User talk:Daedalus969/Archive 10

• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Archive 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• 20

The argument is dead. Long live the argument.

Please let this argument end. Thanks! --Thesoxlost (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Warning on Spotfixer's talk page

Spotfixer is referring to this edit in which Schrandit added a fact tag to the title of a published report listed in the bibliography section. Additionally, I have not seen Spotfixer accuse Schrandit of vandalism in this recent exchange, only excessive fact tagging. -Neitherday (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Adminship

Daedalus -

Greetings! I think you are an awesome editor. I think you should be an admin. I am going to nominate you. You are one of the best editors on Wiki. I hope you accept the nomination.

Stinky —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stinky Cadaver (talk • contribs) 19:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Daedalus, do you want me to delete Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Daedalus969 so that it won't be of disadvantage if you request adminship some day in the future? — Aitias // discussion 23:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. :) — Aitias // discussion 23:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The Stinky One

Yeah, you've got yet another adoring stalker/fan. Don't worry though, you've got plenty of friends and people on here who're fans of you. We've got your back. Don't let the bastards get you down. Dayewalker (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 2	10 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: December themed Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 19:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Your signature

Hello, Daedalus. Before I begin, you should know that I'm not one of the signature nazi types. You'll notice that mine is rather lengthly itself. That said, someone pointed out to me just now something about yours that cannot stay under any circumstance. If templates are not allowed in signatures, ParserFunctions are right out. While yours fortunately isn't one of the really expensive ones, it still causes a completely unnecessary drain on resources and makes the code even uglier than it would be otherwise. I do need to ask you to remove the ParserFunction immediately, or you may be blocked until it is removed. I'll be checking back in about 24 hours if I don't hear from you. If you have any questions, please let me know. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not without making a really big mess, and even then I don't think it always works. I'm almost certain it wouldn't work in a signature (so please don't try it). Thank you for removing the ifeq, though. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I will be speaking to him about that, but will not require him to change it. I don't mind placing signature code into subpages like that, provided the whole thing is less than the software limit of 255 characters; that's what I do, and WP:SIG#NT allows that. Roux has managed to get it substituted without making a mess, and so the end result is less than that number, and doesn't pull as much on the server each time the page is loaded. On the other hand, the code itself is three times that length, and the software does have to calculate those templates each time he signs. I'm not going to require a change as he's *technically* within the guideline and actually arguing it would just be a mess of wikilawyering, but I'll see if he's willing to change it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'd prefer you not, as the software still has to figure out what's going on everytime you sign; a little more work than is normally involved with typing ~~~~. Although WP:PERFORMANCE says that's not really an issue, so if you can work it out to keep it under 255 characters, I won't care. Just don't blow up the wiki. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sock-puppetry accusation of Ibaranoff24

Just a quick thing: Given the way the discussion on his talk page is going, I doubt User: Ibaranoff24's accusations of Landon and I being one and the same will go anywhere, but there's something that immediately jumps to mind to disprove it: a quick look at the talk page of Thousand Foot Krutch will show Landon1980 and I were previously engaged in a long and rather heated discussion/argument there. It got to quite a silly level, and I'm very glad that it's over with and we more often work together rather than against one another. But one look at that should indicate that any claims of us being the same user are somewhat baseless. Prophaniti (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, much appreciated.

I may well do that (going through the edits), probably only if Ibaranoff actually tries to make a case of it. There also might be some way of checking involving IP addresses or any geographical connections. I don't know, since I don't have much knowledge of the technicalities of such things, but I'm in the U.K., and I'd guess wiki user demographics would thus put me in that respect in a minority. I don't know where Landon is, or if there is some way of checking someone's rough geographical location, but if there is such a way it might be a firm way of showing we're not one and the same. Prophaniti (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I just checked your link. I didn't revert to any revision. I only restored sources that were removed without explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.201.118 (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

dude, DFTT. Just keep documenting his meltdown at the AN/I and the RfCU, and he'll walk himself into a long, long block, or a ban. ThuranX (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

DFTT is Don't Feed The Trolls. Good luck getting his ticket stamped. (with a 'p'... not a 'b') ThuranX (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you are good at finding those. Every time I find a new IP and get ready to add it you have already listed it. Good work. Landon1980 (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

They give themselves away quite easily.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

True. I know longer entertain the idea of someone framing him, do you? Not that I ever really did, hard evidence was my motive. Is there a way to tell if these Ip's are an open proxy. Will a whois reveal if they are or not? Landon1980 (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know, those are technical matters of which I don't know much of. But you can whois the IPs to see if they are in the same area.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Already have, they are. I haven't checked the most recent ones, but the others were. I just wonder if Ibaranoff is careless enough to leave a trail back to his account. I get the idea he doesn't care, and is seeking attention. I could be wrong though. Landon1980 (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, 70.149.106.37, which you are currently involved with traces back to the same provider and the same city as all the others. Landon1980 (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I shall add that one as well then, as I had not earlier added it, as the number was different. The last three were in the same range.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I just added 65.10.86.234, same range and making one of Ibaranoff's old edits as well. Landon1980 (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, didn't notice that one, I must have missed a digit. He must be resetting his router, the time inbetween edits seems about right.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. That is what I was thinking. Landon1980 (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You are aware one of these Ip's has reported you to WP:AN3 aren't you? Landon1980 (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what gets into these people. Landon1980 (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I get the feeling Ibaranoff is done with his account and has decided to go out with a bang. He will start anew, but should be relatively easy to spot him. Landon1980 (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Luna Santin (a checkuser) has just increased the duration on the main account to one week. Landon1980 (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Landon1980 (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Hardevidence.png

Thanks for uploading File:Hardevidence.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Hardevidence.png

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Hardevidence.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — neuro^(talk) 14:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 3	17 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

More socks for the file

I figured I'd turn these over to you since you're keeping the running total. Two more from our recent friend showed up today here [1] [2] as soon as the semi-pro ended. I left a message an Samir's page asking for more protection. Dayewalker (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

CU

Hey Daedalus, there is no need for a CU to put pages like that on their watchlist. You can watch it yourself and then, if socks do show up, let admins know about it. You might even want to retract that request you made to Raul ;) Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ibaranoff24 talk page

Just to let you know, I've done all I can at User talk:Ibaranoff24. Arguing with a blocked user on their talk page is just a waste of time, especially one who's blown it like that. I gave him as much good faith advice as I can, but refusal to accept responsibility isn't something that's going to be cleared up with a few kind words. I'm out of the discussion, there's nothing to be gained there for anyone. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to continue with the sock puppetry case? I don't suppose there is a need for one now is there? Landon1980 (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless new IPs show up, no. Also, a Checkuser has confirmed that most, if not all, IPs belong to him.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I just saw that, right after I posted this. The dayewalker comment threw me for a loop though, what the hell was that all about? Landon1980 (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, what was Ibaranoff doing e-mailing a checkuser? I mean with him knowing damn well he was guilty. Landon1980 (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

We'll never know.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I see he's already made a new account. Ibaranoff is going to be one of these banned user's that never go away. I hope you will keep an eye out for him. I don't really have the time to. Landon1980 (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha. He sent that e-mail wanting Raul's attention, and, looks like he has it now. He wiped out his new sock before you could even ask him to. Landon1980 (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Re [3] etc. Please stop beating this dead horse William M. Connolley (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Now you've had three admins tell you pretty much the same thing. Please take our advice and unwatch Ibaranoff24's page before you get yourself into trouble. You clearly want to help out around here, but your edits on his page have become excessive, and that's a Bad Thing™. —Travis^talk 00:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm pretty sure that Mr. Connolley was referring to this. You're not obligated to help I24 in that particular endeavor. —Travis^talk 00:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's best we avoid his page. I tried not to make too many comments, because they seem to only make things worse. You have made in excess of 100 edits to his talk page, and have gotten no where with him on this, my guess is after 50 more he still will not have budged. I agree him being unblocked is very premature, but Raul has a lot of experience, and if he is willing to take him under his wing and get him back to constructive editing I have no objections. I think he should have to own up to the things he has done first though at the very least. Landon1980 (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Suck on it

YOU, SIR, ARE A BALLSACK! You think you are so much smarter than everyone else! Why do you think you are so smart! I wish you would leave the Wikipedia! I can't stand the way you BS the man! I can't stand the way you hate Natalya Rudakova! I hate the way you vandalize the Wikipedia by trying to delete the Natalya!

The scorned of Germany will rise like a great serpent from the east! They will strike with the venom of a piranha cloaked in the bile of incest!

Your love for Jumbo is unfounded! You seem to think he is the greatest Wikian of all time! The truth is that the greatest was Willy, who was on WHEELS! You know that the Jumbo is definitely without wheels, and he only wishes that he could borrow the wheels belonging to the Willy!

Any rebellion is useless! All your base are belong to us, and none can withstand the overwhelming force that is Germany! Your efforts are fruitless, and your skeletons will come to the light! Your hatred of Russia has blinded your ways, and you are now paying for the floggings you have bestowed in the past! Your abusive tone and clearly intolerant attitude is like a boiling kettle of syrup, ripe for the plucking!

The Natalya Rudakova article will last indefinitely! Are you jealous of her success! Do you want to run the hollywood! Do you think she is limiting your career! You will never be famous like the Natalya! She is talented and famous!

This war you have waged is costing you dearly! You are surrounded like a roll lizard! You act like some Tony Soprano of the Wikipedia world! There was only one Tony Soprano and that was the Willy or JeanLatore! You and Jumbo Wales are lame like the shemale!

Repent and stop your armies from nominating the article for deletion! Stop with your wicked ways and this plague on your Wikiworld will pass! If the article is ever nominated again, you will again have to answer to me about your introspection! Germany will rise again!

Know that your infidelity has caused this charade! Know that your relentless assault has caused this reaction! Don't cry to the admins every other minute like a deustch! Don't delete awesome articles about hot women! Stop killing people you don't know!

When I hear voices, my mind plays tricks on me!

BIRDMAN KICKED MY ASS!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaydalus969 (talk • contribs)

And I will find out who you are.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention: After seeing this screed, I indef blocked the account. Sheesh! —Travis^talk 03:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving back a page...

Hallo Daedalus969! It seems like the article Terminal illness have been moved to a new name, I would guess as a prank/vandalism. However, I cannot revert the edit myself, but I'm hoping that you will help me with that, when you got the time. Cheers! Jopparn (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Greetings!

Daedalus

As a new user, I have a few questions that I'd like to ask you (a more veteran contributor to Wikiedpia). A friend directed me to your talk page before I signed up to edit Wikipedia. I've noticed that you seem to be having some trouble with apparent sock puppets stalking you. Is this typical for people who regularly contribute to Wikipedia? Should I choose to get more involved in editing this encyclopedia, do you anticipate that I'll have a significant chunk of time consumed by vandals and creepy folks who make crude references to my name?

Also, do you think there is something you are doing that could contribute to these blatant attacks on your character? I mean, are there any behaviors that I should avoid that tend to attract these types of wars? I think I'd greatly enjoy contributing to an Encyclopedia, but I don't think I'd enjoy going through all the garbage that you're going through.

Lastly, would you be willing to act as sort of a mentor to me or other Wiki-infants? I feel like I'm generally ill-prepared to navigate the waters so to speak, and I'd like to have someone who I could ask questions of along the way. Either way, thanks for the feedback and best of luck in fending off the malevolent goons.

MentalHomeEscapeInTexas (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. The user is one of those anonymous IP addresses, but I hope that is not a problem. I've checked some of his former edits that I know can be attributed to him, and his address is 71.210.23.153. You are wise to request some type of verification - I can understand your concern. I hope this clears things up and allows us to have a productive mentor/mentee relationship. MentalHomeEscapeInTexas (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Quack, quack, Good Lord quack. Dayewalker (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As a note to any reading this, and the subsequent sections regarding this user, I was playing stupid, trying to get him or her to give away who was the sockmaster. It didn't go as planned, the user gave away no tell-tale signs, and is now blocked indef and an obvious, quacking sock.— Dædαlus ^Contribs

Friendly Advice

Based on the kind of socks you've been working against for the last few days (and your discussion of it on your talk page), I can't help but think your new friend quacks like a big ol' duck. Be careful. Dayewalker (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I don't feel like your response was very polite, and it does not give me the impression that Wikipedia is a welcoming environment. As a veteran user yourself, I'm a little surprised to see such a blatant attack on my character. As a new user, should I not be given the assumption of good faith afforded to others? I'd appreciate an apology. You should be ashamed of yourself. If this is the type of behavior I can expect from all Wikipedians, perhaps this endeavor is a mistake all around. When this is how you respond to my honest query, the vandals have already won. Shame on you, sir. MentalHomeEscapeInTexas (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not certain who you are, but you are quacking very loudly. Landon1980 (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RBI. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for arguing in my defense on my talk page. It is all too easy to assume the worst in people. Far too often, Wikipedians assume the defensive mentality of a 14 year old girl on dateline. I feel that was the case in my early, budding career. I sincerely look forward to serving the community alongside you and other contributors in the future. Thank you for admitting your egregious error, and best of luck in avoiding the long dick of the law in your future endeavors. May it never leave the bruise on your face that it has on mine, dear Daedalus. MentalHomeEscapeInTexas (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I never made any error, what are you talking about? Secondly, please delete that obscene word from your post.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ - did you not get Ms. Gale involved? Perhaps that was an assumption of bad faith on my part. If that is the case, I sincerely apologize. This Wikipedia thing is tough! Also, which word did you deem obscene? Were you offended when I called you dear Daedalus? I can get rid of the hanky panky if you want. MentalHomeEscapeInTexas (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Moreevidence.png

Thanks for uploading File:Moreevidence.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar! By the way, the "stalker" that has vandalized your page is a serial vandal (Grawp/JarlaxleArtemis) who has attacked the pages of many contributors. See the diffs at Special:Contributions/AntiAbuseBot for the pages of many other articles/users JA has attacked. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 4	24 January 2009	About the Signpost

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions	Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more	Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 03:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

Speedy deletions

I saw that you noticed your mistake, so it's okay in that case. But for the future: If an admin removes the tag and declines the speedy, you should never restore it (unless you can prove it's copyvio). With The Maw (video game), it was removed by admin Royalbroil (talk · contribs), which constitutes a decline. Please make yourself familiar with WP:CSD where it says that anyone can remove a speedy tag to contest speedy deletion if they are not the author. So please be more careful around those things in future, admins usually don't like to be reverted when they make legitimate decisions, so just be more careful around that so you don't incur the wrath of evil admins ;-) Regards SoWhy 22:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

AFD

Stop. This isn't the way to nominate articles. You nominate them individually unless they're closely related (for example you'd multi-nom television episodes if you wanted to delete articles covering every episode). As far as I can tell there's nothing related amongst all of these other than you believe they don't meet WP:N (which is a discussion that should be had for each individual article, not in a lump nomination as you seem to be doing). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That they're XBLA titles isn't enough to warrant keeping them in one debate/discussion. That thinking would be akin to nominating every episode of The Simpsons along side every episode of Star Trek simply because they're both on television (the medium). I've responded to the notability concern at the AFD discussion, though I still strongly suggest you close this yourself and nominate them separately if you really believe they're not notable. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

My advice would be to not nominate any of them right now and instead tag them with {{notability}} for a month to see if reliable sources are added. If nothing happens, then you could try {{prod}} or go straight to AFD. As to magazine coverage/reviews, while I agree it's probably not hard to imagine these games being covered, it doesn't reduce their notability any. You have to understand that, in the case of XBLA, there are millions of people who download games from their service (and to a lesser extent, PSN). That's a lot of eyeballs, and that leads to a lot of independent coverage. While you may not believe a review (positive or negative) warrants inclusion, it does, in my mind, satisfy WP:N. Age of Booty, for example, has been released on both XBLA and PSN and has a PC release forthcoming. I consider the 3rd party coverage of the title sufficient to warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Locke. Editors are very unlikely to reach any consensus for deleting these. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You might think about ...

You might think about redacting this. You're the nom, this is an open wiki, it's more than ok for any editor to ask you good faith questions in that thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for that! Gwen Gale (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Strange spin off of the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/86.146.241.58

While the obvious socks were blocked, it appears that for in a bizarre twist a user they targeted is being fingered as the sock puppeteer (socks voted to keep while the user in question nominated the article for deletion...). Comments appreciated at User_talk:Terrakyte#Request_for_unblock..--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, but I meant a place were you can discuss a topic (not as a forum) request articles be written on a topic... Like a section on different topics. Mecha13 (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for sockpuppet investigation

How is this G6? It does not need "to be deleted to merge histories, reverse a redirect, or perform other non-controversial technical tasks". — neuro^(talk) 22:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thus, the change back to the norm may confuse. A redirect may be helpful for those looking for where the page they knew to be there has moved. — neuro^(talk) 22:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. Just saying thanks for your messages at User talk:Tarysky. Not that it's anything you'll probably want to waste time on, but a perusal through this user's Talk Page history will reveal some serious problems way before tonight's exchange. Anyway, again, thanks. - eo (talk) 07:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

DY71 recent hand-puppet.

He makes is so obvious - just waited out the autoconfirmed thing then back to his old haunts - Peripitus (Talk) 08:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I would ask that you would understand that my edits were not personal attacks. I was calling the his edits stupid because he removes information that he knows is correct. Also, I don't care who owns my talk page, but I would ask Users like yourself to respect it. If you talk a look at User:Ericorbit's talk page or its history, you will see that he says "stay off my page". You must give him this rule Wikipedia:Ownership of articles instead me. I'm trying to correct someone who is wrong. The last I checked, that wasn't considered a personal attack! Tarysky (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"I am not..."

"I am not a conspiarcy theorist. I am a scientist and freedom fighter." [sic] [4] -- That's one of the most gorgeous quotables I've seen in years. Btw I looked at the ranges -- it's Telstra in Australia, the largest provider there, and while we could take parts of them down briefly, it would be a little like using Tsar Bomba to stop the neighbor's dog from barking. Probably just removing his rants from everywhere except his own talk page would be my suggestion (that's why I haven't blocked his one open IP). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 5	31 January 2009	About the Signpost

Large portion of articles are orphans	News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored
Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on	Dispatches: In the news
WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Fodient

Hello Daedalus. I've updated Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#71.246.98.72 with a suggestion to open a full SPI case. Take a look and see what you think. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Tarysky

Hello Daedalus. Please don't concern yourself with the behavior of this blocked editor. It is traditional to grant some leeway to people who are blocked. If he removes your messages, just ignore it. If the edit summaries are not right, everyone can still see from the history what truly happened. It would be better if you would let it alone for now. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Roberto Reyes Barreiro

While there isn't much on Google pertaining to him, he is a figure both pre- and post- Mexican Revolution. Mexico has gone through quite a bit of trouble to exclude him from their history because of his socialist (i.e., communist) leanings and teachings. He was the leader of an uprising that has merit in today's environment - the Renter's Revolt of Veracruz. Then (as now), the economy of Mexico was getting worse, and people were without jobs -- all at a time when there wasn't unemployment insurance or welfare or any other social subsidy to help the average person.

Reyes Barreiro was a true hero than as he would be now, and an inspiration to those who knew of him. WHile I understand WPs policy toward "people of merit", certainly Reyes Barreiro is a person of merit in that he is inspirational and a figure of leadership in a time of upheaval. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guido.pilot (talk • contribs) 00:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion nomination of Mob Wars

Just a couple of pointers about WP:CSD eligibility and tagging.

• A7 only applies if the article does not assert notability and in the words of the policy "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source". In this instance notability was asserted and more than that was supported by reliable sources.
• Any editor (other than the creator of the article) may remove a speedy deletion tag as Mr Vernon did and the appropriate response to that would have been to WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Just undoing his edit was inappropriate and out of policy.
• The article was ineligible for speedy tagging in the first place as a speedy on the same grounds had already declined a few months ago. Again the appropriate action would have been to PROD of AFD. You should always check the article history before nominating for speedy regardless of its age.

Speedy deletion is both an extremely vital but also potentially extremely damaging element of Wikipedia and any nomination must be carefully considered and researched before placing a tag. If in doubt don't do it. Consider a WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead - unless an article is a copyvio or an attack page having it hang around for another five days is not going to harm anyone and if such caution prevents an editor being disillusioned and leaving the project or if it prevents a valid article being deleted then all the better. Kind regards, Nancy ^talk 09:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 6	8 February 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more	Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs"
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just very Curious

I am reading Carnatic Music Article ever since it was created. I do not think I have seen your participation. (correct me if I am wrong). You have started with a revert. The reason I am asking is many either Socks, Meats or close acquaintances of Ncm have sporadically entered and disappeared from the article just to support his/her POV. Clearing the air will help.76.212.12.238 (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of these claims? Please read WP:DIFF, in order to learn what a diff is, and how they can be used to gather evidence. But then again, I have to ask why an IP with only 3 edits in the mainspace even knows the terms that you use.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI

 Clerk note: You added a quick check request at WP:SPI. Unfortunately, Sockpuppetry allegations must be filed as cases rather than as quick checks, and your request has been closed. Mayalld (talk) 11:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

From the editor — A new leaf

Commons Picture of the Year
Picture of the Year 2008 begins voting

News and notes
Flagged Revisions, historical image discovery, and more

In the news
Political tiff, error repeated in press, predictions of doom

Dispatches
How busy was 2008?

WikiProject report
WikiProject Gaelic games

Discussion report
Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins
Approved this week

Technology report
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Arbitration report
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist.
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Stop acting childish. Those talk page rules ain't bothering you. Tarysky (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I also warned him on his talk page, and he responded by referring to my good faith warnings as "personal attacks." Dayewalker (talk) 05:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

One sees this more and more these days, mild policy warnings from editors answered back with claims of "personal attacks," "abuse," "harassment" and so on. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Feeding trolls

In response to [5]: Wikipedia:Deny_recognition. Your edit was probably not all that helpful... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

i got your comment

dude relax don't call me a snot nosed brat because i made a vandalism that consisted of two letters and which cpould be reverted so easily I Am The Hollaback Boy (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

what are you talking about? how did i betray you from what i remember you never had faith in me in fact you tried to get me reblockedI Am The Hollaback Boy (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

you were never nice to me ever you are partly the reason i turnedI Am The Hollaback Boy (talk) 07:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC) lol calm downI Am The Hollaback Boy (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Edits like this and this are probably a bit much. This is at least the second time you've been warned for incivility or related misconduct recently. You've got to calm down. Chicken Wing (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to review all the material before you go commenting. Back off. You obviously don't like me, in fact, you see me as an idiot, so unless you can learn to stop judging people, I am going to have no further comments with you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've read it all. I'm actually trying to do you a really big favor. I don't need to say anything to the other editor because there is no redeeming content in his/her edits. I'm going to put it to you straight -- people are playing you for a fool right now. I'm just being honest. The longer you engage these vandals, the longer they are going to antagonize you. Do you ever notice that there seems to be more trouble around you than most other editors? It's because you feed the trolls. I'm not trying to get you blocked. I'm not trying to get you upset. I'm trying to make the vandals leave, and I'm trying to keep you from stepping over the line. I really am. You may not like the messenger, but the message itself is something you should take seriously. Chicken Wing (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you care what happens to me.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Despite what you may think, I don't hate you. Again, I'm going to ignore the rules and just be honest with you. I think there is a part of you that wants to fight vandalism, but there is perhaps also a part of you that enjoys the attention from feeding the trolls. I could be wrong; I'm just thinking out loud. I have no desire to see you get blocked, and I have no desire to see you antagonized by vandals more than you can tolerate. Just my opinion, but I think you should step away from policy issues and from fighting vandalism. Find a couple of projects and work on improving articles. Add to the intellectual substance of Wikipedia. When you do stumble into vandals, revert their edits and ignore them. Do not engage them. You don't have to reform them, reason with them, or reveal to them your emotions. I really am trying to do you a favor here. Again, I could be wrong, but I do think I'm saying something to you that perhaps some of your friends on Wikipedia should have said to you earlier or have wanted to say but were unwilling to say it. Chicken Wing (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You're half right. It isn't that I enjoy the attention from them, it's that I enjoy the chase. I like doing research, searching for diffs, and typing out some amount of.. basically a report on what I found. I like figuring out the modus operandi of the current vandal(re: sockpuppet, or such) I'm chasing. To put it simply, I like the detective-like work.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but keep in mind that a real detective would lose his license if, while catching the criminal, he allowed a lot of collateral damage. Track the vandals down and report them, but don't get sucked into their mind games. If you're responding to third parties with mild profanities, or if you're responding to vandals with anything other than templates, then you're probably creating collateral damage. By engaging them, they stick around and cause more trouble for everyone else. Chicken Wing (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the tips.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please note that there is an alert in your name at WP"WQA. Osomething ;-) (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

jeez

hey don't stop believing in the human race because of me i was always a vandal don't take it so personally remember wp civilityI Am The Hollaback Boy (talk) 07:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Help

Don't let 'em get to you, Daedalus. When you've got someone riding you like that who's not supposed to be here, just ignore them. Revert and ignore, and find an admin. There's nothing to be gained from wasting words on someone who's only here to get your goat. They're not worth it. Dayewalker (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Greg L's fanboys

I wouldn't even bother replying to these desperate wikilawyers, if I were you. It's really not worth the effort, and they'll just use it as an extension of the forest fire they've already created out of the date delinking issue. (If you don't know what that is, my advice is don't even ask, for your sanity and stress level's sake.) Cheers, — Hex (❝?!❞) 03:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, quelle surprise to find you here. In need of friends perhaps? Ohconfucius (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Civility alert from users who should have been reported themselves

WP"WQA— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Other users outlook on civility

Daedalus, for what it's worth, I have been on the other side of someone making a comment I thought to be one of the worst insults you could throw. This person actually questioned my sanity, a subject I am very sensitive about. It took a little pushing to get them to realize, you don't get to say how insulted some other person is. Another good example is the recent spat of shoe-throwing, seen by the western world as pretty silly but in the Arab world it is extremely insulting. You don't get to tell Ohconfucius how insulted they should be. They are the ones that govern their feelings. Please understand, I agree with you whole-heartedly that they are on a misinformed vengeance kick, but they are the ones that determine how insulted they should be. You did right earlier by just walking away, and I think you are right this time as well. Padillah (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)