User talk:Tonetare


 * /Archive 1

Leah Remini
I edited that material out again - so the question is why?

Your edit was:

''Leah Remini recently appeared on MTV Cribs, revealing her beautiful mansion and the fact that she is just as hilarious in real life as she is on her hit show. Leah has a sort of tough gal tomboyishness about her in real life, with a hilarious wit.''

Let's say I saw the same show and decided to write:

''Leah Remini recently appeared on MTV Cribs, revealing her over the top and vile mansion and the fact that she is a bit of a bitch, just as she is on her hit show. Leah has a sort of slutty needy vibe about her in real life, she is also very unfunny.''

Which one is correct? Both contain one fact that we can verfy and the rest is purely POV chuff.

--Charlesknight 20:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You entirely missed the point I was trying to put across to you. In both examples, the only bit that we can verify is "leah Remini recent appeared on MTV Cribs", the rest is our personal viewpoint and neither have any place in a wikipedia article. We are not writing puff-pieces for people. I'll deal with your Coral Smith issues below. --Charlesknight 07:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Mikedk9109
The user has retired from wiki, which solves any problems. If you have any future troubles, you are welcome to report them on my talk page, but please provide precise evidence by citing diffs. To record a diff, find the edit in the edit history and copy the URL at the top of the page. Then put a square bracket either end, as in this example:  Tyrenius 20:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive
Please don't delete comments from your talk page as you just did. You should archive them instead. Simply cut and paste the talk into your archive page (which you can open by clicking on the link at the top of this page). Leave a note in the edit summary that this is what you have done. Tyrenius 20:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't feel otherwise about the situation, but there was no need to investigate it, as the user has left wikipedia. Also, as I mentioned above, I found your response to be OK, so :). Yes, it is a general thing not to delete talk, but you can archive it, as I did before. Tyrenius 23:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

PS the edit to 'that article' is still in place. I think the reference has protected it. References are always good! Tyrenius 00:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've archived the material you deleted. If this is not OK, let me know and I'll put it back on this page. Better that you get in touch with me if you need to, than to get yourself in trouble! Tyrenius 00:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep! But I don't want to be inadvertently offensive to you on your page. Tyrenius 00:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You have a good attitude, so work hard, learn a lot and end up one yourself, one day... Tyrenius 00:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it's frustrating when someone edits material you've done a lot of work on and comments about it, but I recommend you take notice of such things and work with the editor, as it will help you to improve. What you are writing would be fine for a fan site, but there's some requirements about wikipedia that mean it needs to be edited quite a lot. It might be easier if you made smaller edits for now to get the hang of exactly how to get it right, or, if you start an article, make it a stub with just the basic information and see how that goes, before you spend more time on it. Make sure you don't say rude things about other people, please. And enjoy your mother's birthday. Tyrenius 00:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What sort of friend would someone be if they didn't tell you the truth, and just said you were right, even if you were getting something wrong? Would that help anyone? Tyrenius 04:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about all of that, and you've got to understand I have a lot of things to deal with, but the article does need cleaning up and written in an encyclopedic manner from the basic information you've provided. If you have a problem, then supply me with the diffs. Then I can check it out easily. Tyrenius 04:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how he's talking. I just saw the last edit. As I said more than once: supply me with the diffs!!!! Tyrenius 04:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to want me to do all the work. Is that right? Why don't you go into the history and supply me with the links. I am not, believe it or not, superman, and I can't do everything! Tyrenius 04:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki can be dispiriting at times. One solution is to start your own website. Then you can put on whatever you want. Free ones from www.geocities.com Tyrenius 05:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It's quite normal to have discussions on different pages, and that was where you left the message, so I presumed you were following it. If you want to leave, you can just stop editing, or you can exercise "right to vanish", when your user and talk pages will be deleted (but can be revived). Maybe just leave it for a time and see how you feel. Tyrenius 15:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly as you say, he has acknowledged and apologised, so the matter is settled and I don't need to do anything. I don't look for trouble and I don't make trouble when I don't have to. Chill. Tyrenius 15:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: Charlesknight never apologized. He acknowledged his rudeness and justified it. Tonetare 23:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I need your help
Mike's back at it again, using bad faith edit summaries. See the history of his talkpage for details. The IP is Mike's. ForestH2  t/c 00:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think were going to let the Arbcom take care of this. ForestH2  t/c 01:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry evidence deleted. He was attacking me, you can see my userpage; for examples; but the real evidence in which he reverted what I did on his talkpage had words such as "faggot" "fuck" an "ass" in them. ForestH2  t/c 02:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, just take a week break or something and then return. Mike was blocked for a week. I'm taking a vacation starting Wednesday so you can fill me up on what happens during my trip when I get back. ForestH2  t/c 03:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Chancy. Most likely won't be on. Can you log on at 14:30 (UTC) tommorow to talk? I'll be on then. ForestH2  t/c 03:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just fancy a talk whenever you can. I will most likely be on all day as today. You know I've made an edit every hour since 14:00 (UTC)? ForestH2  t/c 03:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. And I'll see what I can do about your other dispute as I'll be on until 03:30, most likely so that's half and hour. ForestH2  t/c 03:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Coral Smith
OK let's deal with your problems one by one.

'''your edit summaries and edits to my Coral Smith page were out of nothing but little petty revenge because I reverted your edits to Leah Remini. You would have no reason to go visit a page that you didn't watch the show of.'''

OK - this is what happened, when I interact with someone I check out their user contribution history to see what sort of material they are working on. I might then make some edits. As for me never watching the show - there is something you need to understand, many many editors work on articles about things that they have never seen or don't watch because they are trying to get the article upto the standard of an encyclopedia. I've recently been editing a lot of BSG pages - why? Because they were in a poor condition and came to my attention after my interactions with another user.

'''You must have intentionally went through my history to see if there was something you could change. I'm not an idiot. Then you made those little rude comments on the edit summary pages.'''

Yes as I have just explained - I did look at the edit history to see what else you had been working on. You could be correct on the edit history comments and I'll work on that. None of them are actually incorrect however.

'''No one else has ever complained about that page accept you. Everyone else made good friendly contributions and then you forced your opinion in there. You didn't even watch the show as you said yourself.'''

Again - that makes no different AT ALL in regards to me copyediting. I also think you should read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN which states ''You can't stop everyone in the world from editing

"your" stuff, once you've posted it to Wikipedia. As each edit page clearly states:

If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. [emphasis added] ''

And I told Tyrenius on you.

OK - this is what I want you to do - get Tyrenius to read what I have put here and see what he/she thinks. I notice that when you reverted all my changes to the article, they changed it back to my last previous version - does that tell you something about the standard of the article. --Charlesknight 08:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

'''He probably didn't want to help because he noticed you had vandal proof. I was like 'wat the heck' at first because he didn't even give you any warning or anything for your ridiculous and rude edit summaries like he is always doing. then I realized you had the vandalproof.'''

I'm not sure what difference it makes that I have vandal-proof, it's not some magic armour that protects me from admin action. If I'm in the wrong, action needs to be taken.

That's the only reason if anything, anybody would take your side in this matter and refrain from talking to you about your behavior and edits.

OK, let's get down to the nub of the issue, my removal of your material. Let's take a look at some of the material I've removed.

''Coral mentioned she didn't participate in the challenge after the beginning of 2005 because she found out about some proactive bitches already plotting and alliancing to to take her out. Who they were was never exactly specified, however Coral did lay into Tonya Cooley at one point about it.''

You really think that's of the standard that would appear in a encyclopedia? (I also think it's nice how you complain to me "I am christian and do not speak and behave in such a colorful, rude manner as you do." and then use the word "bitches" in an article - nice double standard you have there).

How they think their smack-talk

Again, do you think that is of the tone and standard that should appear in an encyclopedia? I could go on and on.

Am I being very blunt about this? Yes I am, I've found that on wikipedia, the softy-softy approach does not really seem to work and it's best to be polite but brutally honest with other editors. I would give you the same suggestion that was given to me when I first arrived at Wikipedia. Make small contributions and edits to existing articles until you get the hand of what is expected in terms of language and tone.

If you still think I'm bullying you in some manner, I suggest you take it to an administrator and see what they think.

--Charlesknight 08:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are planning to leave that is entirely your concern - however I would suggest the following if you are going to stay, you said I was just going to go ahead and thank you for helping out my page. You really need to come to come to terms with WP:OWN. As soon as you add something to a page, it belows to the community, it's not "your" page. If you are unable to come to terms with this, Wikipedia is not the place for you. --Charlesknight 14:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on ForestH2's talkpage
''I am dealing with another asshole named Charlesknight and admins are not helping with anything. In fact, my supposed friend administrator sided against me which is crap. You can only count on yourself around here. Charlesknight is such a dick''

''Oh great, the dickwod, I am having a problem with is armed with vandalproof. No wonder the admin sided against me. I can't stand wikipedia because of the losers that cause trouble and get there way like Mikedk9109 and Charlesknight.''

I am willing to let those comments slide at the present moment BUT any repeat and I will move for a block by admin.

--Charlesknight 08:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Feedback
Charlesknight is an experienced editor, who has made valid points. It is an opportunity to learn, so please study carefully what he has said. It's not an admin's job to stick up for friends. It's an admin's job to be objective and fair to all users to help improve the encyclopedia. Tyrenius 08:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Accidental posting
I think you accidentally put this on my talk page while you were writing some song lyrics or something. Please be careful! It could easily get you blocked. Tyrenius 18:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't block you because you're my friend, of course, and I realised you were feeling bad. Hey, a word in your ear &mdash; we all feel like that sometimes, eh? . I think it's going to be difficult for you on wiki, and you'll have to take the knocks, but the more you do, the more you learn. If you stick at it, it'll pay off eventually, but if you're really not happy, then don't force yourself. Maybe drop in every now and then for a small edit... Tyrenius 20:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Pleasure. I'm nice. You be nice to someone else (when they're not expecting it), and it gets passed round. Yep, there's all the "rules". That's why it's best to take it slowly and learn from others. That way you get to be good at it yourself, and one day you'll be teaching others &mdash; but there's a lot to master. Big achievements don't come overnight. Tyrenius 22:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

An outside opinion
Hi there. I saw your post to the Administrator's Noticeboard and thought I might be able to help you with your problem. You seem like an energetic and knowledgeable editor, and have made an impressive amount of contributions in your short time here. I believe the problem you are having with Charlesknight is merely a misunderstanding that could be resolved quickly.

First, I understand your complaint that you felt Charles' edit summaries were disrespectful to content you had added to the encyclopedia. This is a perfectly normal feeling for new editors to have. To deal with these kinds of feelings, Wikipedia has several policies. One is Ownership of articles. This policy states that when you add content to Wikipedia you must be prepared for other people to change, expand, or even erase it. This means that you should under no circumstances take edits to content you have added personally, since once you add it to the encyclopedia it is open to change. If someone deletes something you added, with an edit summary of, for example, "Unnecessary", you may be tempted to take it as an insult. But understand that it has nothing to do with you, and instead make your argument as to why the information should be included.

Another very important policy on Wikipedia is Assume good faith. This policy states that when someone edits a page you should always assume that they are attempting to improve the encyclopedia, our common goal. Even if you think the edit was dumb, or incorrect, or made for another reason, you must behave as though the edit was made in good faith. For example, when you stated that Charles was editing Coral Smith as revenge you did not assume good faith. Even if you were 100% correct as to his motivations this would be a violation of policy.

Finally, No personal attacks is a policy that is taken very seriously around here. Let's say you are involved in a discussion on a talk page with a user who is entirely incorrect and is making specious and illogical arguments. You may be very tempted to call him a "moron" or question his mental facilities. Unfortunately, this would be a personal attack, an insult to the editor as a person, and thus against policy. Even if you are completely correct in your argument, using personal attacks will be severely looked down on by other editors. Likewise, referring to someone as an "a--hole", even if you are just venting your feelings, is not allowed on Wikipedia, and if it is brought to the attention of an administrator could result in a warning or block.

Wikipedia has these strict policies to avoid degrading into one giant flamewar, a very common occurence on other Internet sites due to the percieved anonymity of online interaction. All editors must not only always act in good faith and refrain from personal attacks, they must assume that others are doing the same, even if they feel differently.

I hope I have been some help to you, and I look forward to your continued presence on Wikipedia. I am going to move your comments from Wikipedia_talk:Administrator's noticeboard to Administrator's noticeboard, since the former page is only for discussion of the Noticeboard itself. If you have any more questions or comments for me don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Happy editing. --Nscheffey 02:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on the adminstrator noticeboard
I have responded to your comments on the Admin noticeboard. --Charlesknight 08:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, I see you are having problems with another user. Perhaps WP:RFAR will solve it. ForestH2 t/c 00:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Then add a request for abitration at WP:RFAR and they will solve it. ForestH2  t/c 00:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thank god there is something I can do about this troublesome Charlesknight. So I go to that page and WP:RFAR and just discuss the problem I am having or what exactly. Thanx by the way. Tonetare 00:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

See WP:AP for there policies. ForestH2 t/c 01:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See, go to WP:RFAR and you'll see the format. Ask me to fill it out for you should you need any help. You will need to give me the infromation about the case. I can also make a statement. Also see WP:DR before doing this. ForestH2  t/c 01:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't you tell him that it will get bounced unless it's been through all of the following stages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes

--Charlesknight 08:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I cannot say I'm concerned about WP:RFAR, However I WILL move for a block if you continue to make claims about edits and statements from me that never occured. If you quote someone, you quote what they said, not what you would have liked them to say or what you think will make the better case for you. (such as your last post on the Administrator noticeboard. that is know as "lying". --Charlesknight 08:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well yes WP:DR is the same as the link above that you put. I'm not in the middle of this so I don't know what's going on but Tonetare wanted help so I suggest Arbitration or mediation. ForestH2 t/c 12:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Warning: It may result in one of you getting blocked. Let me know if I can help or if I need to make a statement should you go to arbitration. ForestH2 t/c 13:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the whole discussion goes there with statements from other people; it is a real arbitration case. I suggest you try mediation first. And before adding a case for arbitration see WP:DR. By the way, the arbitrators have to accept your case before it is an arbitration case and you'll have to defend yourself, Charlesknight will....It may end up with a block indefinetly for one of you.... ForestH2 t/c 13:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is special formatting you need to do. Are you sure you don't want to do mediation? ForestH2  t/c 13:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Meditation is not better, it's just that your arbitration case maybe rejected because you haven't done mediation. Actully, I think arbitration is better. ForestH2  t/c 13:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No. I'll get you the excat instructions in a minute. Stay online. ForestH2  t/c 13:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Go to WP:RFAR and start there. Tell me if you need any more help. Thanks. ForestH2  t/c 13:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * When are you getting started with arbitration? 13:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Erm...no you'll also need a statement from other users such as your admin friend; and Charlesknight. You'll need a statement from yourself any maybe from me. No you have to make it very detailed if you want it go through. ForestH2  t/c 13:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you submitted an arbitration case yet? ForestH2  t/c 13:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No nothing right now.... ForestH2 t/c 13:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

So are you back from your wikibreak or is this just a temporary great visit? lol Tonetare 13:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm leaving today for my wikibreak...August 23 to Spetember 3. Maybe on a little bit. ForestH2 t/c 13:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It says on the top of my talkpage in case you missed it...I'll try and get on every now and then. When I get back, if you've already requested arbitration I'll join the case...if you want to wait until I get back to request arbitration you can...Be careful though Charles might request arbitration and you might be blocked indefinite. ForestH2  t/c 13:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Corrections
I have put the correct text for some of your quotes on AN. You will find the text in small type. Tyrenius 13:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply
I've been watching him for so long; along with you ever since last Friday. I'm getting a little frustrated with the whole situation. ForestH2 t/c 14:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Charlesknight is an experienced editor. You created an account on August 10. I have time to read it; if it is garbage which I don't think. I am frustrated with the situation and I want it ended NOW. So, to solve a dispute I think I'll go to mediation or abitration. ForestH2  t/c 14:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
Tonetare, I suggest you study Resolving disputes and maybe try mediation rather than arbitration. ArbCom won't look at it anyway, unless you've tried other recourses. Tyrenius 14:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thread from administrator noticeboard
I met this user on Leah Remini site. He criticized my edit and got rid of it. My edit was in good faith and friendly and mentions Leah Remini's appearance on MTV's cribs. Charlesknight said it was full of POV in the edit summary and just got rid of it. I mentioned on his talk page it WAS a show that Leah Remini made an appearance on and should be down for television appearances. Charlesknight up and got rid of the info instead of bringing it up on the discussion page so we could talk it over. When I bring this to Charlesknight attention he gives me an example full of curse words and bad language of what I did. He gave me a foul-mouthed example of what was on Leah Remini's talk page. Later on that same day, I also see he went into my history and went on a page that I created. I found this out because the page I created is about a show that he admits to knowing nothing about. He even admitted to going into my history from this incident. So he went on the page I created which is entitled Coral Smith and changed up the entire page. Even though I was kind of frustrated he did that, I was just like I am glad someone bothered to even help out my page. I was getting ready to go put a thank you on his talk page when I looked at his edit summaries and how they were so inappropriate and rude. He even went on the talk page and badmouthed the page. This was out of petty spite for the previous incident. He knew he was badmouthing me because he went into my history and noticed that I had created the page. He was so rude and inadequate in his edit summaries that I couldn't even stand to be here on wikipedia. Then I brought it to administrator's attention named Tyrenius. He is one of my good friend's but justifued Charlesknight's behavior because he says he is a good editor. I couldn't understand this so I went into Charlesknight's page and found out he had vandalproof and I think that had something to do with Tyrenius' not standing up for me because he is the one that usually encourages polite behavior but didn't this time. I am so put off by this user who has vandalproof no less. When we talked about his rude comments, he just went back to the page and continued. He also now has questions about the show as he is unable to answer them on the discussion page as he has never watched it. I would contribute but I can't until I know that he is punished in some way for his behavior. I say punished because he has REPEATEDLY disregarded all of my reasoning as he is convinced he is such a great editor that he is beyond criticism, the tone of his many edits and great degree of criticisms about the information when he doesn't even know anything about the show, and how rude he is when I trying to reason with him as he gives bad examples of what I've done and confirms he's made the right decisions. I am very offended by him. After the entire incident and all of his disrespect, I one of my friend's on HIS talk page how I was having a problem with charlesknight and what a jerk he is behaving to me. Charlesknight had the nerve to write on my talk page, getting in my business, that he was lucky I wasn't going to block me after I had said what I said to my friend about him. This user has driven me crazy and almost to retiring. please help! thank you. By the way after speaking Charlesknight, he mentioned "I can't be all nicey nice because no one gets the point when I'm nice." So he basically admits to being very rude and justifies it by saying it's worked in the past. Tonetare 01:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a content dispute and should not be here - I have explained my actions to Tonetare on his talkpage but he seems unable to grasp what I am talking about. You will notice from his use of the term "my page", he also has issues with WP:OWN. In addition, he talks about my rudeness but strangely forgets to mention that called me a asshole "dickwod" and a "a loser" . A matter I told him I would let slide on that occasion.


 * My edits speak for themselves - the coral smith article was in a terrible state full of language like smacktalk and pro-active bitches and so on and so on. To be blunt, while assuming good faith, Tonetare seems quite immature and unable to under both the process of creating a good article and the interactions that one will have with fellow editors.


 * I should also point out to Tonetare, it's considered poor form to quote someone and then make up the words in the quote (as he has done here).


 * I have done nothing wrong and I stand by both my edits and my comments.


 * --Charlesknight 08:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would also suggest that Tonetare refrains from leaving comments like this on the pages of admin who are trying to assist him. --Charlesknight 08:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Tonetare apologized here, noting that he was trying to get himself blocked.  Powers T 13:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have exercised a lot of tolerance for Tonetare because he is obviously genuine in his motivations and has worked hard to contribute what he sees as valid material. It is unfortunate that a clash of cultural expectations is in evidence, and that his natural assumptions about behaviour and validity is at odds with those of wiki culture. Something that is self-evidently true to him may well be blatant POV to an experienced wiki editor. This causes Tonetare great frustration and he reacts emotionally, although, as has been pointed out, he sees his actions more objectively later. Charlesknight has acted in the way we would normally consider to be appropriate. The only solution I can see is to help Tonetare to an understanding of wiki policies and expectations which will enable him to achieve what he wants in an acceptable way. He has been responsive to guidance, but it's a bit of a steep learning curve, and it's not going to happen overnight. I think at the moment BITE is applicable. Tyrenius 22:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, this is Tonetare. This is an example of something Charleknight gave me as an argument on my talk page! Your edit was:

Leah Remini recently appeared on MTV Cribs, revealing her beautiful mansion and the fact that she is just as hilarious in real life as she is on her hit show. Leah has a sort of tough gal tomboyishness about her in real life, with a hilarious wit.

Let's say I saw the same show and decided to write:

Leah Remini recently appeared on MTV Cribs, revealing her over the top and vile mansion and the fact that she is a bit of a bitch, just as she is on her hit show. Leah has a sort of slutty needy vibe about her in real life, she is also very unfunny.

If he saw anything wrong with what I said, this is not a fitting example. This example is obviously inappropriate. If he had a problem with what I said, he should have given a normal example. But based upon this poor example, he changes up the page anyhow.

Tonetare 23:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Below in are Charlesknight's edit summary remarks and beside them is what I have to say to each to back up my point. My point is that I feel most irritated about is that Charlesknight knows very little about this subject, yet has the audacity to make so many rude comments on it that are actually wrong due to the fact he knows so little about it. What made him do this was to go into my history and just pick the thing I had worked most on. He didn't say to himself, is this something I've seen before? I believe that if you HAVE to make so many rude remarks and so many comments about something, you have to know at least a couple things about it. Charlesknight knew nothing about this as he admitted, yet rudely questioned everything I did. see below for examples.

Charlesknight : How can someone be both a former enemy AND a lifelong friends? - removed - Tonetare : This is Charlesknight's big mistake. If you go to the page, you will see that he didn't even read the page correctly. I wrote longtime friends, not lifelong friends. I'd expect a good editor to read carefully especially if his style is to make an abrupt comment about it and then abruptly remove it.

Charlesknight's edit summary remarks : copyedit - more awful stuff - just produce wikiquotes for this material.) Copyedit - frankly I'm of the view that this article should just be completely deleted. - Tonetare : Charlesknight does not back this edit up. He merely insults the whole article and erases the information.

Charlesknight - this ''article is so poorly written that it might be better to remove virtually all of the content and start from scratch. - Tonetare : Charlesknight makes no reference in this edit summary as to why he made this comment or furthermore this edit. He makes a general comment that the ENTIRE article is bad and makes the edit. That is totally irrelevant to the edit. If he wants to give an edit summary, he needs to give proper reasoning for the particular edit. Not this whole page is bad and then making the edit.

Charlesknight's edit : removing, that's not what I'd call an "accomplishment" - Tonetare : by the way overcoming a fear of water is an accomplishment as well as winning your first challenge. Once again, he didn’t watch the show however. Charlesknight basis this on opinion. He doesn't take it to the user talk page to be talked over. He basis it on an opinion and gets rid of it

Charlesknight's edit : rv as this article does need some work doing on it -Tonetare : He has mentioned this a tedious amount of times, and also gives no reason for the edit. Just an insult to the article
 * This was actually an edit summary that I left, not Charlesknight. --Tyrenius 12:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Charlesknight : rv as this article does need some work doing on it - Tonetare : Once again, Charlesknight does not provide adequate reasoning for the edit, but merely criticizes the page

Charlesknight : Reads a bit like a PR piece and the other problem is some of the language seems to head towards libel. - Tonetare : This was a comment in reference to Coral’s attitude toward the competition I worded as belligerent as is accurate. If you go on Tina Barta's page, it refers to Coral Smith as a bitch. I worded it much less offensively and more accurately. It was misrespresented by him as libel which is a very strong and incorrect accusation. Once again, this user is making judgements toward a show he has never watched. He doesn't even know Coral as he has mentioned several times.

Charlesknight : Personal Info - removed reference to DVD - does not add anything to the article. - Tonetare : What Charlesknight has said here is very poorly explained. It doesn’t add anything to the article is what he has said. What doesn’t he feel it doesn’t add to the article and why? His comments don't give any reasoning behind his edits yet he immediately gets rid of the information. Another example of how poor his edits and edit summaries are.

Charlesknight : Removed recent challenge material - it would make no sense at all to someone who has never seen the show - Tonetare : Once again, as charlesknight has never seen this show, he is going on no knowledge of it. This show doesn't repeat it self. They keep making new ones throughout the year. It hasn't repeated it self ever since it came out and it has been on the air for 6 years. This is yet another reason why he cannot just go into anyone’s history and just start making so many edits, especially disrespectful ones, on something he knows absolutely nothing about. He should stick to editing things he knows something about. He’s already asked a bunch of questions on the talk page of Coral Smith

Charlesknight : removed reference to "bad girl" - does that means she does not eat her greens? - Tonetare : This right here just comes off as a very smart aleck remark from Charlesknight and isn't respectful. I had actually put the reason she was considered a bad girl but someone erased it so he was disrespectful toward another user. Maybe my reasoning should have stayed in there. Still and all, this is something he seems to question yet erases it and words it in a smart aleck manner. If you question something, you shouldn't go ahead and move it. You should at least talk about it on the talk page and be respectful. If something doesn't make sense to Charlesknight, no arguments, he'll just remove it with a rude remark like the one up above.

- Charlesknight This article is a terrible mess. I've tried a copyedit but I will soon reach the limits of what I can do because I have never seen this show. - Tonetare : Here he admits to not ever even seeing the show yet he's made a number of criticisms as to the accuracy of the information and how bad everything is.

Someone whose called a good editor as this user by administrator Tyrenius, should know enough not to make so many edits and rude remarks on a subject he knows nothing about. I came here because this user is very stubborn and it would become an edit war if I took it up with him as he is extremely rude with me. Tonetare 23:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Charles, Tonetare obviously wants to engage in more dialogue with you over these edits, and I wonder if you'd be prepared to do this on the talk pages of the relevant articles, to reach an accommodation that satisfies all of the aspects involved? Tyrenius 00:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Even though I've just said this would become a long edit war as I have dealt with this user, this is the comment I receive back from the administrator I dealt with in the situation. As you can see the administrator I dealt with in this matter won't take in regard my arguments, but rather dismisses with words like "obviously" and "dialogue". This is partly why I am upset with the administrator I had the displeasure of dealing with as well. The administrator's negligent behavior and not caring about my reasoning has just been shown. I spent a great deal of my time preparing specifically what has bothered me about this user and his behavior so everyone could clearly understand where I am coming from which is something I feel I should be applauded for. Yet, the whole thing is dismissed as dialogue by the administrator I dealt with and treated as nonsense. This is why I am very upset. Tyrenius has blatantly ignored my remarks when I politely came to him for help when I went to him. He did not bother to see where I was coming from as has just been displayed, and merely backed himself up by saying Charlesknight is a great editor and ended the conversation earlier this week. Now, even though I have been polite and nice to Tyrenius so me and him could have a nice relationship, he's got involved and made an unnecessary comment as he is no longer involved in the matter. This is why I am so frustrated. Thank you! Tonetare 00:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You've criticised Charlesknight for not leaving messages on the talk page to discuss the edits. I am asking him to do what you've said he should do. Tyrenius 02:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No Tyrenius! You've just used two words I am interested in; "Messages" and "discuss". As you know, it has been a discussion that has turned into an argument and unfair treatment as I have tried to reason with the both of you. Anyone can tell from reading this, that this is a discussion for which is sure to get out of hand and turn into an argument on the discussion page of an article. I think you shouldn't encourage this to happen. I feel a discussion page should have wholesome helpful discussion on it that benefits the articles. I told you many times from trying to reach agreements with this editor that his style is rude which is another reason it would be unpleasant for me to deal with him on the discussion page. He doesn't take what I say into consideration, but you immediately put me off as inferior to him because you believe he is an expert editor, which clearly he has not shown. Below is proof that I already tried talking this out with Tyrenius and Charlesknight and why it would not be appropriate for the discussion page of any article:

Charlesknight - I would suggest the following if you are going to stay, you said I was just going to go ahead and thank you for helping out my page. You really need to come to come to terms with WP:OWN. As soon as you add something to a page, it belows to the community, it's not "your" page. If you are unable to come to terms with this, Wikipedia is not the place for you. - Tonetare : First off, instead of responding directly to my arguments, he just behaves condescendingly toward me that I am a new editor and that I need more experience. He doesn't talk about the arguments I brought up. Second off, the statement he made that "the page does not belong to me and everyone contributes" is correct. I think it's worded rudely and he cannot use it to justify making bad edits and edit summaries. I can't go to a page and make all sorts of incorrect edits and inadequate edit summaries, not reason with anyone, and use the excuse that “well it’s for everyone to change” to justify it. Speaking of rudeness, Charlesknight thinks his style is necessary with lots of people apparently. I would discourage this as it may get him in trouble with other editors as well. See below for what I mean please:

Charlesknight - I've found that on wikipedia, the softy-softy approach does not really seem to work and it's best to be polite but brutally honest with other editors. I would give you the same suggestion that was given to me when I first arrived at Wikipedia. Make small contributions and edits to existing articles until you get the hand of what is expected in terms of language and tone. Tonetare : I think this user should not be brutal about anything as it comes off very rude. Then if you talk to him about it, he surgarcoats his rudeness as brutal honesty. If being nice doesn’t work on one person, that doesn’t mean you should take up a rude attitude with everyone you’re dealing with and just abruptly get rid of information out of articles without talking it over because of your past experiences. So in trying to reason, I get rudeness and he disregards all of my reasoning and goes back to what he is doing. This has happened each time I try to talk things out with him. After I bring up a good point, he doesn't give me a response but goes back to his same behavior.

Administrator Tyrenius : Charlesknight is an experienced editor, who has made valid points. It is an opportunity to learn, so please study carefully what he has said. It's not an admin's job to stick up for friends. It's an admin's job to be objective and fair to all users to help improve the encyclopedia. Tyrenius - Tonetare : This is administrator Tyrenius' first reaction when I tell him about the situation after he goes to the page and looks at it briefly, then responds to me. By valid points, administrator Tyrenius is referring to the edit summaries that were shown up above which were very inadequate edit summaries. Administrator Tyenius gets back to me after a second of looking over the article and basically tells me that I just need to obey Charlesknight because Tyrenius feels he is such a great editor for whatever reason. So I can’t even get real help from this admin. Now he is telling me to go in a circle, as he encourages me to go try reasoning with Charlesknight again and do so on a discussion page of an article. Tonetare 06:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is starting to get below sillyness - I was not going to comment further on this but once again, Tonetare decides that the best way to proceed is to just make up actions on my part which never happened, he states the following as a complaint:


 * Charlesknight's edit : rv as this article does need some work doing on it Tonetare: He has mentioned this a tedious amount of times, and also gives no reason for the edit. Just an insult to the article
 * This was actually an edit summary that I left, not Charlesknight. --Tyrenius 12:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Charlesknight said,"This article needs a lot of work - it's in an terrible state." -- Tyrenius 13:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Charlesknight: rv as this article does need some work doing on it Tonetare : Once again, Charlesknight does not provide adequate reasoning for the edit, but merely criticizes the page
 * Charlesknight said, "Copyedit - I'm sorry but this article is awful and needs a lot of work." --Tyrenius 13:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Those edits DO NOT EXIST, I have not performed a single revert on that article. I am quite happy to defend myself on my real edits but not on phantom edits I never made.


 * In addition, he also mentioned another fictional edit history - Copyedit - frankly I'm of the view that this article should just be completely deleted. - there is no such edit history, I never said that!
 * Charlesknight said, "Copyedit - frankly I'm of the view that this article is so poorly written that it might be better to remove virtually all of the content and start from scratch." -- Tyrenius 13:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am going to assume good faith and suggest that tonetare does not understand what a quote is. A quote is what the person ACTUALLY said, not what we *think* they said or what we would have liked them to say. However if he keeps misrepresenting my comments in such a manner, I'll be looking for adminstrator action.

--Charlesknight 08:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. The first thing i suggest is that User:Tonetare (Got the name right?) reads WP:OWN; He refers to the page as ("my page"). Secondly.. while me and Charles have not always agreed 100% his intentions have always been in the best interest of the articles, namely he brings them to an acceptable standard and imrpooves them even if he knows little on the subject. User:MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 09:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of disclosure I should point out that I asked Matthew to review my edits to the coral_smith page in regards to this matter. The reason I selected Matthew was that we generally don't see eye to eye on various matters and therefore I felt his viewpoint would be more critical rather than asking someone who is basically a supporter". --Charlesknight 10:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

So that's why he was defending you as you asked him to. I was wondering why that user was siding with you. Thank you for mentioning that Charlesknight. Charlesknight has stated he could defend the edits he has made but actually does not even make mention of them except that he CAN defend them. Rather Charlesknight pointed out 2 things as away of defending his overall bad edits. He got upset at me for saying he did not say 'I will delete this article' and has threatened to block me for it on my page. Charlesknight has actually said this in many ways that he would start the page over by scratch so it's not an adequate reason to block me as it was something he said in a different way. That's why it's hard to deal with him as he can use his vandalproof to help him be unfair. I took the time to make my entire argument clear as he has not. He has merely mentioned 2 things, asked for someone to side with him, and didn't mention all the flaws in his editing. He has got what seems to be a friend that he has asked to help defend him in this matter. Note that Mathew is someone Charlesknight has had a past with and is friendly with by the information from up above. Thank you Tonetare 10:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Em no ... I've actually been highly critical of Matthew in the past, that's why I asked him to check the article over and I my request was not phrased as "rush over and defend me!". I think I even suggested at one stage that matthew should banned. Here are two questions I would like short and to the point answers to:

1) Can you explain why your previous post contained fictional edits that you claimed I had made? Are you able to explain those fictional edits?

2)Can you explain why you feel material such as Coral mentioned she didn't participate in the challenge after the beginning of 2005 because she found out about some proactive bitches already plotting and alliancing to to take her out. Who they were was never exactly specified, however Coral did lay into Tonya Cooley at one point about it. is of the standard that should be in an encyclopedia article?

Can you explain in a brief manner why it was wrong of me to edit such material?

3) You also have just stated that as he can use his vandalproof to help him be unfair - please provide a SINGLE example of my use of vandalproof in my dealings with you or on the [coral_smith] article. Can you provide a SINGLE example of me even SUGGESTING I was going to use vandalproof? Vandalproof is a tool that is used to protect articles from vandalism and it would be entirely inapporiate for me to use it in a content dispute.

Your constant mispresentation of my conduct in this matter is being very tiresome and I am afraid I am going to have to seek Adminstrator action of my own. --Charlesknight 11:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Charlesknight is resorting to making threats now as I am arguing. As you can see we cannot argue out each of the edits, but the few he chooses that may benefit him and I must deal with a threat in expressing my reasoning. We can't talk about why anything else except for the few things that may help him or else it's threatening me. On the other hand, I gave the majority of what Charlesknight did and broke it down into why it was a bad move. He has chosen 2 things he would like me to respond to and added a threat to it. Because of the threat, I find it hard to argue civilly with him. I have not done anything wrong but make mention of his edits and why I thought they were wrong and why his behavior is rude towards me. Charlesknight also said he could defend his edits and still hasn't but tells me to answer HIS questions instead. And by the way, he said he could defend them meaning they weren't defended at all by his edit summaries. His edit summaries were very irrelevant and just referred to the whole page as trash. That's actually where he should have given his defence, or at least something relevant. Tonetare 11:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing further to say - my edits speak for themselves and are there for all to see and check. My time on wikipedia is limited and I choice to spend it editing articles rather than getting drawn into a protracted game of "he said/she said".

My final word on the matter is this - Tonetare, if you feel my edits are unwarrented there is NOTHING at all stopping you editing in new material, something you have not actually attempted - instead, virtually all of your edits since the 20/08/06 have been to whine about my changes or to whine that you feel that you might commit suicide because "nobody respects you". --Charlesknight 11:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Charlesknight is using irrelevant things that are not apart of this argument to back himself up much like his edit summaries without logic behind them. Charlesknight tells me that I should go ahead and edit what I want back in. I am smart enough to realize that he has vandalproof and if I change those edits the other way around and he has a problem with it, he can block me because he has indicated he feels the whole page is TRASH. Besides that, it is also respectful to talk over reverting changes rather than just getting rid of them like he does. Even though he has said he COULD defend his edit summaries, he didn't defend them for you, but said they speak for themselves. This is what arguing with him is like as we don't get anything solved because we can't talk about it. We talk about him ending the conversation, how he thinks I am whining, how he will threaten to get more administrators involved, suicide. How come he just won't talk it out but gets so rude. P.S. It was not upstanding for Charlesknight to have gone and asked one of his friends on Wikipedia if they could help him rather than just letting you, the administrator's and other people who are not involved with this matter express your opinions. As you can see, I have not gone to any of my friends on Wikipedia to ask them to put a comment on here as I feel that would be biased against Charlesknight. He does not feel the same way. See below, thank you:

Mathew (Charlesknight's friend) : Hey, just reading about it now.. from what i have seen so far user needs to read WP:OWN ("my articles") -- I'll leave my 2c on the AN posting ;-) Left a short reply on WP:AN :-)   Tonetare 11:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You paste my replys here, why? Your arguments are flawed, Charles has followed policy/guidelines. My suggestion is that you move on as argueing wont get you anywhere. I also fail to see how VP has anything to do with this, he has not used VP in said article tmn. User:MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 12:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Guy, what part of "provide proof" is giving you trouble? Hint: "Because I said so" is NOT proof. Hint 2: "Because I said so" inflated to 500 words is NOT proof. --Calton | Talk 11:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is Charlesknight's edit summary for his final word on this matter. my final word I'm done, this process is a waste of my time. He says he doesn't like the softy softy approach because he's had problems with other users being that way. It's not a softy softy approach whatsoever. It's being respectful of users. Thank you Carlton! Carlton is someone outside of the matter as well. It's people like him who should be commenting on this and not our friends like Charlesknight has done with Mathew. Tonetare 12:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Folks from the top of this page, Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes. Anyone want to try and preface this massive thread with a one line summary at the top of it? WP:AN doesn't really seem like the place for this discussion. (→ Netscott ) 13:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't worry - this circus is hitching it's wagon and heading over to WP:RFAR where Tonetare will be calling for an indefinite blocking] so awful is my "crime". --Charlesknight 13:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm no administrator, and I haven't interacted with any of the people involved (if I remember correctly) not have I edited any of the articles in case. Having said that, all I can find is Charlesknight putting a slightly rude but otherwise perfectly correct edit summary on one edit, and otherwise good edits by Charlesknight. On the other hand, Tonetare is making this into a huge problem, basically taking the comment and the edits as personal attacks, because he feels he owns the articles. I think Tonetare should take a step back, relax, and start all over again, getting to know the do's and don'ts of WIkipedia, accepting corrections, and discussing them in civilized ways. He seems to be willing to contribute positively, so it would be too bad if he left Wikipedia over such a minor issue as an edit summary that touched a raw nerve. As for Charlesknight: while I understand your way of editing, I think it is more fruitful and certainly more polite to start with slightly more positive and less confrontational edit summaries. It does work sometimes. Fram 13:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record - I have not contacted or solicated this response after Fram - I think I should make that clear before they are also accused of my one of my "cronies"

--Charlesknight 13:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears this is going to arbitration. Tonetare seems determined to do it; though I dobut his case will be accepted and I'm not sure what he's going to say to defend himself. ForestH2  t/c 13:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As a mostly outside observer (I've been watching Tonetare's and Tyrenius' talk pages for a while), I must say that Tyrenius has been as patient and understanding as anyone could possibly expect. I was close to giving him a barnstar for his efforts with Tonetare. Tonetare appears to have misunderstood or assumed bad faith with one of Tyrenius's comments and now they're not "friends" anymore. This is a grave loss on Tonetare's part. Tonetare is a very well-intentioned editor, but is quick to anger and rarely assumes good faith; I've warned him before that he won't make many friends around here with aggressive behavior, and he appeared to understand, but he hasn't extrapolated it to assuming good faith and avoiding retaliation. Powers T 13:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There not friends anymore? Yes, Tryenius has been very calm and patient to Tonetare. He seems to assume good faith when talking to me but otherwise I haven't seen AGF to anyone else expect for maybe Tryenius. He wants arbitration fast; as he's given me some comments that are really bad; giving personal attacks against Charlesknight. I think he's thinking Charles is going to be blocked through arbitration, I think he will so I've warned him but he wants to do it. ForestH2  t/c 13:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've moved this thread off the Admin noticeboard (which has a link to here now) because of its length and the fact that honestly, there's very little any administrator can do. I notice that other editors have suggested you try working through some dispute resolution and I think that's a great idea.  I hope you can get this worked out. Happy editing! Shell babelfish 14:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration
I removed your complaint from Requests for arbitration. You posted it to the section for appeals in prior cases; there is no prior case. You may file a request for arbitration in the proper section using the proper format. However, I warn you against this for two reasons. First, it will most likely be declined. Arbitration is the final step in dispute resolution. This conflict is only a few days old and as far as I can tell, you have not attempted any of the prior steps in the Dispute resolution process. Second, you want to stay as far away from arbitration as possible. Arbcom does not arbitrate content disputes, only user conduct. If they were to take the case and decide that you were being disruptive or could not edit well according to our community standards, you could find yourself banned from certain articles or even all of wikipedia.

I have not looked into the substance of your complaint. There are many avenues in dispute resolution you might try, including the Association of Members Advocates, informal mediation, formal mediation, and a request for comment. These are described in more detail at Dispute resolution. Hope this helps get you pointed in the right direction for a solution. Thatcher131 (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to User:Fram
Please stop. If you continue to target users' pages for vandalism you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. DVD+ R/W 00:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by personal attacks. 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. You have made previous personal attacks on both myself and User:Charlesknight, which we have both ignored to give you a chance to become friendlier, even when you have differences. However, you have chosen to be even more abusive. This is completely unnecessary, as everyone has been incredibly tolerant of you, even though you may not realise it. You need to get completely away from this project and get things in perspective. If you do want to resume editing, then make sure you never behave like this again, because you're likely to be blocked for a very long time. This block is for a week, which should give you enough space to decide whether you want to be here on the community's terms, not just yours.

Note to admins: if you're not familiar with the background to this situation, the relevant talk pages say it all. Tyrenius 01:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

TIME TO CHANGE THE OLE' IP ADDRESS ON YOUR ASS BIATCH. BY THE WAY, TYRENIUS LEADING THE WAY, CHARLESKNIGHT'S FATASS COMING IN SECOND, POWER'S NOSY NO-LIFE HAVING ASS COMING IN THIRD, AND FRAM'S WEIRD-NAMED ASS COMING IN FORTH, I WANT YOU ALL TO GO TO HELL AND BURN THEIR FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART. THANK YOU AND PIECE. I'LL BE EDITING AGAIN IN ABOUT 8 HOURS SHITHEAD. I WILL GO TO SLEEP SINCE IT'S MY BEDTIME FOR EIGHT HOURS THEN GET THE EDITING AGIN Tonetare 08:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually the above response says it all.

Tonetare, I advise you not to try to circumvent this block, as, when you are discovered, it is likely to lead to a longer block. If you carry on the way you are going, you will end up getting blocked indefinitely or even banned altogether. I advise you to take on board the points that have been made, so you can become a good member of this community, instead of attacking those who are trying to be honest and to help you. Tyrenius 14:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

circumvent! Wow, you have a good vocabulary there huh? That means to "avoid" I've already unhooked the wires though and my IP will soon change. After dealing with you, I realized that you are a true a-hole. I regret calling you my friend. While I want Charlesknight to rot in hell, he never deceived me into thinking we were friends. So I hate you a bit more than that bastard. Anyway, by later today you won't know who I am as I plan to avoid you for however long you have to live. Anyway, to Powers, you, Fram-fucktard and the rest of you bastard, kiss my black ass. Oh and by the way, I have already been indefinitely banned before but did the IP thing. I have been on this fucked up Wikipedia deceiving all you pieces of shit for years. The treatment is really fucked up here but at the same time I deceive the system so it really doesn't matter. I said to my self maybe if I argue logically with these bitches, something good might happen but of course I have to go back to the trickery because the people here like you two suck ass. LOL, you dumb bitch Tyrenius, Charlesknight even admits to having a stick up his ass with regards to his edit summaries and behavior if you look at his edit history. That's what I originally asked you to talk to him about. If you recall I said, I was going to thank him for his bullshit work on Coral SMith but saw his rude comments. To think you wouldn't even talk to him you sorry ass bitch-ass fucking shit-piece of work Tonetare 22:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy, by personal attacks. 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. Bearing in mind continued abusive talk as above and the user's stated intention to discontinue using the current IP in order to avoid the block, and to use another IP, which he states he has done previously, this block has been extended to 6 months. Other admins are welcome to change this and adopt another remedy as they see fit. Tyrenius 03:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * User has tried to circumvent the block by using 65.31.100.170, which I have now blocked for 2 weeks. Tyrenius 16:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

What happend
What happend Tonetare? ForestH2 t/c 23:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)