User talk:Daedalus969/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Daedalus969. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

←

→

Mohanlal

Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, this is not the end. See http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Mohanlal&diff=250016611&oldid=250016544 I had already warned the user for creating silly redirects such as Great Actor Zencv^{Lets discuss} 13:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

sigh

you are very persistant. "What comment are uyou talking about then, because i'v said many things.--Jakezing (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 02:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply here, Second, Pure political fact says that a country that says nothing about the issue is still in essence saying no. think about it, They didn't say they were rejecting kosovos independance; However, at the same time, they never said they DID recognize kosovo, and as such still enter diplomatic relations with serbia in the context that kosovo is a part of serbia. Yes, nuetral and saying no are different propositions in color cases, but in a black and white case such as recognition and rejection, saying nothing still has the same end result as saying no in the first place, comprende?--Jakezing (talk) 02:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 03:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

So when the only possible choices are yes and no, and you say neither, it dosn't produce the same effect as saying no? THINK ABOUT IT, IGNORE ALL THE POLCIIES all the guidelines, and just think, ignore all these cstupid rules for wikipedia, okay. just think in black and white which this is a part of. Yes, those countries have wanted to stay nuetral by saying nothing, but in the end, their stance of staying nuetral is still saying no. Until they say yes, they are always saying no, whatever the reason. This is simple logic, you can't be nuetral, a 3rd way, in a 2 answer only option. Yes, they are officaly nuetral and havn't said yes or no, but again, they never said the word yes which automaticly puts them in the no catagory.The world is filled with colors, but not all choices are like that. Du HÖrst mich?--Jakezing (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 03:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR is my reply, and yes, my comments did not improve the article, butr how about you answer my counter question, how did YOUR comments improve the article? :D, see, i just turned your own idea and polciy citing against you,--Jakezing (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Second of all, do not call me a child ever again. It is a breech of WP:CIVIL, and shall not be tolerated. I see that you were taken to ANI before for such breaches. I see a repeat of history if you continue to make such breaches.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 03:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

When people act stupid or foolishl; i call them children,. just as i berat freshman for doing anything that isn't really really good. Child is not a breach of Civil when you do things wrong.--Jakezing (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

So, you're calling a common mistake foolish? How rude and uncivil. I misread a word, so instead of responding so quickly, why don't you notice that I changed my response before you go off and insult me.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 13:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:

I was trying to make {{munch}} work so that if you add in the |guy parameter it would change the pronouns. This is how it looks now:

Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made her happy and she'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:munch}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.

Guy version: {{subst:munch|~~~|boy=yes}}

Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made him happy and he'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:munch}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.

Think you could work magic? :) And thanks for offering to help! Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 01:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Magic worked.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 01:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You're my hero! Hell, why not - have a cookie.

Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Munch on the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.

Sure, if you have the time/want to; I'm happy the way it is, though. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 01:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Speedy deletion of Tejas Networks

Hello, Daedalus969. You have new messages at Tinucherian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Tinu Cherian - 10:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

-- Tinu Cherian - 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. Cheers, and Happy editing! ... I coudnt resist templating atleast this :) ...Do keep in touch... Enjoy your stay here in WP .Have a good sleep and sweet dreams -- Tinu Cherian - 11:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC):)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Saw the ANI post

Putting that title on the blacklist seems to be the best idea or mentioning it to one of the admin bots around who block blatant usernames as soon as they are created (doesn't work with SUL accounts though i dont think). Since Luna's talk is protected mention to him that a range block was implemented on that editor (discussion here) last month for 2 weeks but seems not have made a difference. You know there are so many great things to do in this city and with summer approaching i know the last place i want to be is in the house - on the computer - editing wikipedia - make that vandalising wikipedia ;) 220.239.47.163 (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You really want to know? ;) 220.239.47.163 (talk) 07:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable. You really think i am the person behind the Hollback girl or whatever it is? I am trying to let you know some info. When that range block was implemented i realised that i was on the same IP range as that person. That's the only reason i wanted to let you know about this person. But if Luna or anyone wants to do another range block, thats OK of course. It won't affect me, for other reasons. Cheers 220.239.47.163 (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

respond to your message

i have responded to your message on my talk page.... --Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit

Would you please revert the last edit at the article? I don't like to get even close to 3RR. Squash Racket (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I will do so only because of your recent message on the talk page of the article, not because of your message here. This would fall under WP:CANVASS, which is prohibited.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 07:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think WP:Canvass applies to notifying specific, carefully chosen editors, not WP:ANI. Squash Racket (talk) 08:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought B.fever was an admin who had read about this at ANI. Squash Racket (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Internet addiction

Re your message: Sorry to hear that you've become addicted to the Internet. It's not entirely uncommon and the first step is to recognize that you've reached that point. Unfortunately, I can't offer much help because I'm not qualified to really help you with. You can look into professional help, but a first step may be to try to walk away from your computer yourself. As for requesting a block to enforce a wikibreak, that would not be done for you. Blocking is not done for wikibreaks. You can use the WikiBreak Enforcer script which can help you not login to Wikipedia, though really the only truly effective method is to just not use the computer. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Friends?

Giggle, i took your advice about being a contributer.The Nice Hollaback Girl (talk) 07:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Daedalus969, MiszaBot III 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.

I'll consider it, but I could be called a fool if I followed blindly into the light. I'll have to wait and see what happens before I agree of anything.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 07:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, so far, so good. Let's hope it stays this way! Thanks for the note. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Help with hidden history

Re your message: From what I can tell, you tagged the article for CSD because a similar redirect was deleted through an RfD back in August. The RfD had spaces between the words, while the one you linked to did not. What did you need to know? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: I see. Everything happened back in August and nothing was created post the closure on the original RfD as far as I can tell. Therefore, I wouldn't call it disruptive. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: The RfD was still not closed at the time. Might I suggest that you not pursue this so vigorously? It's not that big of a deal. The redirects have been deleted, nothing was done post RfD closure, and everything happened months ago. There's nothing really to pursue. You're causing agitation over something that is essentially closed and done with. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:Troublesome Templates

Though holding grudges is wrong, or so I feel, he has the right to keep his talk page as he wants it, though it would be nice of him to make it work for the rest of us (it shows up weird for me too; I think the spacing is set to too large of a number). I'll drop him a note but I won't impose anything (I know you didn't ask me to, just saying). Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 07:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your message

Why in the world should I need to explain a comment I placed on another user's talk page? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have some very strange notions about how this place operates. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. You wrote a comment about me. It is common courtesy to tell someone when they're being talked about. You have no reason to keep such information from me.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 05:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

My one and only purpose in bringing the discussion to Skomorokh's attention was the fact that I was talking about him and felt he should be aware of it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Template-ing

You seem to have done the same thing you accused me off. At any rate, it wasn't a "welcome" warning, precisely b/c they are well-versed it was upped. And if was because it can be construed as a response to uncivility, you will see, based on the template, it was uncivil. Furthermore, the template was just that, a template, with an addition more that led to a "personal message [that] tends to work better in these situations."

Seeming the same thing happened here Lihaas (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 12:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

So here's your friendly notice for ad hominem attacks:

Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take another look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

What incident are you referring to then? I know what I was doing (and it still didn't concern. therefore in your words do not get involved when it doesn't concern you. That is WP:Stalk)

Furthermore, where are twisting the arguement to the other having to do with templates. Ofcourse it didn't start there. Why a ramdon conversation of templates come up? You brought the issue up about templates.

Read your own message and then if you "want to talk about being uncivil, you should look in a mirror." Or put the computer off,

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

... it'll help.

Now if you want to not resort to such ad hominem attacks, then I invite you back to debate the reasons. In the meantime, if you don't want to, then with "Harrasment" don't bring me into an uncivil discussion.

here's hoping... Lihaas has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Lihaas (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Now, I have not made any attacks, I have not told you to stay way, so stop mis-quoting me. I said to not get involved in a situation until you completely grasp what is going on. From your comments, it is obvious you put no research into the topic at hand. The user mentioned above was talking about me behind my back, and had not alerted me to the fact. Of course, I was offended by this, as it was quite rude, and it is common courtesy here to alert those you are talking about to the fact that you are talking about them. He did no such thing, and when I asked him about it, he avoided answering. Finally an admin came in, Master of Puppets, and agreed with me on the matter. Only then did he answer my question.

If you are going to interfere, know what you are putting yourself in. The above conversation, as stated many times now, had nothing to do with templates. I ask this one, final, time. If you are going to get in involved in a matter for which you are a new party, as opposed to the original parties, then make sure that you know what you are talking about. Research every bit of information that is relevant to the subject at hand.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 23:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

All this may very well be great, but i have no intention of pulling back into a slanging match (i didn't even finish reading your latest assessment). We can end this right here then.

But in response to the fact that you did not resort to attacks, I will quote this" If you want to talk about being uncivil, you should look in a mirror."

Have a good day, and happy editing. Lihaas (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, seems it's a bit too late for any comments. This is another case where Linhaas can choose to template whoever he wishes, but as you've noted that isn't taken warmly at all. Your message was taken in a negative manner, I feel, but I agree that it isn't the time to start digging in each others' pasts. That's my opinion, at least. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 23:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Torturegardens

I blocked indef based on this comment. I have contacted that user for clarification. Do stand by. Daniel Case (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Per the FisherQueen comment on the talk page, I have unblocked. Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Do what's right

Daedalus969,

I noticed you posted a comment about me on WP:AN/I. I know I'm new to Wikipedia, and I'm still figuring things out, but it wasn't hard for me to notice the rules on that page. It said you should have told me you were discussing me on that board. Accusing me of wrongs without informing me conjures images of the atrocities of old. Your deed brings us back to Imperial England's failure to inform colonists of the charges against them. Yes, it even calls to memory of Soviet gulags, where rights were trampled and injustices were carried out of this very kind. I was denied notice by you just as prisoners are held and tortured in Guantanamo Bay without notice of the charges against him. What you have done to me is just as wrong, and given the supposed enlightened nature and freedom that comes with being a Wikipedia editor, dare I say that your offense was even more grave. Given what you have done, you must, without any delay, resign. If you want the best for Wikipedia, as I believe you do, you cannot allow your own mistakes to destroy this project. Be your mistake of negligence of the most gross kind or flagrant disregard for the rights of others, the incompetence of the former or the malice of the latter demands your immediate resignation. Thank you. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 09:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayhawk, your comment is out of line and on the fringe of a personal attack. D969 should have informed you about the ANI thread as a courtesy, but the fact of the matter is your edit here [1] was a very strange one for a new account, and he had every right to go to ANI with his concerns. Since you are a new editor (as you freely admit), please spend more time on your own edits than commenting on the edits of others. Dayewalker (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Signature

Right. They are discouraged, not banned. One key part of Wikipedia is "Be Bold". Also, I did not call the other user a troll. A noted that they were bordering on trolling.

His.Wikian.Majesty,Emperor.Victor.of.Wikipedia

(For Royal Inquests, Click Here)

10:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.

Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 42	8 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
News and notes: The Price is Right, milestones	Dispatches: Halloween Main Page contest generates new article content
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Volume 4, Issue 43	10 November 2008	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens: Over $500,000 raised in first week	ArbCom elections: Nominations open
Book review: How Wikipedia Works	MediaWiki search engine improved
Four Board resolutions, including financials, approved	News and notes: Vietnamese Wiki Day
Dispatches: Historic election proves groundbreaking on the Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Volume 4, Issue 44	17 November 2008	About the Signpost

Lawsuit briefly shuts down Wikipedia.de	GFDL 1.3 released, will allow Wikimedia migration to Creative Commons license
Wikimedia Events Roundup	News and notes: Fundraiser, List Summary Service, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey, I wholly understand. I think the most helpful thing you can do for now is stay away from JoJ, not because you've done anything untowards, but only because through his misunderstanding of Wikipedia, he has mistaken you as one of the roots of whatever's nettling him about this website. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Sorry, but you've nominated the article for deletion. Since she is a prominent South Indian actress, i want you to have a rethought about it. Randhir 12:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I've given enough references with which it can be verified. I'm an established editor and the actor in question is a popular regional actor. Do you really want Wikipedia not have an article on a noted personality? Randhir 12:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything about myself. As it is there is a dearth of information when it comes to India related articles, and its a sincere effort in establishing Wikipedia as a credible source. Some 38,000 Google search results on the subject mean nothing to you, but somewhere it does. Please stop being judgmental about people who are sincerely trying to make a difference here Randhir 13:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: December 2008

Re your message: I'll have to be more careful next time. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

msg- AN/I etc

I've made a comment for you here Wikipedia:Editor_review/Daedalus969#Userpage.2F_AN.2FI I suggest you close your editor review too, it's too tempting for anyone who has an opinion about your editing to go there, i.e. users you've upset (not me- but you know what I mean.:) ) We all get things slightly wrong or annoy people and you don't want it there as a growing permanent record for posterity or something.:) Sticky Parkin 01:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It's already archived, Wikipedia:Editor_review/Archives as the reviews usually are archived after 30 days and that's the end of the review.:) I think all you need do is remove the thingy at the top of your talk and/or userpage, then people won't comment in it as they won't know it's there. I think you've had more ongoing feedback from this ER than anyone ever had- whether that's a good thing only you can say.:):):) Feel free to make another one in the future, give yourself a break from ER for a few months though I would say, for your own spiritual wellbeing. :) Sticky Parkin 03:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: 69.122.210.59 (aka Handllrich?)

So, this is a BOT we've been seeing at work?! Wow, I knew the dude didn't play well with others, but this is a surprise... Zephyrad (talk) 08:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A bot and a sockpuppet apparently, check out the blocklog.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 08:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoa... are you saying I vandalized and created a revert bot, or are you answering whatshisname's comment, on my talk page? Took me aback, for a minute... Zephyrad (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hokay, thanks for clarifying. Had me worried for a bit... ("Zephy"?) Zephyrad (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Followup

OK, let me get this straight... soooo, 69.122.210.59 = Rassmguy = RichHandsmGuy = Handllrich = Rich Handley = his own "11-year-old daughter" (apparently)?!?! So we've got edit warring, sockpuppetry, unauthorized bot usage, WP:OR, WP:CONFLICT, WP:SPAM and WP:OWN going on, from the same person?! Wow, guess I shoulda kept a scorecard? "Oh, what a tangled web we weave"... and here I thought I had problems. Zephyrad (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Where did I remove or refactor your comments? Are you sure it wasn't an accident? Usually people provide diffs. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Right here. Don't do it again.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 04:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a God?

I reverted your edit at User:Zahd as it's pretty clear that he wanted it there and wasn't able to revert the removal himself seeing as he was blocked! To be honest i don't understand what your edit summary means, it makes no sense to me :-( Theresa Knott | token threats 21:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Judges in US courts are a matter of public record

I am a lawyer. I am happy to have the opportunity to share my knowledge with you. Judges names in cases in the United States are a matter of public record, which can be easily accessed by either going to the court's website and searching properly, or by using the PACER system. Therefore, please do not undo my mention of the judges names in Troy Davis case, Cheers! SelfEvidentTruths (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

To further elaborate on what I judge mentioned, how do you think the reporter in this AJC.com article about the Troy Davis case got the names of the judges (which are the judges that I mentioned in the WP article that I wrote)? Bingo, he used the same PACER system. When I have more time, I'd be happy to share with you how to use that system to find out names of judges in particular cases. Cheers! SelfEvidentTruths (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"ROLAND NICHOLSON"

Dear Daedalus,

I will do what it takes to restore or wikify Professor Nicholson. What do I have to do? Thank you.

Columbia Student Columbia Student (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"Roland Nicholson"

Dear Daedalus,

I forgot to ask you if there is technical advice I can you on with respect to your computer?

Columbia Student

Columbia Student (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the article to User:Columbia Student/Roland Nicholson. Be well, --Tikiwont (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again?

67.244.75.51 has been making multiple edits to the POTA pages over the last day, ignoring reverts and warnings by others (including a bot) in the process. The adds include... gee, plugs for Handley's hitherto-unknown book. You don't suppose he (or his "daughter") is back? I dropped lines to the editors who did the rollbacks which have been ignored; figured I might as well let you know also. (Thought I'd wait to do any reverts myself; I don't want to be accused of "owning" the articles. Even if I did create most of them.) Zephyrad (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for resolving that incident. It seemed to arise out of nowhere. --➨Candlewicke ^{:) Sign/Talk} 12:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		In fact I believe you are deserving of this as a token of my overwhelming relief and gratitude. ➨Candlewicke ^{:) Sign/Talk} 13:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

SulaDead

Just in case you thought I was being serious about the backwards "Daedalus", it was just a joke. Not a very funny one, admittedly. -kotra (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Jawug

You recently flagged Jawug for speedy deletion. I added my "keep" vote to the talk page. From the references given, I think the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Is there a reason why you flagged it for speedy deletion so very quickly? My preference when I find a page like this which has just been added is to watch it a few days to see if it becomes more substantial, then perhaps put a note on the author's talk page, and only flag for speedy deletion it if there is no improvement. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

---

I did not look closely at the sources, but South Africa Wireless User Groups seems to be a legitimate organization for South African WUG enthusiasts and MyBroadband looks like a reputable magazine on broadband technology. Both seem reasonable references for this topic. Neither seems to have any interest, ownership etc. in Jawug, which is a non-profit group of amateurs. A quick check on Google showed quite a lot of other potential references - Jawug and what they are doing is obviously a topic of interest. I supported a suggestion on the author's talk page User talk:Protzkrog#Independent wireless network groups that it could be better to include the content in a broader article - but that is a question of organization rather than retention. With only 170 members the organization is small but interesting in that they are leaders in applying technology which could be important in areas where government monopolies suppress open wireless communications. Where South Africa leads, other countries in the region will follow.

But that is not the main point. Why are you so anxious to immediately delete this very new article? There is no hurry. To a new contributor, it must be disturbing and discouraging if their first attempts are flagged like this without an attempt at education or discussion. Did I miss some history here? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

---

I have a different understanding of "independent". An independent source is one that is not controlled or associated with the subject of the article, or otherwise likely to show bias. The source should also be one that may be expected to be accurate. But an independent source can certainly be about the subject of the article. An article about John Smith can reasonably cite a biography: John Smith, his life and works. It may refer to self-published work John Smith, My life and works but should indicate the possible bias "According to Smith, ..."

Again, that is not the main point. To quote WP:INDY "The idea is that articles which don't reference outside sources be placed in clean-up via an independent sources template, and if there ultimately prove to be no independent sources, the article may be listed for deletion." There is a process here that notifies the author of the problem and gives them time to find sources and improve the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

---

I suggest you just start the AfD process now. I am too busy in my real life to contribute much more. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Take another look at South African wireless user groups. I think it is starting to turn into a reasonable article, and hope others will contribute to make it better. You were right to consider that the original JAWUG article was too trivial to keep. I was not clear enough about my idea of making it just a small part (now one paragraph) of a broader article. If I had not done so, JAWUG should certainly have been deleted. The AfD debate was useful. I felt the comment from 9Nak was on the mark: each individual group is not notable, but a broader article about all of them can be. See Inner Terai Valleys of Nepal, an article I worked on a while ago - same sort of idea. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh Really?=

Let´s just walk through a simple scenerio shall we? John or Mary doe of 13 years of age are doing a school report on an idea that came from their discovery that by placing "kinks" in their garden hose they can make water shoot out much faster. They go to wikipedia since their parents allow that content as its "ok" an ecylocpedia. They enter the words "kink" and arrive at the kink.com wikipedia. Then as the page was before they are invited to a whole different subject than kinks in hoses and make a click on "ana cruzes" link and arrive at a explicit porn page with the title "Im the bitch that your mother warned you about...", well you know with nice pornographic pictures that show and tell all. His/her father happens to be a badass attorney and is quite offended when john/jane doe shows what they discovered in wikipedia. So under many laws, not withstanding, the "Communications deceny act" or the "contemporary community standards" laws or "corruption of a minor", a case is launched agaisnt wikipedia and its editors. Turns out since the editors have the ability to "speak for wikipedia" by approving or disapproving changes etc to content that they themselves not only represent wikipedia but also are not free from personal liability in this matter end up forking the bill for a 100 million plus lawsuit. It seems there is a strange US law that states that all "indecent" material as porno that is hosted on the web on US servers, has to have a simple warning on the home page that the person who is about to visit this site must be over 18 years of age.. etc.. Strange but I didnt see that in any of the 100 plus porn star wikipedias. So the 6 million dollars that wikipedia is trying to raise may not be enough to withstand the lawsuits that will come from the open and blatant access to porn to minors which the wiki "porno portal" path is embarking. All the cute and bold phrases that "wiki doesnt censors" and "they are notable" probable wont mean a whole lot when this "porno portal" of wikipedia ends up exposing wikipedia and its editors to all kinds of civil (oh and criminal) liability from the jane and john does that unfortunately end up on porn pages by doing simple research projects etc.. Dont forget that wikiporn, like any other porn will run agaisnt really ugly laws in the US and about 50 other countries world wide who really dont jive on minors having access to graphic porn. Good luck. webman1000 (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but this editor's comment is not worth responding to. I recommend you just ignore it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. And a note to any other editors reading this, along with you, Gogo. Since I was not involving myself in this before, I am not involving myself now, or ever. My beef was that this editor's signature did not meet policy, as per WP:SIG. I have absolutely no idea why he/she chose to group me up in this debate, but it doesn't matter, as I'm not getting myself involved in it. As long as the editor's siganture meets policy, I don't care.

Besides that, he/she's currently taking up their problem with an admin, and due to the nature of these obviously long rants and tirades, it looks as if this editor either has something against porn stars, or whatnot, or is just here to disrupt. But, useful contributor or no, this problem shall soon be taken care of by Gogo, if this editor either decides to listen to reason, or is blocked indef for continued disruption without a hint of stopping.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

My Edits

I am new to wikipedia and don't know all the protocols, so let me apologize for any confusion. I didn't even know these discussion pages existed. But I do want to say that none of my edits were meant as vandalism. I was just trying to correct what was clearly erroneous information in the articles. I have since submitted the corrections again but have provided proof that my edits were correct. I am a Planet of the Apes fan and was surprised that many of the articles were riddled with incorrect information. There are several more corrections I would like to make over the next few days. When I do I would provide the proper links and evidence to justify the corrections. Thanks. --67.244.75.51 (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.75.51 (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Please stop listing people you have disagreements with on WP:AIV. It's not only rude, but also wastes everyone's time. --fvw * 09:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please review policy before you go making assumptions, this editor has been POV pushing and has been deleting and changing sourced content.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 09:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_is_not_vandalism. --fvw * 09:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop listing people who aren't vandals on WP:AIV, I'm not going to warn you again. --fvw * 09:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Well, actually, you caught me just as I was about to go to bed, but I'll be up in about 2 hours anyway so I'll check back then. For now; fvw is right. Only blatant vandalism is reported to AIV; edit warring, edit disputes or difficult editors shouldn't be reported there. ANI would be a more appropriate outlet (and I see you've used it), though it shouldn't be used too heavily (WP:AN3 is also there, as are WP:3O and other dispute resolution measures). I'll admit that you've caught the gray area here; technically, what he is doing isn't vandalism, though it could be considered a form of blanking. I dunno, personally I'd call this an edit dispute and advise you to keep going through the channels you're using now and leave AIV for the less complex cases. Now, I'm gonna go try to sleep a bit, but I'll be up soon. Cheers, and thanks for keeping a cool head! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 10:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it can be! Thankyou for valuing my advice, for example. ;) Now I'm gonna finish off this silly ITN update and get outta here. See ya later! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 10:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Troy Davis case vandalism

I have answered your questions about the highly-suspicious sockpuppet at the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. User:SelfEvidentTruths ^{(talk - contribs)} 16:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Seeyou

Regarding your vandalism complaint against Seeyou, which has been declined: Thanks for stepping in and addressing the problems. I'm not sure that the recent behavior warrants a block, nor where to request such a block. Seeyou has been warned on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, but I think discussion and block requests belong at WP:AE. --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD discussion

I don't use IRC, sorry. Nothing against it, but I actually try to just create articles and watch articles I'm interested in. I don't do much with regard to policy creation, discussion, and so forth. As you can see from the lengthy discussions on my talk page, it doesn't always work out that way.

Originally, user:Jayhawk of Justice e-mailed me and said we have stuff and common. What those things are, I do not know. He asked me look at the Natalya Rudakova article, and he asked me to argue on his behalf for an unblock. I looked the stuff over. I voted for keeping the Rudakova article, but his edit history was far too bad for me to argue for him with respect to his unblock.

The best thing to do with characters like this is let them do their own thing. If they edit constructively, that's good for Wikipedia. If they lose their minds, they'll get blocked. Even better for everyone, they'll get bored and stop. WP:ANI discussions and responses about being offended are exactly what disruptive editors are after. I won't name any names per Wikipedia rules, but I've dealt with several persistent conflict of interest and rude editors. Again, no names, but as of this moment, none of them are editing on Wikipedia anymore. All of them have gotten bored and moved on. Chicken Wing (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Seeyou (second)

Take it to WP:AN/I. The AIV report was rejected as "not vandalism". I also suggest reading Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seeyou for a bit of history. As soon as you've made the An/I post, get out of Dodge or else Seeyou will drag you in. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 05:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

AN/I comment

User:Jehochman beat you to it. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:OUTING_violation. (I almost put the link to the diff again!) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

		Merry Christmas!
		Christmas medley A chiptune medley to annoy Ironholds :D Problems playing this file? See media help. Daedalus969, here's hoping you're having a wonderful Christmas, and here's also hoping that all your family and friends are well. Lets all hope that the year coming will be a good one! If we've had disputes in the past, I hold no grudges, especially at such a time as this. If you don't know I am, I apologise, feel free to remove this from your page. Come and say hi, I won't bite, I swear! It could even be good for me, you know - I'm feeling a little down at the moment with all of these snowmen giving me the cold shoulder :( — neur ho ho ho^(talk) 00:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Troy Davis

I thought about that, but it seemed better to leave the article unprotected to expose open proxies or new accounts that DY71 might pop up on. I could then run a quick CU and expose a potential sockfarm. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 08:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: My signature

Thanks for alerting me about that problem. Happy holidays. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.A~~nnoyomous~~.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 22:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Hey there, Daedalus969! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;)

Congratulations to Coren, Wizardman, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Jayvdb, Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse, who were all appointed to the Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh.

Best wishes, neuro^(talk) 00:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 45	24 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: 200th issue
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles	News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Volume 4, Issue 46	1 December 2008	About the Signpost

ArbCom elections: Elections open	Wikipedia in the news
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Volume 5, Issue 1	3 January 2009	About the Signpost

From the editor: Getting back on track
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed	Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK
Editing statistics show decline in participation	Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments	Dispatches: Featured list writers
Wikipedia in the news	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Hank Green

I don't think the page was deleted... it wasn't there in the first place. His page redirected to his brother's, John Green, page. Hank Green is quite accomplished, in my humble opinion, being the founder of EcoGeek and half of Brotherhood 2.0. If smosh has a page... then Hank Green should. That's just my opinion :) Kaori242 (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

So unless the vlogbrothers get on the All Time Most Subscribed list or something like that, they don't even get their own page? And the page says that the reason that his page doesn't exist is because there isn't yet enough information, not because he's not notable enough. So... I'm a little confused here. Sorry to inconvenience you and all, but I'm not sure I really understand. I hope you had a very Merry Christmas, by the way :D Kaori242 (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

... Sorry what? I don't understand what you said... Kaori242 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, I don't see what your problem is. I'm simply a little confused as to what you mean. No need to be so rude. I'm just asking for the reason Hank Green's page doesn't exist - whether Wikipedia doesn't feel he's notable enough, or if Wikipedia feels there isn't enough information on Hank Green. That's all. Thanks. Best wishes, and have a great New Year ^o^ Kaori242 (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You told me to 'learn to read'. That seems like a pretty rude and derogatory thing to say on an encyclopedia site. And I have read the pages. I personally think Hank Green meets the requirements. That's all. Kaori242 (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I did not. Not once in any of my posts have I ever said such a thing. I referred you to a policy which would answer your questions, nothing more, nothing less, so stop putting words in my mouth, and that, by the way, is rude.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 05:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read the pages. I think Hank Green fulfills the requirements. I'm now asking others why they think Hank Green's page was deleted since, in my opinion, Hank Green fulfills all the requirements, we just need to get the article together neartly, with the right sources, and with less focus on Brotherhood 2.0 and more focus on stuff like his debut album 'So Jokes' and EcoGeek. Kaori242 (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see. Thank you very much for providing the links and everything (I'm still a little confused by how to navigate the site, so it's a huge help). I'll get working on the page and stuff. Thank you very much. Kaori242 (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)