User talk:Spawn Man/Archive11

to a Fungi FA.......
You really reckon Amanita muscaria is more of a way off FAC than Tuber (genus)? Oh well, I prefer the first one emotionally but if you reckon it's pretty clear then.....

PS: Peter Werner has suggested saffron as a current Featured Article to model stuff on.Cas Liber 03:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

PPS: How come you reckon Amanita muscaria is such a ways off - wanna add to the to-do list on either/both talk pages?Cas Liber 03:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I forgot - the other article that is on the way to FA is Yeast, which, though not an official collaboration still qualifies as a fungus :)Cas Liber 04:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your message. I appreciate it but you really didn't owed me an apology. I hope the real life problems sort themselves out. Cheers, Sarah 05:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Compsognathus is the new dino collaboration chosen
OK, there's a theropod for yuo after a truckload of planteaters......:) Cas Liber 23:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

MfD discussion
For your note, I've relisted your Reviews page on MfD due to violations of WP:CANVASS last time around. The page is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Spawn Man/Reviews. - M ask 08:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There, that sorted it all out... ;) Spawn Man 09:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there we go. I wasn't making accusations, really, because that policy had yet to be fully fleshed out at the time, so no real harm, but I felt with it now fully in place, it deserved a reconsideration :) - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 11:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey Spawn,

Thanks for reworking the Dinosaur articles by size page. Much improved! As you can see from that list, Compsognathus still needs a lot of work to catch up to the other collaborations. Anything you can do to help out the little guy is greatly appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Spawn Man!
 * Thank you for reviewing Scelidosaurus. I appreciate the time you took to review it and leave notes. I do worry, however, about the possible conflict of interest (or the appearance of such). This is the first Good Article which was reviewed within the WikiProject. I trust your judgement, but I worry that those outside the project may see the promotion as a conflict of interest. Yikes! What shall we do? Firsfron of Ronchester  00:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Anyway, thank you for reviewing the article. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester  03:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just curious
I just saw this and at first I figured you must be talking about me because of your recent behaviour and the note I left on your talk page and the following incidents involving you and User:Bob The Lemming. However, the part about "they delete & block without warning & think they are above the law" didn't fit (in 3+ months as an admin I only have blocked 13 times and I pretty much never do speedy deletes), so I wasn't sure. Maybe you mixed comments you intended to direct at me with general comments? Ah well, doesn't really matter—I was just curious. —Doug Bell talk 16:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My dear Doug Bell, why would I talk about you? I find it funny that you assume I was making my broad statements about you, when I've put all our differences behind us. Why, you are an example of an admin to modelled upon. Thanks for the message, I always like a new discussion, but in this case, you are mistaken... Thanks, Spawn Man 21:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for clearing that up. I think I can guess who you were talking about then.  Cheers, —Doug Bell talk 21:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fake message bar
I see you put back the fake "You have new messages" bar. Perhaps you weren't aware that these are officially discouraged. —Doug Bell talk 21:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, and it fooled me. But what's the point?Shawn in Montreal 22:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing. I just like the soothing colour. Plus it provides a link to my user boxes & it amuses me whenever I read someone's brain waves that I fooled them... Spawn Man 22:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting...
I found this article very interesting. Just thought I'd share that with you. This was a very special moment... ;) Spawn Man 22:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that article is Dinoguy's baby, and we encouraged him to send it to Good article review. It easily passed, of course. If you have a dinosaur you really like (I know you like the theropods) which needs improvement but which already contains a lot of material (Allosaurus, Spinosaurus, etc), you might consider sending it to WP:GA after some improvements.
 * For the record, I once fell for the orange message bar on your user page, but only because I had just received a message, so there were two message bars, and I clicked on the wrong one. Happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester  00:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from posting on my talk page again
Your passive-aggressive comment on my talk page was rather bizarre given I had already made it very clear on that page that I am not leaving Wikipedia. So you can stop your sick gloating and wringing your hands in glee. I'm really not interested in any of your comments or your opinions about me or anyone or anything else. They are most unwelcome on my talk page and I see no reason whatsoever for you to post there. So please refrain from posting on my talk page again. Sarah 03:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This was completely out of line. Grow up Glen 07:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes sir. May I note though, that those phrase were in fact phrase you said to me. When I said they were uncivil, you did indeed say they were not. So how is it, when you say they are not uncivil, that you don't like it when you are on the recieving end of the same comments. I will grow up, but I suggest you admit you did wrong & accept that you made regretful, uncivil comments that are hurtful & that you shouldn't have said them considering you are an admin. That is all. :) Spawn Man 07:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's all about context. First, I said "Spawn has blown this completely out of proportion and made it into a big drama. While that's not exactly a new thing for Spawn", which while you may not like it, was an accurate statement.  I said "Everything is about you, isn't it? You go on and on (without actually going) and it's all about you...", which I admit is not particularly civil, however, it was more civil than many things you had said to that point, and it needed to be said.  Where is context for your statement to Sarah? —Doug Bell talk 08:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you owe Sarah and apology. However, I suggest you leave it here since she's asked you not to comment on her talk page anymore. —Doug Bell talk 08:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Spawn Man, I will apologise the second you show me a single diff where I've said just ONE of the these lines to you. And as for your question Do you & Sarah have a thing for each other? This is precisely the level of maturity I'm coming to expect from you... absolutely unreal. Glen 08:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well by you, I meant the whole group that was ganging up on me at the time. I can post an apology on Sarah's talk page if I want as long as I'm civil. Unless there's some new law against posting nice comments on people's talk pages? I thank you Doug for admitting that you were less than civil. You unfortunately are the only one. Glen, it was just a harmless query as you do seem to like each other? All of you should know by now that I do most things without thinking. The issues from the fight earlier were largely unresolved for me, but Doug Bell's apology (Which I'll take on behalf of all of you) is very welcome & really all I wanted. It has cleared up the unresolved issues & I'm pretty sure I can go on editing normally now. Thanks people. Spawn Man 03:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Vipassana
Man, I told you........give yourself some time before posting on user talk pages or getting into hot water discussing admins and then having to devote more time to ...whatever. Still, very entertaining but there are loads of near FAs beggin' for ya. cheers Cas Liber 06:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, that? That wasn't anything serious. She took my comment the wrong way. Spawn Man 07:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well at least you got to Support Iggy - see you in 24hrs. And remember, articles only..cheers Cas Liber 09:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: It always amuses me how you tend to put out a fire with keroseneCas Liber 09:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Kerosene smells nicer. See you in 24 hours... :) Spawn Man 03:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your |talk page by adding the text. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. You have been blocked for 24 hours for incivility in these comments. —Doug Bell talk 08:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't that incivil. Sure the first one was, but after that I wasn't really. I made my point. I'll accept your punishment. Not much more I can say. Ya got me there... Spawn Man 03:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. Aren't admins meant to give warnings to users if they see unfitting behaviour. You have given me no such warnings. How am I expected to know when I'm crossing the line when no admin sees fit to advise me what would happen if I continue on such a self destructive & perplexing path to blockage? Spawn Man 03:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess you'll have to stay right well away from the line, just to be safe. That's what everyone else does. Hesperian 04:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll answer your question regarding warnings. Since this is a continuation of the previous interactions between you, Glen, Sarah and others, I consider that you have already been warned regarding your incivil behavior.  Additionally, I regret not having blocked you earlier in that incident as I think that that might have perhaps prevented some of the incivility, and some of the bad feelings that resulted for you with how the entire matter concluded.  I seriously hope that this short (and I really hope not too short) period to cool down and reflect will allow you time to reconsider the path you seem bent on taking. —Doug Bell talk 05:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I never replied to your note
I know this is probably going to do squat for my reputation now (Not that I ever really had one), but I thought I'd leave a note of apology to everyone involved in my recent actions. An explaination is in order too. First off, I had a bad real life situation, that I really don't want to talk about, on the day this all started. I shouldn't have edited on Wikipedia afterwards, but I did. When I saw the situation with Riana's RfA, it kind of set off a build up of unvented anger at my situation & it was un needed. My whole tyraid had very little to do with the RfA, but I guess I took it out on that angle anyway. The way I was handled could have been better, but I wont go there in threat of making this sound like a back handed apology. My apologies go to Riana, who was also having a real life crisis at the time too. Basically the whole thing was a misunderstanding & venting process which I involved you all in. In regard to the whole sock puppetry thing, I had told my brother about my problems in due trust & he went & did something stupid on here. I don't really know what else to say but sorry. If that & a little bit of hard work repairing relationships on here doesn't change your current view point of me, then I don't think anything will. So again, sorry if I've inconvenienced you guys in any way & I hope that over time you'll think better of me. I'd love if you guys could forgive & hopefully forget & I wasn't really in control of myself these past few days. Hopefully things can get back to normal.

I can forgive you. :) I've made similar mistakes on other web sites so I know how you feel/felt. :) &mdash; $PЯINGrαgђ  17:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Humor is good
This is a better approach. :-) —Doug Bell talk 01:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Spawn Man 02:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Archaeopteryx
I'd very much like to nominate Archaeopteryx for FAC. However, I know it is nowhere near the standard needed. I've done some reworking & thoguht that nothing would be better than a 3 person collaboration. The article is truly a mess. It is very important to all aspects of paleontolgy etc, & deserves a better article. Iguanodon is going superbly with little to none on the task list for it, so I see no reason why you'd not be able to lend a hand. I was hoping for myself, Cas & you to be able to work on it at least to sorta suitable standard. I've made a start, but am nowhere near as capable as you guys. If the day ever did come to nominate, I'd love to do that as well & I will help out heaps to earn that right. I just don't think I have the right knowledge to do a techinical rewrite of the subject like you two do. Any help or responses will be much appreciated. :) Spawn Man 03:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Spawn Man!
 * I'm so glad to see you in the collaborative mood I haven't honestly seen you in since the Velociraptor or Tyrannosaurus collaborations! Coming this soon after your block, I'm flat-out amazed.
 * I would absolutely love to help out with Archie. Collaborating with you (and Ballista and the rest) on several articles (Velociraptor sticks out in my mind) was a lot of fun. I'm still trying to put out fires slowly growing around Iguanodon (someone wants it rewritten and comments on the FAC talk page may invalidate several of our !votes of support), and the current collaboration is actually Compsognathus, which ArthurWeasley has poured his heart and soul into (he tripled the size of the article!). Between all these projects, I'm not sure how much of a help I will be. Yet because you're so enthusiastic, I can't really say no.
 * Also: You just don't give yourself enough credit. You nearly singlehandedly got Dinosaur to Featured status: the very first dinosaur Featured Article. There's no reason you should claim you don't have the "right knowledge"; you just need to believe in yourself and try to work collaboratively, as you did on the earlier FACs. Also: Dinoguy is totally a theropod-bird guy, and I bet his help would be invaluable. And J.Spencer's a dynamo who gets more accomplished in a day than I do in a week. Did you see all his edits today? Anyway, this message has gone on too long. Yes, I will help, if I can. Firsfron of Ronchester  03:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've started inline reffing and split the intro into 3 paras all of which need expanding pronto before someone adjusts them back. Juggling a bit meself - Kakapo looks safe, Iguanodon looks over the line, other folk are happy working on Compsognathus, which is lucky as Amanita muscaria (which is the one I wanna get over the line) still needs alot of tweaking. The truffles I can't get excited about really, the first fungus article really likely to get FA is Yeast, so I am sure they'd appreciate a copyedit too..........Anyway, I like the bird too so will do bits as I can. cheers Cas Liber 04:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK (I just got 2 orange bars at the top of yer talk page...hmmmm took me a while to figure that one out) - you keep doing the inlining and can you vote on the next collab (break a few ties?), I'll do some on Archie later. cheers Cas Liber 04:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! :) Spawn Man 04:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't really started on the article, yet, but give me some time. I've found some material I'd like to include, but just had my mid-terms today. Firsfron of Ronchester  04:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm done for tonight, but will continue to add material and refs tomorrow. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester  05:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hardest questtions in the world
Get back on it, buddo! I'm getting impatient! ;) &mdash; $PЯINGrαgђ  03:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Archie and headers
Did you see the note on where collab tags should go as well? Had thought about something funky with signature but couldn't be arsed really - just figured I liked a contrib and talk tag for utility. cheers, Casliber | talk  |  contribs 03:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding how i came across your page
I think I came across your page while browsing the ref desk. I found another user who had a comment by you. I love looking at userpages! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shindo9Hikaru (talk • contribs) 01:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Kewl.... :) Spawn Man 01:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007
The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 16:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales
Hello, Mr. Spawn Man. I see that you signed my autograph book with Jimbo Wales's signature. Very crafty. Please, don't do that again as it is very annoying and most users find it very bad etiquette. -- Cremepuff222 ( talk,  sign book ) 20:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not sign other peoples names. This is misleading and disruptive.  Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have read your talk page. Signing another editors name is crossing the line.  This is notice that if you do it again, you will be blocked for it.  Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh come on. It was an autograph book, it was a joke.  It's not like he was trying to impersonate Jimbo making some statement in order to add undeserved credibility.  It was a joke.  Lighten up people. —Doug Bell talk 21:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously Chrislk02, lighten up, it was a recurring joke, not a serious impersonation. — Moe  22:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Geez! Thanks guys for sticking up for me. I was joking, as I saw a couple of other users placing the same joke on their autograph books & since Cremepuff wanted jimbo to sign, I thought I'd be nice & sign it for him (Like santa's helpers...). Never knew you people would take a kind gesture so seriously. No need threaten me Chris. Ah well... Spawn Man 22:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Overreaction?
Okay, first I am not a girl. Second, after browsing through your talk page, it seems that I'm not the only one that's a little annoyed of your childplay. You were warned multiple times about not signing with another's user name, so honestly, I think that you brought this ordeal onto yourself. I don't see why the assuming good faith article needs to be dragged into this, but I think that you should take a look at Etiquette or at least Civility/ --Cremepuff222  ( talk,  sign book ) 22:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, just because someone else is doing something, it doesn't mean that you should too. --Cremepuff222  ( talk,  sign book ) 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Erm, you are mistaken Cremepuff, as I was only warned of signing names after the fact. My previous "child's plays" are none of your concern my dear Cremepuffy. You did indeed overreact, & I explained that I was only trying to make you happy by fufilling your wish. I was civil & my etiquette was impecible. AGF was brough tin because you asumed that I was impersonating for any reason otehr than my actual intentions of 1) Making a joke, 2) Trying to make your day. Spawn Man 22:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have something against girls? I saw your comments on the administrator's notice board. You seem to think that girls have a small outer skin. This, in my opinion, makes me wonder what else you've done. Anyway, this argument is really stupid, so I'm withdrawing. --Cremepuff222 ( talk,  sign book ) 22:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No I don't have anything against girls. In fact I worship the very ground girls tred their hallowed feet on. ;) But yes, in my experience, girls named Cremepuff or any kind of puff for that matter, do seem to have more volatile feelings. This is no different to my past findings. "This, in my opinion, makes me wonder what else you've done"... Not sure what this means. If you want me to say Yep, sure I go around being a sexist & woman hating pig in most of my free time, then you will be disappointed. Don't worry Cremepuff, you don't have to worry about big bad Spawn Man when you're walking down a dimly lit wikialley late at night... ;) I'm glad your withdrawing stating this argument as silly - You've taken my point of view & I'll take that as a victory on my side... Spawn Man 22:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to rejoin this argument.


 * (What an appropriate user name - Cremepuff) happy in a round-about way:what's this supposed to mean? And what's with you saying I'm insane? You know, just because I'm named after a dessert, it doesn't mean that I am stupid. I can check your contributions, your editting, etc. And, I haven't talken your point of view. You're taking this ordeal as some sort of war (I'm referring to you saying that it was a victory on your side). On top of that, your previous statement makes you sound like a pervert. --Cremepuff222  ( talk,  sign book ) 22:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ooo, a pervert now? You really are hurting my feelings. I'm not going to engage in this kind of outright incivilty here that you are creating. I'm meaning what I said above, Cremepuffs usually get their feelings hurt easily. My obsevations have proven me right with your descent into calling me a pervert. I have never called you insane or stupid. Yes, it is a kind of war, & you accepted my side's notion, that this argument is silly. That means you agreed with my ideas, which means I am correct. Funnily, you are correct too, as you are agreeing with me. "On top of that, your previous statement makes you sound like a pervert". Hmmm, that's a new one. My previous statement was in regard to what you said - "This, in my opinion, makes me wonder what else you've done." Your statement was wierd & sounded like you were calling me a wierdo or something. I simply put those thoughts to rest with a bit of a joke by saying you don't have to worry about my in a wikialley. This is ironic, as Wikipedia has no alleys, in fact, not even a main road. So there you go, not getting my humour again... AGF Cremepuff... Spawn Man 22:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There you go again! I AM NOT STUPID! --Cremepuff222 ( talk,  sign book ) 22:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hold the bus. Point out one sentence up there where I call you stupid? I'm confused by your capitalised remarks Cremepuff... Spawn Man 22:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Arg. You seem to think that I need every "joke" explained to me. I am quitting since you feel that more users like Doug Bell need to join in. Hope to never see you again! --Cremepuff222 ( talk,  sign book ) 23:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And don't you dare tell me what "hold the bus" means. --Cremepuff222  ( talk,  sign book ) 23:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well you don't seem to get my jokes, so I'm explaining them carefully so you don't have me up for sexual harassment or anything, which you seem to be alluding to above. I only asked Doug (Who is not someone I'd use as a "Join in buddy" - merely an admin I respect), to comment towards you as you were calling me a pervert - which I might add I take extreme offense to. However, I'm not going to post it on the incident's board as I assume good faith & I know Cremepuff would possibly mean that I was a pervert now would she? Thanks, & I'm saddened you wish not to see me again - we were just getting to know each other.. Thansk for agreeing with me & leaving. Spawn Man 23:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh & since you asked, hold the bus means.... ;) Spawn Man 23:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

re:Jimbo "impersonation" fiasco...
You're welcome :) — Moe  23:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sorry!
Looking back at this, I should have kept my cool. For that, I extend my apologies to the deepest part of my heart, soul, and kidney. Let's just put this begind us, okay? :) --Cremepuff222  ( talk,  sign book ) 23:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well maybe not your kidney... I accept. Spawn Man 23:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Woo, hoo! Let's be friends! CHEERS FOR SPAWN AND CREME! (as long as we don't have to eat it...ick) ;) --Cremepuff222  ( talk,  sign book ) 00:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

=To Spawnman=
 * In your previous entries, I have noted several account of you implying that Cremepuff is stupid. Also, imperonating someone without their permission is a crime that is illegal! Doing so is childish and you need to apoligize to Cremepuff, and not the other way around! And if you send me back a reply that is implying that I stupid I will report you to the Wikipedia authorities!

-User:Chiefsfan364 |User_talk:Chiefsfan364 00:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, what on earth. If your friend has let it go, you can too. Stop bothering Spawn. – riana_dzasta 00:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing against Spawnman, but he still needs to stop impersonating people. Someday, this is going to catch up to him. I know his intentions were good, but, come on! --User:Chiefsfan364 |User_talk:Chiefsfan364 01:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

ROFL cheers, Casliber | talk  |  contribs 01:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It was a joke. Lighten up :) – riana_dzasta 01:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm.... I never implied at all that Cremepuff was stupid. I may have implied that her feelings were volatile, but never stupid. I think you've come in halfway through a situation & created your own conclusions about an already solved problem. I've already apologised & so has Cremepuff, so I see no reason to continue this conversation. The impersonation thing has already been explained & I did it all of one time. You make it sound like I'm a serial impersonator. "Someday, this is going to catch up to him" 1) Is this a threat? 2) If so, I look forward to it. Thaks for your message Chiefsfan... Spawn Man 01:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems this user was spurred on by this message from cremepuff - "Hello, fan. I really, really need help with something. Please go here. I seems that I am not smart enough to make a point.." Almost sockpuppet sort of behaviour... Spawn Man 01:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Your Comment
I don't care if you were referring to Cremepuff222 with that comment you left on my talk page, do not draw me into that argument, I've seen it &mdash; it's pointless and you're losing. ~ St ep tr ip 02:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, with all due respect, this dispute has ended a while ago, so let's just put it behind us. --Cremepuff222  ( talk,  sign book ) 02:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. If anyone tries to get you with what I've said, I'll take the blame. --Cremepuff222 ( talk,  sign book ) 02:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I must apologize as well, I wasn't looking at both sides of the argument. ~ St ep tr ip  03:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

=Terribly Sorry...= Spawn Man, this is that "angry user". I did not call you a pervert and do not think you are one. I am sorry if I made you angry, I was just a little upset about your actions. I personally know Cremepuff, and was trying to defend him, and had not known that the argument had been resolved. Please don't take it out on Cremepuff. If you want to get mad at someone, get mad at me.User:Chiefsfan364 |User_talk:Chiefsfan364 18:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Spawn Man?
The message you saw left by Cremepuff was left before the argument was resolved. I did not know that it had ended as such, and left a completely idiotic comment. Sorry. :( Chiefsfan364 (talk 19:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)