User talk:Daedalus969/Archive 7

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Re your message: Sorry, but I can't protect it as pages are not normally protected pre-emptively. If the page does get heavily vandalized I will protect it for you, but it would be against policy if I did so now. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a user entitled to semi-protection (for whatever reason) in his userspace on request?

talk ¿ review

) 17:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: To be honest, I have no idea how editors are accepted or declined for coaching. I don't follow the coaching program. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert the other day. I didn't notice you did that until now. That wasn't me who made the edit as you surmised. Very strange bit of vandalism, but oh well. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I really doubt the committee will be interested in spending time on a case when the desired outcome is an apology. (This is strictly my personal opinion- I have no connection to the committee at all.) I don't see that there's any ongoing problem to be solved in this case, though. Friday (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

How can I modify this so it works in my userspace? I currently have a copy and pasted version here, along with the Prev, Next, and Last templates, for use in the modification. Please reply on my talk page. thankyou for your time.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve\ ^Contribs 10:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the short answer is you can't; some code changes have been made to the software since that template was created which mean it seems to return "Expansion depth limit exceeded" errors all the time --

You may be interested in contributing to wikicities:AutoCAD. I'm sure your help there would be appreciated. Tom Haws (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

No, it just means that I didn't expect any more information would be forthcoming. If you need an admin to block a bunch of IP ranges, I suggest asking on

Since there's already a second case open, I thought it would be confusing to officially reopen the first page. List any new sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hdayejr (2nd). Yechiel (Shalom) 23:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: Without knowing which account you are referring to, I really can't say one way or another. Sometimes an admin will not leave a block notice because they know that the person reading the notice won't care as knows they are going to be blocked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

...Thanks... Tiggerjay (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your edit summary here, the

I'm well aware that sources are a requirement on Wikipedia. As for the change, read

Talk:Majin Boo and Talk:Majin Boo Saga. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits

) 22:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching request status

You have expressed interest in undergoing the administrator . Therefore, at this time, your application for Admin Coaching has been declined. My suggestion would be to seek encyclopedia. If you decide adoption is not for you, there is also the editor review process that may help you find areas to improve upon in our editing. If you would like to talk more about this, please feel free to leave me a note at my talk page. Malinaccier (talk ) 23:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A more personalized suggestion would be for you to edit less in your userspace, and more on articles. Happy editing, Malinaccier (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I fully understand. When you reach 1,750 edits, I'd suggest reapplying for coaching when you meet the minimum number of edits. You're very close to the minimum of 1,750 edits required to be left on the requests page, so I think you'll be able to meet the minimum by the end of the month. If you'd rather begin coaching sooner, you can personally contact a coach listed here. Happy editing, Malinaccier (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to change it. There was a discussion that took place here about removing requests below the minimum, and it was decided that 1,750 edits was a good standard. I'm sorry for the inconvenience, Malinaccier (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither; came up on Huggle. If you like vandal patrol and are a rollbacker... Sceptre ^(talk) 08:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I do know the rules of this site, and your continued reverts of The Price Is Right and Card Sharks are uncalled for. Per this link, [1], which is a Wiki article, the information is not vandalism or unverifiable. Are you having trouble reading simple English? It is really annoying to have my work reverted and being accused of vandalism. Landofpartinggifts (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve\ ^Contribs 03:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

Nice catch on the latest block of our favorite sockpuppeter. I was writing it up on the sockpuppeter board when I saw you had beaten me to it. Good job, as always. Dayewalker (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Faster! Faster! Faster! :P --Closedmouth (talk) 08:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am not sure what this was...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, nevermind. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest that it might be a good idea to refrain from posting on AvantVenger's talk page? I'm sure it's not your intention, but it could be regarded as provocation, which will only inflame things further. Thanks ;) EyeSerene^talk 09:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's much appreciated. I'm keeping tabs on his page; I won't protect it just yet since he may want to request unblocking, but we'll see how things develop. EyeSerene^talk 09:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No problems, and kudos for trying to defuse the situation. It seems to have helped things quieten down anyway ;) EyeSerene^talk 09:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI that last revert was an error. I would have changed it back myself.AvantVenger (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: I don't think the account was compromised, per se. More like two friends editing at the same time, or at least in the same room. I know that shared accounts are not allowed either, but I think this is just two friends goofing off. The activity has stopped, so I don't think any further action is necessary. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

You asked on Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Sig Help, "I was wondering how I might place the 'contribs' in my signature above 'Improve' with a line between them, sort of like a fraction ..."

I don't know how to do this, but see the signature here:

I've attempted to adapt it for another purpose and haven't gotten the hang of it, but the user who designed it may be able to help you. Good luck! — Athaenara ✉ 04:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus^T@lk / _Improve^Contribs 21:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(Re [2]) StatusBot is permanently offline, I now use the

You reverted my edit to Bonkers (pricing game). Why?-71.62.241.139 (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus^T@lk / _Improve^Contribs 22:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, It would really help if I knew what kind of browser, OS and version of those you are using. Otherwise, it's pretty difficult to track down problems with Javascripts. 2nd, the most likely cause is still that your Status page was not empty. Remember that much of the stuff on Wikipedia is cached. This includes pages that are retrieved "raw" and in my experience it can take a minute or 3 before a change has fully propagated. I'll see if I can force a newer version of the page, but there will always be some sort of delay in these kinds of things. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I show a similar editing pattern because I am that same person. My user number is different from what it has been since last year. It just changes from time to time.

And what exactly is "Hdayejr"?-71.62.241.139 (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That appears to be a matter for

I do not intend to do bad things to articles, but I didn't know if it was true or not in Rafferty's Card Sharks that along with the prize cards were jokers. I'm sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.44.39 (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This edit was pretty unfriendly, and - were it not being looked at calmly - could easily lead to a very unpleasant exchange. Perhaps you could be troubled to dial back the aggro a bit. The comment left by myself was addressing the back and forth reverting between yourself and other users. My request was to ask folk to use the article discussion instead. Asking 'how well I know policy around here' is a very violation of the NPA policy you refer to. The information you keep removing is cited material - Edward is referred to effeminate (and actually gay) in many reviews. Rather than revert your own

Okay. Wasn't talking down to you. I saw two or more people reverting their particular version in, and I thought it should be discussed on the discussion page. If I considered that sort of revert-warring to be a sign of relative new-ness, forgive the inferred belittlement. Hopefully, we can set the missed communication behind us and use the discussion page to resolve the matter. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help in taking care of our favorite sockpuppeteer. Did you notice they closed the second list of his sockpuppets? Do we need to start another page, or keep one on our talk pages somewhere? I'd like a master list, just to show how big of a problem this guy was, is, and will continue to be. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this edit of yours, you are wrong. Removing an image from an article is not vandalism, especially in this case where the image itself is missing copyright information and is a newly uploaded image. Please check the content before firing off vandalism accusations. Thanks. 69.247.178.157 (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And this edit of yours. The article has a hidden editor's note that says NOTE: THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A COMPLETE LIST! It needs to stay reasonably short. INSTEAD, ADD NEW ENTRIES TO List of people from Mississippi. Again, check the content rather than blindly revert someone's edits and accuse them of vandalism. 69.247.178.157 (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And this edit of yours. The user, Bearnation, was in violation of

WP:COI due to this edit, of which user Rnb reverted but did not warn Bearnation of COI issues. Therefore the COI notice to the user on the user's talk page is correct, and certainly isn't vandalism. 69.247.178.157 (talk

) 04:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it was vandalism or not, you were banned, and you still are. I am reporting this new IP to AiV. And then after you're banned from this IP, I'll revert all your edits, as per the policy of reverting the edits of a banned user. There's no point in posting this reply on your talk page, seeing as how your IP is not static. I suggest you get an account before you cause further disruption because your edits are the same of several different IPs, and people might see that as ban evasion.— Dædαlus^T@lk / _Improve^Contribs 04:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Being blocked does not void a user's edits and whoever told you that doesn't understand Wikipedia. The 3 edits above are valid edits and you don't just wipe them out because someone was blocked for something else. 69.247.178.157 (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Valid or not, you were banned, and as per policy, the edits of a banned user are to be reverted on sight. If the edits are reinstated by an univolved editor, and I don't mean a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet, they can stay. Otherwise, no. I recomend you stop editing and just let your ban expire before you make things worse for yourself.— Dædαlus^T@lk / _Improve^Contribs 05:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

heh. wait a whole month? i think not. regardless, as long as you know they are valid edits and you were wrong. ;] 69.247.178.157 (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, if you are banned, that means specifically that any edit you add is to be reverted on sight. You could be telling us the sky is blue, or providing the chemical formula for the Cure to Cancer, and we would have to delete it for the simple reason that you could not color within the lines while a member in good standing. In fact, the clear indication that you refuse to abide by the block/ban suggests that it should be extended to indefinite. We have abso-friggin'-lutely no use for someone who thinks the rules only apply to others.

Daedalus, if you wish to submit this user for an extension or indef ban, let me know. You have my unqualified support in this regard. 'Fuck you'-style resistance to blocks is a clear indicator that the anon cannot play well with others. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Poda pulle, I am not new to WP. You may bark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.210.234.117 (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So you've been violating our rules on purpose then?— Dædαlus^T@lk / _Improve^Contribs 18:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, to not ask this of you while I would be somewhat inappropriate - could you try to get your signature down to 255 characters and use the raw signature box in the preferences? See also

Well, alliance might not have a "D" in it, but dalliance most certainly does. It should be clear after reading the sentence that the word in question was not supposed to be alliance. When in doubt, educate yourself. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 04:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome!

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs

) @ 21:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In popular culture

It really is not that big of a deal if editors continue to work to improve these kinds of articles when they are willing to do so. At worst, we should merge and redirect without prejudice of undoing the redirect when additional sources are found. There's no pressing need to outright delete them that then forces editors to start all over if they do come across additional sources. When there are merge and redirect locations, outright "deletes" are excessive and somewhat discourteous to other editors. Also, keep in mind that I have argued and even nominated to delete dozens of

Tally-ho!

07:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 25	23 June 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Board elections completed; results forthcoming	WikiWorld: "John Hodgman"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Dispatches: How Wikipedia's 1.0 assessment scale has evolved
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 26	26 June 2008	About the Signpost

Ting Chen wins 2008 Board Election	ArbCom's BLP "special enforcement" remedy proves controversial
Global group discussions in progress	WikiWorld: "Raining animals"
News and notes: Foundation hires, milestones	Dispatches: Reliable sources in content review processes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

talk

) 08:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Me, Wikipedia, and the internet

Re your message: That's kind of a strange request, but I added the templates for you. On the other hand, I will watch your talk page while you are gone. No worries about that. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you leave that discussion. You are not doing anything to resolve the dispute, only continuing to harass him for not "following the rules". Your edits are needlessly confrontational, and your use of bolding and large font here is fully inappropriate. Also, do not advise editors to take their concerns to court. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I will apologize for those who got innocently wrapped up in Freitas and Merkle's rat's nest of lies and deceit[3] and the aftermath. But none of this would have happened if it were not for Sandstein, William R. Buckley and SteveBaker, all with vested interest in the article making more of it than it should of been. I also blame you two for not dedicating the time to research this case as it should be. My technology is being stolen by affirmative action. Freitas and Merkle, NASA and Cornell U are grooming Hod Lipson to receive credit for my work. Affirmative action, if ever used at all should only be used when discrimination has be documented to have occurred and not to cast false credit to historical events such as this to someone else. I have done nothing wrong to have my life's work stolen, be kidnapped and my life destroyed, house stolen and hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, no hope for even survival now as the government continues a steady destruction campaign on my life going on twenty years now. At this moment there are two Quantico MPs that moved into my apartment downstairs, for example who deliberately play loud music to disturb me all the time continuously and, of course Chief Dean has ordered his cops to do nothing about it. If I complain I'm hauled into Potomac Hospital in a strait jacket as "paranoid" about the "self-replicator conspiracy". My legal fees are in the hundreds of thousands, my last girlfriend turned out to be a "swallow" after half a lifetime. How do you know these editors are not working for NASA and Cornell? Or the government? I had several editors who have gleamed some insight into this only to back off in fear. I am being buried, day in and day out, 24 hours a day seven days a week, year after year because you guys in the media can't, won't or are afraid to do your jobs, with all due respect. Playing the affirmative action card on someone totally innocent who did something wonderful is only being used here to steal the most important event since the dawn of time. There is no discrimination going on, I could myself be classified as a minority if I chose so it's affirmative action as excuse to discriminate against a minority. But there is deceit, lying, deception and lord high felony all through it and you have not researched it enough to even begin to know that. One does not use affirmative action to steal Leonardo da Vinci's credit for painting the Mona Lisa or the Wright brothers for the airplane or Neil Armstrong foot on the moon but this is being done here.

On crazy editors here: I find myself blocked for doing nothing and a bio attack in an article right when blocked. Time and again with large swaths of evidence deleted. They should have been permanently banned long ago as contentious seasoned editors, and nothing is more damaging to Wikipedia than that and you have the results here in spades. Buckley trolls, takes one side of the issue then switches, just to argue and wreak havoc and once he has an argument going and has his just reason to do so lays the insults and attacks on hard. He is also taken as "authority" there at Self-replicating machine and it is on his say alone the F-Unit article stays there and it should for the reasons stated. But, if I hit him hard to admins he has made it very clear that he will have it removed. One of his sockpuppets threatened that. He also threatened to sue me, I reported it, then he was blocked, attacked me time after time. He has not apologized or remedied and is harassing me there now in talk, go look along with SteveBaker who is well documented at ripping up F-Units after he blocked me for a war he started. why is Buckley back? why is not SteveBaker blocked and his advertising copy not removed on Adrian Bowyer? Special preferences to tenured long time editors is why, nothing more. These are sharp cons at this. I am certain they are sockpuppeting too, they just know how to do it with far more experience. I find it appalling that these two have not been blocked years ago. That is your problem, not me the victim. The truth on this case would be the best article for Wikipedia on this huge historical scandal. But media types get it wrong for perceived publicity, time after time. Wikipedia rules state that there is a reasonable exception to every rule here and I assert this is a time for that exception. Buckley and SteveBaker are simply involved with skulldugery.

Charles Michael Collins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.6.184 (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

I think you meant this warning[4] for someone else.[5] I accidentally deleted the wrong external link[6] from the gourmet article but did warn the offending user.[7] Anyway, thanks for watching out for the article. Wikidemo (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Daedalus969,

Saw the edits you made on the Ring page. I understand the forum deletion, but you deleted the other link due to 'expired domain'. But the domain is not expired. Can you explain? Thanks.

BeeHun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beehun (talk • contribs) 18:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.—

Improve

06:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

Cappuccino is the given family name that came from Italy. Capcino is the shortened, Americanized version. Why would someone lengthen a given name to make it look more ethnic?

My grandmother was his sister. There's your source. I'm reverting. 206.182.134.93 (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.—

Improve

03:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)