User talk:Daedalus969

Daedalus969 is taking an unexpected wikibreak due to computer problems, but hopes to be back soon in full ability. He is still able to edit, but only from that of other family members' computers, which he has sporadic access to.

8:31 pm, 12 November 2024 (PDT)

Welcome to my talk page! I will reply on your talk page unless you prefer otherwise as usually noted on your talk page. If you are an anonymous editor, I will reply here.

When leaving messages, please remember these easy steps:

Use a descriptive subject/headline
Use [[wikilinks]] when mentioning users and pages
If you are continuing a conversation with me, please edit the relevant section instead of starting a new section
Sign your post with four tildes ~~~~ to leave your name and date
Please also note that I have a problem with dropping things, but I am working on it, and have made progress.
If you are going to use {{talkback}} templates, date them, so they can be archived properly.

Click here to leave me a message

Archives

2007
December 15, 2007 – March 17, 2008

2008
March 17, 2008 – March 26, 2008 March 26, 2008 – March 31, 2008 March 31, 2008 – April 28, 2008 April 28, 2008 – May 5, 2008 May 5, 2008 – May 31, 2008 May 31, 2008 – July 17, 2008 July 17, 2008 – November 5, 2008

2009
November 5, 2008 – January 5, 2009 January 5, 2009 – February 27, 2009 February 27, 2009 – April 14, 2009 April 14, 2009 – May 22, 2009 May 22, 2009 – June 26, 2009 June 26, 2009 – September 4, 2009 September 4, 2009 – November 3, 2009

2010
November 3, 2009 – January 2, 2010 January 3, 2010 – March 14, 2010 March 14, 2010 – July 6, 2010 July 11, 2010 – Present

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Talkback

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

tb

Hello, Daedalus969. You have new messages at roux's talk page.

You can remove this notice at any time by removing this template.

Thanks for dealing with the vandalism at Troy Davis case

Just wanted to say thanks. Have a great Christmas. Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} has smiled at you!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Talkback on User talk:MathCool10

Hello, Daedalus969. You have new messages at MathCool10's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re:User:AntiFetch

Hello, Daedalus969. You have new messages at MathCool10's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"Spelling" Article

While I appreciate your efforts to keep the pages on Wikipedia clean, the edits I made on the "Spelling" article clearly were constructive. It stated that "Hercules" is a common misspelling of the "correct" "Heracles." This is factually incorrect.

User talk:Planecrash111

You know what, I think you are right. However, the other general tone in his request was inappropriate in my view. However, if you think he deserves another chance (if not fully unblocked but at least to edit his talk page), go right ahead. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 08:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine to me. Generally, I assume that people who have been here since last June (with discussions here and here) would act better but that's me. He's been told for a few weeks but if you want to engage him further, undo the protection. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 10:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this case, I'm going to leave it to someone with the bit. Nothing personal but if he starts up again, I'm not in the mood for dealing with him. He's been here long, been warned long enough, and if he can convince the email list, he can come back. Mention it at ANI if you really think he deserves another shot. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct here?

Hi, Daedalus. I don't know if I'm seeing the real picture, but I scrolled through recent changes and found that you probably made a questionable rollback as seen here. Since I don't know the subject, I am asking you to explain the rollback in hopes of confirmation. —Mythdon t/c 22:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 22:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

This is your big chance to explain why you flagged my account as being permanently blocked. Go for it. Spotfixer (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And an FYI that the above user has opened an admin noticeboard thread on you, if you wish to join in there. - TexasAndroid (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green text

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

Replied on your talk page.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 03:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the {{xt}} name has an easy-enough mnemonic: it stands for eXample Text (appropriate when working at MOS and MOSNUM). In fact, {{Example text}} also works. Greg L (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting the van--Abce2 (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)dalism on my talk page![reply]

Re: RFC comment on my talk page

Thanks for reminding me on my talk page to place my comment in the correct place. But I guess I'm confused...Though I moved my comment to the discussion page where you suggested, isn't this edit also a "discussion" to be moved to discussion page? Please advise. Thanks. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 20:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pack of cards

I think an Alice in Wonderland logo is what I need after seeing the votestacking weird abuse of WP policies and rules. Thanks for archiving part of it -- recall that Phoenix of9 has two other AN/Is out n me and seems perfectly willing to post another dozen. He has gotten his main wish -- I have asked an admin to be ny proxy in the RfM/Rick Warren for the duration. If you can watch as well, I would be most grateful . {All the other asmins are officially "biassed" in my favor according to Phoenix <g>) Collect (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm

Should the RfC be closed and if so, when? Soxwon (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 20:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crap, forgot to mention I always watch talk pages of convience lol. But uh, who is going to do it then? Soxwon (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll ask the assitance of an univolved admin.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 20:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unforetunately I did, we may have trouble finding one willing to step into this mess. Soxwon (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Discussion about you

Hello, Daedalus969. 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. Thank you. - see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Courtesy_failure_.2F_Reword_Template_.2F_Reword_Header. Exxolon (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Related; I can't block him when he's under scrutiny like this. I'll join in on the discussion if I've got anything to say, though! Thanks for letting me know. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Request

Re your message: I do not follow RFCs very much, so I would prefer not to step in to close any particular RFC because I am not familiar with the particular nuances of RFC closure. RFCs are just not a part of Wikipedia that I have gotten involved with. I am sure that somebody who participates in RFCs will close it as they deem necessary. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Book reviews: Reviews of The Wikipedia Revolution
Wikipedia by numbers: Wikipedia's coverage and conflicts quantified
News and notes: New program officer, survey results, and more
Dispatches: Valued pictures
WikiProject report: WikiProject Film
Features and admins: Approved this week
Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DID we NOT comeTO consensus?

regarding which information goes on the RFC and which goes on the discussion page? From your first section on my talk page to your last, to the "PROPOSAL" section on the RFC discussion page, I believed this was agreed upon. Perhaps you could verify that before I need to provide diffs of it. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the title of this section again?

Proposed Solutions? 207.237.33.36 (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, it looks a lot more like indef block to me. You should have your eyes checked, also, I replied on your talk page.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 08:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EXACTLY. Section: "Proposed Solutions", SUBsection: "Indef Ban". Reading is Fundamental. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting my intelligence will get you nowhere. I was referring to the section that was titled indef block, and there is way you can argue against what I was referring to, so your argument is completely moot.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 08:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was the first to refer to the title of the section : here. And my point remains: the section is titled "Proposed Solutions": an indef ban is a proposed solution. Might not be a good one or one that can be instituted immediately without further collection of info at the RFC...then again, it might be. I think you need a break. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon guys

I suggest we all just go to bed (or, depending on where you are, go do something else until the rest of us wake up) and stop all of this for now. I think a little time to think would do us all gooo. Soxwon (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sigh

Now that that's over, shall we tally up the damage report?

We've got my AN/I for the RfC being in bad faith.

We've got Ikip accusing me of bad faith for my AN/I.

We've got general flaming, trolling, and chaos at the RfC.

We've got you and the Anon going at it.

And finally we've got a bunch of admins watching it all in disgust.

Anything else I'm missing? I'm not sure if the RfC can't yet get back on track, but it's going to take a huge effort. Don't know why I'm so philosphical all of a sudden, but there were several points that I knew, and wished I remembered: you don't get points for the last word, if you have legitimate reasoning behind your argment, those that matter won't need you to refute every argument made, and that sometime's it's just better to wait :(Soxwon (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the request for help in how RFC's are SUPPOSED to work

and

the request for Admin enforcement 207.237.33.36 (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Request Raised via email

I'm sure you're a decent guy really; but I will not be bullied on this just because I am new here. I welcome the intervention of any higher authority here as I've no idea how you reach it. As this is going nowhere I respectfully ask that you cease and desist restoring the edit pending arbitration. This is "safe" position regarding a policy dispute of this nature. Amicaveritas (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 11:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 11:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a complaint regarding your rude, agressive and threatening behaviour. The fact that you've been here longer should improve your behaviour not worsen it. Amicaveritas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

(edit conflict) Daedalus, as much as I respect your persistence in the matters in which you're involved, I fear that your actions here are tantamount to throwing gasoline on an open fire. While I understand the importance of Wikipedia policies and processes in any dispute, Amicaveritas has a genuine and valid concern about a biography of a living person, and sticking him over technical infractions does not address that concern. I've asked him politely to cease edit warring, even though he appears to have found a loophole in the edit warring policy, as a show of good faith that he wants to resolve this amicably and civilly. Beyond that, I don't know what we can do apart from requesting temporary protection. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur)

Re Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur), I can't see you excuse for breaking 3RR. Can you supply one, please William M. Connolley (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is clear precedent (links are included for the benefit of any editor who might not be familiar with the policies in question):

[WP:3RR] "Exceptions

Since the rule is intended to prevent edit warring, reverts which are clearly not edit warring will not breach the rule. Since edit warring is considered harmful, exceptions to the rule will be construed narrowly.

Since reverting in this context means undoing the actions of another editor or editors, reverting your own actions ("self-reverting") will not breach the rule.

The following actions are exceptions to the three-revert rule, and do not count as reverts under the rule's definition. Since edit warring is harmful, these exceptions define narrow situations.

Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
Reverting obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding cruel or offensive language. Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt. Administrators should block persistent vandals and protect pages subject to vandalism from many users, rather than repeatedly reverting. However, non-administrators may have to revert vandalism repeatedly before administrators can respond.
Reverting actions performed by banned users.
Reverting the addition of copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy.
Reverting the addition of links to content that is clearly illegal, such as child pornography and pirated software.
Reverting the addition of libellous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
Reverting edits to your own user space, provided that doing so does not restore copyright or non-free content criteria violations, libellous material or biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons.

However, even such actions may be controversial or considered edit warring. When in doubt, do not revert; instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask for administrative assistance."

>> I have raised this under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard as well, raised a request for editorial assistance, raised a request for Cabal Mediation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-04/Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard and raised an oversight request.

I also cite WP:GRAPEVINE

"The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory information about living persons should bring the matter to the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard for resolution by an administrator.

Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel."

Please also note:

The dispute pertains to a Biography of a Living Person. I am an editor who has legitimate concerns about a biography of a living person, and Jimbo Wales' comments about such cases would appear to apply.

I believe that there is a duty of care here that is not being applied. This is (by my understanding) a pernicious and ubiquitous problem with Biography of a Living Persons in general and in no way restricted to this one profile.

Amicaveritas (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring

Daedalus969 you were not reverting vandalism at Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur) and have broken WP:3rr. Although your good faith is widely understood here, this has only stirred things up further. One must tread very warily when any BLP worry is brought forth. Please don't ever do anything like this again. If you do, I or someone else will have to block you for edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re my old signature

Hi Daedalus. I made a generalized response to your message on my discussion page. I hope you find that my current signature is better. PYRRHON talk 23:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration

Your edits are not exempt from the three revert rule and fall within the category of a content dispute. Please stop reverting. --auburnpilot talk 23:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Stop before you dig yourself deeper. Discuss. --auburnpilot talk 23:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MULTIPLE 3RR WARNINGS

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Syed_Ahmed. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Collect. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Comment: your behavior has been reported here. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]