Talk:Daniel Brandt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Note The subject of this article has requested that they not be included in Wikipedia. While Wikipedia does not honor these requests, this article should be monitored for controversial or unsourced material.
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Articles for deletion This page was previously nominated for deletion. Consider the following prior discussions before re-nominating:
Wikipedian The subject of this article, Daniel Brandt, has edited Wikipedia as Daniel Brandt (talk • contribs). In addition, the following users have appeared or claimed to be Brandt, but may actually be impostors:
DanieI Brandt (talk • contribs)*
Harry 3 (talk • contribs)
Houston R. (talk • contribs)
Jango 7 (talk • contribs)
Wikipedia Watch (talk • contribs)
Fetchin' (talk • contribs)
Braniel Dandt (talk • contribs)
Danny Brandt (talk • contribs)
Gorsh (talk • contribs)		 69.180.213.189 (talk • contribs)
66.142.89.246 (talk • contribs)
68.91.252.16 (talk • contribs)
68.214.59.77 (talk • contribs)
68.89.136.118 (talk • contribs)
68.91.89.75 (talk • contribs)
68.89.128.29 (talk • contribs)
68.91.255.70 (talk • contribs)
69.150.213.121 (talk • contribs)
68.91.89.163 (talk • contribs)
68.90.179.78 (talk • contribs)
69.149.104.45 (talk • contribs)
69.149.104.17 (talk • contribs)
68.89.136.174 (talk • contribs)
66.142.91.215 (talk • contribs)
*note that the last letter of the first word is an uppercase i
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] refs

A big list of news article refs on this thread: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=4551&hl=

Take your pic, but I recommend using all as refs. Anomo 18:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


Oh and the ref for the put on the spam blacklist could be a diff of someone adding it on meta:Spam Blacklist I know Raul did it the last time. Anomo 23:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh they the websites run by Daniel Brandt are put on the spam list. So that is why I could not correct the strange and highly unusal external links. Andries 14:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I've put in a request on the metawiki so we can remove them from the blacklist. --Our Bold Hero 07:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slashdot discussion

Inclusion of a slashdot discussion violates the requirement for reliable sources. While this is a requirement for any type of article, we must be especially careful in a biography of a living person than for any other type of article. In this instance, the discussion is attributed to a pseudonym that may or may not be Brandt and may or may not represent his position on any subject. Such doubtful material should not be included, regardless of whether it is flattering or otherwise. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

(1) If you read the previous posts of "Everyman" on Slashdot you would see that this user has been posting on there for a long time and has very consistently presented himself as Brandt. You can just as easily call into question anybody that posts on Wikipedia.

(2) The very fact that this was a Slashdot article is of importance. Slashdot, unlike Wikipedia, does not allow every article to be posted. It is far more selective and the inclusion in Slashdot and the reaction by its readers is important enough to be included. Slashdot is not Usenet. Resorting to removing Slashdot commentary due to the BLP (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons) policy by questioning the validity of Slashdot articles is as offensive as Brandt's questioning of Wikipedia's validity. Drew30319 00:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In reviewing Wikipedia's Slashdot article it is categorized as a "General PC Magazine" along with the other news sources:

APC, BUG Magazine, Byte, c't, Computeractive, Computer Power User, Computer Shopper, Computer Shopper, Computerworld, Computer Weekly, Computing, Digit, IC CHIP, F1 Magazine, MicroMart, Maximum PC, NetGuide, PC Answers, PC Format, PC Magazine, PC Plus, PC Pro, PC User, PC World, Personal Computer World, SmartComputing

Although Slashdot cannot be purchased at the newsstand like PC World, the same can be said of Wikipedia v. Encyclopedia Britannica. It is hypocritical for Wikipedia to treat Slashdot as untrustworthy.

Drew30319 00:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


Here's the link to the most recent 24 "Everyman" comments on Slashdot. They span back to February 2005. http://slashdot.org/~Everyman/

Drew30319 01:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Slashdot can be cited as a source, but comments made on slashdot (or anywhere else, including Wikipedia) can not. --Conti|✉ 02:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to plagarism finding

The fact that some (not many) of the articles identified by Brandt were not, in fact, plagarized strikes me as the sort of ordinary thing that one mentions in this type of situation. It affects the numbers somewhat and is relevant to understanding the degree of care used, the complexity of the problem and so on. If this were Joe Smith criticizing the Doe Corporation for producing 142 defective widgets, I fully believe that I would include the company's response that a few of them were worn out through hard use, not defective. That some articles were not copyvio is, as previously pointed out, less relevant, since the headline accusation was plagiarism, so I don't mind the exclusion. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. But 'some' is still a bit misleading when we're talking less than 10 out of 142. But I'm not sure what's best to do - it's very hard to keep the right perspective in articles like this and not descend into original research and navel gazing. Haukur 00:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia administrators responded that this list misidentifed some articles where Wikipedia had been plagiarized, and that they took action on the cases that involved copyright violations." is not relevant for two reasons. First this is an article on Dan and not an article on how great wikipedia is at immediate responses to issues raised in the newspaper so in terms of how much weight or wordage to give wikipedia, less is better than more in general terms. Second, the issue Dan is raising is not that there are exactly 142 articles with plagiarism. the issue is that he claims Wikipedia has made no systematic effort to deal with plagiarism and this is proof-of-concept that such a systematic effort can be done and that jimbo agree it should be done. So a response that only deals with the specific 142 cases is beside the point of his effort. His web page is more clear on all this than the newspaper article, yet the newspaper article is certainly clear enough about his intent to show that responding by saying well we dealt will those 142 cases is just stupid. Let's not be stupid. OK? What is wikipedia doing to systematically root out plagerism? That is the actual response to Dan's current challenge to Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 00:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, he caused action, didn't he? That's an impact, which is, I assume, the point of being a critic. How can that not be relevant? He alleged a 1.18% rate of plagarism. That sounds worth mentionng. If Haukur's figure is right, around 5% of his cases were false positives. That sounds worth mentioning, both because it is that large and because it is no larger. I don't see how one can claim NPOV and not mention it. How about?
In November 2006, the Associated Press reported Brandt's claim to have uncovered 142 articles with plagiarized content among the 12,000 Wikipedia articles he chose to search. Wikipedia administrators investigated, and report that a small number were instances where Wikipedia had been plagiarized, but many involved copyright violations. [29] He "called on Wikipedia to conduct a thorough review of all its articles."30
Yet again he's featured in a major mainstream news outlet... he continues to get himself increasingly notable, during his quest to get himself removed from here as a non-notable person. *Dan T.* 03:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a reminder that this talk page is for discussing the article, rather than the person. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
As to his intent, well we are part of Wikipedia. Can we get someone to set up a bot to do something similar? Will he make his method available? That is not really a question for this page, but I think it is never amiss to suggest ways to improve Wikipedia. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
As it happens, a script being used on the it Wikipedia, copyright.py, was recently uploaded to the Pywikipedia development server. It apparently does the same thing Brandt did, although I suspect his script is a bit more refined. --Gwern (contribs) 06:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice that the current version has restored the material about public-domain previously removed, only now as a quotation rather than a paraphrase. *shrug* Robert A.West (Talk) 19:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nominated for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt

Page should again be reviewed for deletion; keeping possible libelous pages around describing individuals that are still alive is at the very least highly unethical. And definitely not within the scope of Wikipedia.

Subject is experiencing distress from the existance of this article. Hence:

Article should at the very least be suspended until the subject's death. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nerusai (talk • contribs) 11:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Been done, now 10 times. At least if you try and nominate it do it properly. --Majorly 13:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If we delete this page as you suggest wikipedia is dead, SqueakBox 15:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A serious discussion of the notability of this subject would be healthy. For example, what exactly makes Brandt worthy of an article? That he dodged the draft and had his conviction overturned? Do we have articles on all draft dodgers? That he made a web page that opposes Google? I could do that in an afternoon, would that make me notable? That he opposes his Wikipedia article and is critical of Wikipedia's processes? That's self-referential. That he created a listing of administrators and editors at his site? Does trolling behavior make one notable? Brandt's websites rank very low and his involvement in the Seigenthaler affair deserves a mere footnote in the article regarding that subject. I don't see this subject as doing anything notable enough to warrant an article. —Malber (talk • contribs) 16:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

He meets the first criterion of WP:BIO. JoshuaZ 16:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

He's a reasonably famous person, nowhere neaar marginal notable unlike thousands of bios here, SqueakBox 17:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(to Malber) It certainly would. (to SqueakBox) He's famous enough that no photo seems to exist anywhere? --Majorly 17:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, many famous people have few or no photos. There was the case for example of the East German head of espionage (whose name I forget at the moment) who was known as "the man without a face" since no one had any pictures of him at all. Given Brandt's intense demand for "privacy" it is not surprising that he doesn't have any pictures. JoshuaZ 17:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
My point being articles without images of the subject are generally poorer, in my opinion. --Majorly 17:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Irrelevant to whether or not we should have an article on him. JoshuaZ 17:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
yes your opinion holds water but it is baseless w/o a policy or a guideline supporting it. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 18:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm just saying... still, what Malber said sums it up. I was edit conflicted several times, then my connection went. --Majorly 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) As JoshuaZ noted above, the first criterion of inclusion from WP:BIO is: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person". In this case notability hence inclusion is a slam dunk no-brainer. The continued drive to AfD this article is simply an effort to disrupt WP by some, with innocent support by others. Crum375 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A pic would be a great idea but if no free images are available we will have to live without a pic, SqueakBox 17:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were planning a trip to San Antonio for a photograph taking session! -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 18:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Like Brandt and San Antonio I havent been out of Honduras in years, SqueakBox 18:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've opened discussion about point one at WP:BIO. It's a relatively recent criteria and IMO should be subordinate to the others. Just being written about shouldn't make one notable enough for an article. There were multiple non-trivial published works that talked about Brian Peppers but according to Jimbo we don't need an article about him.

I've been looking over the listed references. While the list is substantial, there are some problems with using it to assert his notability. The San Antonio Express-News article is certainly a decent write up, but it's in a relatively local newspaper and about a self-referential topic. The articles about paranoia about NSA/CIA cookies are about a topic that isn't likely notable enough for its own article. Most of the rest self-published, give trivial mention of Brandt (specifically against point one), or are redundant on the self-referential issue of being anti-Wikipedia. —Malber (talk • contribs) 09:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Brandt is frequently boasting in other forums about how much access he has to the mainstream media and how much influence he can wield. For instance, in blog comments regarding the Google ranking of his site he said:
My sandboxing was more severe than usual because of political considerations at Google, and it was released from the sandbox because of further political considerations at Google. I was in a position to make more noise about my rankings, mainly because the evidence of discrimination against me had accumulated to the point where it was overwhelming, and would interest some journalists. Google noticed my position, and acted to preserve its own interests.
If he's powerful and influential enough to be able to get journalists to report on him when he wants it, he's also notable enough to write about even when he doesn't want it. In a society with a free press, you can't get one without the other. *Dan T.* 13:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
As an experiment, type '"Daniel Brandt" X' into Google, where X is any major news service (I tried cbsnews, cnn, foxnews, abcnews), and review the results. If someone can find an X with no meaningful results where X is a major online news service, please let us know. Crum375 14:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
You're saying he deserves an article because he boasts he can get media attention (even though the hive-mind page claims "...he doesn't do conferences or give speeches, and he's not on radio or TV.")? Aside from the SA Times (which was a telephone interview) and Salon.com have his claims ever been proven to be true? —Malber (talk • contribs) 14:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Mr. Brandt's claims per se are notable. The experiment I suggested has nothing to do with his claims, and everything to do with proof of notability on all the major news media. Crum375 14:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
* Wikipedia critic finds 142 plagiarized passages on website - cbc.ca
* An open source Google - without the ads - The register
* Who owns your Wikipedia bio? - The register
* Tracking down the Wikipedia prankster - ZDNet -- Szvest  Wiki me up ® 18:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is that wikipedia editors consistently think he is notable. Therefore to delete the article would be a violation of free speech given the afd procedures are perfectly legal and that the owner of wikipedia prefersn to follow these procedures rather than be dictated to by someone who wants to gag Wikipedia's free speech, not surprisingly as if this article were deleted against the wishes of the wiki community it is likely that a large number of volunteers would cease to work here in sheer disgust. For me the fact that he has appeared on the BBC website (aimed at Brits) does indeed show international notability, while if non libellous articles on individuals were not allowed to be published in the US the country would effectively be a police state, causing a massive loss of international confidence from investors, etc, let alone the protests of those Americans who value freedom of speech. Is Daniel Brandt's privacy worth the colllapse of America - I dont think so, SqueakBox 19:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say that deleting this article would collapse either Wikipedia or America, but I do agree that it should stay. *Dan T.* 20:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does not meet notability criteria at WP:BIO

The subject of this article does not meet any of the criteria at WP:BIO. It has been mentioned that he meets point one. Point one states:

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.

Two problems with this are the words primary subject and multiple. Of the many footnotes giving citations in this article, only one has Brandt as its primary subject. The other citations make trivial mention of Brandt and would be suitable in articles on their primary subjects. I fail to see Brandt fitting into any of the other criteria at WP:BIO. Is there any policy based reason this article should be kept? —Malber (talk • contribs) 01:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:BIO isn't policy. It's a guideline. The Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
If he doesn't meet the notability criteria of WP:BIO and is a private person, then the article is in violation of WP:BLP which is policy and is taken very seriously. —Malber (talk • contribs) 01:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Sources 1 and 11 meet the primary criteria for WP:BIO. JoshuaZ 03:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Oh, and 19 also works. JoshuaZ 06:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
11 doesn't qualify as a "non-trivial publication." And it's mostly about Name Base, not the subject. 19 is Salon.com and while less trivial than Counter Punch it's more about google-watch than about Brandt. There are no personal details in either of the articles. If there isn't more than one non-trivial published work that Brandt is the subject of, then there aren't multiple. Saying Brandt is the subject of 11 and 19 is grasping at straws. —Malber (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Question. If only sources 1, 11, and 19 are the only sources that meet the primary criteria for WP:BIO, why are we using the other sources as information for the article? Shouldn't each of the sources we use meet the criteria for WP:BIO on their own? If they don't, can they really be considered notable enough to be used as sources? For example, "John Doe publishes an article about himself in a local newspaper, which doesn't meet the criteria for notability. Later, several major news outlets publish articles about him, making him notable. However, the article he published about himself is used to source information in the Wikipedia article that wasn't in the articles by the major outlets. Is his personal article noteworthy enough to include?" What I'm trying to ask is, "If a source isn't noteworthy enough to merit its subject as notable on its own, is it noteworthy enough to be included as a source of information after the subject has already been identified as notable?" Ibm2431 22:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If such an article has received national mainstream coverage it clearly meets wikipedia notability standards, SqueakBox 23:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banned editors communicating to Wikipedia concerning bios on them

Daniel Brandt is a banned editor; wishes to add comments to this page; yet it reverted; and he askes about WP:BLP. Banned editors may communicate to Wikipedia editors concerning their bios in many way. First, you'll note, Dan, that you communicated with me through your edit of this page even though it was deleted as it is still in the history. Second WP:BLP allows for the use of mail, email, and registering complaints at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. It also suggests contacting any specific admin from the list of admins at Wikipedia:List of administrators. You also have forums outside wikipedia that you use to communicate your concerns. All in all, I'd say the additional ability to have your comments not deleted on this specific page is not entirely necessary for purposes of WP:BLP. WAS 4.250 23:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, banned users may not post any comments, until after a year of their banning, when they may appeal to ArbCom. This applies to talk pages as well, and such edits will be removed. --Majorly 23:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
In other words, the admin who unilaterally imposed the ban, probably with a five-word comment, is not required to justify his action. And the person banned, who may be the subject of a biography, is not allowed to appeal, until one year later? Can you provide a policy citation for this? 12.74.209.179 00:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Under Wikipedia:Banning policy. The admin who imposes the ban will do so on behalf of everyone else. --Majorly 00:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
In my own opinion, clearly not agreeing with some of the admins involved, the banning policy ought not to be so strictly enforced when it comes to making non-disruptive comments in the talk page of one's own bio. I disagree with what Brandt says, but, as the old saying goes, I defend (well, maybe not quite to the death) his right to say it. *Dan T.* 00:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Brandt has been a repeatedly disruptive user. He has multiple other avenues if he wants something changed here, most obviously WP:OTRS. There is no reason to let him edit this talk page. JoshuaZ 01:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't turn this into a fight over strawmen, everyone. Posting can be done by anyone. Deleted content can be viewed in history by anyone. Real issues about WP:BLP can be brought up and dealt with in many venues listed above. Don't turn this into a troll feast. Please. WAS 4.250 01:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Is there a reason why some of the external links are web addresses rather than actual hyperlinks? I would correct them but because of the controversy over this article I thought I would ask first. Hut 8.5 16:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be because they are blacklisted. --Majorly 16:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
You're right - they're on the spam blacklist. Thanks. Hut 8.5 16:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
This seems to me like a misuse of the spam blacklist, which is intended to suppress completely irrelevant links like to "herbal Viagra" ads. *Dan T.* 17:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Daniel Brandt is quite net savy and chose to redirect one or more of the links he controlls for at least a while as a too clever move in his ongoing conflict with wikipedia. Certain Wikipedians have choosen this as a counter move. I have no opinion about whether this counter move should stay or not. WAS 4.250 00:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It isn't misuse as such. If he chooses to make abusive websites that redirect links to elsewhere on his servers then that's the best way to deal with it. Even though they don't anymore, they never should have done. --Majorly 00:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Majorly, please try to avoid advancing your point of view in discussions pages. Advancing factual claims is one matter, arguing point of view in discussion pages is a defacto attempt to influence an article to reflect your point of view. No credible published source says Brandt's Web site is abusive. Your claim that his Web site is abusive is libelous. This isn't a legal threat -- it is simply a correct analysis of your action toward him. Further, your posting of a "welcome" message on my user page within moments of my editing this page, which you are involved with as an advocacy editor attempting to libel Brandt, appears to me to be a form of systematic harrassment -- Wikistalking -- a way of telling me that you and your allies control this article and that you are watching me. I suggest you find some other articles to edit, or maybe spend a few days doing something else, until you can approach this topic without bias and with a level head. Marakopa 18:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Discussion pages are for discussion, and may include points of view. So long as they aren't on the article page. And by the way, "if he chooses to make abusive websites that redirect links to elsewhere on his servers" is a lift from one of the archive pages. What the heck is wrong with my good faith welcoming you? Systematic harrassment? Wikistalking? You'll notice from my contributions that I regularly welcome users, and "new" ones such as yourself. I am not watching you. I watch this article which you made some edits on. I suggest you find some other articles to edit, and stop making such ridiculous claims. --Majorly (Talk) 18:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
"What the heck is wrong with my good faith welcoming you?" What is wrong is that you are demanding that I make a presumption about your moral qualities -- I have no opinion on the relative good or evil of your faith. I already explained my objection to the context of your so-called "welcome" -- which serves me no useful purpose except an opportunity to get crosswise with you if I refuse to buy into your demand that I exhonerate your motives. By refusing to acknowledge my explanation, you dehumanize me and you insult my effort to make available to you an account of my reasoning.
"And by the way, "if he chooses to make abusive websites that redirect links to elsewhere on his servers" is a lift from one of the archive pages. " Archived libel is libel all the same. Are you claiming that since you cut and pasted the text instead of composing original opinion, it is somehow less libelous? Discussion pages are for discussion of your point of view in your opinion. In my opinion they are for discussion of factual content and for exposing prejudicial views that need to be expunged from articles, not for advancing personal prejudices toward a person who dares to question the almighty, all-knowing Wikipedians.
I demand that you apologize to me for ridiculing my claims. Ridicule is a personal attack. I demand the opportunity to participate in this discussion without being the victim of personal attacks, without being required to acknowledge social rituals that do not pertain to the direct content of an article I am editing and without my well-reasoned contributions being ridiculed. Marakopa 19:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe you have a problem with somebody welcoming you. Most users are welcomed. I welcomed you. Get over it.
"you are demanding that I make a presumption about your moral qualities" No, I'm not.
"your demand that I exhonerate your motives" What demand? What motives?
No I am not claiming the opinion was less "libelous"
Disussion pages are for discussing the article, and so inevitably will contain opinions.
I will not apologise. Your claims were false; I did not appreciate you claiming my welcoming was harrassment, indeed it was the complete opposite. Please take this to my talk page if you wish to reply, as this seem to be nothing to do with the article. --Majorly (Talk) 19:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


I will conduct my discussion of article content where I feel it is appropriate. I have no interest in discussing anything with Majorly except as is relevant to this article, which is where I intend to post my discussion. Majorly will be well advised to stop attempting to dictate my behavior. Attempting to dictate my course of action in small matters such as where to post relevant comments foreshadows an attempt to dictate my course of action in editing articles. I believe Majorly is using his administrative stature to imply authority he otherwise lacks. I believe it won't be long until Majorly recruits fellow admins to join his attack on a user who obviously is not otherwise inclined to be pushed around by a false notion of community concensus.
I considered Majorly's welcome to be pointed. Majorly does not systematically greet all newly registered names -- in this case he has only "greeted" (called attention to himself) a newly registered account that is editing an article Majorly is attempting to control. We keep track of who is greeted by whom and when. Majorly has no standing to order me to "get over it." My views are my views and Majorly has no qualification to order me to hold any contrary view. I did not view Majorly's welcome to be "good" in faith or in anything else, and I challenge Majorlies -- and the Wikimedia Foundation's -- demand that I presume good merits for their "faith." The purpose of an encylclopedia is not to dictate presumptions about the faith of its editors. I recongize Majorly's so-called greeting as an effort to establish social context -- Majorly did not greet all new users today, but only those few of us who he advises we edit Wikipedia at his pleasure. We'll see how much Majorly and his ilk "assume good faith" on my part before they decide to use their software tools to do what they lack the interpersonal skills to accomplish. Marakopa 19:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
OK Marakopa believe what you like. Frankly, I don't really care. --Majorly (Talk) 19:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't really care. --Majorly (Talk) I can stipulate that appears to be true. It was evident to me in your first response. Marakopa 20:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source needed

I made an edit removing "following a lengthy and sometimes uncivil battle between him and various editors and administrators on the article and talk pages there", as the statement had no source. I was reverted via something similar to popups with no explanation. Well, I'll open the discussion myself then.

This language - "battle", "sometimes uncivil" - has no source in the article, so I removed it. Can anyone find a source outside of Wikipedia describing the conflict as a "lengthy and uncivil battle"? Not the exact words, but something to the effect that the conflict between Brandt and the admins here was uncivil, or was even conducted at all in the manner described here. If not, it should stay as it is - blocked "indefinitely" blah blah etc. Milto LOL pia 05:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We shouldnt self reference and talking about wikipedia policy in the article of Brandt is unnecessary and againt our no self referencing where possible policy, SqueakBox 16:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/n/Talk%7EDaniel_Brandt_eca9.html"