Wikipedia:Editor review/Daedalus969

Daedalus969[edit]

Daedalus969 (talk · contribs) I have not been here long, but I am always trying to improve myself in one way or another. I feel that instead of fumbling around and screwing up all the more here, it would be best to ask for someone to look at me, and tell me where I should focus, where I need to improve. Thankyou for your time. The following response is in answer to both questions: I have not made very many contributions to wikipedia as of yet, I have mostly been spending my time on the Rock Lobster (song) article, where we had a content dispute, which has by now been settled with a consensus on all sides. This is where I really started to edit, this article. There were many conflicts there. Yes, In the beginning, I did not do so well, but when an Admin called attention to what I was doing wrong, I took a step back and apologized. Yes, that article caused much stress, but it was mainly the trolls that have caused me the stress, the users who were willing to discuss the edits didn't cause anythin gof the sort, especially since I was able to bend both ways. After User:Vanboto, I calmed down, and just am the editor you see today. If there is a problem, I talk it out. Nicely.Dædαlus T@lk\^{→quick link} 22:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Mostly I like what I see; the edits to Rock Lobster (song) show a mostly calm collected editor. I would recommend exercising a little more caution in AfD however; Vons is clearly a notable supermarket chain, as are all the other brands bundled into this AfD (note that one of these chains, Dominick's, has ten good sources in the article, and it still wound up in the AfD). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheshire Cat in popular culture (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightsaber combat (5th nomination), I fear that there is too much desire to "win the argument" than to help with the active efforts to improve the articles in question. You will notice that even for as much arguing I have done in these, I have expressed a willingess to compromise in the Cheshire Cat case with a merge and redirect. It is okay to switch from "delete" to "keep" in AfDs when editors believe in good faith that an article has potential. After all, even I am willing to do just that as evidenced by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Prabis. Yes, Wikipedia:Editors matter may be an essay, but it makes a valid point about giving the members of our community the benefit of the doubt in such circumstances. After all, oftentimes it is far more rewarding to focus building the articles we do care about than worry about removing those others do in AfDs. Anyway, please consider these comments as hopefully a helpful suggestion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 08:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
^^ Whatever. I know this review is solely for your benefit so I'm not sure what the above comment is about. What you put down in the debate seemed fine to me. Most of the delete votes that stuck around appeared to have incredible patience. Protonk (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user makes comments about what he believes to be the 'rules'- tells other users what they are allowed or should or shouldn't be doing, when he doesn't know the details of the rules and hasn't double-checked them, just assumes he knows them by generalising from the basc rules to a particular instance, without checking. I think he would benefit from adoption, to improve how he is able to collaborate and speak to other editors. At this current time in his editing career, he appears to think he has superior knowledge of the 'rules' to some editors, when he doesn't. This is embarrassing to him as then users with more knowledge of the policies and guidelines come along and say his claims that other users have done something wrong are not exactly correct. Sticky Parkin 18:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-write your review with diffs to back up your accusations. I never told anyone what to do. Secondly, I believe you should look over all of my contributions instead of just once instance at an AfD where the subject at hand did not have significant reliable sources independent from the subject.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 01:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, everyone else said it did, and it ended as a snowball keep. Anyway, here you are doing it to me over this very post [1] which is fair enough but this is an ER and if you didn't want feedback or intend to remove it it isn't worth having.[2] This one- you said it's A7 but hadn't bothered to check, you said others should discuss in an AfD well no, people might feel the need to discuss in an AfD but primarily they just have to provide an argument/reason for their vote, just a sentence or so next to it can suffice. Then because you disagreed with someone's view there and felt attacked you had an attack of the WP:POINTs and went onto their talk page and attacked them with a partly technically erroneous policy throwing, saying he'd done something that was a blockable offence, about an issue that wasn't even to do with you, but a discussion they were having further up their talk page on 30th March 2008! [3] You tried to speedy delete a user page because it had a link to their website, when that's perfectly allowed within reason on a user page[4]. Anyway, here is how I think you could improve as an editor. Focus on content and improving it, not individual editors. Spend less time on user talk pages (41% of your contribs at the moment), especially having a go at other editors. Don't be officious and tell others what to do. Try and be friendly. Contribute content yourself more often rather than picking at others'. It's late here but there was also something about your interpretation of WP:OR- saying that someone saying blood in a comic story was black was WP:OR, or someone saying a song having a rendition in Family Guy was OR- of course these would be better with a third party cite but it's acceptable to reference the video or comic itself to an extent. You did ok on Talk:Rock_Lobster earlier in the year; I feel you need to recapture that editor you were-get on those articles and talk pages and start discussing the articles in a more relaxed way, and enjoy:) Sticky Parkin 02:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I suggest you re-write, as you have again misinterpreted things. First, I never attacked Myth, he came to my page, first. You can easily see this if you take a gander at my talk page. I responded to him, so that diff you show doesn't count. Second, I will remove disruptive comments, I don't keep comments here by a banned user or ip who feel the need to add slander, and I was going to remove your comment, and I am still considering it, considering the diffs cited are not in conjunction with the previous post. As to the removal of said post, defamation or baseless accusation is disruptive. Third, that is not 41% of my contributions, you seem to be ignoring other accounts of my editing contributions. Fourth, I have been focusing on content, and I don't know where you got the editors tidbit, as if you did actually look through my contributions, you would see that most of it is tagging and vandalism reversion. Again, I have not told anyone what to do, I said(and I may be repeating this, I know), that if you are going to throw accusations at me, then you better back them up. That is how most of wikipedia works in regards to editors. If someone is a suspected sockpuppet, you need to provide evidence, if someone is uncivil, you need to provide evidence. Fifth, so what? Just because several people say an object is notable, makes it notable? I don't think so, that breaks policy. I have yet to see significant reliable sources in indicate notability.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 03:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is painfully obnoxious. Especially considering Jimbo has acknowledged the issue and said he would need a "few days (at best) to study it (and a couple of weeks is more likely)." Good editors and future administrators need to have patience and maturity, and that display clearly shows a lack of both. A ni Mate 01:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does it display a lack of maturity? I was being patient, waiting for Jimbo to reply, as last time I checked, people usually didn't reply to posts that are in the archives, and they may have forgotten. I have patience and I have maturity, keeping at topic within view is not painfully obnoxious.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 01:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering he already replied and said it would be a couple of weeks, doesn't it make sense to just let the message be archived then drop him a note in a couple of weeks pointing to the archives and asking him to take a look. Tell me, do you intend to keep doing that until he answers? What if it takes him three weeks, or a month? Do you intend to keep it up? A ni Mate 01:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had honestly not thought of that. I rescind, and shall let it archive, and take your advice.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 01:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the grasshopper is willing to learn. Always a good sign. A ni Mate 02:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am disturbed by this message on Skomorokh's talk page. It makes no sense to leave a message with a nonworking link, with an accusatory tone, and lacking further explanatory information so that the intended responder will know what you are talking about. And then, you make matters worse by responding to the user's befuddlement by twice accusing the editor of "lying," while once again offering no further information as to what his or her offense was. This is very bad form. I would like an explanation of that exchange and the untoward attitude with which you approached a valuable editor and contributor. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of writing, that link linked to a specific diff in the history of a redirect. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how you look at it, the redirect was deleted. To clarify, it was deleted as repeatedly recreated material. Now, I gave the user whom you speak of fair warning of the RFD discussion. On the surface, it looks like he didn't take any heed, but after someone posted in the RFD on August 6th, as a delete, two days after he recreated the redirect, although with spaces in-between the words. This too me seems way too suspicious, especially since I had a discussion with this user about the redirect that was RfD'd before it as RfD'd, and he then denies having ever created it at all.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 23:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He never denied having created it. His exact response to your highly accusatory message was: "No idea what you are talking about; your link leads to an Error." Your response was to accuse him of lying. In your response here, you continue your accusatory tone, your tone of suspicion of his actions, despite never having spelled out in clear terms what exactly you are even talking about. Only in your most recent message on Skomorokh's talk page do you go into detail as to what your gripe is. Once again, though, it is your accusatory tone, and your command that he should not bother denying something he has not denied. All of this continues to indicate bad faith on your part. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This bad faith is only because of the way he responded to me in the original situation regarding the original redirect. I originally CSD'd it under R3, as an implausible typo. He disagreed and re-created it. I had a discussion on his talk page about it with him, in which he refused to define exactly how the redirect had anything to do with the article besides original research. I later RfD'd the redirect, and told him of the discussion, should he feel like defending his stance. Despite his earlier responses, he completely ignored the discussion, then re-created the redirect under a slightly different title(read: Fetish:Footage:Forum, versus Fetish: Footage: Forum(the original)) on a date two days after someone argued for delete in the redirects for deletion discussion.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 01:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bit uptight but nice enough guy and very dedicated to the project also persistent in atching vandals i would knowThe Nice Hollaback Girl (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool

Questions

Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I am pleased with the article Rock Lobster (song) because of the consensus we archived that satisfied all parties.Dædαlus T@lk\^{→quick link} 22:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
Yes, with the addition of material at the article stated above. Many of the users that caused me grief were not willing to discuss the edits they made, and were very rude and uncivil. I was rude aswell at one point, but that stopped when an Admin pointed it out, not that it really helped. I am refering to what I call, the Vanboto Incident, because that is where I lost my cool. Thankyou for you time.Dædαlus T@lk\^{→quick link} 22:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your behaviour over Fatsuit[edit]

I don't think this would have been your finest hour: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fatsuit

Although following it up by trying to delete the same article piece-by-piece is not behaviour in good faith.
Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing with him about the AfD aside, are you saying that section wasn't original research? If so, shouldn't you find citations backing your position up first before you accuse another editor of bad faith? A ni Mate 16:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

some questions[edit]

I'm a little puzzled by your speedy as A7 , no indication o fnotability for a group, for the article Syro Malabar Eparchies. It does seem a little unclear it spots, but deletion?
Similarly, Tejas Networks was at first a little on the spammy side, but it is a major company, andhad multiple sources to how that even when started. Why did you speedy it as A7, non-notable? Ditto for GuideStar UK?
Do you think the exchange at [5] helpful? True, the user is a returning vandal, but the sort of discussions there just give her added attention. Do you know about WP:RBI?

DGG (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I admit a mistake on my part with that article. I honestly didn't know what to think about it, I should have taken it to AFD.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 04:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. It did not indicate why it was notable. It said it was a company that gained money through donations. The same could be said for many other non-notable companies. There was nothing indicated of how this company was different. The same with Guide Star. It did not indicate why it was notable. This was my understanding of A7 in terms of companies at the time. Since then, my understand has been increased, as per a user who's name I forget, either way, I will be watching more closely.

3. Yes, I know about RBI, but I do think the exchange was helpful. This user, as indicated by the user him/her self, and the actions, it is clear that this user is of the level of grade-school/middle school. This user has indicated that he or she thinks that WP is a little more than a game, a game that he or she can't lose. I noted the possibility of loss, a wake up call, if you will. Hopefully this indication will make the user think about his or her actions a little harder before editing, next time.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 04:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rollback[edit]

would you consider this [[6]] to be proper rollback usage? WP:rollback Theserialcomma (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that yes, that was a bad usage of the feature, but please, before you question my edits during a particular moment in time, make sure you know full well what was happening. The editor who's edits I reverted had been grossly uncivil and rude towards me and several others, and had been biting newcomers on their talk pages with uncivil and personal attack breeching comments, like this. I and another editor, User:Grsz11, had spent our time reverting his edits because an amount of them were uncivil and personal attacks, which, as I'm sure you know, are against policy here at WP, whether the user in question was a vandal or not is besides the point, you never, no matter the circumstances insult another editor, even if that editor is a vandal. I usually look at the diffs before reverting, but that night, I was just a tad frustrated with the editor's behavior. Take note, this user has again been blocked, this time for a week, for more personal attacks. Please review the thread WP:AN/I#User:Jayhawk of Justice.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 22:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, i didn't mean to seem as if i were questioning your edits in general. i was just pointing out that you (may have) misused rollback in that particular situation. in the context of what took place, it's understandable that you were frustrated. however, the rollback tool has a very specific purpose (to fight vandalism) and is often removed for its misuse. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)."[reply]

I mostly do use it to fight vandalism. This was a rare case. I just wish that Lupin's anti-vandal tool didn't have so many errors.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 22:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were perfectly acceptable uses of rollback - reverting vandalism by Jayhawk. Grsz ¹¹ 19:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High-handedness[edit]

You have threatened me with consequences on creating an article on an Indian actress Roja Ramani, the sole reason for my communication with you was to establish good faith, and logic for creating the article in the first place. After arguing my point, as we were going nowhere, i did not respond to your last comment yesterday. Today you come up with a threatening message for not using WP:SIG, as i was not aware of this because i've been signing all my comments for 3 years now. A simple pointer towards my error would have sufficed. Your high-handedness is highly unacceptable, and is against the Open source spirit. You don't even have knowledge about this Indian actress to have a meaningful discussion on it.

Wikipedia, my friend, was not built by people who read guidelines and label others articles, it was built by tireless people who believe in the power of knowledge, especially to the third world, that is by being BOLD. Try to be a good contributor first. Randhirreddy (talk)

Do me a favor, in fact, do all of us favors, and do not make baseless accusations. Along with responding here, I shall respond on your talk page. First, I never threatened you with any consequences. I nominated an article you created for deletion. It has nothing to do with you, but you obviously thought otherwise, and as a result, you pestered and pestered me about my nomination again, again, and again on my talk page. I repeatedly told you to take it to the AfD, and not me, as that was the place to argue for a keep. Next, per your comment about labeling others' articles. I suggest you read WP:OWN. No-one here own anything, it is all owned by the wikiMedia foundation, so don't you try to pass that off as an argument that holds water. Third, I do not need knowledge on this actress to have a meaningful discussion on her, all I need to know is that the article meets wikipedia's inclusion policy. If it does not, it is deleted, if so, it is kept. It is simple as that, everyone here is qualified to edit every article, your assumption that I am not qualified to delete it is against the spirit of things here. Fourthly, I actually pointed out your signature several times in my replies to you, and every time you made not hint that you had read my text, or acknowledged me on that subject in any way.

Fifth, your sole reason for communication with me, had nothing to do with good faith, but it did have everything to do with pestering me about the nomination I did until I withdrew it, don't paint a bar of lead gold, and then call it gold. Lastly, if you make accusations against any editor, then you provide diffs to back them up, period.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 23:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did threaten to report him to WP:AN/I because his name was written out plainly rather than a hyperlink to his userpage. That is heavy-handed IMHO over something that is an infraction, but a minor one worth a suggestion rather than a threat. For instance you could have said "you might like to sign with four tildes, or link to your page so that others can easily leave you messages." Do you want to keep this editor review permanently open or close it at this point, as it strikes me it will accumulate stuff from each new person you antagonise (as we all do at times on wiki), and not be a pleasant and constructive experience for you. The review is/was an analysis of your editing to the date the review started, now it has been open for several months. A lot of your editing has improved in some respects, and you seem to have a better grasp of policy. You just need to perhaps sometimes learn to make the response proportionate to the level of problem.

ER is not designed to be kept ongoing permanently as far as I know, take this as a snapshot of what people think of your editing, bear it in mind and improve (as you perhaps have.) Then maybe come back in 6 months and ask for another ER. The views you are now getting are not neutral assessments of your editing so aren't the most help (unlike those at the top of this page.) My point is not that you should disregard the later comments but that you should maybe think about closing this now as you have gathered most things you are going to gather from it at the moment and have enough to work on from these suggestions to keep you occupied for a while. Sticky Parkin 01:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage/ AN/I[edit]

No-one has a userpage that contains things like this (especially the Jayhawk comment) User:Daedalus969#Userlinks we just don't make it so obvious we are keeping tabs on other editors :) , and the comment about WP:AN/I is just not what ANI is for- that is for crucial incidents. If you want to make an ongoing thing about Jayhawk you need to make a subpage planning a WP:RFC about him, and start the RfC when you see fit, if others have also discussed problems with him and could certify it. Even leaving an RfC waiting in your subpages is often looked upon poorly. Don't advertise a grudge against other editors on your userpage, and AN/I is not your personal army.:) Sticky Parkin 01:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]