User talk:Daedalus969

8:12 pm, 24 July 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

Thanks

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

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

• Opinion essay: White Barbarian
• Localisation improvements: LocalisationUpdate has gone live
• Office hours: Sue Gardner answers questions from community
• News and notes: Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Stunting of growth, Polanski protected and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

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)

You know what's interesting, everything the klan has said has turned out to be true and everything the liberal has said has proven to be lies. That is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.41.116 (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

oh one more thing: FUCK YOU STINKING PUTRID LIBERAL

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

• New talk pages: LiquidThreads in Beta
• Sockpuppet scandal: The Law affair
• News and notes: Article Incubator, Wikipedians take Manhattan, new features in testing, and much more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia used by UN, strange AFDs, iPhone reality
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: New developments at the Military history WikiProject
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

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