User talk:Daedalus969/Archive 17

Sorry
I just heard about the block now. Ridiculous block reason. I can't see any incivility in the edit diff at all. It stinks that admins can tell editors to fuck off regularly, and after 3 RFCs not be blocked, but other editors can be blocked for such vague comments which are not uncivil at all.

To paraphrase Noah, Timothy I'm Being Wiki-Whacked Washington Post, February 25, 2007:
 * "Wikipedia's [rules] resembles U.S. immigration policy before 9/11: stringent rules, spotty enforcement."

or Academic_studies_about_Wikipedia
 * "The study finds that there are contributors who consistently and successfully violate policy without sanction"

That is why I support WP:EQUALITY Ikip 00:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

thankyou
Thank you for the comment. I couldn't have said it better myself Crackofdawn (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The John Rosatti article
--Rockfang (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProjects
As a Pakistani editor, I have an interest in recreating some of those WikiProjects, although they appear to have been deleted before on the reason for being the creations of a sock. Since you seem to be the proponent, this is just to confirm that I have an interest in recreating alot of those regional projects and plan to make them active. I hope you don't have concerns regarding this. Cheers Acejet (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Crackofdawn
Thank you for the policy reminder. I did step over the line there. I have withdrawn the comment on the user talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 12:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Re
I didn't notice your apology, and I appreciate it. However, you again overreact over nothing and making assumptions of my intentions, so it's hard to take it seriously that you are not going to blow up over the next insignificant thing that comes your way. The only reason I reacted the way that I did was that your post was offensive and insulting; it was a completely understandable reaction to bullying. I may have apologized had I noticed your post, had your reminder of your post not been you going back to your same improper tone. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I went to bed and forgot about it. It's not that big of a deal at all. And the reason I responded to a rude, disrespectful nature the way I did was that you were being offensive. I was far less rude to you than you were in general, due mostly to the fact that you were the one who instigated any rudeness. To act like you deserve an apology for your continuously bad attitude in a situation where you made statements and acted in a way that had no purpose. Regardless, you clearly don't have the ability to discuss this in any manner besides accusations and bad tone, so I'm done discussing this. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Rosatti
Nice one Daedalus, I saw a couple of your quality comments, respect. Off2riorob (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

E-mail
You have one. Urgent. Read it now. Thank you. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 00:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sysop? you aren't?
Here I've thought you were a sysop all this time. I would be willing to nominate you if nec, it might not help you but I think highly of your particaption here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 01:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Have me supporting you would certainly help. Afeterall, I contributed to your block. And haveing a person who would normally vote oppose do the opposite is always a good thing in RFA's.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  01:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't think I'm ready.. it's too soon since my last conflict.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 01:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But your last conflict would be void if the two people that you had a conflict with were supporting you! That would make people realize that your block was a mistake. If you do go up for an RFA, i'll be there to co-nom it. (Unless you don;t want me to)-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  01:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What you do is up to you, but I still don't think that that would really help matters. I was still uncivil, and your behavior does not excuse mine.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 01:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alrigh. Well whenever you do go up for one. Don't hesitate to tell me.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  01:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 01:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, me too. Let me know. :) Malke  2010  01:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser/Case/Transaction Go
✅. Deleted per your request. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP issue
You were involved in the BLP discussion about John Rosatti. I'm currently involved in a BLP debate that I think is very similar. In my case, there is a lurid, very contentious allegation based solely on something that a single author said in her book. She states it as fact (based on an anon source IIRC), not even an allegation. No other media source has even made the allegation, let alone repeated it as fact. This seems odd by itself, but when you consider that the subject is Erik Prince, the CEO of Blackwater and far from being a media favorite, it becomes even more odd. Would you mind taking a look at the discussion here and telling me if you think I am off base? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page and commented on the relevant page.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 00:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wallflowers98 sock info
I noticed your reports at WP:AIV a little bit ago. I had an encounter earlier today with both of those users and several more on Full House. Here's the list. Dawnseeker2000  04:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)




 * I don't believe Y-not is related, editing style is different, MO is different. WF98 doesn't care about attention or pissing people off, or insulting anyone.  All he cares about is violating CP with links.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 12:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh...
...you must be enjoying that essay! Thanks for the copyedits ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 12:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Closure of section at talk:La Brea Tar Pits
Hi, I just collapsed the section Promotional "forensic art" at talk:La Brea Tar Pits. And then I reread your close comment. Feel free to undo, redo or archive in a different way using your specific resolved label. The blocked user had returned as an ip and basically attacked everyone involved. I reverted the ip's edit, but am concerned that this fracus could have been handled differently. The user Playdoh1845 was a new user who really had no clue regarding the workings of Wikipedia and was promoting content with a likely COI and then inexplicitly created a sock account. It seems that a slower approach with a bit of patient explaining on their talk page might have produced a different result. I had started that effort, but hadn't followed through - when from their viewpoint "all hell broke loose" rather quickly. But, perhaps I missed something along the way. Vsmith (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 02:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Quiet and discreet
It's good that you reverted this editor's contributions given that they only serve to promote a point of view, however all edits done by this user were done within the same 24-hour period, and that was three months ago. That makes it unlikely that your WP:AIV report will be acted on. You can re-report, however, if this editor resumes editing according to the same pattern.

Usually, when I revert vandalism that old, I don't even bother with a user warning. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 05:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Should Yakudza19 be unblocked?
Hello Daedalus. I see you participated in the unblock dialog for this editor. If you have time, could you look at his talk page and see if you think he's met the condition for unblock? I.e. is this an OK article improvement, and did this respond to the main issue? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 12:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting. I figured that the people who knew something about the history should be heard from. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Totally uncalled for.
The writing is correct. 21% have given the film a positive review, whereas 79% has given it a negative review. AFAIK we write the way I had it. Anyways in regards of you not assuming good faith: In favor of MY opinion? Are you kidding me. I have not seen the film and if you look at the edit history I'm the one that added in most of the critical reception section to begin with. Also if you would have read the plot that the anonymous IP wrote it was in THEIR opinion: "When Charlie asked her mom why her mom said that he just got tired of all the bullshit." But no you reverted it back? What kind of game are you trying to play here? — Mike   Allen   05:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 06:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When you are ready to speak to me in a civil and uninsulting manner, I will respond. Until then, don't post here again unless you are refactoring your post or apologizing for your uncivil tone.  Don't go preaching to me about good faith when you can't even assume it yourself.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 05:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See my talk page. No, I don't assume good faith when someone accuses me of a POV violation. That's when my assuming stops.  You could have written your comment to me in a better way, as you can see from my contibs that I don't break policy here.  One could only imagine why an editor would keep a plot summary with "bullshit" among other things, and then accuse someone of not following policy.  So yes I was wondering what kind of an outfit this person is.  If this is just a misunderstanding, then I'll accept that.  —  Mike   Allen   05:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 06:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk about jumping to conclusions. I never accused you of a POV violation.  I said it looks that way.  Get your facts straight before you go jumping down my throat.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 05:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied further on your talk page.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 06:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied even further on your talk page. (Errors corrected:, )—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 06:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw, on my watchlist, that an editor removed information without an edit summary(red flag). I reverted. I then looked more closely and saw the change, and self reverted. In your research, did you perchance see that? I then reverted what I saw at first glance to be a possible POV change. It looked that way to me. I alerted you of said revert, politely, on your talk page. All you had to do was correct me, in a civil tone. But instead you came to my talk page insinuating that I was playing some sort of game, in a rather uncivil tone. You attacked me for what? Because I said that something you did looked like a change in favor of your opinion? It was a mistake for crying out loud! You would do well to look at the situation more thoroughly before immediately tossing good faith out the window. There is no debate, you were unjustly uncivil to me after I left a polite message on your talk page.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 06:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right I did take the your message the wrong way. I should have said "This must be a mistake because... etc".  But I react before thinking.  With all due respect, I should have added why I undid that IP's edit, but I honestly didn't know it would be challenged, since the page isn't that active. lol   Anyways, lesson duly learned and sorry, this was a big unnecessary mess on my part. —  Mike   Allen   06:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI: photo removed
Please see User_talk:Yakudza19 about a bot-removed photo. jmcw (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

TN GOP
Use the talk page anytime you place tags. I've responded to you on the article talk page. Scribner (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Tech help
Hi Daed,

Would you open a sandbox on the Irish American page so editors there can work together on a revision. There are people trying to reach consensus and one of the editors wants to be able to participate. Is this how this works? Thanks, Malke  2010  06:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * the revision in question is for two paragraphs, not the whole page. Thanks,  Malke  2010  07:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A sock? A hacked account?
See if you can figure out what is going on, starting here. Follow the discussion through to the final revision. Was this account hacked by an IP?  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  17:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Never mind. There's apparently more to this, and the discussion is now at Gwen Gale's talkpage.   R ad io pa th y  •talk•   18:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

University of Miami issue
Hello Daedalus969. Over at WP:AN3 one editor is complaining that your changes are contributing to the problem. Since there are hints at a compromise that would allow Ryulong and Racepacket to work together, would you voluntarily agree to stop editing the article for a week or so? This would not be a criticism of you, but just a way to shift responsibility for any continuing holdup onto fewer parties. You could still contribute on Talk. Let me know if you would consider this. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you're watching this page, because I'm going to respond here as I am really busy elsewhere. I'd be fine with that.  Thank you for letting me know.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 04:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on University of Miami. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. — Racepacket (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You've been warned as the result of WP:AN3 which at first glance shows four reverts. Please try to be more careful in the future, and I regret that your above agreement to stay off the article seems not to have come to Racepacket's attention. He is not easy to please. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said on your talk page, Ed, there was never any edit war. I reverted exactly 3 times.  I noted that I made a mistake at number 2, and thus fixed it was the edit that is listed as the number 3 revert.  Not true at all.  Please review the contents of the diffs instead of just noting their existence.  Please retract this warning, as it is wrong.  I was very careful to not breach 3rr.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 22:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No edit war at University of Miami
To prevent Ryulong changing = symbols to + symbols in my citations, I made a text copy of the article and have been editing from that. Ryulong has now agreed that I can continue to add to the article without quotes around the footnote tag names, so we have worked out a way to go forward for now. The GA Review found that the article did not satisfy WP:V, so I am researching each sentence with Google and Google News to locate non-UM sources. A few minutes ago, I had added a newspaper account of a UM President taking office in 1952, which you have mistaken as an edit war. I have to add or change a hundred footnotes in a few days time and am working around the clock (to the detriment of my real job) to get this done. I don't know why you reverted Ryulong's removing the unnecessary quotes, but let's keep things on this constructive path for now.

You probably remember that the University of Miami articles are a very strange place, because last fall User:PassionofDamon accused you of being my sockpuppet. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 08:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You were clearly edit warring. See you at WP:AN3.  There is nothing more to say.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 08:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You understand that both Ryulong and I agreed to proceed without the quote marks. I am just uploading the changes with the footnotes. Why do you care whether the quote marks are there or not? Racepacket (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not understand that, because that is not what happened. He obviously self-reverted out of frustration.  Nowhere did he say 'I agree with you'.  There is no need to discuss this here.  Whether you came to an agreement or not is not what is up for judgment.  It is your edit warring, and you most certainly did edit war.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 09:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * God damn you won't drop that stupid +/= thing. That wasn't my fault. Stop saying it was Racepacket.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 09:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason why it is important to not change = to + in the cite template is that when you say "work=New York Times" the source is displayed in italics, but when you say work+New York Times, the source is not displayed at all. If you saved an edit that makes that change, it is your responsibility even if you used a javascript to do it.
 * Daedalus969, could you explan why you deleted the second footnote? In diff you delete two footnotes. In the next edit, you only add just one back in. I respectfully request that you explain why you deleted the second one. Racepacket (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that you follow WP:ANI, but I just to be sure, I want you to know that I have added your footnote deletion to the ongoing discussion there. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What is it that you want? I am willing to discuss with you whether the second footnote supports Pearson's academic background and want to be respectful of your views.  Please talk to me. Racepacket (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've talked to you. If you don't want to listen, that's your problem.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 06:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Jaredkunz30 SPI
Hi. I saw that you had changed this SPI report that I had filed so it would be CheckUsered, but you didn't move it into the CheckUser stack. I've done that now, hoping that this is what you intended to do. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Responding here, for ease for myself. Forgot to do that.  Thanks.  I could have sworn a bot usually did that. c.c —  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 06:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Proofreader77
Hi, I want to apologize if it seems like I derailed your proposal. I didn't mean to do that and have a great respect for your work. As a suggestion, and as it looks like their block ends in 5-6 hours, maybe we see what they have to say and if needed look to drafting some new editing restrictions that encompass the concerns raised to date. Personally I think they are an immensely creative editor but that needs to be channelled in ways that don't disrupt and distress editing of others. In any case wanted to apologize as I see how that thread has been evolving quite a bit. -- Banj e b oi   19:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy 1RR
Hello I am only posting this on your talk because I just came from User talk:Radiopathy, where I saw you had posted: Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration case
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I could swear I don't remember any such case...—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 04:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've hatted your comment per your note on the talk page. Hope that's to your satisfaction. Regards ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Fringe
Hi! The section "Comparisons with other works" points some similar topics between Fringe and other Sci-fi shows. "Heroes" also has a section with the same name. Those similarities are a fact but the only verifiable sources are the shows themselves.Preslavk (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. In regards to Heroes, I'll see to it that such a thing is removed.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 10:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I take that back. No such section exists in that Heroes article.  Everything in that article is sourced.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 10:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Roland Nicholson
Mr, Daedalus:

What do I have to do to bring this to bring this up to standard?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Columbia Student (talk • contribs) 03:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the revert. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome for reverting that vandalism to your userpage.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 21:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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  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.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 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 (talk)  (contribs) 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 What's up, Doc? 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.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 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 What's up, Doc? 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 What's up, Doc? 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 What's up, Doc? 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.-- arm oren o10 01:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 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. &mdash;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 What's up, Doc? 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. &mdash;Dark 02:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I never reverted his removal. I left a new message every time.  Big difference there.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 02:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said you reverted. I said you templated. And that does not make it acceptable. &mdash;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 What's up, Doc? 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. &mdash;Dark
 * 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.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 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 What's up, Doc? 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.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 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.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 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?—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 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;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? &mdash;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 What's up, Doc? 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 Wikipedia. Then prove I have a substantial history with Mbz1. If you can't, withdraw your accusations. &mdash;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.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 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. &mdash;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 (talk)  (contribs) 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;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.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 03:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying you were involved in baiting is not a personal attack. &mdash;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.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 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.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 03:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "An unsubstantiated accusation is a personal attack." My concerns are substantiated. &mdash;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.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 04:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I do not know you, therefore I cannot comment on you as a person. My concerns are based upon what I see in your dispute with Mbz1. And yes, my concerns are based on my opinion of the diffs presented. &mdash;Dark 04:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You reference diffs, but you don't specify. Specify your evidence of me baiting.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 04:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Break for ease of editing

 * &mdash;Dark 04:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

6 and 10 are the same diff, and even so, neither is baiting. What it is, however, is response to incivility in an edit summary. 7 was an explanation on an edit summary. 8 was a response to a policy quote on my talk page, and 9 was a clarification of what a personal attack is.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 04:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In which you conveniently posted when Mbz1 removed your previous messages. &mdash;Dark 04:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you mind stopping with the bad-faith accusations? Each message was a response to something the user said.  End of story.  Stop reading into my edits please.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 04:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)