User talk:Richard Daft

Note that I have copied the first two entries below from the User talk:88.111.83.82 talk page as it is clear that User:Richard Daft is the person responsible for the edits done by that previously anonymous IP address. --AlbertMW (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Jpeeling (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --AlbertMW (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Asquith

The recent edits credited to User:Richard Daft have apparently been input by Mark Asquith who correctly asserts that he was, briefly, the editor of the ACS journal. Mr Asquith was effectively sacked from this post in 2006 for the following reasons:

he could not meet the reasonable schedules agreed with the printers (nor could he understand the reasons for such schedules)
his spelling and grammar are so atrocious that the committee members anticipated the resignation of the proof-reader should Mr Asquith not be replaced
he antagonised the committee and the membership with tactless remarks in meetings and in written correspondence
he was considered by the committee to be unreliable
he treated the editorship as an "ego trip" and tried to suppress other members' material so that he could publish his own work
his own work was severely criticised by his peers, including some whom he has recently been extolling as eminent subject experts
the book "reviews" proposed by Mr Asquith were held by the committee to be "dire" and reviews of Wisden and Playfair in particular were too long and inappropriate
need one continue?

The above points can all be confirmed by reference to minutes of ACS committee meetings and indeed to certain e-mails that Mr Asquith was rash enough to circulate, including one where he has the temerity to describe the committee as "high-handed and arrogant"!

Mr Asquith likes nothing more than to confront anyone who does not agree with his singular version of events and undoubtedly he will insist that everything written above is either false or unfair.

It will be difficult to imitate Mr Asquith's individual and typically incorrect way of signing himself off and, as one is not a member of Wikipedia, an IP address will have to suffice. 81.131.19.246 (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Hello Richard. You are welcome to join the discussion at WP:ANI#User:Richard Daft. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obey the site rules

It is a breach of site rules to delete warning messages and so the contents of this page have been restored to their rightful place. You are required to be WP:CIVIL when you use this site and not make edits that are confrontational or vindictive. You are also required to sign your posts as explained by SineBot above.

And re the latest drivel that has appeared on the admin board, the post immediately above has nothing to do with me, except that I initially reverted it when I first saw it on my watchlist. It seems there is someone else who is "no friend of yours".

I am resigning from this site because apparently it allows the waging of prolonged campaigns of unsubstantiated invective against specific individuals. Don't waste your time replying. I'm not here any more and will not return. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have reviewed your contributions after reading the AN/I discussion. It is clear that you are here solely to wage a war (you have even admitted as much in several of your contributions), and that your purpose if fulfilled would violate biography of living persons, which is a core policy. Furthermore you have threatened contributors of the site. I have blocked indefinitely, but if you were prepared to retract your threats, edit in line with the conflict of interest guidelines (which do not require a formal association to be in conflict), and avoid the John Leach article, I would be prepared to consider an unblock. Orderinchaos 19:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/88.108.59.160 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The discussion is here.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Banned

With this edit, in enacting a consensus of the community reached at the Administrator's Noticeboard, which may be viewed at [1], I hereby inform you that you are banned from editing the English Wikipedia with any account or IP address. Appeals may be made to the community, or to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 01:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Spike 'em (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]