User talk:ChrisP2K5/Archive3

Check the archives for recent... or if you wanna deal with the old...

Leon Harrison

You're so sure, huh? Did you happen to notice the discussion on AN/I here, perhaps? Or how about you actually look at his contributions, his changes to TPIR, which match up quite well with the Hdayejr sock activity. You, nor I are going to remove that information from the list until a Check User clears him. That is how the list works, it is for suspected sock puppets, and there is more evidence against him as a sock then there is for him as not.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve\ ^Contribs 20:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I just did, and I'm not convinced that's the case. Furthermore, I'm even MORE convinced that he's on there wrongly. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Either way, a CU will confirm of deny it, we can't change that list until it has been done, we can only add. Removing someone from the list just for a gut filling will appear as vandalism.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve\ ^Contribs 06:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, just out of curiosity...why did no one think to do it? --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please clarify? Assuming you are speaking of the CU, I believe another case would have to be opened.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve\ ^Contribs 18:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just like I thought. The CU confirms it. It was a Hdayejr sock. Next time review his contributions and the contributions of the sock master more carefully, please.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve\ ^Contribs 04:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Read 'em as close as I could. Don't snark. I'm with you on the Hdayejr thing. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve\ ^Contribs 04:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I'm wondering when the next we'll hear from him is. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope never, I just submitted a request to AN/I for a rangeblock on the found IP ranges. The list is quite big. Just check my contribs so you can find it.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve\ ^Contribs 06:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I took a look...I don't know if you're gonna get the results you want because the list is so damned expansive. But let's all cross out fingers and hope for the best. I'm certain sure we'll hear from him again. Just for the record, I have to say that I believe that User:Dennyg2007 is him and can be confirmed by heading over to the Google Group alt.tv.game-shows, where he still posts on a daily basis. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

WWE The Great American Bash

I've reverted your move to The Great American Bash (WWE PPV). All other PPV's are in the "WWE (insert name here)" format, so I don't see what makes this any difference. Of course, you are free to make a new topic at WT:PW to see what others think. D.M.N. (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

braveheart edits

okay, I see what you mean. The section does reflect only Gibson at this point, but you will notice that the production section is really very sparse and needs a lot of expansion. What we don't need is commentary on what later to Gibson outside of this film. The Lethal Weapon 4 material is off-point for the discussion, and belongs, imho in the Lethal Weapon article far more than it does in the Braveheart one. Wouldn't you tend to agree? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No, because a distinction needs to be drawn. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What distinction, precisely? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Our favorite sock...

Check out 71.62.241.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), seems like it might be another incarnation of our least favorite sock. The IP is from NJ, but this edit [1] seems pretty fishy. I'll bow to your experience on this one. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Since apparently only one user would be so bold to say something like that about Steve, it's a safe bet that's him. Especially considering he posted on the talk page of the IP that started this whole mess in the first place. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Grand Slam Championship

Chris, you are clearly not new around here (3845 edits). Neither am I nor Scorpion 0422, but your edits to Grand Slam Championship yesterday are nothing but original research. But this is note the main reason why I removed your text. If a "Five Belt Championship" existed first you need sources, then you would need to star a new page, because the Triple Crown and Grand Slam are listed on separate pages, even though the Triple Crown is the base for the Grand Slam.

And as you are not new then I don't need to tell you that by re-adding your OR to this page once then twice you are one revert away from a third revert and I would ask you to think before you did another revert.

In addition I would remind you to not use edit summaries to make personal attacks such as "stop stalking me, Scorpion" as you did yesterday, and again here.

You are not new to this, you know the rules by now, I suggest you think carefully before taking any further action. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, if that is original research, then you could make a case that any page on this site is original research. Second of all, Scorpion's a troll who believes that he owns several pages. And it seems like the only time he comes in to edit is when I make an edit. I think I'm well within my means to assume he's stalking me, and he's done nothing to convince me he hasn't. He's also responsible for my recent spree of being bitten by a bunch of IP socks of a blocked user, which has only been abated by my user page and talk page being protected. This guy is bad news, and I'm starting to wonder why he hasn't been reprimanded. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with your first sentence, as many articles here have sources cited.— Dædαlus^T@lk / _Improve^Contribs 18:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Second of all, two wrongs don't make a right.— Dædαlus^T@lk / _Improve^Contribs 18:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

This is unacceptable. And, before you say it, I'm not stalking you, but rather Scorpion0422's page is on my watchlist. Seriously, you're pushing your luck around here and making yourself a lot of enemies. You will be blocked if you continue, simple as that. The expression "quit while you're ahead" comes to mind here. Seriously. Qst (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

-

Telling someone to drop dead is simply unacceptable. You will be blocked if you continue such behaviour. Maxim_(talk) 15:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 48 hours for continued personal attacks/harassment of Scopion0422 and Qst. I gave you a warning about this a few days ago, which you rather rudely removed. You now continue to make baseless accusation against Scorpion0422 and Qst even without their involvement. In a collaborative project such as this, it is very important to not harass fellow editors; such actions are detrimental to the project. I sincerely hope that after this block, you will cease this harassment. I suggest you e-mail me if you wish to discuss this block further. Maxim_(talk) 23:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ChrisP2K5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

No legitimate reason for said block, I don't believe that I was wrong here. And furthermore, I've been harassed by two users who are the reasons behind the mod who blocked me. Most importantly, thanks to one of said users I had to have my talk page protected because his harassment of me led to a blocked user harassing me through ridiculous IP sock edits. I believe said user is also wikistalking me.

Decline reason:

Telling someone to do you a favor by dropping dead isn't acceptable. — PhilKnight (talk) 01:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Chris, contrary to what you may think, I'm here to build the encyclopedia and to help. When you're unblocked, I'm willing to help you, and if you refuse, that is fine by me, but that does not mean I will not revert any edits you make that are inappropriate/against policies or guidelines. If you want my help to become constructive, tell me, but think twice before removing this notice, as if you do, people will not want to help you, and the cycle will repeat. So, despite your poor attitude and our disagreements, I'm willing to help you learn the ropes around here, if you want. Qst (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I know you didn't mean to come off this way, but I must say that was very condescending, Qst. I don't need your help to be a constructive editor- I already am, and I don't need you to tell me otherwise. Your statement, while made in the best intentions, offends me quite a great deal. I don't appreciate your tone, and I will thank you to treat me with a little more respect. I want the same thing that you do- to help the encyclopedia. I believe my posting history will show you that, should you look at it. Comments like "I will revert any edit that is inappropriate or against guidelines" seems to me like a case for ownage, and I will remind you that no one owns this encyclopedia. Furthermore, I would like you and Scorpion to stop harassing me. I've actually gotten to the point where I'm scared to make an edit because you guys aren't willing to let anything stand, apparently. It may not have been your intentions to do that, but you did. If you're going to continue to talk down to me and be condescending to me, I must deny you recognition. If you're willing to be nice, then we can co-exist. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break and stop being so melodramatic. I have reverted your edits on a sum total of five articles in a two month period (less than 0.008 % of your edits during that period). Quit acting like I am reverting practically everything you add. Every single one of those reversions has been when added things that go against WP:NOR (which is a policy). I have never once followed you anywhere and never checked any of your contributions other than the ones that show up on my watchlist. Qst and I are following policy by reverting your OR, so that does not make us trolls so please stop with the "denying you" bit. It was that attitude that got you blocked in the first place. As well, if you are actually taking wikipedia that seriously that people who revert your additions of OR frightens you, then you seriously need to get a new hobby. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

See? This is exactly what I was talking about. The talking down, the condescension, the arrogance...Like I said, if you want us to co-exist, then stop. With that last post I believe that you and Qst are wanting me to leave, and I must tell you that just isn't going to happen. You need to be a LOT MORE CIVIL towards me. Then maybe we can work together. If not, then that's your loss. And by the way, Scorpion, I just wanted to remind you that you are largely responsible for the ongoing Hdayejr IP sock harassment that I've been under for the last few months. I may be a little more open to reconciling with Qst than I would be with you, unless you apologized for what you started. What got me blocked was the whole "drop dead" thing on your talk page. Get your facts straight, too. Be sure that I'm not going to take it to the levels I did before for risk of another block, but know this...I cannot, and I will not, coexist with editors with superiority complexes unless they can show me that they're willing to be civil. I can honestly say that I don't see that in you. And you are the ONLY EDITOR that I have ever really had a big problem with (me personally). --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute here, you told me to drop dead of your 100% own free will and suddenly it's my fault you got punished for it? And I had absolutely nothing to do with the sock that is pestering you, so please don't blame me for that. I suppose you're also going to find a way to blame the current gas prices on me too. There is obviously no reasoning with some people, so I am no longer going to try. If you do not wish to encounter me again, then I suggest thoroughly reading WP:NOR and probably WP:RS, WP:V, WP:A and WP:NOT#INFO. If you follow those simple policies, then you will notice that people will stop reverting you. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay

We need to calm down here folks, and by folks, I mean you, Chris. I know we have supported each other in regards to the sockpuppet issue, but I do not support you here. You need to actually read what they are saying, and not assume. I read both replies and comments. Qst's might have been slightly talking down, but Scorpion's was not. There is no incivilty here except from you, and by your posts, it appears the superiority complex is on your end. Not his. You keep saying he's talking down to you. He isn't. You're the only here accusing people of things, while yelling, I might add(as far as I've learned of the internet, ALL CAPS mean yelling. If I am wrong here, please state so and why).

So far, you are the only person here who is breaking policy with incivilty: You attack him on his userpage telling him to drop dead, you accuse him of talking down to you, when in fact he is not. You call him arrogant. You put him into a group(the superiority complex comment).

I suggest you calm down and stop throwing things left and right. It isn't helping anyone, and in fact, it is only making things worse.

IMOH, you need to apologize for your incivilty towards two editors that have been following policy, and have been trying to be nice.— Dædαlus^T@lk / _Improve^Contribs 06:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Daedalus, how many times do I need to admit that I was wrong? Further, I don't really see how I can't interpret what he's saying as being talked down to. I don't really think you've been paying attention, because I said that I was willing to co-exist with these two and work together. However, Scorp needs to do a little more to get me to co-exist with him, namely apologize for what he caused. I'm really getting a little irked about this, because I just want to get back to editing and really don't want to deal with this situation anymore. I was blocked. I'm unblocked. Let me edit and move on. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just wanting to say that from a 3rd, uninvolved party. Scorpion's statements are not condenscinding at all. I know I spelled that wrong :(. He cited various policies which we as a project try to adhere to. We are all editors on this project working together. I just want to say, try and listen to what others are saying. Not everybody is out to get you :). <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe you, Tinkleheimer, on most of those parts, but I don't appreciate being talked to like I'm a child by someone who doesn't know me. And I don't know how I can NOT interpret what Scorp's saying as being condescending and arrogant, because that's exactly how I see it. You raise the point that I'm trying to make...WE'RE ALL WORKING TOGETHER HERE, or at least trying to. We need some level of civility here. Like I said, I've been part of the problem in the past, but as I showed, at least in Qst's instance, that I'm willing to be civil because he's at least shown some humility (even though I didn't like the tone of his post). Scorp is not doing that, doesn't want to, and I'm just not going to deal with him if he's going to do that. If he wants to co-exist, then he needs to start acting more civil and stop talking down to me. Then, and only then, will I even consider. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

But that's the thing. He isn't being incivil to you, you however, are being incivil to him. If he is, and this is by chance getting past me, please cite the specific sentences to back up your accusations of his behavior.— Dædαlus^T@lk / _Improve^Contribs 06:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

He IS being incivil to me. Can't you see his tone, Daedalus? How exactly am I supposed to take comments like "stop the denying you bit?" The "get a better hobby"? With gentle good humor? Sorry. Like I said, I really don't want to discuss this anymore, because it's obvious that no one is going to be pleased here. I'm unblocked. Let me edit and let me be. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Those comments are incivil, but you need to recognize you were incivil aswell.— Dædαlus^T@lk / _Improve^Contribs 06:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Which I did, if you read up. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 06:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm coming into this late here, but it would seem that the best way to defuse this would be just to stop the discussions between these three editors. I agree with Chris that there's incivility here directed at him on his own userpage, so I'll just float the idea of letting the matter slide for now and let everyone get back to being productive editors. Dayewalker (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, noted. And good plan, Dayewalker. Now, I am going to turn around, stand up, and make sure the fan behind me is on the high setting. If it is already. Then I am sad.— Dædαlus^T@lk / _Improve^Contribs 06:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Folks, we all need to take a breather here. Chris, I wasn't suggesting by my original post that you were not a good editor, I was suggesting that maybe you could use some help to stop getting reverted by editors citing WP:OR. If you don't want to accept, then fine, but I'll be around to help you if you ever change your mind. Regarding Scorpion's comments, indeed they were firm, but they weren't violating WP:CIVIL, I think Scorpion just wants to see an end to having to revert you, and I think we all just want to move on with our lives. Everybody calm down, and keep the commnts constructive. Qst (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)