Misplaced Pages

User talk:Daedalus969: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:04, 14 March 2010 editDaedalus969 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,809 edits →Mbz1: r← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:14, 25 March 2024 edit undoDaedalus969 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,809 edits update header; yes, I'm still around. No, not for anything that could brew undue conflict. 
Line 1: Line 1:
<div style="text-align: center;">I'm "around" enough to help on minor bits of code I've written or other related matters, but that's it.</div>

{{/Header|talk=yes}} {{/Header|talk=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{User:Daedalus969/talkarchive}} |archiveheader = {{User:Daedalus969/talkarchive}}
|maxarchivesize = 64K |maxarchivesize = 64K
|counter = 17 |counter = 22
|minthreadsleft = 1 |minthreadsleft = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
Line 13: Line 15:
<!-- Please leave new messages at the bottom. Thanks! =) --> <!-- Please leave new messages at the bottom. Thanks! =) -->


== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
== Happy New Year ==
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> – ] (]) 17:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

<div style="border:3px solid blue;background:#0095B6;font-family:verdana">
] Dear Daedalus969,<br />I just wanted to wish you and your family a HAPPY NEW YEAR. Cheers, and happy editing in 2010.]]{{-}}</div>

== Caution ==

Please refrain from writing ] and ] on my talk page. If you do that again you will be reported to the appropriate administrator's board. Also, please don't bother replying to this caution. Thank you. ] (])

== Tagging sockpuppets ==

Hey Daedalus, I thought I just left the notification of the investigation on the (then) suspected socks. What would be better for the future? - ] (]) 04:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

== ''The Misplaced Pages Signpost'': 8 March 2010 ==

<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/{{#switch: 1
| 1 = 2010-03-08
| 2 = Volume 6, Issue 10
| 3 = 2010-03-01
| 4 = 2010-03-15
}}}}
</div>
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ] &middot; ] (]) 02:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0028 -->

== Thanks ==

Thanks for the revert. =) -- ] (]) 17:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
:.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 21:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

== Re Jim Bell ==

{{talkback|EyeSerene}}

== Glad to do it. ==

Some people just have axes to grind. Damned if they are going to grind them here AFAIC. Take care and have a great weekend. ] (]) 03:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
== Orphaned non-free image File:WikiblameYakevidence.JPG ==

<span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">''']'''</span> Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).

'''PLEASE NOTE:'''

* I am a ], and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

* I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

* If you recieved this notice ''after'' the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.

* To opt out of these bot messages, add <code><nowiki>{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}</nowiki></code> to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. <!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> ] (]) 08:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

== Please stop ==

I removed now two of you messages now. Please do not post to my talk page your warnings. I consider this to be an intimidation. Please stop harassing me at my own talk page. --] (]) 00:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
:, it is not harassment to warn a user against personal attacks about our policy regarding personal attacks when they are personally attacking another user. Continue and I will report you.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 00:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
::Don't you ever put your warnings at my talk page. You want to report me? Be my guest, but stop harassing me on my own talk page, you administrator hopeful.--] (]) 01:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
:::Daedalus969 has every right to warn you about personal attacks. If you make a personal attack, it is your fault if you receive warning. Also, you are engaging in ] with your last comment on this page. Please be civil in the future. —] <sup>] ]</sup> 01:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
:::Any user has the right to post legitimate comments, including warnings, on another user's page. Just as that user has the right to delete them. Going to the poster and griping, when it's a good-faith warning, is the start of a trip towards the block house. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 01:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
::]--] (]) 01:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
:::, that is irrelevant. It would be relevant, '''if''' I had restored the same message over and over again. However, the cold hard fact is that I have not. Instead, I have given you a different message every time. Nice try, but no.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 01:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

I've asked for the article to be semi'd for a couple of weeks to see if that will help stave off the looneys. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 00:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
:I figure a temporary semi-protect is more likely to be approved. Then we can play it by ear, like when a redlink says, "Hey! Why can't I edit this page to restrict the definition of marriage?" Think that approach sounds far-fetched? Several of us put up with that approach at Pioneer Courthouse for literally years, until they reluctantly imposed permanent semi-protection. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 01:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
::Tony Walton semi'd for a month. It seems the last monthly had just expired. What a coincidence. I could make a comment about a "monthly" here, but the last time I brought up that subject, I got ragged for it. :( ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 02:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

==Pwningall2 Talk page==

Hi, I saw that you added a warning to ]. I added one as well, but I no longer see yours. I do not know if you removed yours on purpose, or if I accidentally wrote over it. I just wanted to give you a heads up just in case it was my bad.--] 01:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
: on your talk page.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 01:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

== Fear ==

. ] (]) 01:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

==Mbz1==
I find the behavior that you and Baseball Bugs have shown towards Mbz1 in this matter to be utterly inexcusable. Your ] of Mbz1 despite the editor's ] is childish beyond belief. Granted, Mbz1 did not act in all civility with his comments on the SSP, but to persistently fuel and escalate this matter with your warnings is not acceptable. "Repeatedly restoring warnings does nothing but antagonize users" sums up the matter. I urge you to refrain from contacting Mbz1 for this matter; your input into this matter has not been helpful. &mdash;] 02:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
:As I explained to Mbz1, it is perfectly valid to post legitimate cautions and warnings, and the user has the right to delete them as it's assumed he's read them. Of course, if he ignores those warnings, he may find himself in the block house. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 02:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
::Of course it is. But what is not legitimate is to ] the editor until he finds himself in the "block house." Show some clue, the addition of warnings after the initial one did nothing but escalate the incident. And templating an established editor is heavy-handed to say the least. &mdash;] 02:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
:::I never reverted his removal. I left a new message every time. Big difference there.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 02:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
::::I never said you reverted. I said you templated. And that does not make it acceptable. &mdash;] 02:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::I'd like to know what behavior of mine regarding Mbz1 that you consider to be "inexcusable". Was it when I told him that other editors have the right to post on his page, and that he has the right to delete those posts? As regular editors, you and Mbz1 should both know that. Over-reacting also fans the flames. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 02:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::You know perfectly well that he will be removing that message. And you also know perfectly well that, as en established editor, he knows the rules. "As regular editors, you and Mbz1 should both know that." So tell me, what was the purpose of that message? Now on the issue of overreacting. Daedalus posted a message on AIV requesting admins to block Mbz1. Accusations that I overreacted in this circumstance bears no fruit. &mdash;]
:::::::{{ec}}An established editor? I don't think so. An established editor knows the rules, and he clearly violated them, again, again, and again. On the matter of overreacting: How about when you accused bugs and myself for repeatedly restoring messages and templating this user, when in reality no such thing occurred. Bugs did not leave any heavy-handed messages as you say, but civil notices, written by his own fingers. As said below, I did so five times. Once, when I was warning him about making PAs elsewhere. Then, later, as my last messages to his talk page, warnings against calling me an idiot. Go on, let us see your evidence that Bugs or I left anything heavy-handed.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 03:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I think he already did remove my lone message to him from his page, which he has the right to do, as I said within it - so I don't get what your complaint is. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 02:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::Actually, you did. Here's a direct quote of the above {{xt|"Repeatedly restoring warnings does nothing but antagonize users" sums up the matter.}}. I never ''restored'' anything. ''Restoring'' is the same as reverting in this context, and I never reverted. I left a new message every time. Only after he began insulting me did I template him for personal attacks.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 02:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::Also, where is your evidence that I ''persitantly templated'' them? I did it four times, as is the standard. Everything else was a civil message explaining things brought up, and a response to him coming to my own talk page. None of them were templates.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 02:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::Correction. Five times. The first time was my first message to their talk page, and was in reference to his insult of another user. The last four times was when he began calling me an idiot. The behavior of myself does not excuse his own. Since when is calling a human being an 'it' and an 'idiot' acceptable, when in direct violation of ]?— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 02:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::: And to make it clear for me. Are you defending your viewpoint that those messages were not meant to bait Mbz1 for a response? Are you also defending your viewpoint that five warnings, after Mbz1 told you not to comment on his talk page, is not excessive? And furthermore, are you also defending your view that 5 ''different'' warnings regarding the same issue and its subsequent debacle, when it became apparent that Mbz1 knew of the concerns, is justified? &mdash;] 03:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::::"The last four times was when he began calling me an idiot." You do realise that he started calling you an idiot ''after'' you started warning him for bad behavior? &mdash;] 03:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Calling people idiots is what got me blocked in December of 07. I advise you and/or your bud to avoid using terms like that in the future, regardless of your feeling wronged. If you've got a complaint about an editor, take it to proper channels. Just be sure not to "Plaxico" yourself in the process. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 03:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::"I advise you and/or your bud to avoid using terms like that in the future" Prove I have called anyone an idiot on Misplaced Pages. Then prove I have a substantial history with Mbz1. If you can't, withdraw your accusations. &mdash;] 03:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::I don't bait people. Nothing is gained from it. You may think it was baiting, but that doesn't mean it is. Those here who know me, like bugs, know that I don't bait people, so why don't you stop pushing your view that it was. Also, I was wrong. I only templated them '''three''' times. Here, is the timeline:
:::::::::::*. Here, I warn them against a PA they had previously committed on another page, unrelated to myself. Not a template, but a typed message.
:::::::::::*
:::::::::::*
:::::::::::* as they are allowed to do, and subsequently post
:::::::::::*.
:::::::::::*.
:::::::::::*.
:::::::::::*.

::::::::::Do I really need to go on? I can if it's required. On to your other points. I have asked you similar questions, and yet, you refuse to respond. Are you defending another user calling someone an idiot? What makes calling ''anyone'' an idiot acceptable? What makes calling anyone an ''it'' acceptable? Behavior of others does excuse behavior of one's self. I used exactly three templates, but I posted four warnings. The first was personally typed, as said above. Four warnings. Doesn't sound excessive to me. If you disagree, I would suggest you take it up on the relevant project page. Four is the standard. Yes, my notes, not warnings, were on the same, basic subject, but it was not apparent they knew my concerns, when they continued to violate policy. In fact, what did become apparent is that they do not care about our rules here on personally attacking others.

::::::::::In regards to Bugs' note about you being buddies with this user. Well, it isn't without total reason. You ''have'' refused to acknowledge points we made. You ''have'' over reacted and told Bugs that his messages were heavy-handed, when they were no such thing. You ''have'' refused to answer why you think it is acceptable for users to call others '''it'''s and '''idiot'''s, in direct violation of policy. So yes, Bugs is justified in thinking you are a user's buddy when you refuse to address their problematic edits.

::::::::::So, to see if I have this right, you think accusations are personal attacks? Retract your own accusations of heavy-handed messages and baiting then. You have no evidence that they were, because they were not. Your accusations are without base, and personal attacks. Take your own advice and retract them.

::::::::::So, Mr. Dark, why don't you clear up that for us, and we can continue this civil discussion. Maybe you can hold off on the accusations you're throwing out as well. I don't bait users. Bugs was not leaving heavy-handed messages.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 03:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
*I never said Mbz1's behavior was faultless, in fact I reprimanded him for his behavior.
*You don't give an established editor five warnings for their conduct, then report to AIV.
*As said before, prove I have a history with this editor.
*Labeling your behavior as baiting is not a personal attack. A personal attack is an insult upon you, I based my criticism on your behavior towards Mbz1.
*Labeling your messages as heavy-handed is not a personal attack either, per the above.
*If you feel so strongly about my reprimands, take it to an appropriate forum.
*I focus on your edits because that is the crux of my criticism. As before, I never said Mbz1's behavior was civil.
*Personal attacks are unacceptable. My point is that your baiting to get the personal attacks is ''also'' unacceptable. &mdash;] 03:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Long experence has taught us that if you are dealing with users with a non trivial history of wikipedia use it's better to use custom messages than templates which never seem to help.©] 03:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If an editor does not want to be warned for personal attacks, they should not make them to begin with. However, I'd like to see diffs of Mbz1 making personal attacks before passing judgment as to whether they did make them. I also do think that when so many warnings are posted, but no result is achieved, than that editor should be reported rather than continuing the warnings- asking for help will get you somewhere, while excessive warning and no help only causes problems. ''"You do realise that he started calling you an idiot after you started warning him for bad behavior?"'' (DarkFalls) - Calling someone an "idiot" is still inexcusable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that Daedalus969 baited Mbz1 into making that personal attack. —] <sup>] ]</sup> 03:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
:"but you seem to be suggesting that Daedalus969 baited Mbz1 into making that personal attack" Precisely the crux of my concern. &mdash;] 03:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
::More like accusation. I don't bait people, as said above, so why don't you retract that unsubstantiated accusation, or, should I say, personal attack.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 03:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
:::Saying you were involved in baiting is not a personal attack. &mdash;] 03:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
::::Telling me I was purposely baiting is, however. So again, why don't you follow your own advise, and retract your personal attack.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 03:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
::::Actually, it is. Let me re-write the above post: An unsubstantiated accusation is a personal attack.

::::You accused me of baiting without any evidence, and your accusation is therefore a personal attack.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 03:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
:::"An unsubstantiated accusation is a personal attack." My concerns are substantiated. &mdash;] 03:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
::::Your opinion doesn't count as evidence. They remain unsubstantiated. You have provided no evidence that I was baiting, and you have provided no evidence that I have a history of baiting, which would substantiate an accusation of baiting.

::::As I said before, I do not bait people. I don't like being insulted, and there is no way in hell I would invite an insult. I '''hate''' getting insulted. I took it most of my life where I couldn't do anything, but I'll be damned if I have to sit through it again when I have the power to do something.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 04:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

== To be exact ==

The user visited my talk page 11 times today. ;;;;; . BTW I agree it was a little bit premature to call you an "idiot", when I did. I should have done done it later, after you reported incivility to :)--] (]) 03:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
:"I should have done done it later, after you reported incivility to to vandalism board" - That's an excuse. You have no right to call anyone an "idiot", no matter your emotions, thoughts, beliefs, or anything. ] is a serious offense. You are adding continuing drama by accusing Daedalus969 and Baseball Bugs of harassment (and with this post), which they are not. —] <sup>] ]</sup> 03:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:14, 25 March 2024

I'm "around" enough to help on minor bits of code I've written or other related matters, but that's it. 4:55 am, 19 December 2024 (PDT)
  Welcome to my talk page! I will reply on your talk page unless you prefer otherwise as usually noted on your talk page. If you are an anonymous editor, I will reply here.
When leaving messages, please remember these easy steps:
  • Use a descriptive subject/headline
  • Use ] when mentioning users and pages
  • If you are continuing a conversation with me, please edit the relevant section instead of starting a new section
  • Sign your post with four tildes ~~~~ to leave your name and date
  • Please also note that I have a problem with dropping things, but I am working on it, and have made progress.
  • If you are going to use {{talkback}} templates, date them, so they can be archived properly.

Click here to leave me a message


Archives
2007
2008
2009
2010

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Nomination for deletion of Template:SPIHat

Template:SPIHat has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)