User talk:Dayewalker

Welcome to my page, and go Celtics! Leave a message for me below, and I'll respond on this page unless you ask otherwise.

Just so everyone will know, on June 29, 2008, I was given the Rollback tool by admin Kralizec! for help in vandal-fighting. I will also use this tool to revert, on sight, the edits of blocked wikipedia users. If you have a question about my use of rollback, it was probably in one of these situations. Any other questions, leave them here on my talk page. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are an IP and cannot post on this page, it has been semi-protected. Admins regularly semi-protect this page against IPs who come here to disrupt. Please leave a message on the talk page for the article you'd like to discuss. I'd suggest registering an account, it makes everything easier.

Thank you...

...for your kind words. We'll see how things go in a few months. You're right that some (somewhat over 50 percent) "get me", whereas the other group is "stuck" with me. >:) I was accused of not taking wikipedia or the nomination seriously. I didn't quite say this, but I hinted at it, a quote (as I recall it, anyway) from The Trouble With Tribbles, where the annoying space station manager Nilz Baris (William Schallert, an excellect character actor in his day) is accusing Kirk of not being serious about the quadro-triticale project. Kirk retorts to Baris that he takes the project very seriously, and that "It's you I do not take seriously!" Think that would have helped? Maybe not. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Our buddy's at it again...

You know who's back and he's a-trollin'. Check out my talk page edits. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 04:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for the revert [1]! --Kralizec! (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again [2]. My wife and I actually got to eat kangaroo while vacationing in Australia in 2002. It is actually a rather delicious red meat, especially when cooked medium rare and served with a fine merlot! --Kralizec! (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no problems. I took from the tone of his comment that it was probably one of those you wouldn't remind having removed. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again, sir [3]! Not sure which blocked user he was a sock of, but I see that he was blocked just four minutes after registering. — Kralizec! (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, anytime! Looks like somebody else smacked him with the banhammer after I reverted. Glad to help. Dayewalker (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

Impossible to get when you're trying to reason with rabid liberals.MrSpammy (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

We tried to talk to you, but now you've been reported to the edit war board. So long. Dayewalker (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Back at it

I took a little vacation from editing. I'm leaving the "retired" up for another day or two for reasons I'll explain later. :) I'm also going to temporarily roll back your nice note. Don't take offense. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No problems, I know how that kind of thing goes. WP:BEANS, and all that. Dayewalker (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI

A matter you have been involved with is under discussion here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey. (forgot to post new section)

Under your definition I can't tell people about who or what is happening to me? I did not personally attack anyone in my "manifesto" and like I said someone who was being really uptight with me I called juvenile and that was the "personal attack". Listen, I get the language police thing, even though I have been called practically every name in the book yet I have never tried to block people for saying, as wikidemon just did, that I "am ridiculous (which is tame compared to other comments) That comment, would have got me blocked if I had said it to wikidemon. But, I get that now and I understand they are waiting for me to react so that they can block me for calling their actions "juvenile" or what have you. However, I was not using my talk page to attack people I was explaining my situation and i was blocked not for personal attacks but for a "rant". Also, look at my current photo agenda discussion section at Obama. that was just closed off and labeled a rant. I can't very well move on when it is still occurring. JohnHistory (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

You can try and make your case, but you have to realize that when people take the time to look at your block history and the circumstances around it, they may not agree with you. The best thing to do is just to forget about the past and try and get along with everyone in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Siena College, again

Hey Dayewalker, just a heads up that the edit-warring might kick off again at Siena College - do you have any suggestions on how to calm things down? --hippo43 (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

HI

Just saying HI to all of you FireFoxUser2343 (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

WTF?

why did you revert my removal of biased unreliablie info on Sean Hannity? That shit was sourced by unreliable information? The Red Peacock (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the information was properly sourced and unbiased. If you have a problem with it, I'd suggest bringing up a discussion on the talk page. Probably it would be better if you didn't start the discussion with "WTF?" also. Dayewalker (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Yahoo!

March 30, 2009 was NOT Tuesday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Optfx (talk • contribs) 00:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha-HA. Dayewalker (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

For users unable to retrieve their invaluable files it is not so funny.--79.226.56.248 (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

My sarcastic comment was not directed at anyone who lost files, rather it was at the above user's sidestep of the initial points. Dayewalker (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Initial points? The only dispute is about Yahoo! Briefcase being closed 1 day earlier. "After this date [Tuesday, March 30, 2009], you will be unable to access Yahoo! Briefcase." That is pretty misleading announcement.--Optfx (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC) http://help.yahoo.com/l/uk/yahoo/briefcase/closing/eol01.html --Optfx (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As you've been informed before, wikipedia is based on material verified by reliable secondary sources. Your paragraph was not, and was removed by several editors. The source you're using simply states the day the service was to end, and that there appears to be an error on the day of the week specified. That doesn't mean anything untoward happened, that has to be proved through proper sources. Please discuss the changes on the talk pages and try and gain consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The source I am using is the service provider, and that should be the most proper source, rather than source of misleading announcements. On the internet you will find dozens of complaints by affected users. --Optfx (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand sourcing. Please check out WP:RS for details on what constitutes a reliable source, and how to properly source something on wikipedia. If you have any complaints from affected users that have been covered by reliable sources, please bring them up. Dayewalker (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I am convinced it needs no further proof that the quote is "false or misleading representation about goods or services". --Optfx (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course you're convinced. Wikipedia, however, has standards. I've reported you to the edit war board, hopefully they'll be able to show you that wikipedia has ways that things are done to establish verifiability. Dayewalker (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Why?

why was I blocked, I DIDN'T DO ANY THING WRONG?! I read the rules and noting in them say I can get to know every one. I just tried to make some friends and then i am grated whit a ban. I was told Wikipedia users were nice be from what I have seen that is beginning to appear to be a lie a blatant lie! SO GOOD BYE WIKIPEDIA JURKS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by FireFoxUser2343 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Adios. Fare thee well. Dayewalker (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Planecrash111

NO! I wasn't talking to you there..i was talking to randomguy. I didn't even do play by play. I added the stats after he was taken out of the ballgame which isn't play by play. Wikipedia was acting up before that.(Planecrash111 (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Regardless, the stats aren't official. I've responded on your talk page, and at ANI. Dayewalker (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The sites don't edit it until the end day so we simply add his original strikeout total with the amount that he got during the game...its not hard.(Planecrash111 (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

It's original research, and there's no reason to do it. Wikipedia is not in any hurry, it's better to wait for reliable sources to get the information correct. Dayewalker (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

MLB.com updates after game completion... Player pages are linked at the bottom of every wiki page. If only Planecrash would bother to double check it first and realize his math is almost always wrong.... And it would be nice if he could update all of the stats in the infobox... and the current up-to-date date. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

I was simply trying to clarify the points on the page, not argue. I must plead ignorance of how the procedure works. Why should I be blocked for a 3RR violation I did not commit? Thank you. Fletch81 (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

An admin will investigate the situation and determine if one or both parties were edit warring. If you'd like to make a short rebuttal on the page, that's understandable, but trust me, admins really don't care too much for it when a dispute spills over onto their page. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies aside, I think it's pretty obvious you broke the spirit of the rule with your reverts, and you are edit warring as much as you claim I am. Does that help explain things? ViperNerd (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy

I don't see why not. I've re-added speedy tags before. But seriously, it's a blatant hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Syed Ahmed

WP:BITE Your edit to Syed Ahmed's profile is under dispute resolution. Please would you confine comments to discussion, talk or relevant forums until the matter is resolved? I believe wiki policy is clear on the issue of questionable sources and defamatory material. I do not want an edit war, but please note that 3RR does not apply in this case. Thank you. Amicaveritas (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere where it is under dispute resulution, nor do I see where 3RR would not apply in this case. You have posted nothing on the talk page of the article in regards to this particular piece of information. Dayewalker (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There are many posts in many places. I have no idea how to consolidate them effectively or where would be best to, for that matter.

It's my understanding DR - perhaps I need to tag everything relating to it? I only started using WP yesterday so please excuse me if I haven't got this completely right

I've now opened a

mediation request: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-04/Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard

I've raised an editor support request and posted in the relevant forum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Syed_Ahmed

3RR does not apply to defamatory comments made in the biographies of living persons. See "Reverting the addition of libellous, biased, un-sourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." within WP:Three-revert ruleThanks.Amicaveritas (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Rv

The reason for reversion on WP:WQA is given here: [4]. Not sure which is correct...Soxwon (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The explanation should have been given before the action, that would have made much more sense. It doesn't do you any harm to post it at WQA, but now seeing where you are, NCM is right, it might not be much help, either. Probably the best place to post for admin attention would be at WP:ANI.

I won't delete your WQA posting, but if you want to, you can go right ahead. If you have any further questions, just drop me a line. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

In b/w the time of this message and the edits in question, I made a few edits I'm not proud of. Nothing bad, just reeking in rant and not really constructive. Though I'll take it to AN/I, I may have just hurt my own case. :( Soxwon (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Dayewalker, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Instructions_for_users_posting_alerts prior to making thoughtless and ill-considered edits at that venue in the future. If an edit is being reverted without explanation (which was my doing here), then the very least an editor is expected to do is check the notable affected locations - aka talk page of user who has been reverted, and possibly, talk page of the RfC. That's common sense, which is why arbitration decisions have included that in their principles regarding rollback. Fair enough; you didn't familiarise yourself with the situation and rather unhelpfully made a revert for a procedural (but inadequate) reason - we all make mistakes. You are then at least expected to self-revert or to remedy the edit you made, even if that means closing the WQA and titling it more appropriately - you blatantly refused to do so. Inviting others to revert you or to re-revert you is not at all helpful, as is with forcing other volunteers to deal with a mess that is way beyond its control; please refrain from engaging in this behaviour again. It's simply disruptive - now Soxwon has deleted his WQA posting after Ikip made a comment there, and predictably, Ikip is making a deal that Soxwon deleted his comments. Please, be more circumspect with your edits and reverts - this was entirely avoidable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree, this was completely avoidable. Had you taken the time to explain what you were doing, either to the original poster or in the edit summary, nothing would have come of it. I saw your revert, saw no explanation, and changed it back since you hadn't given any reason.

• • As for not re-reverting the deletion, honestly, that should be up to the original poster. Rather than making his edits for him, more could be gained by explaining and allowing them to choose whether a revert is necessary. Dayewalker (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
    • If an edit is being reverted without explanation in the edit summary, one would expect a post on the talk page of the person's edit who was reverted or on the talk page of the page that was reverted. You thoughtlessly checked neither and made this situation worse. Had you familiarised yourself with the context of the situation, Ikip would not have responded to Soxwon's deletion of the entry, or had an opportunity to claim that his comment was deleted.

• • • Your reply shows the precise lack of care you take in some of your edits. He already had a choice - he himself could revert if he wished to pursue through WQA, despite the explanation on his talk page. If he chose not to, this would have meant that no other comments were added and no such claim can be made by Ikip. Your intervention was grossly unhelpful and ill-considered. For your sake, and as far as I'm concerned, I really do hope that this will not repeat itself in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd ask you to produce DIFFs for my "lack of care", but you've already shown a tendency to dig through my old edits with alarming tenaciousness. My edits are fine, thank you, no one but you seems to complain. Had you explained what you were doing before doing it, there wouldn't have been a problem. If you'll look above, I clearly said you were right. This was just another example of you "playing admin," Ncm. I have no intention of letting you wikilawyer me to death on my own talk page, so let's just end it now. Dayewalker (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright,

I'll just ignore him for now, then. But I will bet you this will not be his last 'report'.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. I'm sure he'll try something else, but the admins can read the DIFFs just fine. That's the thing that's most difficult about wikipedia (and civility in general). Sometimes when you know you're right, you still have to walk away and let someone crow about how you were wrong, and be content in the knowledge they're not only wrong, but no one is listening. It happens all the time around here. It seems like every day I delete a page or two off of my watch list because it's drama about some subject that I realize I have no interest in, and I'm only in it because of some random pagesweep.

The page on that Bollywood actor is a good example. I saw nothing wrong with the reliably sourced content that was being deleted, but once the page was locked down, I realized it wasn't my argument. My time and energies could be much better served doing something, nay anything else. I unwatched it, and went on my business.

I saw the IP attacking you and Ncm on the edit war page, and so I intervened to make sure the admins knew what was really going on. They obviously did, and the IP was blocked. I've got no other dog in this fight, so to speak. Even after I said he was right above, and defended him on that edit war page, Ncm still comes to this page and tries to argue. My actions didn't even smooth over that river.

So I'm just going zen on these things, and I suggest you do too. I've described you as a tireless bulldog of a vandal fighter many times, and you're very good at it. You've really made a positive impact on wikipedia. I just wish sometimes you'd stop fighting enough to look at the scoreboard, and realize you've already won.

Anyway, good luck in the future, amigo. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a tendency to push and persevere, just thought I might let you know in case you haven't realized it. I have troubles with letting things go, but I'm getting better at it. Thanks for the kind words.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What edit war page are you referring to? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Please see the relevant thread, here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Blappo.

He is also attacking my talk page and accusing me of violating the Three Revert Rule, but if you look at the history on his talk page, you can clearly see I only reverted his edits three times, which means if I made one more, I would have violated the rule, which I didn't. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, don't even concern yourself with him. He'll be gone soon, and we can clean up the mess in quiet afterwards. Dayewalker (talk) 05:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry

You know very well that you are not reporting the vandal, and are collaborating with him. You do not get to accuse me then bed up with the person who has demonstrably vandlized my talk page without getting called on it. It happened, you did it, and you'll answer for your bias and hypocrisy.

Unless you DID report the vandal...

RIIIIGHTBlappo (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Blappo