| Revision as of 14:02, 6 May 2009 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:Daedalus969/Archive 12.← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:31, 6 May 2009 edit undoBrendan19 (talk | contribs)670 edits →next step: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
| {{clerk-note}} I notice that when filing an SPI case, you regularly ask for CheckUser. Could I remind you that CheckUser is only for the most serious cases of sockpuppetry, and you should not ask for it by default on all cases. Clerks are NOT going to allow the checkuser guidelines to be stretched to breaking point by endorsing cases that have the most tenuous claim to meeting CU policy, and if you get a reputation for asking for CU every time, "because it might just get endorsed" it becomes more likely that cases that you file where it is a close decision on CU will be declined. If you gain a reputation for asking for CU only where it is clearly warranted, clerks are likely to place much greater weight on the fact that you decided to ask for CU in marginal cases. ] (]) 06:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | {{clerk-note}} I notice that when filing an SPI case, you regularly ask for CheckUser. Could I remind you that CheckUser is only for the most serious cases of sockpuppetry, and you should not ask for it by default on all cases. Clerks are NOT going to allow the checkuser guidelines to be stretched to breaking point by endorsing cases that have the most tenuous claim to meeting CU policy, and if you get a reputation for asking for CU every time, "because it might just get endorsed" it becomes more likely that cases that you file where it is a close decision on CU will be declined. If you gain a reputation for asking for CU only where it is clearly warranted, clerks are likely to place much greater weight on the fact that you decided to ask for CU in marginal cases. ] (]) 06:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == next step == | |||
| since you point out that RfCs are completely voluntary i would like to know what the next step is that isnt voluntary. i dont get much into admin type stuff- i prefer to just make edits, but i feel something must be done in this case. so, arbcom? ani? whats the appropriate next step to get something done since collect refuses to voluntarily make changes? thanks ] (]) 17:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:31, 6 May 2009
6:29 pm, 3 January 2025 (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.
|
 Archives | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
tb
| Hello, Daedalus969. You have new messages at roux's talk page. |
| You can remove this notice at any time by removing this template. |
Thanks for dealing with the vandalism at Troy Davis case
Just wanted to say thanks. Have a great Christmas. Josh Atkins has smiled at you!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Smile!
A Nobody has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Talkback on User talk:MathCool10
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Re:User:AntiFetch
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
"Spelling" Article
While I appreciate your efforts to keep the pages on Misplaced Pages clean, the edits I made on the "Spelling" article clearly were constructive. It stated that "Hercules" is a common misspelling of the "correct" "Heracles." This is factually incorrect.
Re:Science debate forums
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
why?
why did you revert my edit on the MMA page? I was removing bad formatting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.65.243.150 (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus 21:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- are you joking? because of crappy formatting the text was in a box. learn what happens when you leave spaces. 116.65.243.150 (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
sorry
but do you mind if I ask you to not follow me. there are so many articles on wikipedia, there was no need for you to follow me to the "head shot" article.
116.65.243.150 (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus 21:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- A quick reminder to please don't bite the newbies. While this anon did delete a lot of info from the head shot page, what they replaced it with was not vandalism per se, but a stub of a possible legitimate article on a different thing also called a "head shot". Furthermore, the formatting at mixed martial arts was already screwed up by leading spaces (which force a paragraph into preformatted mode, meaning fixed width font and no automatic line wrapping, all inside an ugly box), and the anon was only trying to make a minor change to fix it. A quick look at the anon's contribution history does not show a pattern of vandalism, only small attempts to fix grammar, etc. As such, a welcome and some gentle pointers to relevant WP policies make for a better response than a pointed exchange. John Darrow (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus 23:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- A quick reminder to please don't bite the newbies. While this anon did delete a lot of info from the head shot page, what they replaced it with was not vandalism per se, but a stub of a possible legitimate article on a different thing also called a "head shot". Furthermore, the formatting at mixed martial arts was already screwed up by leading spaces (which force a paragraph into preformatted mode, meaning fixed width font and no automatic line wrapping, all inside an ugly box), and the anon was only trying to make a minor change to fix it. A quick look at the anon's contribution history does not show a pattern of vandalism, only small attempts to fix grammar, etc. As such, a welcome and some gentle pointers to relevant WP policies make for a better response than a pointed exchange. John Darrow (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't want this to turn into a problem between us but I do have to point out a couple of things.
The first edit of mine that you changed was (as pointed out above by someone else) me removing a formatting error - bullet points are great, but what I removed were not bullets - it was obviously me trying to improve the article, yet you accused me of vandalism.
The second edit of mine that you changed was me trying to change an article in what I considered to be the best way, it was not me adding obscene language or disruptive text, it was me replacing one use of a term with another use of a term.
I just checked wikipedia rules on what vandalism and it says "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles." it also has a link to another article called "not every IP is a vandal" which deals with overeager editors who remove edits made by anonymous IPs without due care and consideration. Here is a link to it http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Not_every_IP_is_a_vandal.
But, it's OK - I am aware that many many people do vandalize wikipedia and that many of those people might be using an anonymous IP, so I can understand why you acted in the way that you did.
Lets try to get on a little better and see if we can have some fun with wikipedia, rather than arguing with eachother. Im going to make a new article, as my edits to the headshot article caused some problems, Im going to make an article specifically for the use of headshot in gaming and firearms. 116.65.243.150 (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus 04:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for removing that crap from my page. That was just my friend being stupid.
--Wyatt915✍ 23:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus 00:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism
its not vandalism you idiot its an reliable source —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noi98 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus 04:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Synergy's closure of the Checkuser
Since Synergy has remained unresponsive, should we just start an AN discussion asking for a re-opening of the DougsTech checkuser case? —Mythdon t/c 04:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus 04:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Mibbit AfD
I've completely rewritten the Mibbit article so you may wish to revisit Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mibbit. The AfD nominator has also since been blocked. Tothwolf (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:SPI
Clerk note: I notice that when filing an SPI case, you regularly ask for CheckUser. Could I remind you that CheckUser is only for the most serious cases of sockpuppetry, and you should not ask for it by default on all cases. Clerks are NOT going to allow the checkuser guidelines to be stretched to breaking point by endorsing cases that have the most tenuous claim to meeting CU policy, and if you get a reputation for asking for CU every time, "because it might just get endorsed" it becomes more likely that cases that you file where it is a close decision on CU will be declined. If you gain a reputation for asking for CU only where it is clearly warranted, clerks are likely to place much greater weight on the fact that you decided to ask for CU in marginal cases. Mayalld (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
next step
since you point out that RfCs are completely voluntary i would like to know what the next step is that isnt voluntary. i dont get much into admin type stuff- i prefer to just make edits, but i feel something must be done in this case. so, arbcom? ani? whats the appropriate next step to get something done since collect refuses to voluntarily make changes? thanks Brendan19 (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)