User talk:DailyEditor

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Welcome[edit]

Hello DailyEditor, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article Wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

DailyEditor, good luck, and have fun. -- KuwarOnline ^Talk 05:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Hunter film dates[edit]

Lets not start a "date filmed" section because the info is unreliable. "I saw it on a monitor in the van" is not a valid reference. Plus, it is not integral to this episode list. It will just clutter it up and add confusion. Besides if you're going to do this for season seven - what about the other six seasons? It will looked "half-assed". Cyberia23 (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had already added the film dates for Season 7. I am working on the film dates of Season 1-5 as I already have the DVDs. I will add the dates of Season 6 as soon as the DVD's out. Also the info is reliable. If you are really a huge fan, like me, you can check the film dates on either the monitor when Steve Gonsalves is showing Jay and Grant the camera set-ups, or on the thermal recording cameras when they investigate. I have already completed writing the film dates of season 4 in my notepad, and I will add all the film dates once I make a complete list of all film dates of all the seasons.

DailyEditor

DailyEditor (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot go by what you see on Steve's monitor or the thermal cam. A show isn't filmed in one night; sometimes they do it over a few days, so your dates are already wrong before you even add them. You even hear them say "we'll be back in a few days with the results." None of these dates can be easily confirmed over the web and you need direct web links for references. The only reliable source is SyFy's offical Ghost Hunters page and they don't list when the shows were filmed. Therefore your info is unreliable as the only way to confirm would be to go out and buy the DVDs. Sorry, I'm not that much of a fan. I also said it's unnecessary for the article as it's just fanboy clutter information that shouldn't be added. The date it was aired on TV is good enough. Cyberia23 (talk) 05:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~First of all, what do you mean the info is unreliable. They shoot the investigation in ONE night but give the results in a week. Fine instead of date filmed I will add date investigated.~~

DailyEditor

Date filmed/date investigated - what's the difference? They're filming the investigation, are they not? If you add the dates - which I strongly urge against - you will need to find a reliable, (keyword reliable), source for all of them somewhere online so they can be confirmed (because I will challenge their reliability). You said you were getting the info from the DVDs, and that doesn't do a lot of good for people who don't own the DVDs now does it? I'm not trying to be a dick about this, I'm just trying to avoid unnecessary junk added to the article.Cyberia23 (talk) 05:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing is when you watch the show and those little title cards pop up between scenes like "Ye Olde Haunted Inn, Wednesday 1:12 AM" for example, do you see them putting the full date they were there? No. So why should we bother listing it too, and having to go dig for it on a DVD. Cyberia23 (talk) 05:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I will add the Date investigated, instead of the Date filmed because you said they film it over a week, like you said, agreed. Second, I again say, the date the investigate the place will not be an uneccessary addition, rather, you are adding uneccessary junk to my talk page. Wikipedia is a place where we can spread reliable and true information to the world. And the content should be verifiable, and if you are against the very principles of this great encylopedia, I will request an admin to block your account because you are a vandal.

Oh, so now I'm "vandal?" I can see you have no idea what that even means. I'm leaving comments on your comment page because that's what it's for! And for your information, I've been a quality editor here for a few years and I think I know what constitutes proper content to this website and what is trivial information that can be done without. You don't want to cooperate, that's fine, that's what the arbitration process is for, but any admin worth his position here will know that the information you added cannot be verified unless they buy the DVDs and that you're supposedly getting the info from watching what you see in the background - by the way that's called original research - information that you gathered yourself and are publishing here without a 3rd party reference because no website out there has this information to reference back to. So, you wanna argue that, good luck. Instead you should spend the incredible amount of free time you have perhaps doing something more constructive around here. Cyberia23 (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, its obvious I have been a better editor, of course, I can prove it. The first proof being, that if you have been an quality editor, you should have known the difference between a talk page and a comment and the second being that you didn't start your talk with six colons. So this basically proves I have been a user with quality experience, unlike you and answers your first doubt that you are an editor wiht 'great quality'. Second, there are many more admins out there who are bigger fans of Ghost Hunters, and I even personally know a few like them. Third I still maintain that you are a vandal, deleting true and verifiable information. So, I am going to report you for vandalism. Fourth, its not original research, although I cannot tell you the source I get the information from (it's actually not Stevie's Van), I can only tell, that I am close to a production guy in Ghost Hunters and also in Syfy: Imagine Greater. Fifth, I have an incredible amount of time at hand but can only utilise it in a contructive way, when lame vandals like you stop bugging me. Last but not the least, I am going to add Date Investigated Section.

DailyEditor

Better editor... you don't even know how to properly sign your name to comments or use a spell checker correctly. I'm done with you, you're obviously all pissed off now, whatever. You wanted to report me, but since you're busy edit warring, I decided to save you the trouble and reported the incident [1]. I suggest you add your comments and tear me apart there for all to see. Have a nice day. Cyberia23 (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why do I add my sign when it will show that the userpage doesn't exist. Also you messed with the wrong guy. Si vis pacem, para bellum, alea jacta est.~~

DailyEditor

How old are you? Just curious. Cyberia23 (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do you even think Daily Editor is a name? Why do I share my personal information with you! How old are you? Just curious. BTW, you have a flabby curiousity. You are a damn naïve editor.~~

DailyEditor

Yeah, I believe your mom named you "Daily Editor". Cyberia23 (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think DailyEditor is name name, I know (not believe) that your mom didn't even send you to school, "Cyberia". Also, my mom is not illiterate like your mom, that she name's me DailyEditor.

Apologies! DailyEditor (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice[edit]

Please can I give you some friendly advice?

With your dispute with Cyberia23, you are both in a hole. When he says bad things about you, he makes himself look bad. When you say bad things about him, you look bad. It is very easy to get into this situation - a good strategy when this happens is to stop contributing to the talk pages concerned.

Regarding the content dispute, create a page like this: User:DailyEditor/Sandbox1. Then copy the section you want to edit from List of Ghost Hunters episodes, and make the edits you want to the version in your Sandbox1. Find a way of making the citations. Put in a citation for every bit of information on section - not just the contested bit. Make your version of the section really good. Then propose it on the article's talk page. Talk through with people what needs to happen for it to be acceptable. If someone says that you cannot reference commercial DVDs, quote the relevant rules on reliable sources. The argument that not everyone has the DVD is bogus if they can buy them. It is no different than books or newspapers. There is a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but only go to this as a last resort.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it is a good thing to put links to your Sandboxes on your user page.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011[edit]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, you must not be afraid to be wrong. If you disagree, try to compromise. Do not attack other editors. You seem to have been a victim of the golden rule's dark side-that if you attack someone, it'll come back. Remember, pointing one finger at someone points three back at yourself. Jasper Deng (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you only alerted me, Cyberia is the one who started personal attacks by calling me names, commenting on age, doubting on my education, if there is someone who urgently needed an alert it was Cyberia.

DailyEditor (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter. Do not fire back if he starts something-that's one thing that's considered etiquette here. Please reply on your own talk page, as it keeps discussions centralized.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already warned Cyberia23. I want both of you to do your parts.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Caffrey[edit]

I've got your new writing on Neal Caffrey. Give me until tomorrow afternoon or so to read it carefully, then I'll reply. I'm glad to help if I can! Drmargi (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also have been working on a page for a character list for quite some time, found here. I'd make a few changes to your text, but for the most part, it's really good. If you want, go ahead and transfer the text over to my article, and we can start building the article from what I already have. Thanks! Kevinbrogers (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just found your article that you've been working on here. Looks like you're taking the text from the High School Musical list and changing it... that's what I usually do, too. The only problem with your article is that, as I've recently learned, the infoboxes are only for individual articles, not long character lists. Take a look at mine, and get back to me. We can take bits and pieces from each of our articles and then publish as an actual article when it's ready. Thanks! Kevinbrogers (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:TwitterEastin.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:TwitterEastin.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect of File:TwitterEastin.jpg, I have tried to help you.

I have added a URL to http://twitter.com/jeffeastin as the source.
But there is a problem with copyright. The Twitter terms of service http://twitter.com/tos allow "Twitter to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals who partner with Twitter for the syndication, broadcast, distribution or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use." I don't think that includes Wikipedia. So what evidence do you have that this photo can be uploaded on Wikipedia?

--Toddy1 (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - but you have not yet met the requirements. Look at this file here File:Circus_Tour.jpg. You will see that it has a licence. You need to work out what the licence is for the photo you posted, and add the licence.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of White Collar characters[edit]

While I like most of your changes, I think the table should include some sort of "Occupation" column. Also, have you seen my version of the article? (found here) I like most of your article, but infoboxes along the right side of the page aren't supposed to be (for whatever reason) on character lists. Due to this, I think your version should include the lead-ins to each section that can be found on my article (basically an alternative to infoboxes). Other than that, everything looks good to me. Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was your account really hacked?[edit]

You are trying to say your account was hacked when you made those personal attacks; however, I find it very hard to believe.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My acoount was not hacked but it was rather accessed as I left the Remember me for 30 days option checked in a CyberCafe. Some juvenile on a rant might have changed my password and taken the account for himself even though I have finally retrieved it. I was on a vacation when the fight was on. I have already apologised to Cyberia and Xeworlebi.

Being an Oxford alumni, after reading about the fight, I have concluded that John Doe used Latin words from http://www.ou.edu/class/FRINFO/GTA/EGO/Pages/latinAbrevQuotes.html while CyberFightin' with the aforementioned users.

I know that a bad impression about me has been left and I regret going to the CyberCafe to confirm my booking.

DailyEditor (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explain your signature change then.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a have said, again and again, that I did not use signatures because they would always show that the page does not exist and would be like DailyEditor.

But John Doe had, maybe for his ease, changed the signature. So when I retrieved my account, the new signature was already there. I really liked it and instead of having something like DailyEditor, I created my user page and linked all sandboxes, even the one John Doe had created, i.e., List of Ghost Hunters episode.

DailyEditor (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That person wouldn't have done that if his/her main purpose was to attack others.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what his main purpose was. I am happy that he gave me my signature (as you can see in the Apologies! section of Cyberia and Xeworlebi), but at the same time, angry, that he went against the principle of my account, to be polite to all Wikipedians. Also, I have seen diffs inwhich John Doe accuses Cyberia of being a snake or his mother being illiterate. To beef up security I have changed the password added an email etc. so that this incident NEVER EVER happens.

DailyEditor (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I may say something here: this is still all very suspicious to me. I can see an account hacker may pose as you to cause disruption, but going around doing their own editing projects with it (in good faith for the most part) - I've never seen one do that before. Your playing around with my signature on my talk page also appears suspicious - the supposed "hacker" seemed to have an interest in wikimarkup to alter text around as well. Anyway, account hacks do happen, so I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on this, but realize your name has been tarnished, (mine as well, now for seemingly no good reason) so if I were you I'd drop the name DailyEditor and maybe start a new account. Some particularly scathing things were said about me through this account so whoever DailyEditor is, they really need to stay away from me from now on. Thank you. Cyberia23 (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GH Episodes[edit]

I've started a discussion on the GH Episodes page, feel free to comment there. When you say "GH," people don't necessarily think of Ghost Hunters. General Hospital comes to mind, although there are probably others. Dayewalker (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for abusing multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. TN X Man 20:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DailyEditor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is unreasonable! As you can see I made no edits with DailyEditor once my JustinSpringer account was created. I created my JS account only because some teen Roman whack-job had hacked my account. So I needed my fresh start at Wikipedia. I demand my block be cleared IMMIDIATELY! DailyEditor (talk) 11:14 am, Today (UTC+5.5)

Decline reason:

If you want a clean start, you could do that by emailing Arbcom directly and letting them respond to you. And in case you can wait for a month, which is the duration of this block, you can come back for your clean start then; but it would be a good idea to inform arbcom even then about your clean start. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

There is no indication on User:DailyEditor that you had retired this user name. It would have been better if there had been.

Special:Contributions/JustinSpringer shows edits on to non-user pages starting with Leonardo Farkas on 1 April. As JustinSpringer you made edits to pages that you edited as DailyEditor.

Special:Contributions/DailyEditor shows edits on Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates and User:DailyEditor/Ghost Hunters/Episodes on 7 April, but other than that, you did as you said. Were the edits on 7 April a mistake?--Toddy1 (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did make edits on April 7 from Daily Editor I was planning to retire the editor that day. As far as JustinSpringer and DailyEditor are concerned they are my accounts, but NickHalden and JimmyNolan are not. These accounts were created from a shared IP in our estate. So I am not responsible for the latter two. As far as DE and JS are concerned, I am going to retire both these editors and have a Clean Start DailyEditor (talk) 07:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request to unblock so that I can retire my editor. DailyEditor (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DailyEditor - my impression is favorable overall, though I think you make some errors of judgment. I suggest that you learn the phrases, "I am sorry", and "I made a mistake". You will find them useful in real life as well as on Wikipedia. In unblock discussions great weight is placed on expressions of remorse and of the user understanding that his doing the wrong thing led to his being blocked and that he has learned from the experience.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]