User talk:Cheeser1

I am back from my absence but will continue to be extraordinarily busy.

READ BEFORE YOU POST: If I posted to your talk page, reply there. If you're posting about a particular article, post there. I watch talk pages I post to (until a discussion ends), and it makes way more sense to keep a discussion together than to post back and forth. Please post questions/comments/whatever under the appropriate heading or under a new heading. Thanks!

Archived content can be found here. Please note that I am a bit of a neat freak, at least in some ways. I constantly archive content almost immediately after an issue is settled. I leave things here as long as I think someone might reasonably respond or want to read it, but no longer. I also archive discussions that are over, even when the other party doesn't think so. It's how I stop unproductive and often uncontributive discussions (arguments) from continuing, since those sorts of arguments are not how I'd like to spend my time.

Firefly Minor Characters

There has been a call for deletion of the List of minor characters in the Firefly universe article. Since you've commented on the call to merge all the major characters, I thought you might be interested. Shsilver 15:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Cheeser1 01:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikietiquette alert

From User talk:TenPoundHammer:
I wanted to thank you for being gracious and mature in your response(s) to the complaint. It's encouraging to see an editor handle such a situation so well. Happy editing. --Cheeser1 03:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome -- it was barely even a petty offense but still I felt that it was worth apologizing for. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Otters

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For the funny comment about letting otters use my account, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters award you the Barnstar of Good Humor. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

From User talk:Eusebeus:
I wanted to let you know that I've marked this WQA alert as stuck. While I am of the opinion that your actions were not uncivil, I would like to let you know that in the future, you could probably avoid having to entertain such (erroneous) accusations so much if you were more diplomatic. While this is not required, it may reduce the amount of conflict you run into. I hope you take this as a learning experience, even if you would not be considered at fault. Regards. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cheeser, thanks for your comments. I am disinclined to be diplomatic with users whose disingenuousness makes me view their actions with considerable suspicion and who commit such flagrant violations of policy under the guise of an "aw shucks" attitude. I am especially concerned that someone who is apparently too naive to understand what a sockpuppet is or rules governing user pages can nonetheless adroitly use wikiquette and DRV, inter alia. Btw, don't forget to smack me down for my incivility & idiocy on the Firefly talk page! Eusebeus (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize with your disinclination, I was just hoping to give you a few optional pointers, to shore up the discussion - I don't want to see it drag out any longer, in any case. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cheeser, not sure if you have my talk page on your watchlist, but so you know Jack Merridew can make whatever edits to it that he sees fit as if it were his own, so no need to revert. Thanks! Eusebeus (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to have userpages pile up on my Watchlist, as I comment on them. I'll keep that in mind. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WQA

I take extreme offence to your advice. This is not about disagreement. This is about confrontational behaviour on the part of MShake. I have every right to tell him to stay away from me under those circumstances. Please close the WQA. I will not be taking a break because I don't need to. Thank you. !! Justa Punk !! 22:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I cannot "close the WQA." The alerts board is an informal process to seek advice. If you don't want advice, don't ask for it. Lashing out at me isn't going to help you move on any better. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Domer48

What are you going on about? WP:IDONTLIKEIT, "Throwing it around telling everyone that their opinion doesn't matter because they "don't like" something is not appropriate and doesn't assume much good faith" I suggest you back up there, just in case you have me mixed up with someone. --Domer48 (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It has nothing to do with external links or any other policy, only AfD procedure. And it's an essay. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

From User talk:Domer48:
In response to this issue, I'm going to ask that you not include disputed links. Until the matter is resolved, the links should remain excluded. Accusing others of edit warring, when you are of a singular opinion, is not helpful and when you're the one arguing for inclusion, you're supposed to stop the edit warring and take it to the talk page. Insisting that the links remain while the discussion goes on fuels the edit warring. Also, please respect WP:IDONTLIKEIT and use it correctly. It is a part of an essay about deletion discussions. Throwing it around telling everyone that their opinion doesn't matter because they "don't like" something is not appropriate and doesn't assume much good faith. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you back up your Accusations here, or remove your comments! Failing that, I'll remove them. --Domer48 (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That's your userpage. You can remove whatever comments you want. However, this is my userpage, and all I'm doing is asking you to stop edit warring. You want to get in a huff about how I'm accusing you of something, feel free, but the fact is that you're inserting disputed links without establishing a consensus. There are a number of opinions about these links, and many cite WP:EL as prohibiting them based on particular concerns that you haven't fully addressed. Until you establish a consensus, you should stop edit warring. It's hostile, impolite, and unproductive. If that's an accusation, then so be it, I'm just trying to get you to work more productively. If you refuse to do so, that's your prerogative. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Throwing it around telling everyone that their opinion doesn't matter because they "don't like" something is not appropriate and doesn't assume much good faith" Now are you going to back this up with some diff, or are you going to waffel! Tell you what, never mind, I'm not going to waste my time with y. --Domer48 (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to provide you with diffs of what you yourself said. But I can, if you choose to be obstinate. Wikipedia is a community-built encyclopedia. You don't get to decide who you "waste [your] time with." You're being disruptive by edit warring. There are clear community-set guidelines about how not to edit war and about why those links are at least questionable. Until you establish a consensus in favor of including the links, you need to stop adding them. That's really all there is to it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That link you have there, is weather on not the references being discussed are WP:RS. Totally different discussion to the one on “links,” which you removed. Never mind, so far you strike me as the sort of person who can’t admit when they make a mistake, so no point discussing it. Good luck, --Domer48 (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The WQA complaint is about your conduct. Your conduct is inappropriate - your edit-warring over links is inappropriate, and your misuse of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in a reliable source discussion is also inappropriate. You're trying to find an irrelevant (and incorrect) inconsistency in some part of my argument - this is really not the issue. You continue to be combative and rude, and that's fine, but I'm trying my best to explain to you how to stop being disruptive and combative, and if all I get is why don't you just "admit [you're] wrong" because "I'm not going to waste my time with y[ou]", then it's really your loss. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling that Domer48 was WP:SHOPPING for another user, so I've gone and added the page for an RfC, which you can view here. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 22:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Vrlika

During the Croatian War of Independence, Croatia was attacked by rebel Serb forces and JNA, and the entire population fled. The people finally returned after Operation Storm freed the country, and began to repair the damages of the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.29.100.193 (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're telling me this, it sounds like this is a sentence or two that belong in an article. If this is an issue with the content of the article, take it to Talk:Vrlika. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Why you dont take it on Vrlika page since you know all about Vrlika history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.29.98.212 (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It is clear you are the vandal who has repeatedly vandalized pages by removing all references to Serbs/Serbia. I know you think you're doing something good, but you aren't, so stop disrupting Wikipedia to push your agenda. Your vandalism is not welcome here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It is clear you are the vandal who has repeatedly vandalized pages by removing all references to Serbs aggression on Croatia. I know you think you're doing something good, but you aren't, so stop disrupting Wikipedia to push your agenda. Your vandalism is not welcome on Croatia related pages.