User talk:Dandtiks69

April 2015

I see you've had 2 warnings about adding unsourced information to articles. Now, you've chosen to add unsourced trivia to Searchlight, Nevada. Will you stop, or will you need to be reported? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you should stop adding unsourced trivia to articles. I think the very least you need is a reliable source (as per WP:RS) covering the matter in some depth, as we need to see that the topic is of sufficient importance for an encyclopedia rather than just perhaps being true. Squinge (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These things are not "perhaps true," they ARE true! THe game is so extensive only Youtube videos I can cite.Dandtiks69 (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your talk page posts

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me. I actually didn't know that all my years in Wikipedia: I didn't know that!Dandtiks69 (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Searchlight, Nevada. I am at least the third editor to remove your zombie game trivia. Aren't you getting the hint that this stuff does not belong in this article? Any further attempts by you to put this in the article without a consensus for its addition will almost certainty result in the suspension of your editing privileges. You are of course welcome to start a discussion about the inclusion of material on the game. The place to do that would be Talk:Searchlight, Nevada. John from Idegon (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did here. 82.132.238.95 (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings and gaming trivia

Stop adding gaming trivia to articles: several editors have warned you about this, it's unsourced and inappropriate in serious encyclopedia articles. Your warnings in return are inappropriate and you're on very thin ice in general right now. Acroterion (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine, sorry Acroterion, but how come you can add movie references to these articles if they are not serious? Wouldn't that be not serious popular culture and what the people think about the location?Dandtiks69 (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not encouraged, most editors regard such entries as unimportant or distracting. In your case you've been adding them without references, which is its own problem. Any such edit must be of sufficient significance to warrant mention in an encyclopedia article, not just as trivia. If it's trivial, it doesn't belong here, and several editors have explained that to you. Wikipedia runs on consensus, so if people tell you there's a problem, please take them seriously. Acroterion (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. None of the administrators but you clarified what was "trivial" and so I entered into childish conflicts with them and edit-warred; I was just trying to help out Wikipedia. Thank you again, Acroterion. By Dandtiks69 (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

WARNING

I meant to say "inscrutability" on Magnolia's talk page. Please don't further disrupt wikipedia, bother Magnolia677, or address me under any circumstances until you've built up a respectable body of work. (I closed your ANI comment because it was not comprehensible, and no editor disagreed with my judgment.) Your edits might otherwise seem unconstructive, and grounds for administrative action given the above comments. μηδείς (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, μηδείς, why can't I address you? Do you mean bring unproductive comments to you or... Dandtiks69 (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He said, as I also told you, to leave him alone. This isn't a democracy, you don't have free speech here. Respect what we have both told you. The next time you see ANI, it will be because someone drug you there for being exactly what you accused me of. only difference is you are and I have all the evidence needed to prove it. John from Idegon (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark

You'll need to assemble your sources, biasing them towards fairly rigorous academic studies, not popular surveys, and you'll need to find an appropriate place for that (short) discussion and provide references. I'd strongly suggest reading the Danish-language article, in the original if you have enough Danish, or at least via machine translation, to get a sense of what Danish speakers, who for the most part are Danes, think is important. People tend to forget that there are many Wikipedias. The article in the Danish WP is a "recommended article," so it's been pretty extensively reviewed and discussed. Acroterion (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you once again. Dandtiks69 (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your friend here.

Hello, Dand. Have any new administrators attempted bothering your intelligence?

Sincerely, FDJK001 (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Well, that was a week ago, no big deal anymore. A couple of stupid administrators (also impatient) deleted some information on an article and then threatened to block me for edit warring. I could name them for you, but I would be a dick if I did because they don't like being exposed. I also politely messaged them but one of the more impatient ones kicked me out of his talk page (proving they don't like to talk seriously. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole set of actions were a joke against me). It wasn't until the user above explained to me why to stop because some of these admins are robots to protocol and lack common sense, so it would be best if I ceased.

I figured some corruption is unavoidable. Dandtiks69 (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're called trolls, there's no other word for it. Dandtiks69 (talk) 05:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I see. Those administrators that humiliated you should apologize to you and everybody who just wated their time for an administrator who wasted time.

Is it that idiot john from idiocy? I could get him impeached for you if you want. He in a way destroyed your reputation as an editor. Some of those editors seriously need to get sone sense into integrating geography, humanities, and art in articles relevant to the story of the world. I'm for you giving that Nevada article some new information. You can't have a state without history, that does not happen, and neither a country. I could also for you write in the New Vegas article the locations of the Mojave Desert referenced to improve the credibility, and I have the sources too. After all, humanities subjects are my specialty in Wikipedia.

Just so you know, a troll is by definition one who angers or manipulates others in the internet secretly for humorous sadism., exactly what Johnny-O committed against you.

Yours truly, FDJK001 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final Warning

It's quite obvious from your edit history you are here solely to cause disruption. Your addition of scare quotes, twice, to E (mathematical constant) contra Materialscientist was unhelpful. Your recent comment on my talk page was insincere and unwelcome. Your note here trying to revive a dispute between Alansohn and another editor was pure disruption. Any further unhelpful editing will be met with an immediate report at WP:ANI where I am quite sure you'll be given a lengthy block if some admin doesn't beat me to the punch. Do not respond at my talk page, I will be watching here. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reinforcing Medeis's warning, your edits to various mathematical constants are inappropriate. The note left for Alansohn is trolling, and the conversation in the section immediately above is disturbing. We're here to write an encyclopedia. If you keep trying to pick or incite disputes, you will be blocked for not being here to build an encyclopedia. Either edit constructively or expect to have your privileges on this project revoked. Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first of all, both of you, I don't see any "inappropriate" edits in my recent contributions other than me thanking you both and various others for helping me. Maybe I did acknowledge that Alansohn was in a fight recently, but I only thanked him for defending me and was not in any way trying to restart a war of any kind: I'm too humanitarian for that. One user I talked to warned me already that this isn't Facebook, and I respect that. I can also respect you Medeis not taking me as a sincere person if I you can't be my friend, not everybody can be my friend. But see this: you can't lie to me. I never contacted Materialscientist in any way and neither have I used any "scare tactics" against him. I don't even know who he is or what's he's done, I've seen him mentioned only in the Speed of Light article I improved. If anything you Medeis are trying to terrorize me for things you disagree with, threatening me with shutdown. You make me uncomfortable. You aren't being productive. Wikipedia isn't about these kinds of arguments were having, it's about learning.

Second, I was working gathering my sources with an article in Denmark while in the meantime improving these articles. However, you Medeis with your one-sided rivalry blame me of terrorizing the Wikipedia community, blatantly lying about my actions and destroying my reputation. I don't know what part you have in this, Acroterion, but you, of course, inform me more than this other administrator. I'm not trying to insult anyone, remember that. But back to you, Medeis, your outrageous lies about me are by themselves an insult, and if I'm continually being treated this way and/or getting uncooperative administrators treating their editors this way I see no reason for me continuing my improvements on Wikipedia.

Jimmy Wales would never approve of any of the violence occurring in Wikipedia. Dandtiks69 (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since your reaction to warnings by Medeis and I is to attack Medeis, I've blocked this account temporarily so that you can review your own conduct. I reviewed the issues that Medeis mentioned before I left my note and I concur with his analysis. He's not lying, and neither am I. If you stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground you can be productive: otherwise, a recurrence of battleground behavior will probably result in the permanent revocation of your editing privileges. Acroterion (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dand, once your block is finished contact me, I might be able to help you with your project: Denmarks's happiness. My English major requirements emphasize the failure of capitalism and this will fit in well with you project! Trust me.

FDJK001 (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it would be best off for you not to respond in your talkpage, Dandtiks69. Instead, send me a message. I'll give you your information on capital failure and Denmark's social system without having blind but aggressive administrators interrupt us. Avoid unnecessary conversation between them. Here in Harvard we don't tolerate this kind of communication, but somehow in Wikipedia or Oklahoma they do.

Anyway, what I have to give you include the statistics on GDP, GPI (genuine progress indicator), and happiness index in Denmark. Somehow their GDP does not surpass the US economy but nevertheless possess the best socialist and Democratic system out there in the world. Nobody has to work more than 5 hours a day and money isn't that big of a deal there. Doesn't it remind you a bit of France? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FDJK001 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is me

Please, Dandtiks69, cease this. Just stop. I know your cause is just and the administrators refuse to cooperate but right now you are just a minority that disagrees against the vast ocean of consensus. I do not know too much about your situation right now but I know you haven't been threatening anyone right now and that you are innocent! I know you. Do not underestimate the power of stupid in large groups. Our savior Acroterion has been mislead by others with an unknown agenda.

If you can hear us Acroterion please understand that some administrators (but not you, our savior) deserve impeachment, those that misapply justice. As of right now, you are applying punishment to the wrong person! It is whatever administrator hides reality, or hides from it.

Dandtiks69, you have already said that Wikipedia is no place for violence within the community, maintain it that way. If you truly believe a rebellion need to be done you should not be the only one. According to sociologists, 10% of a population can potentially change it, not just one. You need more people.

With love, FDJK001 (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

June 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been clear for some time that this account and FDJK001 are related, with identical communication styles and interests, messages left for each other and a tendency to forget which account has an interest in Fox News. Given the attempts to disrupt by both accounts, and returns to areas of prervious disruption to articles like Searchlight, Nevada by both accounts, both are blocked either as sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Acroterion (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, Acroterion what does Fox News even have to do with this?

I admit he comes over sometimes from Virginia and Oklahoma and sees/helps me, but does that classify it as a sock? Dandtiks69 (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I'm assuming, Acroterion, that fdjk screwed up again. or is that you would you rather remember him as "yourasshole"?

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).

Dandtiks69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Let's see the arguments that say I'm a sockpuppet of Fdjk.

1. identical communication styles and interests.

False I don't get where this comes from. My interests are factual, while his are about literature and art and such. I've met him personally and I see

2. messages left for each other

False The logic here follows that I am the same person as someone if he sends me a message.

3. tendency to forget which account has an interest in Fox News

False I don't know how else to put this, but wad de fak? I mentioned Fox News, he mentions Fox News, everybody mentions Fox news, therefore they're all my minions. Coincidence does not equal causation. Plus, how is Fox News that important to my reputation?

4.Given the attempts to disrupt by both accounts

Incorrect assumption I've noticed that this administrator has been personally attacking me regularly, always with his friend misinterpreting my edits as a pile of garbage made for the sole purpose of disrupting, so this comes as no surprise. In fact, I haven't edited for a while before he blocked me.

5. returns to areas of prervious [sic] disruption to articles like Searchlight, Nevada by both accounts

False According to this logic, if I were to edit a page with conflicts, say the controversial global warming or the infamous Gamergate controversy, then I automatically must be disruptive and am related to whoever did the disruption

Conclusion - an extremely excessive block based off of personal attacks, baseless arguments, and complete incredibility.

Here's my request for an unblock. Dandtiks69 (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:50, 20 July 2015 (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).

Dandtiks69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Shared IP addresses shouldn't count for sockpuppetry (two months ago I used the same computer as user: FDJK001). Dandtiks69 (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, if we can't tell you two apart, we have to default to blocking, even if it's not a sockpuppetry it's meatpuppetry. Max Semenik (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2015 (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).

Dandtiks69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Question at this point: I don't know if I'm supposed to use the unblock template this way, but surely there has to be a way to prove I'm not a sockpuppet, given Wikipedia's high organizational architecture, right? I can't think of a real case of suckpuppetry I've been involved in, other than my messages towards my fellow friend, and even then that was in good faith. Dandtiks69 (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In answer to your question, no there isn't really a way to prove your not a sock puppet. As a reviewing admin, I take note of the technical and behavioural evidence in making a decision. In your case, the evidence suggests there is a probability that sock puppetry was involved. PhilKnight (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2015 (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.

Courtesy Vanishing

Talk pages are specifically not eligible for speedy deletion. If the user finds he cannot refrain from editing this page, he can request that privilege be revoked. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This section originally had a speedy deletion tag that I removed when I declined it. -- GB fan 19:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But what I need is that the username be vanished. Dandtiks69 (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Changing username talks about how to have your username changed, Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing talks about courtesy vanishing. -- GB fan 19:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already read about Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing : an administrator is supposed to leave the talk page intact but is supposed to rename the user to something like VanishedUserXXXXXXXX. Dandtiks69 (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators can not rename users. You need to read again and follw the directions on the two pages I linked above. -- GB fan 19:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]