User talk:Chadbryant/Archive2006-01

Talk Archives

• 2005

Note For Admins

Comments from any sock being operated by an endless parade of obsessive sockpuppets are still unwanted here. More information on this longtime internet menace is available upon request. - Chadbryant 03:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have semi-protected your userpage. This should greatly reduce the "Dink" attacks while still allowing you to edit it. I don't know why nobody else has thought to do this. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 05:03, Jan. 11, 2006

See posting personal details. Posting a direct link to personal details violates the spirit of this. Whatever your frustration, this is not the right way to deal with it. Don't do it again or you will be blocked. Tyrenius 01:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC) I am sorry if you are having severe problems with another user. If this is ongoing, then you should report this. However, it is still unaccepable to post a user's personal details, which your link effectively does. I note you have reverted both my edit and my warning. As you have left a message on my talk page with what you think is justification for doing this, I am giving you one last warning that I mean the above. I suggest you post a complaint to AN if you disagree with my action. If you reinstate the link and/or delete these warnings, then I will block you. Tyrenius 03:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reinstated my warnings above. Your link is in place still. This is being discussed on AN and admins need to see the talk on this page, so do not delete it. I would see this as vandalism and there won't be any more warnings. You have been given plenty of leeway. Tyrenius 04:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Following comments on Admin noticeboard I have removed the link. Please don't reinsert it, as I don't want to have to take action against you. Discuss it on AN if you still feel it should be in place. Thanks. Tyrenius 16:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Laurel Rose Willson

You had a question about my speculation that Laurel Rose Willson may have faked her own death. I may possibly take that out of there, because it is speculation and as yet I do not have evidence to back it up. It was the first thing I thought of when I saw her death announcement. I am about to write to Cornerstone and ask what they think. --Bluejay Young 00:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw what you said in my talk page about equating her faking her own death with Elvis' or Morrison's. The thing is she has a lot more motivation for it and I just wouldn't put it past her after all the stunts she's pulled. Again, until I get further proof, maybe that speculation should be taken out. -- Bluejay Young 08:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Dick Witham

I looked at his contributions and my first instinct was {{DickWitham}}. Then I saw your post on WP:AN/I and reverted my own edit. I do not have checkuser ability, in fact very few users do (see [1]). You can post at WP:RFCU, or get on the wikipedia IRC channel and find one of them. — Feb. 23, '06 [04:01] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Pat Priest

Okay, how about that new edit? That way, the link the 1960s is there, but without all the apostrophe fighting. Do you think this will work for everyone involved? Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It works for me, even if I'm not fond up compromising over using correct style just to placate a vandal that has used over 140 sockpuppets. - Chadbryant 03:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, compromise is always better than edit warring. Even though both people walk away feeling like losers, Wikipedia as a whole feels like a winner. We don't have to deal with fighting and hurt feelings. See you around. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

My final good-byes

Hello Chadbryant. I came to tell all my friends, yes, that means you, that I am leaving Wikipedia. Thank you for being so kind to me during my stay on Wikipedia. I hope to speak with you again someday. If you don't remember who I am, I'm SWD316. Moe ε 05:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Come back when you can - you're a good editor. - Chadbryant 05:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrestlemania 22

Hello. I've looked at the history of the article, and it seems that the article is still undergoing constructive (but a bit misguided) editing by anonymous editors, so semi-protection isn't appropriate right now. Semi-protection should only be applied when the article is undergoing a significant attack by unregistered or throwaway-account vandals, and that isn't happening right now. That said, if it gets to that point, semi-protection would be appropriate. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

SR 15

Infoboxes are not supposed to be that big. I've succeeded in greatly shrinking {{infobox Interstate}} and {{infobox U.S. Route}}, and this will be no different. Your removal of the exit list could be seen as vandalism. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Your edits/moves of that article are dubious at best. There is absolutely no reason to insist on deleting the infobox. - Chadbryant 07:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for removing the name from your talk page. It would be better if you removed the link entirely, but you're still showing good faith by removing the name. Rhobite 03:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The link is there solely as a defense mechanism against his abuse and harassment - other admins have remarked that it gives them a clearer idea of the individual in question. - Chadbryant 03:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

WillC

I've just recieved an email from this user on the subject of your dispute with him, and I'm hoping that you can fill me in on what's happening there. Thanks. Canderson7 ^(talk) 01:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

So are we removing listings of wrestling events in sports venue articles? That's has always annoyed me. That's about as notable and relevant as listing every hair band that played in X venue the 80ies. ccwaters 13:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I have quite an interest in wrestling, but unless it's as notable as a mention of an attendance record (i.e. WrestleMania III's draw at the Pontiac Silverdome), we don't need a wrestling mention in the article for every venue that has ever hosted a wrestling event. - Chadbryant 02:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

See my User talk:Ccwaters#Wrestling Arenas. ccwaters 02:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Great American

You, my friend, are a great American. --Zpb52 07:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Chad is a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. It's very unfortunate that he has been temporarily blocked. Hopefully, when he returns, we all can get off to a fresh start. Linden 11:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I find it to be quite obvious that Chad is the target of an organized effort of harassment and character defamation by a few not-so-anonymous individuals who have long held grudges against him for events that transpired in rec.sport.pro-wrestling years ago, and are doing whatever they can to disrupt the editing process. My wish is that more administrators here will take the time to recognize these patterns of abuse and put a stop to the individuals who are only here to attack a legitimate and productive editor who has done some outstanding work here. Mark Van Pelt 17:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sock

Thanks for the heads-up, I've got him. I'm out for the night though - so if someone else comes up, you'll have to find another admin or wait until morning. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

You're welcome. I may not agree with you on many things most of the time, but I still respect your right to not be abused. Is there anything proof-wise to make an outsider think it's TruthCrusader and not DickWitham who was behind that troll? I may be mistaken, but I don't believe TruthCrusader has a history of attacking you with random trolls. That distinction goes to DickWitham.

While I've been pretty involved with it since late January here on Wikipedia, please remember that I am also an outsider in the bigger problem. Some back story to it with proof would be useful, not just to me, but to any admin who may potentially step in on this situation in the future. tv316 22:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Is your e-mail link here enabled? For obvious reasons, I can't reveal most of the backstory between myself and the user currently known as "TruthCrusader" on a Wikipedia talk page. Long story short, he is only here because I am. - Chadbryant 22:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my e-mail is activated here. tv316 22:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You have mail. Chadbryant 22:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Triple H's article

Why the hell did you delete what I mentioned about Triple H (post vengeance). That was valuable information, and yet you delted it. I take pride in my work, but it pisses me off when people delete it like that. If you did not like it, all you had to do was edit it, to some extent. I thought about messing with your entry, but then I thought "I am better than that". I am going to re submit this information in Triple H's entry, right now I am letting you off the hook, however, if you delete it again, this will not be the case. Jman5 04:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. - Chadbryant 16:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry

Well, Chad. In that case, I'm sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm willing to let bygones be bygones. Now that you and I see eye to eye on the Nashville Municipal Auditorium, I have no issues with you. If you want to go back to fighting with DickWitham and his merry group of sockpuppets, feel free. But, as far as I'm concerned, you and I are past our differences. I hope you can feel the same way. If so, I'll delete any reference to you off my talk page, and we'll go our separate ways. --Zpb52 21:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Man, I'm sick of arguing with people on here. I just want to get back to editing articles. But if I see anyone have their personal information posted on here, I'm going to have their back. You can count on me for that. Again, I'm sorry for getting into this, I'm sorry for dragging you into it. Let's let the past be in the past and move on. Deal? --Zpb52 21:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Then what's done is done. I hope to see you continue as a valuable contributor and I hope that cooler heads prevail in this dispute. As for me, I am out of here. Good luck. --Zpb52 21:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

personal info

If any of that info is accurate or even close, I'll happily delete it from the edit history of your talk page. — Mar. 15, '06 [21:33] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

• Deleted. — Mar. 15, '06 [21:41] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Question

Ok, I have followed that and yes, that bears out, thanks for the info (you gave on Curps talk page) What is your reason for thinking this is TC's sock? Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am receiving similar messages in e-mail, all of which are being traced by the "anonymous" e-mail services used back to two IP blocks in the Czech Republic. The user behind TruthCrusader resides there (see [2], where he forgets to log in to remove the 3RR notice placed on his talk page) and has engaged in these acts here and elsewhere under a variety of pseudonyms for several years. - Chadbryant 23:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not extremely strong evidence, and the user has been blocked. Have you made a request at WP:RFCU?> KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've made several requests there for TruthCrusader's previous sockpuppets (User:AvengerRSPW, etc.). The backlog is tremendous. - Chadbryant 20:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandal tags

Is there a reason you've been adding vandal tags to user pages? If it's simply a prank, stop. It's considered vandalism. I see there's been some conflict amongst a few users here; let me know if these needs mediation. JDoorjam Talk 03:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I am tagging obvious sockpuppets as such, and nothing more. - Chadbryant 03:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Having reviewed Farva's surprisingly strong grasp of everything from Wikipedia policies to how to properly sign his posts and cross-link articles, as well as how to use templates—all rarities in truly new editors—combined with his immediate targeting of you, your edits, and your ability to continue editing (he just requested I block you) with a fervor that I am doubtful any true newbie would have, I am inclined to suspect you may be right. I haven't seen enough evidence to block him as a sockpuppet, but support your application of a suspected sock tag on his page. I would strongly suggest, if he is truly innocent, that he should request a check user ruling on his account, which you say you have already done as well, to expedite the proof of his innocence. (If you have not requested a check-user yet, please do.) Obviously, accusing users of being sockpuppets should not be done lightly, but I have simply seen nothing to indicate that you are editing maliciously, or that you are a troll or vandal of some sort. Hopefully, the check user results will come quickly. Again, if you have not done so, request a check-user on FARVA, post the tag to his user page, and then please inform me you have done so. I will inform FARVA he is to keep the tag on his user page until this is resolved. JDoorjam Talk 03:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

After FARVA ignored my warning to keep the suspected sock tag on his user page, I put it back and locked it. FARVA was then blocked from editing Wikipedia by another administrator because of his incivil comments in response to your request for a check-user. Regardless of whether he is shown definitively to be a sockpuppet, he is obviously bound by the same Wiki policies as the rest of us. I thought you'd like to be brought up to speed on this issue. Please let me know about any future developments in this matter that need attention. JDoorjam Talk 17:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

With FARVA (talk · contribs) blocked for a month, you'll want to watch Eat At Joes (talk · contribs) and SteveInPrague (talk · contribs) - the blocks on those accounts (which necessitated the creation of User:FARVA) expired, and this user will undoubtedly return to one of them to continue his abuse. - Chadbryant 21:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Steve___ report to WP:RFI

Just to note that all those usernames have been blocked by Curps for vandalism. You sure received some heavy personal attacks there! Petros471 21:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I was aware of the blocks - I would like those accounts investigated, as there is a 99.99999% chance they are being created by User:TruthCrusader. - Chadbryant 21:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: 80.188.28.2

Can you clarify, is it a proxy or an open proxy. If it were a proxy I would shorten ban, and if it were open I would make it indefinate. Google seems to throw up no treasures for me :S Thanks! Ian13/talk 22:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Beavis and Butt-Head Wiki

I was looking through history, and saw you're interested in B&B, so I made a wiki on it! http://beavisandbutthead.wikicities.com//, I would love to get it up and going. Whopper 22:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Censorship

A revised version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 11:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Rey_Mysterio_Eddie_Tribute.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rey_Mysterio_Eddie_Tribute.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 12:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Tammysytch.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tammysytch.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 12:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Moe is here to say Happy Easter! -- Moe ε 17:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This is Moe

Hello Avriette, just thought I would let you know that I was leaving Wikipedia, but before I left, I finally got a picture of thyself of onto Wikipedia. (I know great timing for me to post a picture of myself, right?) This is my final gift to my friends. Later! PS. Try not to laugh to hard at my ugly mug ok? Moe ε 15:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Userbox Public Transit

According to Wikipedia:The German solution, here’s a a tip for you: {{User:Olve/Userboxes/Public transport}} (in lieu of the blanked template:User Public Transit). -- Olve 22:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Samlynnballpark.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Samlynnballpark.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

fuzzy510 08:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

rec.sport.pro-wrestling

Hi Chad, my reverting is based on past consensus, which was to remove this information. The consensus was pretty overwhelming that this does not need to be included, and I've noticed that you've been reverting to include this information for a very long time. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the consensus reaches beyond that. If you want to have this looked at again, perhaps you should start up an article RFC. In the mean time, I'm going to continue following past consensus. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have, and I'm not the only person making the reverts. At least one of the editors making the reverts is one I know for sure is not a sockpuppet of anyone. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Then bring it up on RFC. If the consensus in the RFC agrees with you, I'll be the first to admit that you were right and heck, I'd even restore your text myself. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing, take a look here first, which gives you a brief overview on how to list an article RfC. Then you add this article to the appropriate section. I'm not really sure which categories a pro-wrestling newsgroup would belong. You want this to reach the enough people to get good consensus, but you also want this to reach the right people. Maybe "Media, art, and literature" (because of the "media" component). I suggest you look at the types of articles that are listed in each category that looks decent enough and take your pick. Then you should create a new section in Talk:Rec.sport.pro-wrestling to present your case (and presumably TruthCrusader will also present his side). I'm logging off now, but I'll check back in a bit, so if youhave any problems, let me know, but I won't get back to you for a little while. Cheers, Deathphoenix ʕ 22:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:WWE Undisputed Championship

Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. --3bulletproof16 04:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of content

It is not permitted to remove warnings and is considered vandalism, so please don't do it again. You are quite entitled though to append it with a rebuttal, citing diffs if you wish. The post from User:Linden Arden was a personal attack and so its removal is permissable. I have left a warning on his talk page not to repeat such harrassment. Tyrenius 00:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

User: Linden Arden

He's only made 1 edit in June and 2 in July, so there's nothing recent to look at. I noticed one of your edits which was disputed was marked as vandalism, which is not correct. If you feel there any any edits in future which need to be looked at, leave a note on my talk page with diffs. I'm not prepared to tolerate taunting and personal abuse. It is very destructive. Tyrenius 01:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Rec.sport.pro-wrestling

There are a number of users in dispute over this article and in general. The users in particular include (in alphabetical order) Chadbryant, Dooby Scoo, Linden Arden, TruthCrusader. This does not imply particular blame on any of these. There are aspects of this this dispute that are unacceptable.

If there are suspected sockpuppets, then study SOCK and take the appropriate steps. Do not make accusations directly to or about the individual on your, their or an article talk page. Collect hard evidence. You may wish to report on Suspected sock puppets.

Personal attacks must cease immediately. A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. See NPA if you want further clarification. If you find yourself writing the word "you", be very careful what you follow it up with. Deal with facts and issues, not personal motivations.

Continued arguing of personal opinions on the talk page without verification will be regarded as disruption. Non-negotiable policies are VERIFY, NPOV and WP:NOR. Read them and stick to them.

If you experience a problem or think another editor is violating policy, report it to me with the diff. To record a diff, find the edit in the edit history and copy the URL at the top of the page with a square bracket either end, as in this example:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyrenius&diff=63910624&oldid=63910146]
which results in this [3].

Violation is likely to result in an immediate block.

Tyrenius 23:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against personal attacks. You were specifically warned above not to continue with accusations of sock puppetry directly to another user which now amounts to harrassment and personal attack. You are blocked for 24 hours.. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Tyrenius 23:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock|inexperienced admin using new powers}}

I cited specific portions of WP:SOCK to justify the sock tag placed on User:Dooby Scoo. He is obviously NOT a new account, and is most likely the individual responsible for over 160 accounts properly identifies as "DickWitham" socks. This problem user existed long before Tyrenius was given admin powers, and he should take that into account and do some research on the subject before indiscriminately blocking accounts. - Chadbryant 23:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Notes for admins on this block

See issue on Note for Admins at the top of this page and warnings there. Following disputes between users on the Rec.sport.pro-wrestling talk page, I posted a warning there, similar to the one directly above on this page (headed "Rec.sport.pro-wrestling"). This seems to have mostly quietened things down, until Chadbryant posted another blocked (which of course he cannot impose) sockpuppet template on Dooby Scoo, having been specifically warned not to act in this way (as directly above). My warning followed on the revert war apparent from Dooby Scoo history. I have been extremely patient and understanding with Chadbryant, but he has over-stepped the limit once too often. I am happy for any admin to take any action they see fit over this. Tyrenius 01:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:VinnieVincent.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:VinnieVincent.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 15:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

The talk you referred to was not a personal attack, and furthermore it was a note to an admin, whom you need to contact if you have a problem with it. Thanks. Tyrenius 14:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Accusations

Whatever it is, when those accounts did something, I've only blocked that account and the IP address. If you'll look carefully, I have never made any comments to your talk page (or anywhere else) regarding sockpuppets. I blocked those accounts, and any comments I made about sockpuppets were only made to those accounts. So you're not actually affected, and you wouldn't know unless you're actually on those accounts. So I wouldn't worry about it. If you want, any future "impersonators" of you, I can name as "Chad or impersonator of Chad" instead of "Chad" if you really want. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There, I've replaced tags and comments with "sockpuppet or impersonator". Enjoy, Deathphoenix ʕ 01:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What I meant by "you wouldn't know unless you're actually on those accounts" is that you won't get a "You have new messages" notice because I only leave messages on the sockpuppet and impersonator accounts, not your own. Therefore, your own account is unaffected. On further reflection, I could have worded it better. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, and for not wording it better. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

How low can he go...

Don't be discouraged.I've actually been researching this saga since you contributed to Talk:KGET-TV(and the personal attacks posted to that page)and have been wondering User:Dick Witham has sadly gotten undeserved sympathy from one or more admin(i.e., recent unjustified blocks)...Ranma9617 07:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet.

At Pedigree, we're for shelter dogs. We're also for people not making unsubstantiated accusations against others. Please stop claiming that I am a sockpuppet or I will be forced to ask the Wikipedia administrators to censure you in your behavior and actions. Your accusations are ludicrous and some of them border on personal attacks. Thank you. --Dooby Scoo 02:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop it

Chad, you have been warned and you persist in your behaviour. Don't remove other users' legitimate comments: this constitutes vandalism. Don't keep on accusing others of being suspected sockpuppets: this has now become relentless to that it amounts to personal abuse. I've told you what to do with suspected sockpuppets — get your evidence together and present it. This is a final warning. If you persist you will be blocked. Tyrenius 22:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What you're doing now (i.e. putting your points to me in a reasoned way) is the right thing to do, and will keep you in the clear. If you're being harrassed or if there is an abusive sockpuppet, then you'll get help. As soon as this occurs, let me know with the diff please. It's got to be specific. Don't allow yourself to get wound up, and don't hit back, as then you'll end up in trouble. I suggest you also contact the admins who you say are already familiar with this. Which admins are they? Tyrenius 22:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've left a note for User:Mel Etitis. Can you compile evidence of any recent harrassment with diffs? Tyrenius 23:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What you have provided me with are past incidents. Let me know if anything occurs now. Tyrenius 01:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone asking you not to call them a sockpuppet is not harrassment. Exactly what behaviour are you finding in common? You have to give concrete evidence. Tyrenius 04:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been following the conversation too much, but I'm assuming he's referring to me and my comments I made on this very talk page to him asking him to cut out the sockpuppet crap? It's difficult to tell...because your comments are the only ones on here, it makes it look very one-sided. At any rate, I'm not who he claims me to be, and I certainly do believe he has exhibited negative behavior both in past and present incidents such as this one. --Dooby Scoo 05:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Chad if you continue to make accusations like the ones being made on the talk page for rspw, specifically that I "butter admins up by voting for them on their Rfa's, or that I "use admins" to do my bidding, I WILL file a proper Arbitration against you. If you continue to lob these sorts of remarks at me, which ARE violations of Wikipedia policy, then I will have no choice but to pursue proper action against you. TruthCrusader 11:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You're invited :)

Please accept this invite to join the new WikiProject Bodybuilding, a WikiProject dedicated to improving bodybuilding related articles. Simply click here to accept! ~~~~

Dooby Scoo

Dooby scoo has been blocked for his completely unacceptable language towards you. I will be looking into other conversations later. You're doing the sensible thing by going down official channels. Please keep your cool and don't be goaded into retaliation. This matter will get sorted out. If you have any trouble report it to me. Tyrenius 14:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Hungry Hungry Hippos has been permanently blocked as you know. Those Meddling Kids has only done one edit so far, and that is, as far as I can see, an acceptable edit, so I've removed the sockpuppet tag. Please wait till you have evidence, and when you do, tell me, DeathPhoenix or another admin. Putting a tag on doesn't block anyone, so it's not going to achieve what you want anyway. If you make a mistake and it's an innocent editor, then you will be in the position of harrassing someone.Tyrenius 12:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What's MO? Even so, one non-vandal edit is simply not enough. If it's getting to you, then back off for a bit, and come back later. R&R. Tyrenius 12:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I hadn't seen it. I've blocked [[User:166.102.89.46|}} for the time being. You say it's a dynamic IP? In which case it might not be able to be blocked infefinitely. Tyrenius 13:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes sense. Just make sure you stay on the right side of the line in your responses. Tyrenius 14:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

WCW Disney tapings

I suggest you add User:Those Meddling Kids to your CheckUser request. By the way, you were not on the right side of the line. Revert war is not acceptable. It was an edit dispute. Tyrenius 03:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing, as in dynamic IP? I think you mean "reason", actually. Tyrenius 04:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)