User talk:Daedalus969/Archive 16

• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• Archive 16
• 17
• 18
• 19
• 20
• 21

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

• Article contest: Durova wins 2009 WikiCup

• Conference report: WikiSym features research on Wikipedia

• Election report: 2009 ArbCom elections report

• Audit Subcommittee: Inaugural Audit Subcommittee elections underway

• Dispatches: Wikipedia remembers the Wall

• News and notes: Strategic planning, November conference, brief news and milestones

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• WikiProject report: Project banner meta-templates

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello, I am Vidak2. We had an interesting exchange via e-mail recently.

I am responsible for getting the Günter Dörner article deleted. What do you think of that? Vidak2 (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to respond here. Hi, no we didn't. I have no idea who you are and I could care less if you got an article deleted.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we really? I could have sworn. I am glad that it is OK to get articles deleted. Vidak2 (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The above user is a sockpuppet of a banned user. For more information, see their talk page for a link to the SPI, which I filed, which came back, per checkuser, as confirmed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

• Fundraiser: Controversial "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser to start 10 November

• New pages experiment: Wikipedians test the water at new page patrol

• German controversy: German Wikipedia under fire from inclusionists

• Multimedia usability: Multimedia usability meeting concludes in Paris

• Election report: Arbitration Committee candidate nominations open 10 November

• Book review: Review of Connected Minds, Emerging Cultures: Cybercultures in Online Learning

• News and notes: Ant images, public outreach, and more

• In the news: Beefeater vandalism, interview, and more

• Sister projects: Meta-wiki interview

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked... whoops

So while trying to hit Franklinbe with a block, I accidentally clicked YOUR contribs and not his. That's what I get for blocking at 4am. Sorry! :( I undid it seconds later. --Golbez (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

• Fundraiser: "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser begins

• Bulgarian award: Bulgarian Wikipedia gets a prestigious award

• Election report: Arbitration Committee Election: Several candidates standing

• News and notes: Kiswahili contest, new advisory board members, Foundation-l and more

• In the news: German lawsuit, Jimbo interview and more

• Sister projects: Wiktionary interview

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Country initials at Magical Mystery Tour

"First mention" does not include infoboxes; infoboxes are meant to be brief and uncluttered. Please just leave the countries' initials there. Radiopathy •talk• 03:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Disengage

Radiopathy, Daedalus969, if either of you address or reference each other on Gwen gale's page, on my talk page, or elsewhere anytime during the next 24 hours, I will be blocking the account for 1 day. Disengage and stop the bickering/baiting now. Abecedare (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thomas McElwain

I tend to be sympathetic when somebody plausibly claiming to be a biographee wants his page deleted, and I realize that the Thomas McElwain article has been the butt of stupidity. However, I'm certain that "speedying" Thomas McElwain would just lead to more trouble sooner or later. You may wish to send the page to AfD. See my comments on its talk page, too.

Probably no need for a personal reply, but if you'd like to make one then please do so here rather than my talk page, which is already quite full enough with Brazilian matters. -- Hoary (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

• Uploading tool: New tool for photo scavenger hunts

• Election report: Arbitration Committee Election: Nominations closing November 24

• Fundraiser: "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser continues

• News and notes: Government stubs, Suriname exhibit, milestones and more

• In the news: The Decline of Wikipedia, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Kosvinsky Mountain

How on Earth it may be speedy a well- referenced from multiple reliable sources article? On what evidence you can claim that it is a repost? - Altenmann >t 01:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

FUI, Despite your (IMHO) misjudged nominations I respect your opinions about content of wikipedia. - Altenmann >t 16:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

Was I a bit quick on adding Sean Hannity to the WP:RFPP? After he threatened to edit war I felt it was a good step... Soxwon (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not one to get people blocked, I would rather include him in the process and thus the PP would keep him from violating 3RR. Soxwon (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No violation on Hannity.

Dear Sir:

I've made no violation on Sean Hannity. I've not violated 3RR or anything else; I won't be reverting anymore until at least this time tomorrow such that 3RR is satisfied. Is the alleged violation "not agreeing with some other people, mainly people who watch the Hannity page because they love Hannity and don't want to see anything less-than-awesome about him on it"? Because Hannity's page is seriously sanitized.

Please don't edit war me to get your way; your side has also been reverted by several editors, but I didn't come in blazing to everyone's talk page making threats. There is no consensus on the talk page per WP's definition of consensus as something significantly more than a majority vote.

Thanks for your threat and further convincing me that WP is an utter waste of time, best left to self-proclaimed "Aspies" and other obsessive, stubborn, unteachable persons. I hope it goes down in fiery flames and is replaced by something actually worthwhile. Civility rules don't cover up the latent resentment any frequent editor has for passer-bys, or the obvious uselessness of the passerby's effort, because he is obviously not going to sit on the article and make sure that his edits are never reverted.

Good day, and don't make me report you for a violation. GRAAAR!!! cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 22:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism? On My User Page?

Apparently it's more common than I would think. Thanks for teh reversion. :) Crafty (talk) 08:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

• Election report: ArbCom election begins December 1, using SecurePoll

• News and notes: 35k donated, WikiProject for Wikipedia-Books, 2M rated articles, and more

• In the news: Reports of Wikipedia's demise, prescriptions for its ills, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Idiot

Ok, I'll not do it again. --MisterWiki talk ^{(SIGN/REVIEW)} 15:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you protect my signature?, I think I will not change it again. I'm having troubles moving it to my preferences :(. --MisterWiki talk contribs 20:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it says Invalid raw signature. Check HTML tags. --MisterWiki talk contribs 20:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Screenshot.

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

AN/I

Hi, regarding your recent AN/I, is that not something that should be sent straight to WP:OVERSIGHT rather than advertised on a public board? Regards, raseaC^{talk to me} 23:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it could be considered serious. I'm not passing the buck, just figured I'd mention it to you rather than go to OS without consulting. raseaC^{talk to me} 23:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

i dont understand

why is there talk about me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collinelder (talk • contribs) 23:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I was expecting this...

...although I still think it's unfair to see another P&TF fansite listed, and accepted. I never liked Wikipedia for this, people make great efforts in their sites and they're never listed as references just because there's not a company behind it. Oh, well. I can understand because we just started this one, so it may still lack content, but... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.164.92.141 (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware there was another fansite, I shall delete it immediately.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Advertising?

And yet, Wikipedia IS advertising the IMDB, the NYT etc...No, big companies shouldn't have priority, sorry. But yes, the rules are the rules...Is there any way to complain over this? Any page on Wikipedia to fill out complaints? I'm sure we're not the only one in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.164.92.141 (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:BlackKite'sPageErrors.JPG

A tag has been placed on File:BlackKite'sPageErrors.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip [i.e. a Word document or PDF file] that has no encyclopedic use.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

• From the editors: 250th issue of the Signpost

• Editorial: A digital restoration

• Election report: ArbCom election in full swing

• Interview: Interview with David G. Post

• News and notes: Wikipedia's death report premature, fundraiser, usability, new CSD, noms, and more

• In the news: Ron Livingston sues vandal, disclosure of IP address ordered, brief headlines

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Baffled

Why on earth did you make this report at AVI? At the time of the report, they'd only made one edit, had recieved one warning for it, and that's it. Is there something else, sock concerns etc, that you need to me to look into? GedUK  13:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: Taking things personally

OK, this is the last I will say on this topic, cause it is boring the hell outta me and we both have better things to do than getting in a pissing match.

Please don't say something is "my article"...I don't WP:OWN articles, I just create them. Even if it is a small stub like WBQK or a "Start" article like WINC-FM, I take great pride in my work and enjoy what I do.

I wasn't discussing religion with you, it is a figure of speech. "Running all over God's creation" is the same as saying "Running all over town". No religious involvment, just a little southern twang added.

To be big point of your post...my rudeness. I do believe we both were being rude and snapping at each other. I don't think either of us were being particularly nice to one another and we were both being pretty territorial. I personally don't think bringing up two uninvolved blocks was necessary, whatever...but we were both being rude and snapping back. I think we both owe each other an apology. Let me start...I'm sorry. Should have said it last night, but normally I get stuck in my headstrong ways I won't back down from something. Normally it takes sleep to give fresh eyes.

I do believe you could have made three bad mistakes, but it still worries me. You are a good editor, whether you like me anymore or not, you are. It would worry me if any good editor started goofing up. What I should have done is asked if you needed someone to talk to, not crawl in your ass (another figure of speech, kinda like saying jumping down your throat) for something that was taking care of quite quickly.

I have been on a Wikibreak for the past couple months. It has served me well. A few editors emailed me and asked me to come back, at their asking, and a couple people on my talk page, I did. I am still in semi-retirement cause I am not ready to be fully back, maybe one day. So I have been on a personally mandated Wikibreak. It does give fresh eyes.

But whether you don't like me anymore, that is no sweat of my back. If ya do, ya do, if ya don't, ya don't...it doesn't bother me. Hell, if me and a good friend did that everytime we disagreed or got snippy, we wouldn't be Facebook buddies. But if you never like me again, it really doesn't bother me, just don't let it consume you. Another user and I used to HATE each other and now we have a working relationship, wouldn't call it a friendship, but we can talk without pouncing on each other immediately.

Hopefully this explains somethings...need something spoken upon a little better, I will make an attempt to, but in less words....these long posts are hard to type and even harder to read. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries are not discussion

Rather than these snippy edit summaries, you could have taken this to talk yourself. Without a test case, exactly how are people supposed to surmise what you mean by "it mixes with text"? Edit summaries are not discussion pages: they are easily missed and impossible to properly reply to. If you want to put something on talk explaining exactly what's broken I'll be happy to help, but the world did not seem to explode last month when the template was edited. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't bite

I'm stunned at your attempt to CSD the Drolz comment page. No names are mentioned. In your original MfD, it is clear you misunderstood the page. It wasn't a collection of statements by Drolz, it was a collection of statements hurled at Drolz. I don't think the vitriol has reached the level that pages need deletion, but if anyone should be admonished it is the person making the statements, not the target. Drolz is still a relative newcomer, and the MfD and CSD look like classic examples of WP:BITE. Has anyone (other than myself) tried to help Drolz understand what should and should not be on a user page? Looks to me like some don't like his POV about GW issues, so are trying to make his life miserable. I hope I'm wring, but I don't know how one could reach a different conclusion.--SPhilbrickT 22:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your comment on Sphilbrick's talkpage, Dae. "How would you like it, if I took several things you said, out of context, posted them to my userpage, and said they were amusing? How would you like it, if, after you requested I remove said quotes, I denied your request, several times." This seems to be the real crux of the issue: that is, Viriditas doesn't like what I am doing. Just like he didn't like that I initially quoted him in the Climategate discussion and showed that his comments were incompatible with his adamant opposition to splitting the page. I don't like that he aggressively threatened me with blocking any time I tried to make improvements to that page (Which is a disaster, currently, but one that Viri and the three or four other editors who own the page like). I also don't like that a page about a developing issue has been locked, which seems totally absurd to me. Why is it that things Viriditas doesn't like translate into administrative action against me? Why should I just do whatever this user tells me to? Drolz⁰⁹ 02:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a list of misdeeds, or deeds at all for that matter. It would have to include contextual descriptions of the action along with an explanation of why they constituted wrongdoing. Nothing like that is on the page. Drolz⁰⁹ 03:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but an unattributed quotation is not a perceived flaw. A flaw is some sort of defect or shortcoming. For one thing, it would have to be a flaw in something, and that page doesn't list any such subject. Lacking this, for those to be recorded "perceived flaws," it would at least have to be a flaw relative to something, like a deviation from the norm. But no such norm or "bar" is given for comparison. I just don't see any way in which that page fits the prohibited description. Drolz⁰⁹ 04:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas

Viriditas has now increased his harassment and is repeatedly moving and deleting my (not at all PA, etc.) posts on another user's talkpage. Drolz⁰⁹ 06:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary. Drolz is wikihounding me on talk pages that have nothing to do with him and on discussions that do not concern him. I've asked him to stop, and he refuses. Viriditas (talk) 06:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

• Election report: Voting closes in the Arbitration Committee Elections

• News and notes: Mapping geotagged articles language, import sources enabled, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A question about material allowed on userpages

here you said, "The userpage, or userspace, is not to be used to house a list of misdeeds of another user, unless it is going to be used in dispute resolution, such as RfC."

An aside, before I ask my question, I tried to provide dispute resolution in that incident, but my involvement was based upon my assumption that Drolz was concerned about being blocked, and wanted to assemble evidence should that occur. Turns out my fears were right, he was blocked, but he wasn't amassing Vir quotes for that reason, so I dropped out of the discussion.

I can understand why WP would want to discourage collections of misdeeds, but I can also understand why prohibiting it might equally be a problem. I haven't reached my own conclusions on what the policy should be.

Back to my question (after pointing out that I am familiar with WP:OSE)—do you think this page is compliant with or a violation of the policy statement you made?

I'm not about to waste my time proposing it for MfD, but I am interested in whether you can distinguish that page from the page of Drolz, which you felt should be deleted.--SPhilbrickT 15:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I appreciate it.--SPhilbrickT 14:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership. The category is similar to Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship which you recently commented on. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

• Election report: ArbCom election result announced

• News and notes: Fundraiser update, milestones and more

• In the news: Accusation of bias, misreported death, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tahir Abbas

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Tahir Abbas. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tahir Abbas (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

• News and notes: Flagged revisions petitions, image donations, brief news

• In the news: Criticism from climate change sceptic, decade in review

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wallflowers98 socks

This list is huge, given J.Delanoy is a checkuser after all. Momo san ^Gespräch 01:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What?

Dude, what are you talking about?Malke2010 00:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Take a deep breath, Daed. I'd encourage you think before posting further on this. Saying things like "you don't know shit" and this. No matter your intent, WP:NOTTHEM and WP:NPA apply. Drop the stick. Okay? tedder (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 55 hours for continued incivility, read WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTTHEM very carefully.. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. tedder (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you please explain how that is incivil? WP:NOTTHEM is irrelevant, as the user gravly personally attacked me, and did not think they did anything wrong. They obviously needed to be told such.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

{{help}}

Please explain how the cited edit in the block message above is incivil.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree, that's not an example of an uncivil comment...perhaps not following directions or not backing off when asked, but not civility. Soxwon (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Soxwon (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I would go ahead and request unblock...that's nowhere near uncivil. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 06:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right. That comment isn't uncivil. Not dropping the dispute after too many warnings and too many talkpages and too many intimidations, is why it crosses the line. Comments like "they attacked me... they need to be told" is where WP:NOTTHEM applies. tedder (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Daedalus969 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

the cited post is not incivil. I simply asked Tedder to warn the user against calling others insane, as the user did to myself here. Per the user's post here, they obviously still think they are in the right, in that they think that Tedder is my friend, and therefore they aren't blocking me. All I asked is for Tedder to warn the user against such insults about the mental state of an editor, how is that incivil?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per long, multi-admin discussion in the #wikipedia-en-unblock channel. A log of that discussion is available if requested. Prodego ^talk 08:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Secondly, as an aside, I would like note that the user is composing a list of perceived flaws against policy, found in this section. I realize that most of the diffs are not about and that some reference himself, but per policy, he is not allowed to keep lists of edits by others unless they are planning an rfc or any kind of dispute resolution, and they obviously aren't per the images and captions given to each diff. Here are some diffs of the user composing such a list.

As to what you say Tedder, about not dropping the conversation, I fail to see how the other user remains unblocked then, as they cited their idea that you're my friend as reason for not blocking me. That doesn't sound like dropping it to me, that sounds like announcing they are in the right and did nothing wrong, and that you are at fault for (in their opinion) not blocking me for being my friend or some-such.— Dædαlus ^Contribs

Daedalus969, after reading through some of the threads I did see repeated requests asking both involved parties to disengage. I'd like to see you unblocked and I think tedder would be inclined to do so if you indicated a willingless to acknowledge a role in feeding the conflict and refusing to part ways when asked to do. I know it's not nice to have others make rude comments about you, and some of them were definitely unacceptable, but your pursuit of the conflict did not appear to be helpful and you did make some aggressive statements of your own. Anyway, that's my take. I'd support an unblock regardless. I think people get frustrated sometimes and I don't know that blocking helps resolve the disputes. But I can understand why tedder didn't see another way to deal with the ongoing feuding. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You told the other user to drop it, but they obviously aren't by continuing to construct a list of perceived faults on their talk page, with the obvious intention of making fun of me. Here's another one. You can't seriously let them continue to do this..— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's in her userspace. Bookmarking would be better but.. this is why you were blocked- for not dropping it. tedder (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

They aren't dropping it either, yet they remain unblocked. Secondly, it doesn't matter if it is in their userspace, in fact, it is a strictly prohibited use of the userspace, per WP:UP#NOT: Users are not allowed to construct lists of perceived flaws unless the lists are for a pending act of dispute resolution. They obviously aren't, and only serve to record what they perceive to be flaws.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you looking to get unblocked, or get the others blocked? You will have to stop the latter, I believe, before people will consider the former. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 06:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Note UP#NOT gives an exemption "for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process". WP:AGF. Again, WP:NOTTHEM: "Do not attack or accuse other editors, such as those you may have been in a conflict with... The only thing that needs to be addressed is why you did not in fact disrupt Wikipedia or why you will no longer do so. Do not excuse what you did with what others did." tedder (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the user is not doing so for any rfc. They want nothing more to do with me, they simply wish to point and laugh at my edits, edits which, mind you, aren't damning, but they're putting them next to a picture of an mushroom cloud. I do not see how that is in any way helpful to anything, certainly not building a case, especially since the edits cited are not damning, so there is no way you can say they are using it for anything but laughing at me. Second of all, you again cite WP:NOTTHEM, however, you specifically note the words: Do not attack or accuse other editors... I have not once attacked this editor, and I have not once accused them of anything after they started insulting me besides what they have already done: insult me. Not once have I excused what they did with what I did. I never said anything akin to those words. What I did do is ask you to warn a user who asserted they were right for calling me insane. Why is that so much to ask? They didn't drop it either, telling you that the reason you didn't block me is that (in their opinion) I was your friend. You block me for not dropping it, but you let that edit go? Why on earth would you do that?

As to not disrupting wikipedia: This did not spill over into any articles or article talk pages, the single ANI report that was filed was closed soon after. Coldplay Expert was not working on anything at the time of the argument, and Mal wasn't even involved until she decided to insult me behind my back. Do tell how that is disrupting anything, when nothing was happening to begin with before this happened.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I just see diffs. People put them in their userspace for various reasons. I'm willing to take it to MfD for you if you want, but I don't see a basis on which it would be deleted and it seems like it will just exacerbate the dispute and bring more attention to it. Why not just ignore it? Seriously, don't encourage them by being bothered by what they're up to Daed. It seems like you're taking things too personally. I'm sorry to see you frustrated. Just acknowledge the need to disengage so you can be unblocked. I also encourage you to take a break so you can get over your anger and frustration. These things happen. Things get frustrating here (and elsewhere), people can be jerks. But working on something else or on other Wikipedia projects is a get way to get away from it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As an unblock reviewer who holds the very strong view that incivility is blockable disruption, I see none here and support an unblock. WP:NOTTHEM (which I originally wrote, by the way) is part of WP:GAB, which is intended as nonbinding guidance how to write a successful unblock request and not as general conduct policy. I have asked for wider discussion at WP:ANI#Unblock request of Daedalus969.  Sandstein  06:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Break

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Daedalus969 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Whether the block was justified or no, I admit I was wrong for not assuming good faith in the very beginning. I still think the block was bad per the reasons tedder gave, and the circumstances that created those reasons. That aside, I will promise to try and have a fountain of good-faith, unlike the debacle that was caused by me, and, given that blocks are not issued as punishment, I fail to see what other purpose this block has, as after Tedder warned me to stay off of his talk page, I did, and had not commented on it for awhile. I will continue to not comment on it, and I will stay away from this user, and other involved users, such as Jade and Coldplay, except if we come into discussion on an article talk page or somewhere similar. To my point, this block isn't preventing anything anymore.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unblock request does not address or acknowledge reason for the block. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Daedalus, you weren't blocked owing to any worries about a lack of good faith. You were blocked because it's not civil to keep badgering someone on their talk page over what you think has been a slight towards yourself. Now, you haven't been unblocked, because you keep talking about other users and haven't acknowledged what you did which led to the block. Many admins and editors have been through this with you before and it can't last, which is what this block, one way or another, is hinting. If you truly think something untowards has happened and you're not happy with the outcome after having left a single, either neutral or friendly post on an editor's talk page, you shouldn't leave another post on the editor's talk page at all but rather, do something like:

• Post a neutral report on an admin board having to do with things such as edit warring, vandalism, BLP vios and so on or,

• Post something neutral at the civility page, WP:WQA, or,

• If you're stumped, ask an admin what you should do next.

I'd be very happy to unblock you, that's why I'm posting this. If you put up another unblock request, I think you may need to acknowledge that your edits were taken as uncivil because you were badgering another editor, rather than either dropping the thread altogether or quietly asking for help elsewhere. Don't talk about other editors in an unblock request, it's never meant for that, even if the block was mistaken, although this block was fitting, given the background. For all the helpful things you do here, you go way over the top with other editors when you get stirred up over something you don't like and they haven't done, straight off, what you want them to do. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Before I do, I would like a clarification; you say that my edit was uncivil, despite the fact that above this unblock request, several editors agree that the message was not uncivil, along with the blocking admin. How then is it uncivil? It didn't attack anyone.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, what I think has been a slight towards myself? Thinking isn't required here, it's patently obvious that the user attacked me, calling me insane. Did you even read the diff? Thirdly, I was not badgering Tedder. I asked two things. First, I asked that he revert the edit. He did so. Second, I asked that he warn the user why such is wrong. How is that badgering? As for the last bit, they haven't done? This tells me that you -haven't- looked into the situation completely, but rather made an assumption. I was insulted, and words were put into my mouth. That is how it is, and nothing will change that.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It was already clarified by several users, an admin, and the blocking admin that the comment I added was not uncivil, what was uncivil was the way I was arguing. I admitted this fact last night in the #wikipedia-en-unblock irc channel, I can post logs if required. In case you do not wish to read all of the above, here it is again: I was wrong for not assuming good faith, and for being uncivil in my communication with others on their respective talk pages. If a situation has the potential of becoming bad, I will seek outside assistance, instead of trying to trudge through it on my own.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Your final line sums it up for me. I'm satisfied, and it sounds like you had a decent chat in the irc channel (please email me that log). I wanted to post here and state that as the blocking admin, I'm happy with you being unblocked, but I'll leave it to a neutral admin to process it. tedder (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please let Daedalus out of his block. He was right to feel that people were putting words in his mouth and not understanding him. He didn't mean to be uncivil, I realize that now. I should have been reading those posts from the first and I would have understood what he was trying to tell me. He was correct about the edit summary and he must have felt bad that I had deleted that earlier post of his. Please, I do believe he is sincere. Thank you.Malke2010 00:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I am unblocking this account, please hang on a tick. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Justifiable blocks

{{help}}How is it justifiable to block one user with both users did the same thing that the block admin warned against doing?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The helpme template is for technical help with using the site, not loaded questions such as this. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This wasn't your best idea Daedalus. You already have an open unblock request here, and your block is being discussed at WP:AN/I. Antics like this aren't going to make many see you in a sympathetic light. AniMate 08:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again Can't we all just get along? I am asking for an unblock of Daedalus969 per the fact that I had just as much involvement in keeoing this going as he did. If anything, I should be blocked as well. Can we please end this and get on with our lives?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 16:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy 2010 Daedalus. I hope that this never happens again :)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Likewise.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thejadefalcon

Wait, wait, wait, wait. Hold up a second. When was I an involved user? All I did was shut the argument down when it got too heated and withdraw my adoption of Malke. I don't believe that makes me involved, does it? I've got nothing against you, Daedalus, and I believe I have worked with you before at some point rather pleasantly. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of this subsection? As far as I can see, Daedalus called you involved in one of his unblock requests. Is proving yourself uninvolved really that necessary? As someone who adopts newer users and helps them navigate stressful situations, you should know that adding to drama is rarely a good idea, and this thread is unnecessary at best or drama at worst. Do what no one else here would, and just let this go. Being called involved is hardly worth stirring this pot. AniMate 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to add drama, merely asking if I have caused drama elsewhere myself without realising it. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You became involved when you intervened, and supported Mal's insult of myself. I warned Mal that calling others insane was wrong, and you hatted my warning, without even telling Mal the same. Further, Mal left a gross insult about myself on your talk page, and you did nothing about it. I don't know what you discussed with them in email, but I am just stating things how I see them.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I hatted all sorts of things on a number of talk pages, regardless of who said what to whom and when. All I wanted was the argument to stop. Malke could easily have seen into the hat for what you'd said. As for my talk page, I stopped looking at that at some point in the issue. I clicked the "last change" button, saw it was an involved party and closed the tab again without looking at it. The first I knew about what Malke said was when tedder removed it. If I had noticed, I would have redacted it myself. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, well, thank you then.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sorry you thought I agreed with Malke's comment. That wasn't my intention in the slightest. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 01:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Daedalus, I went back over all the edits and especially in the beginning I can see what you were trying to tell me. I am so sorry that I didn't pay enough attention to what was happening. I apologize to you and you were right because you were just trying to point out the edit summary mistake. I wasn't trying to lie, I do lame typing mistakes all the time on Wikipedia. Just ask JadeFalcon. I do understand where you thought words were being put into your mouth. You were just explaining the rules and I think it got taken that you were trying to say I had broken those rules. Anyway, I'm so glad you are out of your block. Please know that I do sinerely care about you and if I could go back I would not have deleted your first post. Please have a Happy New Year.Malke2010 01:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

And, I do apologize for anything I said that upset you.Malke2010 01:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, you are forgiven.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, my friend: Here's for you:

flowers

Here ya go: [1]

It's only taken me about 6 tries to get this right. :D Malke2010 01:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Status sign

How did you get the 'status' sign on your page? Is there a page with samples to choose from? Thanks.Malke2010 23:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Service_awards. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Malke was talking about the status thing at the top, saying if Daedalus is online or not. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

As I'm kind of tired and weighed down by other things at the moment, I'll respond here: I use {{statustop}} in tandem with the Qui script.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Also note that it is completely manual. You must click the button to note that you're here or not.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, got it. Thanks.Malke2010 23:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What does this mean: [2] Malke2010 23:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) its a code for....um....well...im not sure.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you know how to put the status sign on a talk page?Malke2010 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no clue. I dont use one...--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you go and ask the user? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, Mal, just put {{statustop}} anywhere on your page, and the status symbol/text will appear.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay.Malke2010 00:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Its so nice to see two users that used to almost hate each other now helping one another :D--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Upset, not hate, but understand the point. Also, not doing too well making the status sign.Malke2010 00:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)