User talk:Chaser/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Archives
2006: Mar—Jun 19 | Jun 20—Jul | Aug—Sep | Oct—Dec 17 | Dec 17—31 2007: Jan | Feb—May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec 2008: Jan—May | Jun—Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec 2009: Jan—Apr | May—Aug | Sep | Oct—Nov | Dec 2010: Jan—Jun | Jul—Oct | Nov—Dec 2011: Jan—Mar | Apr—Jul 2012: Jul—Aug | Sep—Dec 2013: Jan—Dec 2014: Jan—Dec 2015: Jan—Dec

User:Bfissa

Hi there. I know you unblocked this user two weeks back as they'd apologised for sock-puppetry.[1] Well, as it turns out, they were the impostor who posed as me from 22-26th of June. I had a checkuser done as that account caused issues with someone who's unblock was declined by "me" (actually not), and it turned up two more sock accounts, 1 being another impostor. I know they left two days ago anyway but just to let you know that I indefblocked the account as a matter of course, just to make sure. I don't know why it was that Bfissa picked on me, but there ya go. Just to let you know - Alison ☺ 08:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Existing sockpuppets were not what I imagined when Bfissa asked me a few days ago about creating a new account for a fresh start. Is the checkuser report only on the mailing list, or what? It may not matter, as I don't think he can even log-in to email with his monobook like that.--Chaser - T 08:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It is. It's been confirmed nonetheless. Email me if you like. And zie wikibreaked hir monobook.js to disable editing. I've no doubt they'll be back, however, but impersonating me (and a certain 'enemy') was a mean stunt - Alison ☺ 09:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Besides, s/he can email unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org - it's in the block message that comes up, so there's still recourse. Or, of course, post an {{unblock}} on any of the sock accounts :) - Alison ☺ 18:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI: [2]. You could have the checkuser email me the information in question or just tell whoever it is to go do the unblock review themselves.--Chaser - T 18:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep. User:Spartaz just sent me an email. Mail me if you want the checkuser details - Alison ☺ 19:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

drv

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Boston Dynamics. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --W.marsh 18:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My block

He was recently released from a 2 week block... My choice was indef or a month. --Evilclown93_(talk) 01:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

... or two weeks. Someone needs to tell that guy to keep from revert-warring on that same "Organization" article, though - Alison ☺ 01:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

He's been like this for months. If you dig through his history and/or the stuff I've reported on him, you can see that there have been quite a few "Someone"s that told him to stop revert-warring. It won't work, believe me. There was something like 6 or 7 unreported 3RR violations, which is why he wasn't blocked much. - Zero1328 _Talk? 02:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've left the 31 day block in place.--Chaser - T 05:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fighting vandalism

Hi Chaser, thank you for your help fighting vandalism. What else can I do to help? I'd like to become more involved. -Superbeecat 05:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. To be honest, I'm not the greatest at counter-vandalism. Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol and the links from that are the best resource I know. Also see User:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool for an easy way to scroll recent changes. Let me know if you have another question. Good luck!--Chaser - T 05:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Dont delete Pakalomattom_Ayrookuzhiyil

Hi Chaser,

Please dont delete the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakalomattom_Ayrookuzhiyil

See http://www.ayrookuzhiyil.org/copyright.html

I agree that the content of this article is same as www.ayrookuzhiyil.org . But I am the same content provider and webmaster of the above said site Please go to above site and

"This site is maintained by Cherian Tinu Abraham ,Ayrookuzhiyil Kulathunkal , Thiruvananthapuram , Kerala <S/o Dr.Abraham Cherian < S/o K.I.Cherian < S/o K. C. Idicula < S/o Cherian Kulathunkal < S/o Idicula Kulathunkal<S/o Cherian Kadavana<S/o Idicula Tharakanveedu<S/o I T Jr.< S/o Idicula Tharakan Sr. Contact me at < removed > , or visit www.tinucherian.com Contact me for additions ,suggestions and corrections. Any error that was made in the process of compiling the information is regretted. " I am the same tinucherian . If you have any questions , you can mail be at removed

Thanks tinucherian

Response at User talk:Tinucherian and via email. Email removed to prevent spamming.--Chaser - T 05:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Nikola Smolenski

It appears he's blown off what both of us have said about linking to copyvios. Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-07-02 Bruce Borland - your comments would be appreciated. -- ChrisO 19:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've prepared a long response but am waiting for the answer to a question on his talk page.--Chaser - T 05:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm an Elsevier user myself (via specialist academic libraries), so I've had a go at answering your question. Hope that helps. -- ChrisO 07:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Not on Elsevier, but it's available on FSI's webpage[3] (free registration required). Nikola 15:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you independently have a subscription to that journal (possibly through a University whose computer network you use?). I can't access it freely. After I registered, the full text link led to a screen that said I could pay $30 to see the article for 24 hours, subscribe, or access an existing subscription.--Chaser - T 17:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Chaser, thanks for your input. I'm afraid there are a couple of misunderstandings in your response - grateful if you could take a look at my reply! -- ChrisO 19:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Boston Dynamics

I switched the sentence of the companies own description of itself from an inline citation; to quotation marks to satisfy the argument that the sentence was a copyright violation, but the article was again speedy deleted, by the person who deleted it the first time. This time the argument was that I cant use a companies website as a source, because that is the equivalent of a blog, and that it is the equivalent of a primary source. Can't the article go to a regular vote? The more eyes on the issue the more likely it will be resolved to everyones satisfaction. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved.[4].--Chaser - T 18:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael Joseph Owens

Can you take a look at this one in administrative limbo. Same group with same rationale speedy deleted it, and when that didn't stick, used copyright violation. I appreciate all your hard work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have commented here. The gist of it is you should rewrite it.--Chaser - T 22:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Not surprising

I was sort of expecting all the tool buttons to pop up when I logged on. But as I said re the clearly replaceable images that languish undeleted, we let far too many things slide past deadlines which makes it look like we don't take policy seriously.

Just two weeks ago I had to move an RFC into the active queue because it had the requisite two signatures (I know all the parties involved, too). No one else had done it ... I wondered if I was really supposed to, but I haven't caught any flack. Daniel Case 06:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have the mop and I'm using it!

Thanks very much for all the support and help! I celebrated by going right over to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and cleaning some out.

Thank you so much for believing in me. I didn't think I would fail, but I did have some concerns about last-minute box stuffing. Daniel Case 17:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for your support this past week on my RFA. I didn't make it through this time, but I'll be working to incorporate the many suggestions so that I can hopefully have a successful attempt in a few months. Hiberniantears 14:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No sweat. Sorry for giving you a hard time about Q4. Good luck for next time.--Chaser - T 00:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot Summaries

Y did you delete the plot summaries on the On the Run page, and put it up for deletion. Anna F C 16:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Shalom put it up for deletion. I trimmed the plot summaries to meet his objection and hopefully avoid AFD, but it didn't work. Sorry.--Chaser - T 00:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Block issue

What is happening with this issue? Mackensen is now back and seems to be conveniently ignoring it and other issues while having activity on other articles. -125.174.218.189 15:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you email him. I will not undo a sockpuppetry block by a checkuser merely because I don't understand it.--Chaser - T 23:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

He's right, incidentally; I had to prioritize coming off a month-long break and explaining to a sockpuppet why he was blocked just wasn't at the top of the list. Anyway, in future situations like this you should either dash off an email to the committee (<arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>) or instruct him to do so. Best, Mackensen (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll do that in the future with unclear checkuser blocks. Thanks, Mackensen.--Chaser - T 02:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/namayte

I understand why you moved it off of the RFA page, but we still need to bring it to the attention of an admin to delete it. Do you know how we should do that? Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 23:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you are an admin. Fabulous, can you delete that page then please? Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 23:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it's been archived. Brilliant. Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 23:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, generally we don't delete even RFAs that never had a chance because someone might decide to run later and may point back to the first RFA to say "look how much I've grown from there" or whatnot. In this case, it really doesn't matter, but there's no harm in letting it sit in its current form and it doesn't meet any CSD (other than maybe G3).--Chaser - T 23:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

U r awsum

Dude u r truly awsumNamayte 23:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed.--Chaser - T 23:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to hav done alot for Wikipedia and for that I respect and look up to you.:) Namayte 00:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, thanks

Well thanks man, I appreciate the link. I am glad you are tolerating a noob like me. I just want to help out with this. Long time user, recent editor. Niyant 00:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sweet, that's really nice to have a "mentor." sorry if I end up badgering you with questions...hopefully I get the hang of this editing stuff haha Niyant 00:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for all the time and effort you spent on my RFA. Hope I can live up to your standard. Cheers, CitiCat 02:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. But remember, it was your own work that turned around your RFA; you've already lived up to my standard. Well done.--Chaser - T 02:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice

I'll try to be here again tomorrow. You should know I'm in a Mid-East time zone (didn't sleep tonight - it's 7:34am here - i have bad bad insomnia sometimes) so we may not be here at the same time. Any insight you have though, would be much appreciated. Isarig and I have a long editing history marked by such stalemates which usually results in one of us abandoning the page for a while, only to return to same old dispute. A pair of new eyes would be great. Tiamat 04:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Go get some sleep. Let's try to discuss this on the talk page over a period of days instead of hours and we'll see if we can't hammer out a solution (even if we're not all in the same time zone). Take care.--Chaser - T 04:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use

I suppose that I am new to this philosophy. What criteria do you need to know in order to use say, a logo for a village or city? If it represents a city, doesn't it belong to the people of that city? Maybe I just need help in learning how to tag images.Illinois2011 06:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline should help. Let me know if you can't figure it out from there.--Chaser - T 06:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think about it, I think that photographs are a better representation of a town anyway, such as that in the article for my hometown of Bethalto, Illinois. Thanks for the help, though.Illinois2011 06:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Rationale

Thanks PianoKeys 10:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

User:StrawberryShorty

If this user has never edited wikipedia, as he claims, how is he so familiar with a previous sockpuppet case? His story about it being all over the web lacks credibility in my view. Like, where?? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I took it at face value, but couldn't find anything obvious on the web. I think we should just deny an unblock based on the IP's block log. It may be collateral damage, but that is always a risk, and one I'm comfortable taking under these circumstances. I'm going to deny the unblock request for now, but feel free to continue the dialog, and I can reverse later.--Chaser - T 16:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Thanks. I just wanted them warned. (Mind meal 02:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

Oh, any editor can do that (including another IP). Just paste {{subst:test}} on their userpage (escalating to test2, test3, test4). Cheers!--Chaser - T 02:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit war at North Central American English

Hi Chaser, thank you for the message and the blocking. I would not have done the four edits if administrators had responded to my two prior appeals today to block the IP editor. Also, my first efforts had been interrupted because one administrator recommended a vandalism block against the IP editor. I hope all of my actions have been professional, as your message to me suggests.

I can presume that the IP editor will resume the war once his block period is up. My key question: How do I initiate WP:arbitration in this edit war? Thanks again for everything, Dogru144 04:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A request for arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution and should not be filed at this time. If the IP address persists in removing material, direct him/her again to the talk page and attempt to discuss the issue. I think this material could well go in either article (although it's a bit odd that the IP hasn't attempted to put any of it into Inland Northern American English). Ask other editors to participate in the discussion in an attempt to gain consensus. If you generate a consensus on the article's talk page and the IP address ignores it, contact me on my talk page.--Chaser - T 04:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of page dispute protocol. Actually, his first act of blanking a page was not 8 July or 9 July. As one can see on the user's Talk Page, he did it on 21 or 22 June. An editor reprimanded him on 22 June for blanking a page. Thanks again for your feedback. Dogru144 21:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Acen Razvi

Thanks for the response to Acen Razvi. However, the present situation is not ideal. I've delete/protected the page to halt the edit war, but this is not altogether satisfactory since User:triangle e had written what appeared to me to be a perfectly reasonable article for this guy. I don't know enough about the topic to arbitrate, and my actions are just to halt the edit war. any ideas of a way forward? Jimfbleak 05:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see the broader history of the article. Given their desire that the article be "left as Acen wants it", I'm not hopeful, but I suggest giving the editor a chance to respond to things. If Acenfacts continues pasting this POV myspace stuff in, I will be happy to indef block the account. I don't have much tolerance for people who spam our site with copyvios to promote their own business interests. In the meantime, I'm going to restore that article.--Chaser - T 06:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, and since Acenfacts has a legitimate way to correct any factual errors, a continuation of the text dump would justify a block. Jimfbleak 06:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Acenfacts and Triangle e have talked, and both seem happy with the current page, thanks for your help. Jimfbleak 12:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Great.--Chaser - T 12:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

AIV note

Thanks for the notification. I won't make that mistake again (although they did vandalize more then once and received a 4im) Giggy _U^CP 05:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I found it egregious. In any case, I'll keep an eye out. Giggy _U^CP 05:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I'll look for that next time :D Giggy _U^CP 05:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Pickles27

Thx. That was fast!SteinAlive | ☎ | ☉ 06:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Hermetic seal

Chaser: You're an admin so maybe you can help me since my adopter is on holidays. I noticed in my watchlist that this page was created by an IPuser. I can't revert the edit since there is no previous version. I don't want to blank the page, nor do I want to add anything. Since it's not an article, I don't think CSD applies. What should I do? Nothing has been added to the userpage for that IP (redlink). This edit is almost a day old and no one seems to have done anything. Please advise. Thx SteinAlive | ☎ | ☉ 07:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you replace that nonsense with {{talkheader}} That template is common on a lot of article talk pages and is a convenient replacement. If the IP was still online or had recently vandalized, other action (like a warning) might have been wise, but in this case, it's not necessary.--Chaser - T 07:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate that you asked Daniel Case to lift the block I incurred so that I could partake in the discussion to reach a consensus solution that would put an end to the back-and-forth edit wars taking place Flying checkpoint. I plan to do my level best not to disappoint you by concentrating on finding a solution acceptable to everyone involved. Many thanks. Tiamat 13:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind checking in on the Talk:Flying checkpoint page? I realize that the issues have become quite confused, but I am attempting to offer a kind of compromise to achieve consensus before the page is unprotected, so that we can avoid future edit wars. Thanks. Tiamat 18:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Chaser! Long time no see!

Hey, Chaser! Long time no see! I'm having a great time at home!--The source of the cosmos... 02:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Your adoptee

Good. Let me know if I can do anything for you. I would be happy to.--Chaser - T 02:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I need EliteMap and AVG installed on your computer as a test for what PSW.Generic4.MNS does. I found the Trojan in 'dexter.exe'--The source of the cosmos... 13:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have AVG free installed already. Are you suggesting I intentionally introduce a virus on my computer? Anyway, I'm signing off for the day, but will be back on this evening.--Chaser - T 13:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it is just a test. I need to find more information on this trojan.--The source of the cosmos... 14:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bans and blocks and templates

Gurch, regarding the ban templates on Duff's userpage, he isn't banned. A ban is when the community gets together and kicks out a specific editor due to disruption or exhausting the community's patience. It's actually different than a block, which enforces a ban. See Wikipedia:Banning policy. He's also not blocked. Rather, he is autoblocked because he is on a tor and/or a proxy IP. I realize the tag was meant in part to protest the situation, but it might annoy the person (Duff) who is subject to this autoblock and, regardless of that, is not appropriate in this case. Thanks.--Chaser - T 00:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The user is banned. Please read the definition of a "community ban" in Wikipedia:Banning policy:

There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she has been indefinitely blocked by an administrator—and no one is willing to unblock them. Users blocked under these circumstances are considered to have been "banned by the Wikipedia community."

This user has been indefinitely blocked by the idiots who enforce Wikipedia:No open proxies, and no administrator is willing to unblock them. They are therefore "banned" under this definition.

The user is hardly going to be annoyed by being labelled as "banned", since that's the term they used themselves. Please see their most recent contributions, for example here – Gurch 09:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser request for possible JoeHazelton sock

Hi, Chaser. I'd like to request a checkuser on JoeBonham. His method of account creation[5], rants about Wikipedia[6], awarding of a barnstar to Bellowed in response to his Soros page activity [7] shortly before the creation of the "Willie Peter" sock [8], as well as several contentious edits limited to Illinois figures all seem to point to Joehazelton; I'd be surprised if he didn't fall within these ranges:[9] I'm not exactly sure how to request this checkuser. Any advice/help you could offer would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

P.S. Please note I am not alleging Bellowed has anything to do with this sock account. --Eleemosynary 05:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

See if you can handle it over at WP:RFCU. I'm headed to bed now, but will be able to help in about 18 hours.--Chaser - T 05:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. The checkuser confirmed it, and the account has been blocked by LunaSantin. Thanks for steering me in the right direction! --Eleemosynary 08:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Good work. This was more pleasantly bloodless than last time.--Chaser - T 13:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Adopt an editor

Dear Chaser,

Durova has recently unblocked me and suggested I use the adopt program, because she does not have enough time personally to mentor me. Another user on my talk page suggested I contact someone at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's_Area/Adopters to see if they would be willing to adopt me. I looked over the users available and think that you would make for a good mentor. I am greatly interested in making the most of my return to Wikipedia after a couple months absense and would really appreciate it if you would be so kind as to adopt me. It would be immensely helpful to have someone, especially an admin helping me make good edits.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

--Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to adopt you (I've already done so). How should we begin?--Chaser - T 02:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for the reply! I greatly appreciate it. It is probably worth letting Durova know that you have adopted me. I'm new to the adoption concept, so I am of course open to suggestions. I would be curious as to your thoughts on articles I've created or ideas on how to successfully participate in AfDs. Or even if there are projects based on my edit history that you think would be good for me to work on. Thanks again! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I will contact Durova. I notice that you followed Durova's request to cut back on AFD; that's good. As to articles, there were a couple of minor errors to one that I fixed [10]. Browsing the relevant wikiprojects could also be fruitful.--Chaser - T 04:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks again for the time and help, and suggestios! I really do appreciate it and I look forward to your guidance in becoming a better and constructive editor. By the way, out of curiosity, when articles are deleted are they completely gone for good or are they still saved somewhere? Thanks again! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Pages and media can technically be restored by any administrator. Many administrators (myself included) will provide copies of most deleted content. See my userpage for details.--Chaser - T 04:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for the fast reply! I'll probably be heading to sleep soon, but thanks again for helping out. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm another adoptee! But unlike you, I've never been blocked.--The source of the cosmos... 02:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A legend, people don't usually like it when someone brings up their past blocks out of the blue.--Chaser - T 03:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. And I need help with my sig.--The source ofthecosmos... 15:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. No big deal. I had some bad experiences in the past, but that was then. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! And, can Chaser help me with my weird talk page?--The source ofthecosmos... 00:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Quick note

Hey Chaser, I've replied to your comments on my user Talk page. Just posting here because I've been traveling for more than a week, and I doubt you are watching it anymore. Thanks again, Xenophrenic 09:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Replied on your talk page.--Chaser - T 13:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring comments on Flying checkpoint

Hi chaser, while probably not your intent, your recent refactoring/hiding recent comments made on that page has removed comments on the dispute by 2 additional editors who provided comments, per he RfC. Both User:Jayjg and User:Tewfik commented on the seeming identity between flying checkpoints and random checkpoint, and your recent edit hides these comments. Please restore them. Isarig 03:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Done for Jayjg. Tewfik isn't new to this article's talk page.--Chaser - T 03:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for re-adding him. I fail to see the significance of Tewfik's status as "new" to the page. this is an RfC, and he's commenting on the dispute, in light of new material that has been presented in the past few days. If we are to exclude comments by people who have commented on the page in the past, the RfC description needs to be amended so that it does not present it as a dispute between myself and Tiamut. Isarig 03:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Faux pas

I'm sorry about that. I was waiting for some time you to make changes that reflected my position (as you did in response to Isarig's comments), and then when you did make changes, they were mostly to introduce the views of others. I thought that I could change the part of your message that dealt with my position (which fell short of being representative), using the "strike" feature to delineate what it is was that I deleted. I didn't realize that this was not permissible. I've never done anything like that before and it was just for simplicity's sake. Should I self-revert? Tiamat 07:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Mistakes are a common way to learn such things. Check the page's edit history and let me know if my own modifications are satisfactory.--Chaser - T 07:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. I just read your sum-up of my position. I just want to make clear that I am not opposed to merging the material into an article entitled Random checkpoint. As it reads now, it seems a little internally contradictory since you write that I oppose a merger into Hasty checkpoint (which is true - since no source establishes that it is a synonym for Flying checkpoint) while saying that I support a merger of such material in general if the existing material in the article in maintained. Could you add a clarification specifying that such a merger would be under the title Random checkpoint? Also, could you explain that part of the reason for wanting to maintain a section entitled Flying checkpoint rests on my belief that it is term in its own right, with its own history of use, and that it may not be synonymous with Random checkpoints, and so should be treated as a sub-type?Tiamat 07:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Modified. I summarized your last few sentences here.--Chaser - T 07:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC) And I'm going to bed.--Chaser - T 07:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Spam

Is this [11] spam? I just want to check so I don't risk 3RR... -WarthogDemon 03:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

WTF? Nobody should be making fun of Krang! He was the coolest villain ever! When I was eight my mom made me a Krang birthday cake... Yes. Spam.--Chaser - T 03:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's taken care of then. D: -WarthogDemon 03:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

I was running out of sound effects. HalfShadow 04:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Chaser - T 04:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Shaniqualonda‎

Thanks for reviewing User:Shaniqualonda's block. Being a relatively new admin, is it ok that I blocked indefinitely on a user who was vandalizing my user page? It seems a little bit like a COI, and I wouldn't mind reducing the sentence, only I still have a feeling it may be a vandal only account. Here is my process. I had just added a 24 block to an anon, and not a few minutes later, my user page starts being vandalized (is it a coincidence or not?). I see the user has been warned and blocked before for vandalism, so I issued an only warning. The vandalism persisted, so I blocked under the assumption of a vandal only account. But reviewing the contrib, there seems to be some non-vandal editing around Feb 20th. But then again, the unblock request was childish and offensive to so many people for multiple reasons. So, I'm asking you what you would have done in my situation. Your imput would be appreciated. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 04:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at this now and will reply in a few minutes.--Chaser - T 04:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's none of my business per se, but just a cursory overlook shows pretty much nothing but vandalism... HalfShadow 04:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see the same. I don't see any obvious connection to the two anons besides timing. His unblock requests were worthless, so if he wants to request unblocking tomorrow when the talk page expires, he can do so. I wouldn't unblock him, as his contributions are mostly vandalism. If he wants to behave and give a decent unblock request, someone can try the {{2nd chance}} with him. (You could do this right now if you want and leave the protection in place.) As to the COI you mentioned, it's not an issue here. We're not supposed to use admin tools to win content disputes. I would be hesitant about insults that are debatable personal attacks or incivility, but the stuff on your user page was blatant garbage, and the unblock request wasn't serious. If you mistakenly block someone as a vandalism-only account when a substantial proportion of previous edits are in good faith, then it's OK to unblock them and indicate you missed something in scanning their contributions. I don't think it's the case here, as most of the contribs are vandalism.--Chaser - T 05:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the research into this, and the thought out response. I've been learning a lot these past weeks, a lot through trial and error (hopefully, not too many errors). It's good to know I haven't accidentally hit the killswitch that they give us sysops :) I think letting the user cool down for a period is fine, and if they can approach an unblock seriously, a 2nd chance may be due, but now seems premature. Thanks again for reviewing this case, and good nite!-Andrew c ^[talk] 05:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Feel free to drop by with any other questions.--Chaser - T 05:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit war at North Central American English

Greetings. You have earlier noted the recurrent edits by User:208.104.45.20. (He has previously blanked the page in question and was blocked for 3RR violation at the page.)

He is gutting material on the foreign language influence upon the speech of that region. Repeatedly he is raising geographic arguments about Sheboygan. All of Wisconsin is in the North Central American English region, not the Inland American English region. I am in good faith trying to have a dialogue with him. I have repeatedly posted queries in the edit comment box and on the Talk Page as to why he is removing material on the foreign language influence upon speech in Wisconsin. Please intercede on this matter. I am weary of this edit war. You'll note that no other editor is contentious with the content that I am restoring, and that this & Inland English are virtually the only topics that he is editing. Dogru144 23:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have protected the page until consensus is reached on this issue. Please discuss it on the article's talk page.--Chaser - T 00:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for locking editing on the page. I entirely agree with your actions and statements. Dogru144 05:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

My past edits have nothing to do with the present. You're trying to make me sound like the bad guy. It's not my fault that you lack knowledge in this area, and that you're wrong. You never told me where you got your information, and you never responded to my last comments. It's probably because you know you'll lose, and you are afraid to be proven wrong. It doesn't matter if I was blocked for the 3RR violation. That is in the past. That is not right now. The fact that this, and Inland Northern American English are virtually (and not really) the only topics I am editing has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Of course you agree with editing being locked on this page, because then it stays the way you want it to be, and I can't edit it now. I would agree with the page being locked if it looked the way I wanted it to look. 208.104.45.20 19:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you have not even shown me what the North Central American English region is. I know that NOT all of Wisconsin is in this region. However, some of it might be. Clearly you have not looked at the maps in the Inland Northern American English, or Northern Cities Vowel Shift articles. Either that, or you are delusional. I am more weary than you are of this edit war. 208.104.45.20 19:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I directed Dogru to the article's talk page and suggest the same here. Let's keep it civil. Thanks.--Chaser - T 22:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm being serious. I'm not trying to cause disruptions. I wouldn't go this far just to piss someone off. I just want geographical inaccuracies taken out. I think the paragraph about German heritage is interesting, and great. It is just not in the correct article. I want this to be civil too. What I really want to do is learn. If I can be shown a map of this region that proves me wrong, that's fine. I just haven't seen one yet. And I don't want the map to be made by Dogru144 for the sole purpose of proving me wrong. 208.104.45.20 02:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are acting in good faith. Please give Dogru time to read my message and then go to the talk page. It's only been a few hours since I left a msg for him.--Chaser - T 02:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have given the wrong impression of myself, and have said offensive things. I am just really into dialects period. I have no problem with either one of you guys really. I don't know if I have said this, but I think most, if not all dialects are interesting. I even think North Central American English is interesting. I just have my doubts about a lot of information written in that article. I just like to know that a dialect is well documented by linguists before I believe anyone speaks it. 208.104.45.20 02:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Which talk page are you referring to? 208.104.45.20 02:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The article talk page. You might want to listen to this. It makes mention of NCAE. This one isn't relevant to you all, but it sure looks interesting.--Chaser - T 02:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the "Discussion" section of the North Central American English article? Once again, I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just confused. 208.104.45.20 03:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Yes, the discussion page for that article at Talk:North Central American English. I suggest you create a new section and try to be extra-civil and extra-polite in laying out the reasons you believe the article ought to be changed from the current version. I'm not saying you haven't been polite or civil before, but clearly this has gotten heated. Try to cool it down and stick to why you think the article is deficient in its current form. Good luck.--Chaser - T 03:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the links. No offense, but I'm forced to argue with you about the first one. I am NOT suggesting that you are stupid in any way. However, the NPR interview never uses the term North Central American English (I'm sure you realized this). Also, I don't think you realized (no offense once again) that when the guy said, "Uh yah" or whatever at the beginning, he was referring to Maine-New Hampshire English. That is not the same thing. Thanks again. 208.104.45.20 03:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they do. At 47-50 seconds into the interview, while describing different pronunciations of "pen", he contrasts it to Southern U.S. English.--Chaser - T 03:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, he does use that term. However, by the context, I don't believe he is using that term to mean the dialect in the movie Fargo, which is what the Wikipedia article with that name is referring to. I think he is either referring to General American, or Inland Northern American English, probably the first of the two. He is talking about the Pin-pen merger. That takes place in any dialect other than those in the South. If you say there is no way I can prove what I'm saying, then you would be correct. I am just guessing, because he uses that term only once, and goes into zero detail about it after that. He gave no examples. So therefore there is no way you can prove to me that he was referring to the dialect that the Wikipedia article entitled North Central American English is talking about. So neither one of us wins here, because he gave no examples. Now that I think about it, he might have been speaking in purely geographic terms. He may have meant something like, "they don't merge 'pin' and 'pen' in the North Central geographical area of the United States", whether the people there speak General American, or whatever. He might not have necessarily been talking about a particular dialect. That's what it sounds like to me. There is no way you or I could know this information for sure, because he didn't elaborate. I would love to know. 208.104.45.20 03:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to insert myself that far into the dispute. I pointed out the NPR interview just to indicate that it's real and something should be at that title (though sourcing specific statements would reduce all these disputes).--Chaser - T 03:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not angry with you at all buddy. I just think you should read over my entire post again with an open mind, and then listen to the NPR interview a second time with that knowledge. I just think you misunderstood the interview. I don't think he meant what you think he meant when he said North Central American English. However, there is no way we could know, because he never tells us. I wish I could talk to him in person, and ask him what he meant by that. That doesn't mean I think you're an idiot. 208.104.45.20 03:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

My point was that I'm trying to preserve my neutrality in case I need to act as an admin (like unprotecting the page). Don't worry. I didn't assume you thought ill of me. I see what you're saying about general lay use of the four words versus a specific linguistic term for a dialect. Frankly, the lack of sources may justify a trip to WP:AFD, but it would be polite to ask Dogru for reliable sources, first.--Chaser - T 03:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah buddy. I understand, keep your neutrality. That's fine. You can listen to what Dogru says as well. I have no problem with that. I am a big fan of the Inland Northern American English article. But even I don't think Inland Northern American English is the best, and only term to the describe that dialect. I'm pretty sure linguists don't have a definite term for it either. I've heard some call it something like, "the Great Lakes region", or "the northern U.S.". I'm not saying linguists are stupid either. I'm just saying that they don't necessarily agree on what to call that region, and probably a lot of other regions as well. They just know that this is the place where the Northern Cities Vowel Shift is happening. Some may even call it North Central American English, just to attempt to describe where in the U.S. this is taking place. However, on Wikipedia, we have to have a definite name for each article. Someone chose to name one article Inland Northern American English, just like someone chose to name another North Central American English. You have to look past the name, and understand the dialect behind it. Sorry for the long post. There was just some extra stuff that I wanted to say. 208.104.45.20 04:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I still haven't received any responses from the other party. 208.104.45.20 04:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know.--Chaser - T 04:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oi!

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		There was me going through doing some blocks and I click the button to give an indefinate block to User:Johnraciti and found I'd been beaten to it. So you may as well have this as well. All the best Khukri 09:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, thanks!--Chaser - T 09:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

RfA page fix

Thanks for fixing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stephan Schulz. I finally found the baffling miss-spelling in the article name, but did not realise that this affected the internal links as well.--Stephan Schulz 10:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Chaser - T 16:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

TomStar81's nomination page

Thanks for catching that I inadvertantly moved that as well as the comments from New England - a debate between he and I has no place on the nomination page. Thanks for catching that I moved too much!old windy bear 17:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Chaser - T 17:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Katanin's RfA

Alright, I guess you can delete my RfA, then. Thank you for your kind advice. Katanin 18:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply on Katanin's talk page.--Chaser - T 19:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- Jesuit High School (Carmichael, California)

Just a note to say thanks for answering the protection request so swiftly. Douglasmtaylor 19:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Chaser - T 19:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

71.255.26.62

I was wondering why you removed 71.255.26.62 from the list at WP:AIV? Pants^(T) 02:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC) The anon vandalised a page about a minute ago. Pants^(T) 02:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. It was a mistake. I didn't see any recent warnings. Usually we don't block IPs with warnings at least within the last 24 hours because IP addresses can change owners. In this case, it the repeated Hannah Montana vandalism indicates it is a static IP, so the same person. Thanks for following up and sorry I didn't block initially.--Chaser - T 02:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

seeking adoption

i hear you're open for helping users. please mail me sometime. (p.s. i'm watching this page) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Any particular reason you're seeking adoption?--Chaser - T 01:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your kind words in my successful RfA. I appreciate the trust the WP community has in me. Carlossuarez46 22:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Chaser - T 23:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Adoption request

I am looking for something with good experience to adopt me and help me out, with very very very controversial articles Veda, Pranav Veda, Indian Caste System. I am sure I will give you inputs those are very very debatable. I am blocked once because of my inexperience and due to very controversial edits Vassyana has asked me to seek an expert who can edit for me. It will be great if you can kindly guide me with your experience. BalanceRestored 11:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

AKRadecki already left a msg about adopting you on your talk page. I'll defer.--Chaser - T 00:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks --Chaser - T for visiting and taking your time. I am sure AKRadecki will be guiding me with the edits with the vast experience he has. It would have been very nice having you too. Please keep in touch. BalanceRestored 09:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Take care.--Chaser - T 13:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:HARASS

Hi Chaseer! I'm sure you remember the user named Eleemysonary and the sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry accusations a while back. Well, here's the long story, as short as possible: I originally ran into this user on the Bill Moyers page. We disagreed on edits over there and he then followed me over to the George Soros page where he, of course, came up with his baseless accusations about sock/meat puppetry and also made some other harassing edits. Since then he has followed me to waterboarding where he continues to personally attack me by stating that I engage in sophistry. I asked him to stop following me, and he deleted it from his user page[12] He then followed me to Controversies of Rudy Giuliani[13][14][ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Controversies_of_Rudy_Giuliani&diff=145338161&oldid=145336996]where he has reverted my edits and accused me of, again, engaging in sophistry. I placed this on his user page[15], but as you can see he deleted it and ignored it. From the beginning that I have met this user, I have felt that he has done nothing but harass me, I feel like the only reason he's following me is to harass me further, not to engage in any kind of civil discussion, and I wanted to givve you a report on this because I know that you're well aware of how he behaved in the past. Please let me know if there are any other edits to give you for evidence of his wikistalking and harassment. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Chaser. I'm afraid Bellowed is once again engaging in half-truths and sophistry. Please note that Bellowed has full-throatedly endorsed the Joehazelton sock on his Talk page[16], even after it was revealed to him that the sock was making death threats[17]. He also has a barnstar [18] on his Talk page from yet another Joehazelton sock[19]. That's his right. But it's telling.

Now, as to Bellowed's sophistry. 1) On the George Soros page, Bellowed was overwhelmingly voted down by several group consensuses (Please see the section under the heading "The Votes" on the Soros Talk page). He then baldly lied about this [20] in an attempt to unblock the page, and was denied once again. I presume he's still bitter about this. 2) He has continued to ignore consensus on the waterboarding page, continually inserting dispute tags in apparent retaliation. (Please see the section labeled "POV Issues" on the article Talk page.) 3) When he was unable to gain consensus on the Giuliani page, he accused James M Lane of meatpuppetry [21], despite a shred of evidence. He later claimed to "apologize" for this with another personal attack[22], telling Lane to review policies that Bellowed himself continually violates. Lane responded with a point-by-point takedown of Bellowed [23] from which Bellowed, apparently, has yet to recover. You may want to read it. 4) His response to being called on his disruptive edits is to claim "harassment" and "wikistalking," a hoary bit of sophistry which he employs in place of actually responding to the argument.

I realize this is a lot of info. But it's perfectly summarized by James M Lane's comments.[24] --Eleemosynary 01:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

1)The editros came up with a compromised edit that no longer had any WP:BLP violation. Therefore we didn't need "strong consensus" any longer, even though we still had consensus. 2) There was no such consensus on the waterboarding page, and many other editors were ignoring policy. I have stated my extensive reasoning on the talk page. One editor, an anonymous editor, was reverting everything I did. I hardly call that consensus. Furthermore, user Nescio improved upon an edit I made and supported it. You forgot to mention that. You also forgot to mention that the other editor who is against me on that page is you, who is only there because he is Wikistalking me. 3) James was gaiming the system. There's no denying that. I said that it looked like meatpuppetry at first, but I even retracted that within no time at all after I looked into the editor's histories. But he was gaming the system and engaging in wrongdoing so that' much differnent than how you acted to me and Corckspot. 4) Please stop accusing me of sophistry. This is a personal attack and it is starting to make me angry.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 01:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

1) Untrue. No "compromised edit" was ever agreed on. 2) Untrue. Several editors disagree with Bellowed on waterboarding. Are they all "wikistalking"? 3) Note the continued attacks on Lane, still without evidence or merit. 4) What Bellowed is doing is indeed sophistry, and that needs to be made clear. --Eleemosynary 01:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm not going to keep going round and round here on Chaser's page, so this will be the last response. 1) A compromised edit, which removed all quotes from O'Reilly and only stated that 'O'Reilly was a critic of Soros for things such as financial activities and political activism' was agreed on with a vote 5-4. The page is still protected so the edit hasn't been made 2)Only one editor continued to revert my edits on the waterboarding page, and this editor was anonymous...until that is, you showed up. 3)I provided evidence of Lane's gaming the system earlier. Other editors reverted his edits that day, not just me and once he was at the 3rr max, he alerted other editors to make edits for him. I saw this as gaming the system and I provided the evidence elsewhere. 4) You continue to personally attack me with this sophistry crap. It's derogatory. I'm sick of it. You follow me around everywhere on Wikipedia and revert me, saying "you're engaging in sophistry here"...or "you're engaging in sophistry there." It seems to be the only reason to follow me, so you can harass me. I'm sick of it, that's why I'm here. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 01:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Amazing. Bellowed's sophistry is bordering on delusion. To wit: 1) Bellowed is once again misstating the vote; there is no consensus to include the O'Reilly edit. 2) The question is not who "reverted edits," the question is how many editors disagree with Bellowed. There are several. 3) Note the continued lies and attacks on Lane, completely unsubstantiated. 4) Sophists are as sophists do.

Eleemosynary, following Bellowed to two other articles to say he is engaging in "sophistry" is disruptive. Edit-warring over a POV tag is pointless disruption (and the tag is meant to be added to disputed articles). Outside of the Soros dispute that I'm not commenting on even looking into, as it is irrelevant to this issue, I see nothing egregious (indeed, not even any policy violations) in Bellowed's actions that requires my intervention.

New rule: if you want to continue this dispute on my talk page, then make it one comment per person until I respond. The tit-for-tat doesn't help me assess the situation. It just annoys me.--Chaser - T 01:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Chaser, I fear you're being manipulated by Bellowed, as you were by the Joehazelton sock. That time, you gave a disruptive editor way too much benefit of the doubt, and the results were disastrous. I'm taking this to other admins, starting with Lane. Once again, read his comments. [25]--Eleemosynary 02:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop imagining that I'm being manipulated every time I disagree with you. It doesn't help your case.--Chaser - T 02:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not my imagination. You were recently manipulated by one of the most egregious and transparent socks on Wikipedia, who has made several death threats. You went out of your way to state you felt the sock was being treated unfairly. And, after numerous editors who had a history with him exposed him and blocked him, and pointed you toward the evidence, you were not convinced until you had to be spoon-fed the evidence in a private email. That's what I'm basing it on. As for my "case," I'm making it elsewhere. --Eleemosynary 02:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm grateful to Eleemosynary for notifying me that I was being attacked behind my back. For anyone who doesn't want to read my full rebuttal, the gist of it is that Bellowed solicited comments on a change, the comments were mostly negative, and he then made the change anyway. I responded by notifying the editors who'd taken the trouble to comment but whose views were being ignored. That's what he calls "gaming the system". I stand by my action. I would be glad to have Bellowed's conduct and mine reviewed by any impartial admin or by the ArbCom.

I must correct Eleemosynary on one point, however. He writes, "I'm taking this to other admins, starting with Lane." I'm not an admin, so I'm not in a position to do anything constructive here except provide information. JamesMLane t c 04:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, James. Assumed you were an admin. My bad. : ) --Eleemosynary 04:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Flying checkpoint

It was certainly kind of you to try and get Tiamut's explicit consent to the proposed changes on the article, and it was gracious of her to agree to abide by the eventual consensus, but neither of these actions are necessary - WP works by consensus, and such a consensus has emerged on the Talk page. It is time to unprotect the article. Isarig 02:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not necessary, just a good idea to avoid more stupid edit-wars (people tend to be happier with a decision if they were involved in the making of it). Unprotected.--Chaser - T 03:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree, and thanks. Isarig 03:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Chaser, I don't understand why the protection is being enacted until the release time. It violates neutrality by locking down the article for the sake of the publisher in the name of supposedly uncontrollable vandalism. Girolamo Savonarola 07:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I commented at ANI, but in brief my understanding was that protection was meant to prevent vandalism from sleeper accounts, which we'd seen a few of. Frankly, I'm indifferent to protecting the article, but if it is protected, I think it should be shorter than a month.--Chaser - T 13:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert on List of professional athletes . . .

Hiya. I was wondering about your revert on that. You said the article doesn't match the player name - but it looks like it does to me.[26] Am I missing something? CitiCat ^♫ 16:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverted my revert. I think I clicked on the wrong source in the reference section. The one for the athlete two above looks like the article I remember from yesterday. Sorry about that and thanks for bringing the error to my attention. Cheers!--Chaser - T 22:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection

There is no need to protect the article. I am currently working with some high ups to determine the real ID of Xenophrenic, and we have some good leads. Once some action is taken against him, the edit warring in the article will be over. But if you insist on protecting the main article, I suggest you do so on the talk page, because he is reverting me there as well. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page reversion? Geez, can't you two just get along?--Chaser - T 23:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Following through

While I continue to personally still hold some reservations about that, I will defer to consensus as promised. Tiamat 23:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Tiamut. That's big of you.--Chaser - T 23:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar for being a Jedi admin

		The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for tirelessly defending user talk pages from vandals  superβεεcat  01:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you.--Chaser - T 01:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page

Can I also use your line at the top of your talk page about two way conversations? Thanks! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, everyone is welcome to use it. BTW, how's it going? I've been a somewhat delinquent adopter lately. Is there anything I can help you with?--Chaser - T 04:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. So far things have been going pretty well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist

Hi, would you pls include deletion log on Talk:Zeitgeist the Movie since both actions are hampered by the page protections. Thx &#151; Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Chaser - T 13:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

hallows

although the full page of 'warning spoilers' is a little spammish. it was just done to protect the innocent. this time i'll just put in the information with just one warning.all right. good.

Giuliani controversies

Excellent work at the controversies monitoring. POV disturbance at the site must be curbed. Dogru144 13:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Why

Why did you remove my question in the talk page for the new Harry Potte book? It was about a part of the article that confused me, and I wanted some cearification. I've seen lots of people do that.--4.252.87.236 04:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, there's a lot disruption from many IPs on that talk page and it initially appeared to be an unproductive comment. Anyway, in answer to your question, I think a lot of papers based their reviews on material that was leaked online. The NY Times found a copy of the book in a bookstore (how they managed to buy it before someone else did, I have no idea). I hope that answers your question. Sorry for incorrectly removing it.--Chaser - T 04:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

blocked

mayI ask why i am beig blocked?Vandalfighter101 12:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You're not. Someone operating from an IP is fooling you [27]. Also see Special:Contributions/82.4.6.229.--Chaser - T 18:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

User:TDC

You're right that users have some freedom in their user space, but that freedom is not absolute. I think that given the well known general dislike for fake new message boxes and the insulting link ("a sucker born every minute"), it's clear that User:TDC is not moving the encyclopedia forward with that box on his user page. If I were to be redirected to a page calling me a sucker, I would find it a personal insult, and insulting other editors is not allowed on user pages, so I have removed the box again. If he changes it to a more reasonable link like Practical joke then I would not remove it again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not insulted by something not directed at me personally, but I think edit-warring over this would be pointless. I reverted it once last night and that's about the extent that I care about this silly thing.--Chaser - T 18:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed the one on his user talk page to practical joke and left him a msg about the link being much of the problem.--Chaser - T 19:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Adoption request II

Hi, I am looking to be adopted by an experienced wikpedian. Would you like to help? Shabda 14:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy to. More on your talk page.--Chaser - T 22:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

EX Pokemon

Is there any chance I could get this deleted article? --Supernerd 10 20:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Userfied to User:Supernerd 10/EX Pokemon.--Chaser - T 21:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your follow up

Thanks for your follow up on the fake warning issue. Your defense of a user TDC's fake warning, and of his trolling as evidenced by his bragging about trolling (on his userpage) and bragging of being banned from numerous chat rooms for trolling, the examples of his trolling on the USST page, along with his admission that his purpose on Wikipedia ("to persuede") is that of a 'POV warrior', are not examples of administorial neutrality nor good judgement, IMHO. I suggest you consider leaving the administorial duties on issues where you may have a clear political conflict of interest and bias (there's really no other explanation for your defense of this user's conduct, is there?) to others who may be more capable. Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 22:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. I most certainly won't be doing what you suggest. Trolling in places other than Wikipedia and having a POV on a userpage are allowed. I asked for evidence of these accusations and you supplied none. If three out of four sysops say such a fake msg isn't a problem and the fourth says the problem is the link target; then your complaint has little to no merit. Making wild guesses about my motivations isn't going to help you either.--Chaser - T 00:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I told these guys they should hang it up for a day or two, and enjoy the outdoors. I took my own advice, mowed three acres (totally in a Forrest Gump zone), and stopped every few laps to pick and snack on wild berries. This situation seems so much more insignificant than it did last night. - Crockspot 01:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Yeah. I just dug up three weed trees. Physical labor is good for the soul.--Chaser - T 01:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of weeds... after doing a good deal of weed whacking today, my gas powered weed whacker broke. :( Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. I guess the lawnmower will have to do.--Chaser - T 01:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we'll see tomorrow, as I'm watching the Bill Maher special "The Decider" on HBO tonight. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I see you already have one of these, but you deserve another. You are everywhere at once, editing articles, blocking vandals, doing menial admin tasks, contributing to discussions, and putting up with heaps of abuse without losing your cool. And you still find time to reply to your talk page in a timely fashion. It's inspiring to watch you work. Crockspot 18:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I've been getting a little worn out. I appreciate your recognition of my efforts.--Chaser - T 18:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No, thank YOU. I could sense that you were feeling a little beaten down, but editor-admins like you keep Wikipedia from totally sucking. Doing RC patrol, I've had only a little taste of the retaliation and time-wasting that you are subjected to by trolls. Keep up the great work. - Crockspot 18:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Block on 88.112.220.238

FYI: This block is on the same user as we discussed last month here...[28], which was a one-month block. Was wondering if both IP's should be blocked and for a longer period than 31 hours? Thanks. Gmatsuda 20:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Extended to a week. I don't want to block for a month if the IP is somewhat dynamic, but feel free to ask for it to be extended again if this vandalism starts again. Eventually, an abuse report to the ISP may be in order.--Chaser - T 20:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

OK...thanks. Gmatsuda 21:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

A question

First, I am willing to 'let bygones be bygones', and forgive you for your questionable actions with the fake warning. Second, A question for you since you are active on the article. I was looking at the history of the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques article. The first edit was a 'redirect' by head administrator Fred Bauder to the Torture article. What is the significance of that? Wiki adminstration agrees that it is torture? If not, what? Was there an article before this edit. Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 21:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fred is not the "head administrator". I suggest you take it up with Fred. Admins don't walk in lockstep. - Crockspot 21:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't need your forgiveness; don't be patronizing. As to the redirect, it's common for us to find targets for likely search terms until we have material to create an article. Given that enhanced interrogation techniques is apparently the administration's word for stuff human rights orgs classify as torture, that redirect was appropriate at the time. Fred is an arbitrator, which means he decides cases as a member of the Arbitration Committee. They are the last step in the dispute resolution process, and have a long history of not deciding content disputes. Here all indications are that Fred was acting as a regular editor, and not in his capacity as an arbitrator or an administrator. I'm not active on the article, but I'm happy to answer questions as I can.--Chaser - T 21:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the info, Chaser. Is Crockspot a 'sock puppet'? It seems almost every time I ask somone else a question or make a comment, he answers me. He and a few others. They seem to follow me everywhere I go, like when I posted to Mr. Wales' page. Is that Okay? Now he's answering me on your page. Bmedley Sutler 22:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot just left me a barnstar above. I think he just had my talk page watchlisted to read my response. And no, I don't think he's a sockpuppet of anybody. As to your other point, he and others may be following what you are doing via your contributions log, found here, or they may just have pages like ANI, AN, and Jimbo's talk page watchlisted and been working on the articles you worked on. Following someone specifically to harass them is not OK, but that doesn't appear to be happening in this case.--Chaser - T 22:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I happen to have this page watchlisted, because I had recent discussion here. Your name keeps popping up on many of my watchlisted pages, and you appear to be in need of good guidance. - Crockspot 22:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"good guidance"? From you? You're too funny, Crockspot! Chaser's helpful, informative reply to my question would be considered "good guidance". Read his reply, then read yours. Then go look up 'provocation' and 'trolling'. Leave me alone Crockspot. (Maybe I should instigate for a 'time-out' for you, like you do to those who disagree with you?) Okay! "Chaser, I think Crockspot needs a 'time-out". Crockspot, if I ever want any of your good guidance, I'll post on your talk page. Got that? Bmedley Sutler 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you with this nonsense

But I have an editor gone wild on my hands, an anonymous editor, who has been engaging in incivility and now personal attacks after I warned him already [29](and, believe me, I've got a high tolerance for this stuff. I don't report just any little thing. But this edit here crossed the line[30] for several reasons. I mean, I can take being called ignorant and "a stupid thing to say" but the "pedalling your lies, blanking, vandalizing, editing peoples talk and going solo in your crusade of revisionism. I will oppose you at every step of the way as you continue your role as a torture apologist" really pisses me off. I feel like this type of stuff could hinder my reputation on the page and that other editors might not assume good faith.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 22:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to go do things in real life for two or three hours. You're welcome to wait or post to ANI.--Chaser - T 22:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Diffs are available on request for 1-lies, 2-blanking, 3-vandalizing, 4-editing peoples talk. Bellowed has been reeking havoc, trying everyone's patience in his relentless crusade against consensus. His behaviour is raising tempers. Unlike this user, I am prepared to source content in articles - AND allegations made in an argument. Yes they are strong claims, but they are also true, and verifiable. 24.7.91.244 23:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Editors already do not assume good faith with your contributions on waterboarding, as is shown clearly in talk, and more so by the constant reverts applied to your edits there - by many editors - not just me. You do not have a good reputation on waterboarding. That very angry response of mine (which I admit in hindsight was too far) was a direct result of you making it clear you would oppose my edits at every turn - I responded in kind. 24.7.91.244 23:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleting my talk and blanking things.

LINK CUT - DIFF 1 - Most of what you deleted was unrelated to something I agreed to leave off later - the so called personal info. 24.7.91.244 00:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

LINK CUT - DIFF 2 - As Diff one - over deletion. 24.7.91.244 00:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

LINK CUT - DIFF 3 - Unneccessary deletion. This text was required to rebut your insinuations that I introduced private into - and showed that whatever it contained was ex-wiki. 24.7.91.244 00:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

LINK CUT - DIFF 4 - Deleted my complaint about you casting aspertions on editors who choose not to register (anonymous editors), in addition to the Privacy stuff which is a different arguement I agreed with you on removing. It is not your place to edit other peoples talk based on what you consider has a point to it.

Lying repeatedly

LINK CUT - DIFF 5 Lied about deleting I never deleted anything that actually had a point to it, I beg to differ, you deleted my complaint about you casting aspertions on editors who choose not to register (anonymous editors), in addition to the Privacy stuff which is a different arguement I agreed with you on. It is not your place to edit other peoples talk based on what you consider has a point to it.

LINK CUT - DIFF 6 Continued to lie about it. 24.7.91.244 23:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As some of the diffs contain what might be personal information, and Bellowed does not want this published, I have agreed to remove them - but only on the condition that I do not need to use them to defend myself against accusations of making baseless allegations. The proof is there, should anyone ask. 24.7.91.244 05:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

ANI

• Actually I like Chasers suggestion of an ANI report, as we are at a stalemate. Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents where I have filed an ANI and proposed resolution. 24.7.91.244 00:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Chaser, as an Admin, aware of all this, I would appreciate it if you weighted in as you see fit on my ANI report there. Bellowed, we do not need to continue the argument there in the endless recitals of rebutals. I told them there is a problem - they will research it thoroughly, and doubtless will find severe fault with both of us. I intend to stop work on waterboarding, and all comms with you effective now unless required to do so in relation to the ANI while it is undecided - so long as you do likewise. 24.7.91.244 00:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to wipe Cat

Chaser, Bellowed. Do you have any objections if I wipe the Cat Talk:Waterboarding#Criticism_of_Bellowed.27s_statement_on_RfC in its entirety? I edited the statement that kicked it off to something exceedingly neutral, and as this was a 2 person live row, I don't believe its ongoing existence provides any value. 24.7.91.244 06:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You beat me :-) 24.7.91.244 06:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep.--Chaser - T 06:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Being strangled with tags from hell? Just leave Bellowed a message asking him to wipe the whole thing if he concurs :-) 24.7.91.244 06:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Help its on again

He's back, making subtle POV edits again - can you just bust us both for 3RR or something. I honestly made a sincere effort to de-escalate, which was due as I was the one who got vicious, but he is continuing in the pattern that kicked this off, ignoring any attempts at consensus building when he can't back his edits up. 24.7.91.244 02:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to block either of you for 3RR. I will try to make the article as NPOV as possible.--Chaser - T 04:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adopting me

Hi. Yes I have interest in programming, search engines and other related technologies. I have knowledge of those fields, so the areas where I would be looking for help are wikipedia policies, how to do some things in wikipedia and other questions on those lines. Shabda 02:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I answered your questions on your talk page. Cheers!--Chaser - T 03:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

His excellency

He's at it again, on talk pages this time. See [31], which preceeded [32]. I thought it was BS who has usually used IP's to circumvent his block, but the talk page post had the bitterness of HE's posts. It would be best if someone were to block these socks and protect the talk page of Muhammad so this banned editor cannot attempt to influence the project. Arrow740 07:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry not to handle this after offering to help. I'm just not familiar enough with either editor to make an evidence-based judgement about whether the IP or new account are either BhaiSaab or His excellency (although new editors making initial posts to talk pages is unusual; user talk pages stranger still). This is more complex than the throw-away revert war socks from last time. In any event, I didn't respond sooner because there haven't been edits since and there was nothing in article space. Feel free to talk to another admin who is more familiar with either of those two editors. WP:PROT#Semi-protection discourages semi-protection of talk pages. Sorry.--Chaser - T 23:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know

You advised me to stop talking about government 'spookery'. You must not know that the US Department of Defense was caught vandalizing and 'reverting' the Waterboarding article. Link Was there an investigation? I suspect many more 'spooks'. Why doesn't Wiki make the 'IP' address of posters visible for everyone to see? What is Wiki trying to hide? Almost all forums do that. I looked at one of the complaint boards, and Wiki has a big problem with repeat trolls. Some come back dozens of times. Each time you have to do a separate 'RFCU"? Absurd! Posting the 'IP' address of every post would stop that. It seems that Wiki goes out of its way to help trolls, government spooks and poeple trying to sell stuff and writing articles about the stuff they sell. This is very, very damaging to Wikipedia's reputation. Has there been an administorial discussion of this like with 'verifiability'? Do you have a link if there has been? Thanks Chaser. Bmedley Sutler 20:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Guy, you do realize that the DOD has hundreds of thousands of employees, and that not all of them might share your POV on the issue? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. However, I don't think Bellowed works for the DoD. Since my ANI post I've become aware of a conflict over divulging personal information. That conflict convinces me that Bellowed has nothing to do with the DoD. As to IP addresses, one of the many reasons they aren't public is that editors can be traced by their IP address. Some editors whose IP addresses have become known have left the project due to threats, privacy violations, etc. It's not to say that our system doesn't have disadvantages, but there is good reason that IPs aren't publicly linked to usernames. In the future, you can deal with such issues via the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy and associated noticeboard. You might also just (politely) ask editors if their job or hobbies would present a conflict of interest. Some who do have conflicts happily acknowledge them and stop editing relevant articles.--Chaser - T 23:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, It was a single vandal edit, could have been just some trooper with views, drunk, on base. I do believe they have people POV pushing - but there is no way we'd ever nail them - and they wouldn't use a DoD address. If even the puppets have got sophisticated with masking IPs, I have to assume the Bush administration can do better. Besides I would think their time would be better served trolling and wikilawyering to keep people against their POV on endless 3RR blocks - much like what goes on by private individuals in anything with the name of a certain middle eastern country in it - group 3RR entrapment etc. Just some drunk, or angry trooper or bureaucrat - besides its only effect was negative to them anyway? 24.7.91.244 02:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

VVAW

If you want to mediate, I would be more than willing to give it a try. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Again

Chaser, what happened to our little conversation? 208.104.45.20 02:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I replied and archived it. Dogru didn't leave any comments on the article's talk page, so I unprotected it.--Chaser - T 03:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. 208.104.45.20 00:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you want to get involved

Eleemosynary has teamed up with another frequent nemesis of mine, and is turning an RfC on Talk:Matt Drudge into an uncivil personal attack fest against me, and not assuming good faith either. - Crockspot 06:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

My plate's full. Sorry.--Chaser - T 06:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Lucky you. :) You can remove/archive this. - Crockspot 06:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

10 days vacation

Hello, Chaser! I was off with my grandparents. But I have one problem, my CPU's at 100%!--The source of the cosmos... 16:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back! I don't understand, is that a problem? Seems like 100% is good.--Chaser - T 17:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It slows down the computer.--The source of the cosmos... 19:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Unusual Adoption Request

Hi! Im an English teacher in Toluca Mexico (west of Mexico City). My Advanced B classes will be contributing to Wikipedia as the focus of their English course for Fall 2007. I am looking for people who would like to mentor my students (who will be working in groups) as they do the following assignments: Edit and article (adding a citation), writing a stub with a citation, translating an English language article for Spanish Wikipedia and for the final project, writing a full article for English Wiki (they can expand on the stub mentioned previously). What I would like to do is put a list of "mentors/adopters" on my talk page as a kind of short cut for my students, who have limited time to get things done. The semester begings Aug 6, but the real Wikipedia work wont begin until the beginning of Sept. If you would like to add your name to my list, please go to my talk page and add it there, perhaps with a short introduction, if you like.

Thank you!

Thelmadatter 19:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter

Uh.... Are you okay?

You seem to not talk to me as often at all.... Is there something wrong?--The source of the cosmos... 23:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm fine. Sometimes I forget to return a talk page msg. Sorry.--Chaser - T 00:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh... I'm always active! From probably 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM! Until August 28. Then I'm active 3:00 PM to 9:00 PM...--The source of the cosmos... 21:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

NFL infobox

To summarize, Jmfangio requested protection for that template, as well as put in a request for mediation, because he was angered I undid edits HE undid by an admin. Jmfangio added (American football) to every football position's article despite most needing no disambiguation. The latest "edit war" on the template was what I would consider vandalism Jmfangio. The edits he undid were making the NFL Debut section dependent on values being entered (see Ted Ginn, Jr. for an example of this). Obviously, this does not be discussed and Jmfangio is only trying to cause problems for personal reasons.►Chris Nelson 05:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_vandalism_is_not. Admins' opinions don't carry more weight in content disputes or edit wars. We don't have that power.--Chaser - T 05:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, his sort of edits aren't in that "What vandalism is not" section as far as I can tell.►Chris Nelson 05:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

But perhaps vandalized isn't the right word. It wasn't intentionally harmful. I would say "ruined" is more appropriate.►Chris Nelson 05:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

His edits are not vandalism; look at the section directly above, Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism. Yes, and a neutral description is even better.--Chaser - T 05:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I disagree that "ruined" isn't neutral. He disambiguated pages that only have one definition, which is exactly NOT what the first lines of WP:D say the policy is for. Therefore, he has created unnecessary work for others by moving handfuls of articles to places they have no logical place being. Ruined seems as accurate as anything... unless you're him or someone that agrees with his misguided edits.►Chris Nelson 05:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a break. You're too worked up over this.--Chaser - T 05:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not worked up. I'm relaxed baby.►Chris Nelson 05:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Just like to point this out. Seems like a personal attack to me.►Chris Nelson 12:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wow you're perceptive chris - i did attack you because you won't leave me alone. I even put the damn information in the the EXACT way !!!! you wanted it. You have forced me to have the template locked because of you. You see me editing the mike vick article and you don't do anything but harass me. LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!! I'm done trying to codle you, and show you any respect because you don't show anybody else one ounce of it. LEAVE ME ALONE!!! By the way, I've now resorted to going to WP:CSN hopefully that will get some attention. I'm sorry that you are to hard headed to discuss things with people, but I've done all i can do. Now stop harrassing me. Note to Chaser: I'm well aware of where I'm posting this. I left the guy alone, I even put the information into the main body of the article FOR HIM and it still isn't enough for the guy. Get this guy off my back. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  12:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Chaser, this is a bit of a drive-by - as I probably will not see any response you post to this for a few days (out of town). But, having dealt with this conflict a little, I would recommend a cool-down block for both of these two if they don't back off. They have been at it for days now, and show no signs of letting up on one another. I leave it to your discretion, as I will not be on-wiki for a while. But that's my two cents for you. Pastordavid 20:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool down blocks aren't effective (they make most people more angry). Anyway, this isn't something I have the time or inclination to handle. I'll suggest to Chris that he try mediation with Juan.--Chaser - T 19:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation can't solve anything. Jmfangio is wrong about a lot of things, and either he's got to figure that out or I'm gonna have to deal with him. There's no dispute, it's just him messing shit up.►Chris Nelson 19:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I can't imagine what, but oh well. Thanks for your concern, I know you're just trying to help, but you have to understand that in my mind Jmfangio is just flat out wrong in all our disputes. So you can see why I do not want to be involved in any mediation. For every hostile and person reply I've made to him out of anger, I've written a handful of rock-solid, logical arguments - pretty much all of which he's failed to grasp. For that reason, I've given up on convincing him and will just go about my business improving things.►Chris Nelson 19:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the only things that need changing at this point are fundamental fixes, like the broken code in the debut section for rookies. The only reason there is a dispute is because Jmfangio has a personal problem with me. He keeps saying not to make changes until things are resolves, but he refuses to discuss it by his own admission and has yet to specify why he is against the change. But really, the template is pretty fine as is so keep it protected if you have to.►Chris Nelson 19:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure the protection extension was necessary.►Chris Nelson 02:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have requested if for the duration of the mediation. While we talk about the differences, and work up a solution... it would be best if the page remained in the state that it was found in when mediation began so that editing will not distract from the mediation. Navou ^banter 02:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Understood.►Chris Nelson 02:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for lock the page Maha Vajiralongkorn --Manop - TH 06:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Chaser - T 06:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Parodies Featured on Arthur

I don't mean to bug you agian, but could I see this article which most people dismissed as fancruft. As a fan, I would be interested in such cruft.--Supernerd 10 13:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. Could you tell me how to get the text myself?

It's at User:Supernerd 10/Arthur. Under WP:CSD#G4 recreations of deleted content can be speedy deleted.--Chaser - T 13:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)