Jump to content

User talk:Daedalus969/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22


Question

I was hoping you might be able to give me some advice or answers on this, as an unrelated third party. (Sorry if this is a weird question)

I understand the image policy, and I'm not disputing it at all. However, User:J Milburn seems to have a habit of exploiting the orphaned tag against images uploaded as fair use. For example, at Royal Knights, he removed every infobox image from the page by saying "They violate fair use", without citing how (and despite each use being referenced by the text), and then immediately tagged the removed images for speedy deletion as "orphaned images". In all of my experience with him, he has used similar behavior (it is in fact the main reason I retired from wikipedia; I'm only here to sync a page with its wikia equivalent), and from his talk page, it seems he uses this attitude elsewhere - tagging the image as a violation without any explicit explanation that would allow editors to rectify the situation, even though most images at least had a listed rationale, though he may have disagreed with it.

Is this how the fair use policy is meant to be used? Is he required to actually cite the policy, or is it the uploader's responsibility to argue out each point of the policy whenever he tags an image?

Please respond on my talk page. Thanks!99.39.88.159 (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

I added language this morning to indicate I had copied it to my page. Good observation. Thanks. I wanted it on the page as a natural "ending point" to show that this issue was resolved. Austex • Talk 14:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

Speedy deletion declined: Jim Horne (model)

Hello Daedalus969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jim Horne (model), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 05:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeff G.'s inappropriate sig

This is up, again; it's per a comment at User talk:Δ/20100701#July 2010. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Revert of edit to WP Talk:Signatures

Recently, you reverted an edit to Wikipedia talk:Signatures, where a post was made in another language. In the future, unless you speak the language (Sinhala, according to Wolfram|Alpha), or you have translated it, I don't believe you should revert it. I have asked an english-speaking admin on the Sinhalla Wiki to translate, in the mean time the edit stays.  A p3rson ‽ 18:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Warning and 48 hr interaction ban

(xpost to ANI and user talk pages)
Daedalus969, you're correct that he's crossed the line in terms of comment contents violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL - however, you also could have disengaged from this at any time, and have instead continued to provoke him. I don't think you intentionally baited him, but that's the end result. Please disengage.
Sweetpoet, you've crossed the line in your interactions with Daedalus. Please immediately stop insulting him and others here. You aren't allowed to tell him off in this manner. Please review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. We expect you to act like an adult and to treat other Wikipedia participants with respect. They are human beings, too.
If you are not willing to do so, and won't tone down your interactions with other users, please walk away from Wikipedia rather than force us to block you indefinitely for abusing people. That's not a desirable outcome, but ongoing abuse is not OK either.
This is up to you. Hopefully you can edit in a constructive and civil and collaborative manner in the future.
To both of you: for the next 48 hrs, I am placing a temporary and limited interaction ban on you two. Do not comment on each other's talk pages or elsewhere on Wikipedia in any manner. Please think very carefully about any responses you make on ANI in this thread.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

:D

Great. Thanks for that. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 06:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi Daedalus969, apologies if my undo of your undo has made you feel uncomfortable. I could also have replaced it. I did so because I had responded to you on my talk page. It didn't think it would be a problem. Anyway, if you did see it as a problem: apologies.
--Faust (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry

Maybe I am being too sensitive to the issue as I have really had it with the constant personal attacks (see my talk page history as an example), but I did find your most recent comment on the ANI rude so I couldn't help but respond. If I was wrong in interpreting it that way, I apologise. I have probably ruined the section so I created a new one underneath. All that said, thankyou for taking an interest in working it out despite my interruption to them. --Ari (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed my comment anyway. --Ari (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No point

It's impossible to keep track of the socks because some of them keep falling off. There was 104 pages in that category (54 socks), and recently when I added one page, it came to 100 - that doesn't make sense unless the tags are being removed. I'm not going to watchlist every single page so it's a pointless exercise either way, but if you want to dedicate your time doing that, go ahead; I'm not. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Requested template

It was more of a rhetorical comment than an actual request; it's little more than a bit of boilerplate which I feel should be used more often in addressing two individuals involved in a dispute where the actual disagreement is little more than both are angry with each other, & there is really no basis for their dispute. This might actually be an important exception to WP:DTTR. If you believe it would be a useful template, please create it; if not, maybe someone else will.

In any case, I think it would be far more useful if someone were to create an organized list of all of the existing templates so that people -- like me -- who can't remember which of the few hundred templates he's seen in the last few months is appropriate for a given purpose. (For example, I'm always misremembering or getting Template:tl wrong.) I encountered one of the WMF people this week at OSCON, gave me the impression that there might be a paying job to the person who took on a task like this to make using templates more user friendly. -- llywrch (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Blocked user

I removed the name from the list that is used for adding the newsletter notice. Thanks for alerting me. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Speedy deletion declined: Trapper Keeper

Hello Daedalus969, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Trapper Keeper, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is not about a company, corporation, organization, or a group. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Theleftorium (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Trapper Keeper

Did you even look for sources on this one? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Crysis 2

Hello! Yeah it was fairly POV, my reversion of one source (gamingunion) and replacement with another (vg247) - this is mainly as I've never heard of gamingunion, but vg247 is fairly trustworthy and such (to me at least). But I've no problem with the restoring of gamingunion if its an issue. Thanks! Fin©™ 10:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Er ok, work away! Thanks! Fin©™ 11:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

note

He seems to have run for cover since the subject of the banned user has heated up. How odd. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

JaRoad

Time to walk away; you are inflaming the situation. I do not want to see your username in that page history again for at least a week; that will reassure me that you have understood that edit-warring over user warnings is just as likely to get you blocked as it will the other person. Risker (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Anonymous IPs vandalising Self-replicating machine

Since I mentioned Cornell University's Self-assembling machine [1], anonymous IPs (sockpuppets of User:Fraberj) have been perpetually deleting my paragraph [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. I find this extremely frustrating, because this person is vandalising Wikipedia, and also falsely claiming credit for Hod Lipson's work, yet pretends that we are violating his patent. (!)

Furthermore, one of his edits to the talk page [7] was filled with profanity, racial abuse, expletives and obscenities.

I have only been an editor of Wikipedia for several months, yet already this person is beginning to push me to the end of my tether [8].

I see that you have been helping to revert their edits. Thank you very much.

Can you semi-protect Self-replicating machine and its respective talk page to prevent User:Fraberj and his Legion of Anonymous IPs from reverting constructive edits and spewing offensive content everywhere? My attempts to do so have failed [9] [10].

Otherwise, can we set up a bot to revert any edits by banned user User:Fraberj?


By the way, User:CharlesC may be another sockpuppet (same name and area of interest). Can you confirm whether this is true, with an IP check or otherwise?


Thanks for your patience, Calcyman (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Replying to your comment at User talk:EdJohnston#Fraberj: You're right that the IP must be him, I should have read more of the reports. Wasn't there an edit filter put in place for Fraberj? If you know about this, can you email me the particulars? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hanity

Saw your reversion & edit summary on the Sean Hanity article. Noticed because I thought the same thing when it passed my watchlist, but then realized what Drrll was doing. If you look at the sequence, the info about the wife was there. Then one IP changed the wifes name to Rush Limbaugh. Then a different IP deleted the line. Drrll then reverted back to before the first IP vandalized. I've no problem with it being removed, but that's what Drrll was doing.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. All good.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Talkback

Hello, Daedalus969. You have new messages at Ialsoagree's talk page.
Message added 23:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jim Wallis Article

<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Skoojal (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus Contribs 19:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)>

Good Tweets

I happened to come across some of your comments about someone who is planning a six month campaign against Wikipedia. I'm hoping to get some material into reliable sources to allow this to be included in the article.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that a little bit pro active, a wikipedia editor attempting to get reliable sources to report this so that you can add it to a wikipedia article of a subject that you have clearly commented against, sheesh. Give over, just ignore his tweets and forget about it. Off2riorob (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine, thank you. Article editing I don't really care for; I'm only there because socks are involved. When this thing is over, or solved, or what not, my interest will dissolve.— Dædαlus Contribs 19:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Petri Krohn

Thank you for undoing some of the places Petri Krohn has been striking my remarks. I don't know why this user chose to get involved or has been so persistent. I'm honestly baffled that they call it personal attacks for showing with links that Communicat has made posts either unsupported by the the source they cite or that are contradicted by the cited source and that other users have observed Communicat doing this on other pages. Edward321 (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to get involved in the content dispute, but they should not be striking the posts of an editor in a conflict they are involved in.— Dædαlus Contribs 18:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
This is not a content dispute, this is about a user other than Petri citing a work that does not mention, and at times contradicts, the source they are claiming to cite. Apologies for accidentally removing Petri's accusation instead of just his striking my comments on Moonriddengirl's page. I have left Petri's accusations intact on all the other talk pages where he has posted them. Edward321 (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Again, this is a content dispute that I am not going to get involved with. It is a dispute about the content of an article, in regards to sources. I am not going to get involved in that part, so please do not bother bringing it up again. I only commented because a clearly involved editor was edit warring with you on your talk page, and struck your comments elsewhere. Both activities are forbidden.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

User:Republic of Texas

After reading his talk page I thought that some of his/her comments on talk pages like HERE might be interesting to you. There are more... Pmedema (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Break

Hi Daedalus,

Thank you for contacting me. You're right, I should have approached the situation differently. I think I've had too much on my mind lately to be going about relations with other editors in the manner I should be. You've made me realize the need to take a break. Thanks for flagging me down.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Blackmagic1234

user:Blackmagic1234 use to be me as was user:142.163.115.232 I changed to this account because a ex friend decided to cyber stalk and harass me non stop.

When user:Higgys1987 also known as user:Abby 96 oh and can't forget user:Vitamininsultandbully, user:Nohappiness2009, user:Khate3798743493, user:AngelofFadness and who knows how many other accounts she has most likely millions decided to stalk me to sites I quit going on now because of her and well guess I gotta quit Wikipedia permanently because she's never going to stop this childish act of harassment and stalking.


You could always look at her socks here Kagome_85 She has way more socks then these

Moukity (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Clerk elections

Hi, this is just to inform you that elections for Clerkship at WP:UAA have started on the talk page. You have been sent this message because you were recently active in handling submissions or discussions. Discussion is ongoing and you are encouraged to voice your opinion on the candidates.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 06:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC).

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Sorry for the linking issue

I wasn't aware of using name caption it didn't accure to me I will try my best to do what you said, sorry.--Globalstatus (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool story bro

Are you really going to continue "combing" through my signatures? Is it worth it? Have fun man. Avindra talk / contribs 23:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I understood your message the first time you posted it bud. I assumed template sigs were allowed and that talk pages couldn't be blanked because those were rules on every other wiki I've contributed to. Regardless, is sticking up for a troll really ever worth the effort? Avindra talk / contribs 00:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Serious Buisness

I have a serious question that could determine the fate of Wikipedian morale: Is there a high-five or thumbs-up template anywhere that you know of? I've seen cookies and barnstars for everything under the sun, but no thumbs-up to my knowledge. It's depressing... Ishdarian|lolwut 07:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

Why don't you reply to my post? I was not rude, you just would not reply. Was it because I pointed out a mistake that Wikipedia had made? It seems that way. 142.177.43.186 (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Because instead of leaving the user alone, you decided to post harassing messages on their talk page, giving me absolutely no reason to trust someone who has socked in the past just to harass another person.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
And that reason is only affirmed, as I just got CU confirmation that you are the person behind that account. Talk about a liar.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I've also deleted your long insulting screed calling me stupid amongst other things, and replied to your thread on ANI before reporting you for harassment, which is why you are now blocked.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Vandalism.

Yes, I know. I throw the word around quite a lot. When I say vandalism, I usually mean disruptive. But, I will read up on exactly what constitutes vandalism, for future reference. Thanks for the info! Jayy008 (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That's really all I need to know then? Jayy008 (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for change/feature to Template:Progress meter

  • Request:

This is more a note that I changed it, for use with the 2010 Copiapó mining accident: I removed the multiple trailing br tags.

Another would-be-nice feature would be a computed percentage. Oh, and I think red-on-blue is hard to read; a way to change the text color would be nice.

  • Reason:

Extra vertical space looks very bad in small sizes. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Re

Hi,

Howbeit, it is true that the user:Yopie is a POV warrior, whose rollback is used abusively, with a poor command of English. But my main problem is that he keeps wikihounding me even when I am not around on Wikipedia very often. Earlier, when he also followed me to an article, I became angry by his harrasment and called his deportment sickly. And Yopie ferreted out that I reported one another user for a violation of 3RR for what the user was blocked then.[11] And Yopie wrote that user to abet him to make a spurious report against me on wikiquette alert together without having encountered each other on Wikipedia. beforehand[12][13] The another user name is Iaaasi,who has been blocked from editing Wikipedia for indefinite time by now. Iaaasi contacted an administrator via IRC and recently, that administrator has made a pleading for Iaaasi to leave his indef-ban in abeyance. And Yopie, following me to that pleading type of discussion, gave a vote for supporting the return of Iaaasi to the Wikipedia in order that he expresses his gratitude to Iaaasi why he colluded him at that Wikiquette alert report.[14] Please note that Yopie has neither been encountered Iaaasi on Wikipedia beforehand ,nor has been done afterwards except that Wikiquette alert report. And when I was logged in to the Wikipedia yesterday, I recognized the situation and it induced my dudgeon and that proded me to fill that report at WP ANI but it was injudicious, obviously. However, In my opinion, it is a serious harrasment. Regards--Nmate (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Vandal

I seem to have placed it in the wrong spot my bad >.<

I apologize if that topic is stupid or something heh I am just curious as to what IP created that account Also Thank You again for undoing the Vandalism that my ex friend did on my old account - Moukity 142.163.149.123 (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You had your chance. You had your chance to be a constructive editor here. Instead you chose to do the exact opposite of what I said; you did not abandon the pages you contributed to, and in fact, you harassed her, posting her real name in diffs, creating accounts to stalk her. You had your chance to help build this encyclopedia. Instead you used it for harassment.
I'm not going to forbid you from posting here, but be warned; if you do, I shall report you for harassment and block evasion. Wikipedia is not the battleground where you both may duke it out in your harassment campaigns. Grow up and drop it.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Fraberj

Re your messages: Yes, I was changing my mind about it. Indef protecting a talk page is highly unusual (though it's been done here and there), so I thought it would be better to match the semi-protection of the article itself. However, since he has been going at it for years, it is likely that both the article and the talk page will need reprotection next year. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Civility

You are bordering on PA and possibly breach of civility. I'll tag an admin when and if I think fit, according to our rules and policies. Please stay off my talk page - I'm rather busy at tasks you do not appear to want to help out with..--Kudpung (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not. To say that you telling an admin they are inexperienced, when in fact they are, could be taken as insulting, is not a breach of civil or npa. Do yourself a favor and don't go around threatening users of things they didn't break. It will just call attention to your own edits. Mine were no where close to civil or npa.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not taking the WP:BAIT. Now please keep unnecessary multiple comments off my talk page as I requested. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Minecraft /does/ use the GPU for rendering...

I realize this is an extremely insignificant subject, but it is somewhat useful to know that rendering (and therefore performance) is determined by the GPU, not by software rendering or anything. What's the difference between original research and research on a website? Or, for that matter, the difference between me hosting my own website with my research versus any other site showcasing their research? I don't think Notch would be readily-available to back up this kind of claim, and any other "source" would only have their original research to rely on. 71.233.13.147 (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Re:Italic titles

Excuse me if I answer you in this way; but why should I stop making certain titles of articles Italic when other users also do it? LarsJanZeeuwRules (talk) 11:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Bullfighting Ban in Catalonia, January 1, 2012

I would love to assume good faith, but it is very hard to do so when a malicious vandal keeps removing important and accurate information for no good reason at all. The only reason I have been given for the removals is that the Bullfighting Ban is not of global world-wide interest. If this rule really existed, then Wikipedia would have only a couple of hundred articles, not a couple of millions. And millions of people around the world, even if not everybody in the whole world, are very much interested in the movement to ban torturing bulls to death. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Continue calling people you disagree with vandals and you'll be reported for flippantly violating Wikipedia's policy on no personal attacks. This is your second warning, as I said on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Deadelus
I noticed that you said "He needs to answer for his edits" can I ask you which edit or edits you believe I have not been prepared to answer for? Rich Farmbrough, 05:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

There are many mentioned in the ANI thread. Editors taking issue with your behavior is not hounding. Administrators are required to explain their edits to others. The previous ANI thread's outcome was that you were supposed to respond to queries on your talk page, instead of refusing as you have been and swiftly archiving. Something needs to be done, as you've shown you aren't willing to change.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Hm, see this is the problem. "There are many mentioned in the thread" - what was happening, though was people, like you, who have as far as I know, never had an issue with one of my edits, are chipping in with a statement that makes it look like you have personal experience of what a terrible person I am. I have spoken to 18 - I am told - people from ANI who had something to say to "support" editing restrictions - mostly the reason for their statement was "well everyone seems to think X so therefore I agreed with them" Actually there are (were) about four or five editors who had issues - and most of those only have issues "on behalf of" others. Kingpin, for example, made a statement which you will heave seen he retracted on his talk page. And Kingpin is a level headed guy, who AGFs most of the time, and is knowledgeable about the wiki. The previous ANI thead's outcome was that everyone got bored and wandered off. The thread is still there if you want to look - possibly Giftiger Wunsch was the last contributor or Uncle G. Rich Farmbrough, 04:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC).
I read through the entire thread, and I'm also quite sure I contributed to it while it was going on. I am also quite sure that people didn't 'wander off' as you say, but they dropped it as they were under the impression you had agreed to the restrictions... or can you find me a diff from each stating otherwise?— Dædαlus Contribs 04:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
You can believe they thought that, but you can't be "quite sure" (if you mean absolutely certain). Rich Farmbrough, 05:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC).
Likewise; either find diffs or make sure you make it obvious that that is something you are claiming. Not something you 'know'.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The thread started getting less attention after you agreed to start discussing things.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

So... all those editors were watching my talk page? Rich Farmbrough, 05:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC).


No you never commented on the previous ANI. Rich Farmbrough, 05:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

So? And my saying 'I'm quite sure' is just how I talk. Try not to read too far into my comments, and try to halt the clear incivilities.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Reversion

Do not interfere with the ANI. IF Kingpin wishes to revert my comments he is quite able to do so himself. I think you have nothing to add there. Rich Farmbrough, 20:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Which is why you've been attacking me and telling me my opinion is hearsay, right? I didn't tell you such on this talk page. What I told you is that there was evidence you had, I didn't tell you that I didn't do any digging myself, which would have been hearsay. So instead of looking for fault, why don't you own up to your own.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Just because you think 'I have nothing to add there' doesn't give you the right to tell me to not revert your disruptive refactoring others' posts and indeed, in a matter you are clearly involved in.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Surfin Bird

Hi,

Not sure if this the right way to contact you.

I am about to put in my updated version of the article. There are now a number of references to external (non-Facebook) articles referring to the campaign as a whole. There is a specific reference to Scott Mills mentioning the campaign specifying the date that it was mentioned on his radio show. The only facebook reference remaining is the one that gives the date/time stamp of the original page. I feel it important to maintain this, as already some of the articles (e.g. the NME) claim that the campaign started in April 2010, when the time/date of the original post clearly shows the idea began in January. I understand that as the originator of the campaign I have a vested interest, but only to see that the campaign is described accurately. A number of people are trying to claim that they started the campaign themselves. By including the facebook reference with the original time stamp. I have removed any mention of my own name.

Please let me know if this fits in with the guidelines?

I am not trying to be difficult, I would like work toward presenting the facts as they are.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisbon lion67 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Surfin Bird article

Hey,

I am doing my best to keep within the guidelines.

- I have provided external references to the campaign. NME, Spinner.com, digitalspy.com, realityshout - I have removed my own name from the article. - Only one facebook reference remains as a primary source of the origins of the campaign. - The Youtube reference has been supplemented with an external site attributable to the DJ Scott Mills himself confirming the 13th October as being the date that he mentioned the campaign. - The William Hill Bookmaker reference indicates that the campaign is notable in that it is affecting betting odds for the Christmas Number One campaign.

What more do I need to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisbon lion67 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Transporter 3

In regards to this diff. This section was created by an Afd and consensus. You don't get to unilaterally remove it without discussion.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, perhaps you didn't see I moved the bit on Natalya to the Production section? I didn't remove it, I just thought that whole bit on casting her was out of place in the Cast section, while casting would be part of production. But I could be mistaken. Anyway, I haven't edited the article since June 11 so it's up to you. Regards, --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 13:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Just thought you should know

The IP's a public one, belonging to a library. It seems pretty unlikely that the banned user in question was the person actually at the library computer at the time, and the request was an entirely reasonable one anyway. Just because a shared IP that can be used by a huge range of people has been used by a particular banned user, doesn't tar everyone else who uses that library with the same brush... (Of course, it's still necessary to look at the edit in question to see if it's disruptive, etc.) --ais523 20:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Black Eyed Kids

Hey, I think I must be missing something here. Could you please explain to me how [[15]] and [[16]] are the same article? I'm a little stumped. Thanking you! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 10:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Thanks

I appreciate your help on that page blanking. I thought that might be the way to go but I wasn't sure. I was sure I would've taken it off my page, but community standards and all...anyway. See ya 'round Tiderolls 06:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Double thanks!

Thanks for watching my talk page. I tell you, I have had it with this guy. It's time for (a) a community ban and (b) a rangeblock. Why do people like this always have dynamic IP addresses? PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Beyond my Ken

Coincidence, surely, that a rollback (The Beach (film)) should come to an edit of 78.101.170.55 from Beyond my Ken bearing in mind this morning's activity? A hell of a coincidence it must be, as I know that this editor would never bad faith edit and, for example, open a puerile and futile SPI. Would he? Pathetic, and thanks for your support. A clearer case of wikistalking you will never see. --78.101.227.119 (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate revert also at Steve Collins boxer also. This is bizarre... --78.101.227.119 (talk) 09:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate revert at Untraceable (film) also, contrary to information in the article itself. What a ****ing mess I have made. --78.101.227.119 (talk) 10:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw 78.101.227.119's comments on his talk page. Firing off accusations, still standing by them, but refusing to provide any evidence. And others wonder why I call these characters "drive-bys". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As 78 has refused to allow me to justify their claims, I will no longer be standing by them.— Dædαlus Contribs 10:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
You demonstrated good faith, and he let you down. These things happen. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
It's also 4 am.— Dædαlus Contribs 11:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, what do you make of the accusations of stalkery and vandalism being made against the user whose name sits atop this section and who is, not surprisingly, the topic of discussion here? Within minutes of making the HW accusatons and posting an IP I had used, BMK was busy vandalising constructive edits. Oh dear. As regards my HW comment, I made it clear that I would be happy for it to be struck. --78.101.164.13 (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not use my talk page for discussion. I'm going to bed now.— Dædαlus Contribs 11:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That IP editor out of Qatar

Just for the record, the comments from that editor bear a marked resemblance to comments that have been aimed in my direction ever since a dispute at Kerry Katona and similar articles last year over the inclusion of poorly sourced/unsourced, generally misogynistic content. If this inference is correct, the main named account involved would be User:Magpie1892, blocked for abusing multiple accounts after this ANI discussion [17]. The "wikistalking" I committed would therefore be making the ANI report and assembling the evidence of sockpuppetry; and the editor involved has been sporadically using dynamic IPs to edit from (initially based in Scotland, more recently in Qatar) because all of his named accounts remain blocked. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment on the SSM talk page discussion re primary sources

I'm responding to a comment that's had several responses since, and I recognize that my comment might be lost, so here's a pointer: [18]. Please respond there. Thanks! --j⚛e deckertalk 23:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

~~~ has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!


Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at ~~~~~

--j⚛e deckertalk 00:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please let me know of majority decisions

Daedalus, if there is a majority decision against any position of minde, please just send me a message along these lines: "The opposition to your position comes from a majority of editors, not just from a single editor," or words to that effect, and I shall no longer insist on my position. Thank you. Das Baz, aka Erudil 20:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Re:WP:AGF

Never ask me for AGF for anyone again OK? IP blocked per block evasion, no need to edit Wikipedia again. TbhotchTalk C. 04:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Leaving well enough alone.

Please consider just dropping it. There's enough trouble in the world without us actively digging up more. I have been asked not to contribute to Malke's talk page, so I am not going to defend myself further. As I said before, we have passed the point where your intervention is helpful. Just let it go. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Daedalus, if I had unintentionally made an uncivil remark, then the right thing to do would have been to redact it. I have tried twice now to remove the entire section. A reasonable person would have allowed the removal and dropped the matter. Malke edit-warred, instead. At this point, they are simply stirring up trouble where none exists. And you're only helping them. As such, I refuse to entertain further comments from you at this time. Do not post on my talk page with advice about this alleged incivility; it will be deleted without a response. Thank you for understanding. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 08:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Slave breeding in the United States

November 10th That edit of mine was not deconstructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YoshiHiroshi (talk • contribs) 05:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

WP blanking

It was accidental, and it is good to know it was caught and repaired so quickly. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sugar Bear

Behaviour is also inconclusive. Given the high edit count or unique pages edited by Sugar Bear, it's plausible that some behaviour may appear to be similar to others. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Koyaanisqatsi

Your user page says you are interested in this topic. The images were all deleted within in the last year, but I would like to add at least one with a FU exemption. Do you have any ideas? Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This post is so that this thread is not archived early; I'm still thinking about it.— Dædαlus Contribs 10:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

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

22:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Time of year to Give Thanks

The Barnstar of Integrity
To Daedalus969 for always speaking up for the other guy. It's a pleasure to work with you.  :) Malke 2010 (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

POV?

What is POV on the fact directly supported by multiple reliable expert sources? Please explain your revert irrationaly concealing that the conclusion is so far beyond dispute in the field that it would be irrational to hold otherwise: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage&diff=397836585&oldid=397835820 In fact, POV is your revert. --82.100.0.58 (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Spamming this talk page with sources is not going to win you your edit war; you changed 'consensus' to 'conclusion', which is indeed, your POV, as both words are wholly different from one another. One means an agreement between many reliable sources, the other means they reached an end. Big difference there. The step forwards is not to spam me on my talk page, but to take it to the talk page of the relevant article. I suggest you have a read of WP:BRD.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I've also removed your copyright violation. Even it is isn't, I'm not going to accept spam of that magnitude on this page.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daedalus969/Archive_19&oldid=1144716984"