|
User talk:Daedalus969/Archive 9
MohanlalThanks for your comments. Unfortunately, this is not the end. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohanlal&diff=250016611&oldid=250016544 I had already warned the user for creating silly redirects such as Great Actor Zencv Lets discuss 13:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC) sighyou are very persistant. "What comment are uyou talking about then, because i'v said many things.--Jakezing (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
RE:I was trying to make {{munch}} work so that if you add in the |guy parameter it would change the pronouns. This is how it looks now: {{subst:munch|~~~}}  Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made her happy and she'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again! Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:munch}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message. Guy version: {{subst:munch|~~~|boy=yes}} Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made him happy and he'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again! Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:munch}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.
 Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! Munch on the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.
Re:Speedy deletion of Tejas Networks You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. -- Tinu Cherian - 10:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)  -- Tinu Cherian - has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! ... I coudnt resist templating atleast this :) ...Do keep in touch... Enjoy your stay here in WP .Have a good sleep and sweet dreams -- Tinu Cherian - 11:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC):) Saw the ANI postPutting that title on the blacklist seems to be the best idea or mentioning it to one of the admin bots around who block blatant usernames as soon as they are created (doesn't work with SUL accounts though i dont think). Since Luna's talk is protected mention to him that a range block was implemented on that editor (discussion here) last month for 2 weeks but seems not have made a difference. You know there are so many great things to do in this city and with summer approaching i know the last place i want to be is in the house - on the computer - editing wikipedia - make that vandalising wikipedia ;) 220.239.47.163 (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
respond to your messagei have responded to your message on my talk page.... --Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC) EditWould you please revert the last edit at the article? I don't like to get even close to 3RR. Squash Racket (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I think WP:Canvass applies to notifying specific, carefully chosen editors, not WP:ANI. Squash Racket (talk) 08:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Re: Internet addictionRe your message: Sorry to hear that you've become addicted to the Internet. It's not entirely uncommon and the first step is to recognize that you've reached that point. Unfortunately, I can't offer much help because I'm not qualified to really help you with. You can look into professional help, but a first step may be to try to walk away from your computer yourself. As for requesting a block to enforce a wikibreak, that would not be done for you. Blocking is not done for wikibreaks. You can use the WikiBreak Enforcer script which can help you not login to Wikipedia, though really the only truly effective method is to just not use the computer. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Friends?Giggle, i took your advice about being a contributer.The Nice Hollaback Girl (talk) 07:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Re: Help with hidden historyRe your message: From what I can tell, you tagged the article for CSD because a similar redirect was deleted through an RfD back in August. The RfD had spaces between the words, while the one you linked to did not. What did you need to know? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
RE:Troublesome TemplatesThough holding grudges is wrong, or so I feel, he has the right to keep his talk page as he wants it, though it would be nice of him to make it work for the rest of us (it shows up weird for me too; I think the spacing is set to too large of a number). I'll drop him a note but I won't impose anything (I know you didn't ask me to, just saying). Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 07:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Regarding your messageWhy in the world should I need to explain a comment I placed on another user's talk page? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Template-ingYou seem to have done the same thing you accused me off. At any rate, it wasn't a "welcome" warning, precisely b/c they are well-versed it was upped. And if was because it can be construed as a response to uncivility, you will see, based on the template, it was uncivil. Furthermore, the template was just that, a template, with an addition more that led to a "personal message [that] tends to work better in these situations." Seeming the same thing happened here Lihaas (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
here's hoping... Lihaas has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}! Lihaas (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
TorturegardensI blocked indef based on this comment. I have contacted that user for clarification. Do stand by. Daniel Case (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Per the FisherQueen comment on the talk page, I have unblocked. Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Do what's rightDaedalus969, I noticed you posted a comment about me on WP:AN/I. I know I'm new to Wikipedia, and I'm still figuring things out, but it wasn't hard for me to notice the rules on that page. It said you should have told me you were discussing me on that board. Accusing me of wrongs without informing me conjures images of the atrocities of old. Your deed brings us back to Imperial England's failure to inform colonists of the charges against them. Yes, it even calls to memory of Soviet gulags, where rights were trampled and injustices were carried out of this very kind. I was denied notice by you just as prisoners are held and tortured in Guantanamo Bay without notice of the charges against him. What you have done to me is just as wrong, and given the supposed enlightened nature and freedom that comes with being a Wikipedia editor, dare I say that your offense was even more grave. Given what you have done, you must, without any delay, resign. If you want the best for Wikipedia, as I believe you do, you cannot allow your own mistakes to destroy this project. Be your mistake of negligence of the most gross kind or flagrant disregard for the rights of others, the incompetence of the former or the malice of the latter demands your immediate resignation. Thank you. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 09:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Re: SignatureRight. They are discouraged, not banned. One key part of Wikipedia is "Be Bold". Also, I did not call the other user a troll. A noted that they were bordering on trolling. (For Royal Inquests, Click Here)10:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Hey!Hey, I wholly understand. I think the most helpful thing you can do for now is stay away from JoJ, not because you've done anything untowards, but only because through his misunderstanding of Wikipedia, he has mistaken you as one of the roots of whatever's nettling him about this website. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC) AfDSorry, but you've nominated the article for deletion. Since she is a prominent South Indian actress, i want you to have a rethought about it. Randhir 12:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying anything about myself. As it is there is a dearth of information when it comes to India related articles, and its a sincere effort in establishing Wikipedia as a credible source. Some 38,000 Google search results on the subject mean nothing to you, but somewhere it does. Please stop being judgmental about people who are sincerely trying to make a difference here Randhir 13:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Re: December 2008Re your message: I'll have to be more careful next time. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC) msg- AN/I etcI've made a comment for you here Wikipedia:Editor_review/Daedalus969#Userpage.2F_AN.2FI I suggest you close your editor review too, it's too tempting for anyone who has an opinion about your editing to go there, i.e. users you've upset (not me- but you know what I mean.:) ) We all get things slightly wrong or annoy people and you don't want it there as a growing permanent record for posterity or something.:) Sticky Parkin 01:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Re: 69.122.210.59 (aka Handllrich?)So, this is a BOT we've been seeing at work?! Wow, I knew the dude didn't play well with others, but this is a surprise... Zephyrad (talk) 08:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
FollowupOK, let me get this straight... soooo, 69.122.210.59 = Rassmguy = RichHandsmGuy = Handllrich = Rich Handley = his own "11-year-old daughter" (apparently)?!?! So we've got edit warring, sockpuppetry, unauthorized bot usage, WP:OR, WP:CONFLICT, WP:SPAM and WP:OWN going on, from the same person?! Wow, guess I shoulda kept a scorecard? "Oh, what a tangled web we weave"... and here I thought I had problems. Zephyrad (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC) WarningWhere did I remove or refactor your comments? Are you sure it wasn't an accident? Usually people provide diffs. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
CategoriesI saw that you recently removed categories from Ellifain. Consensus, at least within the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, is that having categories on redirects is useful; I've restored the cats, but thought I'd let you know for in the future. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC) There is a God?I reverted your edit at User:Zahd as it's pretty clear that he wanted it there and wasn't able to revert the removal himself seeing as he was blocked! To be honest i don't understand what your edit summary means, it makes no sense to me :-( Theresa Knott | token threats 21:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC) Judges in US courts are a matter of public recordI am a lawyer. I am happy to have the opportunity to share my knowledge with you. Judges names in cases in the United States are a matter of public record, which can be easily accessed by either going to the court's website and searching properly, or by using the PACER system. Therefore, please do not undo my mention of the judges names in Troy Davis case, Cheers! SelfEvidentTruths (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
"ROLAND NICHOLSON"Dear Daedalus, I will do what it takes to restore or wikify Professor Nicholson. What do I have to do? Thank you. Columbia Student Columbia Student (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
"Roland Nicholson" Dear Daedalus, I forgot to ask you if there is technical advice I can you on with respect to your computer? Columbia Student Columbia Student (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Here we go again?67.244.75.51 has been making multiple edits to the POTA pages over the last day, ignoring reverts and warnings by others (including a bot) in the process. The adds include... gee, plugs for Handley's hitherto-unknown book. You don't suppose he (or his "daughter") is back? I dropped lines to the editors who did the rollbacks which have been ignored; figured I might as well let you know also. (Thought I'd wait to do any reverts myself; I don't want to be accused of "owning" the articles. Even if I did create most of them.) Zephyrad (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC) Thank youThank you for resolving that incident. It seemed to arise out of nowhere. --➨Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 12:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
SulaDeadJust in case you thought I was being serious about the backwards "Daedalus", it was just a joke. Not a very funny one, admittedly. -kotra (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC) JawugYou recently flagged Jawug for speedy deletion. I added my "keep" vote to the talk page. From the references given, I think the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Is there a reason why you flagged it for speedy deletion so very quickly? My preference when I find a page like this which has just been added is to watch it a few days to see if it becomes more substantial, then perhaps put a note on the author's talk page, and only flag for speedy deletion it if there is no improvement. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC) --- I did not look closely at the sources, but South Africa Wireless User Groups seems to be a legitimate organization for South African WUG enthusiasts and MyBroadband looks like a reputable magazine on broadband technology. Both seem reasonable references for this topic. Neither seems to have any interest, ownership etc. in Jawug, which is a non-profit group of amateurs. A quick check on Google showed quite a lot of other potential references - Jawug and what they are doing is obviously a topic of interest. I supported a suggestion on the author's talk page User talk:Protzkrog#Independent wireless network groups that it could be better to include the content in a broader article - but that is a question of organization rather than retention. With only 170 members the organization is small but interesting in that they are leaders in applying technology which could be important in areas where government monopolies suppress open wireless communications. Where South Africa leads, other countries in the region will follow. But that is not the main point. Why are you so anxious to immediately delete this very new article? There is no hurry. To a new contributor, it must be disturbing and discouraging if their first attempts are flagged like this without an attempt at education or discussion. Did I miss some history here? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC) --- I have a different understanding of "independent". An independent source is one that is not controlled or associated with the subject of the article, or otherwise likely to show bias. The source should also be one that may be expected to be accurate. But an independent source can certainly be about the subject of the article. An article about John Smith can reasonably cite a biography: John Smith, his life and works. It may refer to self-published work John Smith, My life and works but should indicate the possible bias "According to Smith, ..." Again, that is not the main point. To quote WP:INDY "The idea is that articles which don't reference outside sources be placed in clean-up via an independent sources template, and if there ultimately prove to be no independent sources, the article may be listed for deletion." There is a process here that notifies the author of the problem and gives them time to find sources and improve the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC) --- I suggest you just start the AfD process now. I am too busy in my real life to contribute much more. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC) --- Take another look at South African wireless user groups. I think it is starting to turn into a reasonable article, and hope others will contribute to make it better. You were right to consider that the original JAWUG article was too trivial to keep. I was not clear enough about my idea of making it just a small part (now one paragraph) of a broader article. If I had not done so, JAWUG should certainly have been deleted. The AfD debate was useful. I felt the comment from 9Nak was on the mark: each individual group is not notable, but a broader article about all of them can be. See Inner Terai Valleys of Nepal, an article I worked on a while ago - same sort of idea. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Oh Really?=Let´s just walk through a simple scenerio shall we? John or Mary doe of 13 years of age are doing a school report on an idea that came from their discovery that by placing "kinks" in their garden hose they can make water shoot out much faster. They go to wikipedia since their parents allow that content as its "ok" an ecylocpedia. They enter the words "kink" and arrive at the kink.com wikipedia. Then as the page was before they are invited to a whole different subject than kinks in hoses and make a click on "ana cruzes" link and arrive at a explicit porn page with the title "Im the bitch that your mother warned you about...", well you know with nice pornographic pictures that show and tell all. His/her father happens to be a badass attorney and is quite offended when john/jane doe shows what they discovered in wikipedia. So under many laws, not withstanding, the "Communications deceny act" or the "contemporary community standards" laws or "corruption of a minor", a case is launched agaisnt wikipedia and its editors. Turns out since the editors have the ability to "speak for wikipedia" by approving or disapproving changes etc to content that they themselves not only represent wikipedia but also are not free from personal liability in this matter end up forking the bill for a 100 million plus lawsuit. It seems there is a strange US law that states that all "indecent" material as porno that is hosted on the web on US servers, has to have a simple warning on the home page that the person who is about to visit this site must be over 18 years of age.. etc.. Strange but I didnt see that in any of the 100 plus porn star wikipedias. So the 6 million dollars that wikipedia is trying to raise may not be enough to withstand the lawsuits that will come from the open and blatant access to porn to minors which the wiki "porno portal" path is embarking. All the cute and bold phrases that "wiki doesnt censors" and "they are notable" probable wont mean a whole lot when this "porno portal" of wikipedia ends up exposing wikipedia and its editors to all kinds of civil (oh and criminal) liability from the jane and john does that unfortunately end up on porn pages by doing simple research projects etc.. Dont forget that wikiporn, like any other porn will run agaisnt really ugly laws in the US and about 50 other countries world wide who really dont jive on minors having access to graphic porn. Good luck. webman1000 (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
My EditsI am new to wikipedia and don't know all the protocols, so let me apologize for any confusion. I didn't even know these discussion pages existed. But I do want to say that none of my edits were meant as vandalism. I was just trying to correct what was clearly erroneous information in the articles. I have since submitted the corrections again but have provided proof that my edits were correct. I am a Planet of the Apes fan and was surprised that many of the articles were riddled with incorrect information. There are several more corrections I would like to make over the next few days. When I do I would provide the proper links and evidence to justify the corrections. Thanks. --67.244.75.51 (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.75.51 (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC) WP:AIVPlease stop listing people you have disagreements with on WP:AIV. It's not only rude, but also wastes everyone's time. --fvw* 09:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Please stop listing people who aren't vandals on WP:AIV, I'm not going to warn you again. --fvw* 09:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC) HeyWell, actually, you caught me just as I was about to go to bed, but I'll be up in about 2 hours anyway so I'll check back then. For now; fvw is right. Only blatant vandalism is reported to AIV; edit warring, edit disputes or difficult editors shouldn't be reported there. ANI would be a more appropriate outlet (and I see you've used it), though it shouldn't be used too heavily (WP:AN3 is also there, as are WP:3O and other dispute resolution measures). I'll admit that you've caught the gray area here; technically, what he is doing isn't vandalism, though it could be considered a form of blanking. I dunno, personally I'd call this an edit dispute and advise you to keep going through the channels you're using now and leave AIV for the less complex cases. Now, I'm gonna go try to sleep a bit, but I'll be up soon. Cheers, and thanks for keeping a cool head! Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 10:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Troy Davis case vandalismI have answered your questions about the highly-suspicious sockpuppet at the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. User:SelfEvidentTruths (talk - contribs) 16:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC) SeeyouRegarding your vandalism complaint against Seeyou, which has been declined: Thanks for stepping in and addressing the problems. I'm not sure that the recent behavior warrants a block, nor where to request such a block. Seeyou has been warned on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, but I think discussion and block requests belong at WP:AE. --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC) AfD discussionI don't use IRC, sorry. Nothing against it, but I actually try to just create articles and watch articles I'm interested in. I don't do much with regard to policy creation, discussion, and so forth. As you can see from the lengthy discussions on my talk page, it doesn't always work out that way. Originally, user:Jayhawk of Justice e-mailed me and said we have stuff and common. What those things are, I do not know. He asked me look at the Natalya Rudakova article, and he asked me to argue on his behalf for an unblock. I looked the stuff over. I voted for keeping the Rudakova article, but his edit history was far too bad for me to argue for him with respect to his unblock. The best thing to do with characters like this is let them do their own thing. If they edit constructively, that's good for Wikipedia. If they lose their minds, they'll get blocked. Even better for everyone, they'll get bored and stop. WP:ANI discussions and responses about being offended are exactly what disruptive editors are after. I won't name any names per Wikipedia rules, but I've dealt with several persistent conflict of interest and rude editors. Again, no names, but as of this moment, none of them are editing on Wikipedia anymore. All of them have gotten bored and moved on. Chicken Wing (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Seeyou (second)Take it to WP:AN/I. The AIV report was rejected as "not vandalism". I also suggest reading Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seeyou for a bit of history. As soon as you've made the An/I post, get out of Dodge or else Seeyou will drag you in. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 05:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC) AN/I commentUser:Jehochman beat you to it. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:OUTING_violation. (I almost put the link to the diff again!) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Merry Christmas!
Troy DavisI thought about that, but it seemed better to leave the article unprotected to expose open proxies or new accounts that DY71 might pop up on. I could then run a quick CU and expose a potential sockfarm. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 08:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC) RE: My signatureThanks for alerting me about that problem. Happy holidays. -- signed by SRE.K.A Happy New Year!
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Regarding Hank GreenI don't think the page was deleted... it wasn't there in the first place. His page redirected to his brother's, John Green, page. Hank Green is quite accomplished, in my humble opinion, being the founder of EcoGeek and half of Brotherhood 2.0. If smosh has a page... then Hank Green should. That's just my opinion :) Kaori242 (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC) So unless the vlogbrothers get on the All Time Most Subscribed list or something like that, they don't even get their own page? And the page says that the reason that his page doesn't exist is because there isn't yet enough information, not because he's not notable enough. So... I'm a little confused here. Sorry to inconvenience you and all, but I'm not sure I really understand. I hope you had a very Merry Christmas, by the way :D Kaori242 (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC) ... Sorry what? I don't understand what you said... Kaori242 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Look, I don't see what your problem is. I'm simply a little confused as to what you mean. No need to be so rude. I'm just asking for the reason Hank Green's page doesn't exist - whether Wikipedia doesn't feel he's notable enough, or if Wikipedia feels there isn't enough information on Hank Green. That's all. Thanks. Best wishes, and have a great New Year ^o^ Kaori242 (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC) You told me to 'learn to read'. That seems like a pretty rude and derogatory thing to say on an encyclopedia site. And I have read the pages. I personally think Hank Green meets the requirements. That's all. Kaori242 (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I've read the pages. I think Hank Green fulfills the requirements. I'm now asking others why they think Hank Green's page was deleted since, in my opinion, Hank Green fulfills all the requirements, we just need to get the article together neartly, with the right sources, and with less focus on Brotherhood 2.0 and more focus on stuff like his debut album 'So Jokes' and EcoGeek. Kaori242 (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Ok, I see. Thank you very much for providing the links and everything (I'm still a little confused by how to navigate the site, so it's a huge help). I'll get working on the page and stuff. Thank you very much. Kaori242 (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
