User talk:Archived Chad

Despite what a certain Mormon moron from Utah might be claiming, I am not nor have ever been this "Dink" person. Unfortunately due to the state of the health care system in this country, many people suffering from mental illnesses never receive the treatment that they require. It would appear that this individual is one of them. My apologies for anyone having to interact with or deal with this idiot's behavior. It can't be helped -- not without intervention, at least. --Archived Chad 20:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen what you've written on Talk pages, including this one, and taking into account your user name, I'm unprepared to give your views any credence. So far you've only engaged in personal attacks and abuse (and made no useful contributions to Wikiepdia at all); if you do anything more (or if you continue in the same vein), or if you touch another editor's User page without permission, I'll have confirmation that you're another in a tediously long line of accounts opened simply to attack User:Chadbryant, and permanently block you from editing. I hope that that's clear. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no you DIDN'T!

"Having seen what you've written on Talk pages, including this one, and taking into account your user name, I'm unprepared to give your views any credence. So far you've only engaged in personal attacks and abuse (and made no useful contributions to Wikiepdia at all); if you do anything more (or if you continue in the same vein), or if you touch another editor's User page without permission, I'll have confirmation that you're another in a tediously long line of accounts opened simply to attack User:Chadbryant, and permanently block you from editing. I hope that that's clear. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first of all my user name doesn't mean jack. I don't know what you think is going on here, but it isn't.

Second of all, I have engaged in NO personal attacks. YOU told Chadbryant NOT to engage in personal attacks in editing comments and he clearly did so after you requested it. Do I have to take this up with a Wikipedia administrator other than yourself? Your reputation on Wikipedia in handling matters like this and keeping an unbiased viewpoint is not exactly of the highest calibur, at least that's what I've seen and read.

Third, I can touch whoever's User page I *want*. That's what Wikipedia is *all about*. It's an open forum that so long as I can stay within the rules and boundaries, I can leave what remarks I want on the pages. Show me the Wikipedia rule that says users cannot leave comments on other users pages and I will gladly recant and/or edit these remarks to admit my mistaken viewpoint. Confirmation, or no confirmation. I'm not doing anything against the rules and I am going to continue to leave comments as I please.

--Archived Chad 21:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a coincidence that your only edits concern Chadbryant, and your User name includes "Chad"?
Your attacks are there for everyone to see, on various Talk pages. His are confined to edit comments on his own Talk page. I disapprove of his behaviour, but yours is worse. Your comments serve only to confirm the suspicion that you're another sock-puppet.
No — editors' user pages are not included in the normal "edit anything" policy. Talk pages are where you can leave messages.
I note that you've still done nothing but edit Talk pages. Also, don't edit other people's comments. Personal attacks on other editors are an exception, but you edited a reference to someone whom you claim never to have heard of, who isn't (according to you, under your different account names) editing here. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes, it is. Your behavior on Wikipedia, especially regarding Chadbryant, has proven to me beyond any reasonable doubt that you are incapable and unable of using your role as a Wikipedia administrator without the use of personal bias. Please stop joining Chad in his quest to conquer windmills. Thanks.

2. So what if they're for everyone to see? That's why it's WIKIPEDIA, you moron. I'd think that a power-crazed twit like yourself would have known that by now. Ooops -- you'd better delete that personal attack! Nice paranoia, though. Are you sure YOU aren't a sockpuppet of Chad?

3. Then that's precisely what I'm doing.

4. So what if I've done nothing but edit talk pages? Your bullshit removal of the "Rebuttal" section from Derek Duggan was unwarranted, unnecessary, and unsubstantiated. I added valid remarks, and at the VERY least all you had to do was go in and remove "personal attacks". There weren't any, of course, but whatever. And don't edit other peoples' comments? What do you think Chadbryant has been doing, genius? Or is your autographed photo of his genitals distracting you from doing YOUR JOB? --Archived Chad 17:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked?

Well I see you douchebags finally blocked me anyway. No matter; Wikipedia is an easy target for name creation, and Chad will always be the antisocial douchebag sociopath everyone knows and hates. In fact, I think later this week I'll target his page again, just for the sheer hell of it. --Archived Chad 01:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]