User talk:DarkAudit

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:DarkAudit/Archive_2. Sections without timestamps are not archived

DarkAudit's talk

Other means of contact: Email #wikipedia

Archives: 1 2 3 4

This editor, currently, is not an admin.

Welcome!

Hello, DarkAudit, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

0plusminus0 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Just Relax

First off, I'm not "new to wikipedia", I have written nearly a hundred pages for the website over the course of the last year. Secondly, before you write things off as "nonsense" maybe you should try looking up the things you try striking down. Elleore is a Micronation in Europe that's existed since 1944 and has, among other things, a monarchy, website, been written about it dozens of books, its own stamps, and coins. May not be of interest to you, but it may be to others. Look stuff up before you consider things "nonsense".

Hello

I am your opposite, how do you do?--LightAudit 20:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casagrande Labs

Hi Dark. Not only my previous SD was deleted, looks like there is an army of meatpuppets around. They are:

Britisharchitecturefoundation23 Martta1 OscarHansen 61.229.181.19 61.229.173.79 Matthiasmatthias Jurefrancetiz DrBulthaup Chichenshui

They are spreading this Marco Casagrande and his partner everywhere in Wikipedia.

Stellatomailing 02:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. I need to install something to get there. X-Chat you said? Stellatomailing 02:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will let you handle it this time, if you do not mind - sometimes I get lost in the WikiBureaucracy. Btw, awesome spam killing.Stellatomailing 02:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Brian, how are the Casagrande wars going? I got two articles held on speedy, not sure what you think about putting them in AfD now or later: Sami Rintala an Eero Paloheimo. Stellatomailing 15:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question to DarkAudit:

Hello I started reading through the deletion notice and ended up wanting to contact you on this matter. Ironically I was searching for more information on Casagrande's recent work which I will use on an Architecture and Ethics paper I am preparing for a lecture and was surprised to see they had a Wikipedia page. First time I see this. I have only used their work through my university years to explore topics of social architecture, hybridization of architectural projects, and architectural installation work.

When I saw the page I edited some of it today. I am not a puppet. I was just adding to the stub for I could not believe how poorly the page was written. To strip down and start again - how can this be done? I see that as your suggestion. I have a lot of physical information of their work like newspapers, magazines, and other journal information. I compile a lot of written work from other architects as well. I am interested in disbursing this information for within the architecture community the topics of ethics in architecture, social concerns, hybridization of projects and other environmental/social issues are a major drive of theoretical discourse. Pitouflette 18:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)pitouflette[reply]

Thanks for the message. Will contribute in the future when the air is clear. I do have useful information which could be beneficial to other architect students. Will be happy to educate others. I do wish to ask you - where can I find the right guides (if there are any links) on how to write a correct wikipedia entry. I already started reading through the Licensing issues and the acknowledgement of references.Pitouflette 18:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)pitouflette[reply]

re Chip Ingram

Well, yes, but if he's notable enough - and a very quick google check told me that he might be - then you don't really want to delete the article, but rather rewrite it (or tag it for rewrite). Herostratus 12:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage reversion

Sorry, I missed that one. I just saw that the IP added pictures of penises to your page, reverted, and noticed a further edit from that IP. I didn't see what it was before I reverted. Obviously, even vandals are helpful... sometimes! -- Flyguy649^talk_contribs 15:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copycat?

You may have someone imitating you - username Darkaudit1 - who made a vandalism edit to Skyline High School (Oakland, California) after you reverted the previous vandalism. You want to report it or should I? Ellbeecee 01:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done. Ellbeecee 01:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defamatory on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tangeline.

Ah! I can't believe this another editor! --Migospia †♥ 07:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent checkuser request

You recently submitted a request for checkuser. A clerk has moved your request to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Non-compliant temporarily; this does not mean the request has necessarily been accepted or rejected, as clerks are generally concerned with maintenance and upkeep, not making decisions on the merit of any given request. Please BushCheney04, and then follow the instructions in the box at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Non-compliant. Thank you for your co-operation. --ST47Talk 11:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk[reply]

External Links Comment

Sorry about that, I didn't realise it was a Template and I was just a little stressy, as everyone has been picking at my Uberyl Article. > Rugby471 ^talk 15:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Inconceivable

I have posted a reply to your comment on my talk page. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 02:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, DarkAudit! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. «Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» 15:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did You Know A Storyman and other hoax TV shows

I agree that things such as that do need to be verified (and in this case, deleted - and yes, I'm making a concerted effort to tag anything I find with the 'references' template these days), but often it's when a generic template is added, such as {{film}} or {{film|class=}} that brings it to the attention of the appropriate project, that has the expertise and better abilities to ferret out the nonsense than any other group. Several times I've caught items that were tagged such by others that, on the surface, looked "kosher", but myself and others in the project were able to use their history (and others, not me, their expertise in the field) to catch articles that otherwise would have gone unchallenged. I presume that's one of the reasons that the different projects exist, is to let people familiar with the subject deal with articles with which they're more familiar! I know that's how the Film Wikiproject gets rid of quite a few of these, simply by having someone tag them so we can get a look at them! SkierRMH 15:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Purbo T#June 2007

The edit of was removed with a comment saying it were considered vandalism [1]. I believe, that was an error. Another bot has meanwhile reverted the revert [2], so at least my bot is not alone with the wish to add this interwiki link. If you feel, adding whitespace before the interwiki links should be avoided, I agree. See also [3]. I am always using the most recent software version, updated daily.

--Purodha Blissenbach owner of Purbo T 22:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting HI

I was confused by the "Watt ėßß datt?" in the edit summary. I had no idea what it was, and when TW brought up the talk page, and I saw it was a bot, I got even more confused. I decided to leave the mildest template TW had and hope I was doing the right thing. turns out I was the one that goofed. When I saw the edit come back, I left it alone. DarkAudit 22:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The expression: "(Watt ėßß datt?)" marks a disambiguation page, literally meaning "What is this?", or "Qu'est-ce que c'est?" --Purodha Blissenbach 07:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erasing sidewalk etiquette

I don't think you acted reasonably by dismissing my contribution to the sidewalk article as 'vandalism'. Would you please reinstall it. Thanks.

what did I do

I never edited that. and your new message is stuck. 207.162.58.3 14:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're posting what is essentially a community IP, from which many posts have come. Unfortunately, a number of those posts have been vandal posts, and what one person from that IP does, does not reflect on the previous or the next person. Even so, vandalism from an IP results in that IP being blocked, no matter who came before or after the vandal. That's why it's better to register a username. That way, an innocent party doesn't pay the price for someone else's behavior. DarkAudit 14:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Iceland biodiversity edit....

I claim responsibility for having edited the explanation for the low biodiversity at Iceland. What I don't understand is why it was immediately reverted. I simply changed a bad, even false, explanation for a true one. Common sense would tell anyone who considered it that the geological age of an island is of little interest for its biodiversity if the island has recently been covered by a several kilometres thick layer of grinding ice.

I also explained my reasons for doing this at the Iceland talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iceland “Stupid explination... ...for low bio diversity! "Its geological age -- only a few tens of millions of years -- has provided relatively little time for plants and animals to immigrate from elsewhere or evolve locally." The islands geological age is totally irrelevant for this issue as Iceland and the surrounding seas has been totally iced over several times in the last 100 000 years, wiping out every trace of life in the process. I'm changing this to The short time since the last ice over, only about 10 000 years, has provided very little time for plants and animals to immigrate from elsewhere or evolve locally. 130.243.153.103 18:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

So now I ask; do you consider this an act of vandalism and why didn’t you bother to look at the talk page before reverting. Is simply anything contributed by an unregistered user considered vandalism in your opinion? If not please do explain why you think the information I edited away was right/ added was wrong. Anders Kristoffersson 212.247.216.39 22:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aso consider this from the wikipedia Recent changes patrol page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recent_changes_patrol Because no wikipedians like their edits to be deleted, it is important to leave concise but clear justifications on the talk page or in the edit summary. This you clearly failed to do. Anders Kristoffersson 212.247.216.39 22:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

- - -

Apology accepted, gladly! I got a little irritated as it had been reverted earlier just a day after i wrote it, maybe I should ad an clear source for the time since the last ice over (I got one in my bookcase)? Although it does seem a bit silly.... Anders Kristoffersson 212.247.216.39 23:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy

Yeah, I saw elsewhere that this seems to be an ongoing thing with this user. Check out this user page,they have done a good job in tracking this hoaxer. I caught him while I was doing Recent Changes Patrol... we'll just need to keep an eye out for his newest hoaxes. SirFozzie 03:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UKNova

Why was this deleted ?

It is prominent enough to be listed on the Template:BitTorrent as a prominent site (It is now the *only* one without it's own page) and Listed in Category:BitTorrent websites where a large number of the pages are minor unremarkable sites ?

It has been mentioned is a couple of newspapers (Cites were on the page...) and not just in passing the article specifically mentioned the site and gave details about it and the community

If it does not meet the critera for it's own page would a BitTorrent websites page, that lists the best known websites would be more appropriate than a redirect to BitTorrent tracker ??

Does someone have a vendetta against UKNova ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasterMereel (talk • contribs)

]