User talk:EverybodyHatesChris/Archive 1

Hi, I replied to your note on my talk page. I've just checked your contribs and noticed that you seem to have written the same message to a number of admins. I want to inform you that copying the same message to multiple talk pages, unless the recipients are all clearly privy to the information in the message, is often seen as spam and is typically frowned upon. Just so you know for the future. You'll want to read my reply on my own talk page, too. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

re Coral Smith
I have been asked to look at the recent editing of the above article. I have made some comments at Talk:Coral Smith which I would be grateful if you would look at, consider and hopefully act upon. Please could you try to work with Migospia in improving the article instead of just reverting (and FYI articles can be reverted to any previous edit) which is against WP policy. LessHeard vanU 10:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look at both versions -and to me Migospia's version is better. To me you seem to be adding npov - your adding words that make Coral Smith look better, but as to the main issue I've commented on the talk page and I would ask that you too (before revertnig me) discuss this more on the talk. daniel  folsom  18:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever seen the challenge I am and MTV is referring to? Please watch it would clear a lot up! Peace--Migospia †♥ 02:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Like we discussed on the talk page and with admins agreed, my source came directly from the official show site. I asked if you saw the specific challenge which they dated, kissed and said they loved each other not if you have seen a challenge. I am sorry you believe my behaviour borders on being disrespectful, but do you have any bias of that? Peace--Migospia †♥ 03:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't seem to get through to you, read the talk page, and I do have an official source, also please watch and read the source and talk page hope that clears things up for you! Peace--Migospia †♥ 03:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A) I'm not sure you know the meaning of challenge in that context - I was saying that if you said you would report her, she should try to make you back up that statement because you have no idea what your talking about. You continue to use vandalism and you continue to be incivil, and then to top it off you accuse other users of cussing and being incivil to you. So go ahead and "report" me - I'm really interested to see what happens - lets see you have what, 100 edits under your belt - and somehow you think that I don't know Wikipedia policy? I haven't done anything wrong so again, I'd love to see you report me, because you would be the only one that would be punished - however I doubt there would be any punishment cause your violations have been minor to this point, except for the occasional charge of vandalism.-- daniel  folsom  06:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * B) You would generally go to ANI to report events. --06:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hello EverybodyHatesChris. I noticed you have used the term vandalism to refer to edits of other users, for example here. Please be aware that, here on Wikipedia, "vandalism" has a very specific and limited meaning, and your examples do not fit it. Its very rare that a registered user with a significant edit history will indulge in vandalism, so please be careful in using the term in future. Thanks. Rockpock e  t  05:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello again. Thanks for your message. I understand you are feeling frustrated, as I expect are Daniel and Migospia. You all appear to have slightly different positions on this article, yet are struggling to reconcile these into a workable solution.
 * I happen to know Daniel pretty well and I can assure you he is a good editor with excellent intentions. I'm pretty sure Daniel's comments about you "going bezerk" were in jest (hence the smiley), nevertheless its rarely a good thing to comment on the contributor and "he wouldn't even know where to go to report someone" certainly isn't constructive. I'll have a word with Daniel, and I'm sure he will reconsider his choice of words when he cools of a bit. That said, you should also consider your actions here, avoid calling other editors good faith contributions "vandalism" and try and stay cool also. In the end this comes down to a content dispute, so I think the best solution here is tone down the accusation and counter accusations and stay focused on the content, rather than the people making the content. If there really isn't a way to resolve your differences in opinion, then consider reading Resolving disputes and see if there is something there you can agree on to move the dispute forward. Rockpock  e  t  06:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm not sure what else I can do to help you. I already counseled Daniel on how I would suggest he move forward. While his more recent comments may not be the most gracious interpretation of the situation, they are certainly not personal attacks so there is little more I can do. As he notes, there is little need for you two to interact anymore anyway so my suggestion is that you just move on, chalk this one up to experience and leave this in the past. Rockpock  e  t  05:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Conduct
I'm not really sure what you're hoping to accomplish by going to Rockpocket's talk page - as the debate is kinda over and no one has done anything block worthy, but I'm not about to use his talk page to have a convo with you because that's not exactly fair to rockpocket. Anyways, the reason I said new users apparently don't know what they're doing is because it was an accurate statement based on the dispute. Early on (like the second I saw the debate) I found that source - it was the first thing on google, and technically the first thing any editor should do in a debate like that is find another source. I let it you guys go on hoping that you would figure it out on your own - because when new editors are learning about Wikipedia, hands on expieriences are the best. Instead you guys just argued (well, eventually Migospia found sources)- which isn't what your supposed to do and which is a common mistake among newbie editors. I probably did it too when I was newer to editting, and it happens because new editors generally don't know about most of wikipedia policies or general conduct - when you become a bit more expierienced you'll probably realize that too. And as to the ten dollars comment, that was made because you were trying to discourage people from editing by threatening to report them. Since no one had done anything block worthy I realized that you didn't know what people could be reported for, and thus I realied that you wouldn't know where to report people (your supposed to go to WP:ANI - you went to an admins talk page) - but I was somewhat frustrated since you were making charges that you didn't have any idea about. So the reason I said it was because I wanted to essentially tell migospia that she shouldn't be intimidated by you allegations of vandalism and your reporting threats - and I didn't actually say that to you, I actually didn't expect you to read through our coversation - so it's hardly an attack. If you want to question anything else about what I did, you can come to my talk page and as I've been an editor for a while I can probably explain most things to you, but I'm not about to use Rockpocket's talk page meaning I'm not going to look for comments anymore. -- daniel  folsom  15:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, last time. I'm actually done because the dispute is over, like I have no idea what you think you're accomplishing at this point since you aren't arguing about the article, since again, no one has done anything block worthy, but just to let you know, I'm done - there's really no point talking to you when you obviously aren't willing to talk or do anything to solve whatever dispute you have with me - as you proved with this comment ("He's requested I come to his page and talk to him, but that's absolutely not going to happen."). -- daniel  folsom  16:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded to the relatively unfair criticism on the talk page.. daniel  folsom  05:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read Simplified Ruleset...
...before commenting on my talkpage in future. You will notice that there is an absence of the term "truth" in the said guidelines; that is because editors do not determine what is true but only report what has been said by reliable sources. No matter what the subject herself may have said in one interview, there are (now many) sources that have her saying something else. Therefore it is the practice to include all reliable sources as references. The irony is that had you agreed, as I originally suggested, that both your and Migospia's references be included that your preferred version would have been of an equal footing. As it is, your intransigience has lead to some other editors looking up references and finding that they support Migospia's position.

The fact is I know nothing, and care little more, about the subject of the article. All I know from my time here is how the guidelines, policies and rules apply to the creating of articles, and how people should conduct themselves in working in Wikipedia. Migospia was also taking an incorrect approach, but has taken the advice of several people and is now working within the guidelines. You are still adversarial, and uncivil in your conduct with other editors with whom you disagree.

If you want answers to your questions you had best learn to ask them civilly, and to show a willingness to listen to the answers and even contemplate admitting that you might be wrong. If you take this approach you may be surprised at how often people will agree with you and admit that they might be wrong; and you will then find that the articles you work on retain much of what you have written. It is up to you to take these steps. If you can do that then you may find, to your surprise, that not everybody hates Chris. LessHeard vanU 19:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Warnings
Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing.

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Nor do I care to be berated at my talkpage. Your conduct is uncivil and your demands arrogant and unjustifiable. You are the only person adhering to your interpretation of the one source you provide and, although I have gone so far as to recommend that it be included in the article, you seem incapable of editing the above article in a consensual manner. Should I find any further violations of civility, POV pushing, or edit warring I shall block you for 24 hours.

If you feel you are being incorrectly warned (or blocked, should you transgress), or have misgivings regarding my conduct, please feel free to lodge a complaint at WP:AN/I. LessHeard vanU 12:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. 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 below.

Fin of Coral
Hey don't worry about it - I was just joking to lighten the mood a bit - trust me there are a lot more annoying habits editors can pick up (uhhh ... don't get me started on those). Glad things have worked out so well! -- daniel  folsom  05:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha - nope, not in this case. Believe me I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know it's policies. There's a difference between assuming someone just came to a talk page and was trying to piss people off and assuming someone that has been doing so for a while is trying to piss people off. For example - on Wikipedia if a person vandalizes a page - we assume that a mistake was made, an accident. But if the that person keeps comming back, we actual call them a vandal. -- daniel  folsom  20:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok - you need to stop handing out punishments when you don't know wikipedia policy. You obviously don't know WP:AGF - otherwise you wouldn't even have posted that, and before you called edits vandalism (great job assuming good faith there!) when they weren't even close to vandalism. Please try to get a bit more familiar with the policy before you act like you know it all.-- daniel  folsom  20:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again - I did follow the rules - you have provided no argument to my vandalism example - and even if WP:AGF did apply (which it doesn't) - a small comment like that is nothing.-- daniel  folsom  21:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You didn't know the policies then and you apparently don't know them now, I could say more, but my above comment (the one directly above this "Again ...") and the block notice a bit above this speaks for themselves. You've had no responses to my arguments and you insist on running around and trying to tell people they've done things wrong when you don't even know what the rules are - as proven by the above.-- daniel  folsom  21:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * K now i've looked at your edits - and I realized that there's a rare example when you don't violate WP:AGF. You threatened to report User:Heisman (I think that was the username) because he asked what you wanted him to do and said that you go to the noticeboard, not the administrator's talk page for help, then you accused Rockpocket and me of having a bias, you threatened to report Migospia despite the fact that she had done nothing that could be reported on (oh, another example of how you try to discipline other users when you don't know the policy), and you did the same with me. -- daniel  folsom  21:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My concern about your username
Hello, EverybodyHatesChris, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:
 * If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
 * If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as asking for a "third opinion", or requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
 * You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Changing username and follow the guidelines there.

Let me reassure you that my writing here means I don't think your username is grossly, blatantly, or obviously inappropriate; such names get reported straight to Usernames for administrator attention or blocked on sight. This is more a case where opinions might differ, and it would be good to reach some consensus — either here or at Requests for comment/User names. So I look forward to a friendly discussion, and to enjoying your continued participation on Wikipedia. Thank you. RJASE1 Talk  04:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

hello RJASE1, hahaha, I totally understand where you're coming from with the word "Hate" in my username. I chose this username because my favorite television show is Everybody Hates Chris. Geeze, I would hope any administrator would ban me or anyone else who was trying to insult a user in such a way. However, I hope you don't have a problem with me using this name. I don't know anyone named Chris here on wikipedia and I am not trying to insult anyone. :) Thanx for approaching me so kindly! EverybodyHatesChris 04:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand - there's currently a discussion of your username at WP:RFCN. RJASE1 Talk  04:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha, np! Thank you for letting me know RJASE1. EverybodyHatesChris 08:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Allegations
The problem is while trying to calm things down you actually heat them up. You need to understand WP:CIVIL before you tell editors you'll report them, you also need to understand what can be reported on because right now you're saying you'll report them for incivility when they either haven't done anything wrong or they've done such a minor thing that it's not worth reporting. Also, if you ever do have to report someone - don't go to an admin's talk page - go to WP:ANI - which is the admin's noticeboard - but you'll rarely have to go there - I've never even gone onto that page and I've been editing wikipedia for a while. -- daniel  folsom  00:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * EHC has already found his way to AN/I, see here. Rockpock  e  t  02:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Uhh.. sure I guess .. haha, thanks for the barn-star I guess - I'm actually unfamiliar with the Barn-star project, but that's good that you've managed to involve yourself in something like that. I'm actually in a uber-panic/rush mode right now, so I gotta run - but I'll def. see you around.-- daniel  folsom  14:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

From Migospia
"You don't say either one Daniel. Both are uncivil comments. Both are unconstructive comments. Insulting newcomers is not a way to lessen the incivility of your remarks EverybodyHatesChris 17:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)"
 * a) It was a comment made to Rockpocket b) you reported/threatened to report 20 people - don't even try to tell me about incivility.-- daniel  folsom  18:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

re "Trolling"
I would advise you that I have posted a comment, asking for clarification, at WP:AN  possible trolling? LessHeard vanU 22:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Block
It's obvious to me that you are no longer here to write an encyclopedia. The last 200 or so contributions from you are complaining about another user in one way or another, and as such I have blocked you. As with any block, you may seek an appeal with unblock.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 03:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You blocked me?! Well, why would you do that?! I'm a little confused. I never trolled. The reason I was complaining about them is because my situation never received a response on the administrative noticeboards. They only went there because I did first because I had a problem with them. I really don't think you should have blocked me, but if that's how you feel... EverybodyHatesChris 03:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you at least look at why I was complaining about Lessheard? EverybodyHatesChris 03:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * EHC - if you want the block to be removed I think you can really do one of two things:
 * Challenge the block itself - say that the block was unfair and it shouldn't have happened (NOT reccomended)
 * Go over the list of grievences, look at some of your debates (like the ani with rockpocket and some of the links mentioned there, and the ani with you, and anything else you can think of) and try to find what you have done wrong - then maybe in a day you should type a fairly long thing (It should be maybe 8 sentences at least I would think) on the mistakes you made and how you're going to make sure you'll not make them again. If you take the time to do this and you do it well - then I'll help edit it and then you can put the template on it - while there's no gaurentee that the block will be removed, it's a start, and I'll do everything I can for you assuming you're willing to put in the effort.
 * Good Luck -- daniel  folsom  04:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Dammit! I feel terrible. Don't do anything for me, Daniel. I don't deserve it. You were my friend and I didn't treat you like one and for that I feel terrible. I've been acting like a backstabbing, untrustworthy son of a b the entire time I've been here and I need to be blocked and learn that I can't treat you that way. That was so sweet of you. I'm so sorry, Daniel. :( Oh well, I guess I'll have to find a new hobby while friends are out of town. ECH is out. Everyone celebrate, especially you Daniel. You have had to put up with me the most. Perhaps I liked your attention too much and would do anything to get it, Daniel. : / Happy editing all! EverybodyHatesChris 04:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)