User talk:Daedalus969/Archive 12

• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• Archive 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• 16
• 17
• 20

Am I correct here?

Hi, Daedalus. I don't know if I'm seeing the real picture, but I scrolled through recent changes and found that you probably made a questionable rollback as seen here. Since I don't know the subject, I am asking you to explain the rollback in hopes of confirmation. —Mythdon t/c 22:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi

This is your big chance to explain why you flagged my account as being permanently blocked. Go for it. Spotfixer (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And an FYI that the above user has opened an admin noticeboard thread on you, if you wish to join in there. - TexasAndroid (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Green text

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

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• BTW, the {{xt}} name has an easy-enough mnemonic: it stands for eXample Text (appropriate when working at MOS and MOSNUM). In fact, {{Example text}} also works. Greg L (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting the van--Abce2 (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)dalism on my talk page!

Re: RFC comment on my talk page

Thanks for reminding me on my talk page to place my comment in the correct place. But I guess I'm confused...Though I moved my comment to the discussion page where you suggested, isn't this edit also a "discussion" to be moved to discussion page? Please advise. Thanks. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Pack of cards

I think an Alice in Wonderland logo is what I need after seeing the votestacking weird abuse of WP policies and rules. Thanks for archiving part of it -- recall that Phoenix of9 has two other AN/Is out n me and seems perfectly willing to post another dozen. He has gotten his main wish -- I have asked an admin to be ny proxy in the RfM/Rick Warren for the duration. If you can watch as well, I would be most grateful . {All the other asmins are officially "biassed" in my favor according to Phoenix <g>) Collect (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm

Should the RfC be closed and if so, when? Soxwon (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh crap, forgot to mention I always watch talk pages of convience lol. But uh, who is going to do it then? Soxwon (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll ask the assitance of an univolved admin.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Unforetunately I did, we may have trouble finding one willing to step into this mess. Soxwon (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI Discussion about you

Hello, Daedalus969. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Courtesy_failure_.2F_Reword_Template_.2F_Reword_Header. Exxolon (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Related; I can't block him when he's under scrutiny like this. I'll join in on the discussion if I've got anything to say, though! Thanks for letting me know. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Request

Re your message: I do not follow RFCs very much, so I would prefer not to step in to close any particular RFC because I am not familiar with the particular nuances of RFC closure. RFCs are just not a part of Wikipedia that I have gotten involved with. I am sure that somebody who participates in RFCs will close it as they deem necessary. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

• Book reviews: Reviews of The Wikipedia Revolution
• Wikipedia by numbers: Wikipedia's coverage and conflicts quantified
• News and notes: New program officer, survey results, and more
• Dispatches: Valued pictures
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Film
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

DID we NOT comeTO consensus?

regarding which information goes on the RFC and which goes on the discussion page? From your first section on my talk page to your last, to the "PROPOSAL" section on the RFC discussion page, I believed this was agreed upon. Perhaps you could verify that before I need to provide diffs of it. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What's the title of this section again?

Proposed Solutions? 207.237.33.36 (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That's funny, it looks a lot more like indef block to me. You should have your eyes checked, also, I replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

EXACTLY. Section: "Proposed Solutions", SUBsection: "Indef Ban". Reading is Fundamental. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Insulting my intelligence will get you nowhere. I was referring to the section that was titled indef block, and there is way you can argue against what I was referring to, so your argument is completely moot.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I was the first to refer to the title of the section : here. And my point remains: the section is titled "Proposed Solutions": an indef ban is a proposed solution. Might not be a good one or one that can be instituted immediately without further collection of info at the RFC...then again, it might be. I think you need a break. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

C'mon guys

I suggest we all just go to bed (or, depending on where you are, go do something else until the rest of us wake up) and stop all of this for now. I think a little time to think would do us all gooo. Soxwon (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

*sigh*

Now that that's over, shall we tally up the damage report?

We've got my AN/I for the RfC being in bad faith.

We've got Ikip accusing me of bad faith for my AN/I.

We've got general flaming, trolling, and chaos at the RfC.

We've got you and the Anon going at it.

And finally we've got a bunch of admins watching it all in disgust.

Anything else I'm missing? I'm not sure if the RfC can't yet get back on track, but it's going to take a huge effort. Don't know why I'm so philosphical all of a sudden, but there were several points that I knew, and wished I remembered: you don't get points for the last word, if you have legitimate reasoning behind your argment, those that matter won't need you to refute every argument made, and that sometime's it's just better to wait :(Soxwon (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the request for help in how RFC's are SUPPOSED to work

and

the request for Admin enforcement 207.237.33.36 (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Request Raised via email

I'm sure you're a decent guy really; but I will not be bullied on this just because I am new here. I welcome the intervention of any higher authority here as I've no idea how you reach it. As this is going nowhere I respectfully ask that you cease and desist restoring the edit pending arbitration. This is "safe" position regarding a policy dispute of this nature. Amicaveritas (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've made a complaint regarding your rude, agressive and threatening behaviour. The fact that you've been here longer should improve your behaviour not worsen it. Amicaveritas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC).

(edit conflict) Daedalus, as much as I respect your persistence in the matters in which you're involved, I fear that your actions here are tantamount to throwing gasoline on an open fire. While I understand the importance of Wikipedia policies and processes in any dispute, Amicaveritas has a genuine and valid concern about a biography of a living person, and sticking him over technical infractions does not address that concern. I've asked him politely to cease edit warring, even though he appears to have found a loophole in the edit warring policy, as a show of good faith that he wants to resolve this amicably and civilly. Beyond that, I don't know what we can do apart from requesting temporary protection. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur)

Re Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur), I can't see you excuse for breaking 3RR. Can you supply one, please William M. Connolley (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is clear precedent (links are included for the benefit of any editor who might not be familiar with the policies in question):

[WP:3RR] "Exceptions

Since the rule is intended to prevent edit warring, reverts which are clearly not edit warring will not breach the rule. Since edit warring is considered harmful, exceptions to the rule will be construed narrowly.

Since reverting in this context means undoing the actions of another editor or editors, reverting your own actions ("self-reverting") will not breach the rule.

The following actions are exceptions to the three-revert rule, and do not count as reverts under the rule's definition. Since edit warring is harmful, these exceptions define narrow situations.

• Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
• Reverting obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding cruel or offensive language. Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt. Administrators should block persistent vandals and protect pages subject to vandalism from many users, rather than repeatedly reverting. However, non-administrators may have to revert vandalism repeatedly before administrators can respond.
• Reverting actions performed by banned users.
• Reverting the addition of copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy.
• Reverting the addition of links to content that is clearly illegal, such as child pornography and pirated software.
• Reverting the addition of libellous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
• Reverting edits to your own user space, provided that doing so does not restore copyright or non-free content criteria violations, libellous material or biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons.

However, even such actions may be controversial or considered edit warring. When in doubt, do not revert; instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask for administrative assistance."

>> I have raised this under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard as well, raised a request for editorial assistance, raised a request for Cabal Mediation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-04/Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard and raised an oversight request.

I also cite WP:GRAPEVINE

"The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory information about living persons should bring the matter to the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard for resolution by an administrator.

Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel."

Please also note:

The dispute pertains to a Biography of a Living Person. I am an editor who has legitimate concerns about a biography of a living person, and Jimbo Wales' comments about such cases would appear to apply.

I believe that there is a duty of care here that is not being applied. This is (by my understanding) a pernicious and ubiquitous problem with Biography of a Living Persons in general and in no way restricted to this one profile.

Amicaveritas (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

edit warring

Daedalus969 you were not reverting vandalism at Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur) and have broken WP:3rr. Although your good faith is widely understood here, this has only stirred things up further. One must tread very warily when any BLP worry is brought forth. Please don't ever do anything like this again. If you do, I or someone else will have to block you for edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Re my old signature

Hi Daedalus. I made a generalized response to your message on my discussion page. I hope you find that my current signature is better. PYRRHON  talk   23:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration

Your edits are not exempt from the three revert rule and fall within the category of a content dispute. Please stop reverting. --auburnpilot talk 23:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? Stop before you dig yourself deeper. Discuss. --auburnpilot talk 23:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing on "Economic Policy of George Bush" today -- April 21, 2009

Hello,

I see you were engaged in a discussion of an edit on the page found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration

Specifically, the editing user wished to remove a section about the regulatory practices of the Bush administration.

This user came to wikipedia to specifically remove that passage after I had been arguing with him on a message board about the regulatory practices of the Bush administration. He maintained the Bush administration was deregulatory, and I pointed out to him that they had, in fact, created MORE regulations.

When I cited wikipedia, the user came to the article and deleted the entry that I had cited on this page.

As you can see, his desire to remove the content is what is biased, because he only seeks to avoid losing an argument and he has presented no grounds to question the validity of the numbers presented in the content. His accusations that because the source is "libertarian" is as valid as removing content because the person who wrote it is a Democrat or Republican. Obviously his behavior constitutes political censorship and should not be tolerated.

I am willing to provide any help I can to have this section restored.

Please contact me at mschmidt64@ gmail.com because I am not entirely familiar with the format of wikipedia. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mschmidt64 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Simple Suggestion

Hey Daedalus, just saw your edits over at the recently-blocked IP's page. I know he's been a particularly annoying thorn in your paw for quite a while, and he's buring off anger at a well-deserved block for harassment, frivolous reports, and just generally being disruptive. It's probably better if you don't even respond on his page. He's made his bed, and no admin worth the mop is going to listen to his epic-length tale of how he was done wrong and unblock without seking the other side. You might want to just ignore him. He's blocked, you're right, there's no point in taking the fight to the page of a blocked editor who's already discredited themselves. All that does is give him a chance to insult you further, which helps no one. Just a little friendly advice, amigo. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Daedalus969 I appreciate your last entry on my talk page. I understand where you are coming from and why you pursued the action you did. I do believe in all cases (who ever the editor may be) we all have a duty of care to consider rationale and supporting arguments before taking any actions, supporting or otherwise. I also believe I started going about this completely the wrong way (due to ignorance of correct process)and got some editor's backs up - for which I apologise, it was not my intention. Forearmed with the appropriate knowledge now - it will not happen again. Amicaveritas (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Email

Is it ok if I send you one? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

YouTube

Am I understanding that you received a comment on YouTube harrassing you about Wikipedia? If I'm reading that right, I've been in the same situation before. Hope somebody wises up and works this out. Grsz¹¹ 21:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Not cool. I've been harrassed on both sites because of the other site. I had no clue who sent the YouTube comment though. Grsz¹¹ 21:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's frustrating and kinda creepy, but when the names are the same there's really nothing anybody here can do. Grsz¹¹ 21:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Free speech

Hey, as long as Wikipedia does not accept vast amounts of funding from the public trough, then I suppose you are correct. However, many private Universities and other sources support and enforce the 1st Amendment under the penumbra of government protections and rights. If anything, Wikipedia should err on the side of providing too much protection under free speech guidelines as set out clearly in our Constitution. (Peterbadgely (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgely

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, you warning is ridiculous

Just so I'm clear, "reverting vandalism" in the comment section, which is seen here

"(cur) (prev) 05:34, 24 April 2009 Eugene Krabs (talk | contribs) m (4,987 bytes) (Final warning: Vandalism. (TW)) (undo)

is NOT a personal attack, but my use of the same word, "vandal" in response to someone who was editing my talk page inappropriately, and reverting things that I am correct to remove, IS a personal attack?

No, guy, that;s bullshit and, as soon as you read this post you'll realize it. I'm removing your asinine "warning" and will wait for your apology, which is the ONLY thing form you I'll allow on my talk page.

OR, I'll allow it ALL to stay when you warn the THREE people who wrongly called ME a vandal tonight.

You decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blappo (talk • contribs) 06:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You STILL haven't answered my criticism of your incorrect point

You accuse me of a persona attack for something that is put in the comment history every day. You TOTALLY fail to explain why your condescending tone is a substitute for a response. You were proven wrong and try to silence me by conjuring up "personal attack" garbage from thin air.

Answer the question or admit you can't, this isn't going away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blappo (talk • contribs) 06:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. You do not have the right to attack anyone back, no matter the circumstances.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

He's been blocked a week, finally. Dayewalker (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Troy Davis edits

I'm sorry for the edits that I made on Troy Davis case. I read through several of the sources to quickly and misunderstood them. I hope you realize my edits were still in good faith. However, I'm still trying to think of a way to make the Davis article less one-sided. Despite the fact I do think Davis should get a new trial, right now the court is going to the Supreme Court, and, until decided, we should respect their authority and article should not be biased either way. On that note, would it be okay to cite additional parts of the majority 11th Appeals Court descision to begin balancing out the article. JakeH07 (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

• Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
• News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
• WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

why?

why did you revert my edit on the MMA page? I was removing bad formatting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.65.243.150 (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

are you joking? because of crappy formatting the text was in a box. learn what happens when you leave spaces. 116.65.243.150 (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry

but do you mind if I ask you to not follow me. there are so many articles on wikipedia, there was no need for you to follow me to the "head shot" article.

116.65.243.150 (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

A quick reminder to please don't bite the newbies. While this anon did delete a lot of info from the head shot page, what they replaced it with was not vandalism per se, but a stub of a possible legitimate article on a different thing also called a "head shot". Furthermore, the formatting at mixed martial arts was already screwed up by leading spaces (which force a paragraph into preformatted mode, meaning fixed width font and no automatic line wrapping, all inside an ugly box), and the anon was only trying to make a minor change to fix it. A quick look at the anon's contribution history does not show a pattern of vandalism, only small attempts to fix grammar, etc. As such, a welcome and some gentle pointers to relevant WP policies make for a better response than a pointed exchange. John Darrow (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't want this to turn into a problem between us but I do have to point out a couple of things.

The first edit of mine that you changed was (as pointed out above by someone else) me removing a formatting error - bullet points are great, but what I removed were not bullets - it was obviously me trying to improve the article, yet you accused me of vandalism.

The second edit of mine that you changed was me trying to change an article in what I considered to be the best way, it was not me adding obscene language or disruptive text, it was me replacing one use of a term with another use of a term.

I just checked wikipedia rules on what vandalism and it says "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles." it also has a link to another article called "not every IP is a vandal" which deals with overeager editors who remove edits made by anonymous IPs without due care and consideration. Here is a link to it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Not_every_IP_is_a_vandal.

But, it's OK - I am aware that many many people do vandalize wikipedia and that many of those people might be using an anonymous IP, so I can understand why you acted in the way that you did.

Lets try to get on a little better and see if we can have some fun with wikipedia, rather than arguing with eachother. Im going to make a new article, as my edits to the headshot article caused some problems, Im going to make an article specifically for the use of headshot in gaming and firearms. 116.65.243.150 (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing that crap from my page. That was just my friend being stupid.

--Wyatt915✍ 23:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

its not vandalism you idiot its an reliable source —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noi98 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes im removing it and updating so its not vandalism think about it—Preceding unsigned comment added by Noi98 (talk • contribs)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Synergy's closure of the Checkuser

Since Synergy has remained unresponsive, should we just start an AN discussion asking for a re-opening of the DougsTech checkuser case? —Mythdon t/c 04:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mibbit AfD

I've completely rewritten the Mibbit article so you may wish to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mibbit. The AfD nominator has also since been blocked. [1] Tothwolf (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI

 Clerk note: I notice that when filing an SPI case, you regularly ask for CheckUser. Could I remind you that CheckUser is only for the most serious cases of sockpuppetry, and you should not ask for it by default on all cases. Clerks are NOT going to allow the checkuser guidelines to be stretched to breaking point by endorsing cases that have the most tenuous claim to meeting CU policy, and if you get a reputation for asking for CU every time, "because it might just get endorsed" it becomes more likely that cases that you file where it is a close decision on CU will be declined. If you gain a reputation for asking for CU only where it is clearly warranted, clerks are likely to place much greater weight on the fact that you decided to ask for CU in marginal cases. Mayalld (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

next step

since you point out that RfCs are completely voluntary i would like to know what the next step is that isnt voluntary. i dont get much into admin type stuff- i prefer to just make edits, but i feel something must be done in this case. so, arbcom? ani? whats the appropriate next step to get something done since collect refuses to voluntarily make changes? thanks Brendan19 (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You are a vandal fighter extraordinaire

Someone suggested I file a suspected sock puppet report after my user pages were vandalized. When I went to do one I saw you beat me to it. Very impressive. Thanks for your good efforts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

accusation

207.237.230.18 on User talk:The Four Deuces accuses me of being you. He states you blocked him, though I do not know what name he used for the block. Collect (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sweetie darlings, you will NEVER outrun me. I have already placed a cancellation order with my IP provider to change to one which is much more subversive. And, as you will learn, there are ALWAYS going to be people on the internet who disagree with you...and there will ALWAYS be more IP #'s than you could possibly chase down in your desperate little lives. Learn from it.

You might also want to be careful that an RFC is being researched on your activity...such as your incessant reverts of fair edits and your continued "bullying" use of Wiki. Smile! You're a douche! 207.237.230.144 (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

(OD)Heh. Some random person making fun of a wikipedia editor's "desperate little" life, when that person's actually going to the trouble of contacting their IP provider just to be more able to come here and harrass other random strangers on the internet. The irony is crushing. Dayewalker (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I now remember the 33 one. Since it seems he found a way to escape his home /24, I'd need a bigger sample to see if we can do small rangeblocks (I blocked the new /24 to see how it goes), I'd prefer not blocking the /16. -- Luk ^talk 14:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

• News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
• Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Pmlinediter  ^Talk 08:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

A thank-you

• Thanks my friend. You helped me understand many things.75.21.98.62 (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• I came back again because this is really weird... am I not user 75.21.116.175??75.21.98.62 (talk) 09:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm only here one more time because it seems I am more than one IP as well, even though I'm poor, alone and have but one PC. Sorry, if you can tell me why this is, that I have 2 IP's, well, there could be $10,000 in it for you :075.21.98.62 (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheeseburger corroboration

O'Dell's menu, from Los Angeles Public Library menu collection:

Menu date (1928), per LAPL:

http://dbase1.lapl.org/dbtw-wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll?AC=GET_RECORD&XC=http://dbase1.lapl.org/dbtw-wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll&BU=http%3A%2F%2Fdbase1.lapl.org&TN=menus&SN=AUTO3108&SE=1085&RN=0&MR=20&RF=web+tab+report+maya&DF=web+report+maya&RL=0&DL=0&NP=3&ID=&MF=&MQ=&TI=0

Cheeseburger entry:

http://dbase1.lapl.org/images/menus/fullsize/a/Odells_inside.jpg

Sysilverstein (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC) (sysilverstein)

END

More re cheeseburger

Cannot understand why "Metropolitan News-Enterprise" is not a "reliable" source here, but IS for precisely the same entry (cheeseburger), note 2--item written by the same person ("Roger M. Grace") less than a week earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sysilverstein (talk • contribs) 22:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

• From the editor: Writers needed
• Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
• Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
• News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello

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

Não faz mal (not to worry)

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

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

Re: Your AIV report on Tiaizzylinda

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

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

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

E-Mail

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

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

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

Checkuser

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

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

Liebman

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

Restore request

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

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

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

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

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

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

65.189.154.72

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

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

Suspicious sock puppet involving Caden

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

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

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

User:Uikopdep

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

Thanks, but quite antagonistic

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

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

Re:PCH

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

Personal attack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am so sorry

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

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