User talk:Daedalus969/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Disengage

It's time to just let the ANI thread go, if I can offer you some friendly advice. Nothing's going to happen there, so there's nothing to fight for.

If I may bring up a similar situation, a while back an editor posted a frivolous complaint about me on ANI, so I fought back also. I wasted a lot of time and words in defending myself, and nobody really cared because the thread was obviously rap. Once it becomes clear that the claim has no merit (as with the current thread), it's best just to disengage and let it die. Even when you're in the right, continuing to fight with the other side is just a waste of space (and keeps the thread active longer).

I know how tenacious you are. That's a really good thing when it comes to vandal fighting, but it also makes you a bit vulnerable to other editors who are here to push your buttons. Sometimes, just denying them the pleasure of getting to you is the best way to piss them off. Dayewalker (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, well, from here on, I'm going to try to stay out of it.. again.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
While you're taking some time away from that, give WP:BAIT a read. It helped me calm down quite a bit when it was pointed out to me. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 05:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the read: (n(^^)n).— Dædαlus Contribs 06:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
With some incredulity and much eye-rolling, I watched the unfolding of the never-ending story as described above. I too was once swept up into a maelstrom of an ANI, and although the baseless complaint levelled against myself and two others was nearly universally dismissed as a "bowl of spaghetti thrown on a wall" complaint, it cost me over a month of back-and-forths, difs, quotes, others vouching for individuals and much angst, and in the end, for very little accomplished other than the original complainant being turfed out of WikyWacky wonderland for a year. Even this decision was particularly unpalatable as it was never my intention in editing the "pieces" to cause any discomfort especially for a newcomer. What I saw in your ever-spirallingly upward, anger-laced responses, was exactly my mind-set when I began the ANI. What was different was that I chose not to enunciate my darkest thoughts of evisceration and made the conscious decision to go the "high road". Numerous editors tried to coax you onto that path in the ensuing recent conflab – they were giving you good advice. Take the time to absorb it and come back refreshed. FWIW (not much in today's environment) Bzuk (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

Response

Geddon was unfairly deleted. Because of that, I couldn't remember the Japanese names for it's monster. I haven't seen any Wikias revolved around Kamen Riders and it's US adaptions. Rtkat3 (talk), 6:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know it was deleted that quickly. Rtkat3 (talk), 6:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how to create or webmaster a Wikia. Rtkat3 (talk) 6:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

DB-A7 on Kamen Rider topics

If you continue to tag every single fictional character list or character article concerning Kamen Rider, you will be blocked for disruption.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent actions have been quite disruptive Daedalus and your comments on Ryulong's talk page show a persistent refusal to get the point, especially after the ANI incident that should have told you when to back off. The COIN report was spurious and yet another overreaction. Consider yourself warned that any further disruption of this kind will led to a block. Cenarium (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The point that you shouldn't revert insistently when an admin has declined a csd, that those articles didn't meet G7, and most importantly that you should desist from a combative attitude when arguing, as you have done at ANI, and on Bishonen and Ryulong's talk pages. Cenarium (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Administrators are imperfect, and have their preferences like anyone. G4 doesn't mean delete under any circumstance, articles can be merged for example, and when a user in good-standing disagrees, it is best to try to find a compromise rather than edit-warring. Even though Ryulong's conduct was not optimal in this case, reporting him to COIN in the middle of the dispute was misguided, especially after the ANI issue and Bishonen's warning. I told you yesterday about that (reporting users only increases tensions and doesn't help to resolve the issue). Trying to find neutral commentators is also a good way to help the dispute, Ryulong's talk page is quite watched and giving consideration to comments such as those of Newyorkbrad can help (although I realize you haven't seen those before reporting to COIN). Some of the articles have sources by the way, and may be notable. Cenarium (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Heroes template

Firstly that is not my Heroes wikilink, I found it. Secondly I have copied the link directly from Template:Memoryalpha the wiki for all Star Trek fictional articles. That wikilink template has been in place for years and admins even locked it so it couldn't be vandalized. How is a Heroes wikilink spam and a Star Trek wikilink not? I have replaced the deleted article and tagged it with the hangon template per the notice on my page you had placed there as it is contested. Ejfetters (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Just looking for some assistance. I was trying to clean up the Heroes character pages and there is much in-universe information. From experience in cleaning up the Star Trek character pages users were lead to the Memory Alpha star trek wiki by Template:Memoryalpha which seems to be condoned and even protected by an admin. This is how I intended to start filtering out the in-universe info in these articles and directing them to a Heroes in-universe wiki, just like done on Jadzia Dax or Deanna Troi for examples of the probably hundreds of articles there. The heroes wiki isn't my wiki, I just stumbled upon it, I have never even edited it before. This isn't spam, its constructive to the cleanup of these articles. I ask for your input on the discussion page in this matter so we can resolve it per the request of an admin and now myself. Ejfetters (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • No I didnt notice the edit summary. Sorry for the trouble here too, I'd appreciate any advice you could give in the future, thanks :) Ejfetters (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tarysky

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tarysky. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

goodbye daedulus

seeing as you have blacklisted me i have decided to give up sock pupeting for now (in case you don't know im the hollaback girl) and i just want to say goodbye i am sorry for any trouble i have caused you i will be back but as a good userGood Bye Daedulus696 (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks!

I sure appreciate the compliment. Thanks for the kind words. I'll look into that matter for you ASAP and we'll set this guy straight with any luck. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference tag

Sorry about the reference tag being gone. I think I now know that we'll need it there in case someone needs to give a source. --99.158.136.26 (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk page archivals

Hi. I speedy-closed your move request at WP:RM, and restored the talk pages to their previous locations. If you need any more of those done, please feel free to let me know, or request it in the "Uncontroversial proposals" section of Requested moves. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:SE7

Uh, he does have a link... :S — neuro(talk)(review) 20:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not his signature, it would seem he just tried to straight copy paste it from one page to another without realising that the edit box strips WYSIWYG formatting. — neuro(talk)(review) 20:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Assuming you posted that on my talk before seeing my above comment, if not, message me back. Thanks, — neuro(talk)(review) 21:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Filter 34

Hey there. For each new filter, we have them run log-only for a while to make sure they're accurate enough to set consequences for tripping them. Looking at the logs, it seems pretty accurate, though, so I'll write up a warning and set it to warn/disallow in a moment. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 08:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done! See Mediawiki:Abusefilter-warning-userpage-blanking for the warning. Hersfold (t/a/c) 08:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Viktor van Niekerk

you are not allowed to remove block notices while blocked - Sure you are. You are not allowed to removed declined unblock requests, but there is no reason to revert a removal of the block notice. WP:BLANKING. --Onorem♠Dil 13:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Saw this flash by on my watchlist, yep, Viktor can skive off whatever he pleases from his own talk page but for declined unblock templates whilst that block is still on. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

sig

replied — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 15:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Reason for External Link Removal of allankirsch.tech.officelive.com?

The reason for my ext.link was to allow people to see the spelling errors on the newly designed www.whitehouse.gov website. What is the proper way to allow people to see it within Wikipedia.org? That is the freebie rather than a service. Would a direct link to the report be allowable? I can't copy it off that website because it's not mine.

If there is no way for people to be able to find this information on Wikipedia.org then I think it's a real disservice to the public! If you think the report is not real then lookup the misspellings on www.whitehouse.gov to verify, because they are real.

I noticed that Spellr.us is allowed an external link on the "spelling" page and sells it's service?

surfersurfer20022002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfersurfer20022002 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Reason for External Link Removal of allankirsch.tech.officelive.com.

Thank you for giving me a better understanding of how wikipedia.org works. I thought it would be interesting for people to be able to see the over 700 spelling mistakes on www.whitehouse.gov. It would have provided a real life example of spelling mistakes on a major website. Correct grammar and spelling on our government websites tells our allies we are reliable and our enemies that we are competent. Do you know of any other websites like Wikipedia.org that might be interested in posting such information? Also why didn't you remove the spellr.us link if it's in violation. I don't have the status you have for deleting such entries. When something doesn't make sense it is usually a red flag for corruption.


Disappointed,

surfersurfer20022002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfersurfer20022002 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Archiving the Viktor van Niekerk ANI discussion

Hey, I noticed that you used {{discussion top}}/{{discussion bottom}} to archive the ANI thread about Viktor. Just wanted to let you know that you should have put discussion top under the level 2 header instead of above, since doing so breaks archival bots. No big deal really- I've fixed it, just thought I'd let you know. :-) —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BeenieWeenie969

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BeenieWeenie969. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wallflowers98

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wallflowers98. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Your reversions at User_talk:Polystyla were altogether excessive. It is generally accepted that users can remove any post from their own User Talk page, and you should not revert them to restore remarks of yours. In the case of removing what you consider to be personal attacks, either use the MfD process or post at WP:ANI to gain consensus support for the removal. In the worst case scenario (i.e. assuming that no one agrees the remarks should be removed), simply ignore the remarks and leave the page alone. In this particular case, I decided that the best course of action was to protect the page since it was apparently being used as a soap box, and an unblock should really only be considered for the master account. Bear in mind that this page being protected is the only reason you haven't been blocked for edit-warring (since blocking would serve no preventative purpose). SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding El Machete Guerrero

Hey, I know you're trying to do good over at User talk:El Machete Guerrero, but I suggest that you might find it better to just disengage, as I did earlier. It's pretty clear you weren't intending to attack Machete, but to some it might seem that your continued conversation with him is an attempt at antagonizing someone who doesn't really understand our policies. I don't think this is the case, but I thought I'd leave you a message all the same. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you're trying to participate in the best way that you can in this situation, but you are only making things worse at this point. Please, please step back from the situation. Machete is clearly taking your involvement as a personal vendetta at this point, regardless of what your intentions are, and that doesn't help things. He's already de facto banned (since, with a CU-supported sockpuppetry block, no admin is likely to lift the block), and there's little opposition to the imposition of a formal ban. Per WP:BAN#Dealings with banned users, continuing to deal with Machete at this point when it's clear your involvement just antagonizes him will just put your actions in a bad light. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Thank you for setting up a transclusion. :) DurovaCharge! 02:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I blocked your threat-spewing friend as a patently obvious sock. If he follows through and creates more accounts, a checkuser can be amazingly effective for n00b sockpuppeteers, so I would recommend it if it gets worse. Should that happen, if you want, just let me know that it is happening, and I can ask a CU to take a look.

Have a good night! (or morning, afternoon, evening...)

J.delanoygabsadds 05:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  1. Well, I wasn't watching your talk page before, although I am now.
  2. Redsred Without The Puppet Strings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is fairly obviously a sock of Redsred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). How I found him and his vandalism is a bit complex. There was a massive flood of account creations with abusive usernames by a vandal using proxies and a script. After getting everything sorted (at least what I can do), I was looking at Special:Log/newusers in case he repeats, and I happened to see a username mentioning "puppets". So I looked to see if User:Redsred existed, and if it was blocked. Both returned true, so I blocked the new account and then reverted his contribs.
  3. With regard to chess, it is hosted on Yahoo, and I'd love to play, but it is 02:15 here, so I really need to get some sleep. I apologize for that, and I hope to be able to play with you sometime in the future. For now, cheers! J.delanoygabsadds 06:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Signature

Is this OK then??? "C.U.T.K.D T | C" —Preceding undated comment added 15:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC).

Yes that was a joke. I changed my signature as you requested, but added 3 extra <big> tags when I posted it here. Sorry if the humour was lost on you! C.U.T.K.D T | C 08:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Lol and that wasn't meant sarcastically either! C.U.T.K.D T | C 08:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Evidence

Oh yes, please do! Any help (although I'm just focusing on PA's and incivility right now) would be appreciated. →Dyl@n620 22:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to get off the computer now, so I won't be able to include the diffs in my evidence page until tomorrow, but I thank you for the diffs. :)

→Dyl@n620 has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the bubbliness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

→Dyl@n620 00:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Heh. You're welcome.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The Green Serpent

Someone deleted The Green Serpent before I could put a hangon tag. It is a piece of literature and notable, and should be in Wikipedia and I am distressed by the deletion, what can I do. Are you an admin that can restore it? Goldenrowley (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well?

What do you have to say? Paul Beardsell (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

question

What are you doing? ( 82.195.149.119 (talk) ) —Preceding undated comment added 07:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC).

El Cartel Records

I might not know the policies of wikipedia, but it does not violate copyright. It is the official youtube channel and El Cartel Records owns the rights, so how can this violate copyright? TPTanque (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
If it violates wikipedia's copyright rules and policies concerning external links, than how come I have seen this on other pages? Featured articles no less. And what's your deal? Why are you being so mean to me? I was only trying to link the youtube channel as the myspace channel had already been linked. What is so bad about doing this? TPTanque (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I spat back what they spat at me. They said I was vandalising when quite clearly I was not. I did not insult any editor so how can you say I did? It was not explaind properly and the only thing they explained is it is a copyvio when I disagree. I used it as a reference as I thought a reference is better than no reference. And it quite clearly has not been edited. I wont listen to you because you are being mean. I will listen to everyone else though as they have not shown the hostillity you have. And I still think I am right and when the channel is linked I will be proved right and you can all apologise for being so mean to me. TPTanque (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
So if I tell you to never edit again and you do, I can revert this as vandalism per policy? I hate how you keep saying per policy. You obviously know I do not know policy so instead of saying per policy, direct me to where I can read what I am doing is wrong. Other wise you are just plain mean, per policy. TPTanque (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Then why aren't you blocked for disruptive editing? I can not find in those policies where what I am doing is wrong. There is no evidence that it is not the record label's channel, and therefore, per policy concerning copyrighted material, they can be linked. See again you are doing it! Saying per policy and not backing up your claims. You are now using Jazz's argument of copyvio, and are not using you agrument which makes me question your credibillity. When they link it on the appropriate sites I will link it, and then as I said earlier you can apologise for being so mean. TPTanque (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not editing disruptively. So don't say I am. I am not linking to material that violates the creaters copyright. And I am absolutely right! There is none. I know wikipedia can be sued and I wouldn't have linked it had I thought it was not legitimate. You say I need hard evidence. I say where is the hard evidence for the website or myspace page? You think it is easy to get "hard evidence", then you provide me with hard evidence for these pages. TPTanque (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I have replied on your talk page. And yes you are, claiming that no evidence is evidence is not how it works here. I have linked all the relevant policies, and I have taken the time to explain to you what you need to do to include the links. The discussion is over.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Stop speaking on behalf of wikipedia because I don't think you are a good representative of the Wikipedia community. You are much too hostile. Why did you not follow my request and provide "hard evidence", I'll tell you why. Because you are a hypocrite! You tell me to do something when you wont even do it yourself! I will provide hard evidence when you do. So please proceed. You make it sound so easy, so then do it! You need to learn manners when speaking with others, period! TPTanque (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I have replied on your talk page. Besides that, do tell me how exactly I'm much to hostile. You were warned against doing something, and then you went ahead and did it anyway. If you want me to stop being so blunt with you, then stop acting as if wikipedia owes you something, or that you're infallible. It won't get you far.— Dædαlus Contribs 10:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

TPT, you need to stop, and pronto. This is not how discussions should evolve. You think that YouTube vids should be allowed, we get that. However, the current consensus throughout the Wikipedia community - tens of thousands in the Wiki-en alone are of the opinion that they should not be. You will forgive me for observing that this sounds like shouting at the wind. If you want to seek policy change in this regard, head to the Village Pump and seek it there, or at the very least, get a wider read on the idea. Clearly arguing here and in articles is not going to be an effective use of your time here; Daedalus is poised to block you, and then editing will be impossible. Work within the community to find a consensus; that is the only way you are going to be able to proceed. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

TPTanque usertalk instruction creep

Could you please remove the instruction creep noting how 'the discussion is over' from his usertalk edit window please? I am not sure how he can be expected to move on if there is a constant reminder sitting there every time he edits.
You are a good egg, but that sort of behavior is inviting others to cast a gimlet eye viewing of your reactions, and that would be off-point. I understand he's gotten your goat, but you need to take a step back now. You've warned him, and if he continues, you can get concurrence from other admins and then request his block. If you don't want to read his posts, delete them (the point will soon be made, and he will stop posting). I will point out that I am not involved in this discussion, and have rendered no opinion on this matter. I have also told TPTanque to seek outside input from the Village Pump. That is pretty much where grassroots campaigns for solid change evolve anyway. Ease up, buddy. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 10:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I think there is already a discission about TPTanque and the YouTube links occurring here. And, good morning. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm just going to keep the discussion here, if you don't mind. Doing the replied on your talk page thing can get tiresome. And yes... good morning.. I should have been asleep at least two hours ago.— Dædαlus Contribs 10:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, i don't mind replying here; its the way I usually proceed anyway. Anyway, its at AN/I, and others can handle the issue from here on out. Go get some rack time, soldier. I've let TPT know of the ongoing AN/I as well, so he/she shouldn't be bothering you any more. Well, that's the intent, anyway. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Alright, and thank you. I do believe I shall, when you do get to sleep yourself, I hope you have a good one.— Dædαlus Contribs 10:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(OD)I gave TPT another (and final warning). Ball is in his court. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Ron liebman socks

I see you're methodically going through them. I've compiled a list of his recent socks on User talk:Georgewilliamherbert. It might be time for a new checkuser run so we can see if he's got any sleepers or if I missed any. I'm not good at setting those up, though. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

George is talking about doing a checkuser anyway, to figure out an IP range to block for awhile, even if it means shutting down the NY Public Library. In my fantasy, each IP address talk page would have a picture of Ronnie and advising the people at the library to hunt for this guy and tell him to go away and never come back. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to be pushy and speak for George, but please do file an SPI or whatever it takes. I've just about had it with that idiot. He's been a persistent mosquito for more than 2 years. There have been several filed before. Every so often, to round up his latest sleepers and such. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
And do you know what started this? He kept changing birthdates of ballplayers based on his own private research, refusing to provide sources. He's a self-styled trivia expert, so he's the only source that he thinks he needs. The people at SABR think he's a jerk, and from what I've seen, that's an understatement. And by the way, you might want to semi-protect your own page, because by getting involved, you may be adding yourself to his list of targeted users. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
In recent months, the known "diffs" are simply his contributions - a continual pattern of harassment and attempted "outing", i.e. calling me and No Guru by what he imagines our first names to be. Meanwhile, he's occasionally slipping his unsourced trivia into articles. I don't really care about that. It's the relentless personal harassment I'm getting tired of. He has it in mind that he can force his 5 "enemies" to retire from wikipedia. He also thinks he can't be stopped because we wouldn't dare shut down the NY Public Library system. Well, maybe George is bluffing about that... but maybe not. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I saw, and I added the ones from late February through late March. Something was said in one of the previous SPI's that he may also be using university facilities. And I had forgotten about his 6th enemy, Irishguy, who retired about a year ago. Thank you for all your help on this. It would be nice if a way could be found to shut down that idiot for good. He's got plenty of other venues. He apparently posts his stuff over at baseball-reference bullpen wiki without being questioned. He's just doing this here for spite. I'm told he's got OCD or something like that, which also helps explain it. One thing that would be interesting is to see whether the spate of Axmann8 impersonators from last weekend could be tied to him. No one tried to figure out who posted those things, and it's not really the same M.O. In fact, the M.O. was more like the long-since-banned user Tecmobowl. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
And by the way, I can assure you he reads everything we say here. He even caught where George mis-stated his name as "Lieberman" at one point yesterday. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

eh

re monsters vs aliens undo

it's not irrelevent, its good information that many people probably missIAmTheCoinMan (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. Besides that, the information has absolutely nothing to do with the article. It does not belong in there. If you want it in so badly, I suggest you gain consensus on the talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 11:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Charlesrkiss

Doesn't actually look like the new User:CharlesRKiss is editing with User:Charlesrkiss since the block. I'd rather leave it open to him if he wants to sort of sock. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Note

Hi Daedalus969. Please remember that it is up to every editor to try to deescalate and minimize conflict. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, it's meant to be fun. Going on the verbal offensive, even (or perhaps especially) if you feel provoked isn't necessarily the best idea and isn't conducive to a friendly and collegial atmosphere. Regards, henrik•talk 20:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What I was referring to when I said you were going on the offensive - the entire recent series of edits to User_talk:SkyWalker is what I meant. You shouldn't be surprised when a longtime editor reacts to having his article tagged with a CSD tag, try instead to explain your reasoning why you tagged it. Personalized messages usually works better than templated ones as well. Remember that there are real people on the other side of the screen, not just video game characters.
As for the personal attacks, leaving a comment with an edit summary of "stalker" is about as bad of a personal attack as leaving one with a summary saying "are you nuts". I think both are things that should be avoided, but neither is on its own worth stirring up a fuss about in my humble opinion. henrik•talk 21:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Time to disengage

As unsolicited advice, it's probably time just to let things end with Psb777. He doesn't want to respond, so you're not going to get the feedback you're looking for. Just let it drop, and if he does anything else, start anew. Good luck. Dayewalker (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Advice

I'm glad to see that you've recognized that you've made some mistakes lately. I'm not going to drag you through past unpleasantness and point out diffs for every problematic edit, but please recognize these bits of advice:

  • New users aren't expected to know every bit of policy from the start. They're allowed to make mistakes; the correct thing to do is to very politely explain the issue and help them doing things right.
  • Don't warn users they may be blocked so quickly. Telling someone they may be blocked is seriously unfriendly and should not be done unless a) they're obvious drive by vandals or b) you've tried repeatedly and failed to engage them in discussion.
  • If you're in a conflict; disengage. Resist the urge to reply. Go out for a walk. Don't immediately retort with an angry reply.
  • Let other users point out civility infractions against you. If they're serious enough, someone else will inevitably tell the other guy that he's out of line. If you ever hope to be an admin some day, thick skin and a calm demeanor is needed. (For an example of the kind of vitriol you're likely to encounter see [1]. Please observe how the attacked user handled the situation).
  • Spend more time in editing actual articles. Try to bring an article to GA or FA status. You may feel it's like writing a a school essay - however - there is one important difference: People actually read and use Wikipedia articles. Even relatively obscure articles gets thousands of visits a month and your writing will be helping a lot of people. Besides, it's what this place is all about. The rest is just an unimportant sideshow.

henrik•talk 12:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked sock

Hi. I clobbered it when I found a hoax page called The Easter Egg Adventure. I deleted the page, checked the edit history and boom. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Why, thank you (blush). --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

criterion/a/as

No, "criterion" is singular, "criteria" plural. "Criterias" was plain wrong. pablohablo. 10:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 11:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

Hi Daedalus969. I just wanted to note that I have noticed all your good efforts on Wikipedia and I think a lot of other editors have also. Some day you'll have to explain to me how you are so effective in catching socks, but given my lack of technical expertise I think my head might explode. I have a lot of respect for your willingness to put yourself through an editor evaluation and seek out constructive criticism. This is very impressive for you as an editor and as a person. Take care and have fun. Enjoy your weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Truth or Consequences, a city in New Mexico, or ....

[2] That's not true. I'm always on the lookout for being called something really original. I've been waiting almost 3 years now .... --KP Botany (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

My Talk Page

Why are you editing my talk page?MrSpammy (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"Plaxico"...

...is a metaphorical character inspired by the real-life public figure Plaxico Burress. When a user brings a complaint to ANI and ironically becomes the one getting blocked, that's a metaphorical "Plaxico". One of the most interesting in recent times was just last weekend, when Buttermilk1950 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) brought a complaint to ANI about another user, then made the classic mistake of being logged in as a different account ItsLassieTime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and responding in the voice of the original complaining account. That led to an investigation that uncovered a large sock farm of users that had mostly been under the radar, and led to the banishment of all concerned. [3] If you haven't read that thread, you should. [4] It's priceless. That was more than just a "Plaxico". That could be called a "Plaxico avalanche", or maybe some better term that's not coming to me at this hour. :) The avalanche or maelstrom or cyclone or whatever had the unfortunate side effect of nearly sucking down the innocent new MoreThings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and nearly drove him away, but I think he decided to stick around. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, I must confess that I started this, about two weeks after the actual incident, during a similar situation [5] in which user Fru23 messed up and revealed his IP address, which led to his connection to a banned user KingsofHearts. In that case, the user had not brought the original complaint, it had been brought against him. But by making a classic sockpuppet mistake, he gave his game away, and that's when the "Plaxico" analogy came to me, since I couldn't think of any other recent public figure who had "shot himself in the foot" (or leg, actually). A few users since then have referred to it occasionally, although the story has sort of become old news by now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I assume Plaxico is used because he shot himself in the foot. Which is also a saying "to shoot oneself in the foot" is to mess oneself up or do something that hurt one's own cause. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
That would be a correct assumption. If you can think of another well-known figure that shot himself in the foot or leg or whatever, we could use that as a synonym or a substitute. There was a novelty song back in the 60s or so called "The Ballad of Irving", about "Big Irving", the "142nd fastest gun [bang!] in the west", who went looking for number 141, and in the ensuing confrontation, "gunned himself down". We can't really use that one because of (1) ethnic issues; and (2) no one under the age of 50 will have heard of it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Planecrash111

You know what, I think you are right. However, the other general tone in his request was inappropriate in my view. However, if you think he deserves another chance (if not fully unblocked but at least to edit his talk page), go right ahead. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
That's fine to me. Generally, I assume that people who have been here since last June (with discussions here and here) would act better but that's me. He's been told for a few weeks but if you want to engage him further, undo the protection. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 10:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, in this case, I'm going to leave it to someone with the bit. Nothing personal but if he starts up again, I'm not in the mood for dealing with him. He's been here long, been warned long enough, and if he can convince the email list, he can come back. Mention it at ANI if you really think he deserves another shot. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daedalus969/Archive_11&oldid=1136196326"