User talk:Dedalus/Archive1

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Thank for your translation! --Aphaia | Translate Election | ++ 14:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merci Dedalus; J'essayerais d etre la :-) J'espère Anthere

I think you made a mistake putting your translation of UI interface texts at nl:Wikipedia:Boardvote_tekst. They are to be separate MediaWiki texts. RaSten 23:04, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was a terrible mistake of me to put translations there ready to move to MediaWiki articles by a sysop, which I am not. Dedalus 08:26, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, at least you helped the sysops to fetch your ready translations, if they knew where to put them. (Sorry to intervene.) RaSten 12:15, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Have you checked the page nl:Wikipedia:Boardvote_tekst and the MediaWiki articles on nl:? What did you notice? Dedalus 12:59, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, I didn't look there. And the final place for the translation isn't there either, as the short texts should be in the MediaWiki namespace. And as far as I can see, they are there. RaSten 18:38, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Genealogy at Wikicities[edit]

Much progress since your last contribution - - so I hope you will add a few of your more recent ancestors to give us a better geographical spread. Kind regards. Robin Patterson 05:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, where are you from. I'm from Curacao and I just proposed for the language again. I didn't know that you already did. So I was wondering if I can edit my name in the Proposer's user account in Meta next to yours, because because I am a native speaker and i've collected a bunch of other people to help. It would help us gather more people. I think you are more experience in Wikipedia so we will need each others help to set it up. --Ghettocash 13:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome. Get ahead. Get started. The road is paved. I've been waiting for you to come and step in with a bunch of friends. Good luck! Dedalus 20:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

cloak request[edit]

IRC cloak request[edit]

I am Dedalus_ on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/Dedalus. Thanks. --Dedalus 20:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, it is done. Dedalus 08:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image license[edit]

Please can you add a licence to this image of yours. Meta is pretty big on image copyrights..thanks..--Cometstyles 10:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use is not permitted on Meta - thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day Candidate![edit]

First I thought I'd offer a thank you for being brave / foolish enough to put your hat in the ring as a candidate for election to the Wikimedia Board of Trustees! - I wonder if you might have any time, interest, and enthusiasm to record a brief 10 / 15 minute audio interview about yourself / the reasons for your candidature / your wiki philosophy etc. etc. ? - I've been promoting a project on the english wikipedia called NotTheWikipediaWeekly - which is a grassroots effort to promote good communications through (semi) regular 'podcasts'.

If you have a couple of moments free, would you mind taking a look at this page and signing up if you're interested! It'd be great to chat with each and every one of you, and I hope you'll be amenable to this idea! Let me know if you've any questions at all, thought perhaps my english wikipedia talk page is the best spot.

The best of luck, and kind regards,

Privatemusings 03:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In your candidate statement, you write "presenting timely financial statements with an unqualified audit opinion to show donors' money is well spent". Are you sure that's what you mean? Does the word "unqualified" have a specific meaning in auditing contexts that I'm unaware of? Or am I just confused? (BTW, I'm asking this as a translator, not as an eleccom member.) Jon Harald Søby 21:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for asking. If the statement that "in our opinion the financial statements give a true and fair view" is given as an audit opinion then the audit is unqualified. See: auditors opinion. Dedalus 15:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hopefully you might be available?[edit]

For a brief audio conversation via. Skype (or the regular telephone service, should skype not be suitable) to talk about your candidacy in the Board of Trustees election. Per the above thread - I've now started recording short interviews with cnadidates, and will be publishing a podcast on 6th June in a bid to help inform potential voters about you and your ideas for the Wikimedia Foundation.

It would be great to have your participation! You can sign up for an interview time here - or uf you have any questions, please don't hesistate to contact me and I'll try and help! cheers, Privatemusings 05:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for asking! I've signed up for Sunday at noon CEST=UTC+2. Dedalus 08:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Freedom of speech[edit]

What is your opinion on the use of article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights on free speech ? Sometimes the expression of an opinion is considered an insult to another. There are no clear rules, the last block I got was because I asked somebody to use his brain. Religion is mostly the other base for a conflict. Users who suggest they have the sole right to the truth because of their beliefs, like to push their single view in a lemma. Pointing out that there are more views is a base for a block as I discovered. What is your view ? Bornestera 19:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In general I would refer to the third part of article of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which reads:

"The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals." and right after that comes article 20 which reads: "1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law. 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law." There are no rules on Wikipedia, except for the one which reads "Don't be a dick". Dedalus 19:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Threats in any way should allway be the base for a (permanent) block. For insults we have a different problem: an insult hurts the most when it is true. If somebody calls me an idiot, I have no problem whatsoever if its based on an action I did. If somebody is lying, and repeating this, I should have the right to call that user a "Liar". For some strange reasons I end up getting a block.
"..respect of the rights or reputations of others..." I sincerely agree on this, but (there's always a butt), History is my main subject on Wiki, and I encounter users who have no problem discarting the one Historian who has publicized something in contrary to another. These discarted historians will be considered "idiots" and removed from the article. My goal is to get multiple views in the lemma.
"..There are no rules on Wikipedia...." suggests that moderators have a free hand in blocking users. I have discovered that I got a block from a moderator who was defending a "liar". It has no use confronting that specific moderator with these facts, because he was defending a religious brother. No rules implies that friends will help each other and form a "block". The problems I encounter are of the religious kind. History is never uncoloured, unfortunately, religious sources (vitae) are considered true, and the others are doubtfull and sometimes called liars...
My request is to get a rule, which broken will be followed by an immediately block. Let's say that it must be rule number one: Removal of relevant sources and references in a lemma, will be reacted on with a block. If this rule would be made valid, quality increases, POV will be reduced and the credibility of Wiki will increase. I trust you in this one, and vote for you now. Next week I'm too busy with work. I wish you succes, Bornestera 16:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Free speech blocked[edit]

My free speeech has been blocked, You can read it all. Just as I suspected, the arbcom will not burn their fingers on this difficult subject. Please give your opinion. Groetnis, Bornestera 05:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello Ad. First of all, thank you for your interest in the WMDOC initiative! I see that you translated WMDOC/Contact one-pager/nl. If you wish to participate and translate, you should probably wait until the reference page (in English) has been update itself; otherwise it may be a waste of your time and energy.

Regarding the redirect File:WMDOC Cheatsheet nl.pdf you created for the file File:Cheatsheet-nl.pdf, I would recommend against doing so. The "old" files can still be accessed through the Leaflet main page. I would like to have a clear separation between the "old" and the "new" documents, and thus keep the new naming scheme for the new ones.

Thanks! guillom 18:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]