User talk:PassionoftheDamon

Archives Archive 1, Archive 2

You seem like someone who has editorial interests that go along with creating an ACC page to fill in {{2009-10 NCAA Division I FBS football conferences}}.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't these be side-by-side instead of being on top of each other? It looks better side-by-side... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.68.146 (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple: they don't fit.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Must be screen resolution then because they fit on my screen... But thanks for the quick reply... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.68.146 (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I had previously fiddled around trying to make them fit side-by-side myself, but it's impossible to do so without eliminating pertinent information or using a font size that's too small.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I have left comments on the talk page of Miami Hurricanes in the NFL. Do you know of any sources to support the claims:

• "The University of Miami's football program has had great success in producing players who go on to the National Football League."
• "This remarkable pipeline from the University of Miami to the NFL has led to the university being dubbed 'NFL U'."
• "The predominant role of Miami alumni in the NFL has been the subject of numerous national sports media articles."
• "As of the 2006 season, the University of Miami has more of its alumni on active NFL rosters than any other college or university in the nation." Is this still true in 2009?

These factual claims require support through an in-line reference. Absent some reliable source, Wikipedia policy requires that they be removed from the article. I would appreciate your help in locating citations for these claims, since you added them back without the citation needed template today. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, there seems to be a communication breakdown here. May I inquire as to why you are summarily reverting a number of changes to the articles Miami Hurricanes Football and Miami Hurricanes in the NFL? You can either reply here or on the talk pages. I trust that as an attorney you understand the need for substantiating your writing and the perils of "overstating" your case in the eyes of the reader. Many thanks. Racepacket (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with your deletion of the list of football alumni deaths. The uneven treatment created the impression that Sean Taylor was morned by UM, but that the other losses were not. Racepacket (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• You left an edit summary stating "stop removing sourced statements" on an edit which did not restore any sourced statement. Nor did the edit prior to that remove any text. Could you please explain? Also, it is not helpful to delete the{{cleanup}} and {{POV}} templates before the issues are resolved. I understand that you have seen the templates, but other readers and editors might want to see them as well. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be better to allow the admins handle this through the normal procedures? I am not sure what is going on and how this happened. Did the happen before you got involved with the article? Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been involved with the article pretty much from the beginning (I think I may have actually created it), but I had nothing to do with the drafting of the "History" section, other than parts of the final three sections which I authored myself. It's a blatant copyright violation and Wikipedia can be held liable for infringement if the material is not removed immediately.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's looks like it was pasted in (or at least a substantial portion of it) by User:Drew1830 at some time in summer 2007: [1]-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. Text based logos can in no way be copyrighted, even if there has been a series of modifications done to the letter. I don't care anymore.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct: 37 C.F.R. §202.1. The only exception is if the text logo is coupled with something else that is copyrightable (e.g. the Florida Marlins' Fish wrapped around an "F" logo). Then, the letter doesn't become copyrightable, but the letter with the other image does. Didn't mean to badger you with it, but it is an important point.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, File:Florida_Marlins_Insignia.svg is corrupted. Or there's just a horizontal line going through the image.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? It's rendering fine on my screen.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a little line right above the marlin's tail.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it now that you pointed it out. I have no idea why it's doing that, as I've had nothing to do with that image and confess to not knowing much about such files.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your editorial interests you might want to create an Independent's page for {{2009-10 NCAA Division I FBS football conferences}}.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your input here would be helpful.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I have some work to do on an article right now, but I'll provide input there some time later today.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, I don't think you were notified of this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you keep removing the Forbes ranking mention on the UM article?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most university articles on Wikipedia don't include the Forbes rankings.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But we have it. Why should we not list it?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be consistent with what most other university articles have (e.g., see Florida State, Michigan, Florida, UCLA, USC, George Washington, Georgetown, Wisconsin, Georgia Tech, Duke, etc.). I'd estimate that 70-80% of the articles I surveyed don't include it. The Forbes methodology has also been called into question at several related talk pages, including at our good friend Racepacket's alma mater (where I recently re-added their Forbes ranking after he became so insistent on putting it in the UM article). To me, this feels like just more of Racepacket's UM-related B.S., but if you feel strongly about including it, I'll defer.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PassionoftheDamon. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_PassionoftheDamon. Thank you. --EyeSerene^talk 17:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=12&target=PassionoftheDamon

Where is your evidence that he is a sock? That is not a small accusation, especially when aimed at two users who have been around since 2007 and before. You had better have a good explanation. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Racepacket has a long and well-documented history of using socks. User:Daedalus969 just tonight and out-of-the-blue interjected himself into a long-running conflict between myself, User:Ryulong, User:ObiWan353, and several others (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Racepacket), and, on the other side, Racepacket concerning his edits to seemingly every University of Miami-related article on the web, with no prompting — somehow he just "found" the pages at issue, started restoring Racepacket's edits from deep in the history (which, incidentally, blanked much, much well-sourced material that had been added in the interim), began mischaracterizing the status of the discussion on the talk page in much the same terms that Racepacket has done himself (e.g., claiming I'm the only one taking issue with Racepacket's edits when Ryulong has reverted him and ObiWan353 has also reverted him and voiced opposition to his proposals on the talk page), and using much the same wording in his edit summaries. My strong feeling is that either Daedalus969 is a direct sock of Racepacket or the account of a friend who has been enlisted to edit in tandem with Racepacket or who is now allowing Racepacket to use the account himself.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the history of Racepacket's previous socks only makes me more sure that Daedalus is not his sock.

What you are asking me to believe is this: In early 2006, more than six months before he created his "main" account, Racepacket created his Daedalus account and lay low with it, editing a lot with it, but not doing anything obvious. Then, 18 months after creating his Racepacket account, Racepacket creates another account which immediately jumps into the subject area he is interested in and gets caught. He then does it again a few months later, with the same result. And again, later. Now, almost four years after first creating "his" Daedalus account, Racepacket takes it out and starts using it to stack the vote.

That is ludicrous at best, outright crazy at worst. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's neither. As I explained above, it's possible Daedalus is either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me state this very clearly: Daedalus is not Racepacket's sockpuppet. Now that that is out of the way, where is your evidence that he is a meatpuppet? Both accounts have been around for several years. Show me where they have collaborated in the past. You cannot just accuse anyone who agrees with someone else of being a meatpuppet. You must show evidence that they are. In particular, a list of pages they have both edited does very little to support your claim. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)No, it isn't. Please, hear me out. I found those articles through the ANI thread, and, if you check my contributions, you will see that I edit ANI regularly. I didn't agree with your removal of sourced information, so I reverted. Reviewing the history of the articles, and the user you claim I am a sock of, I see now that you did have -some- consensus for your removal of material, however, on a particular article, you do not have consensus, and you were rightly reverted by an uninvolved editor. I admit, I can understand why you thought I was a meatpuppet or sockpuppet, as I have used the same line of reasoning in past sockpuppet cases I have filed, a field on wikipedia in which I am more active in than anything else. Unfortunately, the fact remains that you will never have enough evidence to request for a checkuser, which would prove my innocence, because such evidence simply doesn't exist. As I said earlier, I came upon the pages because I regularly browse ANI. The edit summaries I used were in conjunction with what I saw: the removal of sourced information. As to Delnoy's thoughts on the matter, I believe he is correct, in that assuming I am a sock is crazy, not just because I myself am the subject matter, but because my behavior is far different from his. We don't edit the same subject area, we don't talk the same, and the fact that I have dealt in many sockpuppet investigations. Wouldn't you think, that if someone dealt in a specific subject matter, they would know the ins and outs of said subject matter, and would therefore know how to use that knowledge to evade justice? My point is thus: The user you think I am a sock of has been caught sockpuppeting in the past, and is not good at it. Every time he socks it's obvious he is socking. Why would his behavior of socking badly suddenly change to socking better, in making a supposed sleeper account that he hasn't used in four years. Quite simply, all evidence points to me not being a sock, and not the other way around.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're active. Are you going to respond?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As J.delanoy said, where is your evidence that I'm a meatpuppet? I expect you either apologize or retract your personal attack that I am a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. I know you are there, as you responded below to an IP. If you fail to continue to address this, I will take you to ANI.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're there. You were active today on two pages, so again, either admit you are wrong, or I will take you to ANI.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am still here, and I am still waiting.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They can click on the article to see the detailed information... If this is the case and you need to have the useless information of the time and attendance on the template, when will the other years me modified to reflect the consistency?

They won't be, and it's not "useless information." It's the same information that's included in the MLB Playoff Summary template.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But my point was that they could click on the link to the article above the template and get the attendance and time there, just like the CS and DS... But even though I disagree with the result, I accept the explanation... Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.68.146 (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PassionoftheDamon! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 4 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. S. Robert Foley - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am contacting you based on your extensive involvment in Michigan Wolverines football. I have beefed up 1997 Michigan Wolverines football team. It could use some feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/1997 Michigan Wolverines football team/archive1‎. Also, I had trouble finding game details for the Little Brown Jug game. I hope to take this to WP:FAC so if you get a chance this is one of the more important articles that you might be able to help out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article S. Robert Foley has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable. Fails to meet biography guidelines

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]