Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:23, 8 August 2009

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

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 ! — 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Wiki: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 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 . 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)

Misplaced Pages space does not requre sources

You reverted a change in Misplaced Pages space on the basis that it was an unsourced change. However, sources are only required for articles, not the policies, guidelines, and essays in Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages editors; Misplaced Pages should be summarizing what has already been reported elsewhere. Clearly this concept has no application to those pages that start with the prefix "Misplaced Pages:" 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, Misplaced Pages 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages--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 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#194x144x90x118. Erik9 (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)