User talk:DarkAudit/Archives/2009/March

Kanabekobaton is back?

I noticed that the edits of 205ywmpq seem strangely similar to those of Kanabekobaton (all minor, random pages, lots of edits during a short period of time, refusal to communicate). I thought you might wanna look into it. I noticed him editing some of the pages I watch and when I looked his edits I couldn't help but make the connection. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: Might have been used to get around the block on Deaflympic which has once again the same editing style. Today 205 edited until it was 1730 in my timezone and Deaflympic picked up 5 mins later. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Lend America

Yes I removed the speedy deletion tag - the firm has 43,000 google hits! No, I didn't create the page. I was on new page patrol. get your facts right.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 20:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ghits are not relevant if the article is spam. It is spam. Do not enable spam. Get *your* facts straight. DarkAudit (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You are the one who needs to get their facts right! You have TWICE on my talk page accused me of writing this article. All it takes is a quick check of this history to find this is completely untrue - but nope, you are just sooooooo keen to get that speedy in and done with. I have NO INTEREST in this article, however - if a subject gets 43,000 google hits, then there is an argument that it is NOTABLE! If you are soooo keen to delete it, why not put it up AFD?-- Myosotis Scorpioides 20:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You have no interest, yet you remove the tag (multiple times), make no effort to correct the most blatant spam in the article, then come here to shove a big number in my face. It's spam. Your ghits number won't make it any less spam. DarkAudit (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see there is no point in discussing this with you. Although you repeatedly made accusations that I wrote this piece, you have yet to apologise for making a mistake about this. Indeed, you continue to argue! Any article about a firm could be accused of being spam, yet WP has articles about firms which have achieved FA status and enjoyed outings on the main page. Perhaps, instead of being so keen to delete people's efforts as quickly as you can, you should try and be a bit more constructive and actually work on a few and help expand Wikipedia.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 16:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I made a mistake about the tag removal warnings, and for that I am sorry, but my position that the article as it was is spam still stands. That ghits number doesn't change that. If someone is coming here with the purpose of using Wikipedia for their own ends and promotion, then the best thing I can do to improve Wikipedia is to see that effort come to naught. DarkAudit (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I wrote this article and am trying to edit it to make it as informative as possible but it seems it passing the listing nazis has become a hurdle. Jsciarrino (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Letter

Hey Dark Audit is it possible you can set down your guns? I am trying to learn my way around Wiki and writing mean messages to me is becoming discouraging to be part of this community. You already called me something which took me a few days to understand what you called me, and which I now know for sure I'm not. As a result I have this big message on my talk page from your actions against me. so please put down your darkness for a little while and just try and sponsor me maybe if you think I am so inept at the rules. I have posted that I am trying to learn. that means good faith. Also how did you get this cool design for your talk page? I want one! Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Also I can see you have a history of accusing people - so maybe I can be the one to set out a white flag to you and get you to try and stop making accusations so much and maybe teach people. Like your thing at the top of this page was helpful to me. It showed me ahlep tag. That was nice. Your comments often make it hard to be here because they are not founded - like the one on my page. I am writing you to make friends, so please put out your white flag. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the smile....

Inre this diff, I had not know about Godwin's law before you wrote it and called me a troll... and here I thought I was being original in my referencing a reluctance to fall in line simply because it was commanded of me. Sorry. Thank you for pointing out my inadequacies. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

JSOC

I think I understand where Hersh is going. He just does not explain where the JSOC would be getting their intelligence from if they did not use the CIA. (He wants to sell his book of course).

“Under the Bush Administration’s interpretation of the law, clandestine military activities, unlike covert C.I.A. operations, do not need to be depicted in a Finding, because the President has a constitutional right to command combat forces in the field without congressional interference.” Hersh2009

The C.I.A. is required by law to run everything by leaders of Congress (the Gang of Eight) using Presidential findings. “Finding” refers to a special document that a president must issue, although not make public, to authorize covert CIA actions.

By replacing the C.I.A. with the SSB, which operates under the Defense Department, they no longer need to go through the findings process to do intelligence work. The SSB is funded using “reprogrammed” funds that do not have explicit congressional authority or appropriation. Washington Post, 1/23/2005

JSOC together with the SSB can now run on clandestine missions solely under the direction of the executive branch (completely without the checks and balances).

Now what's not clear from Hersh's allegations is how all of this ties in with the Vice President and not the President.Kgrr (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DarkAudit. You have new messages at Dank55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Defense of Rochester, NY

This is mostly tongue in cheek. I must take offense at the your statement in the Chris Maj AfD, paraphrased as on the off chance he had become mayor, that wouldn't confer notability. Thing is, Rochesterians have a little bit of a complex in that we have to defend ourselves as a major American city. Just because we're off all the beaten tracks, and we can't pronounce place names correctly (e.g. Charlotte), doesn't mean you should disrespect us.

Seriously, last I knew this was the 68th largest metropolitan area in the country....

74.69.39.11 (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)