User talk:Dayewalker
It's been about eight months since I posted the reasons I've become disillusioned with this place [1], and in that time I think I've wandered back over here to make about a hundred edits total, and absolutely nothing of any substance. I should probably go ahead and make this official, and quit wasting my time. The problems I talked about on my user page are all still there, and things seem to have gotten worse. There's no leadership here, only chaos. And chaos does not work for the New York Yankees, nor does it work to entice me to volunteer my services for free.
For those of you watching from over there, after more than ten thousand edits here, I've finally been immortalized at an anti-Wikipedia website. Finally! Some recognition from the dark side! My RFA is linked there, along with a disparaging quote from (yet another) user who commented on my RFA to rip me, refused a request for diffs, and then got indef blocked and hasn't been seen or heard from since. Thanks, guys. Those are definitely the users of vast integrity and worthy contributions who should be noted in pull quotes. Oh, and judging from the style of writing, it's posted on the site by someone who certainly appears to be the latest incarnation of a user blocked across multiple areas of the Wikipedia Foundation for being a nutball.
Well, that's certainly one for the resume. I can't tell you how much this means to me, to finally receive the scorn I deserve from a website that's the Gold Standard of bitterness. I can now retire happily. I am somebody, dammit!
Love to all, and good luck in the future.
Sincerely,
Dayewalker (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Enjoy
[edit]the Summer. Kick back, watch BB15, take a break. I may run the gauntlet soon and I appreciate the warnings. Best to you. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Dawn Wells
[edit]Remember when you were totally lying about your reasons for keeping marijuana out of the Dawn Wells article? In the end you lost, and I won. Ah, good times. —Prhartcom (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm. I don't remember that. I do remember you being weirdly obsessed with inserting negative detail into the page of a quasi-celebrity, so much so that even years later after I've left the project you come back as a grave-dancing asshole to trumpet how you "won." Not so good times. Dayewalker (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like, despite your years of work here, you never understood that negative yet true information belongs in Wikipedia right next to the positive yet true information, WP:NOTCENSORED from it as you tried to do. Prhartcom (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Photo consensus discussion at Talk:Rick Remender
[edit]Hi. Can you offer your opinion regarding the Infobox photo discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
"no one will hold it against you."
[edit]Dayewalker - you have requested talk pages over email, so here it is. When an initiator and instigator of disruptive editing pre-emptively filed a plaintiff action against me, successfully manipulating Wikipedia admins into finishing a fight he started by having me blocked, you declared "no one will hold it against you." Now, probably the same editor using ip address verses wiki username has done the same thing. That is, initiate and instigate with hypocritical behavior and then pre-emptively start plaintiff action manipulating admins into a false sense that they are innocent actors because they are the first to file plaintiff action. Sure enough, wikipedia admin User:Waggers used the prior block to say "he/she is no stranger to controversy" proving your statement "one will hold it against you" completely and utterly wrong.
Just thought I would point out you have been proven wrong. To my surprise I find your userpage with a long diatribe using users block history to hold things for or against others.
It is an interesting trick. Pick a fight with an editor, coax them into defending themselves the same way they are attacked, manipulate admins into punishing the defendant, and viola, editors such as Dayewalker will join in beating up the defendant. Clearly a weakness of Wikipedia.Mormography (talk) 08:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)