User talk:Dayewalker/Archive02

From 10/13/08 - 3/13/09...

Thanks!
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. I appreciate it! Cheers! Apparition11 (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad to help. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!!
LOL ya, thanks for watching my talk, and rvting my deletion of nonsense, thanks again!!!  C T J F 8 3 Talk 07:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No probs. I notice he's deleted your edits and my notice on his page. Hopefully he's learned. Dayewalker (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * HAHA, ya, we'll see. Just out of curiosity, do you have my talk page on your watch list, or how did you come across that he readded what I deleted?  C T J F 8 3 Talk 17:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have any idea. Somehow I've wound up with a lot of talk pages on my watch list, I don't remember specifically adding yours but I'm glad to help with vandal patrol. Dayewalker (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL, that works for me! Leave me on there to fight more vandalism!! :)  C T J F 8 3 Talk 17:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess you always watch out for me!!! Thanks!  C T J F 8 3 Talk 17:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Julianna Rose Mauriello
i have already emailed the people from wikipedia before i made the edits who told me i could make them, i am properly sourced and anything that i change you revert back is poorly sourced information that must be removed since this is her biography page. we will fight about it all night, i will not be removed or quieted, this is my sisters page and you will respect it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.104.242 (talk) 07:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, then. I was hoping you'd listen, but I'll just find an admin. Dayewalker (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism reversion
No problem, I got your back. Useight (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:Joey's Sports blog
Thanks for notifying me, pal! Since he asked for deletion I speedied it. Cheers, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  23:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for the backup regarding the Colin Farrell article. I appreciate it. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  09:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad to help. Dayewalker (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Mamaluigibob
Hi! I don't know if this is the right place, but i'm trying to clear things up with a Wiki member, but the Wiki member isn't even listening to me, and he even marked me for false vandalism!!

He even came on to my profile and wrote What you were saying was perfectly fine for the same section, and when I tried telling you, you ignored it, as a persistant pest would. AND FOR CRYING OUT LOAD, SIGN YOUR POSTS, DAMMIT! Skeletal SLJCOAAATR Soulsor 16:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the SECOND time he insulted me in two days! But he's still not listening to me when i'm trying to explain what made him angry in the first place.

He insulted me in the Sonic Unleashed discussion topic, calling me blind because he thought that I posted the same "night of the werehog" video twice. Even though I Wasn't. I was just posting the article on it saying that it wasn't going to be a full length 3D Animated movie, because in the article it looked like it was talking about something like an 80 minute film, right? Then, when I cleared things up the user edited my post and then I got angry when he did that. (You could tell I could have gotten angry when he edited my post!)

Then afterwards, he marked me for false vandalism on the Sonic Unleashed article, even when I was just fixing it up! Also, I wasn't editing the page! I was just wanting to put down a full explanation to what I did! But that user edited it and then marked me after!

What should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamaluigibob (talk • contribs)
 * Well, first you should not respond in kind to personal attacks. I'm going to post some links on your talk page and comment there. Good luck. Dayewalker (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments moved from user page
your just part of the problem, neutrality doesn't allow for freedom of speech. God Bless America, not those who have corrupted it's institutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.116.135 (talk • contribs)
 * Yeah, I have no idea what you are trying to say here. My warnings on your talk page, and your inappropriate comments being reverted by other editors still stand. God Bless English Teachers. Dayewalker (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Sauve.sean
There are plenty of contributors who do not have a problem with the definition i added. Consensus does nto exist for the definition as it stands, as evidenced by the extensive comments on the talk page. Another thing, I did take it to the talk page. Your accusations are patently false.Sauve.sean (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You've been reverted by multiple editors and warned for WP:3RR. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Consensus is against you, and will always be against you unless you try and change that consensus on the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Presidency/Vice-Presidency
Dayewalker, I was correcting what I saw to be extreme bigotry and an non-NPOV situation that I saw on those pages. Note that on Barack Obama's page there was an end date for his term already posted in the infobox. While my editing of George W. Bush's page might have been going a little too far, I am not about to stand idly by and let people come in and subversively alter Wikipedia to favour Bush. I hope you can understand my point of view and why I won't stand for this kind of crap. Matt.T.911 (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, but it's not NPOV to not refer to Obama as President until he is sworn in. Likewise, his elected term of office is scheduled to begin and end on a certain day. If he's re-elected, his second term will likewise end on a specific day. It's not NPOV to point that out. Dayewalker (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Hi, My Name is Joe Tatum i'm a new editor to the site and since i used to work for the New Mexico Activities Association i thought i would be a little useful to this site, i even donated money to this wonderful site. I noticed you marked me as a sockpuppet, i have never had an account on this website before, so how does this make me a sockpuppet of this so called "Politican Texas"??..i removed the template from my page.. any questions please feel free to drop by anytime thank you. Joe L. Tatum JosephTatum (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Taken to WP:ANI. Dayewalker (talk) 06:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

District 2-AAAA
I spoke to Robert Zayas who currently works for the New Mexico Activities Association (NMAA) and is Director of Communications. He tells me that the NMAA does NOT keep record of District championships as claimed by Joe Tatum on one of his recent edits of the District 2-AAAA article. You are correct his edits mimick the same ones from other users. I am working with Los Alamos Monitor Sports Edior Mike Maez-Cote on the verification of District Championships in 2-AAAA. The Fall Sports championships are correct and accurate and verified through additional research of microfilm of the Los Alamos Monitor and listed in the edit. I am in the process of verifying Winter Sports championships and eventually Spring Sports as well. It's unfortunate that individuals continue under a series of user names to provide incorrect information. Thank you for your vigilance of individuals such as this. --Taostiger (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

PING!
You have new messages(email).—  Dæ dαlus Contribs /Improve 08:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Revert of a revert
You really should not have reverted a revert at the administrators noticeboard without discussing it first. Have a look at WP:BRD. Also, the thread at the noticeboard is no where near being "closed". Tennis expert (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I stand by my edit. Your reversion of the other editor's compression of that section was your opinion, as you admit. It's a huge section on the ANI page, and is so large as to discourage discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 08:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Every edit we do is our "opinion". So, you believe that you are exempt from WP:BRD or the edit warring policies in general?  And what is the evidence for the section "discouraging discussion"?  Your "opinion"?  Tennis expert (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You reverted another editor because you disagreed with them. I did the same. The conversation seems to only have one edit on the past twelve hours, and that one seemed to close the discussion. Since it was collapsed a few hours ago, no one else has weighed in on the issue so this certainly seemed to be the end of the long, unwieldy discussion. If you want to continue the discussion, reopen it and make your comments. Otherwise, it would seem it has played out and the entire page would be better served by collapsing the topic. Dayewalker (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You violated WP:BRD by reverting a reversion. The issue is as simple as that.  To fix the problem you caused, you need to revert yourself and refrain from reverting reversions in the future.  Tennis expert (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Simply put, no. As I said above, I stand by my edit. It's been almost another twelve hours since the discussion was collapsed (not removed, archived, or marked as resolved), and there's only been one comment since then, which was from you. I told you above what you could do if you disagreed, but I agreed with the editor who collapsed that giant wall of text. Dayewalker (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I'm more than slightly surprised it has not been closed as "yawn" by now. Date delinker (aka Ohconfucius)hard problemsproverbs 11:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto to that. Since TE reopened it, that giant monolith of text has had practically no comments, so I stand by my original reversion. Less is better. Dayewalker (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. It's appreciated. Useight (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad to help. It semed like something you wouldn't care to keep. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reverting my page again. Looks like I got hit two nights in a row. Useight (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Also,
Thanks for weighing in in regards to that message to my talk page from that rude editor.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs /Improve 07:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. I appreciate the email, also. Glad to help keep an eye out for you, and I know you'll do the same. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 08:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

AN/I thread on User:Veecort
Hey. I noticed you've been involved in the issue regarding Veecort and ITT Tech, so I thought I'd inform you that there's a discussion on ANI about it. McJeff (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Lesbian Health Concerns Compromise Edit
Agreed?Chrisrus (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If so please say so on the lesbian talk page.Chrisrus (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already un-watchlisted the article, I did so a while back in one of my wiki-purges. I'll try and get by there and give you an opinion. Thanks for bringing it back to my attention. Dayewalker (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Block-emergency-service 116 116
Dear Dayewalker,

i am the author of the summary about block-emergency-service. The block-emergency-service is no commercial assosition its rather a number with social feedback and support of the goverment and the police.

This summary is also in the german wikipedia and we would like to show this subject in English. The german page: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zentrale_Anlaufstelle_zur_Sperrung_elektronischer_Berechtigungen

Further information:

ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/doc/library/public_consult/116/comments/sperr_notruf.pdf

Please release the summary about Block-emergency-service 116 116.

With best regards

Daniel Holub

i.A. Sperr e.V. – Verein zur Förderung der Sicherheit in der Informationsgesellschaft Phone: +49 (0)69 2193 668 6913 E-Mail: daniel.holub@servodata.de
 * Already deleted. If you'd like to recreate it, WP:DRV is the right place. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI case (70.79.65.227/Ramu50)
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You can find the specific section here.

To clarify, you are not the subject of the ANI, but you have been previously involved in or have commented on this or a related ANI. Thank you for your time. Jeh (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Program for the future
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Program for the future. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rstephe (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Dayewalker, per your request we have asked for the Program for the future page to be reinstated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_December_21#21_December_2008 Rstephe (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio Question
Why exactly is less better? Who gets to decide that? And why are some people deciding that just because of popular opinion something should be removed? And what is a copyright violation? Because, as long as something is adequately sourced, giving acknowledgment to the original author, then why can't it be posted? Even in large block quotations, it's not a full reprinting, which is usually what would be considered a violation of copyright laws. Otherwise, so long as a quote is adequately sourced and referenced, then what's the big deal? --Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not because of popular opinion, it's because of policy. Please read WP:COPYVIO to understand wikipedia's policy on copyright violations. An encyclopedia doesn't contain large blocks of copyrighted text from other sources. Dayewalker (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!!!
I appreciate you taking out the schedule on the LW page...it was long, annoying, and kinda pointless...I was trying to figure out a way to keep it but was failing in an epic way. Supersox (talk) 09:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

American Populists
Hei, I'm just adding the folks that on the populism articles of the english, spanish and portuguese language wikipedia (the ones I can read are indicated as such. I don't mean it as insult, I'm distinguishing it from demagogue. Obama is no socialist/communist, he's a populist (community organizing, Gamaliel Foundation, does that tell you something? That's the Fabian Society of african-american populism!). OK, maybe not Hillary Clinton, but John Edwards called himself populist! And Pat Buchanan is certanly a righ-wing populist (a little more moderate or democratic version of radical right-wing populist people like George Haider or Le Pen). Lususromulus (24 December 2008)

Deep Research on the F-Units Case
You present that you are truly a "neutral" editor. What say you investigate the railroading of fraberj (me Charles Michael Collins Self-replicating machine, F-Units)? P.S.: If you are "neutral" you shall be the first to have claimed that here and been that, in fact. Charles Michael collins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.1.169 (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't know you, but you appear to be a banned editor who is edit warring a fringe theory. There are proper channels to seek dispute resolution here, and you don't seem to have tried any of them. Dayewalker (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Deep Research on the F-Units Case
You present that you are truly a "neutral" editor. What say you investigate the railroading of fraberj (me Charles Michael Collins Self-replicating machine, F-Units)? P.S.: If you are "neutral" you shall be the first to have claimed that here and been that, in fact. Charles Michael collins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.1.169 (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't know you, but you appear to be a banned editor who is edit warring a fringe theory. There are proper channels to seek dispute resolution here, and you don't seem to have tried any of them. Dayewalker (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Appearances are not always facts. I can prove to you (if you fancy yourself intelligent) that Professor Ralph Merkle and his side kick Freitas are deliberately stealing my technology for the United States Government. Specifically, my "trolley car means" and have wrote the book "Kinematic Self-replicating Machines" to cover for it. So is Cornell University's Hod Lipson who is spouting off about the illegal aliens getting a raw deal to cover for his stealing. I can provide you scans of court records detailing a long term pattern of government attacks including Quantico MCB kidnappings and agents provocateurs spanning over twenty years. I was the first to write a Wikipedia article on Self-replicators with the proper name of "Independent operability" which was summarily deleted and replaced with "Self-Replicating machines" which is nothing but a smear on my technology. Absolutely none of the nonsense there now is about self-replicating entities. All that is there now is of those stealing my ideas and products of true "sock-puppets" of my powerful competitors. Further, William R. Buckley who is admittedly my direct competitor, once banned for legal threats against me, now back without apologizing or resolving in any way is the one driving the contentions. He even admits initiating it. It is his sock-puppets that first voted me banned and it was for reporting a hacking which was labeled a "legal threat". Further, he is writing on his own work there on "Partial Construction ". If what I am doing is "fringe theory" then why is Ralph Merkle the undisputed top U.S. scientist viciously attacking me in his book with generality?: http://www.molecularassembler.com/KSRM/3.16.htm


 * No one has, to this day given this subject the attention it deserves considering my enemies involved. A simple reading of the claims of my patent and comparing it to the disclosed stolen technology will bear out this theft and the full tilt smear campaign now leveled against me. They tried to commit me for just talking about my self-replicators (affidavit from Cheif of police scans had). Further, I can provide you case after case where Buckley has been trolling to the nth degree, I have many diffs. Problem is, there is case after case when my point gets made that these "open source" nuts just delete the evidence and archive up or whatever they can maliciously do. It is very well known that all those attacking me are open source and are angry that I patented them out of business. But hey: I invented all of it way back in the 90s. Self-replicators are the engines that run the universe, all the top scientists know it and regardless if one "likes" my self-replicator or not the trolley car means is what they know will usher in a new era of research on the subject. My self-replicator self-replicates all its parts, including the small ones and a working model was produced before the patent office before I received my claims on "independent operability", a term which is instantly deleted and attacked without comment at Self-replicating machines regardless of who writes it. If you take the time to research all this and are truly "neutral" as you pose, you will find all these facts to be true. You will also find that I was blocked wrongly by sock-puppeters that are my competitors, particularly Buckley. And I have tried the channels, they are all jammed with hard core "open source" nuts that know me well and hate me.


 * Charles Michael Collins


 * No. With all due respect, I have not the time nor interest in delving into your problem. Again I ask you to go through proper channels. Good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 05:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You should be concerned about the ethics going on around here to this. Maybe if you see what we are talking about you may get the picture how indeed this is important to you and your family etc. as well, you can see what is stolen here (see videos at bottom of page):


 * http://ccsl.mae.cornell.edu/research/selfrep/morepictures.htm


 * All matter will soon be under programmable control. This makes it the biggest event since the dawn of time. When all things are made in your home there will be no need of corporate structure anymore. I don't pose myself as a professional editor and do not seek such. I'm a scientist seeking that the truth be told here. Your help to this is requested. The truth is laid out here at my site:


 * Charles Michael Collins

Talk:Sarah Palin
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from article: Talk:Sarah Palin. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the Welcome to the Community page, particularly further down the page, to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the Sandbox. Thank you. Anarchangel (talk) 05:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left you a message on your talk page, since either you don't know what the Hell is going on, or you're just trying to get under my skin because I reverted one of your posts that deleted three comments from other editors. Either way, I did nothing wrong and you seem to have gone out of your way to make yet another enemy here on wikipedia. Have fun. Dayewalker (talk) 08:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought you were a villain, you're not. You're right, I was wrong; I misread the diff. I will be correcting my mistake on the talk page also. Anarchangel (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the apology, I've stricken my comments above. No harm done. Good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Chad Dukes post on ANI
User:TrinityAsianCoed has been throwing accusations of sockpuppetry and has hurled one in your direction with this post. The accusations that I have all these sockpuppets (some of them with admin accounts) are funny, but it is growing old. I have no intention of answering this users "concerns" while he is acting like this and slandering everyone in his path. Just thought you should know in case you want to answer his questions. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • December 25, 2008 @ 08:34
 * Yeah, I saw that. I was about to respond, but I guess I'll just wait for the eventual blocking of yet another editor who doesn't get it and lives to disrupt. Thanks for the notice, in any case, and Merry Christmas! Dayewalker (talk) 08:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am waiting for the very same *sigh* . Take Care and Merry Christmas... NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • December 25, 2008 @ 08:44

Y2J

 * The editor EdmOilers023 has created a page called Y2J. It is nominated for deletion. --Lawe (talk) 10:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
What's going on? I had a cup of tea (coffee actually) with my friends, and I saw a message after I came back. I saw nothing so I checked the page's history and found 2 vandals - 1 IP and 1 called VicoMaster. As I am about to warn Vicomaster, I saw he had been blocked thus I checked the user's contribs. and I saw VicoMaster vandalised Moo's, JJL's, Collectonian's talk page together with mine. The IP vandal however only vandalised my talkpage and Collectonian's. Well, thanks for reverting the evil edit. Do you want a barnstar? I can award you one. --Mark Chung (talk) 09:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, I saw the user's edits on another page so I checked his other work to see if it was all vandalism. When I saw he was just here to disrupt, I rolled him back to save time. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI comment
I'm sorry but my give a shit meter is completely broken. I never said the comment was civil, I said it wasn't a personal attack. Do you need me to define the word personal for you? If you feel my actions are all that disruptive start a thread at the appropriate venue. My comment attacked no specific admin, at least I wasn't aware of an admin named "good portion of." Whining on my talk page isn't really going to solve anything. I already received a warning for my "personal attacks" so the next step is not another warning. Never mind the fact I had made no further similar edits since the first "personal attack" warning. Personal refers to a person so you know in the future, and a "good portion of admins" is not a person. Landon1980 (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The first step in trying to resolve a problem is to discuss it with the editor. I can see you're in no mood to listen or be civil, so I'll give up on that one. Good luck with your shit meter. Dayewalker (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had made no further comments like that so what exactly were you "resolving?" Landon1980 (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comments at ANI which were extremely uncivil, followed by your assertion in your edit summary that they weren't personal attacks. Splitting hairs as to whether or not the attacks were personal or not doesn't also solve the problem of the content. Dayewalker (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Mind linking me to "good portion of's" page? Here, hopefully this will make it more clear: "personal - relating to, directed to, or intended for a particular person." This isn't rocket science, the comment was an attack on a portion of admins, not any specific person. Please read over WP:NPA that may help as well. I admit the comment was uncivil, disruptive, and so on and I never said it wasn't. Sometimes the truth hurts. Landon1980 (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(OD)And that's why WP:DICK applies here. I stand by my comments, so there's nothing more to say here in terms of deciding which branch of bad behavior this falls into. Good luck. Dayewalker (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi again, I owe you an apology. I was having a bad day but that's no excuse for how I treated you, for no reason at all might I add. Anyways, I hope their is no hard feelings but I understand if there is. Cheers, Landon1980 (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Good luck with your USEDFan stalker, I know full well what it's like to have a banned user that just won't quit coming back over and over again. Anything I can help with, just let me know. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding. Yes, banned users get very annoying after they come back over two dozen times. I don't know what was wrong with me the other day. I'm ashamed of how I treated you and the other editor. I have a bad habit of when I'm angry at something/someone taking it out on everyone/everything, and I'm going to have to work on that. Thanks for offering to help, but I don't even know what else to do. All the articles he frequents (which is only two) have been semi-protected a few times, but then he makes several accounts and waits for them to be auto-confirmed. His IP has been blocked with account creation disabled I don't know how many times, he gets around that by using proxies. Then he edits from a college which blocking the IP would result in far too much collateral damage. He is very determined and will never go away, at least it would appear that way. Landon1980 (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved editor making a slightly-on topic comment: Ha, you might not believe what I'm currently..  sort of(it seems to have died down) dealing with.  Apparently, at some, long time ago, there was the user User:DavidYork71.  This user was a heavy POV pusher, he didn't abide by policies, and was soon blocked.  He later came back in over 200 socks, and is rumored to have over 300 more.  I've run into a few of his new socks(and got them blocked) at an article which is currently under my watch list.


 * I just have to wonder at these people, don't you? Also, it seems we've seen the last of (x).—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  10:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Man, I hope so. I hope he got a girlfriend for Christmas. Dayewalker (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Adobe Contribute
That is why Wikipedia ROCKS. It just created at least one decent paying American job, plus my wealth grows along with the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshandminty (talk • contribs) 19:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad for you, good luck in the future. Very happy that something we've worked on over here could come to your assistance. Dayewalker (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Murad Gumen article
I made comments on the talk page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murad_Gumen and later felt they were not productive. My attempts to edit my own comments were continually vandalized by user Severino who insists on putting them back again. That entire talk page is an attack on Murad Gumen and should be removed. TheRealHoldwater (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment move
Thanks for moving that (and commenting)! Cheers, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :D  06:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

IPs
Thanks to you for bringing it up at ANI; looks like RFPP is being poorly patrolled these days. Take care -- Samir 09:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael J Scanlon
I saw your post on Michael Scanlon- He is a member of our rugby union. His "Circle" happens to be USA Rugby which is one of the largest Rugby Unions in the world, and part of the worldwide rugby union. It Happens to be larger than the NCAA and one of the largest sporting governing bodies outside of the IOC. He has been influential in helping expand USA Rugby, something it desperately needed. His influence is no less than that of a politician, simply for the world of rugby, and not law. We don't expect many people outside of our "circle" to know him, but those involved in USA Rugby, the several million of us, recognize his contributions and hes a good kid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.117.6 (talk • contribs)
 * I understand. However, as per wikipedia's notability standards, your words about him and his influence aren't enough to make him notable. I understand this is your first wikipedia article, but please read up on notability and how wikipedia proves it through reliable secondary sources. Merely saying he's a "good kid" isn't enough, but if you can show his notability through outside sources, it would go a great deal towards getting him recognized. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hed PE
Protected for 1 week and IP blocked. I had a peek at the lengthy discussion at WP:ANI, and I'm not too sure how to handle this situation chronically. -- Samir 19:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about staying off his talk page, there is no point in discussing anything with him. No matter what you say he denies it. He must not understand that we all have access to his edit history. For example, he denies saying NME was biased and unreliable, yet he said this countless times. I don't understand how, or why he is still denying the sock puppetry. I think this is a serious case of playing stupid, he doesn't believe half the things he says. I think he is trolling but I may be wrong. I have actually wondered if his account was compromised, but after looking back through his contribs it isn't. I stayed off his talk page for days, then commented yesterday and today. Then I realized why I avoided it to begin with, it's a waste of time. I don't know if Ibaranoff honestly just doesn't get it, or if he is merely pressing the issue to see everyone's responses. Landon1980 (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Black president
I have rewritten this article and fully cited it. I hope you can read over it and share your thoughts. • Freechild   'sup?   16:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Rafael Garcia
Hi Dayewalker; you had offered assistance, and I'm looking for some third party input / suggestions on what to do about user:RafaelRGarcia. Interacting with him and reviewing his comments / behavior at Talk:William Rehnquist, Talk: Clarence Thomas, and various other articles (and, of course, in regard to the 3rr problem and the medcab dispute), he seems to have an extraordinarily bad and unconstructive attitude, not only vis-a-vis myself, but with any other users who evince disagreement with his POV or preferred article narrative. Belligerent self-righteousness married with blatant POV and sloppy, imprecise writing and thinking is not a happy mix. Still, I'm not really sure what, if anything, is the right thing to do next (and I must acknowledge that the problem might be that I'm the asshole not him, although I think his attitude towards other users does seem to undercut that). Neither Requests for comment / Problem_users or Wikiquette alerts seem right. Any ideas? Simon Dodd (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look when I get a chance, I appreciate you coming to me with this. It really shows that you have the best interests of wikipedia at heart. I remember RRG having some difficulties with other editors before, when I get time I'll try and help out. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure - and thanks. :) I should mention, in the spirit of full disclosure, that I've also raised the question informally with user:Samir, who was the admin who reviewed the 3rr issue you flagged for attention at AN. Simon Dodd (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama Page
Hi Dayewalker. I edited the Barack Obama page to say that he may have been born in the US. This is a huge, and ongoing controversy. I believe you reverted my edit, stating that there is no consensus on the discussion page for Barack Obama. That is true, which is why I changed the statement to "may have been born" instead of "was born," for which there is no consensus.

I'm pretty new to the complicated discussion stuff. Mostly, my edits have just been technicalities or grammar corrections, and such. I'm going to try to start talking on the talk page. If the Barack page is one you monitor, please let me know if I'm doing everything correctly. Thanks, -Erik Stone.

Erik Stone (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you dropping me a line. The controversy has been discussed on the talk page, and consensus has been reached there. If you feel your changes are more accurate, I encourage you to take it to the talk page. Obviously, this is a heavily trafficked page watched by probably hundreds of editors, so it's very important to have consensus for major edits before posting them. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dayewalker, I appreciate that you like to protect the Obama page from anything that might make him look bad in your mind, but facts are facts and they are more important than a so-called "consensus". There was formerly a scientific consensus that the sun revolved around the earth... but consensus can't change facts.


 * It's important to remain neutral, and as Obama has failed to produce a document indicating his birth hospital and the signature of an American physician at said American hospital, we must report his failure in a neutral way. Erik Stone is 100% correct. There is MUCH controversy, and has been since the beginning of the election process.  All Barack would have to do to kill the controversy would be to release the proper documentation which he has failed to do.  When McCain was challenged with his place of birth, he immediately  released all of the proper documentation.  Millions of Americans are still waiting for Barack to step up.  --Climb It Change (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not millions of Americans, the few in the tin hat crowd you like to make trouble.  Grsz  11  18:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly appreciate your paranoia, Climb It Change. However, just because you want to see his birth certificate doesn't mean anything. If you can provide a reliable source that this is a legitimate controversy, bring it up on the talk page. Your version of the "truth" isn't relevant, and your interpretation of the facts isn't correct. Feel free to bring this up on the correct talk page, with proper sourcing. Dayewalker (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to bring a reliable source, if you can give me a source that you would accept.Erik Stone (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:RS is a good example of how to find a reliable source for wikipedia. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a good candidate for a Sock check, since there are two accounts discussing this with one voice. ThuranX (talk) 08:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

User:JuJube

 * No worries. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Random Message
Hey man, from family members who attended Pious the X H.S in Uniondale NY I can attest that Sean Hannity habitually abused marijuana —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malones89 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That needs to have a reliable source before it can appear in the article. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank You, It's Appreciated
Mate, thanks for the assistance in the Dave Simons mess - it is greatly appreciated. Hopefully there's plenty of others on this Wiki with the same attitude and understanding as you have displayed. Your assistance was greatly appreciated - you offered real help, instead of pointing me towards your own page (heh) and the fact that the Simons entry is now up there is testament to your efforts. Again, thank you.Daniel best (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Got it
I read the policies you suggested and several others. I understand the consensus that you were talking about now. I can't say I'm happy with the policies and the new image I have in regards to Wikipedia, but at least I understand it. I read about the inaccuracies of Jimmy Wales' birth date and his struggle to make it accurate on Wikipedia. After reading about it, the Barack Obama birth issue doesn't bother me so much anymore. Thanks for the suggestions and the guidance. Erik Stone (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Response
Hi, I have not used it before. A user was acussing me that I was a sock puppet. Their reason was because we each had one of the same pages in our edit history. I looked at the history of the Used page and anytime a user made an edit, it was reverted by Landon1980 and they claimed that a sock puppet of another user made the edit. I tried to talk to Landon1980 to see what their problem was but they have been very unprofessional and ignored me. They also claimed my edit was an unreliable source when it was really from the band's official website. I know I'm new but I think Landon1980 is doing nothing except bad faith editing and not assuming the good faith of others. Just recently they had to apologize to a user because they claim that that user too, was sock puppet. Looking at how much Landon1980 edited the Used page, I guess they are a huge fan and I understand they want the page perfect. I just don't understand why they wouldn't allow any updates to the page and have such a negative, rude attitude to any other contributer. Gladiator Knight 16 (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Raul has taken care of this. Thanks for the help. Looks like USEDfan also had a few sleepers up and ready to go. He does this when The Used is semi- protected. Landon1980 (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to my talk page
Fair enough, although in my defense I was mirroring my response to ThuranX's. If you take the time to read his statements, you can see that he uses similar phrasing from the very beginning of the "discussion". I even went so far as to ask him to adjust his tone, reminding him he really has no authority over the site, page or myself.

From the onset of the entire event, ThuranX's has maintained a confrontational tone and attitude that I see is common on a lot of his edits. If you look at his talk page he has many reminders to be nice, to be fair, to stop using vulgar language etc..

This is my first time taking care to maintain a section on a page, so in this particular instance I am taking cues from his behavior and I don't like the community or the conduct I feel I am forced to take to 'discuss' changes. I put discuss into quotations as it has been less a discussion as much as it's been an authoritarian hand making edits, and any opposition is met with vulgar language and multi-tiered (nonsensical) arguments about why he is right and I am wrong. From what I understand, this isn't how wikipedia should be.... --Apoklyptk (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand you've had an ongoing discussion with ThuranX about this, and if the tone of that discussion has turned negative, that's certainly regrettable. However, you are now edit warring against consensus. You're explaining to me why you've taken offense with another editor, but the fact of the matter is that consensus is clearly against you. Please revert and discuss. Dayewalker (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the consensus did not exist until ThuranX pitched a fit about it. How else was the section intact all the way up until last month with many of the same people editing it, and NEW people providing a "consensus" against it? It defies logic and speaks to either unethical practices on ThuranX's behalf - OR - simple coincidence. Either way, before mutilation the section was more than two sentences, and it is a shame to see an entire section just deleted.--Apoklyptk (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how consensus was reached, it is firmly against you. My own interpretation of the matter has nothing at all to do with ThuranX or any problems the two of you have had. I made my own comments, which you didn't exactly listen to. I'll ask you again as a show of good faith to revert your edits, as the talk page consensus is against you and you're reverting multiple editors. Dayewalker (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Where exactly is there a consensus? I have seen people come into the talk page and say an alternative phrasing would be good; and anonymous reverts and edits - but I don't think an actual consensus has been reached, other than the one ThuranX claims exists. --Apoklyptk (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You've undone the edits of at least three different users, including me. You understand the consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Rick Warren
Hey. Thx for your warning here. You may wanna check this out: Sockpuppet investigations/Chrishpaytas Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice catch on your part, too. Since the previous discussion was marred by an editor with an admitted (and unrepentant) COI, I figured we should keep an eye out for disruption on the new one. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I thought it was Manutglory at first but Lyonscc's edit history was closer. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Without spilling WP:BEANS, I figured it was somebody from the discussion. I'll chime in over there when I get a second. Dayewalker (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dayewalker. In hopes of facilitating consensus on the matter of how best to refer to California Prop 8 on the Rick Warren page, I wrote up a framework of seven points that I *think* interested editors agree on, and three points that I *think* interested editors disagree on, and put it on the discussion page. I'm hoping you'll return to that page and provide your input. Thanks.... Benccc (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe
On the other hand, she says she will file an AN/I, so providing her with the space is courteous. Una has been disrupting Wikipedia for months on end to make a point, and that doesn't seem to be at issue. So, grant me this one little one. And, since she fully intends to use the space, it is not much of a point on my part. --KP Botany (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's pointy. You filing preemptively for her also doesn't do much to disspell her comments about you. Dayewalker (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it wasn't my intention. When people threaten you, it's actually useful to encourage or badger them to make good on their threat.  It clears the air.  And, I wanted to clear the air as much as possible.
 * Una can post an AN/I about me any time she wants to, and I want her to know that. However, I can't do anything about it, now.  Last time I tried to withdraw something from AN/I I got freaked out upon by a couple of kids for it.  So, too late.  But, don't worry, Una will step up to bat and use the space.  --KP Botany (talk) 08:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about that, I already took it down. If either of you wants to file, there's always space available. Dayewalker (talk) 08:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about what, getting freaked out on by a couple of power mongers at AN/I? Okay, I won't.  I'll be watching to see if you step in when Una does something pointy, just out of interest.  --KP Botany (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If Una does something silly at ANI that I think I can handle before it becomes a situation, I'll be right there. Otherwise, I would think you two can handle your problems yourself. Dayewalker (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, big clue: not an administrator. Duh.  Take care.  --KP Botany (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel and CadenS
You may have noticed CadenS went to every one of those user's pages on Sheffield's list, and I followed them up with a comment challenging them to post it on WP:ANI if they've got a problem with it. I think in the past, lists like that have occasionally been a problem, but mostly when they were lists like "users I hate" and such stuff as that. This is simply a list of problem-users that Sheffield has been keeping an eye on. It's a time-saver, and a good idea, and something I might do too, if I were an admin. P.S. If he accuses me of "stalking", I'll just ask him how he found that list in the first place, if not from stalking Sheffield's edits. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, and I still keep pages like that. It takes so long to file an edit war report these days, as soon as I'm sure someone's going to be a problem, I start piling up the diffs so I'm not up all night putting it together. Sometimes it works, sometimes the editor straightens up and I just forget about it. Either way, there's no problems with it. CadenS needs to realize he's been blocked before, and when that happens, 100% good faith has to be reearned. Dayewalker (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You raise an interesting point. I use WP:AIV a lot because it's painless and fast to post an entry. 3RR is the opposite, it's a royal pain to deal with. On those rare occasions I use it, I'm forced to open 2 sessions. What a nuisance. Posting a link to the page history should be sufficient. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, WP:ANEW is a mess sometimes. Worse yet, I've posted reports there that just sat for twelve hours after the posting. Anything you can do to make that run quicker is a good idea. Dayewalker (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll use all the powers that I have. Which is to say none. Only pawn in game of wikipedia life. :( Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did you refactor my comment?
here? Neither you (another editor), nor Deacon (an involved party) has any more standing to refactor my resolved tag. The only reason he refactored it was to avoid directly taking responsibility for his action (which caused the entire thread). If you don't have a satisfactory explanation, then I'm giving you this opportunity to self-revert. It's not appreciated when you refactor someone else's comments in favour of an involved party's (even an admin). I recall appreciating some of your edits in the past and so I'd like to AGF at a higher degree than expected. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a clear difference between refactoring someone's talk page comments, and changing an opinion dropped into someone's "resolved" tag. Ncm, you are obviously personally involved in this matter with this other editor. The "resolved" tag reflecting a neutral description of what happened rather than your interpretation is not worth edit warring over just to make sure your side of the argument is reflected.


 * You have a long history of acting in a pseudo-admin capacity, but your interpretation of the events are not set in stone. You have now made that same edit four times on the page, which means you are edit warring. I would suggest you revert yourself, or open up a case on one of the boards. Dayewalker (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You have not provided a satisfactory explanation; there was no justification for overriding mine either. However, there is a difference between tag-team reverting and changing something because you felt it was neutral and then making the effort to discuss it with the other editor. I note you didn't do that. As you are aware, I've reverted your change as mine reflected the consensus of the community rather than one that Deacon would rather leave under the rug. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I explained. You're just edit warring. If you want to discuss this, let's continue it on the page. Dayewalker (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And you show all signs of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Fortunately Alex stepped in, or this may never have ended with your style of discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk)
 * Alrighty, then. Whatever gets you through the night, Ncm. Dayewalker (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI
You've made your case; step back, and let others evaluate. More posts will just annoy admins. THF (talk) 12:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank God. Gracias, THF. I would like nothing more than to be done with the matter. Dayewalker (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann external links
Hi. What was your reason for removing the Olbermann Watch website from external links? Bill O'Reilly's page has negative links in the external links section, so why not Olbermann? -- Gerkinstock (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The website has come up several times in discussion before, including here . Consensus is that the site is not a reliable source. I'm not sure about Sean Hannity's links, but that would be a question for his talk page. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

SOCKPUPPET
Sir, this account is not a sockpuppet. Please stop your accusations because I am truly new to Wikipedia and know nothing of the account "Adamstanton". Adam J Stanton (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Good luck with all that. Dayewalker (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

MICHAEL PRICE
do not remove tags from an article you created yourself, I'M LOST. PLEASE HELP ME

WHAT DOSE IT MEAN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND
 * What it means is stop removing the deletion tags from the top of the page you created. As the creator of that page, you aren;t allowed to do that. Another editor has found the page to be questionable in its content or notability, so he's tagged it. An administrator will come around and determine whether the article is appropriate or wikipedia. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 09:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

Your Message
Please refer to #8 and #12, quote "No CONTROVESY IS NEEDED/WANTED". Tarysky (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't care. Dayewalker (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue you were involved with. Thank you. --—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  23:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reverts!
Hello. Thank you for the revert of my "fan club." Your speedy anti-vandal action is much appreciated! Thanks! Kralizec! (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * De nada, my pleasure. Dayewalker (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
For all the help.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  07:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, anytime! Dayewalker (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, as the socks are a no-brainer as to who operates them, I suggest you use the following template:

—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  07:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Your reversion of that vandalism to my talk page is much appreciated. Tony  (talk)  14:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Tea
I think that tea you suggested just got thrown in someone's face. Kevin (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Jack Weiss on ANI
I have updated that section with a post. Since it looks like no admins are looking at the section, I will do my best to work towards a speedy resolution as best as I can (for a non-admin). -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • March 13, 2009 @ 04:27