User talk:Dwaltzwriter

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ArchieHall for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Nsevs • Talk 11:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-->Obviously a sockpuppet. Account created moment of dispute flare up, all contributions shared, coincidence can't explain away intent. Blaming friendship with other account holder still implies form of sockpuppetry, conspiring to help eachother.Tromatical (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are new around here, that's why you can't figure out why you were caught. You are using sockpuppets, or having your friends do so. It is obvious to anyone that reviews the case. You can stop pretending now. It's a waste of our time watching you play this game. Take responsibility since no one is buying your song and dance. Moving forward, please edit constructively.Tromatical (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments such as "And Poyoyloar? NEVER accuse me of being a sockpuppet again. Are we clear?" are at best incivil, worse personal attacks and at worst legal threats. They are a very easy way to get blocked or banned, especially in a public forum such as WP:SSP. If you are so inclined, you might want to remove those comments as described here. --Nsevs • Talk 16:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC) So, it's alright for this guy to accuse anyone he wants of something and we are allowed no form of retaliation whatsoever? This is a crock! When are you guys going to run that test that he keeps referring to so he can retract his libelous statements? I tell you what, get the test done, prove who I am and then I will take these statements off. Until then, I have my rights and will continue to exercise them in any way I see fit!Dwaltzwriter (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is allowed to make personal attacks or be incivil, and I have held everyone to that standard. Tromatical and Poyoyloar have received warnings for behavior against Wikipedia policies, and I am applying those same standards to you. I will once again encourage you to comment on content, not on the contributor. Edits such as this one are inappropriate and will not be tolerated. The sockpuppet investigation will work itself out, but unfortunately I have no control over how quickly that happens. --Nsevs • Talk 12:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I will check to make sure that the other two have removed their statements. Once they have done so I will be more than happy to do the same. But, not until then.Dwaltzwriter (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, the reason I haven't responded is because I reported your sockpuppetry and your personal attacks to an admin. I've already given you a warning. The next step is to escalate it the appropriate people. My job is done. But with your continued attacks, you are making it harder to defend your own actions as you continue to violate policy. Continue in this vain, and you will be your own worst enemy.Poyoyloar (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally adore the fact that you still think I'm Mike, Daniel..oops I mean Poyoyloar. Let them check the whole thing out and then you will see exactly how wrong you are. Douglas Waltz here, still defending truth, justice and the American way to say what I want when I want. Ciao!Dwaltzwriter (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I never accused you of being Mike Daniel. I accused you of being Mike Watt. Nice try.Poyoyloar (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, read the sentence again. Don't you see the comma? So, now you aren't even reading the posts properly? Dwaltzwriter (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, please say what you want, when you want! John Stewart (sp?) always said that we need journalists who just report on what the journalists do. And that the best part of the internet... that we can police people like Mike when they violate those ethics. So please, don't stop on my account. All I care about is making sure those phony articles get deleted since they are misusing wikipedia. And right now, those articles are on pace to be deleted by the consensus currently built against it on the deleteboard where the debate is currently taking place. So truth, justice and the American way is indeed taking place. And thanx for helping it along with your 'words'. You are making the case for deleting those articles better than I ever could. So don't stop. And have a nice day!Poyoyloar (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, one way of looking at the situation is this: articles about people far more notable than Mrs.Best have been deleted for less. Put another way, Mrs.Best is an amateur actress who has little to no mainstream or veriable sources to verify her notability, and that's according to wikipedia's strict standards. I know you don't think that is fair. But those aren't my rules. Fangoria, IMDB, Filmthreat, etc. etc. simply don't cut it as sources. And that's why those articles will be deleted. So if you want those articles to stay, then simply invest more work into finding more mainstream and objective sources to back the many unsourced claims by the article. Did you notice those banners littering her page? They were placed by other members of the wikipedia community, not I. So do the work necessary to make those articles encyclopedic. If Mrs. Best is as notable as you say she is, then you should have NO problem finding many, many legitimate sources about her. Most notable indie film celebrities like Lloyd Kaufman or Chris Gore or even Guisseppe Andrews are spoken about in the mainstream press all of the time, despite being outsiders to the mainstream. So prove me wrong, and find those sources. The funny thing, despite an exhaustive internet search, I found nothing other than trivial coverage of her amateur acting efforts. So you have your work cut out for you. Good luck, you'll need it. Poyoyloar (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you get paid to do something you are no longer an amateur. Plain and simple. And since when doesn't a magazine with a history like Fangoria not count??? That makes no sense whatsoever.Dwaltzwriter (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Mike... I'm not EVEN going to get into why this is an absurd statement. According to your logic, a worker at McDonald deserves a wikipedia page because he get's paid to cook food.lol. I'm sure world renowed chef Bobby Flay would find that amusing. Put another way, my uncle gets paid for a living to film wedding videos, that doesn't mean he should also be given a wikipedia page and that doesn't mean he should be called a professional filmmaker.lol Ultimately, it doesn't matter what 'we' think. The article fails wikipedia standards for notability. It's the consensus of the community that is against you on this. Again, articles about far more notably people have been deleted for less. So when those articles are deleted, that's one of the reasons 'why.' And, unfortunately, simply being mentioned by Fangoria isn't enough for notability. If Mrs.Best were truly notable, then you would expect to see her repeatedly mentioned in the mainstream press as well. For instance, a minor celebrity like Lloyd Kaufman has been mentioned not only in Fangoria but also he is mentioned by Fox News and CNN. And Lloyd Kaufman is hardly on the radar in Hollywood. Yet his notability speaks for itself because he's a part of film history. Amy Lynn Best is just another person trying to make it in the industry. That's hardly notable and certainly not encyclopedic. Take care.Poyoyloar (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Hey Mike, threatening me with "aggression" ain't allowed. No more of this[[1]].Poyoyloar (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An aggressive stance does not constitute aggression towards a person. Gad! What a tool.Dwaltzwriter (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]