This is an archive of past discussions with User:Daedalus969. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I did read the discussion. It doesn't change my response in the slightest. If people stepped away from Giano in the first place, none of this extra drama would have happened. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)02:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Bishonen blocked
Just in case you were not aware, Jimbo Wales himself has blocked Bishonen for three hours for "Incivility unbecoming an admin" - hopefully that will act as a wake up call so we can avoid a repeat of this performance. Exxolon (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, not being party to the email messages, I'm still confused. Is MarkRomero now Voltin? Do I have reason to distrust either of these users? →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I just re-read the two edits I made which refer to your conflict with Bishonen, & I honestly don't see how they make any judgments about you. About Bishonen, I do comment at length about her state of mind. I also say her comment to you was offensive & insulting. And I state how I think other people view the situation -- which is why I suggest you let the matter drop. I would apologize for upsetting you, except I don't know how I did. -- llywrch (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Daedalus, I didn't mean to imply that you knew that. I was explaining to you that other editors knew that, assumed you did also, & that is why they responded in that manner. Maybe you should take the evening off, & do something not directly related to Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I have recreated th article. I have been through hell and back and I have buddys that have pges on hre simply for being a Notre Dame football player which is considered notable. I have listed referances from the LA Times to a first place story that was written about my bout with bipolar disorder, near death experiences, Notre Dame plaing days, and being an actor. Ihave no idea how one could consider that non substantial, irrelevent, or non notable unless there was a subjective viewpoint as this did not breach neautral point of view. I have ha\d to fight my ass off for everything I've gotten all I'm asking for is that this be understood as notable as it is.- There are millions of readers of the LA Times,and Millions of Notre Dame viewers. Thank you for listening Daedalus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs) 05:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
If you find something wrong my userpage, or you want to change something, please let me know first, as a courtesy.
The right hand side of your user page is (in Internet Explorer at least) a mess - the objects float over each other and the objects below are obfuscated, which makes those on top difficult to read, I was going to try to fix this, but you have the above message on the page.--Alfmelmac08:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
>Dædalus, I have made some improvement, not perfect but I think better than as was. >Mr Merridew, if you can improve on that any further I would hope Dædalus would be ok with that (?) (and yes I know my page is not yet perfect either, but it renders ok in everything I've tried)--Alfmelmac08:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you STOP taking away my edit to the foot fetish article. I am a foot fetishist myself and it sickens me that the wikipedia article lists TREATMENT like its a fucking disease. If you continue to back edit it, I will log on to wiki every day with the sole purpose of causing trouble for you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.86.178 (talk • contribs)
Just a bit of support for all you are going through with the author of the article. Deep cleansing breaths always help me. 8-) ttonyb1 (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Edit to Harry Shearer entry
I received a notice that my edit to the Harry Shearer listing may not fit with Wiki's neutral content policy. My addition was that Harry Shearer writes on the "poor response of the United States government" to Hurricane Katrina. The qualification of "poor" response is not mine. It is the actual topic of Mr. Shearer's referred to blog entries. I was stating a fact of the content of Mr. Shearer's writing, it was not added as my personal opinion of anything. Therefore, it should not be construed as non neutral content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aranxa (talk • contribs) 07:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
All set
For some reason, the bot hasn't been archiving my talk pages lately and it's always left some really old messages at the top. I've created a third archive, but it isn't registering on the counter. Thanks for the gentle persuasion. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of changing one word in your last reply to AW. Please don't take offense--I do understand & sympathize, but still it seemed advisable. DGG (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
So, you prefer to remove good edits. Grawp often makes 10 reasonable edits to get autoconfirmed; this doesn't take him long and I believe this should be bumped to about a hundred. Anyway, such edits are routinely kept. It seems to me that you are more focused on the whack-a-vandal game than the bigger picture. About three years ago, that was a fairly successful route to adminship; “Good Vandal Fighter.” Times change. I have no idea what else that user has been up to, and I’m certainly not supporting any vandalism. Jack Merridew10:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
the almost blank page I caused was definitely not on purpose (I was just trying to add a comment) and I was glad that it was reverted even though back then I didn't understand the reason why.
about the minor edit, it won't happen again I just misunderstood the rules when I read them.
I had no idea about a rule stating that no one can remove sourced content, and if I had I would have used these very sources for my edit as they give me reason in my editing.
Plus, this rule is quite odd as it means that if I want an article to remain unchanged all I have to do is source it to death even if the sources are not valid or just irrelevant: the admin who reverted my edit did it in half a second which means he had no time to check if those sources were valid or even relevant.
So I would like you to show me where in the Wikipedia Policy is that rule that makes removing sourced content vandalism, this is not arguing I really want to learn the way Wikipedia works.
And finally if you're not a robot (your answer was really fast and impersonal ^^) we need an admin to be part of a mediation that doesn't seem to be doing well: Talk:Americas
--Sinekonata (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok fisrst, "you have no way of knowing if that said admin had not checked the sources before." I am telling you that I edited the intro and refreshed it and as my internet connection is fast enough, it was at the most 3 seconds between the moments I clicked Save page and the moment I saw my article reverted and that on top of it I had a message from the same person that had:
seen my edit at the very moment it was done
checked that I didn't give any reason to edit sourced content
checked that the sources were reliable and relevant
reverted my intro
sent me a message to explain me the whole situation.
IN 3 SECONDS! Come on be reasonable, if he's human of course he had no time to do all that...
I insist, the fact that my edit was reverted without any investigation is against the rules, maybe it should have been removed, but only AFTER someone actually took more than 3 seconds to do it.
Second, yes blanking is vandalism I can figure why... but not only it was a mistake that I don't understand and that I just hope won't happen again, but also is a different matter as the blanking occurred in the discussion page while the editing was done in the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinekonata (talk • contribs) 23:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page. As I said there, you are wrong. It doesn't take more than a few seconds that you gave no valid reason for the removal of sources and sourced material, as mentioned, a form of blanking, which is considered vandalism here. It doesn't take anyone a few seconds to realize that and revert it.— DædαlusContribs00:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
If he used automated tools or if he took only 3 seconds to decide that a "good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia" is vandalism, he clearly didn't respected the rules as the Wikipedia Policy states this:
"Careful thought may be needed to decide whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism."
As I said that user first had to:
see my edit at the very moment it was done (could be automated)
check that I didn't give any reason to edit sourced content (which I did, just check the Americas Discussion page)
check that the sources were reliable and relevant (this one for instance should take a lot of time and could not be automated)
revert the intro (could be automated)
send me a message to explain me the whole situation. (could be automated)
And you showed me within the WP that blanking pages is vandalism but not that removing sourced content without explaining is, at least not within the WP. --Sinekonata (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Alright, alright, since I'm practically a noob in the wikipedia edition, I'll leave you alone and I'll study more about its rules ^^. I didn't knew I had to explain changes in the edit summary or that my edit was considered blanking, it all makes sense now.
Anyway thanks a lot for your patience, I've learned a lot in one night. Hope you're not too pissed at me. And seriously we would need an admin too oversee the discussion that will never end if it isn't supervised.
I'm rather new to these parts, but I had a question on the format revision you did for clarity in the Dougs Tech discussion at AN/I. Shouldn't the last sentence in the initial comment by User:Xeno ("I once again support an indefinite block.") be properly counted as the first, making the number of 'supports' 42 including your own?Just curious. --Garyww67☎ ☸21:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Not sure how to do it...
...but what I should be able to do is to temporarily recreate it and protect it from any non-admin edits. That will leave the history intact. Should be done by the time you get the message. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
All set. I'll leave word at AN. If there's a better way of doing this, I'm sure someone will do it. Hoping I was able to help for now. Man, this title has been a pain lately, no? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
You know, I've never really thought about it. I think they can be closed pretty much anytime after consensus is reached. I know I've closed a few early discussions either because it was a clear-cut speedy or a creation by a blocked user. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Holy geez, what a mess. I've seen some blatant self-promotion here, but this guy takes the taco. I for one am for closing the discussion, salting the title and blocking the user no matter who he is. I mean, really. He logs on with his own name, has yet to make any edit outside the article, the AfD or a talk page of other users protesting his treatment and he's using this site's own rules against it and he hasn't been ousted yet? I'm going to leave word on the admin noticeboard before I proceed. This is a real sticky IMO. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. That honestly means a lot. I thought it best to weigh in on the discussion rather than tie up the noticeboard. I've never seen anything quite like this, I'm actually unsure as to which rules apply here and I hope to high heaven that it doesn't set a precident. We'll get utterly bombarded with little autobios from anyone who's ever been in a motion picture or interviewed in print. In turn, our own rules would be turned against us and the result would be, well, another "this." For that matter...I work in media. Maybe I could do my own article...or not. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Dial it back please
Comments like this one [1] (which apparently you left more than once?), or this one [2] may not be the best approach. and this templating a regular is entirely unacceptable. I suggest you discontinue and disengage, because I'm not seeing the required level of finesse in your approach. Much less the necessary assumption of good faith. Why exactly are you involved in talking to Jack at all? What's the backstory here? Because there must be something I am missing here. ++Lar: t/c16:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, digging around to try to find the backstory, I got a chance to read some of the posts to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/DougsTech around (before and after) this one. You both leave the impression that you need to grow up. "Sneers", "Jeers", "What the hell is your problem" ???? Completely inappropriate. You both know better. Knock it off. ++Lar: t/c16:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
All the ANIs, WQA, CUs, RFC/Us and RFARs are over, I trust. I sincerely thank you for voicing your position on the RFC/U on me. I did not canvass anyone, and in order to avoid any claims that I canvassd, I waited until now (the request to reopen the RFC/U seems dead). Again, many thanks! Collect (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
SPI
Oops. I didn't realize you had a 969 at the end of your username so I posted this comment at a user:Daedalus's page.
Daed, I know you have a lot of experience battling sock puppets, so I was wondering if you might have some insight or help for BQZip01. From what I gather he's interested in becoming an SPI clerk, and so far the only feedback he's gotten amounted to an assumption of bad faith full of negativity (and I'm sure my response hasn't helped the situation any...). It seems to me like some positive reinforcement and encouragement would be the way to go, so I was hoping you might have insights or contacts who could help direct him in the right direction so his interest in this area of service can be developed appropriately. Gracias. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I noticed on your talk page that you have an affinity for hummingbirds. So do I! Given that, I thought we might also have another passion in common - a love for Snickerdoodles. Here's my favorite recipe!
Just as good faith advice, I'd copy the list into your home computer and db-author that list. That's the sort of thing that will overshadow any point you're trying to make until rather than talk about the issues you've brought up, you're spending all of your time defending yourself. If you take it down yourself, that will help show you're serious about your charges and you're not just doing it because of something that happened in the past.
If you use gmail, just copy your notes into a blank email with no "send to" address. That way you'll always have it in your "Drafts" section, and you won't have to worry about someone complaining. Vandals wear that sort of thing like a badge of honor, that could explain why so many sockpuppets come home to try and taunt you on your talk page. Ignore 'em, it drives them nuts. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Please consider this a friendly-worded warning to calm down. You are increasingly combative and rude, which does you no favours, and only undermines the very large amount of good work that you do. I suggest you take a wikibreak of at least a week. If you continue the uncivil behaviour you have shown recently at AN/I and the MfD of your subpage, I will seek an admin to enforce a wikibreak.//roux06:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Good idea. Go away for a bit, relax, refresh, refocus. The 'pedia will still be lurching along like a herd of misbegotten cats when you return. //roux06:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Daedalus: I hope you have a restful (and productive) break. When or if you you return, you would be well advised to change your approach. You have been given feedback by many folk now, that you need to take advice on board, change the tenor of your comments, not lash out at others and in general be more collegial. The last AN/I thread showed a distressing tendency for you to go on the attack if questioned. This is unacceptable, and if the pattern continues, it verges on disruption. Such disruption will not be allowed to continue indefinitely. So think about the feedback you've been given, and come back with a new approach. Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c11:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I was truly honored that you sought out my advice Daedalus, I am flattered. When you get back, you are always welcome on my talk page. If you'd like to get away from the bad things of Wikipedia like SPI and such, I'd be more than happy to work with you in other things. WP:NPP I always enjoyed. Maybe even edit an article together. I think sometimes when we spend so much time dealing with the bad things in life we become a bit cynical, and jaded. There's a ton of good stuff here too. We can always use some help in the BLP uncat area too. Enjoy a bit of time in real life. Smell the flowers, soak in the sun, be happy and appreciate what we have out there in the real world. When you're ready, drop by and give me a holler - I'll do whatever I can to help. My best to you ;) — Ched : ? 08:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the accidental edit to page Template:SSP2notification. I wanted to edit my own user talk page and clear an entry without realizing I'd actually deleted the Template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.94.13 (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for reacting in a bad way.I insure a promise I will not go towards incivility.I tried to get this user to understand fcts concerning recognition as King of France.Again sorry.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Quick Question
If I recall correctly, you indicated recently that you intended to take a month long break from Wikipedia due to addiction. Do you still intend to take that break? I do not mean any offense, so please don't take it that way. But, if you are addicted, a self-imposed break could be really useful. Why the change in plans?
Since you registered this account mere moments ago and yet you seem to have quite the knowledges of Daedalus969's history, it bears asking an obvious question, Mr. Munging. Do you have another wikipedia account you've been editing under, and how did you come to take such a personal interest in another specific editor? Dayewalker (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
You are correct, and I was mistaken. It was, in fact, a user named Tan who indicated that he'd used the tool to take a month long break. You never said anything about a timeframe - as far as I could tell - so I owe you an apology. On a sidenote, this was a small gesture of concern on my part, and I do not appreciate being called a stalker. Best of luck in future endeavors. Munging Is My Life (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Then I suppose you would just love to tell me, and Daye, how you found my userpage being a new user, or how you found ANI for that matter, or, even further, just tell us who's sockpuppet you are.— DædαlusContribs01:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
It would appear that you think you must frequently edit Wikipedia in order to have any experience with it. As I explained in the witch hunt thread about my alleged sockpuppetry, I frequently read Wikipedia's ANI thread. I've been doing it for years. I found it a long time ago, and I enjoy reading it. For me, it's hilarious to see some blatant vandals try to wiggle their way out of blocks. Plus, there's always some absurd editors who just make a scene. I read your thread, which was one of the most entertaining I've ever read. Then, as a service to you, I registered a name because I didn't see that you'd taken a break. I understand now that you did take a break, and I already apologized for my mistake. Why do you think that I must be stalking you in order to come across your page? To me, that's a little out there, man. Of course, I don't know much about your history. Perhaps you're a little sensitive on the matter because of some past experience. In either case, I'd be more than happy to end this communication and wish you all the best (as I've already suggested, but you continued to badger me with your previous post). Or, for all I care, you can just block this username. It won't stop me from browsing Wikipedia like I have in the past. Either way is fine, but I hope you realize that I was just trying to lend a helping hand. It's offensive that this has gone this far.
Did you make any attempt to verify if this poet is or isn't notable? I see that you nominated the article for deletion three minutes after it was created. In those three minutes, did you actually look for references? I do a fair amount of speedy deleting, but I always double check. This could just be a vanity piece, but really cursory checks seem to indicate some notability. If you're not sure, as you indicate in your nomination, don't nominate. Investigate. If perhaps you had spent more than three minutes looking into this, you might have come up with a better deletion rationale. AniMatedraw21:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think a G4 speedy deletion is appropriate here, unless I'm missing something this article has never in fact been deleted by an AfD decision. It was redirected and G8-speedied last time after its target was also speedy deleted. I've got no objections if you want to take it to AfD for a proper discussion. ~ mazcat/c22:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
Hey Daed, I wanted to stop by and say thank you. I know you don't spend a bunch of time at RfA things, and I really appreciate you chipping in a support vote for me! I'll be honest, you know a LOT more about the SPI side of things than I do, so I might be asking for some help and advice from time to time on that end. I only edited that once or twice (SPI), and I remember shortly after I filed a report - I ran across a sign while I was traveling. I took a picture, and uploaded it to commons a while back - I thought you might get a good smile out of it. The link is here. Kinda silly humor, but I thought you might enjoy it. Thank you again for your faith and trust in me, ... I'll do my best to never let you down. — Ched : ? 06:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The picture came shortly after I filed my first or second SPI report. I was talking with User:Baseball Bugs, and a very obvious sock showed up to harass him. The sign was outside a laundry mat in front of a parking space for people that just wanted to stop in to see if they left any socks in the washers or dryers. — Ched : ? 18:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Please don't refer to anything as "my POV". Hardcore punk, which was previously listed, has been applied multiple times to Biohazard (examples can be seen here). The issue occurred in that the reviewing editor believes that hardcore punk transcends the rule at Template:Infobox musical artist#Genre that subgenres should not be listed, but rather that a generalization should be included instead. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC))
Sock accusation
Just to let you know, per WP:SOCK/S, I am removing the notice you recently placed on my userpage. If you wish to repeat the allegation, please follow the procedure set out at WP:SOCK/A. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
You interpretation of WP:NOT may be accurate, but your application in this situation is incorrect. The section you removed was not a guide in any way. It was a summary, no different than the listing of tracks off an album. It does NOT fit the criteria of a "Game Guide" and does not guide anything. I have fixed it, if you insist on getting an administrator involved, perhaps they can explain the difference between a summary and a guide. Aspensti (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Considering 1Up predates said video game by four years, both parody 8-bit games, and use the phrase, "I wanna be the guy." I'm willing to bet that's where the name came from.
I was just looking at your User talk:Daedalus969/Editnotice and User talk:Daedalus969/Header pages and have noticed your habit of replying other than where a message was posted. I view this as detrimental to effective communication. It obscures situations by scattering the relevant elements about. See User:Lar/Pooh Policy for another take on this issue. You also state that editors’ preference is “usually noted” on their talk pages. While some may do this, I don’t and I don’t believe that many do, so your assumption is a poor one and will typically result in a reply other than where editors expect it. Please take this as a specific preference of mine (i.e. don't reply to message such as this one from me over on my talk page), and consider changing your approach to this issue with editors in general. Regards, Jack Merridew06:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Warning
You have to tread more softly. Let's take a recent example. You reviewed Al Capone and reverted some edits, calling them "good faith". But then you went to the user and left this: "last warning" This is unacceptable. You are not an admin, and you should not be stating that a user will be blocked. Please tone down your approach, you are being unacceptably strident and confrontational with other users. ++Lar: t/c18:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
No one is entitled to anything, Aitias. Editing here is a priv, not a right. Use of templates can be counterproductive when doing so is inappropriate for the circumstances. As in this case. You are not exactly qualified to comment on what is a gentle approach and what is not. ++Lar: t/c22:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I explicitly wrote if it's appropriate to use this template in the particular circumstance, of course. So your point is moot. Also, how am I to understand “You are not exactly qualified to comment on what is a gentle approach and what is not.”, Lar? — Aitias // discussion22:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure you want me to answer that last question? If so, pop by my talk page and I will. It's a side issue to this conversation. ++Lar: t/c23:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Lar, if you bothered to check the talk page history, you would see that the user which I warned was previously already warned for insertion of POV material, or unsourced additions, and was already on his last warning. I find it strange that an admin doesn't do any fact checking, when users are known to blank their talk pages. I also replied further on your talk page.— DædαlusContribs21:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Your assumption that I didn't review the talk page history and the items blanked from it is incorrect, and unwarranted. You should try to not jump to conclusions. The previous warning were on 29 May, and there have been significant contributions by this editor on a number of pages that did not cause any concern, it's reasonable for this editor to assume that things were OK... then you turn up with a very harsh warning, after commenting that the edits you reverted were "good faith" (I know, that's due to the way you reverted them, but perhaps you should not revert them that way if you don't want that edit summary to stand... try not using automation, templates, and hte like). As Gwen says, stop templating people. To your comments on my talk page (and why are you talking in both places at once, pick one please), "but he's doing it too" is not an excuse. If you don't want attention paid to you by admins, don't act in ways (such as this incident) that draw attention. Take the advice you are given and soften your approach. Or there will be consequences. ++Lar: t/c22:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
In case you didn't notice, I could care less about other admins, and in case you didn't notice, the way I worded by reply was not in means of an excuse for my behavior. Rather, it was in reference to you stalking my edits, and not warning others for the same thing that I had done. It is not in reference by my behavior, but yours. And now look, you're threatening me. As said, I could care less that other admins are watching me and my page, what I do care about however, is specifically you. Instead of judging everything I do evenly, you're sticking to the bad things, and following me around. I'm guess it's because you don't like me, and you're just looking for some excuse to block me. You sure haven't treated me fairly, in that what was already described. You accuse me of assuming. I admit that I did, but do you? You obviously have already assumed much about me.
Know this, I'm not going to just lay down and die because you feel you should threaten me like Bishonen did. I don't give up because you and your cabal threatens me, such as Tony1 did, or Ottava did. Ottava is just full of empty promises. If you have a problem with my behavior, don't spend your time stalking me, file a RFC, and be done with it.— DædαlusContribs22:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
You came to my attention. As long as I periodically spot things that concern me, I will be giving you feedback about them. Feedback is, after all, how we all improve, we are none of us perfect. As for what I want... I do not want you to "lay down and die". I just want you to soften your tone. Or find another hobby. If I think you are going to continue your problematic behavior to the point where gentle guidance is not sufficient, I'll act, but I would prefer to avoid that sort of thing. I had hoped that a word to the wise from time to time would suffice. Like Ottava, though, you seem to have a problem accepting constructive feedback. I suppose I could take the approach Bishonen did, and just call you names instead of trying to constructively engage with you. But that's not my style. So let's try again. Cut away everything else you've raised as a smoke screen. I think your templating this contributor with a final warning, after almost a month of editing with no one saying boo to them, was taking things too far, and you should have tried a gentler approach. That's my feedback to you. Do with it what you will. But realise that others judge you by how you react to criticism. If you ever decide to stand for RfA, incidents such as this where instead of just saying "thanks for the feedback, I'll keep it in mind" and moving on, you react belligerently... will be raised and they will make it more difficult for you to pass. Keep that in mind. ++Lar: t/c23:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I would have accepted it more readily, had you not blatantly threatened me, or replied in such tones that you have. I admit that I should have read the time stamp on that warning from the other user, to get a time frame with regards to this user, but I didn't, and we all make mistakes. You say my tone could use improvement. Fine, but have you ever looked at your own tone when you tell me what you think? Your own tone, is as you call mine. Threatening and confrontational. Please tone down your comments to me.— DædαlusContribs23:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
My first comment was, I think, pretty softly worded. (especially in contrast to your first reply to it) But if you didn't find it so, why then I will try to do better in future. Thanks for the feedback, I will keep it in mind. I hope you'll do the same with my feedback. ++Lar: t/c23:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Daedalus, I think templating an editor with a last warning for disruption is not the same as doing so for straightforward vandalism or 3rr and hence, somewhat over the edge, since you can't do the block yourself and an admin may not agree with you that disruption has happened or that a strong last warning is even needed. Rather, please try talking more, without templates, about any worries you may have. If the outcome is still not to your liking, ask an admin to have a look instead. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
