|
User talk:Daedalus969/Archive 16
The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
GreetingsHello, 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)
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
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshopAs 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. Blocked... whoopsSo 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
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) DisengageRadiopathy, 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 McElwainI 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
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
QuestionWas 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)
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)
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
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
IdiotOk, I'll not do it again. --MisterWiki talk (SIGN/REVIEW) 15:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. AN/IHi, 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, raseaCtalk to me 23:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
i dont understandwhy is there talk about me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collinelder (talk • contribs) 23:37, 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)
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 The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
BaffledWhy 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)
RE: Taking things personallyOK, 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)
Edit summaries are not discussionRather 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)
Please don't biteI'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)
ViriditasViriditas 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)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
A question about material allowed on userpageshere 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)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian LeadershipYou 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
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Tahir AbbasAn 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
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Wallflowers98 socksThis list is huge, given J.Delanoy is a checkuser after all. Momo san Gespräch 01:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
What?Dude, what are you talking about?Malke2010 00:03, 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 {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. tedder (talk) 05:51, 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)
 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
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)
BreakDaedalus969 (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:
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)
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)
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)
ThejadefalconWait, 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. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 18:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, my friend: Here's for you: flowersHere ya go: [1] It's only taken me about 6 tries to get this right. :D Malke2010 01:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Status signHow 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)
|
![[1]](http://www.flowerstochennai.com/images/flowers/50white.jpg){kind=link}