User talk:Chessy999

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Perro de Presa Canario

You've requested we add the "dog fighting breed" category to this article. Do you provide some sources that support this? Rklawton 12:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not too keen on the verbiage - perhaps changing the name of the proposed category to something to the effect of "Dog Breeds Historically Used for Fighting" (or something else along those lines) would be more appropriate. As far as the PdPC is concerned, there's no getting around the fact that the historical PdPC was utilized as a fighting dog [1]. Usually, when speaking of the use of the PdPC in arranged fights vis-a-vis the killing of wild dogs, historians tend to couch it in terms of a traditional Spanish interest in blood sports (like cock fighting) and, since the traditional PdPC was considered a valuable working animal, arranged fights between PdPCs are usually described as "honor fights" to distinguish them from British-style to-the-death pit fights between "game bred" dogs. Personally, I'm not sure if/how that makes one version of the pursuit "better" than the other. Dog fighting is disgusting, reprehensible, represents human beings at their worst and, as Mr. Vick is finding out, quite illegal - however, noting a history of arranged fighting in a breed is not necessarily a negative connotation. The irony of the categorization as it regards the PdPC is that, anecdotally anyway, they're assumed to be too large and lacking in stamina & agility to compare to a true "game bred" breed. I can provide cites for this, as their readily available - however, I'm in the middle of frying a bigger fish and Chessy999 should be able find references herself as they're readily available. Frangible 15:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your comment on my talk page. My knowledge of the breed's history has nothing to do with Wikipedia's requirement that you source facts you wish to add to articles. Rklawton 18:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


There is really a difference between breeds of dogs bred and developed for the sport of dog fighting, and dogs used informally for it. That does not make them a Fighting Dog breed such as the TOSA or the APBT. I agree with Frangible that the title of the category should be changed. PresaDog 22:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Task Force Invite (Join Us!)

You are being recruited by the Salem Witch Trials Task Force, a collaborative project committed to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the Salem Witch Trials. Join us!


Psdubow 21:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maine Coon links

Please be more careful in deleting links from long-lived articles. Two of the links you removed from the Maine Coon article were indeed spamlinks, but the rest weren't; they have been around for a long time in the article and are references for the breed. As for the link to feline HCM; the Maine Coon is known as the breed where HCM was first discovered and due to that it has become known as a breed where a lot of attention is put into battling the disease. Feline HCM is therefore relevant for the breed, as is mentioned in the text. So.. thanks for cleaning up, but please be careful. Tebokkel 14:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're really into cleaning out "spam", please adhere to the guidlines you quote. The spam-blacklist is automatically enforced; there's no need to manually clean up links. It's possible that the links you removed do not comply with your standards for quality, but the [Maine Coon] article has been time-tested, by moderators, editors, breeders and visitors. Holding back on changes would be my advise. Discuss *before* you remove older parts, not after the fact. See the discussion page of Maine Coon for details about the links themselves. Tebokkel 08:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Memoirs: 1939-1993

Updated DYK query On 11 September 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Memoirs: 1939-1993, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--++Lar: t/c 23:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World War One

A note: next time you find broken templates, you might fix rather than simply remove them; they were placed for a reason... Trekphiler 14:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it by removing them... Trekphiler 18:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bloodsports Template

May I respectfully point out that spiders aren't insects? -- • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ Talk 02:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horace

You don't write verbiage, though your grammar is not so good. You are also an okay editor on wiki if supercilious about other people's efforts. Good for you. Horace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.229.71 (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Venetian ceruse

"Toronto Blue Jays" is a proper name, so it should be capitalized. "Venetian ceruse" is not a proper name (not a brand). It is a common noun, like "French toast", so it should be in lower case. Jorge Stolfi 03:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

  • OK, let me explain it better. Brands and trademarks are commercial names (like "Cheerios", "Toronto Blue Jays", "Federal Express", "South Pacific Railroad"). Brands and trademarks have owners; so a brand normally names the product of one manufacturer (the brand's owner), and cannot be used for the same product made by another manufacturer. For instance, anyone can make and sell cereal shaped like little donuts, but they cannot write on the box "Cheerios" or "cheerios" or "Ajax Cheerios" or "Ajax cheerios" unless they get permission from the owner of the Cheerios brand. OK?
    The owner of a brand always takes pain to write his brands with capitals, so that everybody will be aware that it is a brand (that only he can use), and not a common name (that anyone can use). Moreover, if a reporter writes on a newspaper "the victim had just eaten a bowl of cheerios", the owner of the Cheerios brand can sue the newspaper for using his Cheerios brand with lower case, because that would turn his valuable brand into a worthless common name, and he would lose the gazillion dollars that he could get out of it. OK?
    Now, no one owns the name "Venetian Ceruse" or "venetian ceruse", just as no one owns the name "French Toast" or "French toast". These names are in the dictionary, and (fortunately for us common folk) the authorities will not let someone claim ownership of words or phrases that are in the dictionary. So anyone can make and sell Venetian ceruse or French toast, and write those names on the box, without paying a cent of royalties to anyone and without fear of being sued by some National Cosmetics Corporation. That's because "Venetian ceruse" is not a brand!
    But let's suppose that the authorities lapsed, and allowed some smart guy to register "Venetian Ceruse" as his brand. In that case, a random company cannot sell a product labeled "Venetian Ceruse" or "Ajax Venetian Ceruse", but they can sell "Ajax Venetian ceruse": because "Venetian ceruse" (lowercase) would still not be a brand (since it was already in the dictionary), while "Venetian Ceruse" (capitalized) would be.
    In conclusion: the article should be named "Venetian ceruse" because that is the common name of the stuff, no matter who makes it --- even if someone happened to register it as a brand. Is it clear now?
    All the best, --Jorge Stolfi 00:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enemy (military)

A tag has been placed on Enemy (military), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This is a definition. There is already a definition of "enemy" in the wiktionary.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Lex Kitten 12:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Although I still think this definition is superflous, as any war article aught to have it's own explaination of the opposing sides. However, to be on the safe side, I suppose a seperate definition could be useful =)
Just a little note on politeness though. The proper way to respon to a db flag is to add the hangon tag, and state your reason on the discussion page. The db tag should not be removed. It's just polite, and means that we can discuss our dispute over the article, instead of getting into an edit war of removing and replacing the db flag. =)
Lex Kitten 12:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if thats what you think I'm doing. I do hang around the newpages, trying to tag articles that aren't helpful to Wikipedia. Barnstars and fame are the furthest things from my mind, as is impressing you. I'm just trying to help out, so Wikipedia runs smoother and we can all benifit. I'm sorry that we had a dispute over this article, but that doesn't mean what I'm doing is wrong. It'd be nice if users like you and I, who aren't vandals or creaters of nonsense, could work together, instead of getting into disputes. Happy editing. Lex Kitten 12:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Better to talk about it while it is a redirect than with a speedy delete template at the top, unless you wish to run the risk that another administrator will delete it. --Philip Baird Shearer —Preceding comment was added at 13:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] October 2007

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:

  1. Place {{hangon}} on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag(s).
  2. Make your case on the article's talk page.

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you.

It would also be to your benefit to read this: Wikipedia:Assume good faith Davidovic 12:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read your talk page, but I think I'll leave it up to an administrator to decide what to do with the article, as it seems superflous. While waiting for a decision, why don't you brush up on your etiquette? :) Davidovic 12:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Look, if an admin comes along and decides that the article should remain, that's fine by me, I've been wrong before, but for now I'm going to leave the speedy delete tag on there. You're being quite rude about the whole thing, though, the new page patrol is an important part of Wikipedia. People don't do it for barnstars, they do it to benefit the project. If a quarter of the articles that get deleted every day were to remain, Wikipedia would become a seething mass of random knowledge, superflous facts and non-notable ideas. Please don't assume that other editors have a personal vendetta against you, because most of them don't. Davidovic 13:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conduct

Hey there,

I just thought I'd leave you a note here about the way you've been dealing with out conflict over the Enemy (military). First off, I know I'm not blameless, and I apologise for any remarks I've made that have been out of line. It's not easy to watch something you've put a lot of work into be marked for deletion.

However, there are certain things you've been doing which you should probably steer clear of in future. For example, if you have a problem with something another user has done, by all means be bold and feel free to remove it, but in most cases you should leave a polite note on the article talk page saying what you've done and why you've done it. Many editors won't see things your way, and some may take offence if you just revert their edit without any real explanation or chance to debate.

In closing, I think you'd benefit from assuming good faith and generally being more polite about other people's contributions :)

Thanks! Happy editing :) Davidovic 12:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate personal attacks, especially as I'm trying to help. Davidovic 13:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
"Mcpinions"? A "handicap to Wikipedia"? Those look like personal attacks to me. Davidovic 13:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Regretably, I've had to file a Wikiquette alarm on your conduct. You can read it here and comment with your side of the story. Thank you. Davidovic 13:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Poulin

Please read WP:BLP1E. In addition, the entire stub is unreferenced, which makes it an egregious WP:BLP violation. The redirect in such cases is appropriate. Corvus cornix 22:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources to write a biography from, then go for it, but as of now, this is an attack page with no proofs for anything. Corvus cornix 23:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Content disputes are not vandalism. You'll be laughed out of wherever you report it. Corvus cornix 22:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page comments

I'm not certain precisely why but you, perhaps inadvertently, deleted some of my comments from the bloodsports template talk page. Please be careful when editing talk pages so as not to delete or otherwise alter the comments of others. Thank you. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 14:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

Chessy999, it seems that, somehow, we have crossed swords and have fallen into a disagreeable state. To the extent that any of my activities have been responsible for any such a falling out, I wish to apologise without hesitation and unreservedly for them. Please accept my pledge to try to work together henceforth. It seems our interests lie in some of the same areas and it's entirely possible that we shall cross paths again in the future. When that should occur, I should much rather like to think of you as an ally or, at worst, as a worthy adversary. Again, please accept my apologies. If there's anything you think I might be able to do for you, please don't hesitate to ask. In the meantime, might I be so bold as to suggest, with all due respect, that you review the Help page at Reverting. It contains many good pointers about the appropriate and inappropriate uses of reversion in a variety of circumstances. Cheers! — Dave (Talk | contribs) 05:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I left a couple relevant comments at Dave's talk page. -- Fyslee / talk 06:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

With regard to your comments on [[:Talk:Polar Bear hunting]]: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. (The relevant diff is here.) — Dave (Talk | contribs) 13:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

See above.--Afru (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link added to Flying Spaghetti Monster

Thanks for the link to the CNN article! However, I removed it from the "External Links" section, because this information is already covered in the "FSM in the News" section and the CNN article appears in the "References" section. Happy wikiing! ---- Jaysweet (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility warning

This was entirely uncalled for. You are not only fighting against a consensus for keeping the redirect, your stubbornness, personal attacks and incivility are creating even more consensus against you as a person. Is that really what you want? Please cease your attempt to force your opinion on Wikipedia and its editors and just use your user space to develop a better article. -- Fyslee / talk 07:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Speedy deletion of Glossohyal

A tag has been placed on Glossohyal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Agüeybaná 14:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Glossohyal

Glossohyal, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Glossohyal satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossohyal and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Glossohyal during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Agüeybaná 15:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unnecessary words are a plague

Hi. Please see [2] and [3]. The article Bait (dogs) was a good example of a badly-written article. MisterSheik (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Looks like you're still not happy with the simpler wording. Have you tried these exercises ever? [4] Let me know what you think. MisterSheik (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simple English

Chessy: If you aren't up for engaging in civil discussion about the content of an article, why are you editing this encyclopedia? I am not talking about using simple english; I am talking about using plain English. "Removing redundancy will not damage the meaning [of an article], and in most cases will strengthen it. Crisp, elegant writing demands the elimination of redundancy." The phrase "with endeavor" is clearly redundant once you have stated the motives of the dogs. Obstinately reinserting superfluous words belies an ignorance about the meaning of those words. Please don't edit the article until you're ready to discuss your changes. MisterSheik (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bare Knuckle Fighter=

Hi, for some reason you have deleted Darren jackson, Johny Frankham and Sam Frankham, Johny Frankham was 'king of the gypsys' and a famous bareknuckle fighter mentioned in many books, also Darren Jackson is a unlicenced boxer and bareknuckle man, as is sam frankham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.163.191 (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of link to Bobby Fischer Memorial at Find A Grave

This is the second time that someone has deleted Bobby Fischer's link to Find A Grave. You say that you have removed a link already cited in the article. His article states that Bobby Fischer was buried at a cemetery in Iceland, but that has nothing to do with linking the article to his memorial at Find A Grave. To delete the link merely because his burial place is mentioned in the article is absurd. There are a lot of idiots who edit on Wikipedia. Your deletion of Bobby Fischer's link to Find A Grave constitutes vandalism, because there is no need or reason to delete the link, and the link itself is a constructive (positive) edit to a good Web site.

Anthony22 (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of link to www.Fischer.jp in "Bobby Fischer"

First: The link you added was itself already in the reference.

Second: That a link is already in the references is no reason to remove it from the section "External Links".

Third: In fact the link you added doesn'T qualify for the section "External Links".

Greetings 212.23.103.97 (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wiktionary is not a good source

But rather than edit-warring with you, I've requested input here.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary cannot be cited as a reference. It can be linked to using {{Wiktionary}}. Please do not edit war to reinsert the improper reference. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 14:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transformational Defense Industries

Hi Chrissy - there was no deletion discussion, as it was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. Specifically, it was deleted for being "an article about a real...company...that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." You're welcome to create a new article with the same name, but you shouldn't do so unless you're prepared to provide evidence of coverage by third party reliable sources. Alternatively, if you believe that I erred in my application of the speedy deletion criteria, you can take this up at Deletion Review. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammed's Gun?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Muhammeds_Gun.jpg says "Muhammed's gun", are u sure? I mean can u confuse with Mehmed (Mehmed II). Or here Muhammed has another meaning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilhanli (talk • contribs) 09:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Staunton chess set

Your removal of tags on Staunton chess set is not helpful. If you want to improve the article, you can do it by providing inline citations or footnotes for the key claims, such as those found in the "First theory", "Second theory", etc. sections. Quale (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Do the work yourself, I'm busy. I've contributed plenty to chess articles on wikipedia, I've never seen you do anything worthwhile. Quale (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of dog fighting breeds

An editor has nominated List of dog fighting breeds, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dog fighting breeds and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bull and Terrier

I dont think you should deny or try to ignore or reject bull and terrier crosses whom are hunting dogs. Just about every working/hunting terrier you see today has bull-dog blood in them and the history and use of bull and terriers as hunting dogs should be on the Bull and Terrier article in my opinion. I am aware that this fact contradicts the direction and limited tone on the Bull and Terrier article as it is today, but maybe we can correct the tone so that it includes hunting bull and terriers too, rather than just trying to delete the fact that most hunting terriers are also bull and terrier crosses. Maybe we can work together to make a very good article.

If we cannot work together, or if just dont want to include the hunting bull and terrier crosses, then I will leave this artical alone.Working terriers (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You can use your two books written in 1996 and 2000 as much as you want, but I refer you to books and journals written in the 1850s, and 1860s.
^ 'The Illustrated Natural History' by John Wood
^ House dogs and sporting dogs, their variety.... by John Meyrick
^ All the Year Round: A weekly Journal by Charles Dickens
^ The dog, in health and disease, by Stonehenge: By John Henry Walsh
Working terriers (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Chessy999, you have been a pleasure to work with on the Bull and Terrier page, and I thank you for that. I hope that I have also been as helpful and as understanding as you have been concerning this article. I am going to start a section to cover the baiting aspects and history of the Bull and Terrier, and it is my hope that we can work together on that as well. Thank You.Working terriers (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] De Ludo Schaccorum

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of De Ludo Schaccorum, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.analysis/browse_thread/thread/4617971846a867f1. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Issue addressed. Chessy999 (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Luca Pacioli

Why did you delete the section headed Translation of Piero della Francesca's work from and the one headed Quote Luca Pacioli here and here? Why did you remove the article's list of source references from the References section, which makes it appear that the article is unsourced? Under WP:MOS, Further reading and External links headings are for supplementary material, not for citation of the sources that support the article's text. Please do not accuse me of vandalism. Finell (Talk) 16:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] De ludo schaccorum

Dear Chessy: I explained the capitalization of De ludo schaccorum, and provided a link to an image of the spine of the cover with that capitalization, at Talk:De ludo schaccorum. Further, your belief that all the words in the title should have been capitalized does not justify your wholesale discarding of all the rest of another editor's (i.e., my) edits. Please edit cooperatively. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 08:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section length

The Rat baiting article's lead is not a complete overview of the article, and is certainly not in line with the length guidelines of WP:LEAD. Please read the guideline in detail. VanTucky 23:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] monkey baiting

please see the talk page of monkey-baiting.

there have been criticisms of the conclusion/summary section already. the citation does not come to any conclusion. conclusions are not standard for wikipedia. wikipedia does not accept original research.

If you still want that section, why not ask for a 3rd opinion? dont take my word for it, request that someone else intervene and give their opinion. Sennen goroshi (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


Lets make this as easy as possible, if you read the talk page relating to monkey baiting, you will see that consensus is in favour of not having a summary/conclusion section.

A summary/conclusion section is not in line with standard wikipedia protocol.

Tbis is an encyclopedia not a school project or university paper, it is up to the editors to present facts, and up to the readers to draw their own conclusions.

Even if the conclusion is correct, then it is still not acceptable for wikipedia.

I don't mean to be an asshole about this, but consensus is crystal clear on this issue.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] civility

I tried to reach a compromise, and you reverted me stating that my edit was vandalism. Please do not accuse me of vandalism, when it is a mere content dispute. If you continue to attack me in this manner, I will report your conduct to the ANI page, and request that you are blocked from editing.

If you had bothered to look at my edit, instead of blind reverting, you would have seen that I did not remove anything, infact I changed the section title, and made it clear that the statement was a quote.

Do not accuse me of vandalism again.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

you are vandal, that is why I stated you vandalized. Chessy999 (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
What part of content dispute are you failing to understand? I suggest that you take back your comment, in which you call me a vandal, or you will be likely to see your name as part of an ANI report regarding personal attacks and civility. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


I am sorry, but I consider your constant use of the term vandalism and you stating "you are vandal" to be a personal attack and most certainly not civil. Therefore I have made a report concerning your actions on the ANI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#civility

If you have something to say regarding this issue, I suggest you do it on the ANI, not here or on my user page.

thanks Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SirIsaacBrock (3rd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Darkspots (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Not me, wrong person. Chessy999 (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for sockpuppetry. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

GBT/C 09:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)