User talk:Daedalus969/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


re: deletion

several other sites have leeched it as a link (displaying my full name, etc.) and I've complained to them as well. I would like the entire page deleted because it never should have been put up in the first place. I'm a huge wikipedia fan, but the last thing I want is to be mentioned and/or referenced by a name that could throw my audience off and which carries no real affiliation with my identity or works. I make this request with an urgent tone, but with sincere kindness--Can my request be obliged?

Maybe if you link the page.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: certainly

Dear Daedalus

These are the remaining sites:

demo4.thaiseosubmit.com/singer-wikipedia.htm

and www.spock.com/Avi-Singer

There were several, but I've managed to get rid of the rest, I think.

Thanks for the help,

K.N. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.93.46 (talk) 08:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Axmann8

I wonder if you realize that you just restored an "unblock" request which begins "This unblock is not justified". Self-defining. :) FYI, the impostor Max Antean turns out to be another sock of User:Pioneercourthouse, who has been extremely busy today, probably with summer winding down and junior high school about to begin again. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pioneercourthouse It's apparently only Axmann8's bad luck that he reappeared after 4 months on a day when PCH went bananas. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I should also point out that (1) I hadn't realized he had replaced his previous unblocks with a new one, or I might have restored it as you did; and (2) the restored version was denied faster than it took me to write the previous comment above. I especially like the part where he says (again) that I somehow tricked him into making comments that got him indef'd. Evidently, I'm controlling his brain somehow (although apparently not very effectively). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

rv vandalism

When it's on my talk page, it can be reverted for any reason, or none at all. And BTW, when I put a tag on my user or talk page, I would prefer that I be the one to remove it. Radiopathy •talk• 05:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, what was the motivation behind your failed sockpuppet report? Radiopathy •talk• 05:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Jedi

I would, but I am unsure as to how. I don't do many multiple XfDs, so I am not sure how to combine them together. If you can, please feel free. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed them from the main MfD page. I can't outright delete them (not an admin) but they are removed from the main page. Once you get them all together onto one page, I will track down an admin to delete the unneeded MfD pages. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

I can't tell you what a relief it is when I see someone watching out for my talk page. I genuinely appreciate the support. Gotta run, but enjoy a cookie in the meantime.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

PMDrive1061 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

And thank you again.:) PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok I Promise

Promise i had copyright of all poster by Manhwalover —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manhwalover (talk • contribs) 01:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Daedalus969. You have new messages at Abce2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Abce2|TalkSign 02:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nom of one of my subpages

Hello. Could you kindly tell me how you justify that a collection of links to archived AN/I discussions constitutes a personal attack? Please also explain why you've been showing up frequently to make changes to my user page or to make negative comments on the way I edit it? Please answer here. Thank you. Radiopathy •talk• 18:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A similar page I once had was constructed the same way, and deleted for the same reason. As to your editing habits, you are not allowed to call good-faith edits vandalism, as such is a personal attack against an editor. I've already explained this to you, so I don't see why you're asking me to do so again.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Daed

I was just getting ready to address that post. Since you've already reverted it, I'm guessing you're following this and are on top of things. Good luck, let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Although I'll be the first to admit that I'm not real knowledgeable when it comes to sock accounts. To be honest, the only reason I'm even familiar with Axman is because I'm friends with Bugs. Cheers, thanks, and best. ;) — Ched :  ?  01:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh just a note/reminder. You should probably leave him/her a talk page message once you file anything. It's only fair to let them know that their edits don't appear to be constructive, and that their activities are being monitored. I know ... I AGF too much sometimes ... lol. ;) — Ched :  ?  01:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 02:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
hmmm ... I might have left this one, just so it was out in the open. Let me know what you find out. I'm not sure why I'd be contacted. I do recall that I did file a SPI a while back, and it may have been connected to Axman. I left a note on his talk page .. let me know what you find. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  02:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Signature

Thanks for letting me know, the signature should be displayed correctly now. --Hdt83 Chat 02:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you think this edit is serious?

I just thought I'd get a second opinion on this. I gave the user a level 1 vandalism warning but I think it warrants admin attention.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 23:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

I hate to point fingers, but Historyguy1965 is edit warring again on Same-sex marriage, in that he is not consulting the talk page for a consensus. At least three editors (myself, TheFix63 and Tdinatale) have called him on it and he just doesn't seem to get it. PLEASE DON'T LOCK THE PAGE!!! All of the rest of the editors seem to be following the guidlines for the most part. Thanks for your help.Ragazz (talk) 05:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hope I didn't overreact, he seems to have calmed down for now.Ragazz (talk) 07:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright vio

Hi, I recently posted a summary of the background story on the new 9 film. It was removed due to 'copyright vio'. Could you explain to me how I can check if something like this can be posted on wikipedia? The plot of the movie was posted on the article's page, so I don't see why this couldn't be. Thanks! Genome852 (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I did write the summary in my own words >_> Bah, it was too long anyways. Genome852 (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Busy?

Hey, you want to follow up on the proper templates for: User talk:What. The. Fûûûûck?! and his user page? I'm guessing it might also be a sock of User:Malleus Fetuorum (who is not the Malleus Fatourum the established FA editor). I've never been real good at the SPI stuff, and know you've been active in that area in the past. I figured you'd know the right templates, and I'm pressed for time at the moment. Thanks. — Ched :  ?  15:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

867-5309

There was a discussion on the talk page; why did you remove the CSD tag? This person clearly has a history of "not getting it" and this is a classic example. For an admin, you seem to know very little about Wikipedia. Radiopathy •talk• 05:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for refering to you as "an admin". Radiopathy •talk• 06:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Gone missing?

Where's the warning about a personal attack on my talk page? I see it in your contribs, but I can't find it in any recent versions of my talk page. Radiopathy •talk• 06:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

3RR

There is a 3RR report in which you are involved here. Radiopathy •talk• 07:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Names, I cannot supply

...but watchers, I can. It would appear that only a few of those watchers care enough to want this material deleted. Parrot of Doom 15:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Note to all. Please exercise some caution and deliberation here. I believe that WP:3RR applies to both user pages and user talk pages as well as articles. — Ched :  ?  16:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Gamer

Hu, it was just an update from the first reference... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.140.139.86 (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I read the diff wrong, my bad.— Dædαlus Contribs 17:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken

You left a message on my talk pageUser talk:CowardX10:

deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Linas, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well.

I think you meant this for someone else. I did try to fix a typo on User:Linas main page, the grammatically incorrect "Read the below," but he changed it back. This was on May 30, 2008. So I think you have made a mistake. I have never deleted anyone's comments. CowardX10 (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 17:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Again, I disagree. Could you point to me exactly where on my contribution history this has occurred? Outside of this discussion, my last contribution was on September 21st.CowardX10 (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
So indeed this was about the change I made May 30, 2008, which happened more than 1 year ago. First, this was not on Linas's talk page but on his main page, so you need to be more accurate when making accusations, especially those that happen more than 1 year ago. This change that you refer to was an attempt to fix the gramatically incorrect sentence, "Read the below," since I agreed with Linas and didn't want grammar to prevent people from hearing his message. Since Linas inisisted he was correct(about 9 months ago), I did nothing further. This is the only time I've made such a change. In consideration of all this, 1) the time it happened, 2) your incorrect description of what the problem is, 3) the fact that it remains a grammar error, 4) that I have only made one such change, you ought to adopt a more civil tone than shown in your sentence "You refactored someone's comment. This act is strictly prohibited, you did in fact do it and I am not mistaken, do not do it again."—Preceding unsigned comment added by CowardX10 (talk • contribs)
Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
You are mistaken again. 1, I don't care much about when it happened, it only matters to me that it happened, and that you need to know policy on the matter. 2, my description is not incorrect. Just because the comment is on a user page doesn't make it any less of a comment.
It may no matter to you, but when you make an accusation, it matters to the person who is being accused. I consider all my edits to be good faith edits, so when confronted with a general statement about, "deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Linas, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well," I make an effort to figure out exactly what my accuser is referring to. I did NOT "delete" someone's "legitimate comments" so this was a potentially significant accusation.
Just because the comment is on a user page doesn't make it any less of a comment.
But when it happens on a user page, and you say it happened on a talk page, it makes what you say misleading. Talk pages are very dynamic and fluid, and many bad faith edits have happened there with people removing entire debates. Since you said I violated policy on a talk page, I wondered if I was being accused of having a sock puppet that was vandalizing the discussions on Linas's page.
It is still a comment, and you still refactored it. 3, the fact that it was grammatically incorrect is irrelevant. It was refactoring someone else's comment, and is therefore not allowed. 4, you appear to think that if something is grammatically incorrect, it is okay to refactor.
I do NOT think this. When Linas reverted back to his version, I did nothing further. Had I thought it was OK, then I would have reverted him, or continued debating this issue with him. In the 3 years I have been contributing to the site, I have done this ONCE, and the last time was more than a year ago. How you can infer that I "appear to think that if something is grammatically incorrect, it is okay to refactor" implies I have made a habit of this which I certainly have not.
This is not the case, and I will not adopt a different tone as long as you think you're in the right about this.
I was not right about editing Linas's main page. I am right about you making general accusations and pointing me to the wrong area to investigate your accusation. I am right about you needing to have a higher standard for accuracy when bringing up problems that happened once and more than a year ago. As is clear from this discussion, I did not know what you were referring to in your initial accusation and thought you were accusing me of deleting someone's comments. Even my attempt to clarify was met with your very uncivil "This act is strictly prohibited, you did in fact do it and I am not mistaken, do not do it again."CowardX10 (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If you guys don't mind me stepping in, it is bad form to change another user's comments, regardless of where they are. If we all are in agreement about this, it's probably best just to let the matter drop. The reversion was reverted, so no longterm harm done. I hate to see so much time wasted on a minor point between two good contributors. Dayewalker (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Look at articles such as Ian Nolan or Allen McKnight. GiantSnowman 08:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You cannot say that a source is semi-reliable. Either it is entirely reliable, or it is entirely unreliable. And as I have demonstrated that the website is reliable, it is up to you to show it isn't. Regards, GiantSnowman 08:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. How can you fail to see that information from NIFG matches information from a RS; therefore NIFG is a RS! Anyways, this isn't the place for this discussion, take it over to the RS Noticeboard. Regards, GiantSnowman 08:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
As I said, go to McKcnight's page. Click on the two external links, you will see similar info in both. One is a long-establishe reliable source, the other is NIFG. You cannot therefore claim that NIFG isn't reliable! GiantSnowman 08:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
But I have just shown that the facts are correct! GiantSnowman 08:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course I've read it. We don't know enough about the source and the contributors to say it is truly reliable, that much is true; but surely any new source starts off as 'unreliable' until it is proved otherwise? And, as I have shown with McKnight - a fact you are cleverly ignoring - the information provided is accurate! GiantSnowman 08:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

AfDs

Oh right, sorry, cheers for the heads up. I would close (properly!) the other AfDs you have withdrawn but seeing as I have contributed to them it's probably not appropiate. Regards, GiantSnowman 09:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Legality of cannabis

I give no original research my friend. It is all in the open sources on the page and on the discussion side. Swedish police enforcement policydocuments states contrary to what the Wiki article does, and there are no punishments of 18 years. That is not original. It just isn't in the law or in any recomendations. ~CS 03:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSjoholm (talk • contribs)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
There is no penal code that statues punishment of 18 years imprisonment in Sweden. There is no source that states this given. There is no limitation rulie neither. The maximum punishment in Sweden (for other crimes than Cannabis obviously) is life.
The Swedish Police handbook on how to handle drug offenses is quite clear. It goes in to detail about what degree of suspiscion is needed to apprehend someone for drugtesting and it also warns officers not to persue crimes with low punishmentvalue since it doesn't fall under the praxis of public prosecution. Anyhow it proves that it is completly forbidden for police to apprehend someone and do a drugtest on them with a mere suspicion. It makes it pretty unlikely for them to do so, and what kind of a word is "likely" to use in an encyclopedia anyway? If so please provide sources to show one case where it has been done!
What I do is not some new synthesis or put in any kind of new or origional research. I just state facts as they are.
Personally I'd like to have a complete re-edit of this section and article. But thanks for at least keping these outright misconceptions/lies outside ::Wikipedia. CS 04:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSjoholm (talk • contribs)
If it's a misconception, feel free to bring up a reliable secondary source that shows the current sources are incorrect. Wikipedia is based around what we can prove, not just what we say we know. No offense to you, but we need a source to verify what you're saying. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
There is ample links and directions to sources on the discussion page. Both to the swedish criminal code on drugs, the current directives from the national attourney as well as the police enforcemnts handbook. Instead someone should provide sources that support the claims of the articles as it stands, no one have and good luck with that!CS 04:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSjoholm (talk • contribs)
Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't claim anything in my edits of the article. I just remove statemenst that are not supported by any sources, untruthfull and misleading. CS 04:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSjoholm (talk • contribs)
Dear, the person who will be blocked is the one who insists on making theses unsupported claims. C - out. CS 04:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSjoholm (talk • contribs)
Indeed you will.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Also replied on your talk page. Seems I was right.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice comment. tedder (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit war in Untouchability

Hi... currently there is an edit war going on in the article Untouchability. Could you please take a few seconds of your time to resolve it? Yusuf.Abdullah (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

OWN

Hi! OK I get the point :the article is not my property!

But it is not the property neither of the guys who deleted (blanked) the entire article by their own instinct--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Rantings of a sockpuppet

Your purpose is clearly evil. Charles Michael Collins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.41.116 (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes but before I was a righteous sock I was blocked for reporting a hack and it was characterized as "legal threats" by my obvious competitors. You know nothing of the subject of self-replicators, or their history. Therefore your uninformed actions have wreaked great destruction to a magnitude beyond your wildest dreams. You should research this matter far more before you take such uninformed actions. One thing you don't know amongst others is that I started the what is now called the "self-replicating Machine” article and it was first deleted by an idiot who said it gave him an “ice-cream headache”. I don't claim to own it but it was hijacked by competitors. I think you and I know, however aside from all that... what evil there is about here in the form of racial bias against white males and you are making yourself part of it. And that is in the bowls of it, sick jealousy... the engine that creates all hate and wars. If it wasn't in you you would be asking questions before deleting talk pages on the most important subject there is.
Charles Michael Collins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.41.116 (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't need to know anything about the article subject to know that you're a sock of an indef blocked user, and therefore, you are not allowed to edit. You want to be unblocked? Do so through your main account.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Tried that no such luck. I don't want to be an editor so much as having the truth here, as it is not so now. That's the problem with the universe: Politics, PR and lies and that's what lives at Wikipedia. If you read what I wrote you would see that, with some research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.41.116 (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not about truth, we are about verifiability through reliable sources.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Just so you know

Did not know that, I usually don't work with dealing with socks. I was unsure of that revert as I thought there was an actual dispute going on here, so I doubled back so you could see the message. Sorry about that. (C/SSG)G2sai(talk) 23:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I was in the wrong...

I don't know why, but I thought Blaxthos has made both edits. Soxwon (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your offers of help. But I'm okay. I've got everything sorted with the help of a sys-op and a bureaucrat. Thanks again. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 11:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Magiquest page

Thanks for helping with the MagiQuest page! Kittenblackfriends (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Kittenblackfriends

I'm back

Hey Daedalus969! I'm back on Wikipedia. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) 23:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Barrry Kirkey

You asked for my source regarding the song Barry played on his show. I provided a link to the show summaries on his own site. But that wasn't good enough. So, I found a direct link to the song itself. I'm not sure what else I can provide by way of proof. This is typical of Barry's humour - you may not like it (it IS offensive and juvenile), but wikipaedia is not about what you or I like. Just the facts and the facts are - that song was played on his show, as I claimed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.99.218 (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 10:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The song was added because Barry is a comedian, and it's an example of his comedy. But I understand that moderating wiki give your life a sense of purpose, so moderate away. I won't bother arguing with you anymore. Ban my IP if you like also, it's a dynamic IP anyway :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.99.218 (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Status Quo

Hi Dad - I would ask you to stop making accusations without the necessary evidence to back them up. I have read the policy on proposing articles for deletion and I subsequerntly followed the correct procedure.

An apology would be gratefully accepted. Dingdong12 (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Dad - type in delete wikiepdia article into Google. I think you will see that it isn't very hard to find instructions on how to do so. It's not as though there is a special wikipedia word for deleting an article which you have to be an expert to know and then enter into google is it now? Dingdong12 (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting for an apology ....Dingdong12 (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

With AfD's like you're filing, you'll wait quite a while. Dayewalker (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

My my my Dad, you do like making accusations don't you and particularly accusations without any evidence. Now you accuse me of lying. I think you will find that you have interpreted the reasons I gave for page deletion as 'clean-up issues.' Did I use those words - I think the page history shows I didn't.

Despite all of this I would still humbly accept your apology. Dingdong12 (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Daedalus, just letting you know I opened an ANI thread about this ding-dong. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

As a note to everyone here, I have absolutely no idea why this user is calling me dad. Maybe it's a shortening of my username, maybe it's some kind of insult, I don't know, but what I do know is that this user was recently indef blocked for trolling.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Your messages to me

Stop leaving messages on my talk page. You're starting to become annoying. The message you claim was on my talk page was in fact in a sandbox area of my user page. I was using it as a test area, something any WP editor can do. You could have only seen it if you were monitoring my activities which frankly is pretty weird. If you have something to say to me then leave it on the talk page of an article I have edited and keep the discussion focused on editing. Your are not administrator. Stop acting like one. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page, as that is what they are for. Article talk pages are only to be used for discussing improvements to the article. Not for user-to-user communication.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
This is my last message to you. If you continue continue to annoy me I'm going to report you to WP authorities. I'm sure there are policies to prevent this. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page. Secondly, as I said there, there are no policies that exist that say that a user can't inform another user of relevant policies, when they have willingly violated them.— Dædαlus Contribs 02:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

One "Powermat," coming up.

Hi, Daed. Not much here, but feel free to do whatever you wish with it. Have fun! Regards, PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Powermat is a wireless charger pad that uses magnetic induction and will be release in the 3Q of 2009 it will cost 100$ for the powermat + 30$ for the differend resivers.

here is a video in youtube that talks about the powermat. [1]

Jeeze, I was expecting there to be more... This is going to take awhile.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Article nair

The article Nair is a regular target of vandalism, and have been vandalized around 6 times in the last 48 hours. I am once again requesting to make the article semi-protected. Your refusal to make this article semi-protected is actually encouraging the attacks on this already one of the most vandalized pages. Axxn (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page, but I'll just say it again here. Saying that I refused anything is falsely labeling the facts. You never came to be with anything, and secondly I am not an admin.— Dædαlus Contribs 18:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is your reminder call

User talk:Redvers#WP:ANI. BTW, I unprotected ANI a few hours ago, seemingly without incident. Yet :o/ ➜ Redvers❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞ 21:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, again, am I missing some reason why you don't have a mop? You clearly know how to use one and could obviously make use of one. Shout me if you'd like proposing/tell me to piss off if not. ➜ Redvers❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞ 21:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Skepticfall

is Strider11. Lots of socks YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration notification: Niteshift36 incivility and article ownership

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Niteshift36 incivility and article ownership and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,Stargnoc (talk) 05:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProjects

Hi. Regarding your concern about the new WikiProjects, I solely created these recently in order to improve better organisation of Pakistan-related articles in adherence to their relevant topics. It is my humble request that they be stored. My intent was to gather more users, and later make parameters for them in Template:WP Pakistan. If you can recreate those deleted projects ASAP that would be great. Regards, Yousaf.john (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have just seen an alleged sockpuppeting investigation launched on me. Completely baseless accusations without any merit. I have no relation whatsoever to that of the accused though I confess to personally knowing User:Ali Rana - we know each other and I did not mind the fact that he edited my userpage. I know I created those WikiProjects despite the fact that they have been deleted before as what you have said are the creation of a "banned user." When I created them, I saw that too however if you look at the archived discussion it clearly say that these projects can be created later if real interest in them is demonstarted. Just because I created them again doesn't mean you wrongfully accuse me! This is totally unjustified. I request immediate settlement of this issue as I see that you are also involved. Yousaf.john (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not anti-Indian, pro-Pashtun, anti-Persian, pro-Tajik or whatever. This is bleak conspiracy. Yousaf.john (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Gobbledigook on my talk

Round two I have responded to Radiopathy there. Thanks for chiming in as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Also You'll note (and probably already saw) that the last thing he did before disappearing for several days was try to restore Twinkle. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Stay away

I will not tell you again to stop your Wikihounding. The next time you pop up somewhere out of the context of a Wikipedia matter, you will go to AN/I. This is a personal issue which you need to deal with yourself; you apparently feel attacked, when in fact no one is attacking you. Radiopathy •talk• 19:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Also, it is not a personal matter, it is violation of our policy on personal attacks to call another editor a troll.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

blocked

Given this warning, which you've been removing from another user's talk page, I've blocked you 24 hours for harassment (way over-the-top WP:BITE). Gwen Gale (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The user, who is a newbie, hasn't forged anything, they only copied the warning to their own page. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|I stand firm in my belief that I was neither personally attacking the user in question, or harassing them. I did not revert the removal of messages like the user had said, but removed a post that was placed by an admin on a different user talk page placed on this user talk page as if they had posted it here. I warned the user about doing this, but I don't believe they even read my messages, and just reverted without reading them, as, when another user posted the same thing, the user complied. That said, I will take the user's talk page off of my watch list and I will not bother them further.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I will also try to be less bitey in the future.— Dædαlus Contribs 02:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I understand that I may have been too bitey, and, as said, I will try to be more nice in the future.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Unblocking per your agreement to tone things down, and the discussion held in #wikipedia-en-unblock. Please keep an eye on things in the future, and consider taking a step back if you find yourself getting upset.

Request handled by: Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Whoa

I know your heart is in the right place, Daedalus, but I'd suggest a wikibreak for you, my friend. You're starting to take the minor battles too seriously. Gwen's a good admin, I know she's helped you out before on several occasions. She's not the enemy, she's just trying to get you to ease up. As for Radiopathy, he's got his faults but he's also a good editor here, just like you. You've both got lots of positive contributions to focus on, so just let the mistakes and miscues go for a while.

I know your bulldog attitude has really served you well when it comes to vandal fighting, you've kept dozens of them off the wiki. Here though, it's misplaced. It's not going to help, you're prolonging a dispute between you and the other good guys. Sometimes just walking away for a while is the best thing for everyone.

Just some friendly advice from an editor who's known you for a while, take it as you will. Take care, amigo. Dayewalker (talk) 08:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Need some help from you

Can you help me here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yusuf.Abdullah Yusuf.Abdullah (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles

  • There is nothing at MOS regarding the edit you keep making to this article.
  • Long-time consensus has been to leave it the way it was before you came to edit it.
  • You are at 3RR right now.

Radiopathy •talk• 20:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to reply to you here, since I don't want to be accused of harassing you. That aside, where is this consensus of which you speak? I have read the article talk page, and the archives, and nowhere do I see any discussion regarding prohibiting this change from happening on the article. Please under stand what consensus is, lack of consensus regarding a change does not mean that consensus exists for no change. Lastly, 3RR applies to everyone, and if you revert me, you'll be breaking it as well.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR

You edit warring at The Beatles has been reported at 3RR. Radiopathy •talk• 21:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Lamest edit war ever? In the spirit of falling between two stools I've attempted a compromise, which no doubt will be hated by all. Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do. Declan Clam (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[[2]]

User:Guitarherochristpher is banned. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Guitarherochristopher_Yet_again.
Isn't that just semantics? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Whatever. I'll let you and argue that with other admins. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daedalus969/Archive_15&oldid=1166519737"