User talk:Chadbryant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Talk Archives 2 Blocked 3 Being incivil 4 Removing templates 5 Talk Pages 6 Chadbryant 7 Vandalism 8 Removing references to Wrestling 9 WikiProject Steely Dan

[edit] Talk Archives

• 2005
• 2006 (1)
• 2006 (2)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for one week for your continued uncivil behaviour after numerous prior warnings. --Yamla 02:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock|My continued harassment from several users is being assisted by an admin who would rather use his 'powers' to ban the person being harassed than deal with the users who are guilty of harassment and violating numerous other Wikipedia guidelines and policies. The admin who has blocked me has allowed other users to vandalize my user & talk pages, and has allowed them to revert when I have removed it. I request that this unblock request be reviewed by another admin that is *not* the admin who has blocked me twice and has already tried to indefinitely block me for sockpuppet accusations that he did not investigate fully before trying the indefinite block.}}

Please present evidence that I have allowed other users to vandalise your user and talk pages. Specific edits would be appreciated. I just checked your edit history for this talk page and can find three examples of you removing current warnings. When users warn you using the standard warning templates, this is not considered vandalism. However, you may not have been referring to this page, or I may not be looking at the right edits. Note also that you were blocked for sockpuppet accounts but this was reversed and you spent time blocked simply for the 3RR violation, your eighth 3RR violation. Anyway, standard warnings and blocks for 3RR is not harassment. On the other hand, calling people "marks and barely-literate fangirls" most certainly is problematic. As you requested, I have not reviewed your unblock request. And I will not do so unless you ask and unless you provide the requested evidence. Note, though, that other admins are not permitted to unblock you, though they are free to review your request. --Yamla 22:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You have allowed users to vandalize my user page for stating my opinions regarding various edit disputes on pro wrestling articles (in fact, one of the users you allowed to vadalize my userpage was one of the users who abused various wrestling articles to the point where I gave up trying to improve those articles entirely). You have allowed users to vandalize my user talk page with bogus "warnings" that are only placed there to confuse the issue.

When you listen to fools, the mob rules. - Chadbryant 02:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Specific edits, please. And remember, WP:NPA. I could find no evidence of you removing any vandalism whatsoever from this talk page, only evidence of you removing current warnings. These are not vandalism. Please provide specific edits that demonstrate what you are talking about. --Yamla 02:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reduced the duration of the block; it'll last another 24 hours. I believe you were blocked following or related to a report at WP:PAIN. Please feel free to contribute once the block expires, but please also try to avoid disruptive behavior and to keep a cool head and civilly commit to dispute resolution whenever possible; even if there's not a particular article involved, it's best if everybody can get along. Thanks for your patience. Luna Santin 06:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Being incivil

It seems to me that you have acted in an uncivil manner on User_talk:Nihonjoe#Craig_Roger_Gregerson. It is important to keep a cool head, despite any comments against you. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and action can be taken against the other parties if necessary. Your involvement in attacking back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors, and lead to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! DXRAW 03:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to note that in any interactions with me, Chadbryant has been civil. I can not speak for any other interactions he may have had. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"Some very misguided editors who are wholly ignorant" That is why the warning. That seems not very WP:AGF, It could of been said like "Some editors that i fell do not know the issue...etc etc" DXRAW 11:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing templates

You have removed several user warning templates from your user or user talk page. This is a bad idea. We don't leave these warnings to annoy you; we do so because we think your behavior needs improvement and we're giving you the courtesy of letting you know. Please respond by changing your behavior and by leaving a message right here — not by removing warning messages. Thank you. yandman 06:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed "warnings" from a user who sees fit to harass me here and via e-mail. Warnings left by users who are engaging in long-term harassment are not left in "good faith". - Chadbryant 06:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In what way is he harassing you? Maybe he needs to be warned too.Give a few diffs that show you have been harassed (remember that obstinacy!=harassment). From what I've seen, you made a comment branding other editors as "ignorant", which is a violation of wp:npa. I'm not sure if this warrants a formal warning, but in any case, you should have written your opinion under the message, not removed it. yandman 07:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make false accusations. I have not harassed you in any shape or form. Why dont you provide a copy of the emails? DXRAW 07:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Pointing out that an editor is ignorant of Wikipedia policy is not a personal attack.

I'm not making false acquisitions. I'm also not making false accusations. I've deleted your e-mails and suggest that you do not attempt to contact me in the future. I also kindly suggest the use of a dictionary. - Chadbryant 08:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That is not suprising that you dont have a copy of the emails as none were sent. Thank you for pointing out the spelling mistake. WP:NPA says and i quote "Comment on content, not on the contributor." You said and i quote "Some very misguided editors who are wholly ignorant regarding LDS Church doctrine..." You dont expect every editor on WP to know the LDS Church doctrine, Do you? Thoes "misguided editors" as you called them which is also not very WP:AGF provided reasons to the reverts rather than "...the article will be retagged as such, regardless of any objections." You accuse other editors of WP:OWN but that sentence shows that you dont follow it yourself. You have made some very good edits, Might i suggest a wikibreak to clear your head? DXRAW 08:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you please remove your false accusations. Thank you. DXRAW 11:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Pages

Why are you not letting me reply to your messages? My messages are friendly reminders of the WP policys. Might i recomend that you take a look at yourself before you call other talk pages messages "harassment from problem users" Here are some links that might help you WP:TALK, WP:EQ, WP:CIVIL & WP:NPA DXRAW 09:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I second this. You are not permitted to blank current warnings from this page. And please keep your interactions with other editors civil. You have a history of problems on the Wikipedia, including a large number of 3RR violations, but you also have a large number of very good edits. We welcome your continued edits but please, no more uncivil edits, okay? --Yamla 14:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't need Wikistalkers following me to other articles to revert my edits without any valid reason. - Chadbryant 00:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this applies to blanking current warnings or acting uncivilly. --Yamla 00:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I moved this from your talk page archives. Active discussions one day old should not be archived, because some people might think that you are trying to hide them. yandman 08:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chadbryant

Okay, I'm not going to take any direct action on this one. I think what's happening here is that DXDRAW is no longer assuming good faith. This is happening because Chadbryant has had a number of run-ins before, being blocked multiple times, and is blanking warnings from DXDRAW. Accusations of wikistalking don't help matters; leaving template warnings is not considered wikistalking. What I'd like to see is for both of you to ignore each other completely for 24 hours. Then for the next twenty four hours, the following: No template warnings from DXDRAW to Chadbryant but instead, if DXDRAW wants to leave a warning, leave a hand-written warning explaining what was done incorrectly and what you'd do differently in order not to get a warning. And Chadbryant to leave the message in tact, not blanked, and to assume that DXDRAW is correct and try to understand what he is saying. After that 24 hours are up, you are free to go about your business. What I hope this accomplishes is to sort of hit the reset button here. I'm not investigating further at this point because really, the best way to resolve conflicts like this is not to determine who is right, it's to step back a bit. I know in my experience, I've sometimes had to step back for a bit even though I knew I was in the right, and I've found it really does help matters. If you two would be willing to try something like this, please respond on my talk page indicating your agreement. This isn't something I'm going to enforce so please feel free to tell me to bug off. But I think it is worth a shot. --Yamla 03:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You said: "DXRAW needs to be informed that non-notable (and obscure) pro wrestling references are not encyclopedic, and that he can not intentionally mislead others by labeling their removal as "vandalism" or "blanking"."

As I have previously stated, I don't care about that. Only whether you are willing to follow the suggestion I outlined above. --Yamla 03:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I rolled back your recent removal of a comment from CraigMonroe. Your edit summary said that you were reverting vandalism which is clearly not the case. Warnings and comments such as the one that CraigMonroe left are definitely not vandalism, so I presume you meant to remove something else instead. --Yamla 01:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If the situation was that you never had any prior interaction with CraigMonroe, please feel free to remove his comments again but make a note of this in your edit summary. For example, "Removed comment from confused user, never had any interaction with this person". Thanks. --Yamla 01:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You said: "The edit summary for my removal of a comment left by "CraigMonroe" mentioned absolutely nothing about "vandalism" (see [1]). This user account is relatively new, yet is well-versed in Wikipedia, which combined with the account's claims and stance on editing issues is a clear sign that it is a sockpuppet/meatpuppet being employed by the camp of wrestling marks who have been Wikistalking me for much of the last two months. Please take the time to read what I have actually written before you pass judgement."

I'm talking about this edit with the edit summary, "r/v". --Yamla 02:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You said: "I have always understood "r/v" to signify a "revert" - if I revert for vandalism, I put "r/v - vandalism" as my edit summary."

Okay, then I apologise for my comments. "rv" normally signifies "revert", while "r/v" tends to signify "revert/vandalism". Similarly, "rvv" is revert-vandalism. If you could switch to using "rv" instead of "r/v", or just typing in "revert", it would help prevent confusion. --Yamla 02:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing references to Wrestling

Please also note that removing all references to wrestling events from arenas and stadiums may be considered a violation of WP:POINT. In some cases, your removal of these events is reasonable. In other cases, the removal may not be justified. The best way to ensure you do not violate WP:POINT is to discuss your removals on the article's discussion page before removing the information. Also, please refrain from claiming you are removing vandalism (edit summaries of "r/v", for example) when removing this information. It may not be notable but it is most definitely not vandalism. I'm not trying to antagonise you here. You have a history of excellent edits but you also have a history of contentious interactions with other Wikipedia editors. This is an example of this and I'd hate to see you run into problems over it. --Yamla 02:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

But please see my comments above on a misunderstanding of what you implied by "r/v" as opposed to "rv". --Yamla 02:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me confused with the loon who keeps adding some red-linked wrestling event to Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome. The other item he added, about the year for the Super Bowl, appears to be correct, so I left it. :) Wahkeenah 06:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No hay problema. I don't offend easily. :) My primary objection to that guy's edit was that, in addition to being obscure, it was redlinked, which led me to believe it was possibly a joke. If it at least had an article and some indication of its alleged importance, it might be a different story. I'm not too keen on red links. My philosophy is, write the spinoff article first, then link it back. Red links don't do anything to enhance this site's credibility as a source. I also share your hinted disdain with childish editors who make a hobby of messing with this site. The fact that unregistered users can edit is mind-boggling to me. It guarantees lower credibility. I have been known to call this site little more than a pretentious weblog, and I still feel that way sometimes. The vandalism and the well-meaning-but-poorly-done-editing problems are tough enough with registered users, but at least they can be communicated with sometimes. OK, enough middle-of-the-night ranting. Thanks fer listenin'. :) Wahkeenah 07:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Steely Dan

I know this could be considered spamming, but I couldn't help noticing that you have a Steely Dan userbox. I am trying to start a Steely Dan WikiProject and was just wondering if you were interested. Come to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Steely_Dan to sign up and visit the WikiProject-to-be's temporary page here. NauticaShades 16:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)