User talk:Dayewalker/Archive01

Archive through 10/12/08--

Nice try Palmer...

But they'll delete this one pretty quick. Somebody will make up ChrisWalker though, and tat whill b uh funi! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.205.201.50 (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. Please explain. Dayewalker (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~::How about you stop talking to yourself, huh? --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

So let me get this straight. This guy attacks me, then you, then I try and defend both of us and now you're tagging ME as the sock, and not him? I'll tell you this, every single edit I've made has been a good one, including plenty of vandalism reversions of this IP guy who appears to be climbing up your ass from all angles. If you don't want help with that, fine, I'll defend myself but I won't help you anymore. Good luck. Dayewalker (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::::So you're telling me it's just a coincidence that the first four letters in this username coincide with letters 2-5 in this banned user's name? I don't think so. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When UAA deletes you, it'll be sweet.

Enjoy your trolling for the next 5-10 minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.205.201.50 (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? You haven't made a single good edit, but you're attacking me and calling me a troll? What have I done to you? Dayewalker (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

With all this sock activity, I just semi-protected your talk page (and several articles) temporarily. If you would rather have your page un-protected, just let me know. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing, different day. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More of the same. That guy really needs to find some more productive hobbies like kicking puppies or tossing sacks of kittens into the river. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonating another Wikipedian...

Though that person is banned, your name could be construed as impersonating another editor. I am reporting you to AIV and we'll see what they think. 68.29.133.117 (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not impersonating a banned user in any way, shape, or form. A Checkuser has proven I have no connection whatsoever to that editor.

Since this is your first edit (and that editor has been banned for quite a while), I'm just going to assume that you are that user returning to make personal attacks again, as you did on my page above under another IP. It's awfully egotistical of you to assume that there's only one person in the world who has "Daye" as a part of their name.

As I said above, please leave me alone. Dayewalker (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson National Expansion Memorial

Edit by a banned user is not the only excuse for deleting relevant material. Per this revert, the information is relevant to the article, but it needs referencing. I see no valid reason for deleting this information. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per wikipedia policy, "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user Hdayejr is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion." This user has been banned, and has a laundry list of sockpuppets used to harrass legitimate wikipedia editors over the last few months. I saw his edit, and wiped it off the books as policy dicattates.

Of course, if you'd like to add it, as a wikipedia editor in good standing, go right ahead. That's your call. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the history of the offender and the banning. But the arch was definitely closed following 911 and so the edit was legitimate. It of course needs a source. Unfortunately I don't have the time I used to have to dog it down. Americasroof (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two suggestions

Hey there Dayewalker. A couple of friendly suggestions:

First, if you think you've spotted a Hdayejr sock, report it to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/User:Hdayejr immediately so you've got something to point to when you revert edits.

Second, heh, have you considered changing your username? Obviously you don't have to, and if you like this username, feel free to fight for it. I just thought it might give you a chance to edit in peace without this jerk stalking you everywhere :D Your call, of course.

Thanks, and best of luck! --Jaysweet (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Most of the time, the Hdayejr IPs only run for a little while. And he was the one who attacked me first, for daring to have the same last name as him, I guess. He took offense to my user name since I guess he thought he was the only person in the world named "Daye", and had never seen the Blade movies. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good :) BTW, an admin had close Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/User:Hdayejr, but I created a new one based on today's little lovely mess, which is at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hdayejr (2nd). --Jaysweet (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conversations

The conversation had already ended very well. Adding the alphabet soup detracted from the resolution, rather than adding anything. Things can stop without formal proclamations, simply because all parties realize that what was necessary was done. --Blechnic (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I thought Dayewalker was right to remind us all of WP:DENY. In fact, WP:DENY, IMO, is the main reason why I shouldn't have made the comment in question. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I over-react to getting alphabet soup spewed at me, I'll admit. Anyway, you did right, why don't we make this a positive and you edit some of my articles, and I'll edit some of yours (yours as in anything you're particularly interested in having an extra edit on)? I recently did an overhaul of Fumarase deficiency for horrendous bias, the new version could use a major check. How about both of you go for it? --Blechnic (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had edit conflicted on my last post, so it's quite possible that it all ended before I could get my post on the page. We all know what's going on, so apologies if I stepped in too late. No hard feelings from me, certainly, and I hope you guys feel the same. I'd be glad to help edit on Fumarase deficiency, if only I knew what the Hell it was. I can check it for punctuation, plurals, and the word "poop," but anything past that point is probably beyond me. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to know anything technically because the technical aspect of the article appears to have been written by a geneticist. It's a bit too high level. It just needs reviewed for biases. The level of bias that smacks you in the face, nothing subtle. But it's hard to catch everything while you're doing the editing, and that is what needs a second set of eyes, or third. Thanks. --Blechnic (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Day's catch

Hehe, I just noticed the revert with no reason as to why it occured, then noticed the IP was within the range used by our Grand Sock Master.— Dæ dαlus^T@lk / Improve\ ^Contribs 04:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spartan Army edit

Thanks for the assist. The user reverting it out was blocked for 3RR. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I figured that would happen. From his edits and reasoning, he looked like a newbie. Hopefully the 3RR shows him the right way to do things. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 05:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't message me again, harrasment is a crime.

Don't tell me what to do. I'll edit what I want.

Certainly not harassment, since you've already been blocked for your comments. Dayewalker (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Carlin talk page

I noticed that you had been editing the talk page of the George Carlin article.

I was a little concerned about you removing comments that you consider to be trolling/vandalism, unless their is a major breach of BLP then please don't edit other user's comments in the future. If you consider them to be unacceptable, then by all means report the offending users to the relevant admin noticeboard.

This of course does not apply to comments on your own talkpage, which you may remove as you see fit. Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern. If you'll look at this IP editor's contributions, you'll see they are unsuitable as per WP:TALK, including making personal attacks, small talk, and changing the edits made by other editors. Changing another user's section heading on a recently deceased person to indicate he's now in Hell is a violation of all sorts of wiki policy, and was reverted as it should be.

This IP editor was reported, and blocked accordingly, thus proving my point. Dayewalker (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Kralizec! (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. I do solemnly swear to only use rollback for the good of society, and not for any personal or monetary gains. Thanks again! Dayewalker (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now, I'm rolling back his insane ramblings and attacks with just the touch of a button. Sweet! Thanks again! Dayewalker (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your Contributions

I would like to point out I fix small POV problems to make things more neutral. Blaxthos and Gamaliel do not like my neutrality stance and automatically label me as biased. They are biased for there comments, but they attack me for my "bias." It is the classic blame the other side for the same thing before they blame you routine. It doesn't work usually.PokeHomsar (talk) 04:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to help you, since your last round of POV edits seem to have you headed towards a block. Asking for a revote on consensus based on whether editors identify themselves as liberal or conservative is POV pushing, as you've been warned by other editors. Dayewalker (talk) 04:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of denouncing the books, just read them, or at least Bias. You will see where I'm coming from. Most libraries carry the book anyway. It was the #1 New York Times Bestseller for over a whole season. That makes it particularly noteworthy.PokeHomsar (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than give me odd jobs, show me in any way shape or form how I denounced the books. You have no idea what my political beliefs are, but you assume I must be a liberal because I can clearly see you're pushing your POV. Dayewalker (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You call them biased, which basically discredits the books as anything that can be acceptable. I took offense to those statements.PokeHomsar (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did nothing of the sort. I said the books advance a certain point of view, which you would obviously agree with because you're saying other people will understand your viewpoint if they read them.

It's a moot point anyway. Everyone thinks they are neutral, but no one truly is. That's why things on wikipedia should be properly sourced. You are not neutral in the slightest, you are attempting to advance a certain viewpoint, and upset at other people who disagree. Dayewalker (talk) 05:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the problem is, they don't even seem to know anything about my viewpoint except that they think it is wrong and/or stupid. This is what we like to call bullying, and I won't stand for it.PokeHomsar (talk) 05:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've just admitted you're trying to push your viewpoint, did you realize that? What you call "bullying," everyone else sees as trying to keep extreme viewpoints off of the wiki. Since the ANI discussion, every edit you've made has pushed your POV, going so far as to accuse other editors of bias because of their personal politics. Again, that won't endear you to many editors. Dayewalker (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Kalish

I know. Someone speedy deleted the Carol Kalish article. There are now references. Carol Kalish Fanclub (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. If you need any help, let me know. Dayewalker (talk) 06:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting vandalism

Thank you for saving my talk page of a bizarre vandalism. --Cannibaloki 02:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! That was certainly a strange spree, wasn't it? Dayewalker (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your criticism of my debate

How am I being uncivil? Use of the word "ignorant" makes me so? I am engaged in healthy debate with Daedalus. If he wishes to cease this and makes this known to me I will not continue. However, I am curious as to his justification for the contradiction in his attitude which I have raised. I ask this as well, given that we are two consenting individuals engaged in conversation, why do you find it your place to try and stop us from continuing in our conversation? Notepad47 (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you posted this same paragraph on his talk page, I responded to you there. [1] Dayewalker (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now this user is permanently blocked as a sock.

What happened to the Simpsons season 18 pages?

I was looking over them and some were in huge messes (ie. 2 identical cultural refs sections, stuff that was cut and pasted improperly from previous versions, refs to previous episodes sections) and most were protected even though they had little vandalism beforehand. What did I miss? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure, I'll look into it. While you were gone, an IP-hopping vandal got into it with L0b0t, and promised to reinsert big chunks of trivia/references [2] [3], regardless of merit or consensus because he got ticked off at ANI. Maybe that's where some of this came from. I'll try and figure it out later, but that's probably a good start. Dayewalker (talk) 03:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on

[4]. That was clever. Enigma ^message 07:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Indoor Football Association

Hey,

Sorry for the issue,but how can i get my page to reflect the truth about the league and it's formation?

I don't know alot about using this Page but I want to do whatever to make it right.

thanks

Michaelmink

I've left a response on your talk page. Good luck! [5] Dayewalker (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silver lake and the great newbie blog debate

Hey

Well, the user in question has now taken up a WP:POINT campaign by removing all the links, see the talk that has gone on since I warned her unofficially and then officially here User talk:Hottertoddy. I am not sure if she is trying to wind me up, but she is definitely beginning to after 24 hours of me calmly explaining the facts, in the face of a fair amount of personal attacks. Needless to say I could have given her a warning from the get go for adding inappropriate links. Maybe you could keep an eye on the situation too, I'd rather someone else gave her the next warning if she continues. Mfield (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hdayejr

I wanted to thank you for reverting several of this sockpuppeteer's edits on my Talk page recently. He's stalked me online for close to eight years, so I always appreciate any help I can get with him, even if it wasn't spurred specifically by his antagonistic relationship with me.

Incidentally, while I realize your name has nothing to do with him, I still find it deliciously ironic that you've been reverting all of his edits. :) -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 02:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

Heh, didn't even know it was you who did the report. I just looked on the page to see (from my perspective) that the userspace had been deleted. I was appalled, this had to have been against policy! I clicked upon the redlinked userpage tab, and found that the user had never existed. To my relief, it was a spelling error! So I fixed it, and now all is well with the world.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 08:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I believe foul play may be involved, it is starting to frustrate me, but I cannot edit the page User:Moogy. I am simply trying to revert edits by a random ip to the last version by the respective user. I have been trying to do this for at least ten minutes. Can you please try to do so?— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 08:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't try to edit it, because the IP has reverted his own edits. Just looking back on that page, it appears there's a personal connection between the Moogy editor and the IPs, possibly all playing whatever that game is that they keep trying to add a page for. I wouldn't worry about keeping Moogy's page clean, he's reverted to those IPs edits before so he's apparently in favor of them. If he doesn't want help, I wouldn't bother. Dayewalker (talk) 08:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for helping with 24.147.246.76 (talk · contribs). --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to help, and glad to see he's been blocked if he's not going to discuss his edits. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionist

Just calling a spade a spade and cutting to the chase. God this place is stuffy, pretentious and up itself these days. Artw (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, no you weren't. You made a personal attack. Please don't. Dayewalker (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess we'll just agree to disagree. That user seems to be taking a different tack on the article in question, which is all I wanted anyway. Artw (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no. We don't agree to disagree. I'm not discussing the article with you, I'm talking about you calling another editor a "petty little fool," which is a violation of WP:NPA regardless of the situation. Please don't. Dayewalker (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the revert on my page! I posted him at WP:AIV as well... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pax85 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

thank you for letting me know! Ctjf83Talk 07:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It looked a bit off for me, so I thought I'd let you know. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a small, small, internet

Heh, times are indeed funny, as when I was reverting a sock accusation on the page of an established editor, there was an edit conflict, to the warning already being removed. After checking through the history, I found it was you, heh.

So, if you don't mind me asking, how are things?— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 08:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Funny how that works sometimes. Things here are good, another night, another insane sockpuppeter just running off at the wiki for a half hour. Nice work, I appreciate the help. He really seems to have taken a post-block dislike for you. Dayewalker (talk) 08:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... That last one was allowed to continue for way too long. Sorry I was off to bed at the time. :P I normally help with the reverts and the nudging of admins. Enigma ^message 15:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

... for the reverts. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hdayejr

I see our old friend is back at it. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Offense

No offense but those peoplehave done the exact same stuff to me and it pisses me off. Why dont they get that warning thing? And I will do better in my posts from now on. And if you respond, please do on my talk page. Zombified24 (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

It is a lonely and frustrating experience to try and take on an army of single purpose accounts, anonymous IPs, and sockpuppets. It is nice to see any evidence at all that other people are around. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll try and read up on the article and become more familiar with the subject but for now, I can certainly help with random users removing sourced information. That's usually a dead giveaway that something foul is going on. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP vandal

Thanks, I saw that when I went to report him. :) RainbowOfLight ^Talk 03:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

on that william article

No seriously I know what your talking about but seriously that was vandalism he was deleting the article slowly, I was aware of that for I was monitoring recent changes. No edit war was in action this realy makes me want to apply for adminship if you dont beleive me contrast and compare my work and the other user, his summaries are false. thank you --Zaharous (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you wanting to keep the article intact, but you need to be aware of wikipedia policies. Please read up on the three revert rule for starters, that's one you don't want to violate. Regardless of what's going on on the page (and what you consider vandalism, you still need to be willing to discuss issues on the talk page. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dane Cook

Thanks for fixing my mistake... ... discospinster _talk 00:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, I know how it can get when there's IPs throwing in stuff at different times. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dan_Schneider_(writer)

Since you seem to be one of the saner people involved in that mess, I wanted to just thank you for that. However, as you came to that page and asked of my reasons, I answered, and asked some questions. I'll be gone for Labor Day, so I'll just ask these questions, and, if you are really a conscientious editor, the way some are, I think you will understand my reasoning.

As I explained my backhistory of failing to be able to battle editing thuggery some years back, I was only drawn to this page because I did not want it to fall in into disrepair.

You point out where any logic fails. If the subject is notable by Wiki's standards, which basically says independent sources say A has contributed to whatever fields, then he/she is notable. The NY Times, Cambridge University, City Pages, NPR, etc. state A is. So, if these independent arbiters are correct, then A is notable. Why? Because she breathes? Or for whatever contributions to said fields. In this case, A is a writer, interviewer, critic, etc. If the notable A has then made notable contributions, then they are notable to be listed. A's notable opinions are therefore worthy of merit. Another editor mentioned Roger Ebert. A good example. Ebert may be more notable because he's been around longer and is on TV, but once over the bar, there is no second bar for super-notability in Wiki standards.

Therefore, quoting an Ebert's opinion is valid, as is Schneider's. If Ebert or Schneider have a quote about having hemorrhoids, this is not notable, but if they've dueling opinions on an actress, it may well be. Or, if vital information to a subject. Correct? Again, stop me if you disagree.

Let me give you an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regeneration_(1997_film)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regeneration_(1997_film)&oldid=232044148

I'd not heard of this film until a friend recommended it recently. I looked it up on Google, and saw Schneider's review on his website and subsequently looked to see if it was on Wiki, as with other reviews. It was. In the older version, there was information on the differences in UK and US versions. This made me look up more information online, and I've decided to wait to see the film until the unedited version hits DVD.

Is not this why Wikipedia exists? To inform its users? Then, one of the other side's reckless sockpuppets removed that information wholesale. Just look at the two versions. Which is superior? You reasonably cannot state that that information was not relevant. Even the female editor I quoted earlier stated that the handful of editors who removed links were doing so with no regard to quality or service to users.

To claim linkage is spam, regardless of the importance, is ludicrous. Also, many of these edits are laced with edit quotes wholly biased. Not liking a link is no reason to remove it. And to use sockpuppets to deny information to Wikipedians violates the claimed purpose of Wikipedia.

Now, this went on even before I started my plan to protect this writer page. You simply cannot deny that these editors have a pathological bias, whereas, I would wager, the overwhelming majority of links removed were very helpful in providing balance to pages skewed in one way or another, or like the above linked film, gave vital information about it.

Just look at the interviews Schneider did. Similar delinkage and removal of quotes from the subjects themselves. If Schneider is notable, and his interview subjects are, they deserve to be used for primary information. I've read almost all of them, and the interview subjects often contradict claims. A few even chide Schneider for getting wrong information off of Wikipedia!

Are you honestly stating that this is not a service? This corrects false information and should be used. And if used, it HAS to be sourced. Am I correct? And sourced means direct links, if possible. Correct. Therefore, the interviews of Schneider need to be sourced. And, if a notable interview subject quotes something about a known controversy in his career, etc., that's quoteworthy, and should be sourced.

Now, this whole notion of notability is, itself, a bit absurd, I grant you. That's why we have vapid celebrities. And, as an old line encyclopedist, I think many Wiki pages are nonsense. 90% could be scrapped, and Schneider's page would be one. I grant he would not be Britannica material yet. But Wiki is not Britannica. It is a condensation of trivia from the Internet, does not use professionals (as shown by the edits of Steven, Tw, Ovenknob, and countless others not qualified to edit a coloring book). But, on that scrap list, there are about 99% of pages that would go before his- websites, game shows, video games, YouTube celebs, etc.

So, all I ask is this- I have admitted I did what I did to get the page protected. I have stated reasons why, and you certainly know all I say about thuggery is true. You clearly can see that the Pathological haters of this page and person exist, and are lowering the standards of Wikipedia. Hence, my actions. If you consider yourself conscientious, I would say that you, and any editor friends of yours, seriously look at the film I linked above, think for a minute, and compare the two versions of the page. The info that was removed is certainly valuable and from a Wiki independently verifiable arbiter of notability source (in this case Schneider). The removal was unjustifiable, and clearly not spam. You should look at the contributions of the anti-Schneider crowd, and scrupulously see which ones were justifiable or not, and restore those considered justifiable, as with the film I reference. If not, then all your claims for caring for Wiki are as BS as those made by the editors who have ruined so many notable historic figured with sections about their love lives being many times larger than the things they were noted for historically.

Other editors have laughed at my comparisons to IMDB, but as I showed in an earlier example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodfellas

There is no information in the info box that is unique to IMDB, therefore, there is no need for sourcing it. That IMDB links are all over film pages is far less justifiable than links to Schneider's reviews or any other blogger, columnist, etc. Unless, of course, there is a financial arrangement between Wiki and IMDB to promote each other. If so, should not Wiki be up front about this? Otherwise, IMDB's placement is a source of payola; which does not surprise me.

However, if Wiki accepts money for information and link placement, it should state it, and it totally demolishes Wiki's claim to be an independent encyclopedia, for Britannica accepts no paid ad placements for info.

You can reply here or on the Schneider page. I'll not be back for a day or so. I have been courteous enough to explain myself to you, and why I did what I did, my motivations, etc. I hope you do me the courtesy of a reasoned reply, and if in agreement, take whatever actions needed.

Have a good Labor Day. If an American. Cop 666 (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you've been blocked since then, I'll tell you what you wrote above was too long to read, and I just glanced over it. Most of what you said was a repeat of your talk page comments, and other stuff exists on wikipedia. There's a serious issue with the subject on his page and the depth of coverage based on his own words, and also the problem of him being sourced in so many other articles which smacks of WP:UNDUE. If you're unblocked, good luck. Dayewalker (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abtract/Collectoninan/Sesshomaru

It looks like we're getting to finalizing a remedy at User_talk:LessHeard_vanU#Is_this_or_any_proposal_going_to_be_agreed.2C_or_imposed.3F, if you wouldn't mind taking a look at the end of that section. -- Natalya 19:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've glanced, but I really have nothing to add. This has happened before, and now we have an editor who has been stalked considering calling the authorities, but somehow we can't admit what's going on. We're going to put in place the exact same restrictions we did last time and the time before that, etc. It'll stand for a few weeks until there's a chance to slip between the tracks, and it'll start all over again. My only contribution here is to support Sess and Coll, both of whom I feel have been completely wronged by first wikipedia editors, then wikipedia admins. I'm going to leave this one alone because I don't feel wikipedia is protecting productive editors, and I'm afraid of drawing a stalker myself. Good luck to you guys. Dayewalker (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for reverting that deletion on AIV today. I am just here to let you know that according to this history page, it looks as though Ssj4ben10 (talk · contribs) is the same guy as 68.49.67.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Remember to keep an eye on him. Thanks again, ~ Troy (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

66.161.158.46‎

I've turned him into WP:AIV. Hard telling whether they'll take it, but it's worth a try. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good call. He seems to have stopped, but with edit summaries like "I don't give a fuck," it's kind of hard to assume god faith. I guess horrible things happen to Cincinnati folks emotionally after the Bengals mail it in like that. Dayewalker (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They declined, on the grounds it's a content dispute. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. I was going to point out the redirect of Heman to He-Man, thus changing a Biblical reference to a cartoon one, but it looks like he's stopped editing and they probably wouldn't block at this point anyway. Nice try, I guess. I'll keep watching the Cincy article, and also keep trying to talk some sense into Yami. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably more of an issue for WP:ANI if the IP persists. That's true for Yami also, except he's not in a revert war. And he's missing the picture on the issue of regional colloquialisms. If there isn't already such an article, there certainly could be: List of regional colloquialisms or some such. He's already got plenty of citations for this one item. As an amateur linguist, I think such a page would be interesting. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone dinged him for edit warring, netting him a short-term block. That might send a message, but who knows? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You For Your Input On Firestarter Racing Mini Monster (Truck) Page

I provided three different links to other areas on the internet pertaining to my truck, including the home webpage and video sources. Just as many links as other existing monster truck pages on Wikipedia have. Any other advice would be appreciated, however you may be able to assist me...

I've made several requests to get a copy of the page sent back to me so I can repost it with the appropriate means to dispute it's removal. Could you possibly provide me with this?

Thank you. Kildare2 (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anyway!

I just recieved comments by another administrator by the name of Seicer, referring to the subject of my page as crap. I'm going to thank you as the only administrator who offered me useful advice, but it's been made very clear that Wikipedia is not the place for me. Thanks for your time. Kildare2 (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sorry I didn't get back to the wiki in time to help. I'm not an admin, though, I was just an editor trying to help. Good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup of Right Now (Van Halen song)

Hi Dayewalker, I'm afraid that I might have accidently reverted you. An anon has been camped on the article and any improvements were consistently reverted - the anon is now blocked, but I'll have a look at your change and see if I can incorporate it into the main article. Apologies for any inconvinience, its why I hate it when people believe they have ownership of articles and can violate 3RR... - Tbsdy lives (talk) 10:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain I have readded in your changes. If you have a moment, could you have a look? TIA :-) Tbsdy lives (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're warning the wrong person

I'm not edit warring. The sources have been provided clearly in both the article and the edit summaries. Have another look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.32.189 (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. As of right now, there are no references to support your claim, and you're certainly edit warring. A case has been opened up on you at WP:ANI, since you appear to be banned user TyrusThomas4lyf. Dayewalker (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue what you're talking about with some banned user. And once again, you appear to be blind, the reference is right there on the page as well as in edit summaries. There is a website link and a book reference... to the OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.32.189 (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Website link does not indicate it is a record. The record book you refer to is not online, is a year out of date, and is not verifiable. Until it's verified that this is the recod (and hasn't been overtaken since then), the verifiable content should remain. Regardless of the content, you are edit warring over reinserting it, instead of taking your concerns to the talk page as asked. Dayewalker (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book includes through the 2005-06 season, and the online records are THREE YEARS out of date. Or are you really that blind? Books are verifiable and do not need to be online in order to be used and trusted. Or are you really that blind to Wikipedia policy? Stop talking about something you clearly know nothing about. I'm not edit warring. I'm posting verifiable content only to have some know-it-all revert my changes without any justification.

TyrusThomas4lyf, please save it and move on. Since you are banned, you are not welcomed here anymore, so it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong.—Chris! _ct 18:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello

what's new? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbaha (talk • contribs) 20:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not much. And you? Dayewalker (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame Catholic Secondary School

Hey there, just saying thanks for the revert on this article... As you can see I've been fighting with this guy for a bit... I've added a warn on the IP's talk page but he hasn't yielded... We'll see what happens. I'm keeping an eye on it with WikiGuard. Cheers Pip (talk) 07:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right Now Van Halen Song

You are allowing user Tsbdy lives to continually provide false information on this page. Please read the discussion before reverting to his inaccurate version of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.25.152 (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and I just left you a message. Please stop your edit war, and discuss. Dayewalker (talk) 06:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His information IS NOT accurate. He is Australian and has made incorrect statements about US Politics for which he has no facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.25.152 (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So his Australian? Anyone can edit on Wikipedia no matter where they live. Rather then attack Tsbdy and Dayewalker as well as edit warring how about you discuss the issues on the talk page with no personal attacks, remaining civil and assume good faith. (Sorry about using your talk page Dayewalker) Bidgee (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is Australian and lives half way around the world and obviously doesn't follow US politics well enough or understand US campaign laws enough to comment on them. The proof of this is his own misstatements. The McCain Campaign, and the Republican National Party are two separate entities. You cannot make the assumptions that he was. In addition, he was removing well cited sources and injecting pure speculation in it's place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.25.152 (talk) 06:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I wrote. I'm looking at the information in the reference given. Dayewalker (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The song was NOT played at the Republican convention pure and simple. The article mentioned is about the song "Barracuda" by Heart. Not "Right Now" by Van Halen. Sarah Palin was NOT introduced at the Republican convention but at a McCain rally in Ohio 4 days prior. The McCain campaign and the Republican party are NOT the same entity. Please just leave the facts as they are and stop allowing Tsbdy Lives to vandalize a page that he has no right doing.

Ninja

Secondary source provided as requested:

http://asianhistory.about.com/od/warsinasia/p/NinjaProfile.htm

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.151.187 (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That source doesn't mention Sun Tsu at all. Dayewalker (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted, in any way, About.com is not a reliable source. As Dayewalker says, there is no mention of your claim. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias Gonzo, quality admin work as always. Dayewalker (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to read the books written by Stephen K. Hayes and Masaaki Hatsumi for reliable secondary source. Also read the book by Donn Draeger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.0.171 (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get the feeling I'd have to read the book that you wrote to find something that backs up your assertion. Dayewalker (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind

I reverted this as it seems to be a disruptive person who is using another IP to sign their comments. Bidgee (talk) 05:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate it, that guy is banned user Hdayejr (talk · contribs), he shows up here once a day or so just to remind us he's got nothing better to do. If you see anything questionable from an IP on my page, feel free to revert it. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#is_this_a_personal_attack.3F

Can I remove the personal attack from the talk page? Or am I forced to look at it, since the removal of personal attacks from talk pages is supposed to be limited? basically, will i get in trouble for removing it? cause i don't think it's appropriate to have to read an essay on what type of bad/creepy human i am Theserialcomma (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not an admin and I wouldn't speculate on that one. I was just giving my opinion at ANI, good luck in the matter. Dayewalker (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki ANI

Ack! No it wasn't my intention. I only meant to leave a reply to the entry Blaxthos has made. I did see a reply from another editor when I was trying to caveat, so I "backed" up my browser. Sorry, but thank you for reverting it. I think it may be wise if I stay silent on this issue! Thanks again. Wikiport (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I figured it was just an honest mistake. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Bmedick (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC) has given you a cookie! I appreciate you not deleting my page for Tha Bizness. I guess I'm just not that fast of a typer. Have a cookie...[reply]

Happy munching!

Refer To Gwen's Talk Page (Re: Stephanie Adams)

Are you accusing "EdJohnston" or someone else of being Adams? Maybe you can accuse someone with another IP, but even so, you have no sound proof that someone on here is Miss Adams. Why would she go on some free site about her anyway? An-Apple-A-NY-Day (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno why she would, but according to the talk page, she certainly has. The tag is accurate since the article has been edited in the past by someone personally connected to the subject (User:GODDESSY). It's accurate, so it stays. Dayewalker (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saks Fifth Avenue vandal

No problem, I gave that IP a long block. Possibly the article needs to be protected if the person can find another IP and come back. Academic Challenger (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I did the protection also, for a week. Now we'll have to see if the vandal goes after Saks Incorporated, and possibly other pages. The financial crisis has been causing a lot of pages about corporations to get vandalized lately. Academic Challenger (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I AM RIGHT

SHE GOT TOSSED OUT LIKE THE TRASH http://www.famousinterview.ca/interviews/brinke_stevens.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbaha (talk • contribs) 23:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be very pleased with winning some competition I didn't know we were having. Dayewalker (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most kind

Thanks for this, although if they hadn't also changed the text I might never had noticed... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why did you do this?

hi dayewalker, i see you put a "d" at the top of the noticeboard. [6] Why did u do that? Crystal whacker (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that, I didn't even notice. It was just a typo, don't worry, I wasn't marking my territory. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I tried to stay out of it, but it was nice of you to try and help. It makes me sad that an abusive editor can get away with wasting the time of so many editors though. Take care. (Wallamoose (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]