User talk:Cheeser1/Archive

NOTICE: This page is an archive! Modifications to this page will be reverted. Please go to my main talk page to post new messages, when necessary. Issues in this archive are generally more-or-less resolved.

Welcome

You are making nice contributions. Maybe you should consider making an account, so that we get to know each other better. :) Either way, here is the rather lenghy official welcome:

Welcome!

Hello, Cheeser1/Archive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Oleg Alexandrov 22:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Oleg, I appreciate the welcome. I realize now that it is not apparent, but this is an account. I don't really feel comfortable posting with my real name (it's just a thing I have with the internet), and I had for some time signed a few entries as 149.43.x.x because I use a few different computers each with an IP address of this form. So I decided to just use "149.43.x.x" as my username when I signed up for real. Maybe when I am older and get into grad school or something I'll start using my real name. Thanks again for the welcome! :) 149.43.x.x 08:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Welcome also to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. Its talk page serves as a meeting point for mathematicians. There is also a list of participants to sign on. Enjoy! Oleg Alexandrov 05:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

this bike is a pipe bomb

Could you go revert the page b/c Tombride has reverted it again and if I do it I will be blocked for 3RR. Tombride just violated it themself, so I need to report that. The Ungovernable Force 05:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

username

Hi, 149... ! Unfortunately, your username seems to be in violation of our username policy, which prohibits usernames that are like IP addresses, even invalid ones. If you would, please request a username change at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible. Thanks!--Kchase T 07:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of that clause of the policy when I created my account. I will be making a name change shortly. And sorry for a late response, I've been offline for a while. 149.43.x.x 02:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for your cooperation.--Kchase T 12:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Note everyone that this has been fixed.Cheeser1 23:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Chill out indeed.

I gave a full explanation of my action in the edit summary, what more do you desire? As you said, it's a completely minor cosmetic change, nothing to be worked up over and certainly nothing worthy of a talk page topic. As for "childish quips", that was not a childish quip but rather the all too sad and accurate reality of what goes through the minds of our more puerile readership. Take a look at the history for the page Rangiku Matsumoto for instance, which is vandalized constantly by anons changing the word bosom to breasts/boobs/tits/whatever and then wikilinking it. --tjstrf talk 10:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're taking such an active stance against the terrible act of wikilinking the word breast - after all, if it's vandalism once, it's always vandalism (that is sarcasm). If you want to discuss something, discuss it next time, don't talk down to me like I don't know policy or am a vandal. I'm not interested in your opinions about the "puerile readership" of articles that you seem to have a stake in. I don't care. I want to make Wikipedia better, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain to you my side of a subjective argument in which you've already convinced yourself that your opinion is an "all too sad and accurate reality." You want to discuss overlinking and our opinions about what constitutes that, fine, I'll discuss that. You want to bemoan how inappropriate links to the word breast are, you want to complain to me about vandalism that you're insisting my edits are tantamount to, you want to presume that your opinions on wikilinking contexts are absolute law? I'll thank you to kindly just heed my graceful bow out of this argument and leave me alone. I'm not interested in arguing this any more, I never was, so you can have your article, do whatever you want with it. I'll thank you to let this whole thing go and scurry back to your corner of Wikipedia. I've already done the same. I'll do my best to avoid you and your lack of good faith, I suggest you reciprocate. Good day. Cheeser1 18:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no assumption of bad faith here, I did not think you were vandalizing the page. I merely happen to agree with the IP editor that wikilinking the word breast is useless. You wouldn't wikilink the word "head" or "arm" or "leg" in an article unless it was on health and anatomy, links should only be made that are relevant to context. The exact same thing is true in this case. Per WP:CONTEXT, there is no need to link words that are neither uncommon nor on related subjects. Your accusations of bad faith here are nothing but a complete overreaction.

Let's both move on to something more relevant to the actual quality of the encyclopedia rather than bickering over trivial nonsense. --tjstrf talk 10:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I already have. I've been on wikipedia long enough to know that when I disagree with someone, I might as well just tell them to do whatever they want and leave them alone. And now I'm archiving this discussion and hoping to never hear about it again. Cheeser1 16:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

For archival purposes, the original post was in response to this, posted on User_talk:tjstrf:

Next time you disagree with a minor, subjective edit, I'll thank you not to give an edit summary that reads like a childish quip. And it is subjective - I don't wikilink to common words often - the word breast appears exactly once in that article, linking to it in that one instance is hardly what I would consider often. If you want to discuss something, especially something like that, I'd love to discuss it civilly with you on the talk page of the particular article. If you want to talk down to me in an edit summary, go ahead, but I certainly don't think it's very productive. Cheeser1 06:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:SonyJumbotron.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:SonyJumbotron.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jesse Viviano 19:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:SonyJumbotron.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:SonyJumbotron.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.

By the way, I found a free alternative on the Wikimedia Commons at Image:Times Square Good Morning America New York City Flickr Tjeerd.jpg. Jesse Viviano 23:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you didn't carefully read my explanation of why my image had specific relevance, as it related to a particular Jumbotron, at a particular historical event, which was specifically mentioned in the article. That was the point of having the image, and I stated that pretty clearly when defending my fair-use. I'm going to reinsert my image, although yours is also relevant, I'm sure, and I'll leave it there too. Cheeser1 23:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Then make that clear in your fair use rationale. I thought that you used this image merely to show what a JumboTron looks like. Jesse Viviano 00:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks though, I'm not usually working with images and I'm glad we figured this out and resolved it well. Cheeser1 01:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

A good way to make detailed fair use rationales is at Help:Image page#Fair use rationale. Once you make a detailed rationale, and it is good enough, either I or another administrator will review it and decide to see if it can be kept or not, and if it is kept, the decision will be noted by the reviewing administrator that will invalidate any future {{Replaceable fair use}} tags, forcing images to go under community scrutiny at Wikipedia:Images for deletion if someone wants to delete the image under the same grounds. Now, the image can still be deleted as an orphan if it a free alternative is found (e.g. someone took a photo of the JumboTron at that event and wishes to contribute it to the project). Jesse Viviano 02:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Straight pride

Why do you believe "Straight pride" is part of the "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender studies" WikiProject? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a reactionary "movement" formed in complete mimicry of the Gay Pride movement. It couldn't be any clearer. Cheeser1 07:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree - the article is totally not a "LGBT and Queer studies" article, which is what the project is about. While it may mimic Gay pride, straight pride has absolutely nothing to do with Lesbians, Gay men, Bisexuals, Trangender persons, or the subject of Queer studies. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

From the article: It advocates that, in order to receive a healthy upbringing, children need parents of both sexes so that they will not incur psychological or social deficiencies. Straight Pride rejects the message that gays and lesbians should be discriminated against by society[2], but is outspoken that they should not enjoy the same rights for civil engagement and the chances of adopting children that heterosexual couples do.[1] As someone who has studied sociology and specifically has worked in both creating and studying an LGBT Studies curriculum, I think I can safely say that this relates (if it isn't obvious). Cheeser1 09:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

information from User_talk:Pharmboy

I just wanted to let you know that something being "information" is not enough to merit its inclusion on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information, and the article on Bender should not be an indiscriminate list of information about Bender. Please see WP:NOT and WP:FICTION for more information. Thanks for your contributions. --Cheeser1 14:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps next time you might try using the TALK section of the article in question, as it looks like you are trying to secretly have an opinion when you do so on a user page. We can disagree, but on my own user page isn't the appropriate place to air this out. Pharmboy 22:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is just as good a place as any to discuss things, especially when you revert users, in spite of policy otherwise, citing a nonexistent rationale that apparently amounts to "all information is encyclopedic." Your talk page is a perfectly good place for us to discuss any edits you've made, particularly these. I would appreciate it if, in the future, you responded to me by assuming good faith, rather than violating WP:GF and assuming that I've come here to clandestinely assault your integrity. I have done no such thing, I was simply trying to help explain why your edits are being reverted by several other editors, and the policy that governs such content. Thanks. --Cheeser1 22:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Any time someone deletes an entire section of an article that appears to be valid, I will tend to revert unless it has been discussed in the TALK section of that article. My complaint isn't about insulting, it is about transparancy. Good faith isn't the question, good judgement is, and my talk page IS an appropriate place to make such a comment. My edits haven't been reverted by "several other editors", this is probably the only time an editor has reverted me in hundreds of edits. Again, we just disagree and I think you are taking more out of it that there is. I just think the section was appropriate so reverted it back since there wasn't talk about it. I think that discussing this should be done on the article talk page. I didn't think you were insulting me or commenting in bad faith, I thought you were picking the wrong area to dicsuss it and it should be more public since it is about the ARTICLE, not me. We just disagree on these points. THIS conversation I would agree is proper here, and if you notice, I deferred to you and didn't raise the issue in Bender/Talk, so again, I didn't violate any Good Faith issue. Pharmboy 22:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, all I did was come here to explain edits that I and another editor were making, based on policy. User talk pages are for leaving people notes about edits they make, policy issues, etc. My point was to explain, in light of the series of reverts, that policy clearly indicates that the "opinion" of me and the other editor involved (meaning our citation of policy) has a point, whereas your justification was in essence a fabrication. I see no reason to go to the talk page for Bender and say "Hey Pharmboy, you're making up policy, and I'm calling you out on the Bender talk page." I would rather leave you a polite note explaining the policy issues. It's not about the article, it's about your not providing sound justification (meaning policy) for your edits. That's why it goes on your talk page. This discussion has extended far beyond a simple "hey, FYI, this is why me and that other guy are removing this section," and while I appreciate talking it out quite thoroughly, I'm not going to continue to debate where a debate is allowed to go. It's allowed to go anywhere. Usertalk pages are constantly filled with discussions about articles and content. It shouldn't have mattered to you, this discussion could have gone on either talk page without being any less appropriate, and if it was that big a deal to you, you could have just moved the whole section to Talk:Bender if you wanted. --Cheeser1 23:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for a domain to be blocked.

There seems to be a problem with a user spamming wikipedia with the site fishingnotes dot com under the user name Alboy, and likely others, plus the ips 69.155.106.184, 69.155.111.0, 75.134.10.209, 64.126.109.222 and likely others. The site is commercial, others have noticed and there has been dozens of rv back and forth, and imho it is an obvious abuse. Banning the domain would appear to be the solution, but I know nothing about formally requesting this, only on the few areas I write about here. The more I search, the more linking I find. Since you're the only editor I have conversed with, I decided to ask you about this. A glance at my current contribs should show a small part of the problem. tia. Pharmboy 01:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps just a link to where a formal request can be made, as it appears you must be busy. Pharmboy 01:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I am fairly busy - I've been unable to devote alot of attention to Wikipedia, and I'm not generally knowledgeable about this stuff. I would try here first, this seems like the place for it. --Cheeser1 02:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Work together

Look we may never see eye to eye on a number of things for the "Straight Pride" article, but I stick to Wiki policy and consensus. There are several references on that article that take the reference and broaden it's meaning beyond what is written in the source. Also using the "Further reading" as a source reference to the claim that a group has founded it's ideology on these works is not enough. It needs to be a published source stating such. Obviously you are a "most interested' party in this article but you cannot simply revert the work I put into fixing problems and claim I gutted the article.

We need to work together to avoid an uncivil and unproductive situation. The article is worth keeping and worth editing, but not as an ad for a single website. This may be done in other articles but they are wrong as well and will eventually be fixed. There is a clear policy on "Spam" links, as well as using a single site to many times in a single section.

What can be done to satisfy your reasoning on the work you reverted?--Amadscientist 22:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to discuss article-specific subjects on the article page. Since this is half about wiki-etiquette and half about the article, I'll discuss it here, but we can pick up the discussion on the talk page. Basically, it's not an ad. We have plenty of articles about websites and even about commercial ones. That doesn't make them advertising, especially when properly written. Furthermore, when a single site is a primary source, and one of few, I see no reason to cite it properly several times, rather than leave out important content or the citations for such content.

If it relying too heavily one one site is still a concern, then there are two possibilities. 1) We need more sources (we have several - it's not nearly as bad as you seem to make it out to be). Until then, there is still nothing wrong with the content, except that we need more sources (and any additional content that goes with them). 2) There are no more sources - this is the extent of the "movement" - in which case, this article needs to be rewritten to be either (a) about the term straight pride, (b) about the website straightpride.com or (c) about nothing (ie deleted). --Cheeser1 22:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Contacting you on your talk page is merely a part of Wikipedia policy in attempting to speak directly to the "Most interested Person" as well as following Wikipedia "Dispute Resolution" procedure. I am still using the talk page as well but wanted to let you know that as part of a Project this article will be heavily worked on in the next seven days to elevate its ratings level.--Amadscientist 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have subpaged (sandboxed) the article to work on so that it is not progressively changed without proper sources as I work and so that it is put up completed.--Amadscientist 23:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You do understand that you've already made your changes. According to BRD, you may not re-institute your changes unless they are accepted by a consensus. And please don't abuse spamlink and oneref tags. There are several references in that two paragraph long section. There are no spamlinks. Spamlinks are links that have no reason. Using them as a citation is a reason. Furthermore, your assertion that a political website is an unsuitable source is highly dubious, and unless you make any argument as to why (besides "but they also sell shirts"), the ref tag does not belong on this article. I also asked you politely to keep talk for this article on the article talk page. --Cheeser1 01:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You are simply wrong. The references attribute the wrong publishers and/or do not cite the authors in an attempt to make a single site the source which is NOT TRUE. This will be my last reply to you on your talk page. Please see the discussion page for further information I have posted.--Amadscientist 01:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The usenet personalities AfD storm

I'm afraid I picked up one of your replies on this subject and copied it more or less wholesale into the other AfD discussions without crediting you. My apologies. I hate to offend anyone on wikipedia, but especially not someone on my side of a discussion. :) And, thank you for further contributions on those pages. Jeh 18:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not at all offended - I contribute under the GDFL like anybody else! :p But really, feel free to duplicate any argument I make if you agree with it - the fact that we both think the same thing doesn't require us to make sure we don't say it in the same way. I don't think you really need to credit me for it - I made a point, and you made the point again in a different place. --Cheeser1 18:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for supporting the continued existence of List of Usenet personalities on the AfD page. I missed the whole debate. For the record, I created the page for exactly the reasons you stated, as a result of the deletion of the Archimedes Plutonium article. — Loadmaster 21:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think if you put a list and entries from the list up for deletion at the same time, but without combining them properly, there's a huge risk that people will be like "nope, this article isn't necessary, it's already on the list, no need for an article" while others will reverse it, and both get deleted. A list of notable people can hardly be "not notable" unless the list is completely unnecessary - obviously, there are entries on the list that merit mentioning, even if they don't merit their own articles - usenet is a big important part of cyberhistory. --Cheeser1 21:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (5th nomination) misedit

Don't sweat it, it was obvious a fat-fingering. Besides, I agree with your sentiment, but thought it was better to explain why, rather than put it in the bold "vote." Xihr 08:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't initially (hence adding it), but unlike other AfDs that I'm participating in involving this user's AfD-spree, I am wanted to emphasize that I was not making my decision here based on the merits of the article at hand, since in this instance, he clearly nominated it in bad faith because he was more interested in having his way (in his arguments on the article's talk page) or no way (deletion). That, to me, is certainly bad faith. --Cheeser1 08:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. I was, after all, involved in the edit war that led up to the apparent bad-faith nomination. He was obviously just being difficult, was losing the arguments on their merits, and backed into an AfD. Hopefully that's clear to the closing admin. Xihr 09:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Heya

I have to say, your comments on TFD for the trivia debate are lucid and well thought out. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Cheeser1 14:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No probs... but... calm down a little. Your arguments are great, but don't get cocky! I only say that because I've been there before. I technically won the argument, but I lost the TFD because the closing admin believed I was being beligerent. I got the debate overturned, but it just wasn't worth the wikistress in the end :-) Ta bu shi da yu 14:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not terribly concerned. It doesn't matter to me alot, I'm not emotionally invested in the template, I'm just trying to defend against an absurd TfD (the term "trivia" is inflammatory? pssh. So is "non-neutral," "original research," etc.) I'm just so surprised by certain people, who advocate "trivia sections should not be judged by their potential for misuse" and turn around and immediately dispute the claim "templates should not be judged by their potential for misuse." It boggles the mind. --Cheeser1 14:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't disagree! The whole TFD is absurd, and I really think that some people have way too much time on their hands, and are far too precious. I'm only giving some friendly advise, from someone who admires your logical thought processes. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

More debate on trivia

Could you please spend a moment to add your 2 cents to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Sections vs. collections and also Wikipedia:Requested moves#September 12, 2007? I think that you had strong opinions on this matter on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:Trivia, so in the interest of community consensus I'm letting you know of these two pages where debate is continuing. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Weird external link on Notable Usenet personalities

I saw your reversion and your quizzical comment; this is a known spammer that has been discussed on the talk page (look for "uffnet"). The page was even semiprotected for a while become of it. Just thought I'd let you know, since it has a history. Xihr 08:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Islamic military jurisprudence

Can you please not edit the page for about two hours. I need to make some major changes regarding the wording of this article. You can edit the page after I'm done. Thanks.Bless sins 19:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you make your changes in a sandbox somewhere. Once you've made all your changes, you can make them all at once in the article. --Cheeser1 19:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently making changes one at a time, explaining my changes as I go. Such changes are far, far more informative, than changes made all at once. I respect your patience, and assure you that I will be done soon.Bless sins 20:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the inuse tag. You may edit now. Thanks again for being patient.Bless sins 20:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

New proposal: Wikipedia is not a trivia collection

This proposed guideline is so that WP:NOT#TRIVIA can be returned to Wikipedia. It is distinct from Wikipedia:Trivia sections in that it is a content policy, not a style policy. This guideline states that trivia may be removed.

You have recently contributed cogent ideas to the awful, endless debate. I'm hoping I can receive some feedback from you about what is needed to make this proposal better.

If you are not interested in supporting this proposal in any way, that's fine, but I suspect the proposal can only benefit from your suggestions. / edg ☺ ★ 14:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Policy

Hi there. I've noticed from the Emo (slang) talk page that you know what you're talking about regarding policy, so I wondered if you could offer me your opinion? I've nominated these articles for deletion due to non-notability, and have got rather bogged down in the AfD with a debate on policy, specifically whether articles relating to other notable articles actually need to prove their own notability. I'm convinced that my interpretation of policy is correct (of course!), and that all articles need to prove notability of the subject with multiple reliable independent sources, but I would very much appreciate your opinion on my argument/reasoning, if you have the time. Cheers, Miremare 19:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming what I thought - the way a lot of editors are talking on there I was beginning to wonder if I had missed something obvious, or if so-called "sub-articles" really did have some kind of immunity! Miremare 00:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

WQA

Regarding the WQA at WP:WQA#User:Hal Cross, not a lot seems to have changed (see, for example, this diff from this section. Do you think it's a good idea to re-open the WQA?

Thanks, Orpheus 10:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure - it appears that while he wants to work constructively, he continues to defy sensibility. The WQA is more a place to resolve disputes about civility, personal attacks, etc. If there are serious content disputes, and issues with what is/isn't a reliable source, you might want to file a request for comment on this article. I know he's still pretty abrasive "you are wrong" "point out your errors" etc, but at the heart of this is a problem with him (mis)understanding WP:RS. I've left a comment there too. --Cheeser1 16:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I guess the reason I was thinking about going back to WQA is that there seems to be way too much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on. The content dispute at the bottom of this isn't major, it's something that could and should be sorted in about a week with reasonable people contributing. Personally, I'm fed up with having to repeat myself so much, and sick of being continually called unconstructive and unhelpful. The main problem is that it's making it very, very tough to assume good faith. Having an extra person involved does help though, so cheers for your input.

Orpheus 17:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Having fun yet? It's been like this since July without pause or change of direction. Orpheus 08:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Background section AFA

Hi Cheeser1. I think one thing that really is missing in the article is some sort of background section. Context, history and so on may help the reader and draw them into the story of the AFA a bit better. The lead is not good enough on its own and I know it should be mainly as a concise overview of the whole article. If you have any suggestions I'd appreciate it. Regards Hal Cross 21:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If you find reliable sources, then do so. If you do not, don't. I can't emphasize that enough. It's also not our job to "draw [readers] into" anything. If reliable sources for the AFA article don't give us enough to have flowery prose about the history of the AFA, then we shouldn't have such a thing. --Cheeser1 01:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll stick with the Bold-revert-discuss cycle on these matters. I will assume good faith and allow other editors to supply improved phrasing or sourcing if required. Hal Cross 07:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Staying cool

Hi again Cheeser1. I made a reply to you on my talkpage.[1] Please don't think I am pushing you to respond. You can respond or not, and in any way you like according to your own assessment. Please don't feel there is any rush, despite the number of edits by Orpheus and CMMK on the article. I am not bothered about timing at all in this case and prefer to work on supplying the article with reliable info, just as you have been suggesting. I have found your suggestions to be a little confusing at times, but I believe the circumstances are not ideal so I am willing to take my time in improving the article. Anyway, I'm sure you pretty much know how to keep cool, and I appreciate that you have done so. I am doing my best to follow your example. This isn't a question so, feel free to reply/or not at your leisure. Hal Cross 09:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Tony Olsson

What is your reason for the proposed speedy delete ? Was the previous article about this person ? This article certainly is not an 'attack' artcile, which is the reason I believe the previous one was deleted. An international sportsman is notable. Hammer1980·^talk 18:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessary to duplicate your comments. Refer to Talk:Tony Olsson. --Cheeser1 01:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Constructive discussion

Hello Cheeser1. Concerning your statements [2]. I believe I understand the situation here.

• I believe there are 3 editors (including yourself) who want to have the homophobia category kept on the AFA article. And I have made the case that it is inappropriate because it goes against NPOV policies on the inclusion of all relevant views.

• The AFA are not particularly likable by WP editors. The AFA are not politically correct. They are traditionalists. People accuse them of all sorts of things, most vocally because of their opposition to porn. Partly because of their fight against indecency. Definitely because they regularly criticize the media. And people tend to ignore their fight against pedophilia in preference for the support for homosexual "rights".

• The article often reflects that situation. You could say that the Web often reflects the world. But only the specifically interested part of it.

• I am not from the US, and I am not homosexual, so I don't have any notable pre-conception about the AFA. To me they are a new subject that I chanced upon when browsing places to visit in the US.

Concerning your statements in particular. I have not accused anyone of personal attack. I am abiding by consensus. I am (and always have been) discussing rather than kneejerk reverting. I havn't decided that any particular thing is inevitable, only that I believe some things are. I have supplied reliable sources (yesterday at least:) and definitely in the past despite never being acknowledged for it. I have even taken a break from editing in accordance with your own advice. You have asked me to come to consensus before editing. So I am working on coming to consensus. What else do you want me to do? Hal Cross 16:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a break. We've been having this discussion non-stop for days. If you're accusing us of bias because we all happen to agree, you're jumping to a very strange conclusion. Like I've said before, reliable sources establish that the group is anti-gay. To exclude this would violate WP:NPOV. Please keep the discussion of this topic on the talk page of that article. --Cheeser1 18:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am currently taking a break from editing the article because of your suggestion and all the stuff that has been going on there. You made comments about me on the talkpage of the AFA article, so instead of talking about matters not relevant to the article, I took my comments here. If you applied your very own categorization recommendations to the rest of Wikipedia, the cats would be full to the brim with unhelpful accusations. Hal Cross 19:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

For the last time Hal, this isn't an accusation. It is a label of "homophobic" applied to a group like the AFA, which is verifiably anti-gay. I suppose we shouldn't call Adolph Hitler a Nazi because it's an accusation?? Hal. Stop bringing content disputes here and stop making up policy. The fact that something can be construed as an accusation doesn't mean it's not allowed on Wikipedia. Don't feed me this nonsense about "full to the brim." Okay? --Cheeser1 20:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Punctuation

Let us step outside the minor issues for a moment and address the really important stuff - nitpicking over punctuation! I noticed that you (I think it was you) changed the position of the full stop in several quoted bits so that it was inside the quotation marks. For instance, Bob Smith said "blah." instead of Bob Smith said "blah". All well and good for direct quotes. However, I'm not sure it's so wise for scare quotes. For instance, the "homosexual agenda". It's a term rather than a direct quotation, and the quote marks imply that it's not a universally accepted term. Considering only the definition ones, not the direct quotations, should we go with . inside " ; . outside " ; or ' instead of "

?

Orpheus 08:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't be using scare quotes at all, per MOS. However, those aren't really scare quotes - those are actual quotations because those are the terms the AFA uses (although we haven't necessarily attributed them explicitly). --Cheeser1 14:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT violation

Your nomination of Category:Homophobia is a clear violation of WP:POINT. Editors are allowed to discuss the possibility of proposing deletion of a category in its talk page without actually spawning a CfD. Your proposal to delete this category was insincere and needlessly disruptive. You should know better. If you persist in this sort of behavior, I will bring this matter up on AN/I. Rklawton 18:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an unfair assessment. "We should delete this" was being used as an argument in a discussion, and the nomination was in my opinion a good faith attempt to bring that discussion back to the forum it belongs in. Orpheus 18:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Orpheus. RK, you seem to think that I'm not allowed to nominate something for deletion unless I support deletion. While this may be the general convention, it is not up to other people to decide not to use the CfD process. If someone wants something deleted, and deliberately and explcitily refuses to use the consensus-building process (in this case CfD), they are forumshopping and disrupting the consensus process to make a point (either about the category, or about the consensus process itself). It's not just a "discuss[ion] of the possibility of proposing deletion" as you suggest, it's an outright refusal to use the proper channels - hoping to argue their case for deletion in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Please give things at least a little bit of thought before flinging accusations at me - I've already brought this up on the administrators' noticeboard (which you are well aware of. Let's assume a little good faith here. --Cheeser1

I disagree, but I think AN/I would be a more appropriate place to discuss your actions. Rklawton 21:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to waste the AN/I's time with such an absurd complaint, you're welcome to. But I was doing my part to move the consensus process along when people were deliberately, knowingly, and admittedly stalling it. Furthermore, what's the "point" I'm allegedly disrupting Wikipedia to make? That I want the consensus process to work? --Cheeser1 21:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1, for what it's worth I fully support your actions in raising the CfD, and am profoundly surprized that another editor has claimed that a thread headed "Proposed deletion" was not about a proposed deletion! DuncanHill 22:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Arb

This arbitration case makes interesting reading. Looks like they've got a similar situation to what we have. Incidentally, as a friendly comment, remember that not all editors are as vexatious as some - I noticed that you seem to be getting very frustrated - understandably so, but best to avoid it with people who may not have provoked it. Orpheus 04:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I try. I don't have enough time these days to edit as much as I'd like, so it gets extra frustrating when I have to waste my time entangled in stuff that's, you know, already resolved or nonsensical or whatever. --Cheeser1 05:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* I know... but that's mainly due to one user, the others seem reasonable in approach, if not position. Orpheus 05:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Cheeser1 08:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Normally I wouldn't edit someone else's talk post but it seemed like a helpful thing to do in this case. Orpheus 09:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

BLP

Did you mean to link to WP:BLP in your apparent reference to Wikipedia:Consensus here? Dreadstar † 05:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. No. BRD. Man it's been a long day. Thanks for the heads up, that really sounds like nonsense if it links to BLP. --Cheeser1 05:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ed in the Refridgerators

If you would like to merge the article, that would be fine by me.. Hpfan9374 21:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

I agree, but I don't understand why you (seem to?) say that as if I'm not well aware of it. I'm pointing to the consensus building process, in which there is (supposed to be) exactly one revert. It should have been 1) gut article 2) revert 3) discussion. Instead, it has been 1) gut 2) revert 3) revert the revert (a no-no) and then repeat 2&3. The fact is that at step 2, things should have stopped - the article is supposed to be left as it was before step 1 until a discussion has concluded on this talk page and a consensus has been reached. --Cheeser1 02:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That's wny I suggested a straw poll, to actually gauge consensus. As you can see by the discussion here, standard procedure is that large changes to an article require consensus. That's why I'm adding controversial tags to the talk pages. Dreadstar † 02:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My point was that those of us reverting to the status-quo version were doing right. --Cheeser1 03:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Islamic military jurisprudence

Hi Cheeser1,

Sorry to disturb you. Please respond back at Talk:Islamic_military_jurisprudence#Al-Qaradhawi. Also, the two editors (besides you and I) that commented on Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Quran_references seem to support the inclusion of Qur'an verses. Bless sins 20:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed

Good idea. Don't feed etc etc. Orpheus 09:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

WP Policy on Alternate accounts

In reference to this comment that you made, perhaps you should review WP:SOCK more thoroughly, and note that there is not a generalization that you cannot have more than one account. Alternate accounts are acceptable, as long as they are not used for disruptive purposes. - Rjd0060 17:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Posting from two different accounts in favor of keeping an article (the only article those two seem to edit) is suspect. I was simply informing the user of the policies. --Cheeser1 18:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that, but you probably should have worded it differently, other than saying "... you cannot have more than one username", because that statement is false. - Rjd0060 19:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, but given the context, the statement is true. "You cannot have more than one username [in this context]" may have been more appropriate, but I don't find it necessary to redundantly qualify everything I say. --Cheeser1 17:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

RE:Out of line comment

Quoted from User talk:Rjd0060: As much as I appreciate your other comments on this AfD, there is no reason not to link to relevant policies, even repeatedly. A discussion isn't a mainspace article, and "redundant" linking helps editors discuss their points and refer to policies succinctly and precisely. The fact that you don't like that is your personal preference, but to call me a dick because of that is completely out of line. Since you assert that you're well aware of policies, I won't bother to link you to WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, but you yourself linked to WP:DICK, which states: Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the criticism about lightly. Linking to policy succinctly and appropriately is no reason to resort to what is essentially an unfounded personal attack. --Cheeser1 05:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats hardly a personal attack. I am just telling you that I (and others) don't think too fondly of people who feel the need to "show everybody how smart they are" by repeatedly linking to policies, over and over again. Why not bring up new points, rather than saying the same things? If you have taken that as a personal attack, well, thats unfortunate however I can assure you that is not how it was intended. - Rjd0060 05:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, try reading the exact thing I quoted you from WP:DICK. Throwing out accusations like that because you assume that I am acting in bad faith by merely placing links in my comments is completely absurd and out of line. I don't care what your intent was, you called me a dick for the most minute, absurd reason. My assessment agrees with WP:NPA, which states: Comment on content, not on the contributor and further states While personal attacks are not excused because of these factors, (these factors being the inability to convey intent in a text-only environment like Wikipedia). How does my redundantly linking have any bearing on the content/AfD in question? None. You're commenting on what you think I"m trying to do: make myself look smart (not what I'm doing). If I'm not allowed to presume that your personal attacks are intended as personal attacks, how dare you assume that my links are some sort of self-congratulation (when they are, in fact, links, whose sole purpose is to help people see which policies I'm talking about - that's what links do). --Cheeser1 05:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A quote from you: "I don't find it necessary to redundantly qualify everything I say". I guess that doesn't apply to AfD's? - Rjd0060 05:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's completely decontextualize an unrelated thing I said. Good idea. This comment was about a totally different issue, in a totally different context, about a totally different thing. Don't make personal attacks, and stop insisting that you didn't. I don't want to deal with this, and shouldn't have to, and I expect you to respect that and politely go about your business without continuing this nonsense. --Cheeser1 05:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. Although I will say that I really didn't intend that as a "personal attack". I was only trying to explain that what you are doing isn't necessary. If you really think it was a personal attack, for your convenience: WP:ANI Go ahead and report me. If not, you can either tell me to remove that link, or you can do it if you want. It doesnt matter to me. - Rjd0060 05:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I already have reported you. For someone who lashes out at others by stating "Most of us are as familiar (if not more familiar) with these policies/guidelines as you are," I find it insulting that you continue to insist that you're allowed to tell me how many links I'm allowed to have based on your assumptions of bad faith, and that if I exceed the number of links you expect, that I'm a dick (which like it explicitly states there, is not to be bandied about lightly). --Cheeser1 05:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I can only imagine your intentions for going to ANI, as I do not know what they were. I would imagine that your overall goal in this hasn't been reached. I have one comment for you. I really do apologize that you thought I was making a personal attack towards you. I know about NPA policy, and know what it says about intentions, however I can assure you, I did not intend it as one. I have nothing against you. I know you've been around here (on WP) for a while. This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. The conversation at ANI seems like it is going to go on forever, which is ridiculous, as it does waste everybody's time. Since I've had a couple of days to reflect on all of this, I will admit, it was extremely "dickish" of me to link that page, however, before I linked it, I really didn't think that the page would be considered a personal attack. Maybe it is just me, but I wouldn't be so offended if I was in your position. I got caught up in the heat of the moment, with the report to ANI and all of that which is why I have yet to apologize for the situation as a whole. So, because this caused offense, was considered a personal attack, and most importantly: for doing it, I apologize. I should have made that suggestion in a more rational way. We are both here for the good of Wikipedia, so lets get back to writing the encyclopedia, shall we? - Rjd0060 15:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I went to the AN/I because I believed that the incident would benefit from an administrator stepping in and putting your actions in perspective for you. That, and the fact that you insisted that you'd done nothing wrong and challenged me to go to the AN/I. My hope, or "goal" if you like, was that you would come to understand that such accusations are inappropriate, regardless of how you think they should or would be interpreted. If you and are are both constructive editors on Wikipedia, I see no reason for either one of us to hurl such an accusation at the other, for such an absurdly petty (if not totally illogical) reason. I hope you see that now. --Cheeser1 21:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi C1, just wanted to let you know that I archived the relavant thread at ANI here. Also that I commented further on my talk page here. I thought you'd agree, and took the initiative. Take care, R. Baley 17:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TimeoftheApes.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TimeoftheApes.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Just a note

I would strongly suggest you read any outstanding formal complaints against an editor before nominating him/her to be an administrator.

Thank you for informing me of this. However, it was wrote in vein as the user in question, Epbr123, has now declined the request for now in the midst of comments by AnonEMouse which I concur with. Thank you for bringing this RFC to my attention but I do believe that every editor should be understood in non-personal ways. This user even voted oppose on my RFA, but that doesn't consequent me to think any less of the user, does it? Rudget _{Contributions} 15:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that taking note of a pending RfC/U is a "personal" way to understand another user. His actions speak for themselves, and have generated quite a bit of conflict, both in the FA/GA sphere and in that of AfDs. His actions aside, he chooses not to acknowledge the consequences of his disruptive/reckless editing (which certainly can be weight against good editing, but not ignored). I, and I presume many others, would not desire or support an administrator who does not accept responsibility for his/her actions, and if you'll read the RfC/U thoroughly, responds by generating (irrelevant and contextually inappropriate) accusations against the large set of users who question his irresponsible behavior. --Cheeser1 16:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I welcome, understand and appreciate your comments and would like to reiterate my sincere thanks for bringing to my attention the outstanding Request for Comment on Epbr123. Rudget _{Contributions} 13:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. --Cheeser1 16:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

AFA talk

Thanks for all the help with the AFA talk page argument. I almost feel guilty for dragging you in from WQA, but I'm glad you came along. As an aside, the recent outbursts managed to push us across the one megabyte mark on the talk page archives. Hooray! I'm glad we got there before the block came in :) Orpheus 06:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not a problem. I'm definitely glad I could be of assistance - hindsight is always nicer that way. Knowing now that he was a sockpuppet puts my mind at ease: it troubled me to think that an editor could actually, in good faith, be so intentionally obstinate. I'm always happy to step in and help settle civility issues, it's why I'm at the WQA (when I have the time), and seeing the insanity going on with Hal led me to jump into the discussion hoping (perhaps naively) that my input would help Hal understand and follow WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, etc. I think even if Hal hadn't been blocked, the discussion had been so thoroughly settled that no one but him was objecting, and the grounds of his objections were becoming more plainly unreasonable. I don't know anything about his motivations, although I could easily speculate, but I'm glad that his dishonest and disruptive editing has stopped (knock on wood). It was frustrating, and I'm sure we all acted a bit out of character, as happens during disputes of such impropriety. I'll probably be taking some time off from the article - it sounds like a good idea, and there's certainly room for a break right now anyway. I'll see you around (in a virtual sense). Best regards. --Cheeser1 07:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the discussion was functionally over. We haven't heard from Sam yet, but I think the recent addition to the page should satisfy his concerns, and with Animate on board we seem to have convinced all of the reasonable good faith editors involved. I was actually about to suggest we jump straight past mediation and into arbitration, the results of which can be enforced regardless of whether the user in question abides by them voluntarily. Fortunately that's time we no longer need to waste. Anyway, nice to meet you - something good that came out of this at least. Orpheus 07:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The Chronicals of Narnia

We seem to be editing on top of each other now in the critism section. I'm trying a fairly large rewrite of some of it. LloydSommerer (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at your edit summary, "weasel-wordy, over-long, mostly OR rebuttals are certainly contributing to the problem." I don't know how to deal with over-long, but I don't think there is any OR in them. The citations are all at the end of the paragraph, and I realize that isn't optimal, but there is a lot of overlap between the sources. I could attribute several to each sentenct, but that would make the paragraph harder to read. Any suggestions? I belive the idea that there are weasel words comes from the fact that most of the Lewis supporter pronouns are sourced at the end of the paragraph. LloydSommerer (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, half the sexism section was about the rebuttals, which is certainly too much. Most of those sentences were very poorly and vaguely worded. It looks fine to me now. I'm not actively editing, I just noticed that people were upset about how long the criticism section was. I was just making an edit to address those concerns. I also think that citing each claim is appropriate - synthesizing claims about the rebuttal (in general) of a sexist critique is original research; presenting explicitly sourced statements is much better. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that our new editor at The Chronicles of Narnia is well intentioned, just perhaps a bit over zealous. I would respectfully submit that it would be helpful to moderate the frequency of your responses. The tone of the talk page is more like IRC lately. I am not disagreeing with the things you've posted, just suggesting that we might be dealing with a potentially useful wikipedia editor who just needs some time to adjust to things. LloydSommerer (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Bender - Real world relevance discussion started

As requested, I started a discussion on the talk page of Bender (Futurama). Please post your reasons there for not including his processor type in the description of the Bender character. Lighthope (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Vrlika

Above article semi-protected for a while. I'll also indefinitely semi-protect your userpage to prevent vandalism - That should help. Registered users will still be able to edit it, just not new ones or IPs. Hope this helps - let me know if you ever want it unprotected, or leave a note at WP:RFPP. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been observing the article and reverting vandalism there for weeks, since someone reported it at the WQA, but the vandalism just doesn't end - it's always a Croatian IP deleting all things Serbian. I can't explain it, because I have no insight into the biases these people must have. It's staggering and disappointing, but I thank you for your help. Hopefully we've put a stop to it. Best, --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Don't Copy That Floppy

From User talk:Rackabello: Please refer to the three revert rule. By edit warring and constantly reverting-a-revert (grossly neglecting the consensus building process), you are interfering with the function of Wikipedia. Furthermore, you should read the policy on vandalism. Falsely labeling others' edits as vandalism is highly improper. Consider this your official 3RR warning, because I will report you if you continue to edit war over the (correct) use of the word propaganda. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I have gleaned from the edit history, it appears that consensus regarding the use of the word "Progaganda" has come from you and you alone. Originally the phrase "ad campaign" was used and every attempt to change it back to that has been reverted by you. Seems like you've got an ax to gind with the use of this word. Knock it off and get with the programme, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I've changed the wording back to the neutral version. Rackabello (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you understand how Wikipedia works, but the existing version of the article (using the term propaganda) contains the word due to no edit of mine, I've just reverted edits because you presume (incorrectly, due to your nonNPOV) that "propaganda" = bad. Once again, check the dictionary, or the article on propaganda, which states: Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people, which is exactly what this campaign is/was. Removing that word requires consensus to do so (not to mention a good reason). You have neither. If you insist "knock it off, I'm right" then fine, but I've asked you repeatedly to stop edit warring and take your concerns to the talk page instead of unnecessary reverting a revert. I've asked you to try reading the definition of "propaganda," which does not agree with your nonNPOV idea of what "propaganda" means. I'm not grinding an axe, and I'm sorry if I'm not "with" your "programme" but I'm trying to get you to justify your edits, and you're forcing them on the article and labeling me a vandal for reverting edits not supported by consensus. Please try to participate in this process appropriately. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Appology

I take back my comments from this morning, I acted like a major dick and I'm sorry. I reverted back to your last revision (with the word propaganda) and I will leave it that way. I still don't agree with the use of that word and feel its not NPOV and but I admit I shouldn't have continued reverting the article. Hopefully we can continue this discussion at a later time on the article's talk page.

Regards, O. Brandenburg (Rackabello (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC))

I appreciate your maturity. I concur that we should continue discussing the issue. I have responded to another editor about the use of the term on the relevant talk page. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring on Don't Copy That Floppy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

— Coren ^(talk) 01:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think you have crossed the line far into edit warring. When faced with someone who edit wars, reverting back is never the correct solution— if the edits were against consensus, another editor was sure to step up and give a hand with the article. I am unwilling to unblock you, but I will not oppose if another admin feels otherwise, so I am leaving the {{unblock}} present and active. — Coren ^(talk) 02:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, a half-dozen others would have sprung up and reverted to the previous version - in a heavily trafficked article. This is not such an article. Besides, if it had been three different editors reverting back and forth with the other editor here, it would still have been just as much of an edit war. Would that have required four blocks? I don't think so. I appreciate the constructive aspect of your criticism, but it would have been just as readily accepted if you hadn't blocked me (you know, you could have tried a 3RR warning, which I'd think is a courtesy I can expect, as an established editor who was clearly and explicitly attempting to reign in the edit-conflict, not exacerbate it). --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You appear mature enough that I think I can be blunt without you interpreting this as a personal attack: you are obviously an established editor— which means you should have known better. A quick note requesting help on AN/I would have done the trick, for instance, or you could have simply stepped back and let things settle. I'm not expecting you do be perfect— nobody is. But when things escalate to edit warring, the best thing to stop any possible escalation caused by increasingly frayed tempers is to block both parties. I will consider lifting the block if you stay away from that article at least for the next 30 hours or so. — Coren ^(talk) 02:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. The article's locked anyway, so there will be plenty of time to finish the discussion once things have cooled. I wouldn't expect things to be resolved until the other user gets off his block anyway (assuming he isn't unblocked). I do agree though that, in retrospect, it's pretty clear that I should have hit up the AN/I after the false edit summary. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Vrlika

During the Croatian War of Independence, Croatia was attacked by rebel Serb forces and JNA, and the entire population fled. The people finally returned after Operation Storm freed the country, and began to repair the damages of the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.29.100.193 (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're telling me this, it sounds like this is a sentence or two that belong in an article. If this is an issue with the content of the article, take it to Talk:Vrlika. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Why you dont take it on Vrlika page since you know all about Vrlika history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.29.98.212 (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It is clear you are the vandal who has repeatedly vandalized pages by removing all references to Serbs/Serbia. I know you think you're doing something good, but you aren't, so stop disrupting Wikipedia to push your agenda. Your vandalism is not welcome here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It is clear you are the vandal who has repeatedly vandalized pages by removing all references to Serbs aggression on Croatia. I know you think you're doing something good, but you aren't, so stop disrupting Wikipedia to push your agenda. Your vandalism is not welcome on Croatia related pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.29.96.41 (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Firefly Minor Characters

There has been a call for deletion of the List of minor characters in the Firefly universe article. Since you've commented on the call to merge all the major characters, I thought you might be interested. Shsilver 15:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Cheeser1 01:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Otters

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For the funny comment about letting otters use my account, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters award you the Barnstar of Good Humor. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No Exit/Huis clos

Regarding your recent edit to No Exit, there already was a section in the talk page on this topic. Perhaps you should have talked about your changes first, rather than telling others to do so. And note also that the parenthesis you edited begins with "literally", so while you say yourself that In Camera is not a literal translation, you have been editing the article to say that it is. -- Severinus (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

1) That discussion is a year old. 2) Word-for-word translation is not the correct translation (literal or not) - the point of "literal" is not to say "word for word" but rather "something other than No Exit," which is not a translation of Huis Clos. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The point of "literal" is precisely to say "word for word"! From the OED:

literal, a. and n. Of a translation, version, transcript, etc.: Representing the very words of the original; verbally exact.

In Camera is simply not a literal translation, and your edit is not factually accurate. It is a figurative translation, and moreover one that was already given in the article along with other figurative translations like No Exit and No Way Out. On the talk page I argued for why I thought there should be a word-for-word translation of the title, and for why I gave the one I did. If you think it should be removed, go for it. But don't change it to something that simply isn't accurate.--Severinus (talk) 08:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In Camera is the correct translation of the idiom Huis Clos. "Literal" translations need not be "word for word" to the point of misrepresentation. Regardless, I don't see how this is relevant to my talk page. You want to change what's in the article, take it up at Talk:No Exit (and I don't think a year old discussion is sufficient). --Cheeser1 (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I was taking it up here because you had seemingly purposefully avoided the relevant talk page. Just 'cause a discussion is a year old, doesn't mean it can't be resumed. Especially if your intent is to make a substantial change that has stood unchanged since that discussion. Again, I encourage you to look to the talk page before making your changes rather than referring others to do so after the fact.--Severinus (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I was reverting to the status quo version (example), actually. If you want to change it, it's your prerogative to take it to the talk page. And that doesn't mean refer to a year-old, long-stale discussion. If you wanted a discussion, you should have started one, in the relevant place. You are the one who should have looked to the talk page, and if you had an issue with the existing version, you should have posted something. And why are we now discussing this? Do you really want to go on at length about how I was supposed to revive a year-old discussion? --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I'm unwatching these pages, as our apparent inability to get ideas across to each other is not worth bothering with. Happy editing! Severinus (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So you're... not going to discuss this issue on the talk page? You're the one making changes, you're the one demanding a talk page discussion, so start one. I don't see how this "Woe is me" post makes much sense. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Dragovic

He doesn't give up at Dragović Monastery. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope. He's also been vandalizing my user-talk page for weeks. Every warning I give is repeated almost word-for-word back to me, every attempt I make to discuss is met with no cooperation, and this anti-Serb vandalism never ends. It's kind of sad, really. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I've put up a request for mediation. Your agreement is required to involve the mediation process.--Loodog (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a request for comment pending. I will not participate in multiple DR processes at once. This is especially troubling, since you jumped straight to the most formal part of this sort of dispute resolution. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Hope you don't mind, but I'm protecting this page temporarily against IP edits while your friend goes off to find a new hobby. Tijuana Brass (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I really wish people could find better ways to spend their time. I don't mind at all, and appreciate your help. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Tijuana Brass, I think the protection needs to last a BIT longer than just a few hours. lightsup55 ( T | C ) 10:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It can be at Cheeser's discretion. The reason I did it for a shorter period is due to his frequent involvement with new users and IP's; if someone behind one wants to post a legit message here, they'll be blocked as well. I didn't mention the time period for a reason, by the way. *cough*

C, I'm watching your page, so feel free to post up any time you'd like something done towards that end. Of course, if you need a quicker response, WP:AN/I is always there. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, semiprot on talk pages is difficult. Giving it a few hours is always a good shot, it can be extended if needed; currently I've tried 48 hours, which might be a bit on the long side -- if anybody wants to tinker (or wants it changed), feel free or let me know. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the help - I don't mind rvv'ing the nonsense, but appreciate the intervention. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Reprotected again. Let me or WP:AN/I know if you need it changed any. Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And again. Heh, I can play this game as long as he can. As usual, let me know if you want me to unprotect, protect for less (or more) time, or whatever. Tijuana Brass (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how protection is structured, but is there any way to protect from only a particular range of IPs? If that were possible, I might suggest a really long protection of my user page, talk page, archives, and archive template (which he's also been vandalizing). I wouldn't want to have any long protection of my talk page since I really am happy to have constructive IP users posting here, but if we can single out his range of IPs and keep them away, that would be good. At least he's not vandalizing the articles anymore, that we've taken care of. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Good thinking, but I don't think that's possible. But, I've been wrong on similar things before. I'll take a look around to see if it's a possibility; let me know if you hear anything yourself.

Personally, I think you're just using a series of socks to set yourself up for winning the Seventh Annual RC Patroller's User Page Vandalism Award (brought to you by Wikia). Cheater. Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish I had the hacking know-how to make it look like I was in eastern Europe. The best I can do is make it look like my edits come from a different computer on my LAN. I assure you, if I ever vandalize Wikipedia, it will be done honestly (and with a little creativity). --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Odo

Given that the page is being moved, would you say that Odo (Star Trek) is correct or Odo (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)? I'd moved it to the latter, but the precedent of Data (Star Trek) has just been pointed out to me. I'll hold off with disambiguation until you let me know which is preferred (if that's soon, otherwise I'll revert myself and go with the precedent). Fortunately I hadn't got very far. --kingboyk (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that anything within the "universe" of Star Trek is labeled "Foo (Star Trek)" and with no indication of which series (if any) it originates in. I'm not sure what that came up in the discussion, or why people were (incorrectly) asserting that a (Star Trek) moniker indicates that it is from the Original Series. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, nor me, and it had me thrown. Good job somebody pointed this out before I'd done all the work. :) Thanks! --kingboyk (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ctrl+Alt+Del talk page

Hi, I'm a little new at participating in Wikipedia discussions. For future reference, should I post my comments at the end of a section? I was trying to make sure my comment was threaded in a way that would show which statement I was responding to. Sorry if my method was inelegant. - DaoKaioshin (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's fine, no need to apologize. In the future, indentation is usually how threading is established. I'll do a little example below to give you an idea:

Initial Comment.

Reply 1 to Comment.

Reply 3 to Reply 1.

Reply 4 to Reply 1.

Reply 2 to Comment.

Reply 5 to Reply 2.

Reply 6 to Reply 5.

Reply 7 to Reply 2.

If you are replying to some comment, you go to the end of the relevant thread (for example, to reply to Reply 1 above, you'd go underneath Reply 4) and indent appropriately (:: in the example). --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikieditor9999‎ (talk · contribs)

Just as a note, I reported Wikieditor9999‎ (talk · contribs) to AIV because the incivility has now resorted to personal attacks and threats of administrator action (see my talk page and his). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. It seems he's really upset about his article being (possibly) deleted. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Persistence paid off: blocked for 31 hours :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's what he had in mind! Hopefully he'll cool his jets and come back and contribute something else to Wikipedia, besides that one thing he's been editing. I'm concerned about the other SPAs editing the article - that's an unusually high number of SPAs for such a small, niche sort of article. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (from User talk:Grutness

for this. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) Grutness...wha? 02:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

AGF/NPA

Are you really accusing me of a personal attack and not assuming good faith? That, frankly, seems unfair and unworthy. Eusebeus (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You're certainly pushing the envelope. This entire dispute is meaningless - the articles are under development, and the two of you are impatient. I have absolutely no interest in letting non-notable articles sit around on Wikipedia. There is no room for improvement and usually no one takes the time to even clean them up. But there was an extensive discussion in which the two of you decided you spoke for "global consensus" and were going to tell us that our rationales didn't matter. New sources were provided. Doesn't matter. Room for expansion was delineated. Doesn't matter. Editors pointed to two of these articles that had been fixed. Doesn't matter - well, I guess except your list of articles to merge got shorter. People are working to fix this stuff, but not fast enough or you, and you've decided to step in and do what you want based on some "global consensus" that you claim to represent. You are certainly allowed to point to community accepted standards, decisions, etc. But you don't decide how they apply in every case. By demanding that we challenge the global consensus in order to not merge, you have already assumed that our position disagrees with it. That's circular logic! I believe that keeping these articles separate and allowing them to get fixed up as time goes on is in agreement with global consensus.

I'm going to have to duplicate some of this at the mediation case. I got off track, sorry for being redundant. As for your actual question, don't accuse me of being disingenuous, and don't assume that my quoting your use of the term "global consensus" is somehow me acting in bad faith. This dispute is exceedingly tense (if for no other reason than the fact that, at least for me, it's become increasingly meaningless and senseless - who cares if they are merged? Leave them be, they will be expanded; merge them, and they might be expanded a bit or they might get stale.). I apologize if this tension is contagious. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I regret if you find the characterisation of your position as disingenuous a personal attack. I think such a description justified, since you know well our consensus policies, and yet make recourse to the notion that consensus on the talk page of an article can invalidate our policies regarding consensus. I recognise you disagree with such a view, but that is - note - not an attack against you personally, but merely a refutation of your position. I never accused you of acting in bad faith: rather, you cited AGF against my comment; hence my query. Yes, this dispute has become heated. But you can safely assume, as another regular, that I will not violate the core principles of our community, no matter how heated the debate becomes and no matter how much I may dispute your position or rationale. Moreover, I can safely say the same applies for the other lost souls who have the misfortune to agree with me in our mission to ruin Wikipedia for everyone. Eusebeus (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A point of clarification: I am not citing WP:CONS to override WP:CONS. I'm citing it as it allows local consensus (Talk:Firefly) to interpret global consensus (WP:FICT) in conjunction relevant policies (WP:RS, WP:V, etc). That's how consensus works. Global consensus can't possibly decide everything - that's why we have local consensus. Valid rationales on the local level were provided, appealing to WP:V, WP:N, etc. It's not like this was a total crapshoot in your favor. Don't forget that WP:FICT is a guideline, and global decisions are not Absolute Holy Law. And thanks for the humor, it's lightening up the conversation (although I'd keep it limited to talk pages). As for the disingenuity, perhaps the problem is in the connotation. Maybe in my part of the States it's a bit more adversarial. No harm done, I was just trying to diffuse the situation before it developed into anything that was a more clear kind of hostility. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock

I think it's time to look at a rangeblock for the Serb-related vandalism. WP:AN/I#Rangeblock assistance could use your input. Thanks. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Murray

From User talk:Sceptre:
What is wrong with this guy? Do people not have better things to do? --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt it. Will ^(talk) 00:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's always sad when a user makes so many wrong turns. Also, you changed your signature! I almost didn't recognize you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, maybe you didn't change it and I just didn't recognize it. Weird. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [3]. --Maniwar (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha!

Now there's a barnstar I never thought would be awarded to my dour-wikiself! Thanks Cheeser, much amused. WLU (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I could return the favor. You Nazi, you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I just warned someone about adding self-published content. Perhaps you'll have reason to give me a second barnstar later on today : ) Next to Hrafn's signature and the edit summary I always use when adding {{sodoit}} (best template ever!) that's the funniest thing I've ever seen on wikipedia. WLU (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Proding

From User talk:Redfarmer: Please do not prod articles marked as "under construction." Take the time to read the templates on a page, if you're going to take the time to add your own. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I did read the page and the article I prod I feel are not notable. I don't prod articles otherwise. Lately people have been using the underconstruction tag to circumvent speedy deletion when they know their article is possibly not notable. They tag it underconstruction and leave it for days. Underconstruction is not a circumvention to notability. I could take it directly to AfD but I don't feel that would be fair to the page's creator. Redfarmer (talk) 11:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what "people" have been doing "lately" - try assuming good faith in their use of the tag. If they leave it for days, then PROD it, just like the template says. If you want to accuse them of abusing one template, do you think you could consider tring not to abuse another? --Cheeser1 (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not say this person was abusing the tag. I simply stated an observation. There is nothing anywhere in the [{WP:PROD]] guidelines stating that one should not PROD an article simply because it has an underconstruction tag and, the wording of the template says "Please consider", meaning it is at the discretion of individual editors. Once again, I submit, that a tag is not a substitute for notability. The PROD gives the editor ample opportunity to establish notability, which the editor did in this case. If he had been abusing the tag and went away for an indefinite period, it would have been deleted and rightfully so. If I had simply taken it to AfD right away, as I have in the past and have since realized it should not be overused, the article stood a greater chance of being deleted before the editor had a chance to make improvements. P.S. You might try a little WP:AGF yourself. Redfarmer (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read:

Wikipedia is about cooperative editing. If you want to run around prodding articles all day fine, but when you start tearing down houses before they're built, you should realize that when I tell you what you're doing is what you're doing, it's not your moment to try to make this issue about you and me, instead of what it's really about: you prodding a-few-hours-old articles that people are in the middle of writing. Thanks. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

We're going to have to agree to disagree here because, as I said in the last response, the tag clearly says, "Consider not..." implying that it is at the discretion of individual editors. And I wasn't trying to make it about you and me, thus why I didn't mention anything at all about WP:AGF until after I made my arguement. The post before last and your original post on my page really didn't sound very civil or that you were assuming good faith, yet you were telling me to. I do assume good faith; I know that not every person is a vandal. However, I take it as I see it and, if I'm wrong, there's no harm with a PROD. Redfarmer (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My original post was terse and to-the-point. If you think that's an indication that I did not assume good faith, then you are mistaken. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Translation

Hey there. Help would indeed be greatly appreciated in the translation of "arithmétique modulaire". I suggest you start with the third paragraph ("Outils de l'arithmétique modulaire") if that's OK with you. Leave me a message once you're done. Randomblue (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I will start on that soon and let you know when I have a reasonable translation. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Vrlika

Sorry I wasn't around to help when you posted to my talk page - things have been much busier than usual at work for me, so Wikipedia's been pushed onto the back burner. It'll probably stay that way for a bit, but I may be able to keep an eye on Vrlika. Have things improved since then?

By the way, I think enough time has passed for us to slap each other on the back to celebrate the end of the Croatian vandal affair. Fun times all around. Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The guy stopped the edit warring, but in several articles he's inserted census data on "mother tongue[s]." That term is very vague, and to say that a Serb who primarily (or even exclusively) speaks Croatian has a "mother tongue" of Croatian is dubious and potentially quite misleading. I'm not going to revert him, but I'm trying to figure out how such census factoids give us a better idea of a town, as opposed to providing decontextualized statistics that are potentially misleading and not of any particular importance. Don't worry about being busy - it happens. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism Reverts

You just beat me at reverting vandalism on the Pokémon talk page and warned him real fast, too. What are you using to revert? Useight (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick typing skills! --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted comment?

Sorry if it was me that ec'd you at AN/I. If it was, I can assure you I was not trying to delete your comment. Ronnotel (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it was JzG, and it's no prob. The ANI gets way too much traffic for that sort of thing to be intentional or unexpected. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

sockpuppet case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Cheeser1 User:Netkinetic has filed a sockpuppet case aginast you. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that is pathetic. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Per comments I left at SSP, it seems as if he was fishing for any dirt to have you blocked. Dragging out an old block from November, calling you out on "repeated edit warring" and the likes is ... not assuming good faith. He should know better than that. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Firefly (from User talk:Colonel Warden)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Firefly. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You have chosen not only to continue to force your changes onto the article without consensus, but to claim a false consensus in your favor. Please stop, and leave the article as it was until the discussion is actually resolved. The behavior of those editors who refused to follow the consensus building process was already reviewed and determined to be inappropriate at the ANI - I suggest you stop. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Since I have only edited the article in question just this once, your accusation of edit-warring in obviously incorrect in my case. The edit history shows that you, however, have been edit-warring over this matter. Please take your own good advice and cease pushing this matter for which there is not consensus support. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  You apparently have not, despite my requests, read the consensus building process. You are taking part in continued revert-a-revert activities, which are inappropriate and not consensus-backed. A discussion in which consensus cannot be established should continue until a consensus- or policy-backed compromise is found, and until then the article is to remain as is. Your continuing to engage in revert-a-revert activities is inappropriate, and continuing to do so may be taken as bad-faith activity on your part. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  • The shovel mocks the poker. It seems that Firefly fans have been edit-warring over this for at least a year now. My impression is that the status quo ante is the simple form of the hat link and so that's what I'm backing. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

    Ah yes, the tired bad-faith "OMG ITS THE FANS" response. Forget it, Colonel. If that's the best you have (despite having unrestricted access to the talk page where it was decided in 2006 to keep both links, and both were in the article for most - perhaps all - of 2007), then I don't have anything else to say to you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This thread was subsequently deleted and not archived, as "closed" by Colonel Warden. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)