however it does seem to render the tone a bit amateurish and clumsy (a matter of style which may or may not be a POV)) and is in fact an alteration of published fact from the reputable sources cited. I have proposed a change to carry the factual original statement --which is absolutely ethical in science to be sure. I readily concede that the DSM and the ICD do represent a theoretical perspective which must be questioned to remain scientific.

There is also the issue of POV versus NPOV. Science, no matter how loudly people shout to the contrary, is still riddled with POV and much of the debate can be rendered as simply politics. The original Introduction statement in Autism can be considered POV but ironically has been altered to another POV. Technically we may only be able to be fair by providing a balance. My POV anyway.

If you have time and you are interested, take a look and give us some objective feedback. Ta. Malangthon 02:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to look at it. We had a storm recently and my Internet connection is making it hell to do any editing. --DanielCD 23:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
One-cell parasites, passed with male's seed, remain with fetus. The damage such active intruders can do to a tiny, developing body (brain in particular) is limitless (talking about viruses hardcoded into very BIOS of the future human being). Cure from parasites lays in a proper diet (fruits, vegetables, nuts, honey, herbs - none of this cooked with fire in any manner). The body of a human has miraculous ability to regenerate ANY type of cells in it. Given that no parasites are intercepting rejuvenating materials and do excessive damage further. (ptishyn at gmail.com) Would you want to find a cure (and making future births autism-free) seek who they are, how to destroy them and how to keep them away, the parasites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.190.72.135 (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Balzac

Give me a chance to revert, dickhead, or I will give you a shiner. Hank Ramsey 03:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

How pleasant. You must laugh all the time. --DanielCD 03:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Compliments

Yea, he complimented me too. --DanielCD 03:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's nice to see people are spreading the love around, eh? --Haemo 03:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Tom Davis

Thanks for fixing the Tom Davis page. The same user has vandalised the JeanneMarie Devolities Davis page (his wife). This makes three events in just a few days. Please help me keep an eye out for 199.111.179.86. Thanks again! Acham 05:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert

Blahneah vandalized your page with "Take Dat fu" ... I reverted it, just trying to help you out and give you a heads up. Carlo V. Sexron 03:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Urgency

Can you please delete the Exodus+, as the debate always lead to the information as false. I have futher proof that this album is fake and is made up by the writer, the writer showed me this picture showing Utada's Official site with the "Exodus+ news" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UtadaExodusPlusNews.PNG, when in fact if you visit the actual REAL site yourself, none of that information is present http://www6.islandrecords.com/utada/site/news.php. Also having spelled "Certian" and "Januray" wrong. Also to mention the grammar is horribly set with random capitalizations. The author also said it was only re-released for Japan, if so, why is it on the USA site?. --Uthipratuma 22:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Policy says it has to run the full five days. I can't just delete it outright. I'll try to get to the site and look at it, but I don't know a thing about this, so I don't know if I'll be able to determine if it's phony or not. --DanielCD 00:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand, thank you for your consideration, but to make things simple, the source that this person 'provides' has been tampered with, discussed in the debate page. --Uthipratuma 01:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
There already seems to be a page for this album, so any info on re-releases should go there anyway. I put in a delete vote. --DanielCD 02:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you think you could check User:Artistthatneverwas IP address and 64.150.0.1 and see if they are the same, if so, I believe he/she is writing other fake comments on the AfD page, as written by 'Jessica C. Duck". Possible WP:SOCK? Also, on the Discussion Page on Exodus+ The same IP address is used to try and prove the album real, yet under a different name, ~~7lu~~. --Uthipratuma 18:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • So is the article going to be deleted?--Uthipratuma 02:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's already gone. May it rest in peace. --DanielCD 03:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Month, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is Carbon.
You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name!

NCurse work 16:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Arsenal Colorado FC

Please stop revising my changes to this page. I am replacing incorrect information with a factual statement made by another user. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trpouz127 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

I was just looking at Gutbomb's talk page where you posted. I believe you should delete the Arsenal Colorado FC page as you suggested there. Trpouz127 23:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobel prize by university

As far as I can see, this article was cut and paste moved to Nobel Prize Ranking and not moved correctly. The talk page was not moved. I reverted the "This page has been moved .." version to the last content and asked for a proper move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. The content was then reverted before you made it a redirect. You are an admin. Is everything OK now? Or does the move have to be made in a proper fashion. If all is OK please clear my entry from the requested move page. However I think the history has been lost and the talk page needs to be moved. What do you think? --Bduke 22:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me look at it. I just thought he was making a redirect. --DanielCD 22:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I think I got it fixed. --DanielCD 22:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you lost an edit from User:131.91.40.209 at 09.40 2 Feb my time (1 Feb 22.40 UCD). I did look at the diff earlier and it was a one line. Now I can click back to that version of my watchlist but can not see the diff of course. I guess we just leave it. If the anon has a look, he will be puzzled but just add it again. I have not contributed to this article. I just saw the user changing the redirect on University of Oxford and went to see what the difference betwen the two articles was and found the "This page has been moved to ..". I thought of making it a redirect as you did but looked in the history and found it was a cut and paste move. --Bduke 23:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks like he's busy as a beaver working on it. If he's that obsessed, perhaps he'll catch it. --DanielCD 23:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I think he did. I had just come back here to tell you that but you are ahead of me. --Bduke 23:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Shunkan Puzzloop

Its OK, it seems he did just sneak it in and pretend there was no 'discussion' about it. I've just added it to regular proposals--Josquius 23:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think it was controversial. I have a major, respected policy backing me, and the other user claims that the en.wiki is for anyone that lives in Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand, and others, whether they speak English or not. The user believes that the en.wiki is about nationality, not language. There is no controversy - no respected Wikipedian would ever side with this logic. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Besides, the user made a controversial move without discussing - it should be his burden to do a requested move. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
No I made what should have been a uncontroversial move...

And Link is the one who can't grasp the way wikipedia works; he seems to believe that the only people who matter on the English wikipedia are those from countries where English is the first language, however it is an established fact that English wikipedia via the fact that English is 'the world's second language' is based at an international English speaking (reading) audience.--Josquius 10:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok guys. Just disregard my action, as it was done with the assumption that there was no controversy. That is the only point I mean to make at this time. If I had more time, I'd read the debate and offer an opinion, but I've got other things on my plate at the moment. --DanielCD 15:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Australian Banknotes

<quote>Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --DanielCD 20:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)</quote>

I would rather you did not use the word vandalism unless there was evidence to suggest I had acted in a detrimental way. I had placed the content on a separate article to promote further interest - which is the way Wikipedia works. If it's ultimately not considered appropriate - that's fine, but I don't think you would like to be called a vandal simply by making an edit. For now, I will place a link back to the other article. I hope you'll think twice about this. (Extra3 20:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC))

You are right. My apologies. It seems like I was in error calling it vandalism. --DanielCD 20:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The 12. IP user

If that page is full protected, we (non admins I mean) can't leave warnings... would semi stop him but not hinder us? Just curious, I don't want to step on your toes. Thanks... - Denny 21:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is semi-protected. If it isn't, let me know. --DanielCD 21:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
My bad, it's semi-protected. - Denny 21:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus

Why was this deleted without discussion in less than a day? It is a notable hoax, scoring 19,600 google hits. I just saw a mention of this in Uconn Advance [3]using this as a model hoax, presenting it to students as an negative example. Paul Studier 22:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It looked kind of fishy... I thought it was a joke article and perhaps acted a bit hastily in deleting it. It didn't give indication of notability or anything. The article is restored now and I hope any damage has been neutralized. --DanielCD 00:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Oro and Mesohippus

Thank you for you insight. I'm sorry about the confusion about the horse evolution. I'm going to take your advice. If I have the person's name on it, can I say it, for I am giving him credit for saying, or do I have to do it some other way? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.196.242 (talk • contribs)

Your protection of User talk:Jboyler

Hello. A blocked vandal complained that you protected his talk page, User talk:Jboyler (see there) for his blanking of it. My understanding is that policy doesn't currently forbid this, so I'm curious as to why you think it's grounds for protection. Best, Sandstein 07:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What policy, exactly, do you believe says that one's own talk page is public space and blanking it is not allowed? Sandstein 16:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, and do let me know once you find the policy. I think that blanking one's talk page is rude, but not disruptive: all warnings are in the history anyway. Unprotecting. Sandstein 16:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It's already been done. Next, someone will complain about reverting vulgar vandalism on the main page. --DanielCD 16:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree in principle with the message you left at my talk, but we would need to write that into policy before we can enforce it - as we could with common vandalism, such as on the main page, per WP:VAND. We should not throw "policy" around on user talk pages unless we can actually back it up. Sandstein 16:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
This side of the thread moved here from User talk:Sandstein for coherence - let's keep it here.

As I explained on his talk page, blanking it is considered vandalism because talk pages are considered public space. This is definitely against policy. As you can see, he blanked it repeatedly. I fail to see any grounds for complaint here. --DanielCD 16:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't quote where it is in the policy, but I've been around for almost three years and this is the first time I've seen anyone have problems with it. If you want to let him blank it, just unprotect it. It's only a 24 hr protect anyway. Do you want to spend your time reverting it? I'll just remove it and wash my hands of the whole thing. And as for the policy, I know it's there, but I'm not concerned enough about this to go dig it up right now. --DanielCD 16:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I already did it. People need to be able to see the previous warnings on the page. They won't go to the history to look for vandal warnings. --DanielCD 16:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I also don't see anywhere where it says these pages are user property to do with as they please. It then comes under the regular guidelines at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I assume you would agree that blanking discussion pages is vandalism, so what differentiates them from user talk pages? Where in policy does it say it's OK to blank them as an exception to other talk pages? --DanielCD 17:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the problem is exactly that we do not have a consensus on this issue. WP:TPG doesn't address it, and WP:VAND only forbids changes detrimental to the encyclopedia. It's not really clear that blanking one's own talk page is vandalism (it at least acknowledges receipt of a message), but I'd support adding a rule somewhere forbidding it, anyway. Sandstein 17:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It should probably be looked into. I'll stop myself before making assumptions and check the policy before I make any statements about it from now on. --DanielCD 17:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your message

From my talk page: So whatcha been up to? --DanielCD 16:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

<brrrr> Today I'm trying to stay warm. It is cold here and going to get colder over the next few days.

Wikipedia wise, I'm mostly focused on ArbCom cases. Reading all the information related to cases is an endless task. We have cleared a backlog a bit so I'm hoping to get some more article editing done.

Real world wise, I decided to make my nursing lic active again. It means I have to do much reading to complete continuing eduacation courses.

How is school? Are you still finding time for your photography? I hope so. I think that your images are an important addition to the the projects.

Sometime soon I'll check your contributions and try to edit an article with you...Like the "Good ole days" :-) Take care, FloNight 14:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my user page.DxPatxb

No problem. Anytime. --DanielCD 01:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

!

Want to explain to me why you can revert your page, but I can't? Fucking hypocrite.Jboyler 02:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are so frustrated with Wikipedia. I left a note on your talk page offering to mentor you. I hope you can tone down the language and be more civil. If you have specific goals and ideas that you would like to achieve at Wikipedia, let's work together and perhaps that will get better results than these useless insults. --DanielCD 03:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You should really calm down Jboyler, and don't swear as much (seriously it is not nice at all), and as far as i remeber you where the one who wanted to be administrator, intially getting a post from Chineseman(don't the number) for help on a page which he didn't want to become an advertised article and you decided to turn him down to later give him a warning on the page he created, from which he wanted your help, and you probably went to an admin to get the page blocked. The post Chineseman put on your page was this and your reply was here. Stop giving the Admins abuse because all they wanted to do was to help you. mickyfitz13 Talk 15:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

User Page Question

Hi, Daniel. Now, I know that user pages are allowed to have "controversial" material on them, but isn't Jboyler's a bit much? What about our user page guidelines? -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 04:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked, but there appears to be no policy governing the situation (maybe something in the civility policy, though). But as far as specifically talking about Wikipedia user space and what you may and may not have on it, there seems to be only this guideline. Thanks for looking into the matter. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 16:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting page

Thank you Daniel CD for reverting the page on MVS - quite a shock to see it gone, especially since there seems to be a consensus for it among the editors presently working on the TM site .....many thanks for catching that bit of vandalism .....(olive 21:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

Excuse me, please don't revert my page

Excuse me, but its been past ten days, according to the notes on suspected sock puppet, I'm allowed to remove that tag. Thanks. HolyMoley 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Be my guest. --DanielCD 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Malayalam Wiki

So is there a Wikipedia in the malayalam language? -- Samuel Pakalomattam 14 February 02007

I have no idea. Look at the bottom of the main page and see if one is listed. --DanielCD 20:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the hint. I have found it, just as you suggested at the bottom of the main page!! -- Samuel Pakalomattam 14 February 02007
here. I peeked and found it too! --DanielCD 23:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly!!! Now all I need is an editor which will allow me to type in Malayalam script. The one word at time I have written so far have been by copying & pasting one letter at a time from Malayalam script Well, time to google it and see what comes up. Are you also Malayali? It's written there in Malayalam script at the bottom of the main wiki page!! -- Samuel Pakalomattam 15 February 02007

cute

Thx for the cavemen -- cute. How you doing? Herostratus 01:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Rating the ToK

Hi. I'm trying to get members of the Psychology Project to get together and rate the both the quality and importance of the Tree of Knowledge System, along with discussing ways to improve the article. Hope you're interested. Have a great day! EPM 14:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at it, but I don't know much about it. --DanielCD 21:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

Thanks for the (extremely quick) reversion of my Talk page! bikeable (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. --DanielCD 04:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Royal Collection Department

Hi, I'm trying to remove the content from this page and have it populated in the correct page with redirection to point to Royal Collection instead.

Can you please advise why you've reverted my suggestion? Also can you reply to this in the discussion board of the Royal Collection Departments page. Thanks --ImperialCollegeGrad 14:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Blanking pages is not the proper way to delete them. Make it a redirect. --DanielCD 14:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Irish Whiskeys Category

Yes, thanks I wanted Irish Whiskey. I assumed that if I blanked it, it would be deleted. Everytime 01:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Jboyler

Hi, Daniel. This message is about a particular user (Jboyler) who continues to place obscene material on his user page (which has to constantly be reverted by other users). Therefore I was wondering if you would consider protecting his user page and giving him another block (or at least warn him to stop [not that he'll listen], because no else can due to the talk page protection). Thanks. -- P.B. Pilhet 16:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

just wondered if ...

Hi DanielCD,

Thanks for the improvements in the Refrigerator mother article.

I’ve just re-read your postings in the talk of psychohistory article and wondered if you have taken a look at an old flaming debate in a related article, Talk:Early_infanticidal_childrearing/Archive?

—Cesar Tort 01:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a look. --DanielCD 01:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Iamblichus

Hello, Daniel. Just wanted to say your clarity in this article makes it an extremely useful piece of work. Thankyou! Dr Steven Plunkett 22:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I put quite a bit of work into it. It's been a while though! I'll have to look and see what ppl have changed. --DanielCD 22:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comments, which as you can see echo my views, about the locus of control article. I shall appreciate any help from any one qualified in psychology to improve this (I have three degrees in the subject, am a chartered psychologist and teach psychology, and have edited the article quite recently myself. At least it has a longer list of references now). By the way, my former username wasa ACEO - I tried to spend time using Wikipedia as a "read-only" encyclopaedia, but seeing the state of an article such as that on locus of control persuaded me otherwise! Actually, there were a few other things which I wished to do,which made me go back to editing Wikipedia. ACEOREVIVED 19:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for peer review

The article Clinical psychology has just been listed for peer review. You are invited to lend your editing eyes to see if it needs any modifications, great or small, before it is submitted to the Featured Article review. Then head on over to the peer review page and add your comments, if you are so inspired. Thank you!! Psykhosis 20:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Attributional style

Thank you for help with the section on attributional style in the article locus of control. I think we should go back to emphasising how this has been a diathesis-stress model insofar as it has been used to explain the origins of depression. ACEOREVIVED 21:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Noodbix

Ok, yeah, that was a dumb joke. I apologize... I was poking fun at the Klan and pressed to revert it immediately myself. 204.52.215.107 23:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

My god, that user 69.62.15.110 continues with his obscene vandalism on the East Asia page, despite our continual reverts. Annamite tonkinese 19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Kristin Kreuk

Why can't I change the color of the infobox? You reverted my edit. (69.117.20.128 - Talk)

The colors are standardized for each topic. --DanielCD 15:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Filippo Brunelleschi

Tke a look at the diff - you missed some vandalism Stephenb (Talk) 20:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Better time for the wiks

I blocked User:Better time for the wiks indef instead as it was an obvious vandalism only account, with a a suspitious username, try to block those accounts indef instead of 24 hours. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 21:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:72.94.188.92

Hi! I noticed that you added {{sprotected}} to 72.94.188.92's talk page but that they were still able to edit it after that, and I was curious as oto how they did! Thanks! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 15:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop your irresponsible reverts

I explained QUITE CLEARLY why I removed the intro section from Asperger's syndrome, read the *** ****** talk page before you go reverting incorrectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.7.89 (talk • contribs)

I can't find the revert you are referring to. I haven't any idea what you are talking about. Please be more specific and don't use profanity or personal attacks. --DanielCD 12:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)