User talk:Daedalus969

11:05 pm, 12 May 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

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.

Re:Science debate forums

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

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

Hello

You sent me some message regarding that I did not appear to be constructive. However, I hate to disagree with you, but I disagree. They told me on here to delink common words, such as United States, certain dates and place names, etc. And then you say its vandalism when I simply delink the word. This site is so hypocritical...and besides, you did not have to message me to tell me that in the first place. Justme89 (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Não faz mal (not to worry)

The deleted edit I restored to Baseball Bugs was Bugs' own, not mine, so you didn't hurt of my own "work". —— Shakescene (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

E-Mail

I just sent you an e-mail. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Me too. -kotra (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser

You were totally justified in running the checkuser, and the editor who complained about the duck test was way off the mark. I didn't think it likely that it was Caden, but it was somebody up to no good, and the checkuser was useful in determining just who. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact, if I were in Caden's shoes, and that impostor showed up, I would have asked for a checkuser myself, just to demonstrate good faith and get exonerated quickly. In my experience, socks seldom turn up during short term blocks like this one. They're more likely to come from indef'd users, such as Pioneer Courthouse, who figure they've got nothing to lose; or Liebman, who just enjoys being a pest. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Liebman

I should point out that Liebman has been posting this phony "retirement" stuff on my page for like a year. Things must be slow in New York City. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your AIV report on Tiaizzylinda

Thank you for your report on Tiaizzylinda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have however declined to block for the following reason:

User has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned. Re-report if the user resumes vandalising after being warned sufficiently.

If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Cheers! -- Luk ^talk 07:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Restore request

That user has been blocked indef, there's no reason for a restoration of his/her talk page. The move of it to mainspace was apparently a fit of pique following various disputes that earned him/her a prior block and if you look at recent edit summary you can tell, things were not improving. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually considered restoring and allowing the user to rant on his/her talkpage, but given the user's abuse of it, I thought better and modified the block to block him/her for editing his/her talk page - I'll leave a note on the talk page in case some admin comes by to look at the whole story. What do you get to see in the block log? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied further, on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Good job on RPP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

65.189.154.72

Y'know, I like an argument as much as the next guy now and then, but really, now, it's just a troll. Let me know if they circumvent the IP hardblock with one of their numerous alternate accounts. Acroterion _(talk) 21:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Suspicious sock puppet involving Caden

Hey just to let you know, the way you approached the Checkuser with Caden was really unfair. It's not so much the fact that you felt a checkuser was necessary, it was your uncivil and fighting tone that has upset me and some other people. Words like this (when Caden had clearly made a mistake and was not trying to be malicious) were uncalled for: "Your rants sound just like an IP user who I got banned, who also referred to me as a she." Instead of ranting and raving, you could have simply said something to the effect of: "I think this checkuser is necessary. Here is the evidence." It is entirely reasonable that Caden was upset by this. Wouldn't you be upset if someone falsely accused you of being a sockpupetteer? You owe this Wikipedian a major apology - not for proposing a checkuser, but for your nastiness. You should have been a lot more understanding of his anger and frustration, especially once he was proven innocent. By the way, HAVE A GREAT DAY!

• Uikopdep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Looks like a harassment / fake-encouragement account, like Corpiestre. I've turned this one in for "special" handling. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I did the exact same thing too, and file a report. You beat me to the chase then. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Uikopdep

I was merely commenting on the reason itself. Many people come to wikipedia and don't write articles. Especially today, when most of the notable subjects are already written about. I'm not saying he/she should be unblocked as he/she is obviously a singlepurpose sock, but to block someone for "not writing articles" seems a bit odd.Drew Smith What I've done 02:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but quite antagonistic

Thanks for the link to the personal attacks information. I suggest you respond in a less headstrong, confrontational manner in the future. "The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption," is extremely antagonistic and unlikely to elicit a welcome response. Please read the personal attacks section for more information on personal attack severity and suggestions on appropriate warnings.Stargnoc (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:PCH

Ok, I'll change my vote to endorsing the ban. Cheers, C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 09:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack

"I see certain editors who never attempt to add anything positive or even neutral to the article. The only things they even attempt to add is negative information. They never try to find sources for neutral stuff or add anything that would put him in a positive light, only negative items. They try to minimize anything positive. You will find those same editors doing the same thing in other articles about people on the same end of the political spectrum as Hannity. It goes beyond coincidence." This poster marginalizes every individual who posts information about Sean Hannity that isn't favorable. I see this is a broad attack against many editors, who he arbitrarily labeled as "Hannity haters". Allowing lies and hypocrisy like this to go unchallenged is not in good faith. So I labeled this individual a "liar" and a "hypocrite" which I still feel are accurate labels, and I still believe posts like his are a greater threat to the sanctity of Wikipedia than mine ever were.

"New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is difficult for a newcomer to be completely familiar with all of the policies, guidelines, and community standards of Wikipedia before they start editing. Even the most experienced editors may need a gentle reminder from time to time." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stargnoc (talk • contribs) 11:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the subject matter this guy zoomed in on, I can hear a duck or two quacking. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I said what you quoted. I'm sorry if calling a group who's sole contribution is to add any negative thing they can find as "haters" offends you. But apparently you have not read wp:blp and it would probably help you if you did so.

WP:BITE Daedalus I know you act in good faith - but perhaps a slightly lighter touch might elicit results more benficial to the editorial community perhaps? Amicaveritas (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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

I am so sorry

I am so sorry that one of my fellow administrators treated you so poorly, using both insults and thinly veiled threats to discourage your point of view. I am disturbed by the lack of response to your complaint, and I am disgusted in the way you were treated for making that complaint. I truly wish that Wikipedia administrators as a whole comported themselves with more respect and dignity. It whole matter really cheapens the idea that administrators should be impartial enforcers of consensus based policy. I truly think Wikipedia would be better off without those administrators who find themselves above policy.

Unfortunately there is an atmosphere of tolerance towards this sort of thing so there is absolutely nothing I can do that would not simply be reversed. I am sorry. Chillum 00:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: ANI report

I did read the discussion. It doesn't change my response in the slightest. If people stepped away from Giano in the first place, none of this extra drama would have happened. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen blocked

Just in case you were not aware, Jimbo Wales himself has blocked Bishonen for three hours for "Incivility unbecoming an admin" - hopefully that will act as a wake up call so we can avoid a repeat of this performance. Exxolon (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User:MarkRomero

Hi. Because I've worked quite a bit with MarkRomero (talk · contribs), I am concerned about your edit here. Can you explain it and the related summary? Are you saying that MarkRomero (talk · contribs) is not now Voltin (talk · contribs)? Thanks! →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, not being party to the email messages, I'm still confused. Is MarkRomero now Voltin? Do I have reason to distrust either of these users? →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I understand now. →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen's alternate accounts

Hiya Daedalus. It's cool, those accounts are just joke userpagers. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Do me a favor

I just re-read the two edits I made which refer to your conflict with Bishonen, & I honestly don't see how they make any judgments about you. About Bishonen, I do comment at length about her state of mind. I also say her comment to you was offensive & insulting. And I state how I think other people view the situation -- which is why I suggest you let the matter drop. I would apologize for upsetting you, except I don't know how I did. -- llywrch (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Daedalus, I didn't mean to imply that you knew that. I was explaining to you that other editors knew that, assumed you did also, & that is why they responded in that manner. Maybe you should take the evening off, & do something not directly related to Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikihounding

This is a warning about Wikipedia:Wikihounding. You need to leave Bishonen alone. Stop stoking the fires of that dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 23:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Andy Wisne article

I have recreated th article. I have been through hell and back and I have buddys that have pges on hre simply for being a Notre Dame football player which is considered notable. I have listed referances from the LA Times to a first place story that was written about my bout with bipolar disorder, near death experiences, Notre Dame plaing days, and being an actor. Ihave no idea how one could consider that non substantial, irrelevent, or non notable unless there was a subjective viewpoint as this did not breach neautral point of view. I have ha\d to fight my ass off for everything I've gotten all I'm asking for is that this be understood as notable as it is.- There are millions of readers of the LA Times,and Millions of Notre Dame viewers. Thank you for listening Daedalus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs) 05:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This guy deserves a break and what he has done all together is notable.- Myself —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs) 05:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If you find something wrong my userpage, or you want to change something, please let me know first, as a courtesy.

The right hand side of your user page is (in Internet Explorer at least) a mess - the objects float over each other and the objects below are obfuscated, which makes those on top difficult to read, I was going to try to fix this, but you have the above message on the page.--Alf ^melmac 08:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Not surprising; there are a fair number of issues in there. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

>Dædalus, I have made some improvement, not perfect but I think better than as was. >Mr Merridew, if you can improve on that any further I would hope Dædalus would be ok with that (?) (and yes I know my page is not yet perfect either, but it renders ok in everything I've tried)--Alf ^melmac 08:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Inspired by Joyce?

I ask out of curiosity: Is your name inspired by James Joyce's Stephen Dedalus of A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man? AGK 12:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Threat by SPA

Why don't you STOP taking away my edit to the foot fetish article. I am a foot fetishist myself and it sickens me that the wikipedia article lists TREATMENT like its a fucking disease. If you continue to back edit it, I will log on to wiki every day with the sole purpose of causing trouble for you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.86.178 (talk • contribs)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Wisne (2nd nomination)

Just a bit of support for all you are going through with the author of the article. Deep cleansing breaths always help me. 8-) ttonyb1 (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit to Harry Shearer entry

I received a notice that my edit to the Harry Shearer listing may not fit with Wiki's neutral content policy. My addition was that Harry Shearer writes on the "poor response of the United States government" to Hurricane Katrina. The qualification of "poor" response is not mine. It is the actual topic of Mr. Shearer's referred to blog entries. I was stating a fact of the content of Mr. Shearer's writing, it was not added as my personal opinion of anything. Therefore, it should not be construed as non neutral content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aranxa (talk • contribs) 07:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

reverting good edits

See this, by me, and this, by someone else. Which is more important, whacking the naughty, or valid edits? Jack Merridew 08:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 17:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

So, you prefer to remove good edits. Grawp often makes 10 reasonable edits to get autoconfirmed; this doesn't take him long and I believe this should be bumped to about a hundred. Anyway, such edits are routinely kept. It seems to me that you are more focused on the whack-a-vandal game than the bigger picture. About three years ago, that was a fairly successful route to adminship; “Good Vandal Fighter.” Times change. I have no idea what else that user has been up to, and I’m certainly not supporting any vandalism. Jack Merridew 10:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

All set

For some reason, the bot hasn't been archiving my talk pages lately and it's always left some really old messages at the top. I've created a third archive, but it isn't registering on the counter. Thanks for the gentle persuasion.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

• License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
• News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
• WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• 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 (talk) at 03:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

afd comment

I've taken the liberty of changing one word in your last reply to AW. Please don't take offense--I do understand & sympathize, but still it seemed advisable. DGG (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)