Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daedalus969 (talk | contribs) at 04:04, 14 March 2010 (→Mbz1: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 December 15, 2007 – March 17, 2008 2008 March 17, 2008 – March 26, 2008 March 26, 2008 – March 31, 2008 March 31, 2008 – April 28, 2008 April 28, 2008 – May 5, 2008 May 5, 2008 – May 31, 2008 May 31, 2008 – July 17, 2008 July 17, 2008 – November 5, 2008 2009 November 5, 2008 – January 5, 2009 January 5, 2009 – February 27, 2009 February 27, 2009 – April 14, 2009 April 14, 2009 – May 22, 2009 May 22, 2009 – June 26, 2009 June 26, 2009 – September 4, 2009 September 4, 2009 – November 3, 2009 2010 November 3, 2009 – January 2, 2010 January 3, 2010 – March 14, 2010 March 14, 2010 – July 6, 2010 July 11, 2010 – Present

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

Happy New Year

Caution

Please refrain from writing uncivil and shouting messages 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. Amsaim (talk)

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? - Schrandit (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 8 March 2010

• News and notes: Financial statements, discussions, milestones

• In the news: Pentagon shooter used Misplaced Pages, soon iPhone OS will too

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Java

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Thanks

Thanks for the revert. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome for reverting that vandalism to your userpage.— Dædαlus 21:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Jim Bell

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. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WikiblameYakevidence.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:WikiblameYakevidence.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, 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. You may add it back 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 our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, 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 here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 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. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, 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.— Dædαlus 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.--Mbz1 (talk) 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 incivility with your last comment on this page. Please be civil in the future. —Mythdon 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. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:DRC--Mbz1 (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As I have said on your talk page, 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.— Dædαlus 01:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Marriage

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. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 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. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 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. :( ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Pwningall2 Talk page

Hi, I saw that you added a warning to User talk:Pwningall2. 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.--armoreno10 01:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus 01:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Fear

Replied. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 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 persistent templating of Mbz1 despite the editor's valid removal of these warnings 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. —Dark 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. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is. But what is not legitimate is to bait 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. —Dark 02:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I never reverted his removal. I left a new message every time. Big difference there.— Dædαlus 02:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said you reverted. I said you templated. And that does not make it acceptable. —Dark 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. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 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. —Dark

(edit conflict)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.— Dædαlus 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. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you did. Here's a direct quote of the above "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.— Dædαlus 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.— Dædαlus 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 WP:NPA?— Dædαlus 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? —Dark 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? —Dark 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. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 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. —Dark 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:

• My first warning to their user talk page/first message to their user talk page. Here, I warn them against a PA they had previously committed on another page, unrelated to myself. Not a template, but a typed message.
• Here, they personally attack the same editor again after I had previously left a personal message that calling users 'it' was unacceptable
• Per the above personal attack I give them a level 2 warning template
• They rightfully remove the message as they are allowed to do, and subsequently post a message to my own talk page claiming harassment
• I respond, without a template, telling the user that warning them of PAs when they commit PAs is not harassment.
• They respond, telling me that I am again harassing them.
• I respond again, again telling them that it isn't harassment.
• They remove a message from their talk page, not by me, but by bugs, calling it harassment when in reality it was no such thing.

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 its and idiots, 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.— Dædαlus 03:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• 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. —Dark 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.©Geni 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. —Mythdon 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. —Dark 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.— Dædαlus 03:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Saying you were involved in baiting is not a personal attack. —Dark 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.— Dædαlus 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.— Dædαlus 03:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"An unsubstantiated accusation is a personal attack." My concerns are substantiated. —Dark 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.— Dædαlus 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 to vandalism board :)--Mbz1 (talk) 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. Personal attacks 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. —Mythdon 03:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)