User talk:Daniel

Archives

This page was last archived on Thursday, January 31. The most recent comments can be found in Archive 58. For a complete list of archives, please see here. If you wish to leave me a new message, please click here. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Corey Worthington?

Hi Daniel, I see you deleted the Corey Worthington article. I think it's arguably notable, considering the amount of news articles and such for him. Thoughts? --AW (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 15 and this ruling. To recreate this article requires an explicit consensus to do so, something which doesn't exist at the moment. Daniel (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait...Corey W = Corey D? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 01:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Step-parents and all that. "Corey Delaney, also known by his birth name Corey Worthington", according to the always-reliable resource Enyclcopedia Dramatica. Daniel (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, at least they have an article on him ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 01:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

ED is like ACA - things that are featured on there rarely deserve articles over here. One could argue they compliment our gaps, in a strange encycopedia-to-non-encyclopedia kind of way :) Daniel (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA

I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your comments, which I will take on board. I look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you're sorry now. [ed: Daniel's not]

I have nothing to say. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 03:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Your message proves my point. This isn't about me, and don't try and make it about me — the issue is about your editing, not mine. Daniel (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Daniel. "Good editors", which you call yourself, actually do good edits. Your good edits are few and far between. Metros (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well excuse me for trying to look good. The point of the message is to point out the fact that I suck as an editor and the site would probably be better off without me. Thanks for shoving what could be my final few minutes here in my face, Metros. I needed that. The ultimate vandal, I am. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 03:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The whole "legendary" complex, and wanting to be like RickK, doesn't do you any favours either. Daniel (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well if I could get adopted without getting BLOCKED and being FORCED to suck ass and have the community hate me, that would be nice. Come on guys, I've got Aspergers syndrome and Wikipedia is one of my utopias from the ridicule of my classmates. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 03:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. We're here to write an encyclopedia, and quite frankly, that is the only true consideration. People are free to edit on Wikipedia regardless of their medical status, provided they stay within the rules, respect consensus, and aren't disruptive. However, their medical condition is no excuse should they break these rules. Daniel (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) And I've got depression and I don't take it out on Wikipedia. It's not therapy. It's a project. Which means you need to work with people, not suffer from persecution complex at every turn. I'm sorry if I sound insensitive, but that's the way it is. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm telling you all I need to do is be adopted by someone and I'll be good. Unfortunatley a stupid little ban which breaks the United States Constitution prevents me from being adopted. And not to drag him into this, but how come BoL, who is under the same topic ban as I, report users while I can't?! my friend Greenwood1010 is right: "Welcome to the People's Communist Republic of Wikipedia, where power-hungry admins watch everything you do." --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 03:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You are really asking for trouble making comments like that. See WP:RIGHTS about your pathetic "Constitution" argument. And Blow of Light is far less disruptive and far more productive in mainspace compared to you, so quite frankly there is no comparison between the two. He doesn't act like you do when someone tells him that he shouldn't be doing something because of a ban implemented by community consensus, but takes on the advice. As Riana says, drop the persecution complex. Daniel (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly about Wikipedia being wrong here's a suggestion. In the top right hand corner of this screen is a link that says "log out". Click it. Then go to Google, Yahoo, your local newspaper. Any website that isn't here. And don't return. If you feel THAT strongly that we're all out to get you, why bother with it? Metros (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys, can someone please help him find someone to adopt him? It's a little harsh following the letter of his topic ban when he just wants some help with his editing. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Ryan, he's proven himself that no matter what he does in Wikipedia-space, including vandal-reverting, he creates more disruption. If he wants to stand toe-to-toe with me and start spraying shit in my direction, then I'm not going to hesitate back. Daniel (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)