
Hello and Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around. Here are some tips to help you get started: *To sign your posts (on Wikipedia:Tutorial (Talk pages), for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes). * Try the Wikipedia:Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the Wikipedia:Test area. * If you need Wikipedia:Help, post a question at the Wikipedia:Help desk * Eventually, you might want to read the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. *Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view * Explore, Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages, and, most importantly, have fun! Good luck! User: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. User:Ceyockey 2005-01-29 USA 13:00 Eastern Standard Time :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. User: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 :) --User: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. User: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? User:Kevehs 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? User: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. User: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. —User:Korath (User talk:Korath) 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, User:Icairns 00:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Let me step in here to point [http://www.astronomyboy.com/millennium/ 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). User: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. - User: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). User: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. User:Dtobias 14:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC) My mistake! Thought I had clicked on User:Dmcdevit User: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. --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 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 Wikipedia:Requests for page protection that says: *"''This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.''" Thank you. User: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. User: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. User: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. User:Ambush Commander 01:04, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) ==Personal attacks== You reinstated insulting comments that I had removed from my User talk:Ted Wilkes. Personal insults violate ''official''' Wikipedia policy as specified in Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please refrain from inserting a personal attack. Thank you. Cheers. User: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. User:Dtobias 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 Wikipedia: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. User:80.141.196.241 15:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::May I ask you for comment on this page: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ted Wilkes. Thanks. User:80.141.225.96 18:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Please unblock User:Mike Garcia now. He wants to come back. ::::I'm not an admin; I have no power to block or unblock anybody. User:Dtobias 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 International, I guess. User:Dtobias 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! User:Linuxbeak | User_talk:Linuxbeak | User:Linuxbeak/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...) User:Dtobias 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. -- User:Riffsyphon1024 19:51, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Yep, that's me... [http://www.dan.info/ My Web sites]
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Dtobias:
Dtobias
Dtobias
Dtobias
Hello and Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around. Here are some tips to help you get started: *To sign your posts (on Wikipedia:Tutorial (Talk pages), for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes). * Try the Wikipedia:Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the Wikipedia:Test area. * If you need Wikipedia:Help, post a question at the Wikipedia:Help desk * Eventually, you might want to read the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. *Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view * Explore, Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages, and, most importantly, have fun! Good luck! User: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. User:Ceyockey 2005-01-29 USA 13:00 Eastern Standard Time :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. User: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 :) --User: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. User: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? User:Kevehs 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? User: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. User: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. —User:Korath (User talk:Korath) 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, User:Icairns 00:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Let me step in here to point [http://www.astronomyboy.com/millennium/ 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). User: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. - User: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). User: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. User:Dtobias 14:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC) My mistake! Thought I had clicked on User:Dmcdevit User: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. --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 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 Wikipedia:Requests for page protection that says: *"''This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.''" Thank you. User: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. User: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. User: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. User:Ambush Commander 01:04, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) ==Personal attacks== You reinstated insulting comments that I had removed from my User talk:Ted Wilkes. Personal insults violate ''official''' Wikipedia policy as specified in Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please refrain from inserting a personal attack. Thank you. Cheers. User: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. User:Dtobias 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 Wikipedia: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. User:80.141.196.241 15:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::May I ask you for comment on this page: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ted Wilkes. Thanks. User:80.141.225.96 18:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Please unblock User:Mike Garcia now. He wants to come back. ::::I'm not an admin; I have no power to block or unblock anybody. User:Dtobias 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 International, I guess. User:Dtobias 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! User:Linuxbeak | User_talk:Linuxbeak | User:Linuxbeak/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...) User:Dtobias 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. -- User:Riffsyphon1024 19:51, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Dtobias
Yep, that's me... [http://www.dan.info/ My Web sites]
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
D
DA | DB | DC | DE | DF | DG | DH | DI | DJ | DK | DL | DM | DN | DO | DP | DR | DS | DT | DU | DW | DX | DY | DZ |Words begining with Dtobias:
Dtobias
Dtobias
Sponsored links: praca, nurkowanie.
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
Untitled Document
| Linki sponsorowane | Tani hosting | Pozycjonowanie |
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
