User talk:Daedalus969

Daedalus969 is taking an unexpected wikibreak due to computer problems, but hopes to be back soon in full ability. He is still able to edit, but only from that of other family members' computers, which he has sporadic access to.

12:23 pm, 12 August 2024 (PDT)

Welcome to my talk page! I will reply on your talk page unless you prefer otherwise as usually noted on your talk page. If you are an anonymous editor, I will reply here.

When leaving messages, please remember these easy steps:

Use a descriptive subject/headline
Use [[wikilinks]] 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 when more than 1 section is present.

Talkback

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

tb

Hello, Daedalus969. You have new messages at roux's talk page.

You can remove this notice at any time by removing this template.

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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Thank you

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

		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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]