Jump to content

User talk:Daedalus969/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 22


To be exact

The user visited my talk page 11 times today. [1];[2];[3];[4];[5];[6][7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. BTW I agree it was a little bit premature to call you an "idiot", when I did. I should have done done it later, after you reported incivility to to vandalism board :)--Mbz1 (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"I should have done done it later, after you reported incivility to to vandalism board" - That's an excuse. You have no right to call anyone an "idiot", no matter your emotions, thoughts, beliefs, or anything. Personal attacks is a serious offense. You are adding continuing drama by accusing Daedalus969 and Baseball Bugs of harassment (and with this post), which they are not. —Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 03:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility, claims of harrassment, and talk page drama. —Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 04:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Got 'im

Thanks for bringing that Bell issue to my attention again. I went ahead and blocked the talk page access. Sounds as if you could use a wikibreak at this point.  :) Take it easy. Best, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


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

Robert Kennedy AfD

Please stop reverting Mbz1's edits. You're not accomplishing anything. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop

Frankly, I don't care how uncivil you perceive Mbz1 to be. The fact of the matter is your constant pursuit of them across multiple fora is a direct cause of drama. Please find an administrator that would be willing to take a look at this (I don't have the time nor the inclination to), and drop the matter. NW (Talk) 23:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

post

Hi Daed, I answered on my talk page. I deleted stuff, but I would rather not do that. If you know how to put stuff into my archives right now, I'd appreciate it. I'd rather than have deleted stuff. I'd rather it all be there. But I deleted a bunch of posts that looked like they were about Dayewalker. Okay?Malke2010 02:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Gracias

Thanks for the kind words, I appreciate them. Thanks for keeping an eye out for me on WP, it feels good to know you've got my back. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Happy St. Paddy's Day

Happy St. Paddy's Day Daed from your fans in beautiful downtown Santa Monica.


Happy St. Pat's Day to ya, Daed, :D Malke2010 23:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

fyi

I thought it was overreaching for you to remove the barnstar from Gilabrand's page. I would urge you to reconsider. I simply don't believe that the expression of support with the mildest level of harmless humor rises to the level that entitles an editor to remove another's comment. Happy St. P Day, belatedly.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I did. At most, it was a negative statement on the edits of the editor. Frankly, though, I think it was harmless, and certainly not worth violating the competing prohibition on removing others' edits, and not in keeping with the edict that one should look to cool down rather than heat up a matter. Removing others' edits can be expected to annoy people -- and brings that other guideline into play. My opinion -- I had hoped you might reconsider and AGF (yet another wiki guideline that applies here) that it was harmless or related to edits and not the editor.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

What I find humorous, of course, is that after that conversation about assuming good faith, your comments suggest a complete paucity of good faith in regard to me -- given your assumption that my removal of your edits from my page was anything but good faith. I -- as you can no doubt tell from the last few edits I removed from my talk page -- routinely remove edits that are completely fine, even complimentary, to reduce clutter. I leave those where I wish to remember the conversation, or perhaps note it in the future. (If I left all there like yours, they would interfere w/my finding the emails I care to find in the future.) Not the case w/your edits, as I've replied to them, and don't anticipate a need to see them again.

As far as AGF having its limits, I wholly agree.

Here, I've already said: a) it can clearly be understood if anything as a comment on the edits, which is by its nature not personal, rather than on the editor, and b) its mild. Your overreaction to my removal of your edits tends to make me wonder whether, after a cup of tea, you might not have a more generous view to what you removed as well, and understand that your view may not be the same as the view of the editor on the other side. That was clearly the case with us.

So, I offer you a cup of tea. No harm/malice/insult meant. I was offering my advice, but you will of course feel free to ignore it if you wish. I wanted to open up the possibility of bringing more good will to the project, not make you feel pushed to see things a different way if you decline to do so. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. I see you were reconsidering as I typed the above, and I appreciate your having done so and respect you for it. Very much. Not for the issue at hand, but for your willingness -- quite apart from the issue -- to reconsider your position, and not dig in your heels and treat it as a battle. That's an all-too-rare quality in these parts. I look forward to working with you if our paths cross in the future. Pls let me know if I can delete your comments on my page without insulting you, purely as a tidying up matter. I believe that my prior deletes on my page were likely from two editors who are working jointly with me on some articles in a highly collaborative manner -- no ill will is intended.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Not a problem. Of course I forgive you -- and while I appreciate your apology, amazingly -- I assumed good faith on your part. You did seem frazzled though. Can relate. Have been there myself. Yep--if the edits are getting to you, sometimes a wikibreak (if you can do it) can be a good thing. Those around us no doubt prefer us to take them as well. I'm not great with clutter, or I would have even fewer emails left! Funnily enough, I probably am more likely to keep a harsh email than the opposite. Otherwise, I might forget who the malefactors are.... As to votes/bans/etc ... just follow your heart. My comment was strictly limited to the barnstar. (now, if you had left the giver of the barnstar a note, saying that while it may have been seen as harmless humor, and interpreted as personal not about edits perhaps, and perhaps they could see it in their heart to delete or revise it ... I would have not problem with that either! But have too much to do to do that as well. Just trying to spread wiki civility. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I had best reply to your last email by email, when I have a moment, in greater detail. But, sadly, I fear I won't have the time. I may have a suggestion or two, though. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


AN/I discussion

This is just to let you know I have asked if this can be resolved, and have specifically mentioned the proposed interaction ban between you and Mbz1: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Resolution.3F --Avenue (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see the the above link. A decision has been reached. Dave (talk) 06:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

pictures marked for speedy deletion

hi Daedalus, I see that you have marked a bunch of files for deletion based on a ffd that was closed by a bot! I admit I speedy deleted the first on the list without knowing that there was a FFD case. But I think that it is inappropriate for the bot to conclude that the entire list presented is in the same situation. The reason is that I confirmed that the first file was a copyright violation, but evidence so far is lacking for the rest. I think I shall reopen the FFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Self-replicating machine

I have requested temporary semi on it, to fend off the IP's for a week until the checkuser is done. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Simmonz is now indef'd for disruptive editing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Finally. But just wait, until we get a CU, another sock will likely show up. We need another range block.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but it won't matter just right now. I got the article semi-protected for a couple of weeks, which is most likely why he called us "cheaters" for implicitly blocking his socks from furthering the edit war. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Get on IRC and we can discuss this further privately so we don't have to worry about making it easier for him to evade his ban.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't do IRC, and I'm not an admin anyway, so I would recommend you discuss this with an admin, starting with the admin that blocked him - User Tim Song, or something like that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Interaction Restriction

Per the ANI that you are aware of, the discussion suggests that a few editors supported a 1 year ban, a couple supported 6 months, and a few supported indefinite. It is clear that as a minimum, consensus supports the restriction for 6 months. Davemeistermoab (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has however sensibly set a review date for 3 months.

Therefore, you are prohibited from interacting with or commenting about Mbz1 (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia. This restriction is to be reviewed after 20 June 2010 and before 20 September 2010; you will be allowed to participate in that noticeboard discussion as an exception to this restriction. Should this discussion not occur for any reason, this restriction will automatically expire on 21 September 2010. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems I forgot to add the "_talk" when typing the URL. Sorry about that! Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the revert. - Schrandit (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Clerk note on Pwningall sock case

According to the last CU on the 15th, the IP was traced back to a school. J.delanoy was reluctant to block, as there were some good edits from it. I've asked him to comment on the new case. Auntie E. (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

WP:BLP

See [12]. Please accept this gentle reminder that WP:BLP applies everywhere, and the closer to mainspace the more important it is. I'm sure I don't need to labour the point and I'm not disputing that the individual in question had some serious issues here. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:CLEANSTART

how do I go about with the WP:CLEANSTART so I can come back as a different user...?

Ah think I got it so I just put !retired! in my user page then leave that account to rot and just create a new one Blackmagic1234 (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Yep! Good luck, and happy editing!— Dædαlus Contribs 09:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I think I will create the account but maybe not edit for a few weeks. Basically take a break from everything lol.. Blackmagic1234 (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Signatures

Please do not harass other users to change their signatures when there is absolutely nothing wrong with them as far as policy goes. It could be seen as disruptive, especially in the tone you used at User talk:Arriva436. Please note that there are more constructive things that you could be doing around the site, rather than harassing other users for no reason at all. Jeni (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Jaredites and Olmecs

Okay--I'm new to wikipedia and can see I took on too much at once. Please coach me here.

The 1st paragraph mentions the archaeological evidence is "disputed and circumstantial," but gives no source.

Then, the current statements, especially in the 3rd paragraph, don't match the actual source very well. Instead of citing sources clearly and with quotes, the language "is said to have" gives the flavor of a rumor, rather than a documented encyclopedia--and the statements are not accurate to the source. For example, the Jaredites were NOT destroyed in 590 BC, because the last survivor was found among the Nephites between 279 BC and 130 BC., and shown in the sources below.

Do you have any factual concerns with the following portion of my additions?

The Book of Mormon describes the Jaredite civilization migrating from the Old World "from the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of his people", [1] then eventually operating both north and south of a narrow neck of land, [2] where the "whole face of the land northward was covered with inhabitants," [3] but "they did preserve the land southward for a wilderness to get game."[4]

The Book of Mormon, in Ether, describes the destruction of all but one individual from the Jaredite civilization but does not give any dates for this destruction.[5] Elsewhere in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Omni briefly mentions this individual interacting with the Nephite civilization sometime between 279 and 130 B.C.[6]


Thanks! Truthwiki18 (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You responded on my talk page with an unsubstantiated and irrelevant suggestion that I'm not actually a new user on wikipedia, but you did nothing to respond to my actual question or the facts involved.

I'll reaffirm that I'm a new user--which isn't at all relevant to the facts--but that I just happen to be comfortable with computers.

Let's discuss this issue on the actual talk page for the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthwiki18 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit Boldly

You wrote "unexplained removal of sourced information. You don't get your way until consensus is gained, not the other way around" which implies that edits must have consensus before they are made to an article. Policy states to edit boldly. How do you resolve these two statements? Where is the policy which states that consensus must come first? -20:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.48.114 (talk)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

You may be interested in this SPI case

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rusty Trombone. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

rfa-question

I don't like "programming" templates; can you modify Template:Rfa-question so that it handles pluralization of "questions" correctly? In other words, in the case where there is only one question, it should say "additional question from..". Otherwise, "additional questions from.." (which is what it does now). tedder (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Replying here for ease. Yes, I shall go do so now.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes Done See here.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! tedder (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:School and university projects/Dr. Aaij's Freshman comp

Thank you for your assistance! Dr Aaij (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: your request

Sorry I didn't get this until this afternoon. As others have replied I am not going to move it over to AN. I see that you started another thread there. Probably best to leave them both as they are. Apparently I was wrong, article and talk page may both be semi-protected in exceptional circumstances. Mjroots (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Balancing act

Thanks for sharing the photo of the hummingbird nest balanced on the bike hook of your back porch!

Lyle (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)LyleG

Radiopathy/socks

Thanks Oh, I know it's confirmed, but I'm just trying to see if he will admit that he circumvented the rules. If he showed any measure of contrition or even an acknowledgment of guilt, that would change my input at the AN/I post, but since he refuses to even address all of the rules he is constantly breaking, then I have no choice but to recommend a seriously long block or ban. Really, I was just trying to give him a platform to say, "I'm sorry, it was stupid, and I won't do it again," but he's unwilling to do that much. Thanks for your input, though. It's really sad to me to see someone who clearly was interested and capable in actually improving Wikipedia turn into someone who simply refuses to acknowledge the community editing dimension of the encyclopedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For fixing the vandalism on my user page. And there I was, thinking the editor had good intentions but was just going about it completely the wrong way, until of course I saw that. We don't need him. Ironically, my plans for the day for the two articles he was messing with will probably please him. Dougweller (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

User:SyedNaqvi90 blocked?

According to your edits here, User:SyedNaqvi90 was indef-blocked for sockpuppetry. According to his block log, that doesn't seem to be the case, and when the sockpuppetry investigation was closed, SyedNaqvi90 was to be warned, not indef-blocked. Am I misunderstanding the message on his userpage, or is it simply wrong? Huon (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's wrong. He probably should have been blocked for at least a week as a sockmaster, but for whatever reason the admins dealing with his case elected not to do so and just blocked the socks. He is currently caught in an autoblock on his ip address so he's getting at least a day off. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
My bad. Sorry for any upset caused.— Dædαlus Contribs 19:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy Notice

As a courtesy, Radiopathy has mentioned you here [13]. Dayewalker (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"Massive template breakage"

Hi Daedalus,
just as some feedback to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Massive template breakage, I presume you used IRC to organize the rollback of the uw-* templates? I would suggest that you go straight to ANI next time, that would have had a much higher chance to determine that there wasn't actually anything wrong with the warning templates. IRC has advantages, but escalating issues should happen on-wiki for several reasons.
Cheers, Amalthea 16:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

info please

Hi Daedulus, thanks for the comment. Hope that ends that pesky problem. Do you know how to change out an info box? I want to change out a scientist box for one that will allow the addition of mentioning the subject's religion. Thanks.Malke2010 15:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

On this page: [14].Malke2010 15:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Drop the stick and move on. You aren't going to make this editor do what you want by harassing them on their talk page. If you have a problem, seek DR. --Daedalus969
Hi, Daedalus969! Are you expresssing your intent to involve yourself in our discussion? If you are, you should probably be brought up to speed so that you can comment productively. First, "discussion" is an early step in dispute resolution. You are welcome to join our discussion, if your goal is to be helpful. Second, I have no intention of "making anyone do what I want"; however, we have been discussing what Malke shouldn't do as a Wikipedia editor. There are specific rules against commenting about editors, and not the content, on article talk pages; and against editing other people's comments, especially without leaving an in-line notation indicating the alteration.
As for his snarky comments about me on his talk page, he's welcome to rant about me there all he wants. It's rather tame banter, actually, and he's probably just venting a bit after we found each other on opposite sides of an editing disagreement back in March, and his edits weren't maintained. If, by your comment, you were suggesting that we escalate this matter to the noticeboards, I was hoping to spare him that. Any helpful comments from you would be appreciated. (I replied here, instead of on his talk page, as my comments are less likely to be altered.) Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
As for helpful comments, you could take up a hobby and stop wasting volunteer editor's time with your 'issues.' Not everything in life is about you. As Daedalus advised, if you have an issue take it up at DR and and leave everybody else alone.Malke2010 20:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Xeno, it is quite obvious that Mal is not going to budge from your continued prodding. So either take it to some DR forum, like ANI, or drop the matter completely. Mal, I suggest you just delete all their posts to their talk page, as they obviously don't get it that you aren't going to budge.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Daed, I asked Gwen Gale about all this and she said to delete the post he's fussing about which I did a while ago. Since he's been following me for the last 24 hours, I don't know why he hasn't figured it out yet. Thanks, Daed, you're a good friend.Malke2010 21:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, Daed, know anything about how to switch out an infobox?Malke2010 21:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

email

You have one. Thanks. :)Malke2010 00:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

wideheadofknowledge and the sockpuppet allegations

Do you know when I can expect my user page to return to normal and not have the "It is suspected that the operator of this account has abusively used one or more accounts" message there? If you don't know then is it possible that you could point me in the direction of someone who does know? I'm directing this to you first because you added the tag in the first place. Thank you whok (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: SPI

Um, I've edited SPI before: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wftpserver. Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 04:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


Sig/SPI

Hello,

My sig: I've changed it now.

SPI case: I've been to SPI before, and I just wanted to confirm that the deal was sealed. Honestly, I'd love to never have sockpuppetery on here, but's that's just life.

Thanks for listening,

Andrewz111 (typo intended) (let me know) 06:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

Mohanlal Filmography

Hi,

I don't know why you are going on reverting my edit to "Announced Projects" in that page. I've even put citations, and many of the projects which were there have been dropped/shelved or is unconfirmed. Hence I've edited them to show the confirmed ones.

Take care —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandanmandrake (talk • contribs) 03:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

up for some sok investigation?

Remember User:Frei Hans and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telepathy and war? See Synthetic telepathy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synthetic telepathy. I'm pretty sure you'll find something. Jack Merridew 22:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Have another; see:

Not the user, the thread there about all the IPs he been dealing with; see all his helpful reverts to find the IPs in question. A host of IP's is disruptively editing spelling and needs dinging. And that necessitates some investigation. The recent ones I glossed were all on the same UK ISP.

Frei seems ripe for close and I expect that to drop today. Jack Merridew 21:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

ban

I see you have successfully banned Frei Hans after bringing it to ANI.

The problem with your ban is that there is no basis for the ban listed in ANI. There is a link (evidence) that you present but it is just one edit that says the guy has many IPs. This is bad behavior but not necessarily an offence to cause ban. It would be better if proposed bans were written more clearly. I do not say the ban is unjustified. I only say that the ban proposal is not clearly written. You managed to get a conviction without presenting a case.

Based on the one edit that you mention, I am not inclined to oppose the proposed ban. However, Wikipedia culture is that if anyone makes an inquiry on ANI like the above, he will immediately be accused of being a sock. So legitimate questioning like below gets strongly discouraged.

A better written ban might be...

User 123 should be banned. She doesn't contribute productively to WP. In the past 3 months, no productive mainspace edits have been made. She has edited about 1000 times to Turkish related articles, primarily using unreliable sources to deny the Armenian genocide exists, such as --- and --- and ---. 3RR violations are common despite counseling. A mentor attempt was not successful (see ---). She also creates 5 socks per day to vote with her (see CU) ---. Short blocks have not helped. She also threatens other editors by saying she will stalk them and break their windows. Examples of these threats include ----. Therefore, I propose ban.

Otherwise, you get a case like...

I propose that Katey Renieta Gonzales be jailed. User 1

  1. SupportShe is very bad. User 2
  2. SupportShe shouldn't have done that. User 3
  3. SupportShe should not have access to steak knives, only plastic spoons. User 4

Yet, nobody knows what happened unless they read this. http://www.theprovince.com/news/Girl+charged+stabbing+death+fellow+teen+party/3069218/story.html

Good luck in better writing. That is what WP is all about, good editing. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been here far longer than you, and I've edited far more than you. I know how to write, and your assumption that I don't just because of a single thread with zero research put into it is rude and offensive. Don't bother coming back here unless it's to apologize. I also left a similar, more detailed message, at your talk page. Bye.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Your message, intentionally or unintentionally, is very bitey and very harsh. However, I do come with an apology. I am very sorry to have made you angry. Such was not my intent.
I did look at the user talk page. The evidence is that the CU declines to do the CU. This is not compelling evidence for the ban. I do not say such evidence does not exist, only that it is not clear from the page you describe.
Let me help you with a better answer. The better answer is to apologize that the discussion was not clear. You could add that several people are familiar with the user and support ban. Furthermore, you could say that you mistakenly thought he was so well known that you didn't think any description was needed. You could even use a modern example, like "I thought mentioning bin Laden's name was sufficient and that a qualifier, such as 'al-Qaeda leader and Saudi national Osama bin-Laden' wasn't needed."
I again sincerely and profusely apologize for making you angry. This was completely unintentional. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


Civility Award
To Daedalus969. Very sorry that you are angry. Please do not fly too close to the sun lest your wings melt and you crash to the Earth--but you know that, Icarus didn't. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I did not mistakenly believe he was well known. He is well known. He caused a massive amount of disruption around a certain time, that is why many know of him.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I provided a link, and a suggestion, in my ban request, that anyone unfamiliar with the case read their talk page. You obviously have not. Everything that could be reason for a ban is there. Further, CU is not needed for a WP:DUCK case, as it quite obviously was. The IP sock had the same MO as the banned sockmaster. That's all the evidence I need.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

Nerf N-Strike Possible Deletion

Hi I'm a regular reader of wikipedia however I noticed that you plan to delete the nerf n-strike article. I know that myself and over 20 friends read that article and use that as the basis of our fun and games, not to mention that I used that article to determine what to buy my brother and nephew for their birthdays. It tells us which products are discontinued, and specifications of products like the darts. While none of us have contributed to it, the comment that it seem you or someone else made in regards to the page was that it wasn't in an encyclopedia fashion and that it was not meant as a catalogue. Would it be possible to have the page rewritten instead of deleted so that it is consistent with Wikipedia's format as N-Strike is a series. In fact I would love it if older discontinued lines would be given their own pages so that myself and others who would like to search for old toys and add to our collections could research and find out what we are missing, which ones are rare, which is denoted to the product "Rapid Fire AS-20" on the page. Knowing rarity and product exclusives is important. I hope this will positively impact your decision because I personally have never found any other online source with a more complete and informative list of n-strike products and descriptions. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.39.163.195 (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If you disagree with the deletion, post your argument on the afd page. Just remember, AfD is a discussion, not a vote. If you pull a bunch of your friends onto wikipedia, and attempt to sway the outcome with numbers, it won't work. AfDs are decided upon per the weight of arguments. Not the amount of people making said arguments.
Wikipedia, as said at the AfD, is not a product catalog. I suggest you make your own wiki if you want to keep such lists.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
As to the article being re-written:
  • All personal opinion and original research must be deleted, per WP:NPOV and WP:OR
  • Article subject must meet WP:N. Sources to prove WP:N must meet WP:RS
That is what must be done for the article to have any chance of getting kept. If you look through the history, you will see I removed similar bits of information; mainly opinion and original research.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Islamic templates

I was wondering if you could take a look at the following 8 templates, {{Abudawud}}, {{Abudawud-usc}}, {{Bukhari}}, {{Bukhari-usc}}, {{Muslim}}, {{Muslim-usc}}, {{Muwatta}} and {{Muwatta-usc}}. All of them do much the same thing, give an external link to be used as a reference, mainly for quotes. It seems to me that they could be combined into one, {{Hadith-usc}}. Let me know what you think. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 06:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Wow that was quick. Thanks. I have no problem with replacing the others. That was my intention so that eventually they can be deleted. Thanks again. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 23:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll start on those later. Once I'm done I'll send them all to TfD rather than just delete them. Less chance of any fuss that way. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 16:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about this but I just noticed a small problem. These were from the {{Bukhari-usc}} but it probably affects the others as well. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 06:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I think they should be. Thanks. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 08:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Note, most of these are now nominated at WP:TFD. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Curious

What was all this about? Thanks  – Tommy2010message 18:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

You asked at AN/I if I had diffs to support my claim that Jack Merridew is wikistalking me. I have a vision disability that makes tracking and assembling content like that quite difficult. Would you take a look here and let me know if this is enough proof. I still have two months more contributions to go through and I'd be glad to do that, except it is overly time-consuming with my eyes. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

Hi

I have referenced Mammooty's DOB to a magazine scan listed in the forums.. You'd do well to see the reference first.

Anyway there is an undeniable reference in the actor's OWN blog http://i-am-mamooty.blogspot.com/2008/12/profile.html. I am going to edit the references to that blog.

You needn't be rude so. A bit of courtesy will go a long way in building relations. I accept your contentions and now have updated it with new references. Everyone's not a wiki expert and I am sure you were not at one point in time. Thanks.

People like you may be prodigious enough or have enough time on hand to be proficient in Wiki within 2 weeks. Spare us mortals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandanmandrake (talk • contribs) 16:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hardrule

That editor has a habit of inserting multiple hardrules in discussions. Not that it matters now anyway since the case is closed. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

And again, it's over, so what does it matter. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

Happy New Year

Dear Daedalus969,
I just wanted to wish you and your family a HAPPY NEW YEAR. Cheers, and happy editing in 2010.Malke2010

07:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Caution

Please refrain from writing uncivil and shouting messages on my talk page. If you do that again you will be reported to the appropriate administrator's board. Also, please don't bother replying to this caution. Thank you. Amsaim (talk)01:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

changes to mob wars removed

About my change to Mob Wars, I understand the idea of not soapboxing, but it's a shame that my edits giving expanded and corrected detail on game play were disregarded. Salthefoot (talk) 07:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Bible verses

Following up on the noticeboard discussion, I think the best thing to do is start a new discussion on what the community thinks is best to do with pages like this. I've started a page at Wikipedia:Bible verses/2010. It's been five years since any of this was discussed at all. Most of the people from back then are gone, and the community and its standards have also changed. Hopefully a fresh discussion can result in a resolution everyone will be happy with, and it'd be great to have your participation. - SimonP (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sugar Bear

It looks like he's commiting another block evasion. See this IP. RG (talk) 04:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

The Banned Bear

Forget Sugar Bear. He's banned already, that won't be reversed nor am I seeking the reversal. In no way would I ever want to reverse the banning of a sock-puppeteering vandal. You have to understand that I am in no way criticizing your nomination or your arguments of discussion because you had irrefutable evidence that the user deserved a ban. I am however seeking a proper way to achieve consensus on future bans. The ban was justifiable, but the means on how justice was served were not (a less than 24 hour discussion and the lack of response from the accused user). Forget Sugar Bear, as this applies to all bans. You seem personally offended because of the comment I left on Jimbo's talk page. I apologize, but as a constructive editor who obviously cares about consensus and the work-arounds of Wikipedia, I implore you to understand that 16 hours is not enough time to decide on the exiling of a community member. Not only is it not enough time, but it doesn't provide a good example to how conscientious we are about making decisions on Wikipedia. 21:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Feedback ☎ 21:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

And here I thought you were talking about Sugar Bear. Well, there goes my retort. I'll write a more in-depth reply later, which is why I'm replying here instead of your talk page at the moment.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

  1. ^ (Ether 1:33)
  2. ^ Ether 10:20-21
  3. ^ Ether 10:20-21
  4. ^ Ether 10:20-21
  5. ^ Ether 15:27-33
  6. ^ omni 1:21
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daedalus969/Archive_18&oldid=1136196307"