User talk:DanielEng/filed2

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.

Georgia Brown (child prodigy)

Hey. Just pointing out that I remove the db-repost since the article is much different than the deleted copy. However, you may still AfD it if you wish (and I encourage you to do so- I'd do it myself but Twinkle isn't good with AfD'ing something that was previously on AfD. Wizardman 16:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up--I'm sending it over to AfD now. DanielEng 16:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey~ thanks for your continual maintanence on the gymnastics pages.--The Knowledge 04:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words! Best, DanielEng 01:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Axl Rose GA nom

Sorry for the late note, but it passed, and I left a comment on the talk page. Cheers, — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 02:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! I'm thrilled it passed. :)Best, DanielEng (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Axl Rose

		The Music Barnstar
		Once again, this is for your great work on the Axl Rose article. Keep up the great work, merry Christmas! Funeral 00:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Child support

APPEARING to violate NPOV is not the same thing as actually violating NPOV. How in the world you can argue that putting criticisms in a criticism section violates NPOV is simply unbelievable. 99.130.34.227 (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NPOV, WP:3RR and WP:PROVEIT. I'm not even going to waste my time arguing this one. DanielEng (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I reverted my reverts [1] rather than rolling back a further edit as I intended. Thanks for fixing my booboo:-). --Slp1 (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. I've totally done the same thing before. :) DanielEng (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Drama-Rama! LOL.

ETA: This is a copy of a discussion that occurred elsewhere; it's been preserved here for the sake of continuity. I am commenting on this so people who come across the Great "I hate DanielEng" Campaign of 2008 will know what's going on.

This user's ire isn't bothering me personally, but in case anyone's curious, I'm not a Marxist (considering my family fled Mao, this wouldn't go over well at all at the dinner table, no); I'm not a female (although I do look nice in drag) and the article the user is complaining about is one that I never even saw, much less edited, before I came across the objectionable edits. And I've never thought of the articles I edit--which are mostly a motley mix of stub-level biographies of gymnasts, actors and musicians, with IP patrol reversions thrown in--as being "leftist," but hey, maybe Kristie Phillips has a hidden agenda I don't know about? I suppose I can ask Karl when we do lunch today. Perhaps they're friends. DanielEng (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original discussion

Make your complaints to User:DanielEng, as this is entity (probably an enraged female) who is an admitted Marxist and objects to overt mentions of the connections between Marxism and Feminism. It is precisely to AVOID an edit war that I marked the page NPOV, which DanielEng has repeatedly removed (despite the fact that the talk page ALSO shows evidence of repeated concern that the page is VERY POV-slanted). Interesting how the SAME person is making accusations that all edits which aren't pro-feminist orthodoxy constitute vandalism. Akulkis (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest discussing your edits on the talk page... a number of your additions are unsourced paragraphs, and your additions also push a specific POV, whereas the current version is not POV'd. You're about to violate the 3RR, even if you aren't the ip as well, so reign yourself in and discuss this rather than attacking other editors, as you're doing right here. Gscshoyru (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since this user seems to be on a personal attack war against me specifically tonight and has complained about me to about 6 different editors; I thought I'd jump in here. Several different editors, not just me, have reverted and left this user Level 1 notes on NPOV and unsourced edits on various contributions, which he responded to by vandalizing my UserPage and engaging in this campaign. I'm not sure why I'm the editor being targeted here (and the news that I'm a woman and a Marxist is a revelation to me, I will say...I wasn't either when I woke up this morning), but I do have an open ANI report on this. DanielEng (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's just attacking you 'cause you're the first person who got in his way. It happens. His points may be valid, but if he persists in this beligerent behavior, and refuses to discuss his changes on the talk, he'll be blocked for personal attacks and POV pushing. Gscshoyru (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. That's true, I did leave the first message on his page. The ironic thing is that the article he's griping about most isn't even one I have any editing history with at all; I just happened to see the changes he made after reverting something else of his. This is the first time I've run into a user behaving this way toward me (ie, with a strong personal grudge), but c'est la vie. Back to IP patrolling for me now. Thanks for the sound words here! Best, DanielEng (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...really? The first time? How much vandal-patrolling do you do then? You're either lucky or haven't done much. Gscshoyru (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luck, I guess. I've had a bunch of people leave me silly "hey, you really suck" type notes on my Talk Page and such when they've been angry about reverts, but they usually vent and then go away. I can't say I've ever run into anyone that's gone on this type of full-out campaign before. DanielEng (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New section

Is this ongoing? Now he's harassing me! (At least I'm an official target.) Bearian (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since his edits were reverted a few days ago, he's been ticked at a bunch of people. He seems to be on a particular kick about me (I'm apparently an evil Commie who's out to sabotage him personally) but he's also left nasty messages for just about every editor who has reverted him or left him a warning. Judging from his talk page (he's also user Akulkis above), he's had similar clashes and gone after other editors this way in the past. I did file an ANI (thank you for answering my message there), but apart from that, I don't know what else to do about this. DanielEng (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it would be fair for me to block him, and I can't under my alter ego (non-sysop account). Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nods* Agreed. If he starts in again, though, where would be the place to take this? Not that I have any real desire to see someone blocked, but I also think his harassment and incivility is a bit much. DanielEng (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]