User talk:Dayewalker/Archive 3

Bobby Fischer

Hi could you do me the favour of taking a further look both at the article and the edit and give your opinion here if this information belongs in the article or not. It seems to me as if it's over focusing on Fiscers anti semitism with trivial details but his antisemitism is already refereed to plenty in the article.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the revert!

Thanks [1]! — Kralizec! (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of DreamHost

An article that you have been involved in editing, DreamHost, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DreamHost_(2nd_nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Judas278 (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Consistency

If you are going to issue me that warning, please review the other users talk page and issue the same, for consistency. User_talk:Toddst1 --DoyleCB (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In all good faith, I'd suggest you calm down with your reverts. You seem to enjoy a fight you'll quickly lose here, the best thing to do would be to just get over your previous block and move on. Dayewalker (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Prince Of Glowballs

The user above is a sock of User:MascotGuy. Checkout the userpage for a link to the Long term abuse page. I've submitted several requests for a block.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR compaint

I was filed the 3RR complaint on user:Niex05at the same time. Do you have experience with SPI complaints? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really with the socks page. I'm not completely sold on the two editors being socks, but it is coincidental enough to look into. Dayewalker (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• If you look, his edits and user:Kasper4000 take place in the same articles and the same material in them. I belileve he is doing it in an attempt to dodge the 3RR. Both accounts are less than a month old and have limited themselves to the same 3 articles.Niteshift36 (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Revert of ANI

Hey there - I reverted your removal of the ridiculous rant by User:Professionresearchharvard over at ANI. While your reasons were fine, it is generally bad form to delete material at ANI. It is actually useful to the community to know of the actions of users like this, particularly when they use ANI to launch a personal attack (a DUMB thing to do, trust me). Regards Manning (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha, I understand. Thanks for the explanation, makes sense to me. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, never mind. Turns out the author was already blocked for vandalism anyway. Best to delete it after all. Manning (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to refer you to Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Pioneercourthouse. Please delete any similar contributions on sight. Katr67 (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Dreamhost customer?

It would be helpful to know if you are a dreamhost customer.

I've assumed good faith in the past regarding you but realizing that you're practicing Wikipedia:Hounding with me and chasing me through this website for no apparent reason I ask are you in fact a Dreamhost customer? And could you please stop viewing my contributions.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not doing anything of the sort. If you want to make accusations against me, please take it to the correct venue. As for personal questions about other editors, that's not something of any relevance on wikipedia. The edits of a WP editor should stand alone, and be judged on their own merit. Dayewalker (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as you have refused my request to stop viewing my contributions I too will be taking a greater interest in your contributions from now on.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, if you have a complaint against me, please take it to the proper board, RfC or ANI. Dayewalker (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No complaint man from now on I'll just be a fan that's all.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

While you certainly seem to be making threats to hound me here, please check out this edit [2] where I apologized for misreading your comment to Thatcher. Dayewalker (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What lead you to Thatcher, what lead you to Bobby Fischer and what lead you to me? It's all good man I now find you interesting and I want to familiarize myself more with your work here on wikipedia, nothing wrong with that.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(OD) My contribution history is public, and available here [3]. I haven't commented on Bobby Fischer in quite a while. We've both been active on the Dreamhost article, so it would stand to reason that I would also watch the discussion at Arbcom. Dayewalker (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful stuff man, look forward to seeing more from you in the future.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

(Moved from user page) If you dont mind, may I ask why you follow me around reverting my edits? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niex05 (talk • contribs)

I am not following you around. You've now reverted your edits at Marriage and Perez Hilton without discussing your disputed changes. If someone disagrees with your edits, please open a discussion on the talk page and try and gain a new consensus. Just reverting without discussion leads to edit warring, which results in blocks and page protection, so it's always better to talk over big changes. Dayewalker (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia space does not requre sources

You reverted a change in Wikipedia space on the basis that it was an unsourced change. However, sources are only required for articles, not the policies, guidelines, and essays in Wikipedia space. --Jc3s5h (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a policy for that I can read up on? Probably "unsourced" was the wrong thing to tag it, as I posted on the editor's page, I really reverted it based on the lack of discussion. There seemed to be no reason for his change, and no one else reverted further after I changed it back. If there's a policy where I can find more information, please let me know. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of requiring sources is to prevent original research by Wikipedia editors; Wikipedia should be summarizing what has already been reported elsewhere. Clearly this concept has no application to those pages that start with the prefix "Wikipedia:" where our policies and guidelines are kept; those are things we decide on among ourselves and are intended to be original. --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, is there an official policy on this I can read up on? And how would you have suggested I handled the change to the page? Do you see my response to the editor as well-formed, or is there a better way you would suggest? Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If you look at WP:Verifiability you will see statements such as "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" and "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (emphasis added). The Verifiability policy applies mainly to articles (although it could be applied to false or dubious statements elsewhere, especially statements about living persons).

My impression of the change from Wall Street Journal to Washington Post was that it was an unnecessary change, but didn't hurt anything. If you think it was better with Wall Street Journal, you could revert. Your preferences for how the text reads are as important as anyone else's. --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) I'm always ready to thank users who reverted edits from a vandal who vandalized my page. Impala2009 | Talk 02:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, anytime! (but hopefully not very often) Dayewalker (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann

(moved from user page) If Keith Olbermann said that he does not wear horn-rimmed glasses, would you believe him?Mdriver1981 (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Belief doesn't matter, it's what you can prove through reliable sources and consensus. If you disagree, please take it up on the article's talk page and try and change the current consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet Another Keith Olbermann discussion, this time from the other side

Please explain your claim that YouTube is not a reliable source. I posted something linked to YouTube and you removed it. Since it featured Keith Olbermann himself, how is it not relevant to an article on him? Seeker alpha806 (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I commented on the Olbermann talk page, along with another editor who has also explained. If you have any other questions, make them there and I'll try and help. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

RE:

Just recieved this from you: Do not harass wikipedia editors, as you did here [1]. If you disagree with another editor's edits, please take your discussion to the talk page of the article for further comments. This editor is not the only one reverting your edits, so consensus is against you as per WP:EL. Threatening him will not help, so please take your concerns to the proper forum.

There was never a threat of any kind, simply a request to have his (and your) supervisors contact info as we have proof of his abuse and bias in regard to external link deletion. We have been intentionally tracking and watching him for a few months and have numerous documented situations that proove these aligations. Matter of fact .. you can go back to the last deletion he did 'Anita Blond' and see where he first deleted instantly with the explination "spammy link that leads to a fake fansite, either way not appropriate", then he recieved our email and quickly went back to delete his comment after realizing he was wrong about both statements. He has now completely deleted the 'external link' section of Anita blonds page and is obviously not fit for this position.

This needs to stop Wikipedia--GlobalCorp Media (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If you feel he's doing something inappropriate, take it to the talk page, which would be the proper venue. As for supervisors, wikipedia has none. You could open a thread at WP:ANI for administrator attention, or a request for comment if you'd like. However, other editors also agreed with removing your link. It's probably a matter for the talk page of the article first. Good luck. Dayewalker (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise.

I understand policy better than Daedalus, he won't stop even when asked to.--Victor9876 (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

And that's exactly the type of answer I was advising you against. Dayewalker (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't understand policy better than I do. If that were the case, you wouldn't have vandalized that user's talk page by removing that section against policy. Secondly, you have no right to kick me off this page, the fact that you asked me to leave has nothing to do with policy. Lets see, can you even cite the policies I supposedly broke?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me state this for the record, I have no desire to see a discussion over who knows which policy better take place on my page. Victor, I've offered you good faith advise about your interaction with other editors, please stop sniping at them. If you wish to be taken seriously in your discussion on ANI, please behave as such in all your dealings on wikipedia.

And Daedalus, I'll just advise you to let it go. The relevant policy here is very clear on user pages, and has been reiterated to Victor by several editors. Side arguments aren't productive.

Let's just all go about our business, shall we? Dayewalker (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

194x RFC

I recently opened an RFC/U on 194x. Looking back over the case, I'm not sure that I can give an example of me properly trying to resolve the dispute (failing, on the other hand...). I did link a diff of you warning 194x that his behavior was over the line: would you be willing to certify the RFC? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It looked like Scjessey had already certified it, so I just signed in that I agree. If it needs to be recertified, please let me know and I'll move my name up. Dayewalker (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Two users need to certify that they tried and failed to resolve it, so if you want to move your name, that's fine. If, on the other hand, you don't want to force the issue at the moment, that's fine too. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

RFAR

A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#194x144x90x118. Erik9 (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

RFAR opened

A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118. Erik9 (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Related AfD

You've been a regular contributor to the article on the Crips. Would you mind giving your opinion on this WP:Articles for deletion/Eight Tray Gangster Crips? Thanks. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Paint It, Black

Why do you suppose it's any of your business? Radiopathy •talk• 16:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're referring to. Dayewalker (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"I have no idea any of the backstory of what's going on at the article, but Radiopathy claims retirement at this point. I've made a comment at the disambig page talk page if you get a chance, I'd love to know what's going on. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)"

Ah. Well, everything that goes on on Wikipedia is all of our business. I asked you a question on your talk page and got ignored, then I saw you had retired soon after, so I was trying in all good faith to find out what was going on because it wasn't very clear. Dayewalker (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You got no answer because that was the answer you deserved. Radiopathy •talk• 23:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. I asked you a question in good faith because I honestly wanted to know what you were trying to do. If you don't feel like answering so I'll understand, there's not really much I can do. Dayewalker (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ain't No Sunshine

Just a friendly note, since it's obvious what you're doing: if you revert this again, you will likewise go to WP:AN/I for wikihounding. You have no right to get involved in a retaliatory content dispute. Radiopathy •talk• 18:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

PS have the courtesy (or courage, as the case may be) to sign your posts on peoples talk pages. Radiopathy •talk• 18:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I gave both of you a friendly 3RR warning, since you've both reached that point. Your edit war needs to stop, and the discussion needs to go on the talk page of the article for determining consensus.

By your comments (and the discussion you started above), I hope you understand that as wikipedia editors, we don't need "the right" to edit a page, and no one can establish what is and isn't our "business." I'm still assuming good faith here wth you, so please understand that wikipedia is a collaborative effort. We're all here to establish consensus, and build an encyclopedia. Dayewalker (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Is black garlic effective against vampires?

Thanks D Dub. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

De nada, anytime. And I think only in regards to Blacula. Dayewalker (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Red Hulk

Hi. I've started a consensus discussion on the edit conflict on Red Hulk here. Can you offer your opinion on the four points there? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration filed

This is to let you know that I've filed a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Scope of NLT concerning a case in which you have commented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive560#Legal threats by Milomedes. I have not listed you as an involved party; should you, however, prefer to be considered involved, let me know and I'll add you to the list.  --Lambiam 12:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

194x144x90x118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of one year. All editors of the DreamHost article are reminded to abide by Wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view, using reliable and verifiable sources; to engage in civil discussion on the talk page to resolve editorial disputes; and to use the relevant noticeboards and dispute resolution processes to seek external opinions on coverage of matters where the current editors may lack objectivity.

194x144x90x118's account has been blocked for a period of one year pursuant to this case.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 02:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

George Carlin

Re: George Carlin's religious faith Allowing a statement to stand that Carlin was raised in the Catholic faith is not a neutral statement as the information provided is from a potentially biased source, George Carlin himself who has in fact clearly demonstrated his anti-Catholic bias, and he has provided no supportive information that verifies his family's regular attendance at a Catholic church, for example, nor whether he was actually confirmed in the Catholic faith - a critical determination as to whether he actually completed his education in the Catholic faith. The addition to the article in this context: "though there is little evidence of his family's adherence to the faith" therefore makes the sentence far more accurate and less speculative than the sentence is without it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.3.167 (talk • contribs)

I understand what you're trying to say but you're basing it on original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. George Carlin was raised Catholic, that's not in doubt. If you have a reliable secondary source that says he wasn't, please bring it up on the page. Otherwise, you just saying in later years he had an anti-Catholic bias which invalidates his upbringing, or that a well-known fact about him isn't accurate because you never saw his high school diploma isoriginal research. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Carlin may have been Baptized into the faith, and may have received some education in the Catholic faith, millions of people do, but writing that Carlin was raised in the Catholic faith clearly implies that he completed a Catholic education expected of an average church member. This must remain a speculative and therefore a potentially misleading statement as we have no indication as to whether he completed his Catholic education. Only his confirmation in the faith would demonstrate this and this article provides no formal, or for that matter even any reasonable informal support for the claim. If the statement "though there is little evidence of his family's adherence to the faith" is to be removed, then the statement "and was raised in the Roman Catholic faith" should also be removed or at the very least revised to remove the implication of Carlin having completed his education in the Catholic faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.3.167 (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not Carlin completed a Catholic education (I think he did, but I have no source on hand to back it up) doesn't really matter. I disagree with your assertion that saying he was raised in the Catholic faith "clearly implies he completed a Catholic education." Being raised in the faith doesn't seem to have any direct connection with completing a Catholic education, as many Catholics attend public schools.

I do appreciate you bringing this to my talk page for discussion, it's always good to talk these things over. If you'd like a wider opinion, you should take your point to the Talk:George Carlin page, where you can see if other editors who frequent that page agree with you. Thanks, and good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that you appreciate the discussion on this issue but must clear up a point on what was meant by 'Catholic education'. First, completing a Catholic education means that one has taken sufficient Catholic Catechetical instruction to receive ones 'Confirmation' in the faith - which, by the way, is also a Catholic sacrament - this is not related to whether one has attended a public or Catholic school or not, as millions of Catholics have never attended a Catholic school, while in some areas, many non-Catholics have no choice but to attend a local Catholic school for expediency reasons. The implication of the statement 'raised in the Roman Catholic faith' would therefore have to mean that one has at a bare minimum, been confirmed in the faith, and not whether one has been schooled in a Catholic school, if it is to be an accurate statement. One could also reasonably add that it would also mean that one's parents actively participated with the child in matters related to faith - i.e. attending church on a regular basis, receiving Catholic sacraments together, etc. - but we can put that issue aside for now. Finally, you acknowledge in your response that you have no idea whether Carlin completed his Catholic education and that you "have no source to back it up". While you appear to have meant his Catholic schooling I would think that you would also have concede that you also have no source to back up whether Carlin was sacramentally confirmed in the Roman Catholic faith. If this is the case, then that would mean that the current Wikipedia statement on the issue is misleading, and should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.3.167 (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's common knowledge that Carlin was raised Catholic, he talked about it publicly for forty years. I'm still going to disagree with you on "raised in the Roman Catholic faith" equating to anything specific, though. I think the best place for discussion about this would be the Carlin talk page, that way other editors can also weigh in. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

AIV comment

Hi Dayewalker; thanks for your helpful comment on my talkpage. The following is CCed from Kralizec's talk page; he left me a stern warning after my post today at AIV. I just want to say thanks for reminding me to just walk away cool-headed. Nimur (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"Hello Kralizec!. I just wanted to reply to your message to me. I was not attempting to disrupt anything; I am not sure who is a sockpuppet and I don't really care to find out. All I know is that my talk-page was attacked, and I hoped that the AIV would make it go away. Perhaps this does not count as vandalism; I leave that up to others to decide. We've had trouble with these users on the Reference Desk, evidenced by this discussion last week - where I was the chief negotiator to end the disruption; and we really hoped everybody could be mature. All I want is to contribute to the Reference Desk without a hassle. Sorry if my request at AIV was viewed negatively. I'll CC this to fellow administrator User:Dayewalker, who left a helpful comment at my talk page. Thanks, Nimur (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)"

No problem, I'm glad cooler heads prevailed. Although I'm not an admin (hoping for one day), I'll be glad to help if you have any problems. Feel free to drop me a line any time. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look at that discussion on User talk:Nimur, you'll see that things were going along fine until the first of the two socks poked his nose in. Nimur seemed to understand what was up initially, then suddenly did a 180 and somehow concluded I was the one doing the socking, and things went downhill fast after that. Which, presumably, was exactly what the socks were trying to achieve. But the socks are indef'd and all appears calm again. It's worth pointing out that there are rather worse instigators on those ref desks, including a couple of rabble-rousers that we got indef'd yesterday, but Nimur has targeted me for some reason. But hopefully we can work things out. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm always in your corner, Bugsy. Dayewalker (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that. We're all trying to do what we think is right. But when I see a question from a teen worrying that he's not masturbating enough, it's difficult to take it seriously. But it could have been serious. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Action on vandalism to e.Digital Corporation article

Thank you for your diligence in monitoring and reverting recent disruptive editing to this article. Dealing with the repeated unexplained deletions of sourced content and unsourced POV insertions by apparent COI editors had worn me out and was souring me toward contributing to Wikipedia. Certainly trying to maintain this article's integrity took time away from other articles to which I would like to have contributed. I had made a report for edit warring but it was deemed stale and I gave up. To my pleasant surprise, other editors such as you and admins took notice and appropriate action. I see that your goal is to become an admin. I would certainly support that goal from what I have seen of your contributions. Regards, OccamzRazor (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all, glad to help. I know how frustrating it can get when one editor has a POV and refuses to discuss the matter. As responsible editors we certainly need to defend each other, and push for discussion and consensus in the face of an editor who's just here to (fr lack of a better term) break things. If there's anything I can help with in the future, feel free to drop me a line here. I appreciate the kind words. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. The actions by you, other editors and admins has given me a renewed interest in contributing to WP. One of my concerns is the amount of COI-biased information about diet/nutrition that ends up on WP as supposedly authoritative. The relief from repeatedly reverting vandalism to one specific article has allowed me to get back to addressing that issue. If I need help in the future, I know where to go. OccamzRazor (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

David Letterman

:) . . . Just so you know I wasn't trying to imply you (or anyone) on the page was "Big Media" or trying to "whitewash" the event; I was just being sarcastic with regards to a comment "cat" had made to me implying that.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 04:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand, that's how I took it. I just wanted to quash it before it was taken in the non-sarcastic vein in which it was intended. Dayewalker (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

TLK

I already got warned for that... and I re-added the comment with more civil wording and a small suggestion improvement... xx Pastel kitten (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And you added another comment with the summary "screw you," which is clearly inappropriate. Please don't do that. Dayewalker (talk) 01:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

IE color problems

This bug should now be fixed. Let me know if there is still a problem. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Manifest Destiny

Hello. The comment on the talk page which is being removed has always bothered me, as it seems offensive and outside the normal scope of a talk page. I understand that a sockpuppet may be removing it, but this seems to be a case where allowing the removal to stand, may be a benefit. Would you object if I removed it? Regards, Kablammo (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It was just one of several edits of socks of indef blocked user Quince Quincy (talk · contribs), so I was reverting him all over the place. I made no decision about the content of the comments he was removing and changing, if you'd like to remove it as per WP:TALK, that would be your call. I certainly wouldn't revert you. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for your anti-vandalism efforts. Kablammo (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting Milomedes

Apologies if I'm digging at old wounds, but I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Revisiting Milomedes. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What's it got to do with you?

Please stay out of other people's discussions. If you want to discuss my perfectly legitimate suggestion that the railfan page is deleted then please start a separate discussion with me.

Thanks

Ding Dong —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingdong12 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You were gone before I ever got the chance. Godspeed, you indef blocked user you. Dayewalker (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Reasons why

See

Well, related to typography, there are several articles and images missing. You can see all the red links in List of fonts, and blank spaces (where there should be an image) in Samples of serif typefaces or Samples of display typefaces or Samples of script typefaces, etc... The goal of the collaboration is to upgrade and improve all those things. If you go to the collaboration page, you will find further information and open tasks as well as instructions about all this. That´s basically all. This is a personal request for help in a task here in wikipedia. If you´re interested in collaborate, go ahead! - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 20:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

then click on the link here

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

then look up Hobo (font)

I only followed instructions to try to create articles with red links. Just because Hobo is a funny name does not mean deletion. Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Capitalism

An editor is questioning the lack of sources in the lead for Capitalism. If you would like to discuss this please reply on the talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Brittny Gastineau

is there anything you can do about the Brittny Gastineau article page? User:128.104.213.238 has said they will continue to edit war to add unsourced quotes and undue content back into this blp article. Even the one user who was kept adding it back (Spidey104) has finally stopped adding it back because they content was reworded by another ip user (not me). User:128.104.213.238 has said they'll continue to edit war to add the content back in to "keep the truth out there". this is all over a quote from the Bruno movie Brittny appeared in. I get a new IP every time I log on to my isp provider so 128.104.213.238 thinks I"m being a sockpuppet (untrue because Im not acting like different users and have admitted that it's not my fault that i have a rotating ip)[4] and can contiue to add back this content because they claim I'm being deceptive. Can you help pelase? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.17.48 (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Definition of marriage

Dayewalker, please see the discussion section of the Marriage article before you change the first sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.12.237 (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I did, and I left a comment on the talk page. Please discuss before reverting the longtime consensus edit. Dayewalker (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Marriage

As I value your opinion, could you comment on the article above in regards to the last threads on the talk page? As a note, I am posting this thread to several other users who's opinion I value.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I wish for you to comment on the threads on the talk page concerning the lead.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As I value your opinion, could you comment on the article above's talk page in regards to the last threads on the talk page about the lead? As a note, I am posting this thread to several other users who's opinion I value.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Reid Kerr College

Revised the edit to the motto to make it more acceptable after you deleted it, emphasising the endearment towards the college rather than to berate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.196.53 (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments here (and on the talk page), however, it wasn't a matter of the nickname being negative. It still stands as unencyclopedic trivia. Are there any reliable sources showing this motto is widely notable? I'll also leave the comment on the article talk page. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris Rush

You might want to go to Chris Rush / First Rush. It looks like a 3RR might happen there. -- Tenebrae (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Saw it, I've also reverted the other two pages to the main page. I'm not opposed to building the pages if they're notable, but this editor refuses to discuss anything anywhere, so it seems like we need to do what's best for the encyclopedia. Dayewalker (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Polar shift

Talk:Pole shift hypothesis#"See also" links response on talk page to keep it all together. I see your point but there is logic behind the millenium links.Granite07 (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Responding there. Dayewalker (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Response on page. On your philosophy posted to the talk page. I must also disagree with you here. The message of a calling without a caller and a message without a messenger, to me, is similar to a fight without a fighter. If no one fought for what they believed was just, then only the unjust would wield authority over those unable to fight. Although this is not the most self preserving of theories I do not knock it since while at times it has brought me down it has been only temporary for it has also lifted me up high more permanently. And you, a person who looks for others fights to join, that is a true calling! Usually the rule is kick the guy that is winning so hard he doubles over then sort things out, you kicked the guy on the ground getting kicked by four? Granite07 (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Dayewalker (talk) 08:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

which part, kicking the guy that down, looking for fights while advising others not to, or calling without a caller. I can explain all three but is seems fairly clear. Granite07 (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but you seem to see yourself in terms that others don't share. If you're "down," you're down because you've been edit warring against consensus and filing edit war complaints in situations that don't justify them.

I gave my opinion on a matter, nothing more, nothing less. If I agreed with you, I would have said so. However, I don't agree your links are appropriate, and I joined in the discussion on the relevant talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but I disagree. The evidence points to admins (pseudo editors) trying to rush consensus before mediation. The edits fit a pattern of noncontributing admins reverting the same edit with little or no discussion in an attempt to circumvent edit warring rules. I appreciate your assistance and input on a topic you are not necessarily interested in.

I believe the remaining discussion should be between the contributing editors. I am certain your unbiased opinion will be taken into consideration by your peer admins when they review this dispute. Admins and editors like yourself and the others are what makes Wikipedia a success. Dispute resolution is a core component of this process and it looks like it still has a ways to go before this one is over.

And, you should place our polar shift discussion in a new subheading, it creates a thread that is to long and OD looks like over-dose, which when reading the post is what it is. Granite07 (talk) 09:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(OD) Everything stated above is your opinion, which you're welcome to. I don't share it, the opinion of every wikipedia editor is equal whether they're an IP or an admin. Those opinions are against you now, and your edit war board complaint has been rejected, thus showing there was no edit warring from opposing editors. Good luck with mediation.

Outdents are commonly used at wikipedia to keep discussions readable, I made my comments in reaction to the earlier topic so they should stay there for proper context. Dayewalker (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Steve Gaines (pastor)

Dear Dayewalker, I appreciate your contributions to the Steve Gaines (pastor) page, but I wanted to address some of your additions to the "Handling of Minister Misconduct" section. This section is by far the largest section for the biography, but only a small section of Gaines' life. I believe that this section is given undue weight. Also, the third party criticisms, although sourced, are not encyclopedic material. These are outside opinions that are not balanced. I believe this sections should remain factual, and not skewed. I am not requesting we remove the section, just the third party criticisms, because they are not something that you would find in an encyclopedia. Thank you for your time and answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyMemphisNative (talk • contribs) 19:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding, but I had to go back and examine the article. As far as I can tell, I've never added anything to this article. My only contribution was in reverting the removal of sourced information by a since-blocked user who was edit warring to remove negative information from the article. I have no stake in the matter.

The best way to gauge the current consensus on that information is to start a discussion on the talk page of the article, that way all editors can give their opinions on what you're suggesting. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 07:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyMemphisNative (talk • contribs) 19:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Guess I wasn't that fast

Thank for this one. That barnstar must have made me careless. Favonian (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sean Hannity

Hey, I value your opinion. Could you check on the section regarding waterboarding on the talk and post yours? Thanks for your time.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Reilly

It occurs to me that the entire section on the talk page, accusing him of plagiarism, is a BLP violation and should be deleted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Userpage Shield
		Thanks for being quick to catch vandalism to my userpage! Keep up the good work  7  03:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! :)

Someone vandalized my Userspace! I must of really made someone angry. But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! --Meaghan ^{the vanilla twilight} 14:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For this bit of tidying up. That's why I never worry about logging off. Someone's always watching :) Tiderolls 05:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Userpage Shield
		For your protection of User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's page when it came under extremely heavy vandalism attacks on November 30th, 2009, from numerous anon IPs in an extreme case of sock puppetry used to make personal attacks. Although other editors assisted in the reverting, you stuck with the page over a significant period of time, as the page history shows, until the page was ultimately protected. I thought you deserved some recognition. Keep it up. Outback the koala (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi

Thanks for the help. I was starting to worry about a 3RR violation if someone didn't help me. This guy's been listening to too much Beck/Limbaugh. Thanks again. --Manway (talk) 08:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

De nada. That sort of thing is vandalism on a BLP, so if it happens again, don't worry about 3RR. More importantly, the guy's a returning sock of Geraldstraker (talk · contribs), who was indef blocked earlier tonight. I'll fill out the AIV when I get a moment. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Your addition to the Mcdermott article

Did you really mean to insert this content? [5] . Off2riorob (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here to talk it over, I saw an IP removing sourced material that had stood for several months, and there was no talk page discussion or explanation about its removal. At first glance, it looked like the standard blanking of negative material from an IP, so I reverted the change pending some kind of discussion or explanation. Now that I've read your thoughts on the matter, I agree with you that it seems undue, particularly in relation to the size of the article. Good call, thanks for letting me know. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, easy done..I have done the same myself more than once, thanks for commenting, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Leavitt

Your addition there has grown on me as being excessive, to start with the section title, of assault allegations was excessive and I went to trim it for weight and I took some content out and looked at the citation and it just appeared of no value and in the end I removed it again, I hope you are ok with this, I have also discussed it another experianced editor who suggested this position also. Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw, I can understand about removing the section title. It seems fine where you had it, as part of the other section. I disagree about removing it, though, because of the initial (and ongoing) press the incident got.

With the further stories about coaches (especially with Leach getting fired), Leavitt's name is being pulled back into the news again. If you google him today, the name shows up in all sorts of places (1900+ articles) because of the recent allegations of coaches and player abuse. It still seems to me that the proper thing to do here would be to give both sides of the story, to indicate to the reader that there were allegations, but they were quickly found to not have any merit.

I understand your point, though, I just feel BLP is better served by showing the widely-reported allegations, and also the rebuttal. If consensus is against inclusion though, I'll certainly go along with it. As long as it's clear the accusations are rebutted, and not still pending, it seems okay.

By the way, not sure if you saw but Little Mookie was not only blocked for their attack on you, but is also now the subject of a sock investigation. [6] Things should go much smoother at the page now in terms of civility and consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, mookie and the lawyer were socks of COM, so things there will be quiet, COM was only there wanting to remove the so called assault story, I was approched by an editor with the opinion that COM was right and it was excessive and I trimmed it and then it just seemed worthless, we are not bound to follow google activity, the press have a desperate desire to report anything that will titillate and sell papers, we don't and in the lifelong biography of this person this press stimulated non event is not worth inclusion, I also feel to remove the other disputed comment that is a bit isolated and unexplained about his teams being in the top ten fouling teams, this is in need of explaining and to do so would give the whole issue undue weight. As regards Bios of living people it is best imo to always err on the side of caution, thats what I do, regards. One of the things I found to be rewarding was to take someone you really dislike and to defend their bio from attack. Sorry to rant on, these comments are not related to you, I am rambling in general. Off2riorob (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

New discussion at the Pete Townshend page

I see your comments there. Would you like to join the current discussion?Pkeets (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

song

Thanks for attempting to intervene. That guy's way-overreaction suggests that he's a wacko, so I reckon I'll let him have his way with the article. For now. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Newington College

would you please have a look at the Industrial Dispute and Muck Up Day sections and give an opinion. Archifile (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Troy Garity

FYI the user User_talk:Realitylogger72 seems to be a new user and doesn't understand why his edits to the Troy Garity article are being reverted and keeps forcing them back in. He has made lots of unexplained reverts. I have brought it to the of the admins and we seem to be making some small slow bit of progress. Just so you know what's going on. -- Horkana (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw, hopefully that'll help. I agree it's probably a newbie problem. I reverted his edits because I always think it's better safe than sorry on a BLP, and it definitely doesn't belong. Thanks for the update! Dayewalker (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

misc.

All things considered, I think Proofreader should stick to poetry exclusively. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well put, amigo. Dayewalker (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculosity

• "Truly ridiculous beyond all prior charted levels of ridiculosity."

Is ridiculosity even a word? Whatever else the RfC accomlished it seems to have established the words ricochetotry and now ridiculosity. Although I suspect the latter may actually have been used previously? I don't know whether it's been mapped and/ or charted, which is typically required in order to establish notability, at least for singles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I made it up completely, as far as I know. That was so ridiculous, I had to Barney up a new word to describe it. I was really trying to help over there, as that was so insane I thought it would be best if it were shut down before...well, what exactly happened happened. Dayewalker (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Your pioneer's trail appears to very well worn [7], [8], [9]. Better luck next time? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point. It's a good thing I didn't try and register the dot-com name and print up t-shirts. Dayewalker (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't feel bad, Columbus had the same thing happen when he found out about Leif Erikson. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:PeshawarPat. Thank you..— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Smithers, British Columbia

Could you have a look at the latest additions to the talk page on this article. It is clear there is a hoax going on one way or the other, but I am not sure I can tell which side is the hoax. --KenWalker | Talk 05:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please

Please do not remove my Obama edits. They have been discussed and they follow the prose rules. There are quite a few prose violations in the article. If you have ideas, leave them at the talk page, don't go about doing things without discussion. Thanks. JB50000 (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

However, obvious vandalism and low quality edits, like "he's not liked by others" can be removed without talk page discussion, like you did. JB50000 (talk) 06:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to the Obama article has no consensus on the talk page. Please continue the discussion there and try and gain consensus before making changes to the page, since your edit goes against the long-standing, heavily argued consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

My edit is a prose improvement. Look at the prose pages. The entire Wikipedia website supports good prose.

Links on the Featured Article page.

• User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a
• User:Jengod/Some common objections to featured status and how to avoid them
• User:AndyZ/Suggestions
• User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA
• User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article
• User:Dweller/Dweller, on Featured Article Candidates

No fact is added. When facts are added, often there should be a talk page discussion. Please do not be opposed to prose improvements. Is the Obama article so dysfunctional that we even have to discuss grammar?JB50000 (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

We're not discussing grammar, we're discussing your change to his status as a professor. I've left you a 3RR warning on your talk page, please don't make that change again. Dayewalker (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

re: Dawn Wells

Thanks. I was kicking around the idea of removing it again but didn't want to skirt 3RR. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, will sign off

Thank you for letting me know about 3RR so I will sign off for now.

Don't say I am going against consensus. There is NO consensus. Bobblehead says one thing, I say something similar, DDK2 says something different.

My edit has the latest and most comprehensive reference. The Christianity reference is flawed because that is just a general chart, is older, and has mistakes (making it unreliable).

Why is that article such an argument over the simplest and logical improvement? JB50000 (talk) 06:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edit is clearly against consensus. Please continue the discussion on the Obama talk page. Thanks. Dayewalker (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for Christianity, either. I found 4 different suggestions by 4 editors. JB50000 (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Debatable, but there's is absolutely no consensus for your additions. Again, let's please continue this on the article's talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Dawn Wells

Just wanted to apprise you that Proxy User reverted your removal of the content to this article challenged under WP:BLP as vandalism. I reverted that and addressed the characterization of vandalism in my edit summary. He's charging censorship. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll keep following on the talk page. The more eyes and opinions there, the better. Dayewalker (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I am being the one who is constructive, not destructive

I introduced a totally new point today, that the source use was flawed. This new idea prompted the change. In contrast, another editor just changed it back with no discussion, no explanation. I am being the constructive editor.

If the other editor explained it well or found a better source, then I give them credit. Just reverting it back is completely unconstructive.

My edits is just to be more specific, not to be vague. Otherwise, we could say that Obama is a president of a north american country. That would be true but not specific enough. JB50000 (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I answered you on your talk page, let's keep the discussion in one place, please. Dayewalker (talk) 05:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Just don't ok?

please don't revert me I would just like to know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.45.28 (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to ask a question of an editor, do so on their talk page, not in the comments. I really doubt it's any of your business, though, your time would probably be better served by actually doing something on the Wikipedia. Dayewalker (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Doppelganger

Yea, I saw that and thought someone was trying to be my Doppelganger. I reverted him and suggested reading the FAQ while not breaking up other editors posts. I'm thinking it's not the last, or first, we've seen of that particular editor. DD2K (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Ha! I didn't even get an edit conflict. We must have made the change at the exact same time. DD2K (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Dawn Wells

I struck through my comment. I am sorry if my comment stirred a simmer to boil. I did not notice that more than a week had passed without comment. I was trying to help by encouraging focus on the issue. I realize now that my input was contra indicated. --75.4.215.55 (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I appreciate you doing that. I know what you were trying to do there, I've also tried to get editors to drop the personal attacks and get back to the issues. Good luck in the future, whether as an IP or a registered editor. Dayewalker (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Dawn Wells redux

I have added non-libelous well sourced and actually quite minimal references to the incident in question several times. While a certain editor claims some sort of consensus was reach not to include this relevant, notable, and well sourced material, no such consensus was reached, and in any-case, a consensus to remove relevant, notable, and well sourced content is not legitimate. This is called censorship. I have no intention of "striking through" my comments, unless I am forced to, in which case I will of course note with my comments that I was in fact forced to against my wishes. I think instead of focusing on me, you should be asking why a certain editor has taken WP:OWN of the article, and is without foundation accusing everyone who objects to his views as being "bullies" or making "attacks". This type of behavior is certainly ungentlemanly, unfriendly, and just unpleasant. Are you threatening me with some sort of administrative action if I don't alter my comments to please your views? You request sounds more like a demand. Proxy User (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(in regards to my comment here [10]) -- No, I'm trying to get you to explain what you meant by this edit [11] in which you say the article is being censored "at the request of the subject." The discussion on the talk page (and the BLP discussions) includes points from both sides, and the consensus currently is against the material being included. However, your comment above is intriguing, because I haven't heard anything of the sort. I'd like more information on your accusation, which I've asked for several times and you don't seem to acknowledge. Do you have DIFFs to show what you're saying? Dayewalker (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I refuse to get sucked into tangents, guided into areas not relevant to the issue. The question is: Is this material relevant, notable, and well sourced? I suggest that there is no evidence it isn't suitable for inclusion, and that as such it should be. I suggest that any "consensus" to exclude it is not legitimate because it is in fact relevant, notable, and well sourced. Proxy User (talk) 07:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You started the tangent. If you can't back your accusation up with DIFFs, then please strike it so it's not a factor in the discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with starting a new section is that this other guy who is invested in this past (and largely nonexistent) "consensus" will simply continue harping on that point. THERE IS NO CONCENSOUS NOW! The past is the past. THERE IS NO CONCENSOUS NOW! Proxy User (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested to you a logical way to start a discussion. If you don't take it, I don't know what I can do to help you. You keep saying there's no consensus, but you haven't taken any steps to discuss the matter calmly. From my vantage point, consensus exists. If you disagree, discuss on the talk page. Or start a case at RfC, BLP, or anywhere else you think might help. Just coming to the article talk page and arguing over the past isn't going to move the article forward at all. Dayewalker (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've done what you suggest, tried not to use weasle words and such. But someone else suggested "open an RfC to seek a new consensus". Do you know how this is done? There is a process for this? Proxy User (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Either one of those options would be a step forward, you can find the instructions for RFCs at WP:RFC. I'm offline for a while, if you have any other questions you can post them, there or here, and I'll check back in later on tonight. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Good grief! "Going against me"? I'm not taking it that personally. In any case, please do not in the future provide me with "personal advice". My points are valid, and I have no intention in backing away from them. Have a nice day! Proxy User (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty. Dayewalker (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

3RR report

Hey Dayewalker, it seems your report about Bikeric's edit warring on the Moveon.org article was deleted. DD2K (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that explains the lack of response. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I saw your edit and checked the page and couldn't find the report. The other user must have been writing the same time as your were, had an edit conflict, and just saved it. DD2K (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Bring it to ANI just creates more battle =

There needs to be discussion. ANI is just proof that you want to escalate the tension and are combative. Try cooler measures. JB50000 (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, good faith advice is one more thing you just don't understand. I've given you the advice an admin gave me, if you want to keep typing words on to a page where no one comes and expecting change, good luck with all that. Dayewalker (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I put it in ANI for you. Unlike you, I respect the sanctions page. You will notice that I have focused strictly on the issues and picked neutral issues that improve the page. This was after there was a complaint against me on the sanctions page.

This combativeness is bad. Why can't there be genuine article improvement rather than insisting on a flawed product? 05:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JB50000 (talk • contribs)

obamabreak

I have written to an uninvolved editor. I will lay off Obama related pages for 36 hours and probably longer. Longer if you agree to do the same, maybe for half a week. This would be a show of cooperation. 05:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JB50000 (talk • contribs)

No. No offense, JB, but you not knowing how policy works doesn't make me any less of an editor. Dayewalker (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Accident

Sorry about that, Dayewalker; I was watching the discussion and hit Rollback instead of previous. I fixed it - sorry again : > Doc9871 (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh

I wasn't saying I created it to bug her, I was just saying I wasn't trying to be secretive, as she accused me of being. —Chowbok ☠ 02:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You've been warned to take that line of thought off-wiki, and you responded by taking down one page and putting the links up at another. I can't see how that's helping this situation at all. Dayewalker (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a different argument. I'm just saying that you're misrepresenting my statement before.—Chowbok ☠ 02:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Your page has been deleted by an admin, who agreed with me. Dayewalker (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is anything Wildhartlivie doing also not "helping this situation"? She escalates matters, fans flames, and even has her own attack page which has gone unmolested for over a month. Why does she lead such a charmed life?—Chowbok ☠ 02:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Another editor's behavior does not excuse your own. If you have a complaint against WildHartLivie, please file it in the correct place with DIFFs, and let the community comment on it. Dayewalker (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy

As you commented on the ANI thread, I have narrowed discussion to an support/oppose section, so if you could please post whether it is one way or another there, it would make things easier.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned earlier on the page I support the 1RR, but I'm waiting until Radiopathy says something coherent to make another comment. Whatever that last thing was he was trying to say may make this moot. I'll wait a bit before returning to the page, but thanks for the heads-up. Dayewalker (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

SPUSA

I might as well say thanks for you trying to stop the edit war between me and Mserard313. You'll probably become a good admin someday. --TIAYN (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. If I may offer advice that's always served me well, I rarely revert more than one time. If I have to do it a second time, when I do, I file a report somewhere to get another opinion on the matter. That way I'm never caught up in an edit war, and it's easy for an admin to tell what's going on. Good luck in the future, and if I can be of assistance, just let me know. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Warning (from indef blocked sock)

Please desist in your disruptive editing. You will be reported and blocked if you continue.FalsifiableTheories (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. ANI is that-a-way. Dayewalker (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Be careful he's been on wikipedia for nearly 3 1/2 weeks and already has 19 edits. He could get you in hot water (which wouldn't be so bad this time of year). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Barry Lynn and Child Pornography

When he was employed by the ACLU, Lynn worked on First Amendment issues, and how they related to censorship and pornography. See these references in Google Books Though conservative, this book cites Lynn's testimony to Congress in the mid-1980s that the constitution also protecs child pornography. The book's source is the congressional record. It seems it cited his 1986 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommitte on juvenile justice. His report on the Meese Commission report on pornography see the first book, his, on the list, affirms the ACLU's view (during the mid-1980s) that the distribution of child pornography is protected by the Constiution. Clearly, his comments in the Firing Line debate, which you do not dispute, are hardly an isolated example of his belief that the Constitution protects the distribution of child pornography.JohnScott2 (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your commenst here, and I'd suggest if you haven't already done so, to post these links on the talk page of the article as well. As for the content, it seems to me that everything you quoted above is dealing with the actual quote from 17+ years ago. I'm not sure how that addresses the concern that the issue is one that's dated. Are there any reliable sources dealing with the matter in the last five years or so, for example? Dayewalker (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I did leave it on the talk page as well. His testimony to Congress in the mid-1980s is separate from the 1993 quote. We can't use old sources that deal with a person who has had a long public life? Old articles from Time, the New York Times, etc. are now available through their Web sites. What's wrong with citing them for BLPs, especially those who have had long careers? I have no objection to adding a note that it's unknown if his views are the same or has changed. But he did say them, and it seems relevant to his career in the ACLU (which is briefly covered in the entry). JohnScott2 (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Olilers/Titans

I understand but the link for the Houston Oilers takes you right to the Tennessee Titans page. The Oilers link is better by itself because it brings you right to the part of the page for the Oilers. Thanks Carthage44 (Carthage44) 18:22, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Hopefuls

I see you're in a category about "Admin Hopefuls". I wonder if I could start a category called "Admin No-Hopes", a category (with myself as charter member) encompassing all those who never on God's green earth have any prayer of ever becoming an admin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I voted for you. And I would do so again. Dayewalker (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Aha, so you were the one. :) Danke. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian RFC closed, now at arbitration

Hello,

Thank you for participating in the recent RFC/U regarding Asgardian‎. The RFC has been closed, and the case is now at arbitration. You are neither required nor requested to participate, but you may view the initial statements for the case (please do not edit that page), and you may view the evidence presented and add more evidence if you wish, or simply follow the case. BOZ (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

MoveOn.org is back

Hello again. I took the week off and cooled my jets. I apologize for my previous edits and plan to follow the rules in the future. I can now see that it doesn't matter how correct you are if you do not follow the rules. I have done as you instructed and added to the discussion on the MoveOn.org article. This is your chance to voice your wisdom for all to review. Lets see if you really are admin material. Bikeric (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I left a comment on the page. Dayewalker (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Duke53

The reason I was removing the report because it is one of bad faith, by a user with a full history of doing so. I was making changes to the article, and generally he didn't agree (because I am mormon, and makes it well clear he dislikes that) so he intentionally attempted to pass off my edits as "vandalism" and attempts to frame me for it. I have support from another administrator btw, [12] who supports that my edits were correct and not vandalism. Routerone (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand how you feel, but don't remove those reports. Whether they're in bad faith or not, you don't delete a report on yourself. Let the admins handle it, that way if you're right, you don't have to worry about it. Even if you're right, you don't want to get in trouble for edit warring on the edit war page. That irony would be too much. Dayewalker (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand, rather than remove it again and then create the ridiclous scenario of being blocked for edit warring on the edit warring page over edit warring I never done, I have commented on the report saying that it is of bad faith. At the end of the day the editor reverting me did not contribute to the discussion whatsoever, or even the article, he just appeared from nowhere and passed off my edits as "vandalism". I reverted him because I saw it was unjustified, but had he not reverted in an inapropriate manner it is unlikely a conflict would have occured. Routerone (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have done nothing wrong. Routerone should learn and follow the rules here at Wikipedia; his feeling of 'persecution' does not matter in articles here. He has deleted willy-nilly wherever the mood strikes him. I will be taking up the issue of his editing on the report page as soon as time allows. Check that page's history seems that he deleted it more than once.

I will also address the issue of personal attacks and his ignoring the principal of assuming good faith. Such behavior will simply not be tolerated at WP. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

SPI case

I am informing you that I have filed a WP:SPI case which indirectly involves you here. DD2K (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Vic Mackey

I restored the personal info on the article and added some sources(since there is almost no sources on that article to begin with) as well. Feel free to add more sources. Good day Xsyner (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Before I comment, would you care to explain what led you to come to a newly semi-protected article in the midst of an edit war, even though you haven't edited here in over a year? Dayewalker (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I edit here all the time I am just never logged in. I noticed the page was locked so naturally I logged in. Good day Xsyner (talk) 05:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave my comments on the talk page of the article. Dayewalker (talk) 05:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony Danza

I would like an explanation of why you reverted my changes to the Tony Danza page. Thank You 66.188.187.54 (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Because while Danza might have been popular with the ladies, it's not at all encyclopedic. Dayewalker (talk) 08:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Xsyner

I had a look at his recent edits, and there's no need to report it--this is a textbook WP:DUCK case. He shows up five minutes after all the vandals were blocked and the article was semi'd, and almost two years after his last edit? Unless he can explain this exceptional timing, he'll stay blocked. Blueboy96 15:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my User page - I see the vandal is blocked now (I'll be watching when the block is lifted). -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, hopefully that's the last we see of him. It always amuses me when people are so worked up over some perceived slight that they can't even bother to explain why. It's just not very productive. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it is strange that people seem to think that being loudly abusive is going to help. And it wasn't just an issue with one user - this one was pretty nasty too -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

An SPI case of possible interest

Hey. As one of the users who seem to have dealt with at least two of the suspected socks listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Showtime2009, you might be aware of other accounts fitting the pattern described in the case. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment from, advice to banned user

(Cmts of banned user stricken, section left to inform them about their rights to email OTRS.) 97.120.246.46 (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even bothering to read what you've written above, but I'll let you know one more time. As a banned user, your conributions and discussions are not welcome on Wikipedia. The community has apparently exhausted patience with you, and so any concerns you have should be made through OTRS via Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem. Please make your case there. You have an outlet, please use it. Good luck. Dayewalker (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

97.120.246.46‎

Just wanted to let you know that I reported him/her to AIV and Materialscientist block him/her for 55 hours as of a monent ago. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate it. I'm not sure that will keep him from disrupting though, but it's a start. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You're Welcome :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: GoRight

I'm on an iPhone at the moment, and due to the limitations of Safari, I can only respond at the beginning or at the end of a thread, but not in the middle. So, this is a response to your reply on ANI: Wikipedia needs to grow up. The blocking policies are a childish and immature response to a problem that will not go away. Virtual communities require a broad range of users to survive. When you narrow this pool to such an extent, the community will die. Instead of indefinite blocks, we need a new set of user rights. If we don't want GoRight editing a set of pages or even main space, it should be easy to remove those rights while at the same time, allowing problem users to enroll in a trainng program that will enhance their understanding of the site. We need to be teaching editors how to be better editors, and we should have this as our ultimate goal. We do not need to continue fostering the roleplaying game mentality that the noticeboards encourage. GoRight is a capable editor, but he is here for the wrong reasons. If he is willing to be here for the right reasons, he should be given that opportunity. Viriditas (talk) 05:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem on responding here, I appreciate you taking the time to comment. However, I still completely disagree with your comment, and your statement above. Good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand. You've been here for less than a year and still haven't figured out how this place works. No worries. Viriditas (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been here long enough to be well aware of what's going on here, which is why I disagree with you completely. Please don't take it personally that I while I consider your system above a nice idea, it seems completely unworkable. Again, good luck. Dayewalker (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If that were in any way true, you would know that user rights like rollbacker, autoreviewer, and even the flagged revision implementation all are completely workable and are tried and tested. You apparently didn't know this because you haven't been here very long. Decentralizing the rollback right didn't spell the end for Wikipedia. And, decentralizing the blocking policy such that editors lose the right to edit certain areas is already enforced in the form of topic bans to avoid destroying the community, because we depend on new editors to function and it is important that we retain editors by making them even better. Otherwise Wikipedia will collapse like every other virtual community before it. Nothing lasts, and if you keep doing things that don't work and refuse to change, nothing lasts very long. We know what works and what doesn't, and the best way to get to where we want to be is by experimenting and listening very closely to the users that have already left. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect here, you telling me I don't know what's going on because you don't think I've been here very long isn't going to win me over to your side. That's especially true, since this conversation started with me disagreeing with you on a comment that got you blocked. You're not going to change policy on my talk page. If you have a suggestion for a policy change somewhere, I'd be glad to look at it. Otherwise, let's just call this to a halt. Dayewalker (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I see the problem. You think I'm trying to convince you of something, persuade or cajole you. I'm not. You dismissed what I said with a wave of your hand, and I responded to your dismissal. Then, you dismissed me again. I mistakenly assumed you were going to explain the reasons for your dismissal, but it doesn't appear that you can. No worries. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing you have said on this talk page would indicate to me that there would be anything to be gained from a policy discussion with you, every single thing you've said has contained some comment that seems intended to provoke. Therefore, I didn't bother. This discussion is now closed, please don't post here on this topic again, I won't continue with this. Again, good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

JoJ

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jayhawk of Justice. Thank you for your time.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that one was fish in a barrel. Nice catch. Dayewalker (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Have replied to your comments on my talk page. 74.178.230.17 (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

[13] Once again, you charge in to my rescue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, glad to offer an opinion. Just for the record, I'm a "he," by the way. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Debate

Hey, can we get your opinion again on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Brittny Gastineau, part the third? Right now it is three against one (and currently my side has the larger support). I'm trying to be nice by pointing this out to you because we have been at loggerheads before. I think the new version added by Reswobslc is a much better version than what I had been adding before and should be included. 128.104.truth (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your scorecard there, but I'll weigh in when I get the chance. Dayewalker (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Queen

Hey, thanks for your edit to the Queen (band) page.

If you're a fan of Queen or interested in helping expand articles related to Queen - or both, have you considered joining the Queen WikiProject? We're looking for new, active participant to help out with the improvement of articles and working towards ambitious goals, such as getting the currently GA-standard Bohemian Rhapsody article to featured status. If you have any degree of time and experience to put into any Queen-related articles, we need you!

Thanks in advance for reading and considering this. :) TheStig_t·c 08:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Curious...

I noticed you got involved here, and I'm curious as to a possible relationship between Jack Merridew/A Host of Proven Socks and Eudemis, who appears to be a SPA sock to me that somehow slipped under the radar here. Very curious indeed, especially with the recent problems between WHL and Merridrew? Look at Kathleen Battle's history for starters... Doc9871 (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't blame you if you don't want to get involved, but I'm looking into it. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked into it, but I'm not really familiar with the history there. My only experience with the situation was my comments to Jack M about keeping on topic in the Eudemis discussion. If something's going on there though, I hope you can get to the bottom of it. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Something's odd here, and I'll find out what. I don't like what I'm seeing from this editor, and my suspicions are often correct. Cheers ;> Doc9871 (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all thrilled about Eudemis' end run around consensus to bring in another editor on the Russell Crowe page. Good luck, it does seem like there's something screwy. Dayewalker (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You know what's really odd? This... Doc9871 (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Accident

Yup. Sorry and thanks. That's the trouble with browsing on a mobile device. --Dweller (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit Backlog Elimination Drive

Hi, as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors you're hereby notified of and invited to participate in the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2010. Please help us eliminate the 8,000+ copyedit backlog! Participating editors will receive barnstars and other awards, according to their level of participation. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 00:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

My Userpage

Thanks so much for reverting the vandalism on my userpage! I really appreciate it :) HarlandQPitt (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: MookieG and 3RR situation

You may wish to annotate the Coffee article talkpage with that observation. He is editting and reverting the article. I cited him for 3RR on a user talkpage. MookieG thinks he understands 3RR but I don't think so. --Morenooso (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the anon IP that my wireless AT&T uses. There are hardly any edits. This is a patently false accusation. --Morenooso (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Please look at my last section added to the Coffee talkpage. I got logged out issuing a warning to an anon IP and then logged back and signed the warning. Same as the Norman McFarland article I worked on in my userspace. In fact, if you look at my userpage, you will see Norman McFarland's page still there and another one that I worked upon as a special request with another admin (the template for article building/citations). I am so upset my fingers are shaking. I can't believe MookieG. --Morenooso (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your posts on my behalf on MookieG's talkpage. I took the day off as I wanted to cool off. I guess he decided to retire earlier today. --Morenooso (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

UK

I noticed that you changed the abbreviation "UK" to "United Kingdom" at Queen (band). I'm just wondering what your thoughts are regarding this. Thank you. Radiopathy •talk• 04:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, my thoughts are the same as they have always been, as per the MOS. With all due respect, this (country in the infobox) is an issue where other editors have always disagreed with you, which led to at least one of your previous blocks. If you feel this is an issue that needs addressing, rather than continually edit against consensus, why don't you bring up a discussion on the relevant board or suggest a change or clarification on the policy? Dayewalker (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

A handfull of editors trying to walk someone to his next block does not consensus make. I've made literally hundreds of such edits without any problems. I'd like to request that you refrain from making any more such edits until you can demonstrate that you have consensus and are following policy, or until you take it to the appropriate board for clarification. Radiopathy •talk• 13:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus seems pretty clear here. Dayewalker (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

edit save

Thanks for quickly fixing this edit blooper. [14]. :) Malke2010 16:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem, it looked like you got caught in an edit conflict. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

use twinkle

This [15] is vandalism and should be reverted with twinkle and a warning left on the user's talk page, which I have done. Simply reverting doesn't alert the editor to the behavior. Cheers. Malke2010 17:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The IP had several other contributions which seemed to be good faith additions dealing with tea parties in other countries, so when I reverted this [16] edit (he added other material while I was making the edit), I didn't automatically assume vandalism.

I'll be honest here, based on your recent personal atacks on me, I'm really not interested in you telling me what I "should be" doing. I've been here longer than you, I understand our policies, and I have a clean block log. I'm doing fine. After your comments of the past few days, I think it would be best if you didn't post on my page. Good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The Game

I've reverted your edit here [17], please don't cross-post warnings and comments from other pages. If you'd like to start a discussion on something on the page, please start a new section. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The posts are relevant to The Game article so I moved it there. Shall I post it at the very botton..I put it in its current place for chronological order. Thanks. 69.138.165.244 (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, post at the bottom of the page. And please stop cutting and pasting other people's comments onto other pages (as you did in this section). There's no need for that, it just makes things confusing. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Dayewalker, 1)jack posted this to me It says refactoring is okay.
2 Why when I tried to respond to jack it did not work 69.138.165.244 (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Very nice of Jack indeed... Doc9871 (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Dayewalker, I read your edit summation. What is DIFFs Please look at what I did, is that alright 69.138.165.244 (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, it's not all right. Please stop doing it. If you want to refer to something someone said, you can use a diff to indicate the content you want to discuss. See WP:DIFF for the details, it's basically the URL of the specific addition of the content. (For example, this [18] is the diff of your comment to me.) If you clutter the talk page with warnings and comments that were left on other pages, it's not only confusing, it makes it look like editors are posting on pages where they haven't. Dayewalker (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

He knows what a diff is, Dayewalker: he included one here. He's playing a game... Doc9871 (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply to your comment on my page

I went to the Martin Luther King Jr Day article, and I was looking at the old revisons, and I saw that he THOUGHT THAT MLK DAY WAS IN FEBRUARY! I knew he wouldn't reply. LOL. I was just leaving it there for EVERYBODY ELSE TO SEE! LOL. And the Celtics SUCK!!!! LOL. YouTubeaholic2009 (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty, then. Forget I asked. Dayewalker (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

talk pages are for discussion of the article, not discussion of the subject.

I appreciate the sentiment---altho personally I feel the content of talk pages deserves a lot looser regulation than that of main articles. The main concern on the article page is how we appear to the public, whereas on the talk page it is how we appear to (and behave toward) each other. If you actually have the above goal (discussion of the article, not discussion of the subject)for talk pages, I'm afraid you have a huge, huge task ahead of you, at least going by what I've seen in just a few hundred talk pages I'm more familiar with. Personally I think paying more attention to quality article pages is a better use of time than trying to root out possibly inappropriate content in the talk pages.Jakob37 (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI

She seems to be back (prematurely). Check it out... Doc9871 (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Notable alumni at Msgr Pace

I would like to know why you deleted Oreste Herrera from the Notable alumni section of Monsignor Edward Pace High School. Oreste Herrera is a Msgr. Pace Alumnus from the class of 2004 and he is truly a waiter at T.G.I. Friday's. At T.G.I. Friday's, Oreste Herrera has achieved many valuable distinctions, including four employee of the month awards. He is also the all time leader in positive comment cards at the Dolphin Mall location in Miami, FL. Legend has it that during a strong flu season in South Florida, a large part of the staff at two local T.G.I. Friday's locations were ill. While many of his co-workers were suffering from the common cold, Oreste Herrera and his incredibly strong immune system were left unscathed. Oreste Herrera was some how able to simultaneously serve tables at two T.G.I. Friday's locations without receiving any complaints. These achievements should be honored and he should be considered a notable alumnus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.20.106 (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Herrera needs his own Wikipedia article to be shown as notable, then he belongs on that page. Dayewalker (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

His "incredibly strong immune system were left unscathed"? And no customer complaints, either? Damn! Why haven't I heard about "Super-Waiter" before? Unbelievable... Doc9871 (talk) 05:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You probably have not been to that restaurant before. I am 100% sure that if you were to eat there once you would know what a fascinating and talented individual this super waiter is. You will not even need to sit with him to get to know him. I will let you guys in on another very impressive story about him. There was a weekend where he did not show up to work two days in a row while not even calling his superiors to inform them. While most people would get terminated from their job for these actions, he was still able to keep his job. Please take note that this also happened with an unemployment rate of 9.9% in the US, and a much higher local unemployment rate. This is another example of how great of a person/waiter he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.20.106 (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

So "legend has it". Fascinating! ;P Doc9871 (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, lol. Alright guys, i'm going to sleep, Have a good night. If I were you guys though, I would seriously consider keeping him on there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.20.106 (talk) 05:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Crictism section

there is no longer a criticism section to discuss, so its irrelevant to keep beating a dead horse here. its gone. get over it. i will remove my comments from wikipedia if i want to, you have no control over what i chose to post and dont post here, so dont re-add my comments after i've deleted them or delete my comments for me please. please don't be difficult about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trichard2010 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for writing, I just left you a message on your talk page. I'm not being difficult about this, you're not supposed to remove other people's comments on talk pages, as per WP:TALK. Please just leave them where they are. There's no harm in leaving them up until they're automatically archived. Dayewalker (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Young Turks

It is not irrelevant that the progressive talk show Young Turks is named after racist perpetrators of genocides. The reference is important and inappropriate. It is equitable to if a crew lead by a Glen Beck were to call his show "Young Nazis" and the idea that a Young Turk is decent nomenclature is a ruse. I don't have a special thing to sign on with and I linked the page to a legitimate and historically accurate and well respected website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.65.68 (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not relevant to the show. If you disagree, feel free to start a discussion on the article's talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings and thanks

Greeting Dayewalker - thanks for keeping an eye out. IOU1. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Since I've quoted you here, I thought I should pay you the courtesy of letting you know. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

MacArthur Park 2006

Daywalker, could you please read the LAPD report and then revise the MacArthur Park melee article? LAPD admitted responsibility for the attack on the peaceful crowd, demoted the responsible officers, and paid the largest settlement in LAPD history to people who were attacked and injured by the police that day. It's not really controversial: they admitted fault and took serious steps to remedy their mistakes. They say it was due to a 'breakdown in communication.' The point is they should never have attacked the crowd, and they say so. Here's the LAPD report: www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/Final_Report.pdf. After you read it, maybe take a pass through the wikipedia article to more accurately reflect what happened. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.231.28 (talk • contribs)

I appreciate you bringing this to me, but just pointing me to a 124 page report from the LAPD isn't really going to help. Wikipedia is sourced to reliable secondary sources. If you have sources showing what you claim, feel free to bring them up at the article, or on the talk page. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ban of Sugar Bear/Ibaranoff24. Thank you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

High Noon

You can watch the movie to see the flaws! tuco_bad 03:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

Heh. We have crossed in the night, it seems. I was just leaving a comment on your page as well. We can continue the discussion there. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the 3 revert rule for: no 3 reverts in a 24-hour period? tuco_bad 18:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

Thanks for clarification

I'm not sure what EENG is, but he's targeted all our articles for templates in a kindof vendetta thing. I don't know Watson, but Dr. Fuster actually added GNU language to his site, which was the only copyright problem. Had Watson given a Newbie a few days, this would have been resolved, which is all we asked for. From our trademark practice, I see nothing wrong with what Doc Fuster has agreed to put on his site, but Watson says the law has nothing to do with Wiki policies, which are supposedly stricter than case precedent. Don't get this, but if he's someone important, I suppose we should accept it. We're trying to get help on the actual admin board and another editor is helping mentor us with the EENG situation. We will not give up on Doc Fuster, and will eventually recruit enough editors (above board) who know his background in Neuro to help us get an article back up. We can just do the work, and then give it to a more senior person who can not only judge it vs. policy, but also be much tougher for EENG to spam. Dr. Fuster is a legend in Neuro, and other Wiki pages now point to an orange nothing as they did before we tried this. We don't know him personally, but he was very nice in sending us extensive bio and reference info and links from unassailable, peer reviewed/juried sources like SCIENCE and NATURE. I wish Watson had put this to a vote, or at least given us time to fix it. Best... Phoenixthebird (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There's some comments up at the ANI thread you started you should probably read. Good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point, but when someone is born in 1930, the web (circa 1989) misses a lot of good references, which the principal can steer us to. As long as we can verify the reference, does it really matter who "pointed" us to the original source? This guy has 2,000 references in his PFT Text alone, and has published hundreds of scientific articles in the top journals worldwide for 40 years. We actually did have many references from Google and other sources, which were all deleted when Watson blew the whole thing away. We were adding them madly but I guess the clock ran out. That's not to miss your point-- I'm also of course doing wide and deep searches independent of the subject for each article, but if we're being honest, who knows the sources better than the subjects? Thanks for helping educate me on the process here. Given that we have no relationship with these guys, there's no promotion involved, but again honestly, we wouldn't pick a subject unless they were notable and above reproach in the first place, just like Perry Mason never picked a guilty client! ;=) Phoenixthebird (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Brightstar Corp

Dayewalker,

We meet again. I went on Brightstar's page to see something that I fixed and I see that you edited it. I work at Brightstar and I changed the Operating income because i know it was incorrect. Their operating income is approximately $175 million. You have set the operating income to $3.5 billion. If you knew anything about business or accounting, you would know that operating income is always lower than your revenue. An income statement goes as follows: Revenue - COGS = Gross Profit - Selling, General, & Administrative Expenses (Operating Expenses) =Operating Income + Interest Income - Interest Expense +/- Non-operating income (expense) = Income before taxes - Income Tax Expense =Net Income

Please change this back to $175 million and please do not track all of my changes. I know I made a change before as a joke, but most of the time when I make a change on Wikipedia I am making it to improve wikipedia. Every change that I have ever made on Wikipedia is factual, even the change I made as a joke (the alumni I added to Msgr. Pace is a true alumni and that is his employer). I like Wikipedia a lot, I am a regular user and have recommended the website to many friends. I have also made donations to wikipedia in the past. My intentions are not to destroy wikipedia's product in any way.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.20.106 (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here, I reverted the change because it was unsourced and unexplained, and therefore I had no way of knowing whether it was accurate or not. If you have a reliable secondary source that shows the operating income, please add it to the article and make the change. I'm afraid that we can't take your word for it, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is based on facts taken from reliable secondary sources. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Brightstar is private corporation so they are not required to publish their financial information. You will not be able to find their financial statements anywhere on the internet. I am also not allowed to upload their financial statements. The $3.5 billion operating income you have on there is not accurate. Like I mentioned earlier, it is impossible for a company to have a higher operating income than their revenue. Operating income is Revenue minus Cost of goods sold and S,G,& A Expenses. What is posted on there is not a fact and cannot be from a reliable source. You have also changed the key people on the page as well. The key people can be found on Brightstar's website under About Brightstar, Corporate Governance, Board and Management team. Please go to their website to verify this information so that you can revert that change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.249.131 (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Question - You do seem to work for Brightstar[19] and live in the Miami area[20], but I see only 13 combined edits (6 of them to this talk page). This edit isn't "factual", as you said every other edit except the "waiter gag" was. Have you made lots of other edits? What other accounts have you used? Doc9871 (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - The information in the Infobox seems to be derived from sources like this they are virtually identical. Not sure if it's a reliable secondary source or not (they could have copied it from WP, after all)... Doc9871 (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I do work for Brightstar as I mentioned earlier. I am a financial analyst at Brightstar so I have access to the company's F/S. The changes I made to the Key people section are also all correct, you can verify these managers on the company's website. Most of my posts have been made from my home, today is the first time I have posted something at work. The waiter gig was factual, the individual I mentioned is an alumni of Msgr. Pace and is a waiter of T.G.I. Friday's as well (although it was posted as a joke). I did lie in the story I wrote on Dayewalker's page a few months back about the incredibly strong immune system and how he worked at two restaurants at once (which is obvious and was made on a talk page, not an actual encyclopedia page). I do not have a username with wikipedia. I have been using wikipedia for many years but I rarely make any changes. A few years back I made a change on the "efficient market hypothesis" page as I have done a lot of empircal research on the subject. Besides that, everything else has been in the past few months.

One thing I want you guys to note as it seems like you guys are not accounting/finance people, OPERATING INCOME WILL NEVER BE HIGHER THAN REVENUE! Revenue is the total amount of money received for goods sold or services provided. I will give you guys an example. Let's say company ABC manufacturers widgets and sells them for $10 each. Let's assume these widgets cost $4 to manufacture (COGS, which is Direct Labor (the labor of the employees working at the plant) + Direct Material (the raw materials used to create the product) + Manufacturing Overhead (any machinery or other misc costs involved with creating the product) and that the company spends $3 a unit on Selling, General, and Administrastive expenses (marketing expenses, salaries of sales and administrative staff, utilities, etc.). If a company sells 10 units, their revenue will be $100, their COGS would be $40, their Gross Profit would be $60 (60% Gross Margin), their S,G,&A expenses would be $30, and their operating income would be $30 (30% operating profit margin). Operating Income will NEVER be higher than Revenue. As I mentioned earlier, if I do make a change on Wikipedia, 99.99% of the time it will be factual and should not be reverted. I am a big fan of Wikipedia who has made many donations to this website in the past. I am not trying to destroy wikipedia, I use it several times a week and I love wikipedia's product.

Doc, I would also like to know why this post is not "factual". This post was not intended to state any facts or as an educational reference for a particular subject. This post was created to discuss with dayewalker why he reverted my change. It is simply a conversation with Dayewalker to back up my change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.249.131 (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Doc, just saw the link you put up. I have never been to that website before. The two sites are virtually identical. Their information is incorrect. Please see my accounting example above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.249.131 (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification (at length) on the operating income. The edit I was referring to not being factual was, "He was and Idiot". Which brings me back to my original question. You use WP a lot, with a lot of other IP's? Are a lot of those edits similar to the edit on Paul Warburg or this? You do agree that both IP's are yours, no? Doc9871 (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The Paul Warberg thing wasn't me. I had actually never heard of Paul Warberg before. Let me finish up a few things here at work, I don't want to stay here much later and I will go home and analyze this. You have me worried that maybe I have a virus on my home computer now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.249.131 (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The Paul Warburg edit wasn't you? Okay... good luck with your computer (this was sent from this same work IP, BTW, not the home IP)! Cheers ;> Doc9871 (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a note regarding Hed PE

I don't know if you typed in topic on purpose or not, but that IP is obviously Sugar Bear evading his site ban. Just felt the need to clarify things.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw that afterwards, I knew he was topic banned but it had slipped my mind about the overall bannation. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 06:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Breaking references

Hello Dayewalker. The newest IP is from England so it may be a meatpuppet or someone who knows how to manipulate their address. The odd thing is the commands that they are adding to the references which completely fouls up the page. I am not versed enough in wikicommands to understand what they trying to do. Thanks for you vigilance in dealing with this. MarnetteD | Talk 19:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering

Are you ever going to answer my question?—Chowbok ☠ 02:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've clarified again, although your question has been answered many times on the page and in the archives. Dayewalker (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me Dayewalker, but that is not accurate. Please show Chowbok, and the rest of us who also want to know, a little respect and answer his questions. Please show your integrity by s-p-e-c-i-f-i-c-a-l-l-y answering the call of his questions. Please don't evade the focus of the questions like a politician might.

You criticize me and block me from editing from my IP address, seek to force me to establish an account, and hold out the carrot that editors with accounts get more respect; but then when you have an editor with an account, you give him no carrot. Rather, you beat him with the same stick of disrespect, fashioned this time into a broom with which to brush aside his questions without answer.75.4.195.159 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've discussed this at great length on the page, and I'm not going to get dragged down into repeating the same old arguments again. Consensus is firmly established, IP, read the archives. As for your accusations you've been blocked from editing, you have not. I have no idea what you're talking about. Dayewalker (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is NEVER set in CONCRETE. Rather, it can be the minds of some editors that are set in concrete.

You have not answered his questions. If you truly believe you have, you have fooled only yourself. I am blunt for a purpose. Other than ringing a fire bell in your presence, I don’t know how to get your attention to the truth. You have not answered.

You are completely disingenuous concerning my blocking. Your “I have no idea what you're talking about” is as persuasive as your misrepresentation that you have answered his questions. Let’s close that issue. Don’t digress.

Please answer his questions.75.4.195.159 (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus can change, yes, I've discussed that on the talk page before. However, bringing up the same arguments that have been previously discussed over and over again is tendentious editing. Consensus won't change simply because one side of the discussion refuses to stop talking.

Again, what are you talking about when you say you've been blocked? Your block log shows no blocks. Do you have another account you edit under? Dayewalker (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Generations page and Generation Z

Hi. I have attempted to revert edits to these pages (see talk page for both articles), but an editor keeps changing back the dates for Generation Z with only one book as a source to back up his claims. All sources I have seen, including magazines, demographical research, and technological magazines all use the mid-1990s as the starting date for Generation Z, especially 1995. The editor making these changes is 3bulletproof16 (talk). I'd like to see what your opinion is on this. Thanks. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the user seems to be mistaken on the number of sources being used to cite the early 1990's date. See this by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, or simply this by the California Teachers Association for some examples. I believe the user failed to read the citations next to the dates, though he claims only "one book" -whatever that means- was used. Finally, the user continues canvassing.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 20:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks to all who participated in the drive! Over 100 editors—including Jimbo Wales—signed up this time (nearly triple the participants of the May drive). This benefited the Guild as well as the articles in need of copy editing. You can see from the comparison graphs that we increased the number of completed copyedits substantially. Unfortunately, we were not able to meet our goal of completely wiping out 2008 from the queue. We also were not able to reduce the backlog to less than 6,000 articles. We suspect people were busy with real life summertime things, at least in the northern hemisphere! We were able to remove the months of January, February, March, April, and May from the backlog, and we almost wiped out the month of June. We reduced the backlog by 1,289 articles (17%), so all in all it was a very successful drive, and we will be holding another event soon. We'll come up with some new ideas to try to keep things fresh and interesting. Keep up the good work, everybody! Stats If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you edited in the May 2010 GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive, your word totals are cumulative for barnstars (not the leaderboard). Over the course of the next week or two, we will be handing out the barnstars. GOCE backlog elimination drive chart up to 31 July Eight people will receive The Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker's Barnstar (100,000+ words): Chaosdruid, Diannaa, Ericleb01, Lfstevens, Shimeru, S Masters, The Utahraptor, and Torchiest. Bullock and Slon02 will receive The Order of the Superior Scribe (80,000+). The Barnstar of Diligence (60,000+) goes to Derild4921, GaryColemanFan, kojozone, and Mlpearc. The Modern Guild of Copy Editors Barnstar (40,000+) goes to A. Parrot, AirplanePro, Auntieruth55, Bejinhan, David Rush, and mono. Nobody will receive The Old School League of Copy Editors award (30,000+). The Tireless Contributor Barnstar (20,000+) goes to Backtable, Cindamuse, dtgriffith, Duff, e. ripley, Laurinavicius, NerdyScienceDude, and TEK. The Cleanup Barnstar (12,000+) goes to Brickie, Casliber, cymru lass, December21st2012Freak, Nolelover, TheTito, Whoosit, and YellowMonkey. The Working Man's Barnstar (8,000+) goes to Bsherr, Duchess of Bathwick, HELLKNOWZ, Mabeenot, noraft, Pyfan, and Richard asr. The Modest Barnstar (4,000+) goes to Adrian J. Hunter, Airplaneman, Annalise, Camerafiend, Cricket02, Fetchcomms, Gosox5555, LeonidasSpartan, Paulmnguyen, Piotrus, SuperHamster, Taelus, and TPW. Gold Star Award Gold Star Award Leaderboard Articles Words 5k+ Articles 1. Diannaa (248) Shimeru (200,392) Shimeru/Ericleb01 (13) 2. Slon02 (157) Diannaa (164,960) Chaosdruid (8) 3. GaryColemanFan (101) Chaosdruid (130,630) Derild4921 (7) 4. Torchiest (100) The Utahraptor (117,347) GaryColemanFan/Slon02 (6) 5. Shimeru (80) Ericleb01 (114,893) Bejinhan/The Utahraptor (5) Coordinator: ɳorɑfʈ Talk! Co-coordinators: Diannaa TALK and S Masters (talk) | Newsletter by: The Raptor You rang?/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 22:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC).

Consensus discussion on photo

Hi. I've started a consensus discussion here, and would appreciate your input. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Your Ban & Your message

Thanks for your message. You said when I return - I thought I'd give the wiki community a go, but have decided it's not for me. I made a very minor revert on a minor article in a failed attempt to improve the article and add referencing (which there is none in the whole article). No prior talk discussion was raised on the removal of content. It seems that no contact was made by those who had removed content to contact the primary contributors - in order to improve their contribution. No attempt was made to contact Subject Matter Experts on (Association) football, the British TV shows mentioned, or the comic book - to understand the significance or otherwise, of previous contributions. The focus seems to have been for one member (MarnetteD) to make block reverts to my attempts at reinstating and improving content. When this did not work, he has enlisted you and others to continue his systematic targeting of the talk page which has focussed on false representation of subjective opinion as "fact". I am interested why you didn't report MarnetteD, who made the initial "revert", and a subsequent 6 reverts - is it because you have taken a biased and unsubstantiated view point based on the fact I am new? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiiischiii (talk • contribs) 14:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I made the comments in good faith. There's no grand conspiracy against you, no one "enlisted" me, my viewpoint (and those of the other editors opposing you) isn't "biased" or "unsubstantiated" based on your newness. The material didn't belong in the article, it was unnotable trivia. Multiple editors tried to tell you that, but you didn't seem to listen before reverting. WP:3RR involves 3 reverts in a 24 hour period, which MarnetteD never did. You can tell that from the way your 3RR report on her was declined. If you'd like to continue at WP, I wish you luck, and feel free to come back to my talk page to ask me anything. If not, good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Jennifer Abbott page corrections you undid

Hi Dayewalker, I had already posted on the previous person who undid my supposed unreferenced changes to the page, and in fact had posted the reference and explained this on his talk page. I had also gotten this stuff approved on the blp board yet why does each person come & undo changes, that are sourced & completely accurate? This page has become skeletal because of this and the correct data thats referenced from third party author bio written about her is correct. It seems when I undo something after explaining then someone else comes and undoes it again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Abbott_(director)

(cur | prev) 19:11, 4 October 2010 Dayewalker (talk | contribs) (1,481 bytes) (Rmv Copyvio.) (undo) (cur | prev) 18:55, 4 October 2010 Nobelone (talk | contribs) m (2,135 bytes) (Undid revision 388509800 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) it was reference see ref list on page) (undo) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism) (cur | prev) 18:24, 3 October 2010 Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) (1,481 bytes) (unreferenced etc) (undo)

The info that you undid was from a third party bio and is referenced as its supposed to be which the previous person said it was unreferenced- though I even added the reference to the page under references. Its not an infringement on copyright as you put when you undid the changes, the article isn't copyrighted either. All of this info about her is accurate and correct and I had already gotten approval after numerous ppl undoing my accurate edits. How can I keep these on without this happening? Please advise as I am trying to do this the correct way, but it seems to still not work everyone comes and undoes. Please help, thank you kindly Nobelone (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Update ****

Hi again Dayewalker, I saw yout note written on Hullaballoo talk page. I went back & read the copyright rules, and even though the author article written was not copyrghted and I had copied and pasted in error doing it this way. I apologize I know now this is not acceptable. I correctly just added some simple bio info to page now not infringing on any copyrights. And as the page has a marking for additional third party references I did source and add the author bio written on a book website and will add any additionals I find to help support the page. Please let me know if there is any problem as I did not copy and paste anything this time from the author bio. Thank you Nobelone (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

		Cookies!
		That one just about crashed my computer. Thanks for reverting. --Diannaa (Talk) 03:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC) has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

No problem, glad to help! Dayewalker (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Same, although I didn't experience the same, thanks for the revert anyway :D.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hammer/Bolton

Please discuss before creating edit wars. Be able to dispute it with sources, since I have verified this to be accurate. You need to see the entire article and citations on the matter. I composed at least 80% of Hammer's page, so I know a little something about the subject. Thank you. P.S. The article is about sampling in general and I gave examples to improve the article. I don't hide my IP, since transparency is important to me when making "good faith" edits. Because Bolton did more of "remakes" than samples, I agree to remove the info about him. Let's conduct ourselves the proper way on here and not continue to revert without resolving disputes the correct way first. Have a nice evening/day. 63.131.4.149 (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, was going to remove the user page post but you beat me to it. I have slow internet connection tonight and that is part of the delay with me posting everything at once such as I did last night. I am not staying online, just clearing this up. Will return later if needed to resolve. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.131.4.149 (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem on transferring this from my user page, I was about to move it also. I know how slow internet connections go. As this is an issue on the Sampling page, I'll start a discussion there. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Because it's my understanding that if it's not vandalism (which it's not), then it should remain until it's agreed by editors that it doesn't belong via the discussion page. 63.131.4.149 (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Update: I take blame in placing the info I added in the wrong "section(s)" perhaps. It's been moved now. But when I - or someone else - put(s) so much effort into an edit, especially when fighting with weak Internet at the time (which isn't your fault), it defeats the purpose of my/their actions. Perhaps making corrections to edits instead of "generic" reverts would be advantageous in the future. Just a suggestion, since it's bothersome to "redo" every thing that was undone over minor mistakes that could have been resolved easier because it didn't get discussed first before being removed. I trust this has been a lesson for us both!? (sigh/smile) I don't want to be right, I just don't want to waste my time. I realize that many admin/editors aren't consistent on the site, and that can add to the frustration. Take care, 63.131.4.149 (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Notification

As you participated in the ban discussion of SkagitRiverQueen, you are being notified of this Proposal to amend ban on SRQ imposed at ANI: from 1 year to indef. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 backlog elimination drive update

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive! GOCE November 2010 backlog elimination drive progress graphs We have reached the midway point in our backlog elimination drive, so here is an update. Participation report — The November drive has 53 participants at this point. We had 77 participants in the September drive. In July, 95 people signed up for the drive, and in May we had 36. If you are not participating, it is not too late to join! Progress report — The drive is quite successful so far, as we have already almost reached our target of a 10% reduction in the number of articles in the backlog. We are doing very well at keeping our Requests page clear, as those articles count double for word count for this drive. Please keep in mind the possibility of removing other tags when you are finished with an article. If the article no longer needs {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, or other similar maintenance tags, please remove them, as this will make the tasks of other WikiProjects easier to complete. Thanks very much for participating in the Drive, and see you at the finish line! Your drive coordinators –The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa (Talk)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor (talk) at 15:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

GOCE copy edit drive

Greetings, the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Gui--Cleaghyre (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)--Cleaghyre (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)ld of Copy Editors|Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors]] invites you to participate in the November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 November at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 November at 23:59 (UTC). The goal for this drive is to reduce the backlog by 10% (approximately 500 articles). We hope to focus our efforts on the oldest three months (January, February, and March 2009) and the newest three months (September, October, and November 2010) of articles in the queue. Sign-up has already begun at the November drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page. Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants, some of which are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive! — The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa (Talk)

GOCE elections

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Elections are currently underway for our inaugural Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, Friday 1 December – 23:59 UTC, Tuesday 14 December. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are six candidates vying for four positions. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You can start disscusion

You can start discussion. I need not ask for consensus. I edit facts. You have arguments against say it, no problem - it will start discussion. Right? :))))) Do not push others to empty work, it looks smart for you but is nothing more than bouncing others. --Cleaghyre (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No. You are trying to add material reverted by several other editors. It's up to you to gain consensus, and stop edit warring. Dayewalker (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No it is not my responsibility. I inrtoduced argument. It does no matter how many revert it. Anybody who revert an argument should say why. You did not. That is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleaghyre (talk • contribs)

Please make yourself familiar with some of Wikipedia's policies, specifically the ones left on your talk page that led to you being blocked. If you make the same edits again without going to the article's talk page, you'll be blocked again for edit warring. Dayewalker (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

---

I think you attempt to terrorize me. Read argument and provide con-argument:

This is my work:

26 November 2010 - Cleaghyre - (There is wrong use word Constitution for legal codes written by individuals or non-elected assemblies. Compare with first sentence of the article.)

29 November 2010 - Cleaghyre - (The word Constitution goes from ‘constituante’ the French people assembly 1789 to constitute democratic nation,. Constitution is “by people for people”. All which are not, are just legal acts.”)

29 November 2010 - Cleaghyre - (Sometimes used for the sake of vanity and/or political propaganda. Scientific work should be free from the vanity and/or propaganda. The true meaning of word should not be blurred.)

30 November 2010 - Cleaghyre - (BilCat, point to missing info/sources - do not erise improovments. Any way read article 'Constituante' and read works of Rousseau and others Enlightment philosophers.)

30 November 2010 - Cleaghyre (No problem. Start the discussion. Where are you arguments? Consensus is not the issue - the issue is true, logic and science.)

1 December 2010 - Cleaghyre - (What is you argue against ? Write clearly)

You work - first enter

1 December 2010 - Dayewalker - (Rvt, please discuss on talk page and gain consensus before adding again.)

You complain: “No one else understands it.”

Do not talk for others

Anyway it is you personal fault you do not know and avoid read historical facts. Well, if you like to understand follow links in my editions at "Constitution" article. You can also in US or other English speaking country watch documentary movie: "French Revolution" - this is American work. There you can find what means what. Where come from goes: Democracy, Republic, Equality the idea that country belong to people; how Constitution was written and why. What is the difference between the new fundamental act and the old understanding of the world.

Constitution is foundation of democracy, written on the base of ideas of Enlightment, it is top achievement and base of modern world.

‘’’Stop threaten and terrorize people. Educate yourself and use arguments. Learn from others.’’’

Here is something from you favorable rule:

When editors cannot reach agreement by editing, the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant talk pages.

You did no edition, no improvement just reverting - reverting is no edition. You also did not start the discussion on talk page. And I did not found a reason why you did not and assume it is my duty? Are you really serious? --Cleaghyre (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, please read the relevant Wikipedia policies that have been left for you on your talk page. What you see as the truth, all other editors have disagreed with. Therefore it falls to you to explain on the talk page of the article and convince people, and gain consensus for your changes. Dayewalker (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive! We have reached the end of our fourth backlog elimination drive. Thanks to all who participated. Stats GOCE November 2010 backlog elimination drive graphs 58 people signed up for this drive. Of these, 48 people participated in the drive. Although we did not eliminate the months we planned to (January, February, and March 2009; and August, September, and October 2010), we did reduce the backlog by 627 articles (11.2%), which was over our goal of 10%. 49 awards will go out to 33 of 48 participants. Check out the complete list of barnstar winners here. Barnstars If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you participated in the September 2010 backlog elimination drive, you may have earned roll-over words (more details can be found here). These roll-over words count as credit towards earning barnstars, except for leaderboard awards. We will be delivering these barnstars within the next couple of weeks. Our next drive is scheduled for January 2011. In the meantime, please consider helping out at the Wikification drive or any of the other places where help with backlogs is needed. Thank you for participating in the last 2010 backlog elimination drive! We look forward to seeing you in January! Your drive coordinators –The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa (Talk)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 23:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

John Amos - Howard Stern - Accolade Issue

Please check the "Discussion" section of the "John Amos" article, I left a comment. This issue has been discussed for a while, and most people here agree that this is a valid addition to the article. I request that you stop your reversions; your "politically correct" position is not correct (nor is it appreciated).--67.109.178.2 (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Nothing you've said is correct. Dayewalker (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC update

Just to mention I replied to your question on this Quentin Letts RFC. Sorry for chasing this up, but it's bothering me a little that "subject complains publicly about some Wikipedia vandalism on his article, so we can re-add that vandalism in quote marks with a source, lol" has had so little RFC movement over the past two weeks. --McGeddon (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)=

Garfield Heights, Ohio‎

I modified and reverted the information on the ambulance. As a photo indicates $275.00 would have been to low a price. Busceda (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I left you a message on the article talk page about proper references. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

McCain Article and one External Link

Well, once again, I find that my police of not editing articles about living persons proves true. They are so packed with POV pushing that I find it rather useless to edit articles about living persons. You have now confirmed this again for me. I hope you have a great deal of fun in continuing to sanitize the McCain article and whatever others you may be working on. I'll remove the article from my watch list. I'm really just sick of all the sanitizing that goes on Wikipedia. Enjoy your victory. Calicocat (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want to actually discuss your disputed additions to articles, perhaps Wikipedia isn't for you. Good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Write better do not remove

It is regarding you last act on article 'Constitution'

Write it better do not remove a sentence which lead to clarification. The article is complete mess. It need improvement. You action is just an offence.--Cleaghyre (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

PS. I see here is more people who see yo actions offending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleaghyre (talk • contribs) 18:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but what you wrote was gibberish. Even if I understood it correctly, it was utterly non-encyclopedic. I did improve the article by removing it. Dayewalker (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Signatures

You don't "please", you just mindlessly revert, in a distorted feeling of "neutrality" and "keeping the encyclopedia in order". Your actions, contrary to what you want to believe, are fully unreasonable. I had the right to remove what I removed. Sigh... Well... Keep up the wrong job, instead of adding to Wikipedia (or deleting from Wikipedia) something actually useful (or harmful).

Ban me if you will to. (But not before you add my signature to this yet-signatureless edit). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.152.66 (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I just reverted you because your actions make no sense. Feel free to explain what you were doing, or continue to be reverted by other Wikipedia editors for being disruptive. Have a nice weekend. Dayewalker (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Lipton Tea

Daywalker, you didn't read the exchange with me and another editor in which I obtained credible sources before publishing a contribution. You made multiple errors. You reverted the corrected contribution, not merely a republishing. You also put back in place comments which were an advertisement for the company by a clear public relations writer or stockholder. Mtl1969 has history of running promotions for mostly Unilver companies mixed with other articles. It appear they are doing PR work or have an interest. Either way please slow down, read, and go through the article and correct your removal. Read the comments on the request for assistance page to you. The Peta organization is currently criticising Lipton Tea and now Unilever the parent company and the coverage is on many Vegetarian and Green sites including one of the Discovery channel's websites citing it for cruel animal testing as a means of bolster it's healing claims. The only thing you are correct on is that the heading for the comment should not be titled Controversy as that is a broader adjective. More typically used is the title Criticism. Please feel free to correct that. The article has editors asking for assistance in removing the blatant advertising. You ignored that. It is important that you take the time to look at what you are contributing to and not react too quickly which you did. Please go back and read the promotional piece you left in place, and realize you censored relevant and reletively new content which is what makes Wikipedia better than a stale old Encylopedia book. Thank you for your attention to the article in it's entirety. Do not be too swift when people are taking their time on a meaningful contribution. Happy Holidays to you. --WikiShares (talk) 04:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I read all of your contributions, and your addition still has no credible sources. I see another editor has pruned the promotional material in the article back, I agree with those changes. However, I would suggest you do as I suggested on your original post [21], and find some reliable secondary sources, and begin discussing your proposed changes on the article's talk page. Discussing changes in an edit summary isn't sufficient. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 06:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Daywalker, I responded to Wentomowameadow's talk page. In summary you missed the request from a the editorial assitance request, to add new sources. They exist, you missed them on google, and they are in the article you deleted. Go back and READ down the page to the source. I reference the Discovery channel's Planet Green )same url btw not a different one, click on the website and notice it is Discovery. The second is a Vegetarian site, for another point of view. Both green and vegetarian sites are confirming the existance of criticism over animal testing for bolstering tea claims at Lipton. You must read what you claim does not exist. Patience, and you will find it is there. Slow down a bit and undo your edits based on no credible sources. Thank you for reading the full corrections, it should clear up the matter. --WikiShares (talk) 07:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You really need to read up on reliable secondary sources. Nothing you've provided counts as one, and you're not going to be able to label something as a "controversy" or even a major criticism without finding one that supports what you're saying. Dayewalker (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

United States and state terrorism

Hello, Why did you remove my post on the Talk:United States and state terrorism? I am trying to establish there has been a lengthy effort to work with someone who essentially has this page on lockdown. I have seen this practtice before on other talk pages, indeed I copied the template. V7-sport (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If you need to refer to a discussion on another page, use a link. Adding another 10K of discussion to this page isn't going to help anyone discern what's going on. Dayewalker (talk) 04:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a formatting guideline that states this? The reason why I did it this way is because that user regularly deletes his talk page. V7-sport (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to copy an entire section, a link is sufficient. Post it as a diff, which will show exactly what was on a page or added at a particular point in time. For example, I used two diffs in the warning I left on your page.

If you feel another user is doing something against policy, please file a case on the relevant noticeboard where other editors will look at it and get involved. If an editor didn't actually comment on a page, their comments and signature shouldn't be copied and pasted onto another page. That's confusing for everyone involved. Dayewalker (talk) 05:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

We aren't up to filing a case yet and I notified him I was going to move the text. I've done this to preserve the discussion for future reference and since he regularly deletes his talk page, any link posted would go dead the next time he does so. Is there a guideline that objects to this? V7-sport (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a DIFF [22] that shows the entire discussion on the other user's talk page. It can't be deleted or changed, so if you want to refer to it, go right ahead. I'm sure there's a policy but off the top of my head, I can't quote it to you. It's common sense, however. Nothing said on that user's talk page has relevance on the actual article talk page. If you want to refer to it, go ahead, but quoting it just makes the talk page too cluttered to be coherent. Dayewalker (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If it is Wiki policy that you can't do that I ought to know about so I can be a more harmonious contributor to the encyclopedia, if it isn't Wiki policy I think you ought to revert the edit so if/when this does go to arbitration all the information will be laid out for the administrators. V7-sport (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(OD) Sorry, I will not revert your addition. There's no point in it. Frankly, some of your other edits have been blanking and vandalism, and personal attacks. I'm trying to help you not get into further problems here. I can't quote you any policy other than common sense, so if you'd like to ignore that, go right ahead. Dayewalker (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Soooo, there is no policy that you can cite. I object to the characterization that my edits have been "vandalism". V7-sport (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

page protection

Hi Dayewalker -- I recently filed an RFC regarding the "Definitions" section of United States and state terrorism, and have no plans of doing anything with it until the RFC has run its course. I was just in the middle of improving the section on Indonesia when the page was locked. Since V7-sport has gotten his way, and the section is still up, I doubt he'll be doing anything either. So I don't think the block is doing any good. It's simply preventing me from improving the article right now. Is there any way that you could talk to someone about getting the page unlocked so I can do more work on the other sections? Or did you have other reasons for locking the page besides just the definitions section dispute (i.e. were you more concerned about conflicts on that page in general?). Thanks. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I just asked for the protection because it didn't appear that V7 was going to stop and discuss, and he had already been pretty pointy on the page. I didn't want it to turn into an edit war that would wind up with everyone blocked, so I applied at RFPP. If you think it's worked out, you can ask any admin to lift the protection. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Brandi Hawbaker

Hi Dayewalker -- I am the Brandon Gerson that was referred to in http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/4002-cult-poker-personality-brandi-hawbaker-found-dead. Brandi's mother, who she had been estranged from for over a decade has repeatedly tampered with and placed inaccurate information on this page. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon gerson (talk • contribs) 22:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed it earlier, as the statement wasn't sourced properly. I can see that the quote is used in the article, I'm still not sure if it belongs though. I'm going to start a discussion on the talk page, I'd suggest you also make your case there. YOu can bring up anything else you feel is "inaccurate" in the article. As an aside, you should understand that merely stating you are Brandon Gerson isn't sufficient for anyone on Wikipedia to take your word for it, and by doing so, you're also admitting you have aconflict of interest in dealing with the subject. That's one of the reasons Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources. Dayewalker (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining this to me. I am confused as to whether I some how prove my authenticity, if that would make a difference. If so, please advise how to do so. I lived with Brandi Hawbaker the last 2 years of her life. As I was privy to Brandi's life and background, there is of course much I can offer to her wiki. I am just uncertain in terms of how to cite or prove information that I know to be factual about her life, background etc. Thank you again for advising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon gerson (talk • contribs) 22:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, when you refer to secondary reliable sources, please elaborate. There other other notable poker players (that are included in wikipedia as well) that know me personally and can also validate myself and information that I know of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon gerson (talk • contribs) 22:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fingerpoke of Doom (3rd nomination)

Hello, you commented on this AfD today and mentioned that you believed that sources outside the wrestling industry are necessary. I have added a reference from the New York Daily News that backs up the statements that had been made by wrestling writers. I would appreciate it if you could take another look at the article and comment on whether or not the article (and, in particular, the "Impact" section) now meets the general notability guideline. Thank you, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I will, thanks for the update. I do feel I need to warn you about your behavior towards Seeker of the Torch (talk · contribs). You seem to be taking his edits to this article very personally. You might want to take a step back from them. Dayewalker (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, you were dead on. Nice job, never mind. Dayewalker (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Crop circles

I'm just saying dude many people (Including me) still believe some crop circles aren't hoaxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrator (talk • contribs) 01:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

• 2010 in review: Review of the year

• News and notes: Record fundraiser celebrated and debated; Board-appointed Trustees; brief news

• In the news: Fundraising success media coverage; brief news

• WikiProject report: Where are they now? Redux

• Features and admins: Featured sound choice of the year

• Arbitration report: Motion proposed in W/B – Judea and Samaria case

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Clan of Xymox

Hey, thanks for helping out--are you sure you want to get involved in this? The poster was put back again--note the editor's other edits. You're dealing with a newbie carrying a grudge, I believe. Oh, the image you removed, it came to be misnamed by an even more hapless and grudge-carrying editor, here. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Glad to help. Hopefully we can get that guy to understand the policies before he puts up another billboard. Dayewalker (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

So, by how many personalities are you split??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hablador (talk • contribs) 07:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about, Hablador. Anyone who looks at that page will revert what you're doing, please stop. Dayewalker (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If anyone should stop it's you guys... trying to alter the past and present????Hablador (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Dude, unless you're with the band, that image is a pretty obvious copyright violation anyway, if I was you I'd drop this now and go back to Commons and request that that image be deleted. Heiro 07:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hablador, you should understand that a) you're about to be blocked, and b) an image that size will never work on that page, and will be reverted by every other editor. Please stop, what you're doing is disruptive and pointless. Dayewalker (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

• News and notes: Anniversary preparations, new Community fellow, brief news

• In the news: Anniversary coverage begins; Wikipedia as new layer of information authority; inclusionist project

• WikiProject report: Her Majesty's Waterways

• Features and admins: Featured topic of the year

• Arbitration report: World War II case comes to a close; ban appeal, motions, and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Jim Bowden

FYI , Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Thanks.--CutOffTies (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive news

Guild of Copy Editors January 2011 backlog elimination drive Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors January 2011 Backlog elimination drive! The drive is halfway over, so here are some mid-drive stats. Participation GOCE January 2011 backlog elimination drive progress graphs So far, 43 people have signed up for this drive. Of these, 25 have participated. If you signed up for the drive but haven't participated yet, it's not too late! Try to copy edit at least a few articles. Remember, if you have rollover words from the last drive, you will lose them if you do not participate in this drive. If you haven't signed up for the drive yet, you can sign up now. Progress report We have eliminated two months from the backlog – January and February 2009. One of our goals is to eliminate as many months as possible from the 2009 backlog. Please help us reduce the size of this part of the backlog if you haven't already. Another goal is to reduce the entire backlog by 10%, or by 515 articles. Currently, we have eliminated 375 articles from the queue, so if each participant copy edits four more articles, we will reach that goal. Thank you for participating in the January 2011 drive. We anticipate it will be another big success! Your drive coordinators –S Masters (talk), Diannaa (Talk), The UtahraptorTalk to me, and Tea with toast (Talk)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 19:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC).

Thanks

for this. --hippo43 (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Chick-fil-A

The tagger isn't a member of the project it seems. Dougweller (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Well, that's just weird, then. I see the discussion is at the project page now, that's the right place for it. Whatever they decide will be appropriate. Thanks for the clarification. Dayewalker (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Prohuman69

What's your preferred venue for reporting - 3RR (for edit warring), AIV (for vandalizing user pages and unwillingness to discuss substantive edits), or ANI (for above behavior and personal attacks)? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I've reported them at WP:ANEW for edit warring. It's not technically vandalism, and ANI is for more serious cases. This is just an editor with a viewpoint and an axe to grind, who doesn't understand the process yet, and needs to be blocked to push them towards actually reading the links people are leaving on their page for them. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Article deletion discussion

Hi. Can you voice your opinion on the Beth Sotelo deletion discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I just didn't believe earlier that entries are being deleted as trivial, when those that were being retained are also trivial to me. The Wiki guidelines itself say that "sourcing" to prove notability, is not mandatory (except for biographical issues), nor is it a non-negotiable requirement to prevent subjective trivial issues from deletion. So if everything else is being lumped together as trivial and rewritten as a summary the way you wrote it so they can be retained, then i don't have an issue with that. --Pekpeklover (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for removing the tag from The Stanley Clarke Band, didn't want to do it myself. I'm actually going to nominate it as a good article. J04n(talk page) 03:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I took it in good faith when it was added, but after a week with no details, it was time to remove it. If the editor has any areas that could use improvement, I'd be happy to help. The tag just didn't seem appropriate. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

TCA article

Hi, regarding your point on an SPA occasionally editing the Trinity Christian Academy article: I dropped a note about the RfC on the talk page of the user who most recently removed the material. It got added to my watchlist because I created the page. This morning I noticed that there's also an entry on my watchlist "Tca admin (talk | contribs) created new account User:Jstewart2011". Tca admin edited the article (and nothing else) yesterday but was indeffed for having a bad username. Is there anything we need to do about this? Brammers (talk/c) 09:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That article has been the target of several SPA's over the last few years, most just come to remove the controversy section. That's one reason I wanted to take it to the talk page (and the RfC) and get some opinions from more experienced editors. I'm hoping we can all work together to establish a policy-based consensus. The SPA's don't really bother me, if we have that consensus they can just be reverted. If you have an admin you work with, you might want to ask their opinion on the matter, and the SPAs. They don't bother me usually, they never stick around for long. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Bill Maher

Hey, I am trying to add the whole issue on 'twat' in the Maher article and you have reverted it twice. I am just referring to the source and you seem to disagree with the edit. Rather than keep going on this in the article itself, would you mind helping me address the issue? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperliner (talk • contribs) 06:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Just left a message on your talk page explaining. And by the way, you should probably just title a section like this "Bill Maher" rather than "twat." Just a suggestion. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

5W Public Relations

Pushed back the non lead hope is agreeable. Hope to have your assistance with major edits attempting to made without any reasoning at all. Theres been major discussion on this page previously and this seperate from the fact that there sources arent valid. Emetemet13 (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

How is it possible to rewrite when users like Ravpappa do it without anyone saying it is correct i did put it in the discussion Please be balanced

Abigail7  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abigail7 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC) 

I'm just going to go ahead and say this here for future reference. I am not going to waste my time on my talk page discussing anything having to do with this article, or any article related to it. All discussion should go on the talk page of the appropriate article, and I strongly suggest that discussion take place before the edits are made on the page. Dayewalker (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Nudity in film

You deleted my entry without any discussion, based on your personal opinion of triviality. How about discussing it on the topics talk page before you do so. Embram (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You've been reverted by three different editors now, by WP:BURDEN, it's up to you to show how that information is relevant and notable. It's not enough to say that it did happen, you have to show how it happening is important enough for a mention in an encyclopedia. If you still feel it belongs there, I'd suggest you start a discussion on the talk page and try and show why it should be included. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Cookie

Thank you for watching vandals on the article Bonita Vista High School. Your efforts assist locals, like me, by assisting efforts by those who wish to reduce the quality of articles in Chula Vista.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael Frost Beckner

No talking until you guys stop removing valid content! Please give me specifics and we'll see what needs to be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwwinter (talk • contribs)

That's not the way it works. If you don't talk, you'll be blocked from editing and the page will be locked down. Please go to the talk page, and let's discuss this the sensible way. Dayewalker (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Material

Hi Dayewalker, I want to add this part back in to Michael Frost Beckner. I checked all of the references and as far as I know, they are all legitimate. I've checked other screenwriter pages on Wikipedia and am trying to figure out why there has been so much dispute about Beckner's page... Here's what I want to add, but before I do, I don't want people to delete it so I thought I'd check with you first. Tell me what to fix and I will!

Michael Frost Beckner is an American screenwriter, novelist and creator of popular film and television works. His filmic themes, at their core, explore the dramatic conflicts in the allegorical father and son relationship (Spy Game, Sniper). He is a "mixed-genre" storyteller whose works update classical genres with modern sensibilities. Beckner is widely recognized in the sub-genre of espionage storytelling, which has led to various high-profile television writing and executive producing assignments (The Agency and CSI). A number of his real-world story lines have eerily predicted actual future events. This has led to speculation about the true depth of his relationship to the international intelligence community.

From late 1989 to mid 1991, Hollywood was setting records for the price paid by production companies for film scripts written on "spec" (not commissioned by a studio). Still in his mid-twenties, Beckner, with his producing partner Jim Gorman, held two of the top ten spots for the highest prices ever paid for spec scripts up until that time.

At the time, Beckner said, "I don't enjoy the spec ride. I'd rather be writing than waiting for the phone to ring. We were flattered we got as much as we did." Purpleambrosia23 (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

To start with the first paragraph, some of that material is already in the article. The bit about his "filmic themes" is analysis of his style, which isn't appropriate for the lead of the article. As for the rest, it's promotional and not encyclopedic. As you know, the article was largely written by someone with a promotional interest in the subject. All material added should be encyclopedic in nature. If it's mentioned, it should be briefly and in the context of his larger career.

Thanks for asking for opinions, though. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC/U Corbridge

Hi Dayewalker. Wanted to let you know I mentioned you in a WP:RFC/USER regarding user Corbridge. You're obviously welcome to weigh in, but mostly wanted to give you a heads up. Arbor8 (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dayewalker

I'm having trouble finding the reference in the Lowell Bennion book stating that he started the "Utah Boys Ranch" not the "Teton Boys Ranch." If it's not too much trouble, can you tell me what page number you found your reference on? Thanks! --EarlySquid (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that reference is here [23], final paragraph of the article. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That is an exact quote of the Wikipedia article, which used the other source (Bennion's biography) as a reference. As I stated on the talk page, Bennion's biography does not say that he started the Utah Boys Ranch / West Ridge Academy and actually puts him in Idaho from 1962 until the 1980s. --EarlySquid (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting theory. Do you have a source showing that the newspaper article was taken directly from the Wikipedia page? Saying so seems a pretty big jump in logic. Dayewalker (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

• News and notes: More research on newbie editors; Baidu plagiarism; bin Laden coverage; brief news

• In the news: Billionaire trying to sue Wikipedians; "Critical Point of View" book published; World Bank contest; brief news

• WikiProject report: Game Night at WikiProject Board and Table Games

• Features and admins: Featured articles bounce back

• Arbitration report: AEsh case comes to a close - what does the decision tell us?

• Technology report: MediaWiki 1.16.5, 1.17b1; 1.18 branched; UploadWizard the default; Berlin Hackathon; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked

Unblocked him, had not noticed his attempts at engaging in discussion. Thank you for the heads up. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Why did you show up to defend the vandalism of Weazie? It doesn't make any sense to allow people to take things out of context as an excuse to delete sources, no matter what they post on a discussion. Simply posting something within the discussion should not be a pass to do what you want! I don't understand why you would defend such a thing unless you have some sort of ulterior motive behind it. Sempi (talk) 08:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Because, as I've tried to explain to you on your page, what he did was not vandalism. That has a strict definition at Wikipedia, and shouldn't be just thrown out there. Dayewalker (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, so what would you call someone that only reads one sentence out of two, and takes the first sentence out of context as false consensus for deleting things? What would you call someone that ignores most of the discussion, and merely posts false statements or personal opinions to delete things? Would it be fair for me to to declare your talk page irrelevant or improper and delete it all as long as I posted my opinion that it was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sempi (talk • contribs)

WP:CIVIL; WP:AGF. Cheers. (And, thanks, Dayewalker.) --Weazie (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sempi, I'm taking everything you say in good faith, but it's becoming harder and harder to do. Please calm down. Consensus on the article talk page is overwhelmingly against you. There's no conspiracy. When everyone else is united against you, that's not the time to dig in your heels and start talking about conspiracies, it's the time to realize that maybe everyone else sees things differently than you.

My repeated advice to you would be to read through some of the links people have been suggesting to you on your talk page, and understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. If you try and work with people, they'll work with you. If all you do is attack and accuse, you won't last very long around here. Good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I am calm, are you assuming I'm not? Deleting whole sections that most everyone in the discussion contributed to, without any consensus or just cause is not collaborative! That's just ridiculous. And why you would defend a person doing this is beyond me, unless you're doing it for personal reasons. How can you work with people that delete things based on their own opinion? Are you aware that none of the contributions deleted were mine? I don't think so. Sempi (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal life

Beckner is married to former vice president of film aquisitions at Walt Disney Studios, Anne Sterling. Beckner has five children: daughter Ally, son, Andrew, daughter, Daisy, and twin sons, Benjamin and Theodore.

Thanks! If I need to fix anything, please let me know! I'm still getting the hang of this! Purpleambrosia23 (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)purpleambrosia23Purpleambrosia23 (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dayewalker! Check out the new user box available at User:Adwiii/UBX/Golem1. Thanks for helping with the reverts. I have blocked the health club for a month. Regards, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sweet, love the new box. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC/U (Sempi)

Hi. I have created a Request for Comment concerning Sempi (talk · contribs). You can find it here. I'm notifying you personally because you are mentioned in the RFC/U as someone who tried in vain to get Sempi to improve his conduct vis-à-vis the Natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution article. Since you were a user who tried and failed to resolve this dispute, you might wish to consider adding your name to the list of users "certifying" the RFC/U; at least two formal certifiers are required in order for an RFC/U to proceed. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Consistency

I noticed you readded to the Carl Levin bio's lead, info about how long he had served in the Senate (which is already included in the boxes under his photo), and when he became senior senator. I wonder if you think this is important for Carl Levin, would you consider it important for the other senior senators too, and wonder if you would consider taking the time to include the comment in for other senior senators also. That way there is a just a little bit more consistency, and not an attempt to promote. Thank for your partnership in making Wikepedia a great resource. Rodchen (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

New resolution proposal

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that a new proposal has been made in a thread you contributed to at AN/I concerning the possibility of prohibiting a user from initiating actions at AN, AN/I, or WQA. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Firing squad

If you're looking for someone to take SuperMarioMan out and shoot him, probably not; made me smile :) --Errant ^(chat!) 22:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I try really hard not to let my day job full o'sarcasm intrude in my wiki edits, but I figured that conversation was going sour anyway. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Walking away

Try it!

I've responded to your Slap Bet foolishness on my talk page (and will delete the thread within the week) but have now accommodated all of your criticisms so that there are no further grounds on which you can "Rvt." the Slap Bet page! Thanks for playing! --- Tjprochazka (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Dayewalker, I was moved to share this with you after reading your recent concerns on the notice board about the fellow who had taken to using his talk page as a grudge list in which yourself was featured. First off, thank you for all the work that you do for wiki on such a regular basis. With that said, I have taken the time to review several screens worth of your contributions and I would like to offer this impression of what someone uninvolved gets from the sidelines. Honestly, your RVTS and edit comments can come across a bit harsh or patronizing, also a review of your contribs can skew more towards the critical as opposed to the contributive. As I said, thanks for all your work, so I hope you dont take this personally, I am offering it as a fellow editor, perhaps if you could submit more material and orig research and bring the proportions of your critical entries and content entries a bit closer. Now this is offered as a observation, not a warning of any kind at this time. All the best! BespokeFM (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, but if he were to contribute original research then I would have to splatter his talk page with semi-automated templates about it, and that might come across as a bit harsh and critical too :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

BespokeFM, I appreciate your comments. I'm always open to constructive criticism from any editor, however, I think DIFFs would probably help me to understand more just what exactly you're saying. No offense, but you have three main space edits and you've just told me to submit more original research, so I don't really understand where you're coming from. Although I'll admit, I also loved the Big Country Steeltown album! They were quite underrated.

And Demiurge1000, by all means! If I slip into OR here on WP, splatter away! I try and save my OR for my blogs, production notes, short stories, and haikus. Dayewalker (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah Big Country..... and yes you are correct, only 3 MSEs since april. You see after 15 years of marriage I went through a split this past year, and while I did get the dogs, I did not get any, and I mean any, of the online accounts. I ended up Kissing goodbye to a decade's worth of involvement on numerous sites including Wiki. On the bright side, at least I no longer get taken to task for things a much younger me did and said at the turn of the century. Now just to be safe, please do not give Demiurge1000 directions to my talk page as I have grown quite fond of the recent lack oversight or accountability much less splatter! Thank you for taking the time out to consider my thoughts, all the best, and get back to work! BespokeFM (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolution Proposal

To prevent your blockage, I highly suggest not practicing hubris when reverting or editing articles edited by other users, and to find out exactly what "Original Research" encompasses. Please take a moment to review WP:NOR policies. Edit-wars are pointless and collaboration is highly expected of all Wikipedia users. A fact is a fact, and your perceptions of what "POV" and "Original Research" are, as valued as opinions go, moot to the facts therein. Thank you very much, and if you can find a way to collaboratively resolve this issue, that would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.89.62.107 (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my comments. Rather than edit warring your changes in, why don't you discuss the matter on the article's talk page? That's the best place to get further opinions. Dayewalker (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

My attempts at a peaceful resolution have only been met with resistance by yourself and another. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, I suppose. 98.89.62.107 (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Your "peaceful resolution" was just to ignore everyone else and edit war your changes in. There's plenty of discussion going on now, feel free to take part. Dayewalker (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't be upset

One thing I think we can both agree on when we step out of the shells of this mortal coil and this trite debate is that life is absolutely amazing.

Even you've got to admit that from an unbiased persepctive the analogy is pretty complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.89.62.107 (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't. Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't the place for personal opinions or analogies. Dayewalker (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

• News and notes: Wikipedians 90% male and largely altruist; 800 public policy students add 8.8 million bytes; brief news

• In the news: Revere, Palin and Colbert generate activity; British Wikipedia "cleanser"; brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Aircraft

• Featured content: Featured lists hit the main page

• Arbitration report: More workshop proposals in Tree shaping case; further votes in PD of other case

• Technology report: 1.18 extension bundling; mobile testers needed; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE elections

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Elections are currently underway for our Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days and ends on June 30, 23:59 UTC. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! There is also a referendum to appoint a Coordinator Emeritus. Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

• News and notes: WMF Board election results; Indian campus ambassadors gear up; Wikimedia UK plans; Malayalam Wikisource CD; brief news

• In the news: Wikipedia could become trusted medical resource; neologism controversy; news in brief

• WikiProject report: The Elemental WikiProject

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: One case comes to a close; initiator of a new case blocked as sockpuppet

• Technology report: Engineering department restructured; "break MediaWiki and be reverted"; news in brief

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the kind words. I am glad you respect what I do for the sports area that I edit on Wikipedia. I was making the 2011 MLB Draft page complete since there was 50 rounds not just 1. If you have any advise or if you could help by voting to *keep* the work that I was doing on that page. Thanks again. Carthage44 (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

• News and notes: ArbCom database theft; WikiLove to roll out on the English Wikipedia; brief news

• In the news: Russian president uploads to Wikimedia Commons; brief news

• WikiProject report: The Continuous Convention: WikiProject Comics

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision for Tree shaping case

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors The latest GOCE backlog elimination drive is under way! It began on 1 July and so far 18 people have signed up to help us reduce the number of articles in need of copyediting. This drive will give a 50% bonus for articles edited from the GOCE requests page. Although we have cleared the backlog of 2009 articles there are still 3,935 articles needing copyediting and any help, no matter how small, would be appreciated. We are appealing to all GOCE members, and any other editors who wish to participate, to come and help us reduce the number of articles needing copyediting, as well as the backlog of requests. If you have not signed up yet, why not take a look at the current signatories and help us by adding your name and copyediting a few articles. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". >>> Sign-up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

• News and notes: Picture of the Year 2010; data challenge; brief news

• In the news: WikiLove roll-out; €25,000 in damages for being removed from Wikipedia; brief news

• WikiProject report: The Star-Spangled WikiProject

• Featured content: Two newly promoted portals

• Arbitration report: Arb resigns while mailing list leaks continue; Motion re: admin

• Technology report: June report: Virginia datacenter, parser, user profiles; WikiLove 1.0; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

• From the editor: Stepping down

• Higher education summit: Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit recap

• News and notes: Wikipedians' surfing habits explored, Sloan Foundation renews $3M grant

• In the news: Britannica and Wikipedia compared; Putin award criticized; possible journalistic sockpuppeting

• WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Albums

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Tree shaping case comes to a close

• Technology report: WMF works on its release strategy; secure server problems

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"

The proper procedure to follow is outlined in WP:DRNC Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". thank you. BETA 11:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

That's just an essay. I believe the proper link to follow here is WP:BRD. You've boldly readded the text, it's been removed, now discussion should take place before it is readded. Dayewalker (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Also an essay, by the way. And your editing looks more like WP:BRDWRONG to me. BETA 19:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Have fun with all that. Dayewalker (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Grant Morrison photo

Hi. Your opinion on what would be the best photo for the Infobox in the Grant Morrison article is requested here. If you could take the time to participate, it would be greatly appreciated, but if you cannot, then disregard; you don't have to leave a note on my talk page either way. Nightscream (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

why did you remove my wiki edit? i will keep posting it untill one of us gibes. the info i added was important to the topic. only allowing one sided views for people to read without reasoning as to why the original article is not well rounded is called what? being a nazi of course, which is what the article is about. please do not remove the edit, it is important info. mike godwin doesn't even deserve a page for godwins law. there's no reasoning behind the behaviour of his law. all he did was notice what people do and stated it as fact. let's ask the entire line of questioning.. who, what, when, where, how, and why. he only stated one of those, not all. if you are intent on edeting out my info, then please tell me how i can make a counter page to that very narrow idea and link it to the idea itself.. let's not all live in a nazi world man

Kakeroo (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kitten! Information on Wikipedia must be backed by reliable secondary sources, not just personal experiences and opinions. Your examples, while possibly helpful, were removed because they were just your opinion and not necessarily encyclopedic information on the topic. If you feel the page doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia, you can always see if it can be deleted. Good luck in the future! Dayewalker (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Tiresome sock puppetry vandalism on Clan of Xymox page

So many editors, including yourself, are patiently reverting the sockpuppeters vandalism on the Clan of Xymox page. This has been going on since April already, when the page was first re-unprotected after the multiple-sock puppetry attacks of knowitallfortoday. Isn't it time to re-protect the page instead of having to revert the same vandalism every few days while the (very mobile/ traveling) puppeter keeps at the same old thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.58.157 (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian RfA

Hello! It seems you've made a neutral !vote at this RfA. However, it may be mistake, as it doesn't seem to talk about Qwyrxian. Was it a mistake, or should it be there? HeyMid (contribs) 09:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. Accidental commenting on my part, looks like someone fixed it for me. Thanks for letting me know! Dayewalker (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your support
	Thank you very much for your support on my RfA, as well as your help dealing with the excessive drama brought on by the canvassing. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, congratulations on getting the bit. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Request For Arbitration

This is to notify you that a request for arbitration has been made regarding Barbara Boxer. Please see the Case File if you wish to leave a comment. --BETA 14:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

My Edits

My edits are factual. Please stop erasing them. Thank you. The Uber Mensch (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reported you at AIV, have fun with whatever you'll be doing for the rest of the night. Dayewalker (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody cares! You lose! The Uber Mensch (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

He said, as he was indef blocked. Dayewalker (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You are not helping me, you just make it a worst

You are not really helping because you disrespect me like Edward by placing the comments under photographes area after I posted instruction to tell users to place comments in Comments area so I guess you are not doing a very job because you made me more anger. Encyclopedia supposed to be reading, not being playing. I am not appericating that you disrespect me like him. I am not liking any Wikipedians who have no common senses and intelligence. Culby (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I've left you a message on your talk page in what I think is the right place, it's very hard to dsicern where exactly you want comments. When you hit "leave a new message" on your page, that's where it puts it. In any case, personal attacks are not permitted. Dayewalker (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I read your message and I response that there is no "leave a new message" on my page because I cannot see that in anywhere; however, I will put Comments area under Photographes area to avoid same mistakes that we did so it will be better than this. Agreed as a solution? For the case, what I caused is a mistake as I knew the policy. Being a deaf person is hard for me and self so I hope you understand. Let me know. Thanks. Sorry. Culby (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Bentheadvocate

You forgot to sign your comment here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

re: WP:AN3#User:InExcelsisDeo reported by User:Dayewalker (Result:Page protected 2 days)

It has been closed at this point and a not left on InExcelsisDeo's talk page.

- J Greb (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That's probably best. The edit warring board is always more trafficked than the page protection board, so I just went there. I'm completely fine with the page protection though, hopefully that'll clue the new editor in and this will all be settled calmly. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

W.V. Grant

I think you should look up the rules again. There was a flag on the article stating it was one sided. 2. I stated it was something I saw as an eyewitness which is allowed. Same thing as you need to take the picture your self, not someone elses. If you revert again, I will assume you just don't believe and are interfering with a balance view on the article. Please don't do do thing unless you quote a specific rule back to me and show me a reference. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akc9000 (talk • contribs)

Responding on your talk page, we can just keep the discussion there. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

PS

I need to ask out of my own curiosity. Do you have something personal against this man. It looks like you spend a lot of time editing his article. I would just like to know what is up with the amount of time you seem to take supervising this specific article. If you don't mind me asking. I want to believe you do not have something personal against this person but I need to ask because I see the time you spend on it.

As for me, I just went to a service and saw a miracle and wanted to talk about it. My motivation is simple, I love to talk about the things God does.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't. If you'll look at my edits, all of them are made to improve Wikipedia according to it's own policies. This article has been the subject of a lot of problems over the last couple of years. A lot of single-purpose accounts and IPs have popped onto the page, deleted sourced material painting the subject in a negative light, and then vanished. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not just a place to promote subjects.

My own beliefs and feelings are mine, and no offense, but no business of yours or anyone else's on Wikipedia. I don't edit according to my personal feelings. I've cleaned up articles on topics I love, and also which I find abhorrent. That's what everyone should be doing here.

I'm sure you think you saw a miracle. Until that miracle occurs and is covered by a reliable secondary source, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I'll put it this way, if someone came to Wikipedia and posted on that page that the subject promised to heal them, but actually just took their money and never helped, you certainly wouldn't want that splashed on the page. That's why Wikipedia requires it's material to be sourced to reliable secondary sources. Otherwise, anyone could write anything. Dayewalker (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank You. I was not aware there was a problem. I totally agree with you actually that your beliefs as well as my own should not play a role but I felt I had to ask and I appreciate the response.

So if we hold to wiki's rule that you quote, (just for my future reference, not that I want to labor this issue any longer) If I saw person x healed of something, would doctor's records of before and after suffice? What I saw, was amazing, a burn victim whose flesh was damaged on her legs to the point that the muscles and flesh were basically missing, restored. I was about two feet away, when he began to pray, I bent over and stared at her legs and I saw her legs reform flesh. I also saw a women with tumors all over her stomach disappear. It would be impossible for it to be deception, I was too close, I was just about as close as he was when he prayed for these people. I never saw anything like it, I was amazed. I saw lots of things in my 52 years that could have been faked but this would be impossible. I know, not being there, you will think I was crazy or it was a trick or something, but I am 100 percent sure there is no way it could have been "fixed". It was truly the power of Jesus, there is no other explanation and because I was so awestruck, I wanted to include it. That's all.

It was something to see. I have no idea what this guy WV Grant did in the past, I just know what I saw.

Thanks and take care...

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 03:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

If a "healing" was covered by a reliable secondary source, it would be fair game. Otherwise, it's just your personal account of what happened. Showing medical records and trying to prove that a person was healed is synthesis of sources, which basically means taking some circumstances and drawing a conclusion from them not supported by secondary sources. Dayewalker (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Rcruz15

Those changes that were added to the Kansas State University page were approved by members of the K-State athletic department. The University President wanted changes to be made to that page specifically and not to the Kansas State Wildcats page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcruz15 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the K-State athletic department has no authority here at Wikipedia. If you're editing on their behalf, you probably should read up on Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here or on your talk page, and I'll try my best to help. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Allrovi

Per User talk:71.125.131.122, I already did bring it up on the talk page. There was no response, so I assumed the community agreed with me per WP:SILENCE, despite the recent changes patrols who tend to revert every anon edit. 71.125.131.122 (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I see. I'll comment there. Dayewalker (talk) 03:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. 71.125.131.122 (talk) 03:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hitler Forest?

Made me smile, and I don't get much smiling from WP. Perhaps I can find a Barnstar for that. Regards, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, GL. I appreciate the comment. I always reference Hitler when I talk about Hell, it's really one of the only things everybody seems to agree on. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

BB13

Buster7 has given you some Nice Koekjes which promote fellowship, goodwill and WikiLove. Hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the good flavor of Nice Koekjes around Wiki World by giving someone else one. Maybe to a friend or, better yet, to someone you have had disagreements with in the past. Nice Koekjes are very tasty and have been known to calm even the most savage beast. Enjoy!

If these 'koekjes' were in the BB house, I'm sure Rachel would eat them all!...B7..Buster Seven Talk 18:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hah! If she could get them away from Kalia, she would. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I need your opinion

Hi. I have a question for which I need objective opinions. Can you offer your viewpoint here? I really need it in order to proceed. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem

I understand your concern — about my being a blocked editor. Feel free to have an administrator block my IP immediately. It's no big deal.108.52.30.154 (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Peck

I put my reasons for removing Peck entry in Discussion section. You didn't see it? Zakor55 (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw it, I commented on the talk page. Wikipedia is run based on reliable sources, and you're deleting two of them in that paragraph. If you disagree, please provide sources stating why. We can't just take your word for it. Dayewalker (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Raoul Peck

Wiki editor Dayewalker repeatedly reverts factually incorrect information about this entry and then blocks out/deletes relevant links on the discussion page. Why is this?

Briefly:

Article currently states:

"Raoul Peck served as a Haitian Minister of Culture under President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, but later became disillusioned of Haitian leftist politics and frequently criticized the former Haitian leader. [4] [5]"

This is factually incorrect on two counts. Peck served as Minister of Culture in the Haitian government of René Préval from March, 1996 until October, 1997. This is attested to by both this article from Haiti Democracy Project Director James R. Morrell - http://www.haitipolicy.org/archives/Publications%26Commentary/peck.htm - this article from Haiti Libre http://www.haitilibre.com/en/news-1178-haiti-social-raoul-peck-is-pessimistic-for-the-future.html and and by Peck's own autobiography, Monsieur Le Ministre.

Aristide's first term of office ended on 7 February 1996. The so-called reliable sources Dayewalker cites nowhere claim Peck was Minister for Aristide! Did he even bother to read them before restoring the inaccurate entry? He must now admit that he did not.

Why does Dayewalker repeatedly insert factually incorrect material as saying that Peck was a Minister in Aristide's government and then blocks/deletes the links that prove otherwise. Does he care to explain himself here?

Also, the statement that " became disillusioned of Haitian leftist politics" is completely untrue as Peck himself is more or less a Marxist (see his film Profit and Nothing But!). HaitiObserver (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

BLPN - Raoul Peck

• - Wikipedia:Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard#Raoul_Peck - Hi, you have been mentioned in this report, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up Rob, I've commented there. It's a sock. Dayewalker (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, cool, it looked like nothing much worth looking at, no worries. I also sometimes see the first question as not, what is this about, but, who is the reporter. Off2riorob (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

• From the editor: Changes to The Signpost

• News and notes: Ushahidi research tool announced, Citizendium five years on: success or failure?, and Wikimedia DC officially recognised

• In the news: Wikipedia: yesterday's news? Calls for women, doctors, and scholars of humanities; Wales makes Wikimedia work "look easy"

• Sister projects: On the Wikinews fork

• WikiProject report: Back to school

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: ArbCom narrowly rejects application to open new case

• Technology report: MediaWiki 1.18 deployment begins, the alleged "injustice" of WMF engineering policy, and Wikimedians warned of imminent fix to magic word

• Popular pages: Article stats for the English Wikipedia in the last year

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique is taking this personally.

If you check "The Finale (Seinfeld episode)" discussion page, he's really taking it personally. He's fighting to have the dialogue "Jerry, I've always" included, I'm trying to say "let's right it another way without using the line". I can't seem to break the deadlocked. Well, after learning what's consensus and critera from Seinfeld discussion page, I'm worried he might go over the line. Basically he's just saying "readers need to know as the plane went down, Elaine is meant to say "Jerry, I've always loved you" then near the end of the verdict, it's "Jerry, I've always loved United Airlines" as a joke. As a last resort, I'll ask you to get the dispute resolution going if he continues to press on like it's so important as there is a downside to this.

Thanks. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You both seem to be taking this personally, actually. That's why no other editor seems to be chiming in to help either side. A trivial matter isn't worth this much argument, especially if it's going to turn personal. I'd suggest you file an request for comment on the matter, and get more opinions on the matter. Dayewalker (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011

• Opinion essay: The global mission, the image filter and the "German question"

• Recent research: Top female Wikipedians, reverted newbies, link spam, social influence on admin votes, Wikipedians' weekends, WikiSym previews

• News and notes: WMF strikes down enwiki consensus, academic journal partnerships, and eyebrows raised over minors editing porn-related content

• In the news: Sockpuppeting journalist recants, search dominance threatened, new novels replete with Wikipedia references

• WikiProject report: A project in overdrive: WikiProject Automobiles

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: "Broadly construed" explained, voting begins on Senkaku Islands case, invitation to comment on CU/OS candidates

• Technology report: 1.18 deployment on track, "mythical" Git migration scheduled, editor decline statistics improved

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

A serbian film

Dear Daye, several days ago I attempted to engage with you concerning the aformentioned article, even providing you with a timeframe and inviting you to contact. You choose not to respond, but instead removed my message from this page with no comment, or imput on the article or more solid reasons for your edit. I took this as a clear sign that you did not wish to discuss the issue, and had moved on.

Instead you blindly revedited my forewarned action in a unilateral, and subjective fashion after failing to take advantage the opportunity to discuss and reach a consensus together within a generous timeframe.

As I told you I would, after time expired I replaced the review. Then you revedited it with no contact to me, attaching a sarcastic and personal view origined comment/argument that had no place on the history page. If that was your argument, it should have been made on your talk page, or my talk page or the article discussion. If you remove again it without a attempt to reach consensus and engage in discussion, you will run the risk of being reported for edit-warring and possilbly getting a temporary block. I know I dont have to tell you the rules.

Please understand, I have a tremendous respect for the amount of work you do for wiki, but that work does not provide you with free license to ignore the guidelines of good faith editing, consensus, and discussion. Not to mention civil behavior. Please take this as a opportunity lift your game to a even higher level. If this type of Arbitrary behavior was not out of character for you I would not have reached out in the first place.

If you cannot see this in the constructive light that it is offered, perhaps we might need to engage other editors or senior editors to maintain a civil and positive discourse.

Hope we can clear this up, and look forward to hearing from you.BespokeFM (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I started a conversation on the article's talk page, which is where any discussion should take place. Another editor has also reverted your addition. Please make any relevant comments there. Dayewalker (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

invitation

Hello, this is a invitation visit my talk page. I think that there is a lot that we could discuss concerning edits, content and philosphy.

As my page has much, much, much smaller traffic then yours, I think that might allow each of us the chance to speak frankly on these subjects without making a more public spectacle.

I hope you will accept, all the best!BespokeFM (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the invitation, but I will have to decline. Thank you for the thought though, and good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

• Opinion essay: The conservatism of Wikimedians

• News and notes: Largest ever donation to WMF, final findings of editor survey released, 'Terms of use' heavily revised

• In the news: Uproar over Italian shutdown, the varying reception of BLP mischief, and Wikipedia's doctor-evangelist

• WikiProject report: The World's Oldest People

• Featured content: The weird and the disgusting

• Arbitration report: Senkaku Islands closes; administrators authorized to place articles on discretionary sanctions

• Technology report: 1.18 deployment and HTTPS switchover completed, but developer help now needed with new projects

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Escitalopram Edits

Please revert your undo, and discuss this issue on OhNoitsJamie's Talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhproofer (talk • contribs) 04:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Why would I revert my edit? Incidentally, the place for you to make a discussion about your proposed addition to the article is on the talk page for the article, not on another editor's page. Although you can get advice and discussion about your edits from another editor, you can't get consensus on an article there. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Kumkwat. I think that about sums it up. :) Srobak (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

• News and notes: Arabic Wikipedia gets video intros, Smithsonian gifts images, and WikiProject Conservatism scrutinized

• In the news: Why Wikipedia survives while others haven't; Wikipedia as an emerging social model; Jimbo speaks out

• WikiProject report: History in your neighborhood: WikiProject NRHP

• Featured content: Brazil's boom-time dreams of naval power: The ed17 explains the background to a new featured topic

• Arbitration report: Case requests on ethnic strife and a WikiProject declined, Abortion case stalls but topic bans look to be lightened on amendment

• Technology report: WMDE renew investment in Toolserver, first offsite backup programme of Wikimedia begun

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Religious Persecution Template

It is obvious by the lack of information avaliable about religious persecution and the fact that it dosn't have its own article as opposed to be a part of a larger article that it is not notable. This does not mean that discrimination and/or persecution againist african traditional religions dosn't exist but in the same way I don't see other native tribes on their ex. persecution of native american or aboriginal faiths. I do however welcome you to expand it. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not at the level of other religions, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't still exist in the template. If you'd like further opinions on this one, I'd suggest making a post on the talk page of that template. Dayewalker (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Romance Film

I am going to assume good faith and come to the conclusion that you havn't looked at much of the history for the page of "Romance film". I have tried to add it into its own subsection but it has been taken down over and over again. I added it in the lead section because of the fact the other person said it didn't fit as a subgenre. There are several really great LGBT romance films. http://reviewfix.com/2011/01/our-ten-best-gay-romance-films/ http://www.amazon.com/2011-Best-Gay-Romance-Movie/lm/R2K5Y7YLZCYR1L http://listverse.com/2008/07/22/top-11-great-gay-interest-movies/ http://www.blockbuster.com/browse/collections/gayAndLesbian/gLRomance Do I need any more lists? Most (of course not all) LGBT films involve some form of romance between the characters. Now if you want me to rephrase it then fine but my point is that not all romance is between heterosexual or cisgender people. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The lede should be a quick summary of the article, so if there's no information in the body of the article, it definitely shouldn't be in the lede. And the last time information was removed from the body of the article, you were the one who removed it. Other editors have given you good faith advice about adding material to that article, please take that into consideration. Dayewalker (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Is Leah Remini overlinked?

Hello. I read WP:OVERLINKING. I dont feel Leah Remini is overlinked. The words that are linked are relevant as they are her most famouse roles and characters. The linked terms do not make the article hard to read. The linked words are apart from one another, some are in the intro, early section, career sectin.
Carrie Heffernan is in the article 2x.
Doug Heffernan is the article 2x.
The King Of Queens is in the article 5x(not including filmography table) and it is clickable 4x.
So I dont think that Saved by the Bell in the intro & early life sections is overlinking. It is just 2x in the whole entire article.
I think once mention per section is fair, how about you?
Also, why is Monica Gellar linked when this is the wiki article about Leah Remini? Those links should be delinked. 173.79.59.83 (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If you think once per section is fair, then I question if you have actually read WP:OVERLINK, as your concern/comment is addressed in there. Perhaps you should discuss it in the Overlink talk page instead of multiple, individual user pages. You should certainly do this if you decide to move forward and try change/impact the overlink policy. Ramming it down the throats of articles is not going to achieve this. Srobak (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Both of you, this isn't worth edit warring over. Dayewalker (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

my talk page

Hi - please do not revert my closures on my talkpage , thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You closed things right in the middle of our discussion, making a statement and then refusing to give me a chance to answer. In fact, you called my apology "vandalism." [24]

I tried to talk to you, Rob. You don't want to talk on your talk page, that's fine. It seems like you're just getting angry at my good faith attempts to talk to you, so I doubt anything else will come of a discussion between the two of us. Sorry to upset you, as I really tried to get you to understand my point. Dayewalker (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

false representation of my position

Hi - pl;ease don't misrepresent me - "- When the admin understandably took offense Rob became upset " - this is false and please do not replace it -

Change your own comments if you object but please do not falsely portray my position -

Off2riorob (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No, there's plenty of links there to show your actions. Feel free to give your own side of your story, but do not alter my comments again. Dayewalker (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Lighten up, O2RRob. I've seen these "mini-meltdowns" before, and they are not representative of your larger contributions here. I'm not going to dig, but I distinctly remember you once being of the opinion that the encyclopedia was "already written", and received a deluge of scorn for it. FWIW: I have always felt that "cleansing" one's talk page in order to get the "last word" is not conducive to proper interaction between good faith editors. But that's just me. Doc talk 03:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

RfA

Going through an RfA can be stressful, especially when people start asking loads of questions. So I want to apologise for adding to your burden by asking question number 15! I have no doubt that you are a well meaning Wikpedian who is doing good work. My concern is your lack of clarity regarding the content adding issue. I suspect this is due to the stress of the situation, and that you are being pushed on the question, so are struggling to make your views known.

Over the years quality content creation has become an important element of consideration in an RfA. However, people who have added little or no content have still gone on to become admins. People look at the strengths of a candidate. You highlight your strengths for people, and are honest about your weaknesses. A fully rounded candidate is rare, and they tend to become admins with no opposes. Almost everyone else gets opposes for some weakness or other. If the weakness are many, or are serious, then the opposes will outweigh the supports. But if the weaknesses are few, not serious, or the candidate can show awareness of their weakness and give a strategy for how to deal with it, then the supports tend to carry the day.

Content addition is not your strength. I think you need to be honest and open about that, and either say that you have no interest in content addition because your skill set is in vandal fighting, or that you are aware that content addition is not your strength, but you plan to do something about it, such as creating a new article and getting a WP:DYK, or working on an article to get it listed as a Good Article.

As you have an interest in Boston Celtics, take a look at Boston Celtics all-time roster. There are some red links there. You could start articles on one or more of those players. Such as Don Eliason. Use info from here, here, here, and the books here. If you need any help, please let me know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

SilkTork, I really appreciate you coming here. I do feel like I've gotten twisted up in my answers to questions (although I certainly don't mind you adding another one!) and I haven't been clear. I'm headed out to work today and won't be back until late tonight, but I'll try and clear things up when I return. In your opinion, where would be the best place in the RfA to make that clarification? My editing record is what it is, and I'm proud of it. If people are looking for great content creation, that's not what I volunteer my time here doing, and I don't want anyone to be misled about that. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedians love an editor who recognises they have made a mistake, learns from the experience, and does something about it. You could turn your RfA around by admitting you haven't been clear. An honest explanation (what ever that is - that you were afraid that you would get more oppose votes if you admitted you had done no content work, that you were embarrassed, that you felt under pressure....) would serve you well. You could answer my question and say something like: "I am aware I have not been as clear as I could be about my content creation. Let me be clear now - I have added [nothing/this and this]. My skills and interest on Wikipedia is mainly vandal fighting, and [whatever else it is]. I understand from the comments that people are making that it is seen as important that an admin also has some understanding of content creation, as such I plan on taking steps to create articles, and to work on improving existing articles. I apologise if I have misled or confused anyone, this was the result of me being [concerned/embarrassed/under pressure]. I have learned from the experience and will now move forward."

Use your own words. And be as honest and thoughtful as you can. I suggest you write out a draft first, and perhaps get someone else to look at it before posting. You have time as the RfA is in its early stages and nothing is decided yet, but don't hang around too long because if it starts to go further downhill it will be harder to rescue. Good luck! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• I would echo this advice. I want to be clear that I am not opposing for lack of content work but for the apparent lack of clarity regarding such. On the first topic editors who add content need to feel that you would be sympathetic to the amount of hard work involved, and on the second, I think people need a clear statement of what happened in your nomination where you appear to claim work on articles that it is not apparent that you have done. Good luck. --John (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments, guys. I've got a brief break in between work, I'm working on a rough draft at User talk:Dayewalker/RFA, if I can get it finished before heading back down, please feel free to take a look at it and tell me if you think I'm putting things in the right way, where I'm explaining things adequately. When it's finished and evaluated, I'll move it over. Thanks in advance for your help! Dayewalker (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Dayewalker, you're a well-meaning, hard-working editor, and I really want to support your RfA, but your answers to the optional questions are frustrating me greatly. You keep either hinting or outright stating that you have some content creation experience (e.g. "I can add content, and have done so in the past on occasion" in your answer to question 15) but you won't tell us what it is! You've gotten at least three questions asking you this directly (not counting question 2) and you still won't tell us! SilkTork above even suggested the exact words you could use: "I have added (fill in the blank)" and still, you say you've added content, but you won't fill in that blank. I apologize for intruding on your talk page like this, but as I say, I speak from the perspective of an editor who wants to support you, but is currently not being given enough information to do so. 28bytes (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

28bytes, thanks for dropping by. Sorry about that. It seems the more I try and clarify, the muddier I make things. I've changed my comment. At this point, I feel pretty certain if I go back and look for some content I've added, all that will do is give my detractors a chance to dig up a few hundred edits where I didn't add any content. I'm trying to be honest about my work here. Any diff I bring up isn't going to impress anyone at this point, I'm afraid. Dayewalker (talk) 05:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Once you're "in" it's very easy to dictate/opine on what you consider to be admin-worthy qualities. Incredibly easy. RfA is a cliquey joke; and while WP sheds new editors constantly, new admins who could actually protect the project get shunned because they haven't written enough articles about pedestrian bridges somewhere in Europe. You never should have accepted the nom, Dayewalker - sorry to say. Doc talk 07:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the comment, Doc. I've enjoyed my time here, I really have. After three years of working within policy and seeing people complain that there aren't enough admins active in certain areas, I was just offering to help. Dayewalker (talk) 07:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You're in a more elite group than admins, possibly: "lifer non-commisioned officers". I can think of a couple of similar editors that vehemently oppose your adminship right now that are in a similar situation ;> Doc talk 07:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't say their names, Doc. When you do, they tend to show up. They're like Beetlejuice. Dayewalker (talk) 07:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I won't. Of course, you could Rollback if I did that, as you already have that userright. Not everyone can; but what's a tool for anyway? Doc talk 09:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• • I liked what you wrote, and I liked your contributions (I scanned through your last thousand). Like me, you spend a lot of time trimming extraneous stuff out of articles and reverting vandalism. Nothing wrong with that. You also make positive contributions at admin notice boards. I wish you had some solid content under your belt, but most of all I wish you could show evidence of having really thought through what your own strengths and weaknesses as an editor are. I think (and pardon me for sounding pompous) that this is the sort of self-reflection that people are looking for in a prospective admin. --John (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the change in your vote, John. I honestly didn't think my weakness would be that overwhelming, but I guess I underestimated it. I didn't react well to the initial questions, either, although some of those oppose votes I was never going to win over. Dayewalker (talk) 07:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

(←) Hi, Dayewalker. I've been watching the opposes pile up with sadness. There's 4 days left and it's probably still too early to tell, but if the negative trend continues, you may want to start to consider withdrawing. I think you're prime adminship material, but the RfA community has a knack for latching onto certain issues, as you can see. If your RfA isn't successful, don't take it personally. Many of our best admins failed their first RfA. Just take the opposers seriously. Cut back on your involvement on the "dramaboards". It's ironic, but ANI involvement is typically a bane to RfA candidates. Get some content experience under your belt— get involved with GA or FA or heck, just create some decent articles. I just went through an RfA and I'd only created a single start-class article. Not a single oppose. Lastly, anticipate potential questions, and take as long as you need to think about them so you can give the best possible answer. There were quite a few in my RfA where I read the question, and slept on it, or thought it through for a day before answering it. Do this, and I think you'll easily pass an RfA in six months or so. I'll even co-nom. :) Sorry if this is something of a defeatist comment— this advice is certainly better suited for someone whose RfA has already been closed, but this was on my mind now and I didn't want to forget. Best regards, Swarm ^X11|11|11 01:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Swarm, I appreciate you coming by. Yes, I think withdrawing is probably the best idea. Even my last attempt to explain things was misunderstood, so it's probably best I bring this to a close. Do I need to make an official statement on the page to withdraw, or will this suffice, and you can close it for me? Just let me know. Thanks for the kind words above. Dayewalker (talk) 07:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll close it for you shortly. Probably a good decision at this time, and should hopefully put an end to the stress this is likely causing you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Gracias, Martin. I appreciate it. Dayewalker (talk) 08:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a shame. I was going make my first RfA vote. I like how you want to guide new users who are well meaning but starting out on the wrong foot and would use admin tools only as a last resort. I think adding content is overrated, there's a lot of existing articles that need cleaning, fine tuning, old vandalism etc. Oh well - next time. SlightSmile 19:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind words, SS. Keep up the good work! Dayewalker (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about your RfA, but you know how it is around those parts. ResMar 02:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I certainly do now, yeah. Thanks for the kind words, Resident Mario, and I appreciate you taking down the RfA notice. I left my thoughts on the process here. Dayewalker (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I read this, and, well, hot damn, you are a writer. The toilet example in particular was funny as hell. Personally I know that no bit of magic short of a mass brain wipe would get me through an RfA with all my limbs attached. But RfA is really a stronghold of hipocracy; as precariously low as the active admin count will drop, status quo will be retained, which is quite unfortunate given how obviously dry the process is right now. ResMar 03:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Also I have no interest whatsoever in backlogs, drama, etcetera etcetera. I'm not a professional writer like you so no premeditated burnout =). ResMar 03:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Your RfA "essay", heh, was freakin' awesome. Best wishes to you. LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello

A few random, garbled thoughts from me:

1. Wikipedia needs all kinds of contributors
2. Gnomes and other non-content contributors can and do pass RfA
3. You usually seem to be level-headed and good admin material
4. Bureaucrats don't weigh all !votes equally
5. One of us crats should have gently but firmly stepped in regarding some of the behaviours at your RfA. As I was watching it, I hold myself responsible and apologise
6. I'm genuinely puzzled why you'd bother going through RfA if you were planning to leave here anyway
7. Leaving here now makes me challenge myself as to whether #3 above really is the case
8. IMHO there's not a lot you'd need to do differently to pass RfA next time

That's all for now. --Dweller (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the thoughts, Dweller. I've got to tell you though, they would have helped out a lot more if they had taken place 72 hours ago during the pile-on. The RfA seemed to be heading downhill, and I felt like I was being accused of all sorts of things. There seemed to be nothing else to be gained from it, other than giving problem editors a free chance to take shots at me.

There comes a time in every relationship when it must be taken to the next level. You can't date a woman for three years and never get to second base. No one should work at Walmart for three years and still be the "Hey, you want a buggy?" cretin at the front door. After three years here, I was beginning to wonder what I was accomplishing. I've tried very hard to help out, and I thought I had a good track record so I volunteered for extra responsibilities.

What I didn't volunteer for was personal attacks and comments, Dweller. Sorry, I just have no time for that. I'm looking at my paycheck stub right now, so I don't feel like having to prove I work as a writer to anyone, much less ill-meaning idiots who have trouble stringing a sentence together.

I understand that I screwed this one up, don't get me wrong. I should have been completely clear at the very beginning of this RfA that I haven't created any articles, and I don't intend to work on demand just to prove to total strangers I'm not lying about what I do for a living. I should never have mentioned anything about myself, especially what I do for a living since it was irrelevant to my editing. The more I tried to explain, the worse it got. I'm not blaming anyone for that confusion but me. However, the cheap-shot machine that is the RfA process is tiresome and unwarranted, and the fact it exists and is allowed is enough to turn me off to the process.

I do appreciate you coming by, though, and the kind words on my editing and admin possibilities. Hopefully something good will come of my RfA for the next guy, I guess. Dayewalker (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

So you deny that you want to block Jimbo and rangeblock Australia? SlightSmile 22:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

HAH! Okay, thatis something I should have definitely been clear about. No, I love Australia. If we were to range block Australia, the Colin Hay page would fall into disrepair. We can't have that. And I wouldn't block Jimbo. He seems to be a productive editor, although he could certainly do with a bit more content creation. Dayewalker (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"I can't put 'Wrote Wikipedia article on obscure college football player' on my resume and expect an employer to care, especially when the possibility is there anyone who goes to his article will see 'Mitch Morgan is made of poop' written in the lede." This is hilarious more than you even know :> Doc talk 04:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

When I was doing a sports radio show, on Monday I had a bit where I would read the WP article of football players who had screwed up the previous day, especially kickers. I'd read them dead-pan, just like Steve Allen used to do with rock lyrics. One of them was "Player's Name is poop, he is full of poop and poops himself." That always went over pretty well. Dayewalker (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like some good to come out of this. I'm going to have a think and might post a new section at WP:BN. But please don't be dismayed by the RfA. I've seen plenty of ultimately great admins fail first time, often because of the way they presented themselves at the RfA, rather than real concerns about their contributions to the project. --Dweller (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate that, Dweller. Heck, I already appreciate you just coming to my page to talk. Thanks for that. Let's just call this a Wikibreak for now, while I get other things in order. Dayewalker (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Also a tiny note from me to add a not-at-all-patronising thanks for your application and certainly a thanks for the 'essay' you've written. I was certainly surprised by the questioning and opinionating (is that a word?) in my first attempt at RFA. It didn't matter too much as I worked for a few months on the comments I got, tried again and all was good. Just another tiny nudge to encourage you hopefully. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Dayewalker, if Swarm wants to co-nom, I'll nominate - in six months time when you have written six lousy stubs that are little more than an infobox about an unknown reserve kicker in Goalpostistan. You've got mail. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank to you guys for the kind words. The Wikibreak is helping, to be honest. I've got a long weekend ahead of me (starting tonight, actually) but I'll start checking out the Goalpostistan Times-Herald for research material. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I get that, for most successful writers like yourself, it's difficult to write simultaneously to two completely different standards. Salman Rushdie often makes the point that he was frustrated as a writer until the point where he realized that, like every other writer, he was really only capable of doing one thing really well. OTOH ... I think there's a valid point lurking in the criticisms that you may want to consider, namely, that someone with your wide skillset could probably find a way to contribute to reviewing and/or writing that would be warmly received and would work for you. The main thing that went wrong in your RfA is that you wandered into the middle of a gunfight where both sides like to take potshots at anyone who looks like they might be on the wrong side. Sorry for your loss, and best of luck. (And a personal aside, if you develop an interest in history-related articles, I'll be happy to help.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment

This kind of retrospective analysis is another reason why I stand by my comment on your RfA that you'd be "huge net positive for Wikipedia" as an administrator. If you ever decide to run again, I'll be sure to support you. Good luck for now. :) Master&Expert (Talk) 11:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment. It is one of the better essays on RfA that I have seen. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind words, guys. If anyone would like to turn that into an essay, or anything else for that matter, feel free. You have my permission to quote me, or whatever works best. Dayewalker (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2011 Year-End Report We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2011. Read all about these in the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report. Highlights Membership grows to 764 editors, an increase of 261 Report on coordinators' elections Around 1,000 articles removed through six Backlog elimination drives Guild Plans for 2012 Requests page report Sign up for the January 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Get your copy of the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report here On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. We look forward to your support in 2012! – Your 2011 Coordinators: Diannaa (lead), The Utahraptor, and Slon02 and SMasters (emeritus).

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You almost won. Wrightwood906 (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

GOCE March copy edit drive

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their March 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate the remaining 2010 articles from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, Stfg, and Coordinator emeritus SMasters. 19:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC) >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

GOCE March drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive GOCE March 2012 Backlog Elimination progress graph Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! This is the most successful drive we have had for quite a while. Here is your end-of-drive wrap-up newsletter. Participation Of the 70 people who signed up for this drive, 40 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Special acknowledgement goes out to Lfstevens, who did over 200 articles, most of them in the last third of the drive, and topped all three leaderboard categories. You're a superstar! Stfg and others have been pre-checking the articles for quality and conformance to Wikipedia guidelines; some have been nominated for deletion or had some preliminary clean-up done to help make the copy-edit process more fun and appealing. Thanks to all who helped get those nasty last few articles out of the target months. Progress report During this drive we were successful in eliminating our target months—October, November, and December 2010—from the queue, and have now eliminated all the 2010 articles from our list. We were able to complete 500 articles this month! End-of-drive results and barnstar information can be found here. When working on the backlog, please keep in mind that there are options other than copy-editing available; some articles may be candidates for deletion, or may not be suitable for copy-editing at this time for other reasons. The {{GOCEreviewed}} tag can be placed on any article you find to be totally uneditable, and you can nominate for deletion any that you discover to be copyright violations or completely unintelligible. If you need help deciding what to do, please contact any of the coordinators. Thank you for participating in the March 2012 drive! All contributions are appreciated. Our next copy-edit drive will be in May. Your drive coordinators – Dianna (Talk), Stfg (Talk), and Dank (talk) To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. EdwardsBot (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Dayewalker. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

GOCE May copy edit drive

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their May 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate January, February, and March 2011 from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, and Stfg. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Help with edits

Hi there. I see you've left a note on User:Carthage44's talk page for things in the past. The Adam Dunn article has edit reverts accredited to said user. The user does not seem to discuss much or look to build consensus. A few of us were wondering if you might have any advice. We'd like to avoid blocking any one particular user but at the same time avoid what seems like ownership of a particular article by one contributor. There is vested interest in contributing to the article but I'm afraid some of the contributors may start to lose interest if all they encounter are edit wars. Any info. you could share or advice would be much appreciated. I'll check this page for updates. Zepppep (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

GOCE May mid-drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors May 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 49 people signed up for this drive so far, 26 have copy-edited at least one article. It's a smaller group than last drive, but we're making good progress. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: We're on track to meet our targets for the drive, largely due to the efforts of Lfstevens and the others on the leaderboard. Thanks to all. We have reduced our target group of articles—January, February, and March 2011—by over half, and it looks like we will achieve that goal. Good progress is being made on the overall backlog as well, with over 500 articles copy-edited during the drive so far. The total backlog currently sits at around 3200 articles. Hall of Fame: GOCE coordinator Diannaa was awarded a spot in the GOCE Hall of Fame this month! She has copy-edited over 1567 articles during these drives, and surpassed the 1,000,000-word mark on May 5. On to the second million! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa and Stfg >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Adele

Dear fellow wikipedia editor or administrator,

Greeting to you my fellow contributors and friends. I trust that you are all well and in good health and spirits.

I am a continued and consistent user of our open contributor forum. I have edited several articles and have worked with each of you in at least one or two instances. My most contentious edits and requests have been Jose Baez's birthplace and The Capeman BLP.

As you can see, I have continued to use my anonymous IP address in place of a regular user id or moniker. This is a personal choice and one that I most likely will continue.

My reason for contacting you is I request your assistance and input in relation to a BLP that I believe has the potential to continue to draw a very large number of readers and potential editors and others. The article in question is Adele, the singer. The article has many inconsistencies and errors contained within it. The article has been locked down and several edits reverted that have 1) validicity and potentially correct/new iinformation 2) Absolutely no talk page entries or discussion taking place whatsoever and when someone does use the talk page it is ignored or easily dismissed without a single opinion or answer to the person proposing the discussion.

I must state that I have personally not made one change to this article at all! I feel it is important to state I have no knowledge of this BLP subject whatsoever. In fact, I know nothing about her other than what is contained in the article itself. and the cited references contained within. My only contributions to anything regarding the subject is to the talk page for the article and a registered editor's user talk page.

My first entry was dated May 11, 2012 when I contributed to the talk page detailing specifically the inconsistencies within it and at the least opening a discussion and at the most requesting article editing. I also included one or two small constructive suggestions to hopefully clear some confusion I experienced in the article. No additional discussion by anyone was offered at all. (It was like I was the only one who knew that a talk page even existed). My next entries were 7 days later. and true to my mo, I become contentious and somewhat aggressive in an attempt to provoke any response whatsoever.

I am a constructive user and sometimes editor in subjects that I know are correct and I possess the knowledge and information to challenge constructively. I must apologize for my contentious tendencies and state once again I am nearly always a reasonable and fair person.

My problems with this article is outlined in the talk pages. The claim that the vandalism is persistent, I must question this as I see no persistance, nor a reason for an editor to assign a 4 month lockdown. Also, currently the last edit has reverted causing the removal of an inclusion that this artist is a pop artist when the article itself states this fact in a number of paragraphs and references within it.

I only request that you please offer a little time and review the article, talk page and recent edits and reverts. I would not ask this of you, if I did not know that this article was in need of such drastic assistance. In addition, due to the huge fame of this artist, I believe this article should really be helped by those I know are fair, just, caring and competent to the wiki community.

I have also requested the assistance in the wiki chat portal this morning outlining my concerns there as well. Unfortunately, I have much less confidence in that forum than I can say I do have in you all. The only response that I really received was nearly a dozen users immediately exited and left after stating the facts as I have here.

Any and all assistance and aid you may render, I am sure the wiki community will be the better for.

Best regards always.

Mark R (anonymous ip) 65.8.151.206 (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Mob Wars

Please advise me of how exactly any of this article can be sourced.... I have attempted to put in links but they all go thru Facebook.... which if you don't use it, you can't verify it.

I took out a lot of the needless "naming" of the families and just presented facts. I would imagine you are a player? If so, you already know all of this. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 20:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)