User talk:TruthCrusader Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello.

If you wish to leave comments here, please feel free. I must caution, however, that any flames or threats of any nature will first be logged then deleted at my discretion.

I also will not tolerate flame wars from Usenet to carry over into any of the entries I exclusively maintain. Such behavior is not tolerated on Wikipedia, which has a much higher level of intellect than Usenet.

Contents

[edit] NOTE: ANY and ALL comments by Chad Bryant or his sockpuppets will be immediately deleted, regardless of content.

Hezky Den!!!!

TruthCrusader 21:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)TruthCrusader

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for alerting me — I've deleted it and blocked the account. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At first I tried to remove the personal attacks from it, but in the end I realised that its sole purpose was a personal attack, so I've deleted it. Thanks again for the warning. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Dubnow

My suspicion (and it's only a suspicion) is that "Dubnow" is a newer convention; certainly it comes up with nearly 9,500 hits on Google [1], including The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05. "Dubnov" gets fewer than 500, on the other hand. I suppose that you might add the alternative spelling in brackets. You could either just do that yourself, or check on the Talk page first. Sorry not to be of more help. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American Championship Wrestling

Hi, TruthCrusader. I was eavesdropping over at Theresa's talk page. I can place the article on VFD for you, as I think it might well be vanity, but it might be good practice for you to do so. At the very bottom of this page: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, the 3 step process is explained. Cheers, func(talk) 14:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


Normally I would, but I have had issues with the article's author in the past and I do not want it to seem as though I am 'out to get him'.

TruthCrusader

[edit] Your message

You're quite right that the Wikipedia convention is that articles use the name by which a thing or person is best known, with redirects from official names, etc. If you have a list of the articles, the best thing to do would be to place a request for their re-moving at Wikipedia:Requested moves (prefereably adding the move template to the Talk pages of the articles in question. Meanwhile I'll leave a message on ChadBryant's Talk page explaining the situation, and trying to get him to stop and to change the names back.

By the way, your signature is set up to link to TruthCrusader rather than toUser:TruthCrusader. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


Hmm i was wondering why my name was a weird color! Ok thanks for the advice, I will compile a list of the articles and put up a request.

TruthCrusader

Chadbryant is moving even more wrestler entries now, in open defiance of both you and Wikipedia policy. TruthCrusader

[edit] Rec.sport.pro-wrestling

You might want to drop the turkey and stuffing for a few minutes and peruse the entry for Rec.sport.pro-wrestling. It seems that a certain despot from Utah is up to his old tricks again, bringing back information that he was told back in March to leave out of the article, then claiming "vandalism" when the information is removed. -- RSPW Poster

I should add that you might want to look at Mel Etitis's talk page; it seems Mr. Bryant is making his own style of accusations towards your person (and now it seems mine as well) and attempting to put a spin on all of this, attempting to make it look like that you are a troll and he is just an innocent victim trying to uphold Wikipedia standards. What a crock of shit. --RSPW Poster

[edit] The Von Erich Family & Edward Leslie

Your reverts to the category page for the Von Erich wrestling family & Edward Leslie are unneccesary. You keep reverting Edward Leslie to a version filled with errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, and style. Your last revert on the Von Erich category page was completely superfluous, as the only difference between it and my version is *one blank line*. Instead of playing hall monitor and asking for arbitration, I suggest you do more research on the articles at hand before becoming involved and potentially causing even more problems. Wikipedia is a cooperative effort, and there are no articles that you "exclusively maintain". Chadbryant 08:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh give it a rest, Chad. The only reason you are attacking TruthCrusader is because you believe he's Stephen Signorelli, your mortal enemy and obsession for the rest of your natural life. Stop being such a baby before someone decides to put you back to bed again! Sick obsessive loser. -- RSPW Poster 17:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


The ONLY person who has expressed the notion that the Ed Leslie article is 'full of errors" is Mr. Bryant. FYI I have discussed in private communiques the article, to get a neutral POV on it, and they agree the version I revert to is valid and fine. I also notice that you don't correct the 'errors' you claim you see. TruthCrusader

After viewing the article -- what's left of it after all the repeated edits, that is -- I find no problem with TruthCrusader's OR RSPW Poster's positions. Chadbryant's "changes" seem to have no merit and do nothing more than act as an outlet for his frustration and aggression towards other Wikipedia users. Zippity Doo Dah 21:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I think you should have him declawed before he tries to scratch you. *meow* Pickles The Cat 22:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration for Chadbryant

Please see WP:RFAR for more details. I have officially requested arbitration against Chadbryant. -- Deathen Taxes 19:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Chadbryant

You may want to check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents for some interesting remarks by Chad once again. It seems he's on a sugar high again and as a result posting his usual b.s. Whoopity Doo 04:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I am sick of messing with Chad. I don't want to continue to get involved in the ongoing battle between he, you, and the sockpuppets of Dick Witham. I just want to keep the relevant information in the article about professional wrestling's role in the history of Nashville Municipal Auditorium. I don't know much about RFA, but if you do, could you please make a request for me? --Zpb52 15:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hi TruthCrusader, it's Moe Epsilon. Please try to here my side of the story before you think of me that way on my RFA. Some others who have voted oppose don't know what happened at the last RFA so I talk to them trying to tell my side. I apoligize for ever posting that on my user page. Being bipolar doesn't seem to help the situation when I got mad. User:Mcfly85 has been annoying me for weeks now. The previous RFA was so frustrating because Mcfly85 voted 3 times oppose. Once as Mcfly85, and twice as sockpuppets. Now he is having to deal with his RFAr. I never meant anything put on my user page that day. I was just mad at myself for allowing Mcfly85 to get to me like that. As I stated, I'm bipolar, rage comes and goes. I try to control it the best I can. Please reconsider, at least to a neutral vote. I edit in nothing but good faith. I wish people knew that before Mcfly85 ran around Wikipedia spreading lies, although I know you probably knew nothing of it. I dont care if you change your vote or not but I would like to try and clear the air with everyone about what really happened. Thanks. — Moe ε 17:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moe Epsilon RfA

I wouldn't worry about it, but if you are worried about it, then feel free to update the tally yourself. Anyone is free to do so. I deliberately choose not to include the words "support" or "oppose" in bold because I think it's unnecessary. Same goes for updating the tally. RfA isn't supposed to be a vote anyway. Regards, TacoDeposit 14:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. Ok, taking to what you just said, I PROMISE to never act out like that on Wikipedia ever again. And I will never use those words I previously said again. — Moe ε 00:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

--166.102.89.187 18:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Please do not make personal attacks in your editing comments. This is against Wikipedia rules and is consider poor netiquette. Thanks.

Dear idiot from Georgia: Suicide...try it.

love, TruthCrusader

If you continue to make personal attacks you will be reported to Wikipedia for violations. --166.102.89.187 18:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear idiot: You don't have the balls to do it. love, TruthCrusader

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:DenmarkFreedomofSpeechBanner.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DenmarkFreedomofSpeechBanner.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you. -- Carnildo 11:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Signorelli problem

See Template:Pinfo4. The next time he mentions either Stephen or Signorelli, post it on his talk page (by typing {{subst:Pinfo4}} ~~~~) regardless off the fact that we both know it will be reverted instantly. You seem legit to me, but even trolls have a right to anonymity according to that. Bring it up with an impartial admin after he knocks it off his page. This template corresponds with the policy WP:HAR. tv316 22:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for..

Your kind message on my talk page regarding my succeeded RfA. Bobo. 18:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: RFA

It was removed yesterday due it being up there for a week and having 4 rejections [2]. But that still doesn't let him out of hot water. If he pulls that naming stuff again, the comments left by the admins who rejected it should be followed. Comments like, "I am willing to tell ChadBryant that continuing to post the information, especially in light of the checkuser is harassment. If it continues, I'd suggest admins use short blocks to get it through his head." and "Everything here can be dealt with by administrators within Wikipedia's existing policy." tv316 19:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what can be done about it, but find some abusive or sockish behaviour from the sock and prove it is a sock. Then take that proof to an impartial admin. tv316 10:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
If you believe a user is a sock of another user, request checkuser at WP:RFCU. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You have been blocked in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating policy against 3RR. 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.

Note to sysops: Unblocking yourself should almost never be done. If you disagree with the block, contact another administrator.

Please note that if you revert 4 times within 24 hours, you are in violation of 3RR, regardless of calendar dates. You can revert once on the 2nd, then three times on the 3rd, for example. More importantly, 3RR is edit warring taken to extremes. Try to resolve conflicts on the talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The situation on rec.sport.pro-wrestling is an old one. Chad Bryant has been trying for nearly a year to insert false or POV information to the article. There is a history of Editor comments and reverts on that page that have told him NOT to do this. TruthCrusader 12:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, looks like an ongoing edit war, have you suggested mediation on the article talk page? Failing that, article Rfc perhaps? KillerChihuahua?!? 13:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)