User talk:Chrisjnelson/Archive 7

Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Fangio and Nelson

Howdy,

This mediation at Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Fangio and Nelson has opened. Hoping everything goes the best. I'll be in touch there, and feel free to ask if you have any questions. Regards, Navou ^banter 03:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I probably won't write more than short replies there until Thursday as stated before.►Chris Nelson 03:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stats in infobox

Do you think its possible to get the stats in the active NFL infoboxes like the MLB ones? Thanks --Phbasketball6 03:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teixeira picture

It was electric when they showed him on the hi-def screen in center. Amazing night! Steviedpeele 04:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely some unorthodox moves by Scheurholz, but I love them. I'm glad to see this much aggressiveness by the Atlanta front office.

Who is Ed Perry?

I just had to ask. Raul17 23:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't he the top LS in the division and in the top five in the league? Raul17 23:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of "clean" snaps in varying conditions: rain, snow, wind, etc. Ability to get down field after the snap to make a play. When Perry was placed on the IR, who replaced him as the LS, Seth McKinney? Raul17 00:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Green

So then why is the template on the Trent Green page? This is what WP:CRYSTAL is about. Krkr12 15:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Lonie

Yeah, that's what I figured. Pats1 21:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

I just found out the new NFL.com has historical player stats for every player who ever played the game, so maybe we can use this as a link for all of the retired players, for stats. Thanks --Phbasketball6 01:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL

Per WP:COOL and WP:CIVIL, please avoid stirring the pot with edits like this. THF 22:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jmfangio's disruptive behavior

Hey there. This is a comment I'm leaving in response to Jmfangio's disruptive behavior on either Talk:Peyton Manning or Talk:Brett Favre. I would appreciate it if you could go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive behavior and help solve this situation; whatever assistance you can provide is quite helpful. If you choose not to be a part of this, then that would be perfectly fine, as well. Thank you. Ksy92003(talk) 17:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFL template

For all of our sakes, could I ask that you please just don't revert Jmfangio again? It's not worth getting blocked for. Ksy92003(talk) 22:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

I just thought I'd let you know I think Jmfangio's WP:RFC on you is a little ridiculous. As far as I can tell, there's no reason the RFC should exist. Yes, you've both been a little... shall we say, unrelenting in your debates and arguments, but there's no reason this RFC should even have been made. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 23:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk

Not ignoring you, just giving someone else perhaps the opportunity to chime in. Please do not hesitate to open a couple of discussions, I will let you know if i'm having a hard time following them. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 00:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will not open up any other discussions any time soon because this is the only issue I'm really interested in right now. Really, I think my edit is totally satisfactory and I'm not sure what anyone would have against it. I will probably implement it within the next day or as long as discussions are not still ongoing and no one else proposes a better solution. I'm not set on THIS edit being the fix for undrafted free agents, but I'd like something to be done and I'm not sure what better way to do it there is out there.►Chris Nelson 00:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If arbitration doesn't get accepted

Chris, I'd like to reopen the article to contributions. If the requested arbitration doesn't open I'm contemplating seeking some type of community based sanction on both you and JMfangio to contain the dispute so other editors can participate.

I'm posting to both of your talk pages for input on what would be best. Our options are limited and crude. Your input is welcome. Whatever the solution, it'll apply equally for the two of you:

Topic ban both of you from football articles until the Superbowl (this can be lifted if you settle your differences).
Limit you both to one edit and one article talk post per day, per football-related article. Duration would be the same as above: Superbowl or resolution of the dispute.
Place both of you on civility parole. That would apply throughout Wikipedia and have the same duration.
Some other solution that you and/or JM suggest and both agree is reasonable.

Durova^Charge! 01:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about?►Chris Nelson 01:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've protected Peyton Manning for a week because of your dispute. Nobody but an administrator can edit the page right now. As we get closer to regular season full page protections wouldn't be fair to all the other editors. I hope you can both turn down the heat enough so that no action is needed. In case the arbitration committee sends you back to dispute resolution and the edit warring resumes I'd like to pursue a solution to contain the dispute. The usual solution is to apply userblocks when disruption occurs. Nobody enjoys that. So I've been brainstorming alternatives that could:

Let you both continue dispute resolution without interruption.
Keep the articles stable and available to other editors, without cluttering the talk pages with two people's differences.
Motivate both of you to settle your differences.

Do those things sound like goals you share? Durova^Charge! 03:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're good right now I think.►Chris Nelson 03:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just responded, playing a half of madden and then going to get the game. I'm going to be around later and then i'm checking out for a day for vacation. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 03:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now there is something we have in common!►Chris Nelson 03:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't edit your comments, in your impatience to let me put mine back in the right place, an edit conflict broke out that made it appear as if you had removed your previous statement. That's why it was put back in, but struck - for you. Why you can't assume good faith is beyond me. We're right back where we started and I'm back to holding off conversations with you until the RFCs are in place. As you are welcome to bring things up for discussion, if we are unable to agree on something, then please respect that until some process is brought in. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 10:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like lines through my comments. Lines raped my mother.►Chris Nelson 10:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That last one has left me, well... scratching my head. Navou ^banter 12:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joke.►Chris Nelson 16:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Whitt's nationality

See the Jays roster template talk page for a note on my edit that you undid. --Oeuftete88 21:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please...

I'm trying to keep out of this situation, but I can't any longer... Chrisjnelson, please try to refrain yourself from talking with Jmfangio. The conversation you're having with him isn't helping things out at all; it was the potential to make this incident really ugly, and you're likely to cause more harm than good. Ksy92003(talk) 06:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well.►Chris Nelson 06:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jmfangio

Is there any point in kicking him on his talk page while he is blocked? I saw the thread on ANI and haven't tried to figure out what the dispute is over someone copying/pasting talk page comments, but WADR your comments on his talk page aren't helpful. --B 06:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kicking him while he's blocked? That doesn't even make sense, considering he can post there.►Chris Nelson 06:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kicking xxx while he/she is down is just an expression. --B 06:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I just feel he's a whiny baby and I didn't feel like keeping my mouth shut at the time.►Chris Nelson 06:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're one snippety comment away from being blocked, FYI. Keep it off-wiki. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey wait, I didn't post my last snippety comment until before I saw this. That one shouldn't count. I'm done!►Chris Nelson 06:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck I am so blocked.►Chris Nelson 06:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)

I know, Chrisjnelson. I, deep down, feel the same way. But remember, our main goal is to improve the encyclopedia, and that's always what goes first. That's why I've been remaining calm in this situation (even though I did separate my shoulder out of frustration; long story, I'll e-mail it to you if you want). The last thing you want to do is agitate somebody even more, especially if they are blocked, and even more especially if you weren't at all involved in the conflict that resulted in the block. Ksy92003(talk) 06:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha wtf? I gotta hear this.►Chris Nelson 06:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I e-mailed you the story; any comments you have on that, please just respond with them in an e-mail. Ksy92003(talk) 06:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball question

Question for you ... I know nothing whatsoever about baseball ... but I went to a Norfolk Tides game tonight and took a ton of pictures that I am cropping and adding to articles. The Tides are the AAA team for the Baltimore Orioles. Should the bio of a Tides player say that he plays for the Tides or that he plays for the Orioles? Adam Stern, for example, just says that he plays for the Orioles and doesn't even mention the Tides by name (it just says that he was sent down to AAA). Is that correct? Thanks. --B 03:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He does it again...

God, can you believe Jmfangio did it again? Once again, there was a discussion with him and another user about the RfC I had. I went there to tell the user who was talking to Jmfangio that I had no purpose and the RfC could be removed at will. Jmfangio could've just left it at that, but he had to react by removing my comment, saying "not your decision anyway." I replied, and he removed both of my comments. I know that my opinion didn't matter, but I think it was worth noting to the other user that I didn't have any objections to deletion of the RfC and that I insisted it be removed. I don't get why Jmfangio doesn't understand that sometimes it would just be best to avoid doing anything and agitating me again. I mean this is why he has problems communicating with us. He removes something just because I said it, even though it may've helped out the situation a bit more. He really doesn't understand that the best thing to do is nothing. Ksy92003(talk) 05:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the RfC Jmfangio has against you, he is insinuating that my opinion isn't valid because you and I share the same opinion. Can he just invalidate my opinion in the RfC because you and I are both victims of his actions? Ksy92003(talk) 06:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least you believe me. You're the only one who understands that what I did today, which Jmfangio says isn't allowed, is no different than what he did to you yesterday. And again, I responded to his comment, so I had a reason for bringing it back. Jmfangio brought your comment back just because he wanted to see it. I brought his comment back because my comment was written in response to his, so his comment needed to be visible as I was responding to him. I just really don't understand why nobody but you believes me. Jmfangio would understand if he actually read the comments I left him instead of just vacuuming it up as if it were Spring cleaning. Ksy92003(talk) 09:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

The 3RR board is for adjudicating on 3RR violations and is not part of the dispute resolution process. It is not a place for discussion and your outside comments are disruptive. Neither of your comments to me have been particularly civil and I would go as far as to say that your interjections serve no purpose other then to poor petrol on the flames of a dispute that I'm shutting down. General editing problems with other users can be brought to the admin noticeboards but I'm not, rpt not, going to block an editor for trying to disengage from a dispute - especially as its his own comment he is removing, its outside main space and its a talk page. You are flogging a dead horse here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're wrong.►Chris Nelson 10:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D.D Lewis

Ok my bad i also did it with Paul Smith (football player) of the Broncos But i removed it when you told me about the D.D Lewis article. Taylor21 07:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Hey Thanks for the pointers Taylor21 07:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD comment

This is in response to your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power pitcher: "It's like a wrong convention in here." Who are you to say that our opinions are wrong? Look, I know I've supported you in the past, but just because you have one opinion doesn't mean everybody else is wrong because they share a different opinion, okay? Ksy92003(talk) 04:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to which side is more logical, one is right and wrong.►Chris Nelson 05:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that's so, that's not something for you to determine, and that comment doesn't do anything to serve in the AfD discussion. It appears that you made that comment in the choice of words that you did because the final five users to give their opinion all voted keep. Since you said delete, would you like it if I just came out and said "No, Chrisjnelson, you're completely wrong?" You have to flip the table before making a comment and think if somebody said this to me, would I be offended? before leaving controversial comments, such as this one.

And when it comes to which side is more logical, there is no right and wrong. There is simply a logical solution and a more logical solution. There are valid points for each, generally, and one is no more right nor wrong than the other.

I'd also like to point out that in this recent debate between Jmfangio and I, you made a couple similar comments: "You're wrong" and "False." You can just completely invalidate other people's opinions or views on disputes and conflicts just because you share a different opinion. I can't speak for all the people who voted keep on the debate, but as for myself, I took your "It's like a wrong convention in here" in quite a negative fashion. I wouldn't consider it a personal attack by any means, but it did feel like a put-down to me. Ksy92003(talk) 06:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Romo

I've seen your edit you've made to this article, adding the undrafted year in the infobox. It seems like it works perfectly, and I don't see how it would cause any problems. Ksy92003(talk) 22:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One would imagine.►Chris Nelson 22:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously can't imagine how this addition to the template could be problematic and/or controversial at all, but we won't be able to convince Jmfangio of that. Ksy92003(talk) 22:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well not to mention, you'd think it'd be obvious to everyone that the majority of editors here that do NFL stuff would be in favor of this information being present - in fact, I'd say nearly all of them would be. If Jmfangio has some minor tweaks about how it appears and stuff, that's fine. But I see no reason to change the basics, like what it says or the field we use in the template. I think he's obviously just against it because it was my edit - it happens all the time now.►Chris Nelson 22:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That last part relates to me, as well. This is what led to his Three-revert violation on Dick Lane (American football). He said my edits were disputed, as well as claiming that I knew they were (how does he know what I think?), and reverted it just because those edits were made by me, I think. Would he have made the reverts if anybody else made the edit? Probably not. Ksy92003(talk) 23:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dude can hold a grudge.►Chris Nelson 23:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well now, if he says that it isn't gonna work or shouldn't be implemented, you can show him the Tony Romo article infobox and prove him wrong... something I would suggest, but you know if one of us posts his talk page he is just gonna delete it. I mean the Tony Romo article is proof enough that it works and contributes greatly by saying that he wasn't drafted in 2003, rather was signed as an undrafted free agent. Ksy92003(talk) 23:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well he knows what it looks like and how it works, he's still opposed to it.►Chris Nelson 23:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

At WP:ANI another user has pointed out your continued incivility. Please note that according to Wikipedia's block policy, "persistent gross incivility" is possible grounds for a block. Thank you, David Fuchs^(talk) 23:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MLB roster template change

FYI: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Template roster change X96lee15 02:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFL MVP Awards

If you look at wiki itself, under NFL MVP awards, you will note that there are or were at least 4 or 5 different awards. the only "true" NFL MVP award was awarded by the NFL itself from 1937-1946. Of the other awards, some are no longer awarded, but (for example) the PFWA NFL MVP award was awarded during the years in question.

Since the career highlights box to the right on the Favre page shows the breakdown of awards (AP, Bert Bell, UPI, etc) It's only proper to qualify the awards in the text of the article also.

Otherwise the article conveys the mistaken impression that the NFL itself awarded favre three awards.

I assume it's you that keeps undoing my changing of the Favre page to reflect that the MVP awards received were from the Associated Press.

Meatpuppet

I read at User talk:B that Jmfangio believes that you and I are meatpuppets... what are meatpuppets? Well, whatever they are, I haven't done anything against Wiki-policy, so I don't see why I'm being accused of anything. Do you know what meatpuppets are? Because I haven't a clue. Ksy92003(talk) 06:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Sounds sexy.►Chris Nelson 10:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:MEAT. Jmfangio accuses me of recruiting you to edit to support my causes just because our editing styles are similar. They aren't that similar. You do football tempates and stuff, and I do baseball. We have had just as many arguments as we've had non-argumentative discussions. So I don't see how we possibly could. I mean just because you and I have had disagreements with Jmfangio, he thinks we're doing something illegal. If I do something that completely annoys both B and User:Jmfangio, does that instantly make them meatpuppets? This is a ridiculous claim by Jmfangio. Ksy92003(talk) 17:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hard Knocks" screenshots

Yeah, I made these screenshots myself. I didn't get them from a website. I recorded the program with TiVo and uploaded it to my computer, and took screens of the program. I understand if they'll be deleted, but to be honest, I don't think they harm the program or HBO in any way. But hey, whatever. I hate the whole picture uploading stuff anyways because it's almost impossible for me to find ones that fall into the category of Wiki pictures. Conman33 20:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my brother knows how to do it. He has some program or cord that transfers the video. I wish I knew how to. Maybe I'll ask him and get back to you.Conman33 23:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Favre article

I replied to you at my talk page. Regards, Skybunny 23:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly note...

You might want to review WP:NPA before someone decides to ban you.--SarekOfVulcan 01:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was the diff I had in mind.--SarekOfVulcan 13:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

proposed topic ban

Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Jmfangio.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_and_Chrisjnelson.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29:_proposed_topic_ban - you may wish to comment. Durova^Charge! 01:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disengagement

With regard to this edit, very nicely done. I applaud you. -- But|seriously|folks 04:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's probably not deserved. I don't like being made out to be the asshole in this thing just because I never put in the time to organize someone else's conflicts into a neat page. My opinion of him has not changed. But there are more important things in life.►Chris Nelson 04:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the important thing -- don't let disputes like this suck up your time and energy. If someone does wrong by you, chances are good that they've done the same to others. If you let the others take them to task over it, you save yourself the hassle. Cheers! -- But|seriously|folks 16:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irony

You posted on my discussion board a while back. You were right - I actually asked my English professor and he said it was an example of irony (he's a huge wiki fan, probably the only professor at my uni that would allow you to cite it in a pic). BUT, I do take issue with you implying that the song "Irony" by Alanis Morissette is not ironic. On the contrary, it is extremely ironic, as the song is called Irony, yet contains no actual bits of irony in the song lyrics, only poetic justice. There's something to think about! kstingily 6:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 00:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on my talk. Daniel 05:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Templates

I like your template. I think every Championship team should have them. I hope there are no objections to the template idea. How difficult is it to find the info to create them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 17:35, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

That is a nice team template, but yours is a good Championship team template, which needs to be more brief because of page clutter for multiple championships.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How difficult is it to find the jersey numbers for a whole team? Would you want to do 61, 62 Yankees templates? I was thinking about the 1983 Orioles as well because I am trying to convince KSY to do Dennis Martínez. However, he did not pitch in that series. I think our logic of looking at the box scores might get us messed up. You might also have to look at the yearly teams on baseball-reference. I am not sure. Anyways what do you think about producing other championship teams?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 04:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Team colors

I want to convert the Roger Clemens team colors like Barry Bonds has team colors in his team column. Do you know a quick way to get the exact colors?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Deletions on Houston Texans roster

That's fair enough. I reverted it because it was an IP address deleting content without explaination(in edit summary). There have been a lot of IP adresses making similar edits lately which turn out to be vandalism. But I guess Pats1 wasn't logged in. AngelOfSadness talk 00:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Championship team templates

There was no opposition. If you don't want to do the 61 & 62 Yankee Templates, I will get to them this week, but how do you get the Jersey numbers? Do you use The Baseball almanac?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleo Lemon

You reverted an edit, which now reads that he made his debut with the Miami Dolphins in 2006. However, the same box says that he played for the San Diego Chargers in 2003. Therefore, he made his debut with the Chargers in 2003. PhiEaglesfan712 20:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dogfighting statements

Wiki policy: "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The revision you would prefer will not be established by reverting, and repeated reverting is forbidden; discuss disputed changes on the talk page. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond unkindly, and do not make personal attacks."

Please stop reverting my editing. All I did was put factual statements up that Portis made. They were controversial and got a lot of media attention. They belong on his page. Just like Keither Hernandez's controversial comments about women in baseball are in his page. I will have to bring a case against you if you keep violating Wiki policy. If you want to change how the statement is presented that's fine but the bottom line is the statement itself belongs on his page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.68.157 (talk) 21:48, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thx for the message Chris. I would've stayed on thru that 3-week period that I was autoblocked. Hey, I was exonerated, but I was dying to get back. To help kill the time I lost, I just went elsewhere online (I would've just played games, but my video game system is jacked up now, sort of eliminated the easiest choice). I appreciate the kind words, and, just to let you know, I'm always glad to help you out also, just let me know. And good luck to the Braves and Dolphins. Soxrock 01:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked

You've been blocked for 3 hours for continued incivility on the Incidents noticeboard. Feel free to return with a cool head after your block expires. Maxim_(talk) 01:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

Again, your comments add fuel to the fire. Calling me a "nazi" isn't going to help your cause at all. You claim that you're not making any personal attacks, and in doing so, make even more. Calling me a "nazi" is yet another attack on me. Ksy92003(talk) 01:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You totally missed the point. I was simply lying in the edit summary, like Jmfangio does all the time. The "nazi" thing had nothing to do with you.►Chris Nelson 01:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was totally unacceptable. Don't ever do anything like this again. Newyorkbrad 03:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Chris, you've been lucky today: another sysop gave you a three hour block before I returned. So I'll ask you a few questions.

You pledged to avoid all but two football-related articles, and voluntarily offered that this restriction apply only to yourself. I closed a topic ban discussion as a gesture of good faith in response to that pledge, yet you violated the pledge almost immediately. I warned you of the consequences that could follow that decision, yet when another editor petitioned me to intervene you wrote that you expected no consequence for your decision and stated that you didn't think you deserved to be held to your pledge. You also admitted that you were lying in an edit summary tonight, which suggests you lie about other things too.

How does that all square up? I'll tell you what it looks like:

1. You're the primary aggressor.

2. You made the pledge simply to avoid the imminent likelihood of an involuntary topic ban.

3. You never intended to keep that pledge.

4. You aren't going to demonstrate any self-restraint, so external limitations are necessary.

I'm willing to keep an open mind. If these conclusions are mistaken then please demonstrate why. Specific diffs will help because I'm preparing an arbitration statement. I nearly put you on the bench for a week over gross violations of WP:POINT. Durova^Charge! 03:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that you posted another editor's name. Looks like that's already been Oversighted, but be aware that's grounds for an indef block on you. Please do one of the following: either supply an onsite diff where that editor voluntarily disclosed the information himself, or pledge that you won't do that again. Durova^Charge! 04:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness there, Durova, if you're talking about where he referred to Jmfangio by full name, Jmfangio does have his full name as his signature. Unless there's a different incidence as well, but that was the only one I saw. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it would appear there was. I would definitely be careful of that, you're quite lucky to have only gotten 3 hours given that. Don't ever use someone's real name unless it's their username or they freely disclose it themself. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'll address the edit summary issue. "Lie" was a poor choice of words. It was not meant to deceive anyone, although obviously everyone misconstrued its meaning so it was a poor choice on my part. I've recently taken exception to some of Jmfangio's edit summaries when he makes accusations about me violating policy that don't apply. He did that yesterday on Michael Vick, saying I was edit warring. The specifics aren't really important. My point is, my edit summary on my talk page was just a little joke of mine in that it was supposed to make absolutely no sense or have any connection to my actual edit. Obviously, it was a stupid joke, a very unclear one and an offensive one. The "Nazi" aspect had absolutely nothing to do with Ksy92003 - I was making no connection there. So I'm sorry about that whole thing. A very poor decision on my part, but hopefully you'll believe me when I say its meaning was not nearly as severe as people have mistaken it to be.

As for the whole thing about a topic ban, my pledge and all that. Whether you believe me or not, I was being sincere when I first made the pledge and at the time I fully expected to stand by it. I simply broke it because I genuinely enjoy editing related articles and I felt I did a lot of good. I mean I'm not stupid - I knew if I made the edits it would be known and documented. I was always aware of the possibility (or inevitability) of having a topic ban discussion re-opened. It was simply a risk I was willing to take, and still am. I feel I do a lot of good on NFL-related articles and I have a lot to offer. For that reason, I have gone back on my pledge and will not make one again. I suppose if I am banned from the topic (which would pretty much ban me entirely since that's almost all I'm interested in editing) there will be nothing I can do. But I'm willing to defend myself and my place in the NFL community because I feel I do far more good than harm.

So as for your numbered points, which I partially have answered already.

. I do not feel is true at all. I feel Jmfangio is the source if the original conflict here. I've made plenty of mistakes but so has he - more than he realizes and more than others realize because I haven't taken the time to collect evidence as he has. There are more lies than truths in his accusations against me.
. True, but at the time I intended to stick to it, as explained above.
. Not true at all, but obviously I know what it looks like so I don't expect anyone to believe that.
. I will not demonstrate "restraint" because, as I said before, I think I'm doing far more good than harm. I feel I am an asset to these articles so if someone feels otherwise, then yes, I suppose external limitations are necessary. It is my hope I'll be able to successfully defend myself.

Finally regarding Ksy92003's name. It truly was a mistake, even the time I, like an idiot, used it again in apologizing. Ksy92003 and I have conversed extensively through email in recent weeks and his real name shows up as the sender, so that's how I knew it. It never even occurred to me that it was something that I should make a point of not posting. I just wrote it subconsciously because that's how I had come to think of him because of the email conversations. Ksy92003 can vouch that we have conversed through email and I do hope you believe me on this. I never meant to cause any hard, it truly was an honest mistake and I'd never do anything like that on purpose.►Chris Nelson 04:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop using words like "lie" and "Nazi" immediately. There are lots of other issues to be addressed, but that's the first thing. Newyorkbrad 04:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems there.►Chris Nelson 04:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say anything about the proposed topic ban, but from what I've heard thus far, it really seems like Jmfangio has held true and disengaged from the discussion. It seems that the conflicts between both Jmfangio and you, Chrisjnelson, were instigated by you, especially recently. You admitted that you edited the same articles as him because you were looking at his contributions, so that's clearly proof that you weren't attempting to disengage. By purposely editing the same articles as Jmfangio and remaining connected with him, I'd have to say that proves that you are the primary aggressor, as Durova said. Your edit summary also suggested that you were lying about one thing, and as Durova said, what else could you be lying about? Your edit summaries, as others have pointed out, are also a major problem. Whether you meant them one way or another, it's how they are interpreted, and clearly words such as "Nazi" aren't gonna be interpreted positively. You say that you meant it as a joke, and I fail to see how using that word could possibly be funny in any way at all. It was very offensive to me, as I am of German descent, and I felt quite insulted.

Anyway, Chrisjnelson had instigated an e-mail discussion with me shortly after the time of his block this evening. However, I have told him that I'm not certain that him revealing my name was truly an accident, as he has lied in the past, and he could be lying here also. Ksy92003(talk) 06:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong about just about everything. You're totally biased. If I'm blocked/banned at all, and I hope I'm not, it should be for things I'm actually guilty of. This "primary aggressor" stuff is totally wrong. All my edits in recent days have been totally innocent, with no motives and no focus on WHO has been editing them before. I'm just editing them to EDIT, to improve articles. Why isn't Jmfangio an "aggressor" by editing Jonathan Smith (American football) and Michael Vick, since I've edited them before? I'll tell you why - because he's ALLOWED to edit those articles and he's only working to improve them. There's no difference between his actions and mine. Neither of us is trying to provoke the other - we're both working to improve these articles, whether we disagree or not. There is NO hostility behind my editing, I'm tired of being accused otherwise. I have better things to do than systematically REMOVED UNCIVIL WORD with people on the internet.►Chris Nelson 11:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jmfangio edited the Jonathan Smith article well before you did. His first edit to that page (a page move) came on July 27. You didn't edit the article until August 29. Jmfangio has only made one other edit to the article since his first edit, so I haven't any clue as to why you brought up that claim.

As for the Vick article, Vick is the most popular person in the country right now (albeit for all the wrong reasons) so I wouldn't say you can blame a guy for editing the article of the most well-known person in the country.

You also say there is no hostility behind your edits. There seems to be plenty of hostility towards me, at least, as evidence of your inappropriate edit summaries, lying, etc. I haven't seen anything wrong on Juan's part since you both "accepted" the pledge, while you've both gotten into revert wars with him, broken your pledge, used very offensive language, and even revealed my name. I don't know how you can think you're perfectly, 100% innocent. Ksy92003(talk) 12:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Chris, You made a pledge and then broke it almost immediately. And you don't regret that or acknowledge any basis for the pledge - even though you say you believed it at the time. What exactly did you believe then? Whatever it was, I advise you to explain it to the arbitration committee in fuller detail than here, and to explain to them with diffs why so many people are mistaken when they see problems and come to you with concerns.

Since I wrote the above you edited football templates and articles five more times[1][2][3][4][5] and left this interesting comment for another editor.[6] You also admit to being a single purpose account, which is the kind of statement that tends to get weighed at arbitration. Regarding your pledge to refrain from posting another editor's real name, I take that exactly as seriously as your pledge to avoid the topic of football - which means the next time you cause disruption at football I'll block you for a week and the next time you post another editor's real name I'll indef you. It's as simple as that.

If you want to turn things around, I strongly suggest mentorship and some serious effort at reform. Durova^Charge! 14:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep mistaking my words, like this "single purpose account" business. I just have a tendency to edit NFL articles, I that's all I was saying and I wasn't aware that's a crime. Stop twisting things around.

I can't say I care if you believe me about the pledge or not. I told you the truth, that I was sincere when I made it and that I broke it for the good of Wikipedia and was willing to risk reviving the discussion of a topic ban. I wasn't trying to hide anything. I simply changed my mind, and considering I was never officially told I had to stick to the pledge I can't say I did anything wrong there.

Now, the name posting thing. It was an honest freaking mistake, and yes, like an idiot, I did it again in my apology. I've come to know him by his first name because of TONS of emails we've had back and forth. Why would I purposely post his name just to get myself into trouble? It's not like there are gang members on Wikipedia looking for clues to the guy's identity. It was an honest mistake, and if you don't want to believe that's your problem and I'm done trying to convince you.

Also, I do NOT need a mentor. I can function here on my own.►Chris Nelson 16:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this mistaking your words, Chris? I suppose if I am banned from the topic (which would pretty much ban me entirely since that's almost all I'm interested in editing) there will be nothing I can do.[7] What does a reasonable person conclude other than that you are - by your own admission - a single purpose account? And what evidence can you summon in support of the assertion that breaking your word the day after you made it was for the good of Wikipedia? I'll also ask a second time, exactly what was this sincere point of view you had when you first gave your word? What sense did you see in the pledge when you made it, other than the hope that it would delay the involuntary topic ban that would pretty much ban you entirely?

I've communicated with you before and didn't get very far so I'll try a few phrases in your own language (it's tempting to use a bit of dialect I learned in the Navy, but I'll keep things clean). You may have possession of the ball, but you've been losing real estate on every play and penalty flags have been going up all over this field. Now it's fourth down with long yardage so you'd better throw that hail Mary quickly because you're about to get sacked by a girl.

I am willing to hear you out fairly. I expect you to provide diffs and I expect your reasoning to hold together because you are not going to bluff me on a naked bootleg. Own up to your fumbles; I won't hold them against you. Just make a legal play - you are one post away from a turnover. Durova^Charge! 23:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I am appreciative you unblocked my talk page so I may reply, I must say I find your last comment entirely insulting and condescending. I am not a child, I don't need to be spoken to like I'm brain dead. I believe your behavior in this regard to be totally out of line.

As for this "single-purpose account" nonsense - you are twisting my words and looking for something that is NOT there. This ridiculous behavior leads me to believe you can no longer remain objective when it comes to my situation. I am not a troll and I am not pushing an agenda. All I meant by my original comment is that I am a big football fan and as a result I primarily edit football-related articles. I edit other things, baseball rosters, List of Dawson's Creek episodes, Mark David Chapman. Anything I come across and feel like editing or feel is in need of correcting. But the majority of my edits probably come on NFL-related things. As a result, a topic ban of this, for me, would take away a large part of what I edit and logically it would cause me to not edit as frequently. The implication that I am a single-purpose account is ridiculous, insulting and offensive. You're twisting my words and finding things that aren't there because you want to, and I do not feel this is proper behavior for an admin.►Chris Nelson 00:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, if I were biased against you I wouldn't be attempting to engage you in this dialog. I've had a hand in sixteen different arbitration cases, not counting yours, and I've seen where these choices lead: at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education an editor who was an admitted single purpose account disclosed someone else's identity and the Committee gave him an indefinite topic ban; shortly before Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal an editor accused me of bias because I asked her to support her assertions with diffs and advised her that circumstances looked unfavorable - another sysop imposed an indefinite block on her before that case even concluded and she's currently under sitebans from both the arbitration committee and the community. The people who accept advice, admit mistakes, and seek mentorship tend to fare a lot better.

If you think my behavior is improper then here's what you can do about it:

Raise a complaint at WP:ANI when your block expires.
E-mail the Wikimedia Foundation attention Cary Bass.
Open a request for comment on me.

I am open to recall and I've pledged to run for reconfirmation as a sysop if five Wikipedians in good standing request it. So far no editor has initiated such a request, nor has any editor proposed a finding against me at arbitration. I put myself on the line because sometimes it earns credibility in discussions such as this one.

Here's what typically happens during arbitration: the evidence phase is the easiest part. Most editors aren't under any particular restriction and the case moves so slowly that it seems like it could last forever. Then the workshop phase opens, the proposals start to accumulate, and signatures gather beneath them. Then the arbitrators work from some of those proposals and the real decision forms. I'm glad I've never been on the wrong side of that because I've watched people react as if it were slow torture. Some of them try a last minute reform, but more often their worst behaviors escalate and they end badly.

It really doesn't matter to me whether the topic at hand is Anthroposophy, Gothic music, Sri Lankan nobility, alternative medicine, Australian archaeology, or American football. At Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel I was the lone supporter of an editor whose ideology I abhorred. After Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate I awarded a barnstar to an editor against whom I'd given evidence. You aren't likely to find anyone more experienced or fair than this and I'm being candid with you because maybe you'll decide to change your mind while there's time for you to turn around. I am a reasonable person and I am receptive to sound logic and evidence: provide me with some. Durova^Charge! 02:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you asking for evidence of? You keep asking for evidence and diffs, I don't have anything to show you. What are you talking about?►Chris Nelson 02:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show me evidence that sheds better light on your actions than the surmises I posted at the start of this thread. Was there some specific event that changed your mind about the pledge? When have you offered an olive branch to other editors in this dispute? What onsite promises have you kept? This is an open ended offer to change my mind and improve my opinion. If you could show me, for example, that you've earned a DYK nod or a user award for participation at some topic other than football then I'd definitely agree you aren't a single purpose account. Durova^Charge! 03:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'm not addressing the single-purpose account nonsense because it's a ridiculous accusation with nothing to support it. So you can think whatever you want about that. As for my pledge, what is there to prove? I changed my mind, and that's obvious because I started editing NFL-related articles again. I'm not trying to hide anything there and never was. You can believe me when I tell you I was initially sincere when I made the pledge, and that it was only later I just changed my mind, or you can not believe me. I know the truth and that's good enough for me.►Chris Nelson 03:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a diff of your own admission to support it, as you've already seen. Along with that I would of course provide your rebuttal as well as diffs of other occasions when your story changed: the swift turnaround on your pledge and the recent sequence here at your talk page when you deleted an editor's comment with Nazi in the edit summary - when called on that you said the statement a lie - and when called on that you claimed it was a joke. This establishes a pattern I'd rather not submit formally at arbitration: you do what you want, making up excuses as you go along. With a few more diffs I could also demonstrate that when confronted about your policy violations, you often respond with unsupported allegations of misconduct. Please provide reasons and evidence to reach a more favorable conclusion. If I were biased in any way against you I'd simply submit this evidence to the Committee. The reason I haven't done so is the good faith assumption that additional circumstances shed better light on your conduct. Please provide diffs and reasoning to change my mind, because your aggressive responses so far have tended to confirm the worst of those suspicions. Durova^Charge! 03:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an admission of that, you're twisting my words and finding something that isn't there. Your accusation is ridiculous, I've done nothing wrong in this regard so submit it to whomever you want.
Yeah, I made a swift turnaround. I obviously changed my mind. I'm not denying anything so I don't know what you're looking for.
The joke WAS that it was a lie. My story never changed on that whole "nazi" thing. It was just supposed to be funny, at least to me, in that it was a lie and did not make sense. I did not call anyone a Nazi and I didn't not compare anything Ksy92003 wrote to anything Nazi-related. That's the misunderstanding. It was a stupid joke, albeit a harmless one if actually understood, but on that obviously wasn't worth the trouble.

I do not wish to converse directly with you anymore. You are wrong about everything and I see there is no convincing you. Do what you want, but I find you rude, condescending, insulting, paranoid and you're finding problems that aren't there. I've made a lot of mistakes here, I'll be the first to admit it. But you're trying to get me for things that don't even exist. For that reason, I want not further direct contact with you. Have a good life.►Chris Nelson 04:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania in Atlanta!

Hi! I noticed your involvement on U.S. South-related articles, categories and WikiProjects, and I wanted to let you know about a bid we're formulating to get next year's Wikimania held in Atlanta! If you would like to help, be sure to sign your name to the "In Atlanta" section of the Southeast team portion of the bid if you're in town, or to the "Outside Atlanta" section if you still want to help but don't live in the city or the suburbs. If you would like to contribute more, please write on my talk page, the talk page of the bid, or join us at the #wikimania-atlanta IRC chat on freenode.org. Have a great day!

P.S. While this is a template for maximum efficiency, I would appreciate a note on my talk page so I know you got the message, and what you think. This is time-sensitive, so your urgent cooperation is appreciated. :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 09:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked

I thought you understood what I meant on my talkpage, what Durova, what Seraphim, and what the previous block meant. I apologize, but you have got to stop this sort of behaviour. It's not helping. Feel free to return in 24 hours with a cool head. Thank you. Maxim_(talk) 17:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't freaking do anything! You make a PERSONAL ATTACK against me and I get blocked for responding? That's insanity.►Chris Nelson 17:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did. Juan called you a troll, not me, and then you respond with this lovely gem. Maxim_(talk) 17:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bam. YOU called me a troll as well. Nice try though.►Chris Nelson 17:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I forgot about the conversation I had with Ksy, and was under the impression you were referring to my talkpage.. Well, you acted like one yesterday - it's a statement of fact and I was trying to bring to Ksy that he wasn't helping as well. Maxim_(talk) 17:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a statement of fact. It's your OPINION. I've been told TONS of things are personal attacks. I've been told saying I believe someone to be mentally unstable is a personal attack. And I guess it is. Even if it's my opinion based on observing the person's behavior. You cannot say it was not a personal attack. I do not deserve to be blocked for a curse word, which has its own Wikipedia page, especially when I didn't use it to attack someone. You personally attacked me, so I think you should block yourself for a day.►Chris Nelson 17:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I blocked you for incivility. See, the first time I encountered you a few months back you were uncivil. A bit later, an RfC (incivility). Now arbitration for the same thing. You are repeating the same behaviour that impedes the project's progress, and by blocking I prevent you from doing so. You're not helping; you're doing quite the opposite. Users are sick of your behaviour, and the effect is not much different from simply blanking an article; that has less effect. Your behaviour has spiraled into an Arbcom case, as you're not helping, and it doesn't seem you're trying to stop. It's time you understood that. Maxim_(talk) 17:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is, I can come to Wikipedia, look up bullshit, learn about the word and its meaning, but I can't actually use it on my own? That's pretty illogical. In my opinion your personal attack, based on the definition I read HERE, is bullshit. That's my interpretation. I deserve to be blocked for THAT? That's weak and you know it.►Chris Nelson 17:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't care about anything else in THIS discussion. I don't care about RFCs, arbcoms, other instances of incivility. This was not incivility. It was a legitimate reply to a personal attack. And SINCE I didn't do anything wrong this time, past occurrences mean nothing and I do not deserve to be blocked.►Chris Nelson 17:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I consider it wrong that I was blocked by an admin that personally attacked me yesterday. He called me a troll, which I took offense to and still do, and I called his personal attack B.S. (though spelling it out). However, considering the isolated incident began with a personal attack by an admin, I feel this is wrong and a conflict of interests. The evidence is located in the link provided above.

Decline reason:

Your block has been discussed on WP:AN/I, and the general consensus was that the block was warranted and that the duration was, if anything, lenient. I would suggest considering a change of approach. — MastCell ^Talk 18:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Correction to the above: the AN/I discussion was about your previous 3-hour block, not this one. However, given that the issues raised still seem to be in play, I'm not going to unblock. It's a 24-hour block - I'm going to recommend that you sit it out and take steps to de-escalate conflict when you come back. MastCell ^Talk 18:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, anyone - PLEASE review this again. Maxim just made a post with an edit summary saying "Fucking ridiculous." He blocked ME today for saying the word "bullshit", calling it incivility, in response to a personal attack he made about me. This is 100% unfair, someone has to see that.►Chris Nelson 23:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you, that's maybe the fifth time I've posted something obscene, and it was even directed at anybody, while you're calling people Nazis. However, my post sums up the situation perfectly. For anybody interested, it was in relation to Durin leaving due to legal threats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim (talk • contribs) 23:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My past incidents - irrelevant. I had done nothing since returning from my block except the comment I left - so THAT is what I was blocked for. And it was WRONG. I don't care what your reason was for using profanity. My situation was no different. That situation is what "drew" the profanity out of you. Well, your PERSONAL FREAKING ATTACK is what drew the profanity out of me. And my profanity ALSO was not directed at anyone. This is completely ridiculous, you are abusing your power and I do NOT deserve to be blocked right now. The word I got blocked for is the perfect word to describe this current situation. YOU should be reprimanded.►Chris Nelson 23:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your past incidents are extremely relevant. That's why you're in an ArbCom case, and that's why I'm blocking you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim (talk • contribs) 23:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My past incidents are not relevant because that's not what I was blocked for. If I hadn't left the bullshit comment on your page, you wouldn't have just randomly come and blocked me again after I was blocked last night. Therefore it was the "bullshit" comment and you have already shown yourself to be a hypocrite when it comes to this sort of "incivility." Fine, leave me blocked for a day. Fortunately I'll be out of town most of it. But just know that you're wrong, and you're behavior is pathetic for an admin. I'll work on my problems, you have some to work on yourself.►Chris Nelson 23:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incivil again. Talkpage protected until your block expires. Maxim_(talk) 23:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected so that Chris can respond to my questions. Chris, keep it clean. I don't want to extend this block but I will if you step out of bounds. Durova^Charge! 00:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was being uncivil again? Absolutely ridiculous abuse of power.►Chris Nelson 00:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ksy92003

Because you seem to be misunderstanding my deleting of your comments, I will clarify my reasons. It has nothing to do with not wanting Maxim or anyone else to read anything - I don't care what you to say to anyone else. But I personally do not want you to speak to me again, in part because I feel you have a personal problem with me and in part because I'm a little worried about the indirect threats you made to Jmfangio in email with me. I do not wish to converse with anyone that has express homicidal urges. That is all.►Chris Nelson 17:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hoag

That's interesting. We'll have to see what happens tomorrow. Pats1 20:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo man can you get on AIM?►Chris Nelson 01:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]